|
Author
|
Topic: The one and only non-creationist in this forum.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
while bigbangists do not suggest anything but pure nothing as the ultimate source of not just one but all the atoms in existence, What do you suggest is the ultimate source of the atoms?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 8 of 558 (677890)
11-02-2012 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Tanypteryx
11-02-2012 10:58 AM
|
|
All your posts here boil down to insults based on arguments from incredulity. In contrast, Hawking can show us his work. Please show us yours.
Oh Great! Now he's going to be leaving dead mice on the doorstep. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-02-2012 10:58 AM | | Tanypteryx has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
What do you suggest is the ultimate source of the universe?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
That is an irrational expectation on your part, Vatican. A question isn't an expectation, Crazy Jew.
You are asking what is the source of all existence. To be a source is impossible without existing first. So you're saying that nothing is the source then. Welcome to the club!
The universe is trapped onto itself irrevocably. That actually sounds a bit like the Big Bang theory. Its too bad you more interested in discrediting knowledge than you are in actually discussing anything.
That is the only possible conclusion. Confidence like that can only come from ignorance.
Both the cat and the author of the essay in the link studied bigbangism in fine mathemagical detail so are able to translate its absurdities into plain English.
The gross errors you make in describing the Big Bang show this to be a lie.
You evade fleshing out you conception of creation of a single atom from pure nothing, Macca. Tell the audience how it's done. What is the physical mechanism apart from your second-hand crypto-creo faith?  You, of all people, are chiding him for evasion. For not providing anything. You!? That's hilarious. You haven't providing a single piece of meaningful text even once. And all you do is lie and obfuscate and just try to discredit knowledge. And now you're bitching because someone else didn't provide enough for you. Wow. You are such a loser piece of shit. Absolutely worthless. Actually, you're worse than worthless because of all the lying and bullshit. You should just be banned. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Alf admits he's a creationist
Nothing is needed to be the source and cause of all existence Well there you go: welcome to being a creationist. You've now said it yourself that pure nothingness is the source of the universe.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Alf admits he's a creationist
To be fair, that isn't what Alf meant.. First off, there's no reason to be fair to Alf. He is a liar and a cheater and relies on unfairness for his arguments to work, which I will exemplify.
He didn't mean nothing as in no matter or energy; He was saying that there is no need to claim existence had a source or cause, that it has always existed in one form or another And just like that, the Big Bang Theory has the Universe existing at all points in time. It too does not posit a source or cause for the Universe. But, Alf chastizes the "Bigbangists" for claiming that nothing is the source of the Universe. However, in order for that argument to hold up, he must be positing that something is the source of the Universe. It turns out that he also does not propose that something is the source of the Universe so therefore he must be agreeing with the "Bigbangist" that there wasn't anything that is the source, i.e. that nothing is the source. His argument relies on conflating "not-something" with "nothing". And then he tries to ridicule the opposition by saying that nothing couldn't cause something. But that's not what the Big Bang theory suggests. He's not interested in advancing or providing any knowledge, he's simply content with just trying to discredit and eliminate what we do know. For those reasons, he is not entitled to any kind of "fairness" whatsoever. And me pointing out the inconsistancy of his argument, regardless of it falling on his intentionally deaf ears, is all I can hope to do for the other people who are reading this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by foreveryoung, posted 11-05-2012 9:19 PM | | foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: The feline is considering joining the crypto-creo club
Nothing is needed to be the source and cause of all existence
Well there you go: welcome to being a creationist. You've now said it yourself that pure nothingness is the source of the universe. You are eager the feline joins your crypto-creo club, Vatican? You need to employ more sophistry to cajole the moggy into entering your institution. Do you have bigbangist rituals there? Do Pandita and Inadequate dance around the statue of the Holy Black Hole? Anyway, send the cat your crypto-creo card just in case.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Vatican sophistry
Sorry, Vatican, your sophist tricks fool nobody. Well, you're right. Instead, it elucidates those who are smart enough to comprehend it.
It is correct that the priests of bigbunkism claim that the existence existed at every point of what the quacks call the existing time. Wow, you're too stupid to avoid conjugating the verb 'to exist' more than three times in one sentence?
You forget they also claim that time itself is a finite thing that has a relative age or duration. So the quacks' claim is the Universe existed only all the time Time and Space existed and not any longer. Which is not always according to the quackery as the precise value of the alleged relative length is given. Namely, 13.7 billion years. Sure, but unfortunately for you, your sophistry in lying about what the Big Bang theory postulates has absolutley no effect on scientific progress that is being made in this field of study. You'll forever be constrained to the unconsidered arena of retardeness that has no influence on the actual advancement of real science. You'll forever be qualmed into the status of stupid morons.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Vatican sophistry
Exist had to be stressed three times since you keep insinuating the verb describes what the nothing does. Nothing does nothing, Vatican.
Wrong again. The Big Bang Theory never has nothingness existing and doesn't rely on nothingness for anything. Its not even mentioned.
You are the one who relies on it for your own brand of creationism, as you've admitted: Message 47 You've got a grave problem with definitions. Try this: 03Definition We don't debate by link. If there's anything there worth anything, then describe it here in your own words.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Vatican sophistry
The verb to expand is conceptualised from all the instances of the process. In every instance such a process involves two entities. The expanding entity always has a physical border. The other entity is always greater in size. The problem isn't with the science behind the cosmology, the problem is with the limited scope of the usage of the word used to describe it: "expand". But the limited scope of the usage of the word "expand" places no limits or errors on the underlying science behind the cosmology.
Therefore the concept "expanding universe" is a piece of gobbledegook That you think a semantic argument has any effect on the scientific data shows that your either stupid or trolling.
It's up to you to show the judge how this clear meaning of the physical term could be violated without you being laughed out of court for lying through your teeth and dealing in nonsense. The scientific data is not contrained by the clear meaning of the english words that are used to analogize them. Its the fault of language, not the fault of science.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Vatican sophistry
No, that is the only meaning of the term to expand, Vatican. I hadn't said otherwise. The point you missed was that the limitations of the english words that are used to analogize the scientific explanation are not limitations on the science or math, themselves. A semantic argument that the word "expand" only means one particular things has no bearing on the science behind what that word is being used to describe.
The cat can read the parts of Friedmann where he does not use words at all. But you cannot understand it, as evidence by what you said in Message 36:
quote:
I am sorry, Blue, but what is exactly that singularity you are claiming to be something and in what way it is different from pure nothing? In the quackademic descriptions this is a putative entity of zero dimensions and size. An entity of zero size occupies no volume and it does not take any time to occupy no volume.
Nobody who understands the math behind the Big Bang Theory would describe the singularity as an enitity. You've again plainly exposed your ignorance and misunderstanding, like I pointed out in Message 72 (to which you didn't respond):
quote:
Exist had to be stressed three times since you keep insinuating the verb describes what the nothing does. Nothing does nothing, Vatican.
Wrong again. The Big Bang Theory never has nothingness existing and doesn't rely on nothingness for anything. Its not even mentioned.
So you think that the Big Bang Theory says that the singularity is an entity and that it relies on nothingness doing something. That's entirely wrong. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Vatican sophistry
Sorry, Vatican. How insincere, CrazyJew.
The math is no secret you hint it is and no language failure follows an attempt to translate it into English or any other tongue the cat is familiar with. I've not implied its a secret, only that you don't understand it, which is evident from your postings. You say the BBT says there was nothing, and it does not. You call the singularity an entity, which it is not. You've avoided addressing these gross error of yours.
It is easily read as follows: an increase in one variable which is three-dimensional volume as a function of another variable which is a linear time. Exponent and a linear function. Simple. To expand is a fair translation of what the mathematics imply. Other synonyms fit as well. Sure, but the limitations of the word "expand", which is used to analogize the mathematics, are not necessarily limitation on the math, itself. This is the point you haven't addressed.
The only problem with that is that unlike in all other known and verified by ample experience cases of that process described with a similar maths, Well geez, who'd of thunk that the Universe as a whole might behave unlike all other things that are constrained within it  Your lack of imagination and understaning are, thankfully, no hindrance to the scientists who are unfolding knowledge in this arena.
here the mathemagician does not provide any physical justification of the alleged universal increase of volume. Oh look! You're lying again. Cosmological redshift and the CMBR are, in fact (and contrary to your unevidenced assertions), phyisical justifacations of the theory. Again, this is something you are unwilling to even address. The only thing you have to offer is: "well, it might be different"
All the fantasist quack got to one side of the equation is a zero as the possible source of the volume allegedly gained. Nothing at all as it is usual with the bigbangist mathemythics. Sorry to inform you of that. Again, you're just lying. I've already pointed out this lie of yors and you haven't addressed it: The BBT does not have a zero to one side of the equation. Please stop spreading this lie. But I know you won't becase you're a dishonest asshole.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 217 of 558 (679985)
11-17-2012 12:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 157 by vimesey
11-14-2012 5:14 AM
|
|
Re: The sad passing of humility.
Just for giggles, I thought I'd post an extract from one of our friend's threads on MySpace from just under 2 years ago:
I am totally puzzled by this, I have no clue and my poor brain goes in a twist pondering the question. I even have some trouble formulating it let alone solving my trouble. Anyway, I'll try to be as simple as possible and if anybody can enlighten me from a purely scientific perspective, I would love them to be doing it in equally simple terms as if explaining the matter to a child (The topic of the thread is "Time - Relatively relative or absolutely absolute"). It's terribly sad when someone's proper humility dies. Of course, there are two other possibilities - in between that thread and now, our friend had a series of incredible (albeit unevidenced) revelations about the true nature of physics, and no longer feels the need for humility; or alternatively, he just trailed the thread on MySpace to entice a few posters to troll with. Either way, I prefer the earlier language  Ho... Ly... Shit. I always knew that Alf was an insincere lying asshole, but this just confirms it. He employs his obscure verbiage to obfuscate his ignorance and misunderstandings. Since he cannot honestly and intellecutally debate the subject, he has to resort to hiding his faults behing colorful and deceiving language. It was as plain as day, but this glimpse into his verbal capability proves his dishonesty. Thanks, V.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 157 by vimesey, posted 11-14-2012 5:14 AM | | vimesey has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 234 of 558 (680057)
11-17-2012 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 228 by ICANT
11-17-2012 11:36 AM
|
|
Re: Still garbled.
Can we agree that for the universe to exist at T=0 it either had to exist in some form prior to T=0, or either it had to have a beginning to exist from non-existence? Or do you have another explanation? Do you really want to work with us to try understand another explanation, or will you incessantly insist that your's really are the only two?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 11:36 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 238 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 12:58 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 242 of 558 (680079)
11-17-2012 2:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 238 by ICANT
11-17-2012 12:58 PM
|
|
Re: Still garbled.
It either has either existed eternally in some form. OR It had a beginning to exist in non-existence. I see no alternative and none has been presented to date.
1. It had a beginning to exist in existence. 2. It emerged from a state of quasi-existence. 3. It existed eternally but for a finite amount of time. 4. Two half-verses were combined into one universe.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 12:58 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 247 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2012 5:11 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
