New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense.

You add them up by finding the limit that they approach. I.e. you do calculus.

Reef, do you remember the Forum Guidelines? You know, the ones you agreed to when you registered? Note:

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

So when we demonstrate that calculus can supply the solution to Zeno's Paradox, you can't just keep repeating "no it dusnt!" You actually have to hit us with the reason that it can't.Caluclus provides methods for finding the sum of an infinite series of numbers by taking the limit. So your objection to the presented solution is fallacious. Calculus can and has solved Zeno's Paradox.

No. The limit they approach is not infinity. That's what we're trying to tell you. The limit that they approach is the point where Achillies overtakes the turtle.

Obviously.Here's an idea. Every time I get into these cosmology threads, most of it is dealing with the other guy's ignorance about the Big Bang. So why don't you stop at the library and find a copy of "A Brief History of Time"? It'll take you two afternoons to read, tops. And then you'll have a great grounding in modern cosmology. They even have an illustrated version that's really easy to read.That's going to put you in a much better position of comprehending cosmology than my half-assed explanations.

More like "cautious". This wouldn't be the first time that a casual inquiry into cosmology turned into a "whoo-whee! them goofy scientists believe what?" situation. Big bang cosmology may be counter-intuitive but it's also supported by all the evidence. Maybe you went to a different public high school than I did, but if all you've got is high school, then you know nothing about anything, much less cosmology. No offense but you must know that to be true?A high school education isn't going to cut it when the subject is science. Sorry, but you're going to have to augment your knowledge via books and other resources. We'll be glad to point you to stuff, though. Your question doesn't make sense. Causality is a property within the universe, not beyond it. There's no "before" before time, so how can anything be said to have begun the universe? Hey, me too. One way for you to hold up your end of the bargain will be to ask questions out of an honest spirit of inquiry, and not to play "stump the chumps." In return I won't treat you like an uneducated hack. We cool? Cuz so far we're not off to a great start, are we?

It wasn't my intention to attack your intelligence. If it helps any I'm a 24-year-old college dropout. You agree, however, that causality has at least something to do with something happening before something else? That "before" is implied by "causality"?Then that's all you have to agree with. "Before" implies linear time. Therefore you can't say that something "caused" time, because there's no "before" before time. It's as simple as that. Before time, there is no time, by definition.