Starlight

quote:

---

I may of used c but you know exactly what I meant, so deal with it please!

---

The original statement had no clue that it did not mean the speed of light in vacuum.In the context of the original discussion the speed of light in vacuum is the relevant issue. Arguing over whether light is slowed in other media is NOT relevant.

quote:

---

You know this kind of BS gets old fast. In some experiments light has been slowed.

---

I know what you are talking about, and I know that it doesn't explain distant starlight in a universe no more than 10,000 years old.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, try to get into the spirit of debate instead of trying to muck things up. If I were writing a scientific paper I would have been more precise, it wasn’t I was responding to a member and considering a thought experiment. Nevertheless,thanks for your reply even if it is a bit hostile.

---

Accurate even if slightly exasperated) criticism is not hostility. There is, however, plenty of evidence of hostility in your post.

Thanks onfire that may silence lot of anti KCA people who are members in another forum. They are attempting to discredit the KCA by saying that the Big Bang allowed many universes which would weaken the first cause argument (ie the KCA).; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

BS (in a godly manner of course).And cavediver,I doubt your claims of a higher education, you make too many mistakes in your replies and threads. My learning is not science oriented so yes I will make an mistake here and there in science related questions etc. As for your insults directed towards me I say please go find a deep cave to explore, hopefully one with a hungry shark in it.I am tickled by the attitude most of you have. Is it my avatar, or my religion or a combination of factors? Nevertheless, I from this point on will not answer any replies with personal content. Its a waste of my time, and this forums time.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Hee hee . Ummm Hey cavediver believes something other than the overwhelmingly accepted scientific theory, ie the Big Bang. But he is all over anyone that goes against the party line, or makes a mistake hmmm’The MWI or MWT has no empirical evidence to support it. Only mathematical pipe dreams much like ”string theory”.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Message 50
Message 52
Hmm you must have a different definition for hostile. Or is it that you are incapable of being hostile and are just defending your views and faith aggressively. It's those damn atheist again. Christian persecution complex I see.You can't take criticism? The people in this thread have just been trying to show where you are wrong in your assertions. Instead of admitting or accepting your mistakes you lash out and now claim they are picking on you. Grow a pair. If you can't accept criticism or debate logically then don't post. There are other threads that this has happened with you too.The moment your assertions are criticized you claim the damn atheists are attacking you. Present a cogent, well thought out argument for once. Even then you will be criticized by someone. That is how debate forums work. If you can't defend your assertions against the criticisms then it should tell you something about the validity of your assertion. At that point a rational, educated, willing to learn person, would reexamine their assertion and maybe consider the other views. I see you are incapable of that, so resort to the old Christian persecution complex.I think maybe you should reconsider posting here if you cannot handle the minor criticism you have received so far. People here do not suffer fools gladly. I am sure there are plenty of forums that will accept you misinformation and bs with nary a whisper. That isn't going to happen here.The people that post here are for the most part well educated or well informed. Many are very highly educated. I have learned an immense amount here and on the historical side of things I am quite well informed. You might want to consider the fact that some of your preconceived notions and ideas(especially on the science side) are not correct.by the way. Just makes you look more like an ass.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

just a couple quick questionsDo you know what string theory is? Do you understand string theory?You see. I am very weak on physics. Makes my head hurt. I am quite overwhelmed by the little I tentatively understand about string theory. I am not well enough versed to make any comment like this. So do you know enough physics to make a rational informed decision about string theory, or are you making the logical fallacy you seem to make a lot.I think I pointed the fallacy out to you in a different thread. Argument from Incredulity - an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:1. I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
2. Therefore, P.A simple variation on this is1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P.This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.Again thanks Dr Adequate for SkepticWiki

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I don't know what the KCA is, so I don't know what you're talking about.However, the Big Bang model, or the expansion model does not support a "first cause" argument. The Big Bang is not an event that took place, in other words, it's not a moment of "creation."However, that does not mean that multi-verses don't exists. Or as cavediver put it, that there are multiple multi-verse systems. It just means that the Big Bang model doesn't address it. It is addressed in other theories in theoretical physics. BUt it would be pointless to argue this since it is clear that you have very little knowledge of cosmology and physics. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just stating the obvious.- Oni

Ha ha really! Well I am a serious amateur astronomer and am well respected by my peers, so no I am not insulted by your comments because you are simply attempting to save face amongst your peers. You not knowing what the KCA and related comments is tell me all I need to know about your knowledge base. BTW I have a MA in C. Theology and will provide proof if anyone wants to pay for copies and my time to get my records to them. What a group of yes men we have here!
; }>Whats that clicking sound? Hark! its the sound of all the Google scientists here looking for 'what the hell is the KCA'? Click click afway and get back to me...Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

I couldn't give a shit what you think about my 'claims' - everyone here has seen more than ample evidence - but I am very interested in these 'mistakes'. I am impressed that someone not trained in science is able to spot any that I have made. Care to point any of them out? Or are you just another pseudo-Christian who thinks that lies and bullshit are perfectly acceptable on the internet, 'cos Jesus probably won't read it anyway...ABE with your ideas on light, those would have to be some peers...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

You don't want people to insult you but then you make ignorant statements like the one above?You'll get back what you dish out. If you're going to act like a douchebag you will be treated as such.What do you know about string theory? You read some layman book, probably Brian Greene, and now you feel you can discredit the work done by actual theoretical physicist? Please, Rev! You're currently talking completely out of your ass and you have no knowledge of the subject to be able to give a proper, educated opinion on it.- Oni

Save face? Amongst my peers? , you might want to read a few of my post before you start accusing me of trying to save face. That's like having a degree from clown school. PS. no one gives a shit. Plus we are discussing cosmology, your degree is worthless in this subject. And in my opinion, worthless all together. You might as well have said you studied at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Again, no one gives a shit. I was actually a comedy writer for the KCA, also refered to as the Kids Choice Awards for Nickelodeon. And by the way, "serious amateur astronomer," means your an idiot with a telescope on the roof of your house.- Oni

Anyone who doesn't have the patience to dispassionately and clearly engage is discussion, explanation and rebuttal while avoiding sarcasm and mockery should take a break.Anyone ignoring this request will take a mandatory break of 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I sure hope you are not referring to The Kalam Cosmological Argument.You criticize string theory but put forward this. Please tell me you meant something else.Admin - Please let me know if you feel this is mocking or sarcastic. I tried not to be either but felt this was best way to pursue the question.Edited by Theodoric, : Request to admin

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And if you are arguing with him about the subject in which he has a PhD, then I would suggest that you listen to him.

Onifre is a professional comedian. I do not believe that he has a PhD in physics.The question of whether "the Big Bang allowed many universes" depends on what you mean by "universes".You're out of your depth here, aren't you?---This "KCA" thing you keep talking about --- I notice that no predictions can be derived from it, and that therefore it is not science.