| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
13 Jan 2005 04:38:58 AM |
| Object: |
Big Bang Confirmed - Again |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Grendel" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
13 Jan 2005 02:17:38 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory.8
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
14 Jan 2005 01:05:50 AM |
|
|
"Grendel" <nadda@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:CHAFd.79583$nN6.37578@edtnps84...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls.
No, we're excited when it falls, you dishonest idiot. Because that means a
better theory has been proposed and tested and accounts for observations
better than the old one. It means we're closer to the truth.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation,
WTF? We directly observe inflation! That's the observation that needed to be
explained. That's why the big bang theory was proposed.
And guess what? The theory came with a testable prediction. The theory
required that there be a certain microwave background radiation left over
from the initial expansion. When they sent a detector up in a rocket to find
the radiation, there it was. That constitutes experimental confirmation of
the big bang theory.
You moron.
dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them,
there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
Actually, no.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new
hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between
theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions
about the validity of the underlying theory.8
No one claims the theory is fact.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
13 Jan 2005 03:47:02 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls.
You don't understand science - we hang our hats on one hypothesis or
theory until something comes along that better accounts for the
observations. No problem. It happens in other disciplines as well. In
the 1960's everyone believed that nerve impulses were transmitted
electrically. The hypothesis was disproven after advances in
biochemistry in the 1970's showed that neurotransmission is primarily
chemical in nature. The "spark plug boys" left their old theories
behind (except for jokes in lecture) and started doing neurochemistry.
No big deal.
This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory.8
This is the method of physics, and has been since the 19th century with
it phlogiston and luminiferous ether, both since disproven. Not to
worry, dark matter and inflation will be proven or disproven as new
evidence one way or the other is found, and theory created to account
for new discoveries.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
13 Jan 2005 06:09:36 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because
the majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This
quasar comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about
the validity of the underlying theory.8
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.asp
You offer something from AiG. AiG requires that you accept the bible as true
and that *ANY* evidence that contradicts the bible is false. This is not
science.
I would question your knowledge of what a theory is if you think observation
is required and that modification is not allowed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
18 Jan 2005 05:30:07 PM |
|
|
Grendel wrote:
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on
the big bang because the
majority believes it,
Your cluelessness is showing - again. How is it possible for someone
to utter so many stupid words in so short a space - go on, admit it,
you were tutored, weren't you? It's nothing to be embarrassed about!
Most creationists are. They're brainwashed by their blind faith in
assinine creationist websites the same way you were.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with majority belief. That's the
creationist position. It never changes and they're sticking to it. Or
more appropriately, stuck with it.
Acceptance of the Big Bang has to do with the evidence, as this article
made crystally clear to everyone with even a moderately functional
brain.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities,
Lie! It has to do with observed fact as this article makes crystally
clear. Which part of F-A-C-T don't you grasp?
things that we have never observed-inflation,
dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples.
Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations
made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory.
The Big Bang happened with or without inflation. The Big Bang happened
whether there is or is not dark matter and dark energy. The things are
separate items. But we do understand that you're much too stupid to
know that.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 06:49:20 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2005 15:30:07 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Grendel wrote:
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on
the big bang because the
majority believes it,
Your cluelessness is showing - again. How is it possible for someone
to utter so many stupid words in so short a space - go on, admit it,
you were tutored, weren't you? It's nothing to be embarrassed about!
Most creationists are. They're brainwashed by their blind faith in
assinine creationist websites the same way you were.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with majority belief. That's the
creationist position. It never changes and they're sticking to it. Or
more appropriately, stuck with it.
Acceptance of the Big Bang has to do with the evidence, as this article
made crystally clear to everyone with even a moderately functional
brain.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities,
Lie! It has to do with observed fact as this article makes crystally
clear. Which part of F-A-C-T don't you grasp?
things that we have never observed-inflation,
dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples.
Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations
made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory.
The Big Bang happened with or without inflation. The Big Bang happened
whether there is or is not dark matter and dark energy. The things are
separate items. But we do understand that you're much too stupid to
know that.
The big bang is a religious belief. We don't know how or even if it all began.
Budikka
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 04:37:09 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
The big bang is a religious belief.
When you get an education, let me know, because now you're talking like
a high schooler, and a poorly educated one at that. Are you a high
schooler?
We don't know how or even if it all began.
All the evidence that we have on the subject shows that there was a Big
Bang some 14.7 billion years ago. That's a fact. In opposition, I
don't see you offering anything but your own blather directly out your
stupid *****. If you ever find any evidence to support your clueless
crap, come back and we'll have a discussion. Until then, quit
embarrassing yourself.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 07:24:45 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2005 14:37:09 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
The big bang is a religious belief.
When you get an education, let me know, because now you're talking like
a high schooler, and a poorly educated one at that. Are you a high
schooler?
We don't know how or even if it all began.
All the evidence that we have on the subject shows that there was a Big
Bang some 14.7 billion years ago. That's a fact. In opposition, I
don't see you offering anything but your own blather directly out your
stupid *****. If you ever find any evidence to support your clueless
crap, come back and we'll have a discussion. Until then, quit
embarrassing yourself.
Its you theists that embarrass yourselves. Just because you can't think of anything
else does not mean the BB is a fact, no more than creation is a fact.
Nobody knows what happened back then.
Budikka
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eBataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
22 Jan 2005 04:36:57 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
(snip)
Nobody knows what happened back then.
So history is just a really nice use of imagination? Is the past imaginary?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
22 Jan 2005 09:07:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:36:57 GMT, eBataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Barry OGrady wrote:
(snip)
Nobody knows what happened back then.
So history is just a really nice use of imagination? Is the past imaginary?
Maeve created everything last Thursday.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
22 Jan 2005 08:15:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:36:57 GMT, eBataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
(snip)
Nobody knows what happened back then.
So history is just a really nice use of imagination?
I don't believe that. Do you?
Is the past imaginary?
I don't believe that. Do you?
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eBataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
22 Jan 2005 08:36:29 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:36:57 GMT, eBataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
(snip)
Nobody knows what happened back then.
So history is just a really nice use of imagination?
I don't believe that. Do you?
You seemingly do, otherwise why did you say that? Science certainly
*does* have a lot of evidence for the BB.
Is the past imaginary?
I don't believe that. Do you?
I'm not the one who says nobody knows what happened back then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 07:00:36 AM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
Its you theists that embarrass yourselves.
No, it's once again you who're embarrassing yourself by comprehensively
demonstrating how fundamentally screwed up you are. First off, I'm not
a theist, I'm an atheist. If you can't get something that plain and
simple correct, how can you possibly pretend to argue anything else,
you colossal screw-up?
Just because you can't think of anything else does
Once again, you moron, it isn't a matter of not being able to think of
anything else, **IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT THE MASSIVE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS**. Get it now, idiot?
First of all people believed in creation, then the evidence proved this
wrong. Then people argued that the universe might have always been
this way. The name "Big Bang" was actually coined by one of the steady
state adherents in erision of the alternative: others said that the
universe was evolving from a starting point. As more evidence
accumulated, the steady state idea was proven wrong, leaving the Big
Bang as the only explanation that fits the available evidence. That's
why it's accepted. Get it now dimwit?
not mean the BB is a fact,
The Big Bang is **SUPPORTED BY ALL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE**. It's that
simple
The Big Bang is no more than creation is a fact.
Creation is a myth invented by scientifically ignorant scribes to make
them feel more secure in a harsh, unpredictable world. It's that
simple.
Nobody knows what happened back then.
The evidence shows what happened back then, **AND THE MASSIVE WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS A BIG BANG**.
By your idiotic position, every criminal who commits a crime that was
not witnessed would get away with it because "nobody knows what
happened back then". IS THIS WHAT HAPPENS? No! If there is
sufficient evidence left, it points to a perpetrator. Cosmology works
the same way.
Get it now, Moron?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 12:09:04 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jan 2005 05:00:36 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
Its you theists that embarrass yourselves.
No, it's once again you who're embarrassing yourself by comprehensively
demonstrating how fundamentally screwed up you are. First off, I'm not
a theist, I'm an atheist. If you can't get something that plain and
simple correct, how can you possibly pretend to argue anything else,
you colossal screw-up?
Just because you can't think of anything else does
Once again, you moron, it isn't a matter of not being able to think of
anything else, **IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT THE MASSIVE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS**. Get it now, idiot?
First of all people believed in creation, then the evidence proved this
wrong. Then people argued that the universe might have always been
this way. The name "Big Bang" was actually coined by one of the steady
state adherents in erision of the alternative: others said that the
universe was evolving from a starting point.
Fred Hoyle, iirc.
As more evidence
accumulated, the steady state idea was proven wrong, leaving the Big
Bang as the only explanation that fits the available evidence. That's
why it's accepted. Get it now dimwit?
not mean the BB is a fact,
The Big Bang is **SUPPORTED BY ALL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE**. It's that
simple
The Big Bang is no more than creation is a fact.
Creation is a myth invented by scientifically ignorant scribes to make
them feel more secure in a harsh, unpredictable world. It's that
simple.
Nobody knows what happened back then.
The evidence shows what happened back then, **AND THE MASSIVE WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS A BIG BANG**.
By your idiotic position, every criminal who commits a crime that was
not witnessed would get away with it because "nobody knows what
happened back then". IS THIS WHAT HAPPENS? No! If there is
sufficient evidence left, it points to a perpetrator. Cosmology works
the same way.
Get it now, Moron?
Budikka
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
22 Jan 2005 10:42:13 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <jug1v0h7n4ejcg51p2t69haq8kl0vji48g@4ax.com>, Barry
OGrady lumbered into the room and mumbled:
The big bang is a religious belief.
And yet it's backed by all the evidence. Funny that.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 05:21:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:42:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <jug1v0h7n4ejcg51p2t69haq8kl0vji48g@4ax.com>, Barry
OGrady lumbered into the room and mumbled:
The big bang is a religious belief.
And yet it's backed by all the evidence. Funny that.
There are people who dispute the big bang.
I can understand why the BB is popular, but nobody is seriously suggesting it
is a fact. It fits the evidence as long as we believe that things were different
back then, and it leaves important things unexplained.
Creationists claim that only God fits the observed evidence.
You are doing the same thing with the BB.
--
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 07:07:36 AM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
There are people who dispute the big bang.
Yes, they're clueless assholes in the tiny minority - exactly like you.
I can understand why the BB is popular, but nobody is seriously
suggesting it
is a fact.
**IT'S WHAT THE MASSIVE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS**. Every new
discovery in this field for the last sixty years has supported it.
that's how science works. By observing what's there, forming a theory
to explain things and testing the theory,. When the theory has been
repeatedly tested and still holds strong, then it's accepted as fact or
as close to fact as we can get. It, like you, is that simple.
It fits the evidence as long as we believe that things
were different back then,
Things were different back then - that's *is* a fact. The universe is
evolving from an earlier, different state. That is a fact. You're
too stupid to grasp this. That is a fact.
and it leaves important things unexplained.
But you cannot offer a single example to support your lies, nor can you
offer an alternate theory to epxlain things. In other words, you're
just a clueless moron jackass.
Creationists claim that only God fits the observed evidence.
You are doing the same thing with the BB.
Another of your lies. If you ever can offer evidfence to refute the
Big Bang or evidence to support an alternate explanation, then you'll
become rich and famous. Go for it, but don't waste our time with your
idiotic highschool ***** and lies. Get it now, asswipe?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 08:04:26 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1106485656.174555.181290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Budikka666
lumbered into the room and mumbled:
If you ever can offer evidfence to refute the Big
Bang or evidence to support an alternate explanation, then you'll become
rich and famous.
At least win a Nobel...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 08:03:48 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <hu17v05f7cf532bi7sb1c4950ph61nsrq6@4ax.com>, Barry
OGrady lumbered into the room and mumbled:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:42:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <jug1v0h7n4ejcg51p2t69haq8kl0vji48g@4ax.com>, Barry
OGrady lumbered into the room and mumbled:
The big bang is a religious belief.
And yet it's backed by all the evidence. Funny that.
There are people who dispute the big bang. I can understand why the BB is
popular, but nobody is seriously suggesting it is a fact. It fits the
evidence as long as we believe that things were different back then, and
it leaves important things unexplained. Creationists claim that only God
fits the observed evidence. You are doing the same thing with the BB.
Disputed? In the same sense the theory of evolution is "disputed." In
fact, creationists are the ones doing most of the "disputing" of the BB.
Complaining that the theory doesn't explain everything is a *creationist
tactic. It's the "best fit" we have for the evidence and the consensus is
solid. The debates are centered around how and why it happened, not if.
Will you next be using the creationist line about a "conspiracy" among the
scientists?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
23 Jan 2005 09:52:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:21:04 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:42:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <jug1v0h7n4ejcg51p2t69haq8kl0vji48g@4ax.com>, Barry
OGrady lumbered into the room and mumbled:
The big bang is a religious belief.
And yet it's backed by all the evidence. Funny that.
There are people who dispute the big bang.
There are people who dispute the round Earth too.
Creationists claim that only God fits the observed evidence.
You are doing the same thing with the BB.
The only difference is the evidence.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
14 Jan 2005 05:28:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:17:38 GMT, Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen. Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
18 Jan 2005 05:32:17 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone
from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen.
Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
No, the fact is that *you* apparently have no idea. The rest of us are
doing fine, thank you!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 06:49:14 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2005 15:32:17 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone
from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen.
Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
No, the fact is that *you* apparently have no idea.
I don't feel the need to pretend.
The rest of us are doing fine, thank you!
I don't know and you don't know how or even if everything began.
Budikka
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
14 Jan 2005 02:05:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:28:03 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:17:38 GMT, Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen. Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
The fact is that you are either lying or you do not know what you are
talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 06:49:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:05:50 +0100, thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:28:03 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:17:38 GMT, Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen. Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
The fact is that you are either lying or you do not know what you are
talking about.
I don't know what you are talking about.
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
14 Jan 2005 08:25:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:28:03 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:17:38 GMT, Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen. Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
Actually, no. All the evidence points to expansion from a
singularilty. The singularity is known as the big bang.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
14 Jan 2005 02:19:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:25:10 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:28:03 +1100, Barry OGrady
<god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:17:38 GMT, Grendel <nadda@trynot.com> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4161323.stm
offers more evidence of the so-called Big Bang, pushing the clueless
young-Earth creationists ever deeper into the hole they dug for
themselves.
Budikka
Sorry Miss Bud....
So the lesson is this. If you hang your hat on the big bang because the
majority believes it, you will be embarrassed when it falls. This quasar
comes as thorn in the sides of those who believe in the ruling
paradigm—but many don’t and expect the weight of the anomalies to
eventually sink it.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory
It is interesting how the big bang theory has gone from being a wild theory
to a "fact". The BB most likely did not happen. Fact is we have no idea of
how or even if it all began.
Actually, no. All the evidence points to expansion from a
singularilty. The singularity is known as the big bang.
Actually no. There is some evidence that fits with a big bang, but a singularity is
impossible and doesn't answer the question of where the material came from.
Face it, the big bang is for those who must have an answer.
Creation is nonsense of course.
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
18 Jan 2005 12:37:25 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady wrote:
< snip >
Actually no. There is some evidence that fits with a big bang, but a singularity is
impossible
Yes, a classical singularity -- the zero-dimensional point -- is. But
the properties of quantum singularities are being researched.
and doesn't answer the question of where the material came from.
If the universe is flat, then that becomes a non-issue.
Unfortunately, it will be decades, if not longer, before either of these
issues is settled. We need a model of quantum gravity to really study
the properties of quantum singularities, and we need many more
observations to determine the shape of the universe (which, at the
moment, is looking open, not flat).
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 06:49:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:37:25 -0600, Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
< snip >
Actually no. There is some evidence that fits with a big bang, but a singularity is
impossible
Yes, a classical singularity -- the zero-dimensional point -- is. But
the properties of quantum singularities are being researched.
and doesn't answer the question of where the material came from.
If the universe is flat, then that becomes a non-issue.
The universe is obviously not flat so it must be an issue.
Unfortunately, it will be decades, if not longer, before either of these
issues is settled.
You are not flat and you exist in the universe.
We need a model of quantum gravity to really study
the properties of quantum singularities, and we need many more
observations to determine the shape of the universe (which, at the
moment, is looking open, not flat).
Obviously the universe is not flat but we don't know if it has limits.
Fact is we don't know enough to even guess about such things.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
You are a theist. Your religion is science.
-Barry
========
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
[A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)]
Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bang Confirmed False - Again |
21 Jan 2005 01:22:14 PM |
|
|
Barry OGrady <god_freee_jones@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:lsf1v094n8k7dbb0l1bp61jfbe9aple1dg@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:37:25 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
< snip >
Actually no. There is some evidence that fits with a big bang, but a
singularity is impossible
Yes, a classical singularity -- the zero-dimensional point -- is. But
the properties of quantum singularities are being researched.
and doesn't answer the question of where the material came from.
If the universe is flat, then that becomes a non-issue.
The universe is obviously not flat so it must be an issue.
Unfortunately, it will be decades, if not longer, before either of
these issues is settled.
You are not flat and you exist in the universe.
We need a model of quantum gravity to really study
the properties of quantum singularities, and we need many more
observations to determine the shape of the universe (which, at the
moment, is looking open, not flat).
Obviously the universe is not flat but we don't know if it has limits.
Fact is we don't know enough to even guess about such things.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
You are a theist. Your religion is science.
ROTFLMAO!
You are one funny man. A flat universe is not a reference to how it
looks to you. The universe has at least 4 dimensions, 3 we see and 1 we
feel as well as a number of others possible. The meaning of flat in this
context is how the geometry of the universe acts.
Here is a link that even you might understand. It has pictures.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_content.html
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
