| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2007 12:50:58 PM |
| Object: |
Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god. I will
note that the present theory is consistent with everything we have
been telling your ignorant asses. Things always existed in some form
or another. Stuff didn't have to "come from nothing". Ding Dong,
Kalam is dead. Your first cause of the universe arguments were never
convincing anyway, but now they've gone out the window too, at least
based on this quantum interpretation.
.
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
02 Jul 2007 07:24:29 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183398658.408184.77140@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god. I will
note that the present theory is consistent with everything we have
been telling your ignorant asses. Things always existed in some form
or another. Stuff didn't have to "come from nothing". Ding Dong,
Kalam is dead. Your first cause of the universe arguments were never
convincing anyway, but now they've gone out the window too, at least
based on this quantum interpretation.
I fear the theists will use this for their cause by declaring that "god is
eternal" etc. If this is correct though, at least it leaves the creationists
dead in the water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
02 Jul 2007 10:57:05 PM |
|
|
In article <8qudnUpnhOjLChTbnZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@bt.com>,
neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183398658.408184.77140@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god. I will
note that the present theory is consistent with everything we have
been telling your ignorant asses. Things always existed in some form
or another. Stuff didn't have to "come from nothing". Ding Dong,
Kalam is dead. Your first cause of the universe arguments were never
convincing anyway, but now they've gone out the window too, at least
based on this quantum interpretation.
I fear the theists will use this for their cause by declaring that "god is
eternal"
But we can just as easily say that the universe didn't need a creator,
because it was always around. And if god wasn't necessary to create the
present universe, then why assume he was necessary at all. Genesis says
there was a beginning and now these theories are suggesting that the Big
Bang was not really the beginning of everything, but merely a
continuation.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 12:51:34 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
I fear the theists will use this for their cause by declaring that
"god is eternal"
But we can just as easily say that the universe didn't need a creator,
because it was always around. And if god wasn't necessary to create
the present universe, then why assume he was necessary at all.
Genesis says there was a beginning and now these theories are
suggesting that the Big Bang was not really the beginning of
everything, but merely a continuation.
Genesis does not say there was a beginning any more than the other creation
stories of the time.
"The correct translation by Hebrew scholars of the JPS, from the traditional
Hebrew text, which makes much more sense, is:
"When God [ELOHIM] began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being
unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind
from God [ELOHIM] sweeping over the water -- God [ELOHIM] said, 'Let there
be light'; and there was light."
The story tells us that the ELOHIM found an "unformed and void",
water-covered earth, out of which was formed the whole universe, referred to
as "heaven and earth". How could this be? Only by assuming, as the story
does, that the Sun, Moon and all the stars are tiny lights affixed to the
solid sky dome which is also holding back the "waters above".
The story reflects the primitive cosmography known and held by the ancient
authors."
Most theists here parrot the argument from cause as their "proof". Aquinas
made as arbitrary choice and said "this we call God". Science examined the
evidence and said "This we call the Big Bang".
Science and The Mule are the same at this point but science stops there.
Aquinas went on, and on, and on making arbitrary decisions about his god
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 01:50:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1183398658.408184.77140@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god. I will
note that the present theory is consistent with everything we have
been telling your ignorant asses. Things always existed in some form
or another. Stuff didn't have to "come from nothing". Ding Dong,
Kalam is dead. Your first cause of the universe arguments were never
convincing anyway, but now they've gone out the window too, at least
based on this quantum interpretation.
Nice find.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 05:30:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:50:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god.
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density came
from originally.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 01:10:28 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:u79k831c60jhgnhi42o0q0p4i3a3lboq8r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:50:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god.
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density
came
from originally.
Who/what created your god? Where did your god come from? And don't forget
to also prove that your god exists.
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 04:10:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:10:28 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density
came
from originally.
Who/what created your god? Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. Do you now where hat infinitely small point of mass of infinite
density came from?
I will accept "I have no idea".
And don't forget to also prove that your god exists.
NOt a worry of mine.
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
You will be as soon as you duck the question.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
03 Jul 2007 04:42:01 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5nel835cc0pfmuo0lvac13aks92hn71evl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:10:28 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density
came
from originally.
Who/what created your god? Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. Do you now where hat infinitely small point of mass of
infinite
density came from?
No, I don't.
I will accept "I have no idea".
Good for you.
And don't forget to also prove that your god exists.
NOt a worry of mine.
It should be, since you claim that your god created everything.
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
You will be as soon as you duck the question.
I didn't duck your question Earl. Why would I?
You're a fucking idiot.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
04 Jul 2007 03:39:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:42:01 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com> wrote:
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
You will be as soon as you duck the question.
I didn't duck your question Earl. Why would I?
Because you can't answer.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
04 Jul 2007 06:08:39 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4a1o83lbn5obbhg9k40560epvqfko58iju@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:42:01 -1000, "G-Ride" <gridenospam42@yahoo.com>
wrote:
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
You will be as soon as you duck the question.
I didn't duck your question Earl. Why would I?
Because you can't answer.
lol. I did answer your question Earl. You must have missed it when you
were busy snipping that portion out of your reply. Here's what you cut out
you fucking idiot:
Who/what created your god? Where did your god come from?
I have no idea. Do you now where hat infinitely small point of mass of
infinite
density came from?
No, I don't.
I will accept "I have no idea".
Good for you.
And don't forget to also prove that your god exists.
NOt a worry of mine.
It should be, since you claim that your god created everything.
And btw, you're a fucking idiot.
You will be as soon as you duck the question.
I didn't duck your question Earl. Why would I?
You're a fucking idiot.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
04 Jul 2007 11:37:16 AM |
|
|
On Jul 3, 4:30 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:50:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god.
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density came
from originally.
Actually, that is precisely what the theory addresses with quantum
loop gravity. it suggests that there was a previous, collapsed
universe. But you can't be expected to actually pretend to read the
article before making an ***** of yourself, as usual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
04 Jul 2007 03:45:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:37:16 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density came
from originally.
Actually, that is precisely what the theory addresses with quantum
loop gravity. it suggests that there was a previous, collapsed
universe.
Sorry, but that has been negated by the discovery that the universe is open, ie,
that it is expanding at an increasing rate. An open universe thoroughly negates
a previous closed universe, or big crunch because of the constant mass.
But you can't be expected to actually pretend to read the
article before making an ***** of yourself, as usual.
Your article has already been disqualified.
Now go cry on your pillow, quib.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
04 Jul 2007 10:42:29 PM |
|
|
In article <ic1o83ts9apporjevvrbb5t640rha99olt@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:37:16 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Except for where that infinitely small point of mass of infinite density came
from originally.
Actually, that is precisely what the theory addresses with quantum
loop gravity. it suggests that there was a previous, collapsed
universe.
Sorry, but that has been negated
No, you fucking moron, this explains what that is possible from a
formerly collapsed universe. As I said, you refuse to actually read the
current research.
by the discovery that the universe is open,
That has already been addressed as part of the research, as you would
have seen if you had read about five whole sentences into the article,
you fucking moron.
ie,
that it is expanding at an increasing rate. An open universe thoroughly negates
a previous closed universe, or big crunch because of the constant mass.
Incorrect. Those calculations do not take quantum loop gravity into
account. Try reading the research.
But you can't be expected to actually pretend to read the
article before making an ***** of yourself, as usual.
Your article has already been disqualified.
No, you have it backward, since it has, in fact, invalidated the old
models you are still ignorantly mouthing. Better luck next time, you
fucking dumbass.
Now go cry on your pillow, quib.
The present theory blasts your outdated models to smithereens, you stupid
little *****.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Big Bounce. No God Needed for Big Bang |
02 Jul 2007 09:00:02 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1183398658.408184.77140
@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm
Eat it theist bitches. Science continues to explain things, including
the origin of our present universe, with no recourse to god. I will
note that the present theory is consistent with everything we have
been telling your ignorant asses. Things always existed in some form
or another. Stuff didn't have to "come from nothing". Ding Dong,
Kalam is dead. Your first cause of the universe arguments were never
convincing anyway, but now they've gone out the window too, at least
based on this quantum interpretation.
The problem with loop quantum gravity and string theory models is that they
are not empirically verified. They also have too many parameters that can
be tweaked. There's many things to be pegged down before you could put any
confidence at all in these models. We still don't even know yet what dark
matter is, or whether the Higgs boson really exists and what mass it has,
these are critical in getting any understanding what was going on in the
early universe. As you say though, Kalam was dead and buried long ago but
not because of speculative models of the universe.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
