Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Yep! It happens to all of us. But I am still genuinely confused. I swore that I hit the reply button to his post but it became rather obvious that somehow I missed.

Mebbe you realized it was irrelevant to every other poster so it was subconscious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mebbe you realized it was irrelevant to every other poster so it was subconscious.

Projection agaain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep! It happens to all of us. But I am still genuinely confused. I swore that I hit the reply button to his post but it became rather obvious that somehow I missed.

It is a problem I have noticed in previous attempts to respond to one of @LIIA posts. They are so long that I would end up hitting "Reply" to the wrong post of his or someone else's post entirely depending on which post followed the one I wanted to reply to. The profuse number of incredibly long, awkward and voluminous posts appears to be what leads to the issue.

 

[LIIA]

Dude! The Nazis were mostly Christian. Nazi Germany was a Christian country. It was the dominant religion of those in the party. Hitler was a weird sort of Christian, a version of his own, he was not an atheist.

The Nazis racist ideology was scientifically driven not religiously driven.

The Nazis racist ideology was based on scientific (biological) racism and the use of eugenics into its creed, they believed that empirical evidence support/justify racial discrimination, racial inferiority, or racial superiority.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia
Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

That's it. So if someone makes a claim about having scientific evidence one only needs to ask two questions. The first is "does one have a scientific theory or hypothesis", that means that the concept needs to be falsifiable.

To support or counter a scientific theory, the first thing needed is a “THEORY”

Without a theory, you are asking me to prove a negative. Do you really think that “life doesn’t arise on its own” is a theory? Do you want me to provide evidence for it as a theory? Do you understand what you are talking about? The theory must be a positive such as “life can arise from non-living matter”.

It's like you are challenging me to provide evidence that life doesn’t arise on its own from peanut butter or ice cream, sure it doesn’t, but do you understand how ridiculous is such question? It’s illogical to prove a negative.

You fail to understand that the falsification test of your theory is on you. You should provide the falsification test to prove that your theory is a genuinely scientific theory. Yet you claim that you understand the scientific method. You don’t.

Is there some reasonable test that could refute it at the time of formation. In the case of various hypotheses of abiogenesis the answer has been yes.

A scientific falsifiable theory should make predictions, which can be tested, and the theory is rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct. The proponents of abiogenesis are the ones who should propose the test to refute abiogenesis based on the predictions of the theory, without the falsification test, the theory cannot be accepted as a legitimate/falsifiable theory.

If such test to refute the prediction that life arises on its own from non-living matter exists, was already conducted and did not refute abiogenesis, then why are you asking me to come up with the refutation/falsification test?

But if the refutation test doesn’t exist, then abiogenesis is neither falsifiable nor a genuinely scientific theory. You have to provide such a test to prove the legitimacy of the theory.

Note that the prediction of the theory is the emergence of life on its own from non-living matter, not merely the emergence of some non-living organic compounds from non-living inorganic matter. Now, demonstrate how is the hypothesis of abiogenesis falsifiable? What was the reasonable test that was conducted to refute abiogenesis? (In other words, refute the prediction that life arises on its own from non-living matter)

Let me save you some time, abiogenesis is not falsifiable and the claim or wish that we may get answers in the future is nothing but meaningless wishful thinking. The fact today remains that abiogenesis is neither falsifiable nor a legitimate scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is nothing but an unsubstantiated hypothesis, it cannot be tested using accepted protocols of observation and doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory.

Do you know that there is no scientific evidence for? There is no scientific evidence for your mythical beliefs.

You don’t understand my beliefs or the evidence for it but how is that relevant to abiogenesis in any way? Are you trying to make an argument that there is no evidence for my belief and that is why it’s not any better than yours? Is that your logic? Do you again insist to make an illogical fourth grader argument?

LOL! I never mentioned a virus. Once again your ignorance is amazingly obvious.

No, you never mentioned a virus, I DID.
Let’s try once more, hopefully you would get it this time.

You claimed that all what was needed was essentially a non-living self-replicating genetic material (strand of RNA). I already explained why such replication is not possible. Neither the structure of the RNA can stay intact, nor it may get any access to required building blocks (nucleotides) for the replication process.

The virus is the closest example in nature to your scenario of a non-living genetic material/system. (The genetic material of a virus can be either DNA or RNA).

A virion may have a single-stranded RNA per your scenario, but the main difference is that the virus genetic material is always protected by an outer shell of a surrounding protein membrane. Even so the virion is protected but its structure can get easily disrupted (by heat, oxygen reaction, ultraviolet light, etc.) any slight disruption to its structure will render the virus incapable of invading a host cell. Viruses stay infectious only for several hours to days.

If this is the case with the protected virus, then obviously the structure of a simpler unprotected strand of RNA wouldn’t have much chance to stay intact.

There is no process in nature to build RNA from basic non-living matter, even if it emerges somehow, its structure will be very quickly disrupted/disintegrated, even if it stays intact somehow, it will not have any chance to replicate simply because there are no nucleotides floating around to allow the RNA to replicate. The RNA functions only within a living cell.

It's impossible for the assumed unprotected strand of RNA per your scenario or the actual protected strand of RNA of a virus to replicate without a living cell. It can never self-replicate, is that clear enough this time?

 

[LIIA]

Nope! Now you are making the opposite mistake. Most species, over 99%, go extinct. We would not expect to see all of our close relatives. We would only expect to see a few of them. And that is what we see today.

in #1308 you said, “just because a new form evolves does not mean that the old one has to go extinct.” , then in #1355 you said, “Most species, over 99%, go extinct.”

You cannot just change your position 180 degrees whenever its suits your argument. You cannot have it both ways.

No, species do not go extinct just because a variant emerged. Can you demonstrate how you came up with your 99% percentage?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume your percentage is correct, based on the world’s population today, then we should have roughly about 80 million humans of the alleged different species, especially in isolated geographical areas.

It's not possible that all these alleged variants/transitional forms simply went extinct, where are these 80 million (assuming we go by your unsubstantiated percentage)? Do you think that the evil creationists are hiding them in their backyards to disprove the ToE?

 

[LIIA]

What I meant to say that “I don’t follow” spontaneous generation’s “history”, so I wasn’t aware of who debunked spontaneous generation.

What I mean by that, is I don’t know who Pasteur was, and I don’t know what he did.

You don’t know who Louis Pasteur was?
I find it very strange that you never came across the name of such renowned scientist, the father of microbiology whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives across the globe.

 

[LIIA]

animals and plants just popped into existence, because a God "say so", which is nothing more than superstitions.

You accuse others of being superstitious and yet you rely on book of creation, like Genesis, which is nothing more than superstitions. What a load of hypocrisies you have envisioned.

Science without explanations, are not sciences at all.

Science is not limitless. Science has its own domain, within that domain, science can provide answers/explanations but beyond the boundaries of that domain science no longer applies.

Do you believe that the entire universe popped into existence from nothing at the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago? Is that superstition or science?

This beginning of the universe certainly appears to defy logic but it’s certainly scientific. There was nothing before the beginning or more precisely, there was nothing physical, observable or subject to natural laws (natural laws didn’t have any meaning beyond the beginning).

Science cannot explain why the universe came to existence at this specific point 14 billion years ago or why it did not start at another point in time? The universe didn’t always exist, meaning it was caused. Whatever the cause was, its necessarily non-physical, simply because nothing physical existed beyond the starting point of the universe. time itself didn't exist beyond this point. That is why an explanation of why the Big Bang happened at this point is not attainable through science. It’s not possible for science to provide a genuine falsifiable theory (that is supported by empirical evidence) to explain beyond the beginning point of the universe or even the beginning of life.

Fundamental answers with respect to the beginnings are not attainable through science. Science applies only after the beginnings, simply because beyond the starting point there is nothing that can be observed or experiment with. At the point when the typical scientific method no longer applies, we need a different approach to get answers.

Everything we know began in the big bang 14 billion years ago, beyond this point, science no longer applies. Yet indeed the cause must exist. The cause beyond the threshold of time and space (more accurately spacetime) must be causeless (with no beginning) and limitless (no boundaries of any kind).

The universe is expanding. Everything in our universe is moving away from us. The farther away an object is, the faster it moves away from us, the expansion of the universe is getting faster every day. Eventually our expanding universe will make it impossible to see neighboring and even distant galaxies. Everything will be so far apart that not even the light from other celestial bodies will reach earth.

Eventually scientists (assuming the human race survives till that future time) will have no celestial evidence of the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy, or the expansion of the universe itself. Based on the nature of these future observations, scientists would wrongly conclude that our stationary, unmoving galaxy is all that exists. At this point in time, the dilemma would be whether the historical knowledge available about the universe from long ago can be accepted considering the fact that it's no longer supported by direct observations at that future time?

Should they believe what they can observe only, or accept authentic historical knowledge regardless of the fact that they can no longer observe it themselves? Can they trust it? Maybe not but if they don’t, then their relative understanding of reality, which is based merely on their limited capacity to observe, will be deficient/false.

We always rely on historical knowledge in one way or another. It’s our only possible option. Inductivism is deficient in the sense that inductive evidence is always limited, we do not and cannot observe the universe at all times and in all places. We also cannot individually repeat all the observations/work, conclusions and knowledge that got accumulated before us. We individually and collectively rely on the work that was done by others at some point in time and got conveyed to us. In other words, we always rely on the inherited accumulated (historical) knowledge, as long as the authenticity of the knowledge can be trusted.

Regardless of how old or recent it may be, but almost every knowledge available to us can be considered as historical knowledge in the sense that it is not based on our own personal experience but rather the work/knowledge of others that was made available to us.

Humans are different from other species in the sense that our knowledge is not merely driven by a personal individual experience but rather it encompasses the past and present knowledge gained by the continual collective consciousness of the human race which got recorded and made available to us. Such heritage and wealth of collective knowledge is essential. We always follow the footsteps of others and build on it.

Our capacity to observe does not impose any limitations of any kind on the absolute reality. The limitation of possible observations can be very misleading as explained in the example of the expanding universe. Science stops at the threshold beyond which we can no longer observe but the absolute reality doesn’t.

The notion that direct observations are sufficient source of knowledge to objectively understand reality is false/illogical. Direct observations are not and cannot be the only source of knowledge. It’s never enough, it has limitation, which will inevitably leaves a big void and cause a deficient understanding of reality.

Logic, philosophy, religions, science and all authentic collective historical knowledge available to us are essential as we endeavor to fill that void and have a better grasp of the absolute reality.

One’s confidence about certain position doesn’t mean that this position cannot be wrong. If you were able to see that you were wrong about things you trusted, then it's time to reconsider.

Take it or totally leave it. It’s your call.

“Say: Shall we inform you of those who are losing the most with respect to their works? They are those whose efforts went astray in this worldly life, while they continued to be under the impression that they are doing good!” Al-Kahf,103-104.

“As for the disbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert, which the thirsty perceive as water, but when he gets to it, he finds it to be nothing. Instead, they find Allah there, to settle his account. And Allah is swift in reckoning." An-Nur, 39.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Nazis racist ideology was scientifically driven not religiously driven.

The Nazis racist ideology was based on scientific (biological) racism and the use of eugenics into its creed, they believed that empirical evidence support/justify racial discrimination, racial inferiority, or racial superiority.

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia
Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

None of that has anything to do with science. You may not understand what science is. The Nazis were for the most part Christians. Very few were scientists.

To support or counter a scientific theory, the first thing needed is a “THEORY”

Without a theory, you are asking me to prove a negative. Do you really think that “life doesn’t arise on its own” is a theory? Do you want me to provide evidence for it as a theory? Do you understand what you are talking about? The theory must be a positive such as “life can arise from non-living matter”.

It's like you are challenging me to provide evidence that life doesn’t arise on its own from peanut butter or ice cream, sure it doesn’t, but do you understand how ridiculous is such question? It’s illogical to prove a negative.

You fail to understand that the falsification test of your theory is on you. You should provide the falsification test to prove that your theory is a genuinely scientific theory. Yet you claim that you understand the scientific method. You don’t.

WHOOOOSSSHHH!! Well, that point went over your head. You had demonstrated that you don't understand the concept of scientific evidence. I was trying to give you a short lesson.You have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. I have plenty for mine.

A scientific falsifiable theory should make predictions, which can be tested, and the theory is rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct. The proponents of abiogenesis are the ones who should propose the test to refute abiogenesis based on the predictions of the theory, without the falsification test, the theory cannot be accepted as a legitimate/falsifiable theory.

If such test to refute the prediction that life arises on its own from non-living matter exists, was already conducted and did not refute abiogenesis, then why are you asking me to come up with the refutation/falsification test?

But if the refutation test doesn’t exist, then abiogenesis is neither falsifiable nor a genuinely scientific theory. You have to provide such a test to prove the legitimacy of the theory.

Note that the prediction of the theory is the emergence of life on its own from non-living matter, not merely the emergence of some non-living organic compounds from non-living inorganic matter. Now, demonstrate how is the hypothesis of abiogenesis falsifiable? What was the reasonable test that was conducted to refute abiogenesis? (In other words, refute the prediction that life arises on its own from non-living matter)

Let me save you some time, abiogenesis is not falsifiable and the claim or wish that we may get answers in the future is nothing but meaningless wishful thinking. The fact today remains that abiogenesis is neither falsifiable nor a legitimate scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is nothing but an unsubstantiated hypothesis, it cannot be tested using accepted protocols of observation and doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory.

Sorry, but when you make foolish claims as you just did you take on the burden of proof. It is a pity that you do not understand how to apply the burden of proof. If you say that abiogenesis cannot be tested that is a "positive claim". You are stating something as a fact. I can name a prediction of abiogenesis, how it was tested, and how it was confirmed. That refutes your claim that you did not support. But we know why. You couldn't support it since it is false.

Abiogenesis is an incomplete hypothesis. There is not a complete answer yet. It is not unevidenced. The parts that have been answered are well supported.

You don’t understand my beliefs or the evidence for it but how is that relevant to abiogenesis in any way? Are you trying to make an argument that there is no evidence for my belief and that is why it’s not any better than yours? Is that your logic? Do you again insist to make an illogical fourth grader argument?



No, you never mentioned a virus, I DID.
Let’s try once more, hopefully you would get it this time.

I know you did. That is the problem. It only demonstrated your ignorance of the topic at hand.

You claimed that all what was needed was essentially a non-living self-replicating genetic material (strand of RNA). I already explained why such replication is not possible. Neither the structure of the RNA can stay intact, nor it may get any access to required building blocks (nucleotides) for the replication process.

The virus is the closest example in nature to your scenario of a non-living genetic material/system. (The genetic material of a virus can be either DNA or RNA).

A virion may have a single-stranded RNA per your scenario, but the main difference is that the virus genetic material is always protected by an outer shell of a surrounding protein membrane. Even so the virion is protected but its structure can get easily disrupted (by heat, oxygen reaction, ultraviolet light, etc.) any slight disruption to its structure will render the virus incapable of invading a host cell. Viruses stay infectious only for several hours to days.

If this is the case with the protected virus, then obviously the structure of a simpler unprotected strand of RNA wouldn’t have much chance to stay intact.

There is no process in nature to build RNA from basic non-living matter, even if it emerges somehow, its structure will be very quickly disrupted/disintegrated, even if it stays intact somehow, it will not have any chance to replicate simply because there are no nucleotides floating around to allow the RNA to replicate. The RNA functions only within a living cell.

It's impossible for the assumed unprotected strand of RNA per your scenario or the actual protected strand of RNA of a virus to replicate without a living cell. It can never self-replicate, is that clear enough this time?

Do you think UV exists everywhere? And you did not "explain". You made another unevidenced claim. Please show that the early RNA would proposed by biologists studying this topic that understand it far better than you ever will would be destroyed. You will need something from a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

in #1308 you said, “just because a new form evolves does not mean that the old one has to go extinct.” , then in #1355 you said, “Most species, over 99%, go extinct.”

You cannot just change your position 180 degrees whenever its suits your argument. You cannot have it both ways.

That is not a change of position at all. Your claims were dependent upon "all". My claims were always based on " some". All life has not survived. Most species have died out. That is why we don't see all of the countless intermediate forms. In your earlier claim you again used "all". But that time you used it in the opposite direction. My claim was still " some". The Flip Flop was yours.

No, species do not go extinct just because a variant emerged. Can you demonstrate how you came up with your 99% percentage?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume your percentage is correct, based on the world’s population today, then we should have roughly about 80 million humans of the alleged different species, especially in isolated geographical areas.

It's not possible that all these alleged variants/transitional forms simply went extinct, where are these 80 million (assuming we go by your unsubstantiated percentage)? Do you think that the evil creationists are hiding them in their backyards to disprove the ToE?

What? Does anyone follow this nonsense? You still do not understand a simple concept like extinction.

 

[gnostic]

You don’t know who Louis Pasteur was?
I find it very strange that you never came across the name of such renowned scientist, the father of microbiology whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives across the globe.

Famous or not, I am not a biologist, so I don’t know every biologists of renown. And I just have more interests in physics and astronomy than biology.

Second, I don’t follow the “detailed” history of every pseudoscience, like who debunked spontaneous generation.

What do know that you don’t have a clue as to what Abiogenesis is, and you are confusing Abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

And I do have more knowledge of Abiogenesis and its history because despite it still being a hypothesis, Abiogenesis is a “working hypothesis”.

A working hypothesis is one where there have been some discoveries of evidence or some successful experimental tests that have verified some of Abiogenesis’ premises and predictions.

Such as inorganic molecules can produce biological molecules or compounds though chemical reactions, eg amino acids, adenine (one of 4 nucleobases in DNA), various types of carbohydrates, hydrocarbon, etc, or finding organic matters in meteorite (eg the Murchison Meteorite).

These evidence in Abiogenesis, is what make a falsifiable hypothesis. While Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory, it has the potential of being one, if biochemists discover more evidence.

Spontaneous generation, however, has never been falsifiable, hence it was never a scientific theory, and don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

 

[gnostic]

Science is not limitless.

I had never said it is.

Science has its own domain, within that domain, science can provide answers/explanations...

And I never said it don’t.

...but beyond the boundaries of that domain science no longer applies.

Even if there are some areas that sciences don’t cover or cannot answer or explain, don’t make religious teachings, religious texts or religious beliefs provide the correct answers and explanations.

Do you believe that the entire universe popped into existence from nothing at the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago? Is that superstition or science?

And here is where you MAKE UP strawman claim about the Big Bang theory.

No where in the BB theory does it say or propose that the universe came into existence from “nothing”.

Why do all you creationists believe this same ignorant claim that you have just made? Did you even bother to read and research on the BB theory?

Because if you did, you wouldn’t this false claim on something that was never a explanation, nor prediction of “nothingness”.

All the bb say, that the universe at that stage was infinitely hot and very dense. It never say there was nothing before the Big Bang...IN FACT, it never postulate of anything there before the Big Bang, because the BB cosmologists don’t know if there are any “before”.

The Big Bang model just stop postulating with the Planck Epoch, the first moment AFTER the Big Bang.

Meaning the Big Bang cosmology is only focus on the explanations of the evolution of this Observable Universe.

And there are already still some unverified explanations and predictions in the few minutes of the universe that require observations and testing, so they don’t go beyond as to what happen before the BB.

And there’s where some theoretical astrophysicists attempt at other models outside of the Big Bang scopes or limits, eg the oscillating universe model (endless cycles of Big Bang and Big Crunch, hence it is sometimes called the “Big Bounce”), the various Multiverse models, the String or Brane Cosmology, etc.

These “theoretical” alternatives are just possible answers, not probable ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Famous or not, I am not a biologist, so I don’t know every biologists of renown. And I just have more interests in physics and astronomy than biology.

Second, I don’t follow the “detailed” history of every pseudoscience, like who debunked spontaneous generation.

What do know that you don’t have a clue as to what Abiogenesis is, and you are confusing Abiogenesis with spontaneous generation.

And I do have more knowledge of Abiogenesis and its history because despite it still being a hypothesis, Abiogenesis is a “working hypothesis”.

A working hypothesis is one where there have been some discoveries of evidence or some successful experimental tests that have verified some of Abiogenesis’ premises and predictions.

Such as inorganic molecules can produce biological molecules or compounds though chemical reactions, eg amino acids, adenine (one of 4 nucleobases in DNA), various types of carbohydrates, hydrocarbon, etc, or finding organic matters in meteorite (eg the Murchison Meteorite).

These evidence in Abiogenesis, is what make a falsifiable hypothesis. While Abiogenesis isn’t a scientific theory, it has the potential of being one, if biochemists discover more evidence.

Spontaneous generation, however, has never been falsifiable, hence it was never a scientific theory, and don’t even qualify as being a “hypothesis”.

Just a FYI. You are correct that spontaneous generation was never refuted. Only one claim of it was shown to be wrong, and that under rather limited conditions. And of course it was not a theory because as you said, the ones backing it never came up with a proper test.

Louis Pasteur, you may have heard of him, did not believe it either. So he came up with his own test. Since what was thought to be simple life at that time (it wasn't simple, even bacteria have billions of years of evolutionary history) were thought to arise spontaneously under certain conditions. So Louis took a glass container of nutrient rich broth. A substance that should have at least brought forth bacteria and molds. He then heated it to boiling and sealed it. And then they waited. And waited some more. And waited a while longer yet. Eventually it was agreed that spontaneous generation was highly unlikely and that they were merely seeing already existing life from some other source.

Pasteur did not disprove spontaneous generation, but he did show that modern life does not arise in an environment that would be ideal for it.

 

[cladking]

No where in the BB theory does it say or propose that the universe came into existence from “nothing”.

Lol.

Well, I'm a little guilty of tilting at this strawman myself. But it's only because the theory is so ludicrous. It holds that the universe and everything emerged from a point that was smaller than we can measure and that if we could see back in time just a little further it would be even smaller. For all intents and purposes the universe somehow fit in a space so small it is theoretical. And then when we look at the metaphysics that generated such nonsense we see that a point isn't even a dimension at all and the "smallest" dimension is a line.

Obviously the big bang was generated by our axioms and mathematics or God mustta squeezed everything into a point so small that it had no dimensions at all. Of course with entire universes popping out of "nothing at all" is a tiny step to every point in space popping out new universes from nothing at all and living in a world where there are an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids and all built with ramps.

Maybe God is just making fun of us and no one gets it. We all see what we believe and now we've created a multiverse with an infinite growth rate where what we believe holds everywhere.

What we believe is and always has been nonsense but we still can only see reality in terms of said beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol.

Well, I'm a little guilty of tilting at this strawman myself. But it's only because the theory is so ludicrous. It holds that the universe and everything emerged from a point that was smaller than we can measure and that if we could see back in time just a little further it would be even smaller. For all intents and purposes the universe somehow fit in a space so small it is theoretical. And then when we look at the metaphysics that generated such nonsense we see that a point isn't even a dimension at all and the "smallest" dimension is a line.

Obviously the big bang was generated by our axioms and mathematics or God mustta squeezed everything into a point so small that it had no dimensions at all. Of course with entire universes popping out of "nothing at all" is a tiny step to every point in space popping out new universes from nothing at all and living in a world where there are an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids and all built with ramps.

Maybe God is just making fun of us and no one gets it. We all see what we believe and now we've created a multiverse with an infinite growth rate where what we believe holds everywhere.

What we believe is and always has been nonsense but we still can only see reality in terms of said beliefs.

It does not even say that. The ability of physicists to apply currently known science ends at the singularity. The singularity did not have to be just a point. This might get you up to speed. It is only five minutes long:

 

[cladking]

It does not even say that. The ability of physicists to apply currently known science ends at the singularity. The singularity did not have to be just a point.

Oddly enough I know you're right but you should tell the people who write the dictionaries;

": a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole"

To have infinite density there must be no dimensions regardless of the fact you can't divide by "0" anyway.

There is no reason to believe the universe was just another black hole. Just because black holes are the closest thing we can observe to the parameters of the early universe shouldn't mean it was wasn't very much different than the black holes we observe.

This extrapolation and interpolation is rampant in science and it generates poor hypotheses and even poor theory (like the ToE).

 

[cladking]

It does not even say that. The ability of physicists to apply currently known science ends at the singularity. The singularity did not have to be just a point. This might get you up to speed. It is only five minutes long:

I guess you missed the first sentence of my post; "Well, I'm a little guilty of tilting at this strawman myself.".

I do not understand why you do this. Why do you not respond to what people actually say?

 

[gnostic]

Obviously the big bang was generated by our axioms and mathematics or God mustta squeezed everything into a point so small that it had no dimensions at all

Does it make you proud to make up strawman for you to attack? Does it make you feel good to boost your inflated ego, to take out of context what other people say??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oddly enough I know you're right but you should tell the people who write the dictionaries;

": a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole"

To have infinite density there must be no dimensions regardless of the fact you can't divide by "0" anyway.

There is no reason to believe the universe was just another black hole. Just because black holes are the closest thing we can observe to the parameters of the early universe shouldn't mean it was wasn't very much different than the black holes we observe.

This extrapolation and interpolation is rampant in science and it generates poor hypotheses and even poor theory (like the ToE).

A dictionary!? Are you serious?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you missed the first sentence of my post; "Well, I'm a little guilty of tilting at this strawman myself.".

I do not understand why you do this. Why do you not respond to what people actually say?

You forgot the rest of your post. I did respond to what you said.

 

[gnostic]

Lol.

Well, I'm a little guilty of tilting at this strawman myself. But it's only because the theory is so ludicrous. It holds that the universe and everything emerged from a point that was smaller than we can measure and that if we could see back in time just a little further it would be even smaller. For all intents and purposes the universe somehow fit in a space so small it is theoretical. And then when we look at the metaphysics that generated such nonsense we see that a point isn't even a dimension at all and the "smallest" dimension is a line.

Obviously the big bang was generated by our axioms and mathematics or God mustta squeezed everything into a point so small that it had no dimensions at all. Of course with entire universes popping out of "nothing at all" is a tiny step to every point in space popping out new universes from nothing at all and living in a world where there are an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids and all built with ramps.

Maybe God is just making fun of us and no one gets it. We all see what we believe and now we've created a multiverse with an infinite growth rate where what we believe holds everywhere.

What we believe is and always has been nonsense but we still can only see reality in terms of said beliefs.

Good grief.

You simply can’t help yourself?

When on the subject of evolutionary biology, you bring up pyramids and ramps, which have nothing to do with biology.

And then you interrupt me and LIIA, on the subject of the Big Bang, and you are blaming the Big Bang theory for pyramids and ramps.

You got this sick fixation with these bloody ramps and pyramids.

Can you focus on the subject o the conversation without bringing up Egyptology and Egyptologists AND THOSE BLOODY RAMPS?!

It’s RAMP this, RAMP that!

Or Egyptologists this or Egyptologists that!

Why doesn’t every blood threads you post, that you have this uncontrollable compulsions with everything bloody Egypt?



Please don’t reply to me, if you are going to bring up Egypt, pyramids, ramps and Egyptologists, again. As you can see I fed up with these irrelevant beliefs of yours.

Try start a new thread elsewhere on “Egypt” or “pyramids”, so I can avoid this thread of yours.