New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[exchemist]

OK. I went off half cocked. This is all I was saying. The big bang is mostly just mathematics and the result of interpretations.

No. The Big Bang is based on observational evidence, notably (a ) the CMBR, which is hard to account for any other way, and (b ) the observed expansion of the universe, i.e. the cosmological redshift.

What is conjecture is all this stuff about the universe originating from a singularity. As far as I know, nobody haas come up with any prediction of something we should be able to observe that would corroborate this idea. It just looks like an elegant explanation.

 

[ecco]

Look and See Science.

As long as Peers can't see angels or the hand of God then you can sleep easy knowing all the answers through google and wiki.

Your comments are getting more and more ridiculous and unresponsive.

You have mastered the art of making nonsense posts and then ducking and dodging when asked to support them.

 

[dad]

Wrong dad, you missed the point. If your claims about your God were true one should be able to find reliable evidence that supports that claim..

My own tests in life came out positive as did billions of others. Do you deny Jesus was God? Do you deny He had followers who knew Him and recorded His words?

 

[dad]

No. You have stories written by relatively ignorant humans. Stories that were based on the stories of other religions in the area.

You neither know the actual basis nor that the wise men of old were ignorant. Your religion just like to repeat old wives tales and slander all that is good.

Normally they are invisible? Apparently? You asserted that they were invisible. Did you suddenly read more stuff that convinced you to change your mind? Good Golly! You're supposed to know this stuff.

Far as I know angels generally are invisible unless God wants them to make themselves known/seen. Not sure why you, who deny all thing spiritual, would care either way.

You also ignored that Daniel was probably hallucinating from lack of food. Why can't you address the questions and comments that are directed to you?

Foolishness. We have no idea what sort of fast he was on. Nor that he was not of very sound mind. You thought God only spoke to people out of their gourds?? How insulting.

 

[dad]

I doubt many two-year-olds are taught to kneel down and say prayers to dinosaurs.

Strawman. They are taught evolution.


Example:

Bringing Evolution to the Masses: Disney’s Fantasia as History of Biology — Extinct

On the other hand, by the time the average child is five years old, he/she has been subjected to hundreds and hundreds of hours of introduction to and reinforcement of religious beliefs.

See link above. Most kids in the world are not Christian, guess whose religious drivel they are taught about creation?

Brains get wired very early. I'll bet you speak with the regional accent that was prevalent in the area of your childhood.

That is why forces of darkness sought desperately to make evolution and other evil things mandatory. Hooligans of the dark side.

We've seen people from all different backgrounds kill and die for God and Country (always in that order). We've never seen people kill and die for science or evolution.

Never a one with bible support. Killers tend to try to put some phony face on to justify it.

 

[cladking]

You can't just redefine words at will, you know. Proof has a meaning, and that is just not it.

I don't play word games.

Consult a dictionary!

 

[cladking]

No. The Big Bang is based on observational evidence, notably (a ) the CMBR, which is hard to account for any other way, and (b ) the observed expansion of the universe, i.e. the cosmological redshift.

What is conjecture is all this stuff about the universe originating from a singularity. As far as I know, nobody haas come up with any prediction of something we should be able to observe that would corroborate this idea. It just looks like an elegant explanation.

I'm sure I don't know but I don't see how an acceleration can be reconciled here. If it can then why was it not predicted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My own tests in life came out positive as did billions of others. Do you deny Jesus was God? Do you deny He had followers who knew Him and recorded His words?

And that is far from reliable evidence. By your standards Hinduism and Islam are just as real as Christianity, they have the same evidence that you do. Since you do not understand the concept of evidence would you like to learn?

And no, I do not believe that Jesus was God. And none of the writings on Jesus in the Bible are eyewitness accounts. The earliest was written over a generation after he died. Oral tradition is not terribly reliable.

 

[dad]

And that is far from reliable evidence. By your standards Hinduism and Islam are just as real as Christianity, they have the same evidence that you do.

And no, I do not believe that Jesus was God. And none of the writings on Jesus in the Bible are eyewitness accounts. The earliest was written over a generation after he died. Oral tradition is not terribly reliable.

There are other spirits beside God and His good angels and His Spirit. We are told to not believe every spirit. So yes there are things with spiritual roots or causes in many religions. (including demonic possession)
Whatever spirits influencing you (whether you know it or not doesn't matter at all) are not of God since you do not confess Jesus is God if we are to believe the bible.
As for people like John who records in the first person experiences with Jesus, there is no need for records to be old. All that is required is that at some time these records were compiled into a book. The book may not date from the life of Jesus, but the records and people who wrote them do!

 

[exchemist]

I'm sure I don't know but I don't see how an acceleration can be reconciled here. If it can then why was it not predicted?

That's another matter. Universal expansion suggests a small, dense and hot (because the same energy is confined in a smaller volume) early universe, simply by extrapolating the motion back in time. Whether the expansion is speeding up or slowing down or remaining constant does not alter that.

Something that I am perfectly sure has been explained to you many times is that, just as scientific theories are never proved, they are nearly always incomplete. If they were complete, there would be no more science to do.

 

[ecco]

You neither know the actual basis nor that the wise men of old were ignorant. Your religion just like to repeat old wives tales and slander all that is good.

One thing I've noticed is that you are unable to come up with any good responses. Instead, you just essentially repeat back my arguments.

I said "You have stories written by relatively ignorant humans. Stories that were based on the stories of other religions in the area". You just turn that around and come back with "Your religion just like to repeat old wives tales and slander all that is good."

You're like a six-year-old child whose older brother has just said: "You're a poopy-head". Your only response is "No, you're the poopy head."

As you keep doing this, I will be there to point it out to you.

 

[ecco]

Do you deny Jesus was God? Do you deny He had followers who knew Him and recorded His words?

You still believe the fantasy that MML&J were actually there.
You still believe the fantasy that Matthew could have accurately recorded the over 2000 words of the Sermon on the Mount.
Oh, well.

Foolishness. We have no idea what sort of fast he was on. Nor that he was not of very sound mind. You thought God only spoke to people out of their gourds?? How insulting.

OK, I'll go along with your logic. Daniel was insane as well as starving when he saw the angel. That makes sense. Lotsa insane people hear voices all the time. That's why we confine them.

Far as I know angels generally are invisible unless God wants them to make themselves known/seen. Not sure why you, who deny all thing spiritual, would care either way.

I care only to the extent that you and your comments are more entertaining than reading Mighty Mouse comics.

When a person sees an angel, did God make that angel visible to that person only, or to other people nearby as well?

 

[ecco]

Strawman. They are taught evolution.


Example:

Bringing Evolution to the Masses: Disney’s Fantasia as History of Biology — Extinct

Fantasia?!? I saw Fantasia as a child. About all I remember is Mickey on a broom sweeping water away and some kind of big flying things chasing him.

I'm not surprised that you would consider that to be a lesson in evolution.

More important, did you read the article you linked? Of course you didn't.

But not all educational topics are created equal. “Scientific accuracy” in educational materials frequently had to square off against the intense scrutiny of censorship boards, which were all too keen to shield young eyes from topics such as sexual education or, equally dangerously, evolutionary theory ​

See link above. Most kids in the world are not Christian, guess whose religious drivel they are taught about creation?

They are taught religious drivel by the same people that taught you religious drivel - parents, aunts and uncles, older cousins and siblings. The same hierarchy that has been pushing religious drivel on children born all over the world. That's why we have Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and Shiites in Iran and Hindus in India and Southern Baptists in Georgia and LDS in Utah and Catholics in Rome and Ireland and Boston.

That is why forces of darkness sought desperately to make evolution and other evil things mandatory. Hooligans of the dark side.

"Hooligans"? Just how old are you?

 

[ecco]

I don't play word games.

Sure you do. Need I publicly remind you of our conversation about the word "belief"?

 

[cladking]

That's another matter. Universal expansion suggests a small, dense and hot (because the same energy is confined in a smaller volume) early universe, simply by extrapolating the motion back in time. Whether the expansion is speeding up or slowing down or remaining constant does not alter that.

Again, I don't know how the acceleration can be reconciled. You say it's irrelevant but most people were either in the camp that the slowing wasn't fast enough to cause the big crunch or it was. Instead of a big bang I guess the universe is being sucked out of nothing.

Everything we know is held by each individual as a model. Yet nobody's model predicted that a "big crunch" would have to occur everywhere in "space" at infinite distance.

Funny how when models explode (or implode) there never seems to be any debris any longer.

Something that I am perfectly sure has been explained to you many times is that, just as scientific theories are never proved, they are nearly always incomplete. If they were complete, there would be no more science to do.

I never really believed we'd be able to model or understand reality. It's everyone else who has all the answers and even know exactly what the words "proof", believe" and "model" mean.

 

[exchemist]

Again, I don't know how the acceleration can be reconciled. You say it's irrelevant but most people were either in the camp that the slowing wasn't fast enough to cause the big crunch or it was. Instead of a big bang I guess the universe is being sucked out of nothing.

Everything we know is held by each individual as a model. Yet nobody's model predicted that a "big crunch" would have to occur everywhere in "space" at infinite distance.

Funny how when models explode (or implode) there never seems to be any debris any longer.


I never really believed we'd be able to model or understand reality. It's everyone else who has all the answers and even know exactly what the words "proof", believe" and "model" mean.

And now you are introducing yet another conjecture that is not part of the Big Bang model either.

Is this your technique: to criticise a theory by attacking conjectures that are not part of it? Who do you think that fools?

 

[cladking]

And now you are introducing yet another conjecture that is not part of the Big Bang model either.

What exactly "conjecture" do you believe I am introducing?

To anticipate your answer I DON'T BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE WAS SUCKED INTO EXISTENCE. I'm merely trying to save the big bang model.

I don't even really believe in the "Big Bang" since no experiment has proven it. I understand that this hypothesis explains a lot of observation and math but IMO a better explanation will eventually arise. Maybe when we understand the nature of time, gravity, and the elemental forces it will become obvious why it looks like everything emerged from a point. Personally I believe a lot of the reason has to do with the nature of mathematics and definitions. I DON'T KNOW but it usually seems I'm the only one who doesn't. People are seeing reality in terms of their beliefs rather than in terms of knowledge and metaphysics. This is the nature of Homo Omnisciencis and most people can't see it. We are a species that assumes the conclusion. All other species operate on their limited knowledge and we operate in terms of our beliefs. Everything we see and do reflects everything we believe.

So we have two camps; God is disproven and science is proven/ God is established and science is not. Within each camp everyone disagrees about specifics. Nobody can predict the future and very few are disturbed when new evidence is contrary to their beliefs. People argue word meanings instead of facts and logic.

 

[exchemist]

What exactly "conjecture" do you believe I am introducing?

To anticipate your answer I DON'T BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE WAS SUCKED INTO EXISTENCE. I'm merely trying to save the big bang model.

I don't even really believe in the "Big Bang" since no experiment has proven it. I understand that this hypothesis explains a lot of observation and math but IMO a better explanation will eventually arise. Maybe when we understand the nature of time, gravity, and the elemental forces it will become obvious why it looks like everything emerged from a point. Personally I believe a lot of the reason has to do with the nature of mathematics and definitions. I DON'T KNOW but it usually seems I'm the only one who doesn't. People are seeing reality in terms of their beliefs rather than in terms of knowledge and metaphysics. This is the nature of Homo Omnisciencis and most people can't see it. We are a species that assumes the conclusion. All other species operate on their limited knowledge and we operate in terms of our beliefs. Everything we see and do reflects everything we believe.

So we have two camps; God is disproven and science is proven/ God is established and science is not. Within each camp everyone disagrees about specifics. Nobody can predict the future and very few are disturbed when new evidence is contrary to their beliefs. People argue word meanings instead of facts and logic.

The conjecture of the "big crunch".

 

[cladking]

The conjecture of the "big crunch".

It's not MY BELIEF.

This was a question back in the day I was studying physics in the '60's. I didn't believe in the big bang/ big crunch then nor do I now.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

It's not MY BELIEF.

This was a question back in the day I was studying physics in the '60's. I didn't believe in the big bang/ big crunch then nor do I now.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia

You seem to have forgotten what this is about (possibly because you are an even older man than I am.)

Look, you have been trying to pick holes in the Big Bang theory by complaining about things that are NOT PART of the theory.

First, you tried to ridicule the idea of the universe starting from a singularity. I pointed out this is NOT PART of the Big Bang theory, but a separate conjecture.

Then what do you do? You start complaining about the big crunch conjecture, which is NOT PART of the Big Bang theory either.

As for what your "belief" may or may not be, about any of these conjectures, that is even less relevant than the conjectures themselves.

None of this has ANY bearing on whether or not the Big Bang theory is a good scientific model.