Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 16:09:57 GMT
That wasn't what was claimed, by a 'scientist', no less The universe was extremely empty just after the big bang.Science speak strives to be pedantic, exact, pragmatic, accurate. Her claim is none of those.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 26, 2018 16:17:17 GMT
I am pretty sure Cody is a true Rangers fan No, I wouldn’t waste my time on Scottish football. Yes, but you tick all the boxes that is used to recognize a true Rangers fan.
1. Not Catholic - Tick 2. Protestant or close to Protestant - Tick 3. Anti-Irish - Tick
4. Homophobic - Tick 5. Fanatic - Tick.
So, yes, you are a true Rangers fan, Cody.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 16:42:31 GMT
No, I wouldn’t waste my time on Scottish football. Yes, but you tick all the boxes that is used to recognize a true Rangers fan.
1. Not Catholic - Tick 2. Protestant or close to Protestant - Tick 3. Anti-Irish - Tick
4. Homophobic - Tick 5. Fanatic - Tick.
So, yes, you are a true Rangers fan, Cody.
1. Not Catholic - My background is actually Catholic. 2. Protestant or close to Protestant - Non-denominational. 3. Anti-Irish - Some of my good friends are Irish. Nothing against the Irish people. 4. Homophobic - I do not hate gay people. 5. Fanatic - nah. Passionate about my faith. So, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Stay away from Father Jack. The little fella is bad news.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 16:51:31 GMT
That wasn't what was claimed, by a 'scientist', no less The universe was extremely empty just after the big bang.Science speak strives to be pedantic, exact, pragmatic, accurate. Her claim is none of those. Are you fuqin with me?!! That is exactly what she claimed you imbecile. Keep reading... “There was no matter, only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.” Notice she doesn’t say completely empty but “extremely empty”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 17:01:06 GMT
That wasn't what was claimed, by a 'scientist', no less The universe was extremely empty just after the big bang.Science speak strives to be pedantic, exact, pragmatic, accurate. Her claim is none of those. Are you fuqin with me?!! That is exactly what she claimed you imbecile. Keep reading... “There was no matter, only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.” Notice she doesn’t say completely empty but “extremely empty”. But it wasn't 'extremely empty' just after the Big Bang. You can't have your own definitions. Space (i.e. empty space) only existed after the condensation of matter... there was nothing 'empty' before matter existed. This is layman understanding of quantum origins. Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. She's wrong, and I'd bet my house she knows it. Read a fuckin' science book in lieu of trying to stuff science into a belief system.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:23:46 GMT
Are you fuqin with me?!! That is exactly what she claimed you imbecile. Keep reading... “There was no matter, only the energy of quantum fluctuations existed.” Notice she doesn’t say completely empty but “extremely empty”. But it wasn't 'extremely empty' just after the Big Bang. You can't have your own definitions. Space (i.e. empty space) only existed after the condensation of matter... there was nothing 'empty' before matter existed. This is layman understanding of quantum origins. Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. She's wrong, and I'd bet my house she knows it. Read a fuckin' science book in lieu of trying to stuff science into a belief system. It was extremely empty of actual matter. That was clearly the point she was making. You’re simply just desperate to undermine and discredit that article any which way you can. You seem a very petty person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 17:25:09 GMT
But it wasn't 'extremely empty' just after the Big Bang. You can't have your own definitions. Space (i.e. empty space) only existed after the condensation of matter... there was nothing 'empty' before matter existed. This is layman understanding of quantum origins. Inflation and baryogenesis
Main articles: Cosmic inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. She's wrong, and I'd bet my house she knows it. Read a fuckin' science book in lieu of trying to stuff science into a belief system. It was extremely empty of actual matter. That was clearly the point she was making. Then why didn't she 'clearly' state that 'point' originally? You know why... I know why... she knows why. Her statements do that on their own... I don't have to do anything. Sure, for if I state the E must go before the =MC2, that Avogadro's number must =±0.00000018×10 to 23rd, or a kilogram must be exactly 1000 grams, I'm being 'petty'
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:37:58 GMT
It was extremely empty of actual matter. That was clearly the point she was making. Then why didn't she 'clearly' state that 'point' originally? You know why... I know why... she knows why. If I say my new house was extremely empty just after I moved in, there was no furniture, only dust and used dry paint. How would you understand that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 17:42:07 GMT
Then why didn't she 'clearly' state that 'point' originally? You know why... I know why... she knows why. If I say my new house was extremely empty just after I moved in, there was no furniture, only dust and used dry paint. ^^^ conflating scientific explanation and colloquialism ^^^Your OP- backed by modern science.
Keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:43:17 GMT
If I say my new house was extremely empty just after I moved in, there was no furniture, only dust and used dry paint. ^^^ conflating scientific explanation and colloquialism ^^^Your OP- backed by modern science.
Keep trying. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Nov 26, 2018 17:44:12 GMT
So the universe was pretty much empty until God bought a sofa, some IKEA furniture, and hung some sheets up as drapes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 17:46:56 GMT
^^^ conflating scientific explanation and colloquialism ^^^Your OP- backed by modern science.
Keep trying. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:49:45 GMT
So the universe was pretty much empty until God bought a sofa, some IKEA furniture, and hung some sheets up as drapes. Yes. MATTER in other words.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:52:06 GMT
Well you did fail to answer my question. Dude, the universe was empty of matter, until matter was created. Quit being an obtuse douche.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 17:55:28 GMT
Dude, the universe was empty of matter, until matter was created. Quit being an obtuse douche. But it wasn't extremely empty. Words have meaning. Clearly I'm playing chess with a pigeon... you don't know dick about science.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 26, 2018 17:59:57 GMT
Dude, the universe was empty of matter, until matter was created. Quit being an obtuse douche. But it wasn't extremely empty. Words have meaning. Clearly I'm playing chess with a pigeon... you don't know dick about science. Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. Clearly I’m playing poker against a fish. You don’t know nish about common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 18:07:52 GMT
But it wasn't extremely empty. Words have meaning. Clearly I'm playing chess with a pigeon... you don't know dick about science. Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. Sure, and you can make up your own 'interpretation' of what a kilogram, Avogadro's Number, and Planck's Constant are... it'll only make your equation incorrect, again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 20:58:19 GMT
But it wasn't extremely empty. Words have meaning. Clearly I'm playing chess with a pigeon... you don't know dick about science. Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. And that's always how the "science in my holy book" game is played. First, you say the holy book says <insert scientific fact X>. Then somebody points out that it does not in fact say that. Then you claim that of course it doesn't literally say those exact words, but it so obviously means that. This makes your initial claim into nonsense, but of course that must never be admitted under any circumstances. Notice that these 'obvious' interpretations always come after the fact. Nobody ever reads the bible and makes a detailed scientific prediction that is then proved by experiment to be correct. Instead it's always an effort to retrofit vague statements to fit the facts that science discovered without biblical help.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 26, 2018 22:30:26 GMT
Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. And that's always how the "science in my holy book" game is played. First, you say the holy book says <insert scientific fact X>. Then somebody points out that it does not in fact say that. Then you claim that of course it doesn't literally say those exact words, but it so obviously means that. This makes your initial claim into nonsense, but of course that must never be admitted under any circumstances. Notice that these 'obvious' interpretations always come after the fact. Nobody ever reads the bible and makes a detailed scientific prediction that is then proved by experiment to be correct. Instead it's always an effort to retrofit vague statements to fit the facts that science discovered without biblical help. So true. In fact, the article linked in the OP is a textbook case for these tactics. It was an entertaining read, for it provided a good example how Christian apologists can twist facts and present them in a way that is supposed to show that Christianity is true. Luckily for secular truth, not everybody is mathematically impaired, and it's easy to expose the lies of Christianity. I'll post the article after the 26 points, which the OP has conveniently omitted. First, it is important to note that no statement in Genesis 1 that could be related to science has been deliberately left out of the list. Only the references to the six days in which these things occurred have been left out, because this is the subject of another essay. Next, it is important to understand that each of these statements is, as indicated above, entirely compatible with our current understanding of the origins and development of the universe. And, lastly, the steps in the development of our universe as listed in Genesis are in the correct scientific order. First lie: "no statement in Genesis 1 that could be related to science has been deliberately left out of the list." In fact, if you read the chapters and check them with the Bible, you notice that all verses that mess up the chronological order have been deliberately omitted. Like the fact that in Genesis, the two "big lights" and the stars were "created" after Earth. Astronomically, this is nonsense. The stars are older than the Sun, which is older than Earth; and the Moon is about as old as the Earth. Second lie, at least an admitted one: The six days. 13.8 billion years are not six days. Unless used metaphorically, which brings us to the...
...third lie: "it is important to understand that each of these statements is, as indicated above, entirely compatible with our current understanding of the origins and development of the universe." It is only if you use definitions of words that don't mean what they are supposed to mean. Like "Water". And finally, the last lie in that short paragraph: "the steps in the development of our universe as listed in Genesis are in the correct scientific order." The 26 steps left on the list may be; but since she left out a few inconvenient steps (see first lie), this does not mean much. In fact it's a follow-up lie to the first lie. Another thing: The order of "creation" is: Elements, inanimate objects, plants, animals, humans. This is more or less in line with what most creation myths made up. Even in Biblical times. The writers of the Bible didn't invent everything. If we group the 26 points into these categories and sort them, then the odds for getting the right order of these cherry-picked 26 points is not so low anymore. Definitely not 1/26! Bottom line: Apologists may try to use scientific language to sell their message (and if they are real scientists, they may be good at it); but it is still possible to see through their lies.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 26, 2018 22:32:32 GMT
But it wasn't extremely empty. Words have meaning. Clearly I'm playing chess with a pigeon... you don't know dick about science. Words and phrases can also be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. Clearly I’m playing poker against a fish. You don’t know nish about common sense. Is there a special school to be as stupid as you are, or are you a natural talent?
|
|