LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

[AV1611VET]

So you're saying that colliding particles together in the past didn't result in superhot plasma?

What particles collided in the past to form superhot plasma?

 

[Cabal]

So you're saying that colliding particles together in the past didn't result in superhot plasma?

So by that logic gravity never used to exist either and just because we drop a pencil now doesn't mean the pencil will fall to the ground the next time we drop it just because every single time a pencil has been dropped on the Earth in recorded history it has fallen to the ground as a result of gravity. What an enchanted world you live in.

You can't just take the laws of physics and go "meh... doesn't mean it always has worked like that... the laws of physics aren't constant". Either show me some evidence to demonstrate that that stance has even the remotest chance of holding true or hush until you've got something concrete.

Not to mention how awfully closely the universe does resemble a place where the laws have held constant all the time - wonder what the odds of that are in a universe where the laws of nature are subject to the vagaries of God's whim, I mean, a creationist's whim....

And they say we're chasing a 747 in a junkyard...

 

[PhoceanCity]

You mean like this? I facepalmed after reading three words of the abstract. It does not get any better!

From Dr Andrew Snelling article
«It is thus envisaged that this cataclysmic rate of formation of these rocks during an episode of accelerated radioisotope decay accounts for their apparent long history when wrongly viewed in the context of today’s slow process rates.»

This sadly reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer tries to fit two puzzle pieces together by smashing them with a hammer. This so-called scientist tries to fit the data with his biased version of geological history, no matter what method he must use to make the pieces fit, it's wrong on so many levels.

Sorry for the interruption, now back on the thread

 

[William_0]

From Dr Andrew Snelling article
«It is thus envisaged that this cataclysmic rate of formation of these rocks during an episode of accelerated radioisotope decay accounts for their apparent long history when wrongly viewed in the context of today’s slow process rates.»

This sadly reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer tries to fit two puzzle pieces together by smashing them with a hammer. This so-called scientist tries to fit the data with his biased version of geological history, no matter what method he must use to make the pieces fit, it's wrong on so many levels.

Sorry for the interruption, now back on the thread

Haha, this Snelling guy's argument has so many holes. It seems that anyone can throw together charts, and use big words and pass it off as academic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Baloney.

Salami!

 

[William_0]

Salami!

Ham?

 

[Cabal]

Ham?

SPAAAAAAM

 

[Delphiki]

.... spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam...

 

[PhoceanCity]

Weiners

... sure you saw that one coming

 

[Cabal]

Weiners

... sure you saw that one coming

Ok, let's get esoteric with this thing.

Kabanosy!

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it be too much to ask you 'highly-educated' academicians to shut your cupboard doors and answer Dove's point?

 

[William_0]

Would it be too much to ask you 'highly-educated' academicians to shut your cupboard doors and answer Dove's point?

Sorry friend, we seem to have lost interest in the topic.

 

[PhoceanCity]

Would it be too much to ask you 'highly-educated' academicians to shut your cupboard doors and answer Dove's point?

A point? What point?
He expressed disbelief about something he don't even understand and that's, guess what... Schorizzo!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Would it be too much to ask you 'highly-educated' academicians to shut your cupboard doors and answer Dove's point?

Why? His point is as inane as it was rude. I chose to ignore it.

 

[ug333]

Baloney.

No human being has ever known what the early universe was like. The Big Bang is just a model, and a flawed model no doubt, it's not reality. Speculate all you want but stop trying to fool the public.

Ahh, the word "known", one of my favorites. Nobody knows anything to a 0% chance of error ..... ever, so forget absolute knowledge. Knowledge is basically ideas that have past enough tests of truthfulness that we stop testing them. That line depends on the individual, but we all have that line.

I personally try to keep that line consistent across all theories, even those which I have personal bias (although I know I fail, it's a goal). I have a relatively strict line for "knowing" something, and I would say that we know the big bang theory is a relatively accurate theory.

 

[William_0]

Ahh, the word "known", one of my favorites. Nobody knows anything to a 0% chance of error ..... ever, so forget absolute knowledge. Knowledge is basically ideas that have past enough tests of truthfulness that we stop testing them. That line depends on the individual, but we all have that line.

I personally try to keep that line consistent across all theories, even those which I have personal bias (although I know I fail, it's a goal). I have a relatively strict line for "knowing" something, and I would say that we know the big bang theory is a relatively accurate theory.

Yeah, and evidence for the big bang is exponentially more-common than any of this creationist stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, and evidence for the big bang is exponentially more-common than any of this creationist stuff.

Like what stuff, William?

Show me some evidence of creatio ex nihilo, please.

 

[William_0]

Like what stuff, William?

Show me some evidence of creatio ex nihilo, please.

Before Big Bang: Light Shed on "Previous Universe"

Nothing can be created from nothing. And the big bang wasn't "nothing." It was a singularity, an infinitely dense point of matter. All of the science is there, and the impending LHC experiments are aiming demonstrate the mechanisms behind such a cataclysmic event. Your misdirected request is impossible to fulfill.

Meanwhile, contrary to any sense of scientific competence, creationists solely depend on a quasi-historical piece of literature to explain that which can only be explained through experiment and reasoning. God didn't just clap his hands and instantly zap the earth into existence. Sixteen billion years and counting to get to the point where we got today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing can be created from nothing.

You're right -- a whole universe was created from nothing.

God didn't just clap his hands and instantly zap the earth into existence.

Again, you're right -- He spoke it into existence.

(Note: this is 2 rights, and according to one poster's tagline [whose name escapes me] ... 2 rights make 1 wrong. Don't believe it.)

 

[William_0]

You're right -- a whole universe was created from nothing.

Again, you're right -- He spoke it into existence.

(Note: this is 2 rights, and according to one poster's tagline [whose name escapes me] ... 2 rights make 1 wrong. Don't believe it.)

It's obvious what you're trying to do here. You're trying to impose strict biblical creationism on an argument in which it has no place. The two are completely incompatible. You're just a troll. "Science can take a hike." The intent of the thread was to talk in terms of logic, not your anti-science fanaticism. And by taking a rigid, non-scientific stance, it's clear that you're just trying to get a rise out of people, whether you realize it or not.

AND

"Science can take a hike"

Logic is scientific > you discount science > you are illogical > your argument holds no weight

I fed the troll, now hopefully it goes back to its cave.