The universe at the end of this sentence.

[Selmak]

What is your view of this:

His opinion. I fail to see the arrogance.

Have you ever met a windmill you didn't tilt at?

^^OK, that was arrogant. But it's on me, not him.

 

[Doveaman]

What gets me, is that you asked a question, and several others here took it seriously and answered it seriously, and you and the other internet creationists have responded by mocking them.

But I was serious.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm sure you'd never mock anyone. Oh wait...



Boy, that was hard to find! I had to search all the way back to the post you made immediately before this one.

I never claimed that I never mocked anyone. This is what I wrote: "When have I ever mocked someone who answered a question I asked seriously?"

You people cannot respond without twisting someone's words around, can you? Typical creationist.

 

[Doveaman]

What is interesting to me is to find that while so many creationists here know the bible, few seem to understand the bible.

This sounds really funny coming from an agnostic. Nice joke. I get it.

 

[Doveaman]

I never claimed that I never mocked anyone. This is what I wrote: "When have I ever mocked someone who answered a question I asked seriously?"

Often when you view the answer as silly when it was meant to be serious.

"God did it" is a serious answer to many questions, but is often mocked.

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't think many creationists will appreciate the posts already made by Gracchus and Hasone, unfortunately.

This post puts it into terms a middle schooler could understand. If you guys don't get it after this, you never will.

Imagine the number line.
...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

It stretches off in both directions forever. You can never reach the "edge" of the number line. Count to a mind bogglingly high number and you can always count 1 more. The universe is like that. You can always keep going further.

Now, multiply every number on the entire number line by 2 and what do you get?

...-10, -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10...

Now all of the numbers are twice as far apart from each other but the number line is still just as infinite as before.

The universe is expanding but there is no edge. It is not expanding from a single point and it's not expanding INTO anything. The "big bang" happened everywhere. Scientists don't know what happened before the expansionary period but there doesn't necessarily have to have been a primeval atom. In fact that concept doesn't really make much sense.

 

[Selmak]

I never claimed that I never mocked anyone. This is what I wrote: "When have I ever mocked someone who answered a question I asked seriously?"

Ah, so the only people you mock are those who answer other people's questions. Gotcha.

You people cannot respond without twisting someone's words around, can you? Typical creationist.

Oh my. Aren't you the insulting one.

 

[selfinflikted]

His opinion. I fail to see the arrogance.

AV has no (formal) education in the fields he trashes, yet is positive he has all the right answers. That's pretty much the definition of arrogance.

EDIT: In all honesty, I'm still not convinced AV isn't just putting us on. He could be the greatest troll ever (or the greatest creationist ever).

 

[Selmak]

AV has no (formal) education in the fields he trashes, yet is positive he has all the right answers. That's pretty much the definition of arrogance.

EDIT: In all honesty, I'm still not convinced AV isn't just putting us on. He could be the greatest troll ever (or the greatest creationist ever).

AV is no troll. You have science, he has the KJV. It is in no way arrogant for him to reference his source while you reference yours. You dismiss his source, he dismisses yours. Seems like the arrogance is mutual.

Why insult him when he's here to discuss? If you have to resort to insults and mischaracterizations then you've already lost the discussion.

 

[selfinflikted]

AV is no troll. You have science, he has the KJV. It is in no way arrogant for him to reference his source while you reference yours. You dismiss his source, he dismisses yours. Seems like the arrogance is mutual.

The key difference is, science has data and evidence. Creationism has neither.

Why insult him when he's here to discuss? If you have to resort to insults and mischaracterizations then you've already lost the discussion.

You obviously haven't read many of AV's posts. Half of what he comes up with isn't in the Bible at all.

EDIT: Ultimately, you're right though. Although, I think AV honestly gets his jollies from being insulted as he invites it with almost every single post.

 

[Split Rock]

Ah, so the only people you mock are those who answer other people's questions. Gotcha.



Oh my. Aren't you the insulting one.

Sure... keep playing Creationist word games and pretend you don't understand what I posted. Then tell me, I'm "the insulting one." Look in the mirror for once.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Am I to believe that if you converted all the mass in the universe to energy, that energy could be stored within the period at the end of a sentence?

I'm much more interested in the restaurant at the end of the universe.

 

[Selmak]

Sure... keep playing Creationist word games and pretend you don't understand what I posted. Then tell me, I'm "the insulting one." Look in the mirror for once.

Surely you can come up with a more snappy response than that!

I'd hate to think we simple Creationists were spinning circles around you.

What with our 'word games' and all.

 

[Selmak]

The key difference is, science has data and evidence. Creationism has neither.

Creationism has Faith. If you discount faith, then why are you in this discussion? Obviously our two positions are irreconcilable.

EDIT: Ultimately, you're right though.

True. I've never been wrong.

Although, I think AV honestly gets his jollies from being insulted as he invites it with almost every single post.

Perhaps. Maybe he wishes to expose how hypocritical Atheists are when they decry someone's perceived 'arrogance' whilst continually insulting them.

I have to admit, it is rather amusing. But the jokes not on AV.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think many creationists will appreciate the posts already made by Gracchus and Hasone, unfortunately.

This post puts it into terms a middle schooler could understand. If you guys don't get it after this, you never will.

Okay, I'll give it a second look:

So far as we can tell, the universe is infinite. It has ALWAYS been infinite. At some point everything was closer together but it was still infinite. How is that possible? I've brought this up before but here's how it was explained to me by a physicist:

Imagine the number line.
...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

It stretches off in both directions forever. You can never reach the "edge" of the number line. Count to a mind bogglingly high number and you can always count 1 more. The universe is like that. You can always keep going further.

Now, multiply every number on the entire number line by 2 and what do you get?

...-10, -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10...

Now all of the numbers are twice as far apart from each other but the number line is still just as infinite as before.

The universe is expanding but there is no edge. It is not expanding from a single point and it's not expanding INTO anything.

The problem with thus number expansion analogy is that it begins with zero (0). The last time I checked zero of anything meant nothing at all. In the analogy every number could be multiplied except the zero. This is because nothing cannot be multiplied.

So according to this number analogy: In the beginning nothing went bang. Which makes zero sense to me.

 

[selfinflikted]

Creationism has Faith. If you discount faith, then why are you in this discussion?

Because this is the Physical and Life Sciences forum in a thread about the properties of the universe. No faith needed.

Obviously our two positions are irreconcilable.

Hardly. There are many, many Christians who don't tell science to "take a hike."

True. I've never been wrong.

I'm sure.

Perhaps. Maybe he wishes to expose how hypocritical Atheists are when they decry someone's perceived 'arrogance' whilst continually insulting them.

No, I'm pretty sure his motives are far more simple than that.

I have to admit, it is rather amusing. But the jokes not on AV.

Of course it is, and has been for almost 2 million posts.

 

[selfinflikted]

So according to this number analogy: In the beginning nothing went bang. Which makes zero sense to me.

Not quite. Reread this post carefully, and you will see that using the number line analogy, "it" does not begin at zero. "0" is simply one point on the line.

 

[antde2001]

Though not the best explanation, I think my previous post was able to summarize the context of many answers here. It unfortunately was lost to much bickering so I'll repost it. Hopefully AV will read it this time and become more informed of what is being told to him.

"
I think you're missing the point of the explanation to your statement and consequential question. Could the universe fit into the physical space occupied by a period if its mass were converted to energy. Your question is not one of size or volume, but of relativity. Relative to the universe as we know it, the period is very small. Relative to a micro-organism, a period is quite large. If the universe were to be reduced to the size of a period, you and every other celestial being will also be reduced in size at a proportionate rate. That period would in-turn be the size of the universe and relative to you, it would be infinite in size. Any period you use afterwards would be significantly smaller than the period you were referring to before. An exclamation mark, however, may be impervious to such physics and remain larger than the universe."

 

[Selmak]

Because this is the Physical and Life Sciences forum in a thread about the properties of the universe. No faith needed.

At Christian forums. You know, where faith is kind of a 'thing'.

Hardly. There are many, many Christians who don't tell science to "take a hike."

Ah, so you're saying The Bible and modern science CAN be reconciled. Excellent!

No, I'm pretty sure his motives are far more simple than that.

Don't project. It's not seemly.

Of course it is, and has been for almost 2 million posts.

Then yuk it up, oh ye who have spent time answering some of those 2 million posts.

 

[AirPo]

Though not the best explanation, I think my previous post was able to summarize the context of many answers here. It unfortunately was lost to much bickering so I'll repost it. Hopefully AV will read it this time and become more informed of what is being told to him.

"
I think you're missing the point of the explanation to your statement and consequential question. Could the universe fit into the physical space occupied by a period if its mass were converted to energy. Your question is not one of size or volume, but of relativity. Relative to the universe as we know it, the period is very small. Relative to a micro-organism, a period is quite large. If the universe were to be reduced to the size of a period, you and every other celestial being will also be reduced in size at a proportionate rate. That period would in-turn be the size of the universe and relative to you, it would be infinite in size. Any period you use afterwards would be significantly smaller than the period you were referring to before. An exclamation mark, however, may be impervious to such physics and remain larger than the universe."

Reminds me of an episode of Spongebob!