The Age of the Universe

[Michael]

Where did you present evidence that the biblical claims are true?

http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_pool_of_siloam.html
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiah’s-tunnel-reexamined/

Demonstrating that parts of the bible have already been historically verified is *trivially* easy these days. Where have you been?

 

[Davian]

Any you whine

Let's take it easy on the personal jibes.

I hate to break it to you but the "God" that I believe exists is quite "visible' during the night and during the day, <snip yet another false dichotomy>

I believe that the cosmos exists as well, I just call it the cosmos, and see no indication that it gives a care about a thin film of biological activity on this rock we call Earth.

 

[Michael]

Let's take it easy on the personal jibes.

Sounds like a good idea.

I believe that the cosmos exists as well, I just call it the cosmos, and see no indication that it gives a care about a thin film of biological activity on this rock we call Earth.

Yet there you are defending a claim about the age of that cosmos that requires the existence of four supernatural processes/items that are *entirely* invisible, and have never been empirically verified to occur on Earth. Why?

On the other than, I haven't ascribed anything to our cosmos that doesn't show up here on Earth, including the properly of awareness which shows up on Earth in a wide variety of different forms.

Not coincidentally, the current carrying structures of spacetime contain features that mimic almost identically various features in lifeforms on Earth which give rise to awareness on Earth.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

 

[Davian]

http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/firstcenturyjerusalem_pool_of_siloam.html
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/hezekiah’s-tunnel-reexamined/

Demonstrating that parts of the bible have already been historically verified is *trivially* easy these days. Where have you been?

The Spider-man fallacy:

"...archaeologists 1,000 years from now unearth a collection of Spiderman comics. From the background art, they can tell it takes place in New York City. NYC is an actual place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spiderman existed."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The+Spiderman+Fallacy

 

[Davian]

Yet there you are defending a claim

I have made no such defence, I have only pointed out where you have made misrepresentations. You are free to substantiate your version of events at any time.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

 

[bhsmte]

I have made no such defence, I have only pointed out where you have made misrepresentations. You are free to substantiate your version of events at any time.

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

It looks like a dude sliding into home plate.

Hey, maybe the Cubs won the world series on Mars.

 

[Davian]

...
Lot's of imagination, but sadly no Hawking Radiation, no Dark Matter, no Dark Energy, no Black Holes,

...no gods...

no Gravity Waves, waving - and still nothing detected. I'd say the only physical insight that has been gained is that they do not exist. Except of course in the imagination....

Indeed. Follow the evidence.

 

[Michael]

I have made no such defence, I have only pointed out where you have made misrepresentations. You are free to substantiate your version of events at any time.

I haven't made any misrepresentations, I've simply pointed out the facts. You have no empirical facts that support Hawking's version of events, just wishful thinking, most of which has been *falsified* by recent observations.

Look, it's a mermaid on Mars! Or is that Bigfoot?

It's fascinating to me how flippant you and other atheists are towards a purely *empirical* definition of God, a theory about the universe which actually enjoys *more empirical* support than what passes for 'science' today. Your belief that you can put an arbitrary age on this universe *requires supernatural agents galore*, and yet I don't hear you whining about Hawking's absurd claims. In fact you actually quoted his nonsense about a "net zero energy" universe which ignores the use of energy over time, chemical energy, and physics in general which insists that energy cannot either be created, nor destroyed. Hawking tried to *create* it!

 

[Michael]

Indeed. Follow the evidence.

If the mainstream actually followed the evidence instead of following their continuous pattern of confirmation bias, they would have abandoned Lambda-CDM *years* ago. The only thing holding Lambda-magic theory together anymore is supernatural *dogma* and nothing but *dogma*. None of the observations over the past decade support their claims about exotic matter or standard candles, in fact most of the information we've learned over the past decade actually *refutes* their claims entirely!

 

[Michael]

FYI, I started a new thread today at Thunderbolts that sums up the case against Lambda-CDM over the past decade:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=c33e073ad0f103b5476d06d2f8e0bea3

The idea you can even assign an 'age' to the universe requires the use of at least four supernatural external agents, including the space expansion agent, the dark energy agent, the exotic matter agent, and the inflation agent. Compared to all the current problems with Lambda-CDM, and all it's external supernatural agents, you have *absolutely nothing* to complain about as it relates to Panentheism.

 

[Davian]

I haven't made any misrepresentations, I've simply pointed out the facts.

then you should make it a point to substantiate these "facts" of yours.

You have no empirical facts that support Hawking's version of events,

I only quoted him, for accuracy. Have you not claimed to be familiar with the facts that Hawking uses?

It's fascinating to me how flippant you and other atheists are towards a purely *empirical* definition of God,

No one seems cares about this particular god of yours, except for you. It's boring.

 

[Davian]

If the mainstream <snip yet another false dichotomy>

Nothing for the biblical-type gods?

 

[Davian]

FYI, I started a new thread today at Thunderbolts <snip>

That's as productive as posting it here.

 

[Michael]

then you should make it a point to substantiate these "facts" of yours.

That's why I just posted that link to the Thunderbolts thread that I started. It substantiates all my criticisms quite succinctly and thuroughly.

I only quoted him, for accuracy. Have you not claimed to be familiar with the facts that Hawking uses?

The 'facts' that he uses to make his case aren't actually even 'facts' in the final analysis. They are nothing but subjective interpretations of 'facts'. Redshift is a "fact". Space expansion is a *hypothetical* and highly *subjective* claim about cause that does *not* enjoy empirical support.

No one seems cares about this particular god of yours, except for you. It's boring.

I don't find God or the physical universe to be boring in the least. Boredom is apparently your problem, not mine.

 

[Michael]

Nothing for the biblical-type gods?

Since I quoted Jesus from the Bible talking about us being *one in God*, I've already done my part. You've yet to explain why Panentheism isn't a "biblical-type" representation of God.

 

[Michael]

That's as productive as posting it here.

Productivity? How productive were their LHC, LUX, PandaX and electron roundness "tests" in terms of actually verifying or falsifying mainstream beliefs? Who cares what you or they might think is "productive"?

 

[Davian]

That's why I just posted that link to the Thunderbolts thread

Best to make that substantiation with each claim of how you think mainstream cosmology works.

The 'facts'

You are welcome to your opinions.

I don't find God or the physical universe to be boring in the least.

Are they not the same thing all of a sudden? You switched gods on me too fast there.

Boredom is apparently your problem, not mine.

Gods that cannot be shown to exist are boring. Observing the vast and intricate, often conflicting rationales for why these gods are indistinguishable from nothing can be fascinating.

 

[Michael]

Best to make that substantiation with each claim of how you think mainstream cosmology works.

I did and I posted all the links for you on Thunderbolts too.

You are welcome to your opinions.

At least my opinions offer a logical explanation for chemical energy, unlike Hawking and his mythical magical "net zero energy" universe.

Are they not the same thing all of a sudden? You switched gods on me too fast there.

Are they the same thing? Is your physical body the same exact thing as your awareness/consciousness?

Gods that cannot be shown to exist are boring.

That's why I find the dark energy god to be so boring by the way. On the other hand I can actually *see* the thing that I'm calling "God".

Observing the vast and intricate, often conflicting rationales for why these gods are indistinguishable from nothing can be fascinating.

Indeed that's true for the dark matter god, the dark energy god, the inflation god, and the space expansion god. They're cumulatively the most impotent on Earth set of pantheistic "gods' that have ever been created by human imagination.

 

[Michael]

https://www.csun.edu/science/ref/reasoning/expertise/pattern-recognition.html

An emphasis on the patterns perceived by experts suggests that pattern recognition is an important strategy for helping students develop confidence and competence. These patterns provide triggering conditions for accessing knowledge that is relevant to a task." (From "How People Learn")

FYI, your aversion to using pattern recognition when you suits you is another great example of a completely *unscientific* bias you hold.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have made no claims, so I have to defend nothing. If you make claims, expect people to ask you to support them.

Can you handle that?

Of course I can.If you notice my claim was from a book by the author of "The China Study". To be sure reductionism has huge commercial support and billions of dollars are made with its seductive logic but there is very little evidence that individuals components have any value at all. It is the sum total that makes the difference. Not the minute detail.