The universe at the end of this sentence.

Jazer · Aug 7, 2011

Gracchus said:
I label as arrogant
My ignorance is vast beyond his comprehension, but I am open to correction.

If your open to correction they you may want to be careful using words like "arrogant" because God does not give us the ability to judge others that way, we end up only passing judgement on our own heart. Or in otherwords to the pure all is pure. If we see something unpure in others it is because the same impurity is in us.

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Rom2:1

Jazer · Aug 7, 2011

Skaloop said:
Really? He dismisses the collective scientific knowledge of thousands upon thousands of the greatest minds of the past few hundred years merely by telling it to "take a hike", all using technology that has only been developed because of that collective knowledge. That's arrogance and irony. Arrony. Or Irogance?

Finally some comic relief, it is about time

Selmak · Aug 7, 2011

Skaloop said:
Really? He dismisses the collective scientific knowledge of thousands upon thousands of the greatest minds of the past few hundred years merely by telling it to "take a hike", all using technology that has only been developed because of that collective knowledge. That's arrogance and irony. Arrony. Or Irogance?

One is free to have one's own beliefs and opinions and, yes, to express them. Unless things are different in Canada?

Skaloop · Aug 7, 2011

Selmak said:
One is free to have one's own beliefs and opinions and, yes, to express them. Unless things are different in Canada?

Nope, we're the same. Moreso in some ways. Who ever said he could not hold and express his beliefs and opinions? I'm not trying to prevent him from doing so at all. Doesn't mean I can't express my opinion that his method of doing so is arrogant, or at the very least comes across as such.

Selmak · Aug 7, 2011

Skaloop said:
Nope, we're the same. Moreso in some ways. Who ever said he could not hold and express his beliefs and opinions? I'm not trying to prevent him from doing so at all. Doesn't mean I can't express my opinion that his method of doing so is arrogant, or at the very least comes across as such.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make him arrogant, even if you believe his disagreement comes from a position of ignorance.

And, off-topic: When did Canada get a computer?

Kidding, just kidding. I'm a kidder.

Skaloop · Aug 7, 2011

Selmak said:
Disagreeing with you doesn't make him arrogant, even if you believe his disagreement comes from a position of ignorance.

I agree. I am not calling him out as arrogant for disagreeing with me, I am calling him out as arrogant for being arrogant.

And, off-topic: When did Canada get a computer?

1984. But we recently upgraded to Windows ME (Fenetres MOI in Quebec), so we're cruising.

Selmak · Aug 7, 2011

Skaloop said:
I agree. I am not calling him out as arrogant for disagreeing with me, I am calling him out as arrogant for being arrogant.

1984. But we recently upgraded to Windows ME (Fenetres MOI in Quebec), so we're cruising.

I had no idea a Commodore Vic-20 could support Windows.

Okay, I'll stop now.

Long Live Harper!!

Okay, really, I'm stopping...

DontTreadOnMike · Aug 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
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?

Nonsense questions will have nonsense answers. So let me just pick one randomly....hmmm....

I'm going to go with yes, but only if the ice-cream to violin ratio is below -8 Kelvin.

EDIT: I see where you problem is. You're hung up on the "primeval atom" thing. 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 "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.

Doveaman · Aug 8, 2011

hasone said:
The statements that scientists make (the scientifically valid ones) are often unintuitive and/or complex. They seem elitist. But, ultimately, they are not. They follow a trail of logic and evidence that is available to the general public, including you, and if you are willing to put in the time to understand them from a scientific perspective you will be able to do so. The time required to understand the mathematics behind general relativity is great, but the material is out there. If you avail yourself of it, the points made about singularities will be easily understood.

In this case, they will make sense even before you get to that point, because mathematical singularities, and learning about how they are undefined, occur much earlier in a mathematician's training. I, in fact, illustrated such an example on such an earlier level when I talked about the function "f(x) = x*x/x". Unless you take the time to learn more about mathematics, you will have to trust me when I say that the analogy I make between the earlier mathematics and general relativity is, in fact, very strong.

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." - Albert Einstein.

"To the extent math refers to reality, we are not certain; to the extent we are certain, math does not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein.

Doveaman · Aug 8, 2011

Gracchus said:
I label as arrogant those who make pronouncements in areas of obvious ignorance.

You mean like "God does not exist"?

Doveaman · Aug 8, 2011

DontTreadOnMike said:
Nonsense questions will have nonsense answers. So let me just pick one randomly....hmmm....

I'm going to go with yes, but only if the ice-cream to violin ratio is below -8 Kelvin.

EDIT: I see where you problem is. You're hung up on the "primeval atom" thing. 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 "big bang" happened everywhere.

Split Rock · Aug 8, 2011

Jazer said:
It's called the balloon theory, you know, lots of hot air

I see... so you are not only an expert in genetics, but cosmology, too. Good to know.

Jazer said:
Phd's are so busy getting their degree that they have little time to do anything else. They are experts in their area of study, but outside of their area of study they often do not know much of anything. This can be a problem for Creation Science because Christians also can be so busy getting their degrees that they do not have time to read and study the Bible. Some people know Science, some people know the Bible. It is rare for someone to know both Science and the Bible.

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

Split Rock · Aug 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
What gets me is when you converse with a geologist here, and he says, "Read a book on geology."

Then you converse with a biologist here, and he says, "Read a book on biology."

Then you converse with a physicist here, and he say, "Read a book on physics."

What would we be like, if we read all that science?

Less ignorant? Oh, but that goes against your "philosophy".. doesn't it?

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.

Selmak · Aug 8, 2011

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

Try me.

Split Rock said:
ts 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.

Would I do something like that?

Skaloop · Aug 8, 2011

Doveaman said:

Define "simply." Because a single post on CF, using a basic and understandable analogy, seems pretty simple. It offers a layman's explanation on the concept of an expanding infinite in less than 200 words. And many of those are just words addressing AV, not part of the explanation.

AV1611VET · Aug 8, 2011

Split Rock said:
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.

Selmak · Aug 8, 2011

Skaloop said:
Define "simply." Because a single post on CF, using a basic and understandable analogy, seems pretty simple. It offers a layman's explanation on the concept of an expanding infinite in less than 200 words. And many of those are just words addressing AV, not part of the explanation.

Define 'the'.

Split Rock · Aug 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:

When have I ever mocked someone who answered a question I asked seriously?

Selmak · Aug 8, 2011

Split Rock said:
When have I ever mocked someone who answered a question I asked seriously?

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

Split Rock said:
Less ignorant? Oh, but that goes against your "philosophy".. doesn't it?

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

Gracchus · Aug 8, 2011

Selmak said:
AV doesn't come off as arrogant to me, and just because a person's areas of expertise differ from your own does not make them uneducated.

What is your view of this:

AV1611VET said:
Reality can take a hike!

The universe at the end of this sentence.

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Held in trust

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Held in trust

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Held in trust

Eddaic Literalist

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Held in trust

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Held in trust

Conflation of Blathers

Held in trust

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency