Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Does God exist?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby Jolly Roger on Sun Aug 13, 2006 5:01 pm

Truman wrote:You of course know that the big bang theory is the most idiotic theory ever thought up by mankind that is considered "science."

Throw everything you've got about how it's "proven" and "scientific" and how there's "evidence" like radiation in space or whatever and I'll answer you.

Here it comes... 8)


The Big Bang, like evolution, is a theory. As such, it has not been proven. Since I know very little about the Big Bang, I looked around on the Internet for about 5 minutes and found that "scientists" call the following "evidence" of the Big Bang:

1 Variation of T CMB with redshift.
2 Existence of the blackbody CMB
3 Radio Source and Quasar Counts vs. flux

Truman - since you probably know off the top of your head, could you please explain what these things are and why they are bollocks?

Thanks

JR
User avatar
Lieutenant Jolly Roger
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:46 am

Postby happysadfun on Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:05 pm

Truman wrote:You of course know that the big bang theory is the most idiotic theory ever thought up by mankind that is considered "science."

Throw everything you've got about how it's "proven" and "scientific" and how there's "evidence" like radiation in space or whatever and I'll answer you.

Here it comes... 8)


That or evolution. Or the theory that microbacteria arrived here on a meteorite and evolved into life as we know it.
ImageChildren, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.

Rope. Tree. Hillary. Some assembly required.
User avatar
Cadet happysadfun
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: Haundin at DotSco, Being Sad that Mark Green Lost in Suburban Wisconsin

Postby Caleb the Cruel on Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:00 pm

johnnyrotten wrote:Can't we just let this thread die?

yes, i enetered this thread too late plus it grows too fast
i do not have the will power to read every post due to the fact they are incredibly long
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Caleb the Cruel
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:36 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Postby jay_a2j on Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:35 pm

Jolly Roger: Where did this come from?


1 Variation of T CMB with redshift.
2 Existence of the blackbody CMB
3 Radio Source and Quasar Counts vs. flux ??????????????




Cause as stated before if there is no creator (God) How can anything exist outside of "eternal" matter? A Gigantic meteor perhaps was floating around in space with no explanation of WHERE it came from? Gasses without an orgin? LOGIC demands there is a God!



Caleb... the thread is long but very entertaining (especially when vtmarik was posting) :D
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby kwolff on Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:35 pm

yins all didnt know that we are in a big glass bottle that aliens put us in to see what would happen ? man i thought that was general knowledge..


and god was created by , same question
User avatar
Major kwolff
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: pittsburgh PA

Postby heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:51 am

Cause as stated before if there is no creator (God) How can anything exist outside of "eternal" matter? A Gigantic meteor perhaps was floating around in space with no explanation of WHERE it came from? Gasses without an orgin? LOGIC demands there is a God!


before the big bang there WAS no time, or space. Both came into existence along with the rest of the universe. Nothing existed. There was no 'space' for meteors to float around in and no 'outside'. There was nothing. And it wasn't a gigantic meteor - it was a singularity of infinite density and infintely small volume. The whole thing is unimaginable and i think that's the problem. Easier to imagine some beardy man in the sky waving a wand. Fairytales.


Ask yourself the same question - where did this creator come from:

"A gigantic deity was floating around in space with no explanation of where it came from? God without an origin?"
Last edited by heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby macwin on Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:51 am

johnnyrotten wrote:Can't we just let this thread die?


If threads die, do they go to heaven? :roll:
Chaka: YOU ARE ALL MY ENEMY. SCIENTOLOGY IS ON MY SIDE. DIE!
User avatar
Captain macwin
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:31 pm
Location: Cairns, Qld

Postby heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:12 am

macwin wrote:
johnnyrotten wrote:Can't we just let this thread die?


If threads die, do they go to heaven? :roll:


I apologise wholeheartedly. Much of this is my fault. I take some pleasure banging my head against brick walls. I can't explain it.
I would advise not clicking on it. It is never going to die.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby macwin on Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:49 am

heavycola wrote:
macwin wrote:
johnnyrotten wrote:Can't we just let this thread die?


If threads die, do they go to heaven? :roll:


I apologise wholeheartedly. Much of this is my fault. I take some pleasure banging my head against brick walls. I can't explain it.
I would advise not clicking on it. It is never going to die.


nah keep it going cola....love your work mate. I am just too lazy to respond and frusterated to respond....it will do your head in eventually. :?
Chaka: YOU ARE ALL MY ENEMY. SCIENTOLOGY IS ON MY SIDE. DIE!
User avatar
Captain macwin
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:31 pm
Location: Cairns, Qld

Postby kwolff on Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:06 am

me too , im married lol
User avatar
Major kwolff
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: pittsburgh PA

Postby jay_a2j on Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:38 am

heavycola wrote:

before the big bang there WAS no time, or space. Both came into existence along with the rest of the universe. Nothing existed. There was no 'space' for meteors to float around in and no 'outside'. There was nothing.



IF THERE WAS "NOTHING" HOW DID THE BIG BANG OCCUR?




Ask yourself the same question - where did this creator come from:



THIS CREATOR IS ETERNAL. HE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND ALWAYS WILL EXIST. "I AM THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINING AND THE END"



I believe in the Big Bang.... God spoke and BANG! it was.
:wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby Sammy gags on Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:11 am

logic dictates that im god...lol :roll:
User avatar
Lieutenant Sammy gags
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 6:26 pm
Location: ?????

Postby heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:24 am

IF THERE WAS "NOTHING" HOW DID THE BIG BANG OCCUR?


This is exactly the question Stephen Hawking has answered.

THIS CREATOR IS ETERNAL. HE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND ALWAYS WILL EXIST.


This is nothing more than a philosophical cop-out. It is lazy thinking, can;t be proved, can;t be disproved, it just functions as a crap answer to any serious question about the origins of teh universe.

I bet you believe it's only 6,000 years old, too....
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby happysadfun on Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:34 am

have you noticed that cola is basing all of his statements on steven hawking's work?
ImageChildren, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.

Rope. Tree. Hillary. Some assembly required.
User avatar
Cadet happysadfun
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: Haundin at DotSco, Being Sad that Mark Green Lost in Suburban Wisconsin

Postby jay_a2j on Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:44 am

heavycola wrote:

I bet you believe it's only 6,000 years old, too....






6,000 from Adam and Eve to now. The Earth itself is probably much older as God created the world in 6 days. Scripture points out that "a day to God is like 1000 years". Man was created on the 6th day. So who knows how long the previous 5 days were.



And do tell how this guy answered a Big Bang occuring in the mist of nothingness. If there is Nothing (state of being void of ANYTHING) where do you get a BANG. Heck I'd settle for a POP. The "Big POP theory". :wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:04 am

And do tell how this guy answered a Big Bang occuring in the mist of nothingness. If there is Nothing (state of being void of ANYTHING) where do you get a BANG. Heck I'd settle for a POP. The "Big POP theory".



I am not a physicist but i know it has something to do with quarks, which are subatomic fundamental particles that have appeared to wink in and out of existence. I don;t understand it fully, but i do understand his conclusion. And your answer to the 'nothingness' problem, as you see it, is the existence of an 'eternal' being. Again, it's just circular, unprovable thinking. My point is, why go that extra step - i.e. assuming there must have been a creator - if the greatest living physicist has postulated that the universe could be self-contained?
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby jay_a2j on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:30 am

Hmmmm particles that "wink" in and out of exsistence. (and you have a hard time grasping the concept of God).

Science has said, "Matter can niether be created or destroyed" (which implies the orgin of matter is eternal)
Science has said, "Life canot come from non-life" (Indicating something that is living has always had to exist).
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby mightyal on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:33 am

Science has said neither of the above
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Postby jay_a2j on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:35 am

mightyal wrote:Science has said neither of the above



Please attend a Science class before posting. :roll:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby mightyal on Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:48 am

I believe that we have dealt with your life cannot come from non-life gibberish already.
Matter is not conserved in nuclear reactions.
On a sub-nuclear level, particles are continually popping into and out of existence. Nature abhors a vaccuum.

Oh and I studied Science to a degree level btw.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Captain mightyal
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Banging the hag whilst Owl is busy banging hendy's mum

Postby Pilate on Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:25 pm

mightyal wrote:I believe that we have dealt with your life cannot come from non-life gibberish already.
Matter is not conserved in nuclear reactions.
On a sub-nuclear level, particles are continually popping into and out of existence. Nature abhors a vaccuum.

Oh and I studied Science to a degree level btw.


FYI: high school >>>> university
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Truman on Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:41 pm

Jolly Roger wrote:The Big Bang, like evolution, is a theory. As such, it has not been proven. Since I know very little about the Big Bang, I looked around on the Internet for about 5 minutes and found that "scientists" call the following "evidence" of the Big Bang:

1 Variation of T CMB with redshift.
2 Existence of the blackbody CMB
3 Radio Source and Quasar Counts vs. flux

Truman - since you probably know off the top of your head, could you please explain what these things are and why they are bollocks?


Of course.

Cosmic Microwave Background radiation: exactly what I was expecting as evidence. I'll go over both one and two since they cover a broad, but same subject.

There is a miniscule amount of heat radiating throughout outer space. It comes commonly from every direction and is believed that it is the same everywhere else in the universe. But, this is an exeedingly tiny amount of "heat," and is only a little less than 30 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. This radiation is only a microwave kind of "heat," but there isn't much "heat" in it at all. The temperature of background radiation comes out as being -2700 degrees Celsius.

The problem? Background radiation comes from every direction, but the Big Bang theory demands that it come from only one direction: from where the supposed explosion took place.

I leave this subject alone now with a quote from evolutionary physicist Hannes Alfven and Professor Asoka Mendis from the UCSD.

"The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents.. [But] The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation." (1)

As for the "blackbody" radiation, here's something I found long ago:

"Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.

"Not any more. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy.. A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself." (2)

Quasars are against the redshift theory, expecially the "speedshift" theory which I wrote discussed already in another website:

"Most everyone knows that relatively white light can be split by a triangular prism of glass into all the colors of the rainbow. Using a spectrometer, this can be done to starlight. Dark, upright bands mark the spectrum at diverse points. Examining these dark bands, the type of elements in each star can be identified. Spectral type is a star's classification-- based on its spectrum, surface temperature, and mass. A spectrogram is a photograph of a star's spectrum.

Ultraviolet is on one end of a spectrum and has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than visible blue light (violet). Infrared is the other end of the visible spectrum (red; used in redshift theory). Every star is redshifted to some degree (or in another way of explaining, the entire spectrum of that star is shifted towards the red end). The farther a star or galaxy is from us, the more its light is shifted. Thus, we have the 'redshift.' However, this is not accurate because the astronomer is still not really accurate by measuring the color of a star a long way off, just because its color changes when farther away.

The evolutionist claim of the Big Bang is very faulty, and goes against many laws of physics, but the evolutionists try and back up the claim with the concept of redshift theory. They say that this redshift shows that the universe is expanding outward from the source of the Big Bang explosion. They base this on the thinking that the 'speed theory' of the redshift is the only cause of the redshift (notice the word 'only'). This means that if light is traveling toward us, the wavelength is shortened a little. This would cause the light to be 'blueshifted' (shifted toward the ultraviolet, which is purple in the spectrum). If it is moving away from us, the wavelength is stretched, which causes a redshift.

But we have six serious problems with this theory.

1. Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. If the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this (remember that word 'only'), nearly all the universe is moving away from our planet. A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If this was true we would be experiencing some serious turbulence down here on earth from all the comets and things coming toward us and hitting us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But yet, we only find evidence that every thing in space is redshifted; everything is moving away from earth.

2. The closest stars and galaxies to earth are the least redshifted, and some of the closest stars are actually moving toward our planet. Even so, they still seem redshifted. Why?

3. There is evidence that light particles slow down.

4. The discovery of quasars in 1962 strongly disproved the speed theory of redshift. Quasars are unknown objects which show rigorously shifted spectrums toward infrared. But if the speed theory is accepted as the cause of those shifts, they would be at impossibly great distances from us. Some have redshifts of 200% and 300%, which would equal distances up to 12,000,000,000 light-years and retreating speeds surpassing 90% the speed of light.

When this was learned of, many evolutionary astronomers renounced the speed theory. Then came the discovery of quasars with even higher redshifts: 300% to 400%. In the end, observers found three quasars which, according to the speed theory, are moving faster than the speed of light. One of these is eight times faster than the speed of light. The evolutionists tried to save their theory by recalculating the the formula for the speed of light. But they were, and still are unable to change it. Now they're really in trouble.

5. According to Einstein and many other scientists today, light can be pulled by gravity because it has weight. Because of this, it can be pulled by matter and can push matter. Because light has weight, stars it passes pull on it, slightly redshifting it. Even Asimov said light has weight, and he's evolutionist!

'If a set of fine scales is arranged so that one scale is kept dark, and light is allowed to fall on the other, the lighted scale will sink slowly. Light has 'weight.' The pressure of light on the Earth's surface is calculated as two pounds per square mile [90 kg per 2.6 km2].' (3)

6. No one has ever observed a blue-shifted stellar light spectrum. If the speed theory is the only cause of redshifts, every star in the universe is moving away from earth. Why?"


Now, I believe I must answer the "mightyal" who might not be so "mighty" after I answer his extremely dense comment that he just made. Al, you said,
"I believe that we have dealt with your life cannot come from non-life gibberish already.

Matter is not conserved in nuclear reactions.

On a sub-nuclear level, particles are continually popping into and out of existence. Nature abhors a vaccuum."


*sigh* Evolutionists. They don't know how much they twist science, do they Jay?

Well, I guess I'll have to explain to him about the big bang, which I also posted the same message in another website already. Read it and weep, Al.

"The Big Bang is the most widely accepted, and yet the most impossible concept in all of evolutionary thinking! Many evolutionists say, 'The Big Bang isn't part of evolution, for it was not a part of the process for making life. Evolution is this process.' And yet, it was the cause of it! Also amazing is the fact that there is a property of evolution known as 'cosmic evolution.' They put the subject of the Big Bang into this category. Pretty strange how they wouldn't call it a part of evolution.

I'll give a little history on the subject and then explain how it really cannot happen in actual reality.

The regular theory accepted today about the Big Bang is that nothing exploded. There are many claims that something did explode, but let's go by this idea. It is more widely accepted than the theory of something exploded, because the something had to come into existance somehow, and they haven't been able to explain that yet, except through philosophy (not science). M-theory is based upon this idea that the superstrings made a closed brane of gravitational forces, and collided with another one of these. Now, I wonder why they did this, and who in their right minds would call this science. It's imagination. If the 'M' is left alone in 'M-Theory,' it stands for 'mystery,' or 'mysic,' since there are still many properties explained by it, as in, how did these gravitational forces decide to pack up and collide, and how can nothing explode? It may be gravity, but....I'll explain.

George Gamow, a well known evolutionist, coined the name 'Big Bang,' and made the idea really sell through the cartoons he drew concerning the details.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness to condense, by gravity, into a single, tiny spot; and decided to explode!

That explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which shot outward at incredible speed throughout empty space: there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at extreme speeds, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atom structures of orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Over time, the outward-racing atoms are said to have started to circle each other, creating gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.
These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium).

Then, all of those stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow, a well known evolutionist of the past, described it in 'scientific' terms. And yet, in violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space, and rushed into a superdense core, that had an extreme amount of density, and a temperature in excess of 1,039 degrees absolute. That's a lot of nothing getting hot!

Where did this extraordinarily dense core come from? Gamow sadly came up with a scientific answer for this: it came as a result of 'the big squeeze,' when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific assurance, he named it 'ylem.' Many thought the theory to be 'scientific' since it had a scientific-sounding name. So then, Gamow added numbers to produce an additional scientific gift: it was 100,000,000,000,000 times the density of water!

Then, it all exploded. Does this sound like science? Why do they call it science?

1. Nothingness cannot pack together. Gravity would have no way to push nothing into a pile.

2. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and therefore exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

3. There was no fire, and no match. It couldn't be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed, and it could not be an atomic explosion, because atoms didn't exist either.

4. How can you expand what isn't there? Even if that magic vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause that big, giant pile of nothing to push outward? The 'gravity' that brought it together would keep it from expanding.

5. The intense heat caused by the exploding emptiness is said to have changed the emptiness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. Let's get a few things straight here: first, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Secondly, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter, and thirdly, there can be no heat without an energy source. Where did the energy come from? You have to have energy to make something move.

6. Too perfect an explosion would have to be required. On many points, the theoretical math calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out. Scientists call them 'too perfect.' The theory is next to impossible. The limits for success are simply too tiny, and nothingness can't explode anyway.

R. H. Dicke, an evolutionist astronomer, says,

'If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars.' (4)

7. Roger L. St. Peter, another evolutionist, in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the speculated Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the imaginary explosion would fall back on itself and make an imaginary black hole.

8. Another big problem with this little theory is that there is not enough antimatter in the universe. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter, and negative matter (which is antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. Even Isaac Asimov and Victor Weisskopf admit this problem. There should be as much antimatter as matter, but there is not.

9. A well known fact to physicists is that as soon as positive matter and negative matter are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another; another problem."


Oh, and one more thing Al. Your bogus "science study" has led you nowhere when you consider that Jay's statement is correct. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter and energy cannot be created, nor destroyed.

You see boys and girls, nothing exploded, and here we are! :roll: Who can ask for anything more, right? :?

I think I'm done here. Continue, Jay. 8)



REFERENCES:

(1) Hannes Alfven and Asoka Mendis, "Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698

(2) Science News, 1981

(3) Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 330

(4) R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62
User avatar
Private Truman
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 9:33 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby Phobia on Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:43 pm

are you actually debating or are you just competing to get the longest post? :)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Phobia
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Sheffield, England

Postby Pilate on Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:17 pm

I just read that evolutionists twist science and ignored the rest. lol
Fundamentalists never admit they're wrong. Even Jesus attacked them for that. Oh wait!
User avatar
Colonel Pilate
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:21 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby heavycola on Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:33 pm

Truman - any unprovable theory has its opponents, of course. Your only probelm is that you are a religious nut like the rest of the lunatics in this thread, i.e. not really understanding anything.

Like this as one example:
"1. Nearly all the stars and galaxies are redshifted. If the speed theory is accepted as the cause of this (remember that word 'only'), nearly
all the universe is moving away from our planet. A true expanding universe theory would mean that everything was moving outward from a common center somewhere else, not from our planet. If this was true we would be experiencing some serious turbulence down here on earth from all the comets and things coming toward us and hitting us. If there was a Big Bang, we could locate its origin by measuring redshifts. But yet, we only find evidence that every thing in space is redshifted; everything is moving away from earth.


Some scientists believe the universe is hyperspherical in shape., which explains perfectlythe redshift quandary. I can't be arsed to tell you why.


Basically you and your fellow nutjobs' arguments aren't based on any personal understanding of the science, but rather on a desperate fishing around for anything that may contradict the science that in turn might contradict the fairytales in genesis. Nevermind that sensible Xtians everywhere have managed to reconcile these ideas. Hell, plenty of nuclear physicists are religious. Darwin only lost his faith when his daughter died.
In 50 years people are going to look back on this lunacy and laugh at it, like we do at the idea that carrying clove-studded oranges around stopped you getting the plague.


You faggot hatin', bible thumpin', godbothering, brainwashed unthinking jesus freak whackjobs are insane. I need to stop posting because it really is the mental equivalent of self-harm. You live your lives like everyone else, i.e. according to intuitive ideas like logic, cause-and-effect, gravity and electricity, except where they don't fit neatly with your stoneage beliefs. Jesus walked on the water, so gravity must be a pile of shite, too. You're as bad as the scientologists, only more dangerous.

I am done.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users