On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 1:05 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful > scientific manner. > ***Well, maybe if any of your questions were posed in a useful scientific manner, they'd get answered. You didn't even read the wikipedia article, did you? > All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is not a > constructive way to discuss issues. I am sorry but I will not be able to > respond to your inputs without more detailed information. > ***That wikipedia article offers far more detail than your ridiculous placement of "if" in front of scientifically invalid presumptions. > > Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the > other theories concerning time and space are wrong. New concepts are > proposed frequently and they must eventually stand on their own. That is > the only proof that can be demonstrated. > ***There's nothing new about your proposal that the universe is infinitely old. Your postulation has been demonstrated to be wrong, time and again, by the weight of the evidence. > > Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future. > ***Dude. Look through my posts. I rarely start with the insults, unless it's an easy target like Lennart. In this thread YOU started with the insults. Can't take the heat, huh? > They achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of > communications. > ***Then why did you start? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Kevin, >> >> Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began >> > ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a > fixed concept of how the universe began. > > > >> and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. >> > ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , > unsupported and unscientific idea such as "the universe has existed > forever". > > > >> The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to >> open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time >> before that event. It was just rhetorical. >> > ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that > upfront rather than go into insult mode. > > > >> >> How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing >> forever? >> > Why don't you just start here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe > and tell me where they went wrong? And since you're the one saying you > need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you > can't. > > > > >> Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of >> that. >> > ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its > dangerous biblical references. > > > >> If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an >> open mind. >> > ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the > word "if" in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on > claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. > > > >> Is it your intent to stop creative thought? >> > ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then > at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, > not open. > > >> >> Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began >> approximately 13+ billion years ago. >> > ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. > > > >> The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to >> correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely >> speculating. >> > ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed > down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely > speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are > incorrect. Good luck with that. > >> >> Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole >> event horizons? >> > ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you > going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science > that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old > universe. > > > >> Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near >> as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a >> standstill. >> > ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing > it to a standstill. > > > >> On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the >> universe to reach that threshold? >> > ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. > > > >> Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. >> > ***Perhaps you should. > > > >> >> Do you consider the universe to be contained within some >> physical boundary? >> > ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because > you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your > supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's > a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an > opposite manner. > > >> Please show me a sound basis for this belief >> > ***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see. > > >> and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean >> that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. >> > ***Interesting postulation. But it has no bearing on the discussion at > hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists > that have figured out through various means how old the universe is. > > > >> I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner. >> > ***And your speculation is crap. But in your close-mindedness, you have > raised your hackles. If YOU are "just speculating", why do you denigrate > me for what you perceive as MY "speculating"? Shouldn't speculation be > wrong for both sides in a debate, or right? In this case you're arguing > that it's okay for you but not for me. What an INCREDIBLY closed mind. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion >> years BBB? >> > ***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what > happened a billion years before time was created is like asking "what's the > difference between a duck"? It is useless. Like I said, diminishing > returns. > > > > > >> >> If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever >> > ***This ain't scientific inquiry any more. If we choose to believe.... > that unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists. > > > > >> then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past. >> There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced >> during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed >> down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of >> it has passed since that zero point. >> > ***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here, > we're all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity. Maybe it's > fun for you to think like that but it is a waste of time. Like I said, > diminishing returns. > > >> >> Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ >> odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? >> > ***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion > years. > > > >> According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate >> of time passage >> > ***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of > time passage. The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near > close enough to stop it. > > > >> and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of >> the initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. >> > ***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into > existence, as He has claimed to do. > > >> >> So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is >> no concern about how long it might take life to take form. >> > ***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think > this way. And a waste of time. BTW, you're still arguing on this side of > the big bang, not a billion years "before" it. > > > >> There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big >> band since that was an infinite amount of time ago. In this scenario we >> take advantage of the behavior of infinite processes. >> > ***Then why did you bring it up earlier? > > > >> >> To expand on this idea. Perhaps the present assumption of a period of >> universal inflation is really just >> > ***really just a buncha baloney. > > > > >> a patch to make the time frames fit into our best guess for the age of >> the universe. Our perception of the rate at which time passes is >> established by the world around us and ensures that we will find it >> difficult to imagine a universe of infinite time duration. The same can be >> said of our perception of an infinite space. With the proposition I am >> outlining above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and >> can fit into our observations. >> > ***But they DON'T fit into our observations. > > >> >> I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so >> simple, and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking. >> > ***Of COURSE you consider it open minded thinking. And no doubt you'd > consider other options to be closed minded thinking. That's because you > disagree with the end result. > >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. >> >> >> > >> >My question is about the metaphysics of >> >where/how/what "heaven" was before creation. >> >***Well, I answered your original >> >question. Now you want to expand it into areas >> >where I have diminishing interest. There's >> >basically no scientific (and probably very >> >little spiritual) value in such a discussion. >> >> Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now. >> >> >> > >
