Customer Discussions > Science forum

The Big Bang Never Happened


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 1:13:15 PM PST
noman says:
RE: Kenyon cries: "...Is there a moral lesson here?..."

**Nope.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 1:28:02 PM PST
Re Kenyon, 1-14 12:50 PM: "Some seemingly contradictory things are true,..." George Orwell coined a term for this: it is called "doublethink" [1].

1. Orwell, 1984.

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 1:55:00 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 2:06:14 PM PST
Ben West says:
Kenyon:>>That's the problem with your 'advanced' understanding of things. You don't have any patience or discipline, and you aren't comfortable with mystery, and you aren't comfortable with acknowledging your ignorance. In other words, what you call your 'advanced' understanding, is what I call at different times, primitive, ignorant, savage, backwards, childish, undisciplined, egomaniacal, or barbaric.

Dear Kenyon, That's the problem with blind faith. It is whatever any person thinks it is. I challenge you to a test of your knowledge. Can you tell us what Day Adam was formed of the dust of the ground? I doubt it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 2:57:11 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 3:30:07 PM PST
"When I say that I believe in evolution, I mean just that."

Interesting. As a professional evolutionary biologist I would never say that I "believe in evolution". Science is a matter of evidence, not belief.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 3:32:20 PM PST
"You've seen 'speciation' from evolving polar bears? What is the new species? "

Ursus maritimus, a different species to Ursus arctos.

Next--------?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 3:41:30 PM PST
John Donohue says:
Drifter >>It was proposed by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre and he based this theory off of his interpretation of the Biblical creation myth. But the priesthood of the Bang has no actual evidence to support their theory. <<

I haven't read the entire thread but this is utter balderdash. Lemaitre was a priest but he was also a physicist and he discovered the same derivation from Einstein's field equations that Alexander Friedmann discovered some years earlier - to wit, the field equations predict that a steady-state universe is unstable, i.e., it will either expand or collapse. The tragedy was that Einstein dismissed Friedmann's paper and he died of some awful disease in the USSR before he was vindicated.

No, it was not a biblical theory. In fact, it was not the equations alone that resulted in the theory of a big bang, but also the observations of Hubble in 1925.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 3:43:45 PM PST
Re Kenyon, 1-14 2:57 PM: "I study the scriptures in Hebrew ..." And what grounds do you have to suppose that ANY of these sources have any validity whatever -- especially given the numerous errors in the scriptural texts?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 4:34:54 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 4:48:48 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 4:48:50 PM PST
Arctos and maritimus interbreed just fine. They occupy different biomes, and the biomes have selected for distinct traits, but have not made them different species to the extent that they can't interbreed.

We have a similar situation with dogs, wolves, and coyotes.

And let's not lose sight of what my original point was. A poster claimed that selective breeding is evidence of evolution, and I have said that it is not. I think that it is a necessary mechanism, that must exist for something like evolution to be possible, but it is not evidence of evolution.

I'm not trying to refute evolution. I was merely pointing out that one of the posters said something that wasn't quite right. I was only intending discussion. It was not intended to be a confrontation, and I am a little bit dismayed that the skin of so many, has been so thin.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 4:55:42 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
It is evidence that species are not fixed and that an environmental factor (eg, human) can change what characteristics appear in a population. This would imply evolution by natural selection.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 4:58:58 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 5:02:07 PM PST
Ben West says:
Kenyon:>>In other words, what you call your 'advanced' understanding, is what I call at different times, primitive, ignorant, savage, backwards, childish, undisciplined, egomaniacal, or barbaric.

Ben:<>Dear Kenyon, That's the problem with blind faith. It is whatever any person thinks it is. I challenge you to a test of your knowledge. Can you tell us what Day Adam was formed of the dust of the ground? I doubt it.

Kenyon:>>I'm not the one making up alternate understandings of the Hebrew Scriptures, to suit my worldview. That would be you. I'm not going to humor you, concerning your 'test' of my knowledge. You can't 'test' me by asking me questions that you've made up your own answers to.

Dear Kenyon, False accusation. I support what I write with Scripture. Are you accusing me of changing it?

Ken:>>I can present the credentials that matter. I study the scriptures in Hebrew; I have studied the associated midrashim, and I have studied the most prominent Jewish commentaries. It is unlikely that you can claim any of these things.

I don't study the theology of ancient people who could NOT have known the scientific truth which is written in Genesis.

Ken:>>I have been nice to you, and I've tried to be a bit helpful.

Really? It's hard to understand how nice you are when you post "primitive, ignorant, savage, backwards, childish, undisciplined, egomaniacal, or barbaric" to describe my views.

BTW, Adam was made the THIRD Day, the SAME Day the Earth was made. Genesis 2:4-7

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 5:14:18 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 5:44:20 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
*sigh*
Selective breeding is only accepting the organisms that match a certain standard to be successful and thus change the average characteristics. Natural selection is change in averaged characteristics of a population caused by reproductive success.

In other words, they are the same process. While a predator and the weather determine one and humans are the other, it still changes the population. They both imply that the other must be possible.

For example, consider a farmer raising sheep. The farmer enjoys lamb chops (the food, not the puppet) so he kills the animals that are poorest for wool production. The farmer is then pressuring the herd for better wool production as well as enjoying his meal. Evolution predicts predictors should act in this way. The only difference is that wolves care about the ease of catching the sheep, not its wool production. The processes are identical with the exception of motive: one wants an easy meal and one wants a meal and wool.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 5:52:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 6:25:57 PM PST
Yes, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing. I never said that they weren't. I think that you just started arguing with an imaginary opponent. This is sort of weird, man.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 5:57:25 PM PST
Doctor Who says:
Sorry, the problem seems to be no one knows where you stand. It feels like your coming from a religious fundamentalist point in one post and then somewhere completely different in the next post.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:24:36 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:27:25 PM PST
barbW says:
did you look up the evolution of polar bears from brown bears?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:28:26 PM PST
barbW says:
what's your world view? Mine isn't popular either.

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 6:45:53 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:46:19 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 7:02:00 PM PST
D. Thomas says:
Drifter wrote: "There's no reason to think that the universe ever had a beginning, it is infinite and has always existed. Matter can not be created or destroyed."

100% drivel. No astrophysicist believes that. The Big Bang is established science, almost as universally accepted as Darwinian evolution.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  3259
Initial post:  Jan 13, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions