yes, ALL of us are stupid in one way or another.
you didn't explain how i appear biased.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
you didn't explain how i appear biased.
You're biased cause you think your questions deserve more than mine. Please answer.
the universe could be infinite.
what we are now observing as the "big bang" could be localized expansion.
this makes it possible that life is also infinite.
the universe could have "unfolded", with the planets, galaxies, stars, and life, already there.
the universe is called "spacetime" for a reason.
i propose that some kind of "contamination" of this spacetime throws the univers into reality.
the "big bang" actually occured, but this leaves us with the beginnings of life.
the above are 4 different scenarios.
is there any reason i should choose one over the other?
Last edited:
exactly.
this article i found smashed the crap out of that.
how is this any different than saying life created itself ?
How can we have localised expansion?
Because wishing it so, or claiming it is possible, makes life infinite?
Nice speculative scenario...NOT!
The fact remains, that four pillars of observation, tells us the Universe-space-time, evolved from a hotter denser state.
We call it the BB.
Also far more logical speculation that aligns with the laws of physics and GR proposes that the Universe is the ultimate free lunch, something which you have failed to even comment on.
Could have?? Where's the evidence?
The Universe is called space-time, because space-time is what evolved from that moment we call the BB. [or at least 10-43 seconds after that event.
I propose fairies at the bottom of the garden, Leprachauns in my bathroom, and Jesus Christ in the 2nd coming in 5 minutes.
The BB was an evolution of space-time-energy. Then matter condensed....then atoms condensed....then stars condensed....then further elements condensed...then planets condensed...then [wait for it!] Life condensed!
Like I have said a million times, it is as near fact as you can hope to be, that we are just star stuff!
No, the above are unreal pseudo-quackery rants, to give credence to some divine deity.
Chose logically and scientifically, that which is supported most by observations and experimental data.
See! You chose the BB!
Turtles all the way down. 10 Billion years for life travelling on meteorites to get from the nearest edge of the explosion to Earth. How feasible is that?
No, it didn't.
Well, I can thank you for the post. You have sixteen thousand posts and I don't even have one thousand, yet. Some people, which I could consider peers, have already commented on your post. They probably are more familiar with you than I am. Basically, I'm uncertain how to respond, if you were expecting a response.
You also called James R a "dweeb." Something that I wouldn't think of (I gather he is a nice person, or just hope.)
Hi beery....
As you have probably no doubt gathered, we have probably half a dozen or so science mainstream deniers, for one reason or another, all with different agendas, some with delusions of grandeur no doubt, and all claim to be able to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology and theories and models, some that have stood for 100 years or more and are darn near certain at this time.
I know James from another forum, and he is certainly no dweeb, and would in reality run rings around this creationist we have here, and the other alternative hypothesis pushers.
You'll find that they all have one thing in common, despite their different agendas...that is they all rubbish accepted scientific peer review.
These forums, particularly this one with its much larger scope, are the only outlets these geniuses [tic mode on]have to push their respective dribble on.
Personally, I'm only a layman like yourself, but like yourself, quite able to apply common sense and logic with all these hair brain schemes these people profess to have.
Yeah but, if he was being honest. That's the thing. Being open for discussion.
The physics text book that my professor said to use says differently that what leopold says. I can't dig my heels in further than that. BUT, he may have been trying to open up.
Since I am not very familiar with leopold, I'd feel guilty by not giving him a chance.
The physics text book that my professor said to use says differently that what leopold says. I can't dig my heels in further than that. BUT, he may have been trying to open up.
Since I am not very familiar with leopold, I'd feel guilty by not giving him a chance.
no response is necessary.
yes, i did.
he's an aussie that suffers jet lag sometimes.
you will not find "openness" with paddoboy.
about what?
the big bang?
those are all my opinion.
most of my views on evolution is the direct result of the article i found.
thanks, i appreciate that.
let me sneak a question in here for you, and everyone else for that matter.
do you feel like creationists are needed for effective peer review of evolution?
No. In order to effectively peer review the theory of evolution, they would first have to understand it.
so, creationist scientists are incapable of understanding evolution?
Pretty sure you were the object of that remark leopold, as is evidenced in this thread,at least once that I am personally aware of.
Evolution has been peer reviewed and accepted as near Gospel....[pardon the pun]
Abiogenesis is the only choice we have Universally wise with regards to life.
The rest are myths, with no evidence, no scientific structure, and no peer review.
We are all star stuff, you, me beery, and the computer and table upon which it sits, as well as the earth and Moon and anything else you see the need to throw in.
Our Catholic friends have seen the need to recognise both the BB and evolution.
From that point though, science and creationism part ways.
One continues the search for knowledge, the other blindly assumes God.
Are you also a geocentrist, leopold?
And no, a creationist and scientist to me is contradictory. I'd find a creationist scientist dishonest.
Also, I believe my text book has a lot more weight than any article mentioned in this thread.
I also took one course in micro biology. I kept my text and it does have stuff to say on evolution, but who cares.
And no, a creationist and scientist to me is contradictory. I'd find a creationist scientist dishonest.
Also, I believe my text book has a lot more weight than any article mentioned in this thread.
I also took one course in micro biology. I kept my text and it does have stuff to say on evolution, but who cares.
what is a geocentrist?
why?
the answer is really simple and it's called "poisoning the well".
there is a reason for this.
you would be wrong.
for example, a school textbook will NEVER contain current breakthroughs.
the ONLY time a school textbook can be considered current is when the manuscript is approved for publishing.
added to that, school textbooks are not replaced every year.
Me, and my text books, are stupid yet again.