News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Just a Question

Started by Egor, February 13, 2012, 08:24:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Davin

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Whitney


Guardian85

Very interesting clip.

On the other hand, way for Egor to come in for a hit and run strike, and my hat off to his usual tremendous capacity for missing the mark!  8)


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

Egor

#33
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection. What the narrator is calling "cosmic luck" doesn't even make sense. He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

This is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

And this theory, I'm sorry, but it's as ridiculous as this Christian video I watched that showed how the basic protein of all cell walls comes out looking like a cross- and that was supposed to be evidence that Christianity is the real religion. I swear, I was working in ICU and a bunch of the nurses were all goo-goo over it (I live in a very Christian area of the U.S.).

Well this video is exactly the same thing, but for atheists. It's magical thinking. It doesn't pass basic logic, and even though the narrator states it as a fact, it is a theory that doesn't really work out. But that won't stop a lot of people believing it. Oh, and of course, when atheists are screaming for PROOF. Verifiable evidence for God's existence. Peer-reviewed papers on the efficacy of prayer. They will ignore the fact that this theory cannot be disproved, and there is no experiment to show it ever happened in the early universe. It is atheistic faith.

And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.
This user has been banned so please do not expect any responses from him.

DeterminedJuliet

"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Ali

Egor, for the record, when do you believe that nature and it's assorted laws took over?  Sometime between the Big Bang and now, presumably.

Whitney

I'll assume you are referring to the most recent video link which we confirmed was the one I was trying to post from the beginning.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PMHe removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

He explained it.  He was illustrating how the universe would have never changed past the state of it just being a bunch of particles spread out all over the place if there hadn't been an element of disorder.  He showed us that an well organized perfect system could never naturally change.  Then to continue the illustration the removed just a few of the balls to show only just a few imperfections then allowed for attractive forces to take over and the balls reorganize into new shapes...or in the case of the universe, stars.  His illustration was not intended to imply that something removed matter, he was saying that it was not organized perfectly.
Quote
To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

He was saying that is was "luck" that imperfection existed....and that's only luck for us.  If imperfection had not existed we wouldn't be around to talk about it.   No need to bring in the idea of design unless you are just trying to shoehorn it....which we all know you are trying to do so, whatever.

QuoteThis is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

Or you just aren't able to follow him.  You know he does actually support these ideas with math if you look into it further.

Quote
And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Are you denying that gravity exists?
Quote
Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. .

No one is claiming it is magical.  

QuoteIt happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

this is what you call god of gaps...and especially horrible case of it since no only are you shoving in a deity into the gap but automatically jumping to the conlusion that it's God with a capital G.

Recusant

I see that Whitney has made an excellent reply while I took too long to write my own, so I'm going to be repeating at least some of what she said. Oh well.

* * *

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

So, you have evidence that the early universe "wouldn't have imperfection"? Surely you must, otherwise you're merely making a bald assertion here. Cosmologists aren't just talking out of their asses. These people have devoted their lives to trying to understand their subject, and they have evidence which supports what they say. On the other hand, they are completely up front about the things that they really don't understand.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
What the narrator is calling "cosmic luck" doesn't even make sense.

The video is a popularization; when Hawking talks about luck, he's describing the fact that it's extremely unlikely (essentially impossible) that the initial distribution of matter was perfectly uniform. This goes back to the nature of chaotic systems. What you apparently don't understand is that chaos ≠ randomness. All through this thread you've displayed a profound ignorance of the topic of chaos, and how it relates to modern science. Your critique has no credibility at all because of this.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor? All of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
To say "luck" and "imperfection" is silly. Those just become synonyms for "design."

Your fanatical devotion to your mythology is showing here. That's fine, you're welcome to believe whatever drivel you like, and I'm sure you don't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
This is why I've never liked Stephen Hawking. He speculates; he popularizes; and he has that Yoda thing going on with the computer that speaks for him. Which means he might not be thinking those words at all. For all we know he's a mere puppet that others use to voice their opinion through a wannabe Einstein.  I don't think he's all that brilliant. I think it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and popular reading books. Those seem to be in place of what older-school scientists did with patens.

And this theory, I'm sorry, but it's as ridiculous as this Christian video I watched that showed how the basic protein of all cell walls comes out looking like a cross- and that was supposed to be evidence that Christianity is the real religion. I swear, I was working in ICU and a bunch of the nurses were all goo-goo over it (I live in a very Christian area of the U.S.).

Well this video is exactly the same thing, but for atheists. It's magical thinking. It doesn't pass basic logic, and even though the narrator states it as a fact, it is a theory that doesn't really work out. But that won't stop a lot of people believing it. Oh, and of course, when atheists are screaming for PROOF. Verifiable evidence for God's existence. Peer-reviewed papers on the efficacy of prayer. They will ignore the fact that this theory cannot be disproved, and there is no experiment to show it ever happened in the early universe. It is atheistic faith.

An attempt at "nuclear fire," Egor?  This is just silliness, but then again I really don't expect better from you. Modern cosmology is based on observations; these observations are verifiable evidence. If the ideas of cosmologists are not supported by what is observed, they are revised.

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
And let's not forget the theory starts with gravity, this magical ability for mass to attract itself together over distance. No explanation given for that.

Look. I think the guy is probably correct in how matter clumped together in the early universe, but it didn't happen by luck or imperfection, and gravity really isn't magical. It happened by design and design in this case implies a monistic entity of fundamental consciousness, which is the Veridican definition of God.

  Nice reference to Bill O'Reilly there. Keep 'em coming, Egor.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Whitney

#38

Guardian85

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AM
Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
He removes matter in order to cause the clumping of the universe without any explanation of how the matter would ever get removed in the first place. It was there. It came from the big bang; it expands into nothingness. The matter is going to be evenly dispersed and it's going to stay that way.

Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor? All of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

Egor

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 02:50:23 AM
So, you have evidence that the early universe "wouldn't have imperfection"? Surely you must, otherwise you're merely making a bald assertion here. Cosmologists aren't just talking out of their asses. These people have devoted their lives to trying to understand their subject, and they have evidence which supports what they say. On the other hand, they are completely up front about the things that they really don't understand.

What on earth are you talking about? They can't have any evidence to support what is purported in that video. That would be impossible. Second, do you care at all about logic? Think about the expansion of a singularity into nothingness. It necessarily must distribute uniformly and that uniform distribution could never be disturbed naturally. Just think about it.

Quote
The video is a popularization; when Hawking talks about luck, he's describing the fact that it's extremely unlikely (essentially impossible) that the initial distribution of matter was perfectly uniform. This goes back to the nature of chaotic systems. What you apparently don't understand is that chaos ≠ randomness. All through this thread you've displayed a profound ignorance of the topic of chaos, and how it relates to modern science. Your critique has no credibility at all because of this.

Excuse me, but maybe you can school me on this: how is it that chaos does not equal randomness? Or are you just changing the definition of chaos now?

Quote
Again with the assertions; where did you learn about cosmology, Egor?
From the video you all think is so fantastic.
QuoteAll of the evidence that we have from the early universe points to imperfection in the distribution of matter. The ball bearing illustration is not meant to be taken literally, Egor, and I have trouble believing you're stupid enough to think otherwise. Matter was not removed in the way that the ball bearings were removed. Rather, it was never distributed uniformly in the first place.

You assume that because there are clumps of matter, but you aren't thinking logically about how that would be impossible given a singularity expanding into nothingness. Unless there was some design to it.

QuoteYour fanatical devotion to your mythology is showing here. That's fine, you're welcome to believe whatever drivel you like, and I'm sure you don't expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this.
I think we need a ref. Cuz it looks like 1 point theist.

This user has been banned so please do not expect any responses from him.

Egor

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:03:09 AM
If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.

Where do I start? You're comparing apples and oranges. The dispersment of gravel would be in utter accordance with the laws of physics on a macro level. Completely predictable if enough effort were applied. We're talking about the expansion of pure energy into nothingness--which is barely even conceivable. As for gravity, since it is measurable and exists, why are you still an atheist?
This user has been banned so please do not expect any responses from him.

Egor

Quote from: Ali on February 15, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
Egor, for the record, when do you believe that nature and it's assorted laws took over?  Sometime between the Big Bang and now, presumably.

How nature was going to evolve from the expansion of the singularity, had to have been in place prior to the Big Bang. I think this is what is at the heart of the teleological argument.
This user has been banned so please do not expect any responses from him.

Guardian85

#43
Quote from: Egor on February 15, 2012, 07:18:35 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 15, 2012, 07:03:09 AM
If you would like a better metaphor then the ball bearing analogy, concider a stick of dynamite in a pile of gravel and sand. When detonated, would you expect the sand and gravel to fly out from the point of detonation and disperse itself uniformly with perfect symetry down to the last nanometer?

Of course not. It would disperse with a certail level of ramdomness, as we all well expect that it should. And it is this level of expected ramdomness that allows gravity to take the sort of effect that we would predict it to have based on gravitational theory. And gravity is not something magical thinking, as you of all people state (sweet,sweet irony), since it is something that we can actually measure and confirm the existence of.

Where do I start? You're comparing apples and oranges. The dispersment of gravel would be in utter accordance with the laws of physics on a macro level. Completely predictable if enough effort were applied. We're talking about the expansion of pure energy into nothingness--which is barely even conceivable. As for gravity, since it is measurable and exists, why are you still an atheist?
The spreading of debris from an energetic detonation will follow the rules of ballistics, no matter which scale you are operating on.
The expasion of matter from the big bang is also in accordance with the laws of physics and would also be quite predictable if we had the tremendous quantity of data and calculatory capacity to work it out. As it stands, a supercomputer would have to work around the clock for the duration of all our lifetimes combined to make those calculations. The fact that you cannot concieve of it, does not mean it can not be so. That is called an argument from ignorance.

And when did the physical force of gravity become a deiety? The very fact that it is mesurable places it outside the realm of faith.



"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

Tank

Quote from: Egor on February 14, 2012, 11:57:50 PM
Okay, I've watched the video. The theory relies on luck and imperfection, but the universe expanding from the singularity wouldn't have imperfection.

Another bald assertion. Failure at this point.

Quantum theory posites imperfection. The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals this imperfection. If there were no imperfection then there would be no structure in the universe.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.