[32519]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-16, 16:12, said:

Are you underlining the parts of our posts that you HAVE read? In that case you are doing OK. Other creationists are quoting only the underlined part.

Have you seen these words anywhere before?

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin

There is zero logic in the BIG BANG theory. If there was you would have been able to answer my previous question to you.

[32519]

 Winstonm, on 2013-October-16, 16:26, said:

That's quite a theory you got there - the theory of theories. Myself, I get theory-eyed thinking that in Texas you could be elected to Congress.

How about you? Have you seen these words anywhere before?

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
—- Mark Twain

Why is it that you guys are doing the exact opposite? You got no facts or logic on the BBT, only a theory, but you have managed to convince each other it is fact. And to back it up with gwnn's flawless logic, you have gone and made all sorts of meaningless calculations, which the likes of the MikeH's of the world proudly quote as fact?

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2013-October-16, 16:57, said:

Yeah like theory of gravity, you fools still believe its true, but I know masses just get random forces into them, the fact that all of those you observe seem to go towards each other its just luck, it will stop anytime soon.

Given how poorly gravity is understood, this is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility!

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 19:16, said:

Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.

You will be waiting a long time, because the collider has been turned off for two years to prepare it to run at its peak energy. But there are websites and magazines (eg New Scientist, Scientific American) in which you can read about the data collected by the LHC and the significance of them.

Perhaps the problem you are having is that physics in the modern world, such as that done by the researchers at CERN, is very hard for most of us to understand well. In high school physics, we were able to determine certain properties of waves, of electromagnetism and many other things using fairly simple apparatus. We could not have discovered the Higgs boson, or even understood from the data received by the collectors that we had discovered it. So we have to trust others to do the science and tell us what it means.

Or could it be that you just think that the LHC is too expensive a project relative to its usefulness? There are some people who think that all pure science is a luxury we can't afford in a world plagued by hunger, disease, loss of biodiversity, environmental catastrophes and pockets of poor mobile phone reception. I don't hold this opinion myself, but I can see the point.

Many scientists believe in a god or gods. Are you sure that your god requires you to be anti-science? Perhaps he or she created the physical sciences to allow you the joy of discovery as you learn more and more about them, and is hurt that you are unimpressed.

[gwnn]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 19:23, said:

Have you seen these words anywhere before?

... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin

There is zero logic in the BIG BANG theory. If there was you would have been able to answer my previous question to you.

I have. Twice. But my ability to explain something bears no connection to whether that thing has any logic in it. (Thank God for that!)

[akwoo]

The question "Is the big bang theory correct?" is like the question "Here is my hand; is a 1♣ opening correct?"

Neither question can be answered out of context. For me to answer the second question, I need to know what your bidding system is. For me to answer the first, I need to know how you decide whether theories are correct or not. (To use the fancy word, I need to know your epistemology.)

Please note that, at the bottom, a bidding system cannot be completely logically justified against all others. One can give reasons why a bidding system is structured a certain way, but that does not mean one can give a complete logical foundation that removes all possible doubt. The same goes for an epistemology.

That doesn't mean anything goes. I can say your bidding system is terrible, and I can say your epistemology is terrible. These however are practical judgements, not metaphysical ones. Here is an observation that points out the difference: it sounds a little funny to say that your bidding system is incorrect (rather than terrible).

It does mean, however, that there is a range of reasonable epistemologies, and one can even mix and match them for different types of questions (just as one might vary systems depending on vulnerability, or depending on the strength of the field in your event).

(Hmm - a bridge question - it seems to me that the ACBL allows a pair/team to change systems between the first and second half of a 48/64-board match, since those are different sessions. Are there any known instances of a pair changing a system to a more/less swingy one (e.g. putting in/taking out a mini-NT) when well behind/ahead halfway through a match?)

[Trinidad]

 gwnn, on 2013-October-17, 00:08, said:

I have. Twice. But my ability to explain something bears no connection to whether that thing has any logic in it. (Thank God for that!)

I would say that while there is a very strong positive correlation between your ability to explain something and the ability of the general audience to understand what you explain, there is zero correlation (or perhaps even a negative correlation) between your ability to explain something and the ability of a certain individual to understand what you explain.

Rik

[gwnn]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-17, 01:30, said:

I would say that while there is a very strong positive correlation between your ability to explain something and the ability of the general audience to understand what you explain, there is zero correlation (or perhaps even a negative correlation) between your ability to explain something and the ability of a certain individual to understand what you explain.

Rik

Yes but that wasn't my point. I was simply saying that sometimes I can't explain something because I don't understand it well enough, not because it is impossible to do so. Which reminds me of the philosopher House: "Just because something is inexplicted, doesn't mean it's inexplicable."

[hrothgar]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-16, 17:25, said:

Lukewarm seems to have gone away and, if we stop feeding it, maybe this one will follow suit.

Here's the rub...

I don't believe that Lukewarm went away out of boredom.

Lukewarm's exit from the forum's coincided with the 2012 presidential elections.

Jimmy made a long series of outlandish and erratic predictions about the coming Romney victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, ...
(He was seriously drinkig the unskewed poll's Kool-Aide)

I suspect that he knew that people were going to hang those predictions / bets around his neck and mock him without mercy any time he opened his mouth.
(I certainly was)

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 19:16, said:

Are you also a scientist? If then, tell me how you produce the BANG when you got nothing? When I asked MikeH he threw all his toys out the cot. Then I asked gwnn. He too failed to offer anything. So now its your turn to fly the flag for every scientist who supports the BIG BANG theory. How do you produce the BANG with a big fat nothing at your disposal?

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this –
1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.
2. Your update must include –
a. Progress
b. Failures
c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

Deal or no deal?

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.
(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

So, let's get down to brass tacks.

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

[32519]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-16, 20:01, said:

You will be waiting a long time, because the collider has been turned off for two years to prepare it to run at its peak energy. But there are websites and magazines (eg New Scientist, Scientific American) in which you can read about the data collected by the LHC and the significance of them.

Sorry Vampyr, but you are just utterly wrong with the reasons for turning off the LHC. I was peeking over the wall again to see what MikeH was up to. Great was my surprise when I saw Richard Wiley there with him. So I listened in on what they were discussing.
Wiley was telling MikeH that I would go away if the LHC delivered. So MikeH got onto his cell phone and phoned the guy heading up the project. His question was straight forward, “How long will it take for the LHC to deliver?” When the guy answered, “Never,” MikeH had a near fatal heart-attack. In sheer panic he began screaming out, “What do you mean, never? What are you going to do then?”
The other guy did his best to calm MikeH down, “Listen MikeH, we are among the lurkers following that pesky thread. If we continue with the LHC we are going surrender out Ace of trumps to the opposition, the theory of Evolution. We have perfected this over a period stretching more than 100 years. Would you like to see that go up in smoke alongside the BBT?”
MikeH started whimpering, “No, no, of course not. That question is equally stupid to the BBT.” I don’t think MikeH realised what he had said until Wiley slapped him in the face with a stern reprimand, “Did you hear what you have just said? Are you defecting to the opposition? Traitor!” Now Wiley was really angry, with MikeH staggering backwards at the force of the slap. “Did I really say that?” he asked Wiley in disbelief. He did his best to apologise but Wiley wasn’t buying it, who immediately snatched the cell phone out of MikeH’s hand. The guy heading up the LHC was still on the line.
“Did you hear all that?” Wiley asked him.
“Yes,” I heard.
“So then what are you guys going to do?”
“Wiley, it’s a no-brainer. We are going to turn off the LHC and present a fake excuse to the world why we switched it off. The 9 billion set aside for the project has already been increased 3-times, much in the same way that the USAs debt ceiling is continually increased.”
“How long do you intend switching it off?”
“For two years.”
“Two years! Why two years? Who decided on the two years?”
“It was gwnn’s suggestion. That 32519 guy asked you for feedback in a year from now, the 16th of October 2014. We want to save your ass, but more importantly, we want to save ours as well from further embarrassment. Hopefully in two years time 32519 will have gone away all by himself and everyone will have forgotten about that pesky thread.”
“So what are you guys going to be doing during the two year interim period?”
“We will be brainstorming all sorts of new theories for the origin of the universe. We might even resurrect some of the older ones which we ourselves have discarded, dust them off and represent them to all non-scientists. We have roped in PassedOut to start gathering in new ideas/theories from every scientist who has utterly rejected the possibility that a super-natural being after all did really create the universe and everything in it. He placed us all under a lot of pressure when he posted, ‘There is no plausible alternative to the theory of evolution.”

There you have it my beautiful sister. From the horses mouth. They have faked the reason for turning off the LHC. Nobody wants to lose the theory of evolution after continuously bashing everyone on the head with it who didn’t buy into it along with the scientists.

[Winstonm]

Are there any religious moderates willing to castigate the troll because his basis for belief is irrationally based? If one argues on any other basis than an invalid core belief in irrationality as a basis for beliefs, one ends up with what we have now - endless, baseless repetitions of faith statements.

Instead of the Big Bang and evolution, the questions being addressed should be: 1) what is the process to re-animate human tissue that has been dead for 3 days? 2) What is the mode of conception and the objective evidence for that mode for the joining of a spiritual being with a human virgin that allows that human to remain a virgin post conception? 3) How can any being be visible to a crowd, rise in the air, disappear and live unseen for thousands of years and then reappear alive and well at some future unknown time - what is the mechanism that allows those things to happen?

Hint: An appeal to supernatural power first requires objective evidence that there is a reality outside of the natural world - and, as this assumption can only be supported with subjective claims of validity, it is nothing but an opinion, and, as such, an opinion for which the merit is produced solely by word-of-mouth.
In other words, the belief in a supernatural world is an opinion which is supported solely by the used-car-salesman-like claim of "Trust me, it happened!"

[Trinidad]

You make used car salesmen look bad.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-17, 08:24, said:

You make used car salesmen look bad.

Rik

In a previous life, I was one for about 3 years.

[mikeh]

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-17, 06:49, said:

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.
(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

So, let's get down to brass tacks.

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

Surely you know by now that the troll has no interest in trying to follow any proof that you might give it? It operates on a very simple premise: if someone who it views as non-religious says something, it metaphorically plugs its ears and writes some version of 'la-la-la-la-la'. It is possible, I suppose, that deep down inside the troll there exists some tiny ability to actually think as rational people do, but the evidence to date suggests otherwise.

Does anyone here really think that the troll will be persuaded by any rational argument?

If not, why continue to feed it?

[Trinidad]

 mikeh, on 2013-October-17, 08:36, said:

If not, why continue to feed it?

Mike, can we keep him as a pet? Please? Please? Mike? He is so cute! I promise I will feed him every day, Mike. I promise! I really do! Can we keep him? Please?

Rik

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2013-October-17, 09:16, said:

Mike, can we keep him as a pet? Please? Please? Mike? He is so cute! I promise I will feed him every day, Mike. I promise! I really do! Can we keep him? Please?

Rik

Now, Rik

That's what you said about the baby alligator, not to mention the Komodo dragon!

And who did those pets bite? You know that these baby trolls can grow up and become very aggressive. They can't help themselves.

Oh well, so long as you REALLY mean it this time....*sigh*

[Vampyr]

 32519, on 2013-October-17, 07:50, said:

Sorry Vampyr, but you are just utterly wrong with the reasons for turning off the LHC. I was peeking over the wall again to see what MikeH was up to. Great was my surprise when I saw Richard Wiley there with him. So I listened in on what they were discussing.

<bizarre story>

There you have it my beautiful sister. From the horses mouth. They have faked the reason for turning off the LHC. Nobody wants to lose the theory of evolution after continuously bashing everyone on the head with it who didn’t buy into it along with the scientists.

Do you actually believe this story you have told? If so, you need help.

Anyway, you can't claim that I am wrong about the reason they have turned off the LHC, and make up a fairytale explaining yourself.

By the way, what connection do you imagine the LHC has with biological evolution?

[PassedOut]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-17, 09:33, said:

Do you actually believe this story you have told? If so, you need help.

Anyway, you can't claim that I am wrong about the reason they have turned off the LHC, and make up a fairytale explaining yourself.

By the way, what connection do you imagine the LHC has with biological evolution?

Now 32519 is clearly dishonest. The religious stuff is in his posts to provide indirection.

[32519]

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 11:59, said:

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well.

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-16, 12:08, said:

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

 32519, on 2013-October-16, 19:16, said:

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this –
1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.
2. Your update must include –
a. Progress
b. Failures
c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

Deal or no deal?

 hrothgar, on 2013-October-17, 06:49, said:

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

So, let's get down to brass tacks.
From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.
1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.
2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

You have overlooked my first requirement. Stick post 249 onto your fridge, then take a snapshot of it and post it in this thread. If you cannot meet something as simple as that, then I place no value on anything else you post here.