Magoroth

Debby wrote:

No religion promotes the Big Bang Theory, so they are not asking for faith in the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang is a scientific theory . Even here scientist are not asking for faith in it.

I guess he does have a point in that it comes down to faith, both the Big Bang Theory and the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago are based on faith. It’s just that

1) One being wrong does not imply the other is correct, which is what he seems to be missing

2) The belief that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago has even less support than the Big Bang, which is impressive when you think about it because we’re basically just monkeys talking about things that happened THIRTEEN BILLION YEARS AGO (and supposedly at the beginning of the world), which is like protozoa debating nuclear physics.

Well, it does not make sense for him to post all he did if it turns out he’s wrong. What does it matter if people’s belief in the Big Bang is an act of faith, if his belief in the Universe being 6,000 years old turns out to be wrong?

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #172: @Kermos I don’t see what either of these points mean, you could just both be wrong …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #173: snip… I’ll take any claim that we discovered how the UNIVERSE came to be with a grain of salt …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #174: 6,000 year old theory is just bigotry …snip

@Magoroth wrote in post #175: As an aside, even if belief in the Big Bang requires faith, it could still be correct and you would be wrong, faith notwothstanding.

@Magoroth wrote in post #176: Like much of what you said regarding evidence for the Big Bang is probably true, it doesn’t prove you right. …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

What’s the point in you posting any of this if you’re wrong?

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #185: @Kermos See ht …snip… Abstract Einstein became world famous …snip… We reanalyze the 1919 data, and identify the error that undermines the conclusions of Earman and Glymour.

You provide no scientific data from your article link. By the way, neither Earman nor Glymour are named Rowland. I quoted detailed scientific data from Rowland’s article in post #61 which culminated with Rowland writing about Eddington, Dyson, and Commelin’s 1919 demonstrated in the provided quote to be sloppy work “The readings themselves were also questionable because of (a) errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation, and (b) equipment failure. Results were inconclusive because the error factor was as large as the deviation the experimenters were trying to prove [3]”.

Notice the closing [3] reference in that quote which is the “What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity” in which Rowland detailed:

In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime). Notice two things about this model:  Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime

1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this four-dimensional model.

Source of Figure 1: Wikipedia [9].

That’s just a small portion of the logic and rational reasoning in Rowland’s article.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

Therefore, your E=MC2 is a leap of faith as support for the Big Bang.

You see, I placed detailed scientific data supported by source link right in front of you, again, but you post nonscience abstract with a source link. Your debate skills are abysmal.

It appears to me that your data is so patheticly paltry that you hide behind your paper’s abstract.

The Big Bang Theory fails to adhere to the Scientific Method. The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Wtf does relativity have to do with anything?

If relativity is just fictional fantasy why is it that it explains the motion of planets better than Newton’s theory of gravity?

Also energy-matter equivalence is not a myth you can literally turn energy into matter or vice versa.

Like much of what you said regarding evidence for the Big Bang is probably true, it doesn’t prove you right. Before we had the Big Bang theory atheists had their own ideas of how the Universe came to be, so I don’t think they would be too bothered by the Big Bang being disproven.

As an aside, even if belief in the Big Bang requires faith, it could still be correct and you would be wrong, faith notwothstanding.

6,000 year old theory is just bigotry, apparently people can’t be religious nowadays without jumping into the most extreme beliefs. On par with believing NASA faked the Moon landing or worse

I mean the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. I don’t see why to give it much more credence than that. We can barely do anything on this planet, so I’ll take any claim that we discovered how the UNIVERSE came to be with a grain of salt. Could be right, could easily be wrong and it probably is.

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #151: @Kermos Scientists know the elements in the sun through spectroscopy,

Your statement is false. Here is the true statement:

Scientists speculate about the elements comprising the sun’s outer layer (surface) through spectroscopy, but the sun’s core is a mystery to mankind.

@FLRW wrote in post #151: which analyzes the unique light signatures (or wavelengths) absorbed or emitted by different chemical elements. When sunlight passes through a prism, dark lines appear in the spectrum. Each element blocks specific wavelengths, acting like a chemical fingerprint.

Now you convey redshift nullification which is that red-shift spectral lines are merely light wavelengths blocked by elements, not your “tired light” recorded in post #165:.

@FLRW wrote in post #151: Why don’t you say what kind of education you have?

Your MIT trained mind neglected a huge swath of important debate points, so, instead of obsessing over my education, why don’t you dig into a non-AI generated point by point response to this post? Or, is your education insufficient to contend.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: @Kermos From: ht …snip… The Big Bang — a rapid expansion of all the universe’s matter from a single point about 13.8 billion years ago — is predicted

Your post starts with your belief that you have “predicted” a 13,800,000,000 year old past purported event called the Big Bang, but you believe you did the impossible of foretelling that 13,800,000,000 year old past event (see the dictionary definition of predict in post #82). A past prediction is a ludicrously inane oxymoron for your 13,800,000,000 year old purported event.

Your “rapid expansion of all the universe” is your unsubstantiated belief because I presented astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team who produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which your statement directly contradicts. You have faith that the universe is expanding, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: by theoretical physics,

Where is your scientific method work, Mr. Scientist? Don’t forget astrophysicist Burbidge with his work in The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620 mentioned above! You don’t have scientific fact, but you do have belief per your use of the concept “theoretical” fundamentally indicating faith/belief just as shown in the dictionary definition of the word theory recorded in post #20.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: a field that uses math to create consistent theories that explain the physical world we see around us.

Nobody saw the Big Bang, so your Big Bang Theory is inconsistent with the physical world. I demonstrated the broken rungs of your cosmic distance ladder in post #53, yet you come back with hollow comments unsubstantiated by scientific fact regarding the Big Bang, so you sit there with your faith based prognostications without scientific method facts!

By the way, post #118 demonstrated the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error (William and Valdemar). You mentioned math, but that math remains unsubstantiated by you!

@FLRW wrote in post #131: The amounts of different elements in the universe matches what’s predicted by the theory.

You don’t know what elements are inside of the Sun, at a mere 8 light minutes from Earth, so you have absolutely no idea of all the elements that could be in the Magellanic Clouds.

I remind you of your astrophysicist Stephen Hawking’s “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: Because the theory specifies what sorts of elements were created — and in what proportions — moments after the Big Bang, it makes predictions about what elements we’ll see in the universe around us. When we’ve measured the amount of these elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), they match the predictions nicely.

Your calculations are designed with the end result in mind. Again, see the William and Valdemar example in post #118. Again, your calculations are similar to the scenario encapsulated in your high priest Hawking’s proverb.

@FLRW wrote in post #131: There are two equations which describe the evolution of the Universe as a whole, and they are called the Friedmann equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations Solving the equations gives the size of the Universe as a function of time. At time=0 the Universe was at zero size! …snip

Again, Friedmann sets up 2 equations that maps to his belief system. Again, see your high priest Hawking’s star bible contribution, above.

Mr. Scientist, FLRW, I would like to introduce you to your own intellect of “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” which means that you believe NOTHING became EVERYTHING.

Don’t bother to theorize what I mean because I’m spelling it out for you. You admitted the universe wasn’t even a small, hot dot in the beginning. You admitted the universe exploded without any detonation accelerants, no TNT, no fission, no fusion.

You have a mystical, magical beginning of all things called the Big Bang. You have entered the faith zone.

I believe YHWH God created everything from nothing about six thousand years ago.

You believe your Big Bang god created everything from nothing about thirteen billion, eight hundred million years ago

I don’t see what either of these points mean, you could just both be wrong lmao

People say Israel controls the US government

I sure wonder who benefitted from that

linate wrote:

You are aware of the concept of food Deserts right? And people being too poor to get commodities like produce or healthy food. I know the free market takes care of this to the best of its ability, which often means letting people fall through the cracks, but I wouldn't automatically rule out governmemt involvement. Maybe the governmemt could make some deliveries or I dunno

No, it’s the first I’m hearing of it. How can someone lack access to food without automatically starving?

It seems physically impossible for such things to exist. If supermarkets are unable to stay profitable because people aren’t buying their food, how are these people not starving to death?

Maybe it’s because they buy food elsewhere? Like, say, Pizza Hut? It doesn’t sound like the supermarkets’ fault…

This sounds like a myth to me. How can an area not have access to a supermarket unless it’s literally a town that was settled 10 years ago?

linate wrote:

Food Deserts are where grocery stores dont locate in urban areas cause its not profitable enough. So local people dont get access to basic nutrition. But why make every possible governmemt intervention as by definition wrong? Why frame every decision that affects the livelihood of citizens through purely economic lenses?

What is exactly is the problem here? I’m ngl this sounds bizarre. If you don’t have a store nearby you just go to where the nearest store is.

My first thought is that as a business owner you have to compete with the government which is crazy. You have to make a profit or you will close your store down.

This drives competition which in the end is for the benefit of the consumer.

Second, who pays for the store? YOU!

Wtf does Jesus have to do with aliens?

I’ve seen some of those videos. Why are they all in black and white/thermal? Are there no clear colour photos or videos of UFOs?

Also, they don’t strike me as particularly interesting. Many of them could be anything.

I think there are way more differences between Latin and Spanish than there are similarities. Especially if you compare their grammar.

From what I remember Latin grammar is actually rather similar to modern German grammar, though even more complicated; no modern European language truly comes close to the complexity of Latin grammar. But Spanish grammar, I believe is fairly simple compared to Latin.

As someone who learnt to speak English from video games, movies and Wikipedia, English doesn’t seem that hard.

Lmao me getting 9 likes on this post is hilarious.

I think the like button is kinda… bad. Like when I look at my posts and someone liked it, it gives me a buzz, which I think is fucking stupid lol. I think this feature should either be removed or there should at least be an option to make the likes and the button invisible.

For the record, as bad as Hitler was, almost by definition he couldn’t be Satan. Even Serial Killers have a pro or two, at least by accident.

Satan can’t have any pros, he is personification of evil. Like if you think of good evil as an axis, Satan is like at the evil end of the axis at infinity. Literally not possible to be worse than Satan.

Just saying all this in case someone accuses me of admiring Hitler. Hitler was unquestionably very evil by human standards but human standards are rather low in the grand scheme of things.

At least Hitler doesn’t torture you for eternity. Satan does.

Pretty much everyone has at least one pro. You’d have to be literally Satan to have no pro. Hell probably even Satan has a few pros, at least, his existence does (if he exists).

Idk what Hitler’s pro was. Maybe giving the Germans a goal when their nation was in tatters economically. And the Autobahn.

If there were a better choice on the table like say Javier Milei or Ronald Reagan, comments like calling Trump’s base a cult would be founded and ok.

When you’re a leftist and your candidates are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, it is not. It’s just a salty adversary licking their own wounds.

To avoid the whole topic. The trump base is not a cult. Trump isn’t being compared to Ronald Reagan or Andrew Jackson or some other president that is bona-fide actually GREAT. Trump is being compared to modern presidents or presidential candidates, and there we have Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, hell even RFK Jr.

In an era of Bidens and Kamalas, a mostly okayish President is like… the obvious choice. By many miles.

“Personality cult”

Only thing I see cultish around here is three leftists circlejerking about how Trump is bad and people who like him are drones without a single Trump supporter uttering a word. Sounds like you’re projecting?

As an aside, Trump brags and that’s why people like him? Let him brag, let him bait leftists for all I care. He also does stuff that involves more than just yapping his mouth.

On foreign policy he is pretty great. On economics he is at least not completely retarded. Would you rather he was like Biden or Kamala?

You can still have free will in determinism. You still make a choice, its just that those choices are based on rules/internal laws, they’re not just your whim in a flight of fancy.

As an aside, if there is no free will and we are just machines, then 1) the whole argument is meaningless, we’re just going to be doing what we’re always doing, and 2) morality is just something we are programmed to do (like moral judgments) that help us decide who is danger, who can be rehabilitated (if there is such a thing), and what the punishment should be for each crime.

If free will exists? Then obviously it has a meaning. And we’re pretty much in the same situation as above. Only difference really is the perspective.

gothic?

Allah will reward you with teenage boys who are like pearls. Just ask his prophet