WTF?!?!?!? ..."all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing”..."

Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
WTF?!?!?!? ..."all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing”..."

From a conversation I'm having:

 

There are many types of evolution: Cosmic, Organic, Micro, Macro, Chemical, etc…. In your answer you spoke about Macro Evolution. Macro Evolution can only occur if there was a Cosmic Evolution first, i.e... The Big Bang. The idea that all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing” as it is now taught defies several laws of physics. It takes a great deal of gravity to do this, not even a Neutron Star can achieve such force. Not even a Black Hole does it as evident of it growing in size as more stars are pulled in. We are taught in chemistry that like charges repel. Electrons would never be able to handle all electrons in all matter squeezed together so tightly because of it repelling. This is event as in the case of Electron Shells in different orbits. After the explosion of the Big Bang, all matter should be spinning in the SAME direction per law of ANGULAR MOMENTUM. The fact that we have planets and even galaxies spinning in opposing directions breaks this basic, observable law in physics. Science is foremost based on observations. We have never seen mass being destroyed anywhere in the universe, and energy for that matter. To theorize that it did happen or could happen is not scientific. One could argue for fusion; however, that is simply taking smaller pieces and making a bigger one. Again no new matter was created.

WTF does "The idea that all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing” as it is now taught defies several laws of physics." come from? This has to be one of the lightest 'Strawman' arguments I've ever read. I have requested a source but I don't hold out much hope.

 

Your thoughts, as always, would be greatly appreciated.

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
This is Kent Hovind's crap

This is Kent Hovind's crap being resurrected and regurgitated at you.

If they're interested, sterr them to Thunderf00t or the ExtantDodo(s) on YouTube.

There are others but those two go into more detail.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate the response.

I appreciate the response. I'm in the process of formulating my own rewrite of condensed material that I've found.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
There is so much wrong with

There is so much wrong with the science that that person said

 

Abu Lahab wrote:

From a conversation I'm having:

 

There are many types of evolution: Cosmic, Organic, Micro, Macro, Chemical, etc…. In your answer you spoke about Macro Evolution. Macro Evolution can only occur if there was a Cosmic Evolution first, i.e... The Big Bang. The idea that all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing” as it is now taught defies several laws of physics. It takes a great deal of gravity to do this, not even a Neutron Star can achieve such force.

The idea of all the matter in the world being in a single place does not defy the laws of physics. It is called a singularity you can wikipedia it.

Abu Lahab wrote:

Not even a Black Hole does it as evident of it growing in size as more stars are pulled in. We are taught in chemistry that like charges repel. Electrons would never be able to handle all electrons in all matter squeezed together so tightly because of it repelling. This is event as in the case of Electron Shells in different orbits.

There is supposed to be a singularity at the center of black hole. Matter probably changes form as it approaches a singularity and most likely transforms into energy. Also, black holes aren't always growing. They emit something called, i think, hawking radiation (theorized by Stephen Hawking), which actually causes them to shrink and eventually disappear. This is also definitely on wikipedia.

Abu Lahab wrote:

After the explosion of the Big Bang, all matter should be spinning in the SAME direction per law of ANGULAR MOMENTUM. The fact that we have planets and even galaxies spinning in opposing directions breaks this basic, observable law in physics.

That is exactly wrong. Angular momentum is a conserved property. In order for it to be conserved, objects HAVE to be rotating in opposite directions.

Abu Lahab wrote:

Science is foremost based on observations. We have never seen mass being destroyed anywhere in the universe, and energy for that matter. To theorize that it did happen or could happen is not scientific. One could argue for fusion; however, that is simply taking smaller pieces and making a bigger one. Again no new matter was created.

Mass can be destroyed when it annihilates with its anti-particle and will transform into pure energy. There is an overall mass/energy conservation though. Fusion is unrelated to this idea and deals with creating larger atoms from smaller ones and happens in stars. 

This is the worst science i have ever seen.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


fcaustic
fcaustic's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-01-24
User is offlineOffline
Get him to watch A Universe

Get him to watch A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=D62809AD452EDB98

One of the best explanations of what we currently know about the big bang and the structure of the universe.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
The in my opinion most

The in my opinion most interesting bit here is how the guy in the quote box is unable to imagine a situation where human beings are in fact unable to understand how the universe works outside of a very narrow and species-related band of interpretation. I think the real issue here is that children from a very young age are being taught that we humans are the shit; that we're God's special pets in the very special petting zoo that is this planet.

However, it seems to me that our large cerebral cortex and flexible thumb is going to earn us a Dodo status.

I believe it is a fallacy to think of the human monkey as "intelligent". It ought to be obvious that most of us aren't. This large brain seems to rather be a firecracklin' powerhouse of fantasy and imagination. An organ for creating models of reality, if you like. I don't acknowledge the presence of "intelligence" unless the party popping mind comes with both discipline and sobriety - but most of all with humility.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:This is Kent

jcgadfly wrote:

This is Kent Hovind's crap being resurrected and regurgitated at you.

That wouldn't surprise me, it all sounds very Hovind-ish, trying on 10th grade chemistry to refute the results of relativity. LOL!

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Doofus Abu is debating

Doofus Abu is debating wrote:

The idea that all matter that exist was squeezed into the space of “nothing” as it is now taught defies several laws of physics. It takes a great deal of gravity to do this,

Lucky the Big Bang Theory doesn't try to claim it's singularity was achieved by gravity, then, huh?

You're right that he is straw-manning with this BBT, Abu, to be exact The BBT doesn't make any claim at all as to a cause of the original singularity since in order to do that you would have to run the causal arrow backwards through classical time.. (to which I don't personally object, but if you are going to I would at least expect you to know you are doing it and not argue about the implications as if you weren't)

Most accurately the proposed origin singularity is mathematically described as occurring where the quantity of space-time is approaching zero. The point (Space,Time) = (0,0) itself is undefined but it is analytically understood that the other quantities of the equation are approaching infinity as space time shrinks.  However that doesn't mean that the theory says space-time ever shrank nor that gravity increased so no-one has to account for the quantity of gravity involved  

 

 

complete jackass attempting to debunk the centre-piece of contemporary physics with rudimentary electronics wrote:

We are taught in chemistry that like charges repel. Electrons would never be able to handle all electrons in all matter squeezed together so tightly because of it repelling. This is event as in the case of Electron Shells in different orbits.

So... clearly this guy knows how to say cosmological evolution but as for what it actually involves.... he knows diddly squat and if he bothered to read he would discover that by the time the first signs of EM force turn up in the origin soup the big bang singularity is already long gone.

{timeline of the Big Bang}

**Along the time line there are three spontaneous symmetry breaks which separate the unified force into the four fundamental forces operating in today's universe.

 

That will have to do for now cause I've gotta dash, sorry. Hope it's enough to help you school the twerp, though. Smiling

 

 

 

Edit: Back.. and I notice the rest of his drivel has already been given the once over by others so I won't bother to write anymore unless you want to ask something specific, Abu.

Oh... and let us know how he goes taking the ugly truth about Hovind's science cred. Laughing out loud

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:After the

Abu Lahab wrote:
After the explosion of the Big Bang, all matter should be spinning in the SAME direction per law of ANGULAR MOMENTUM.

Omg, high school level physics fail. 

Even if we assume, among many other problems, that he's justified in this application of the conservation of angular momentum in classical mechanics to the Big Bang, (kind of) this only requires that the net, as in overall, angular momentum in a closed system remains constant. This would mean that any celestial body could spin in any direction as long as some other object spins faster in the opposite direction to make up the difference.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist wrote:That

liberatedatheist wrote:
That is exactly wrong. Angular momentum is a conserved property. In order for it to be conserved, objects HAVE to be rotating in opposite directions.

Lol.

I think the logic of the OP was that if the singularity was spinning in some direction, then everything after the Big Bang would be spinning in that direction. The way I interpreted this part of the 'argument' is that he doesn't understand that the conversation of angular momentum describes a constant net spin, not a prescriptive rule.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Ah........

Thanks again one and all.

 

Once I get myself back working the first thing I will do is write El Sapeinete a check cos this site is awesomeness.

 

Oh, and here's part two:

 In the 1980’s the science books, when mentioning the Big Bang Theory, said that all matter in the Universe was squeezed together into the “size of a period on this paper.” I then researched older science books. The older books said that it was squeezed together into a much larger area. So basically it was once believed the universe was squeezed into one mass about the size of a planet or moon. Decade’s later evolutionary scientist said it was the size of the period in a sentence. Today’s science books say it was squeezed together so tightly that it was like “nothing”. To put it simply, all matter was squeezed into the size of nothing, and then the nothing exploded and became everything. Whether it was “nothing” or the size of a period, or the size of a planet, the points I made earlier would still apply. NOTHING is more dense and has a greater amount of gravitational pull than a Black Hole. The fact that a Black Hole is larger than the size of a period and grows as more stars are pulled in tells me that matter can’t be squeezed smaller than that. Not to mention that like charges would repel it if you tried. Protons would repel protons and electrons would repel electrons. Evolutionary Scientist also have another problem that needs addressing as well. Let’s assume that all matter was squeezed into one ball and then exploded. Let’s assume the Big Bang Theory is correct. Where did the matter come from that was squeezed together? Nothing in science answers this question.

I'm only posting this for entertainment purposes. This line of argument has holes big enough for me to drive a bus through.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Quote: In the 1980’s

Quote:

 In the 1980’s the science books, when mentioning the Big Bang Theory, said that all matter in the Universe was squeezed together into the “size of a period on this paper.” I then researched older science books. The older books said that it was squeezed together into a much larger area. So basically it was once believed the universe was squeezed into one mass about the size of a planet or moon. Decade’s later evolutionary scientist said it was the size of the period in a sentence. Today’s science books say it was squeezed together so tightly that it was like “nothing”.

If he is telling the truth from his own personal experience (which I highly doubt, it sounds like he's verbatim regurgitating some piss poor* creationist apologetics) then it must be that he has misunderstood the meaning of the texts he is reading. As I said before these Einstein singularities are mathematically defined, the volume of the singular point is zero, there is no other size for a gravitational singularity to be or ever have been, according to old textbooks -- besides these zeroes the equations are continuous and well defined at each point, however, they do come with features which vary in size like the event horizon, so maybe he has just conflated different parts of a gravitational phenomenon he is reading about.

 

same doofus as before wrote:

 The fact that a Black Hole is larger than the size of a period and grows as more stars are pulled in tells me that matter can’t be squeezed smaller than that.

This probably confirms my theory above, I'd say. Whoever actually penned this is confused which parts of a gravitational phenomenon he's reading about. Suffice it to say, the singularity at the centre of a black hole has a zero volume and that's where all the mass is, what varies in size is the gravitational field around the singularity.

 

who wrote this utter tripe? seriously? wrote:

Nothing in science answers this question.

Says the guy who reckons he read a physics textbook.

ARRRRRRGH!!!!!!

 

 

Abu_Lahab wrote:

I'm only posting this for entertainment purposes. This line of argument has holes big enough for me to drive a bus through.

Oh... okay, well I had fun picking on him anyway...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*but is there any other kind?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:features which

Eloise wrote:
features which vary in size like the event horizon

 

I do not know this for dead certain, but from what I can understand, "the black hole" is any- and everything that exists inside of the event horizon, where the singularity acts as a kind of "nucleus" of infinite nothingness. However, it is - at least in theory - possible to traverse the insides of the event horizon for quite some time (but you can still not observe the singularity, as this violates some obscure Hawking principle of naked singularities not being permissible).

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When they cant directly get

When they cant directly get away with "my deity(insert disembodied invisible magical super brain) did it, they attack science. When they cant attack science they try to retrofit it to prop up their naked assertion. When they cant get away with that, they childishly demonize you when what they should do is act like a mature adult and consider that they are wrong.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
In my opinion, Big Bang is

In my opinion, Big Bang is not the only possibility. BB is an assumption based on red shift. Red shift is based on assumption of Doppler effect. But red shift can also occur when the light passes through obstacles, FFS! Just take a fucking flashlight and light it through a canister of distilled water. Or look at a goddamn sunset and sunrise. And then imagine all these light years full of cosmic gases, dust, and gravity fields that the light must go through, on it's way to us. No wonder it's shifted to red, the more distant it is!

Therefore, assuming that all cosmic objects are accelerating away and light is red-shifted by doppler effect, is rather premature. And assuming, that everything was once somehow suppressed in one spatial point, is unjustified.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
No Lumy, a sunset has

No Lumy, a sunset has nothing whatsoever to do with red shift.  What you are on about is the higher frequencies being filtered out leaving only the lower frequencies.

 

Red shift is when frequencies that are known to be a certain value appear in the wrong place in the spectrum.  For example, the Sun has two well defined points in it's spectrum that are associated with sodium ions.  Those points are both in the band of colors that we call yellow and there they appear both in bright clear daylight and in sunset light.

 

OTOH, the same sodium colors appear in distant galaxies but they are not in the range of colors which we call yellow.  The more distant a galaxy is (as confirmed by other ways of measuring distances) the farther they are shifted into the orange and red color bands.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
    ...So why is the

 

 

 

 

...So why is the dark matter there?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:...So why is

jumbo1410 wrote:

...So why is the dark matter there?

 

Where do you mean by 'there'?


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where do you mean by

Quote:
Where do you mean by 'there'?

Well I don't know. That guy in the youtube video said it was everywhere. He also said that we know absolutely nothing about it, and that it makes up 70% of our universe. I guess that means we know absolutely nothing bout 70% of everything, right?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:Quote:Where

jumbo1410 wrote:

Quote:
Where do you mean by 'there'?

Well I don't know. That guy in the youtube video said it was everywhere. He also said that we know absolutely nothing about it, and that it makes up 70% of our universe. I guess that means we know absolutely nothing bout 70% of everything, right?

 

95% of our universe is dark energy and dark matter, while 5% is ordinary matter.  It's effectively everywhere there is visible matter.  It is a concept that accounts for the gravitational fields necessary to keep galaxies together and spinning at the velocities that they are.  Just because we don't know exactly what it is doesn't mean we can't tell its effects on things we do know.  Gravity itself is still not very well understood, even though we know it is there.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:95% of our universe is

Quote:
95% of our universe is dark energy and dark matter, while 5% is ordinary matter.  It's effectively everywhere there is visible matter.  It is a concept that accounts for the gravitational fields necessary to keep galaxies together and spinning at the velocities that they are.  Just because we don't know exactly what it is doesn't mean we can't tell its effects on things we do know.  Gravity itself is still not very well understood, even though we know it is there.

Yes, yes. But the OP is patting himself on the back for a theory positing a sigularity as if it somehow explains where everything came from. Was dark energy produced by TBB or did it produce TBB?

Also, how did Krauss come to the conclusion that a flat universe can produce itself out of nothing?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OTOH, the same sodium colors appear in distant galaxies but they are not in the range of colors which we call yellow.  The more distant a galaxy is (as confirmed by other ways of measuring distances) the farther they are shifted into the orange and red color bands.

So the red shift we observe can not be a product of filtering of higher frequencies? I mean, there should be at least both red shift, and high frequency filtering. Do the astronomers need to compensate it?


 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
95% of our universe is dark energy and dark matter, while 5% is ordinary matter.  It's effectively everywhere there is visible matter.  It is a concept that accounts for the gravitational fields necessary to keep galaxies together and spinning at the velocities that they are.  Just because we don't know exactly what it is doesn't mean we can't tell its effects on things we do know.  Gravity itself is still not very well understood, even though we know it is there.

I think that string theory predicts dark matter and energy. It is a matter, that has it's most elementary particles having at least one more vibrating string, effectively placing it into "another dimension" from our point of view. However, at least the gravitational pull should remain. In my opinion, there are many more ways of how the dark matter interacts with our matter.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:BB is an

Luminon wrote:

BB is an assumption based on red shift.

 

I seem to remember it was more about a question of explaining how the relatively enormous amounts of hydrogen was formed, in a deductive process based in how heavier elements were created in very massive stars - only this space object would have to very massive indeed, so the calculations predicted a black hole like phenomenon that acted like a supernova. The red shift was merely an indication that the theory might be correct, not the basis of it.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:   Answers in

Luminon wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OTOH, the same sodium colors appear in distant galaxies but they are not in the range of colors which we call yellow. The more distant a galaxy is (as confirmed by other ways of measuring distances) the farther they are shifted into the orange and red color bands.

 

So the red shift we observe can not be a product of filtering of higher frequencies? I mean, there should be at least both red shift, and high frequency filtering. Do the astronomers need to compensate it?

 

OK, as I said before, red shift is different from filtering. However, filtering is very real and is actually a major factor in how we have come to know the universe. Before I get into details on that, I would like to provide a bit of background in the form of an analogy.

 

The first point that you need to know is that light is composed of particles known as photons. Generally speaking, photon only interact with electrons. However, the details of the interaction are important.

 

When you take a trip somewhere (plane/train/bus doesn't really matter), your travel agent can book you a seat in a specific row. Say the third row or the fourth row. However, no matter how much you may try to ask, you simply cannot get a seat in row # 3.247. That just is not going to happen.

 

Without pushing the analogy too hard, the electron in an atom are like the passengers on a bus. They can only be seated in well defined locations. However, they can move from one seat to another under specific circumstances. Here there are two interactions of note.

 

An electron can absorb a photon that carries the specific amount of energy needed to kick that electron into a higher energy orbit (seat) or a higher energy electron can emit a photon that carries off enough energy to allow the electron to fall into a lower energy orbit.

 

Still with me dude? This is where you answer begins.

 

An electron emitting a photon is what happens when light is produced and radiated away into the universe. Because this has to happen at some specific energy level, all light is produced at one of these discrete energy levels, which we see as specific colors.

 

An electron that absorbs a photon is what happens when some specific color of light is removed from a light source. That is what is actually happening when you speak of filtering. Again, this must happen at a specific well defined energy level.

 

Now here is the rub: We can analyze the light from a specific source and determine that it must have a specific chemical makeup by what colors of light that we find. Also, when light passes through a cool dark gas cloud somewhere out in space, we can determine what the chemical makeup of the cloud is by the colors that the cloud absorbs are.

 

Still with me dude? I hope that you are. Time for another analogy.

 

OK, you must have had the experience of being on the side of the road when a sports car screams past you at 100 km/h. And you must have noted that the sound of the engine changes pitch as it goes past you. That “YEEEOWWWW” sound is caused by the Doppler effect (which wikipedia must have a page on if you want the details).

 

Well, the same thing happens with light. Except that instead of a changing pitch, what you will see is a shift of colors. If a light source is coming toward you, the colors would be shifted towards the blue end of the rainbow and if the light source is heading away from you, the colors will be shifted towards the red end of the rainbow.

 

This is basically what red shift is. Since all but a very few galaxies are moving away from us, due to the expansion of the universe, astronomers usually just call it red shift.

 

Now when the colors are distorted by red shift, the parts of the spectrum that we use to analyze the chemical composition of stuff are also shifted. So if the markers for a specific element such as sodium (which are normally two lines in the band we call yellow) turn up in the red part of the spectrum, then we say that they have been shifted towards the red and are therefore red shifted. The galaxy we are looking at is clearly moving away from us and by determining just how far they are shifted, we can measure just how fast that galaxy is moving away from us.

 

So to more directly answer your question, yes filtering is part of red shift but not quite in the way that you were thinking about it.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Hey Eloise!

This was too good to leave out of the ongoing saga:

You asked me where I get my information. I actually get it from many sources. The first two sources I will mention are from science textbooks that were taught in public school. In Prentence Hall General Science, 1992, page 61 it says “Most astronomers believe that about 18 – 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.” In HBJ General Science, 1989, page 362 it says “If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.” If I understand you correctly, you mentioned Einstein’s Theory to prove the existence of the formation of matter? Einstein did not believe in matter ever being formed. He believed in the “Static Universe Theory.” He didn’t believe in the Big Bang. He also did not believe the Universe was expanding for that matter. We now know the Universe is expanding because of Red Shift. Please see Einstein’s Biography “Einstein The Life and Times” for more information. Concerning singularities, it is foremost a theory that can’t be proven by observation, thereby making it nonscientific. No one has ever been on the other side of an Event Horizon to tell us what he saw. There are many conflicting theories concerning singularities. For example Hawking’s Singularity theorem only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition. During inflation, the universe violates the stronger dominant energy condition and inflationary cosmologist avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:This was too

Abu Lahab wrote:

This was too good to leave out of the ongoing saga:

You asked me where I get my information. I actually get it from many sources. The first two sources I will mention are from science textbooks that were taught in public school. In Prentence Hall General Science, 1992, page 61 it says “Most astronomers believe that about 18 – 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.” In HBJ General Science, 1989, page 362 it says “If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.” If I understand you correctly, you mentioned Einstein’s Theory to prove the existence of the formation of matter? Einstein did not believe in matter ever being formed. He believed in the “Static Universe Theory.” He didn’t believe in the Big Bang. He also did not believe the Universe was expanding for that matter. We now know the Universe is expanding because of Red Shift. Please see Einstein’s Biography “Einstein The Life and Times” for more information. Concerning singularities, it is foremost a theory that can’t be proven by observation, thereby making it nonscientific. No one has ever been on the other side of an Event Horizon to tell us what he saw. There are many conflicting theories concerning singularities. For example Hawking’s Singularity theorem only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition. During inflation, the universe violates the stronger dominant energy condition and inflationary cosmologist avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning

 

Citing middle school science texts? Is Hovind posting from prison?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Abu Lahab

jcgadfly wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:

This was too good to leave out of the ongoing saga:

You asked me where I get my information.<SNIP> 

Citing middle school science texts? Is Hovind posting from prison?

 

<laughing>

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:jcgadfly

Abu Lahab wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Citing middle school science texts? Is Hovind posting from prison?

 

<laughing>

 

You boys (for you are boys, right?) can laugh because you think that you know better, but please consider the insidious trickery of people who will be using your debate for the purpose of convincing doubtful people who have no access to any better science than that which is offered by creationists and daytime television. Do not feel smug. Your duty isn't yet done. Only by aristocratically blowing snot at the stupid creationists can you appear as more impressve and therefore more worthy of following than, say, the god Apollo or Jesus Christ. "Thruth" is not an issue to most people. They just don't care. Religious cults are aware of this fact. You are not.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:....and

Marquis wrote:

....and therefore more worthy of following <SNIP>

 

I don't want to be followed. I just want people to think for themselves and when they can't do that at least research the various possibilities.

 

Shouldn't you be banning a bomb or pushing a flower down the barrel of a rifle?

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Shouldn't

Abu Lahab wrote:

Shouldn't you be banning a bomb or pushing a flower down the barrel of a rifle?

 

Cute.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Abu Lahab

Marquis wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Citing middle school science texts? Is Hovind posting from prison?

 

<laughing>

 

You boys (for you are boys, right?) can laugh because you think that you know better, but please consider the insidious trickery of people who will be using your debate for the purpose of convincing doubtful people who have no access to any better science than that which is offered by creationists and daytime television. Do not feel smug. Your duty isn't yet done. Only by aristocratically blowing snot at the stupid creationists can you appear as more impressve and therefore more worthy of following than, say, the god Apollo or Jesus Christ. "Thruth" is not an issue to most people. They just don't care. Religious cults are aware of this fact. You are not.

Is that really the best you have? an age shot?

I know I can't convince morons with any sort of facts. That is why Hovind and his associates do so well - they don't pester their audiences by making them think.

For me - it's more of an inside joke. Hovind and his ilk are evil and evil must be ridiculed.

I don't give a damn whether anyone become an atheist because of me - all I want people to do is look at evidence and think for a change. If they're sucking up Hovind's lack of knowledge, they're too far gone to bother with lookng at evidence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:all I want

jcgadfly wrote:
all I want people to do is look at evidence and think for a change

 

Hello? They won't.

"People" will go to extraordinary lengths in order to not have to think.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:jcgadfly

Marquis wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
all I want people to do is look at evidence and think for a change

 

Hello? They won't.

"People" will go to extraordinary lengths in order to not have to think.

I know - so why are you raising hell about me laughing at Hovind?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Marquis

jcgadfly wrote:

Marquis wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
all I want people to do is look at evidence and think for a change

 

Hello? They won't.

"People" will go to extraordinary lengths in order to not have to think.

I know - so why are you raising hell about me laughing at Hovind?

 

Never mind.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:jcgadfly

Marquis wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Marquis wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
all I want people to do is look at evidence and think for a change

 

Hello? They won't.

"People" will go to extraordinary lengths in order to not have to think.

I know - so why are you raising hell about me laughing at Hovind?

 

Never mind.

 

Great. The 'precious' defense.

 

<rolls_eyes>

 

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

So to more directly answer your question, yes filtering is part of red shift but not quite in the way that you were thinking about it.

 

Thank you very much, 100% understood. So this is how it is, and what I had read earlier was bullshit.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5801
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Krauss at no point said or

Krauss at no point said or implied that "a flat universe can produce itself out of nothing".

He said that it could arise out of 'nothing', without violating any conservation principles. Nothing there about what caused it to emerge.

QM points to stuff happening for no specific cause, IOW, purely random effects. No hint of an event 'causing itself'.

Only Theists are stupid/deluded/confused enough to use the idea that anything "can produce itself" as if it made any sense.

You clearly did not follow his presentation.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:This was too

Abu Lahab wrote:

This was too good to leave out of the ongoing saga:

You asked me where I get my information. I actually get it from many sources. The first two sources I will mention are from science textbooks that were taught in public school. In Prentence Hall General Science, 1992, page 61 it says “Most astronomers believe that about 18 – 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.” In HBJ General Science, 1989, page 362 it says “If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing.

So where's the bit about the singularity being described as the size of a small planet..? The difference between saying smaller than a 'period' (we call them "full stop"'s in Australia, whilst period has another connotation altogether LOL) and saying nothing, especially in a High school text book, is negligible. A full stop is the indicator of a point in space, and to say 'smaller than a point' in geometric terms is to say it takes up no space -- ergo, they are the same thing and if your guy knew even a fraction of what he claims to know about physics then he would know his Geometry, since it is at the heart of all physics.

that charlatan, again, claiming to know something about physics wrote:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time.

All very well to say, but I was under the impression he was trying to debate the scientific merit of the big bang theory, which, incidentally for Luminon's sake, was based on the observed expansion (indicated by red shift in distant galaxies) of the universe and, shortly thereafter, via Hawking, Penrose and Ellis was developed into a full (cosmological scale) explication using Einstein's field equations to predict what it would have been like prior to expansion. Virtually concurrently rather compelling evidence was found for the existence of a hot dense early universe in 'microwave background radiation' by Penzias and Wilson.

And if he intends to debate the Big Bang Theory he probably ought to know a little about it, like for instance that Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem proves that a singular boundary of space-time exists right where the big bang is supposed to be for all solutions to Einstein's equations of relativity.

 

cynical one liners are too good for this guy, seriously wrote:

However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.”

 The Bang in big bang refers to expansion, not explosion. It's more like the big 'blow up' as in balloon on a helium line, 'bang' is kind of a misnomer and physicists do not theorise an explosion happening 16.5 billion years ago at all.

 

here he comes with the tactics of deflection and diversion wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you mentioned Einstein’s Theory to prove the existence of the formation of matter?

No Moron, I mentioned Einstein's relativity because it is absolutely central to understanding the theory of the Big Bang. Damn, if he doesn't even know this much what the hell is he doing debating it?

 

and now here he comes with his profound misunderstanding of science wrote:

Einstein did not believe in matter ever being formed. He believed in the “Static Universe Theory.” He didn’t believe in the Big Bang. He also did not believe the Universe was expanding for that matter.

Nevertheless, it was his very own equations which provided the proofs on which the Big Bang theory is based. That's how it works in science.

Einstein is a respected historical figure and his by the by thoughts are to be afforded a modest credence as per his having been a man of great influence and intellect. However, his equations and his relativity theory, the scientific legacy of his life, are objective things, they have no obligation to his person or his opinions, they continue to exist on the weight of evidence alone, they do not depend on his credibility.

We do not have to hold Albert Einstein as "godlike" in order to admit the truth of his field equations and relativity theory. This guy appears to be suffering the strange delusion that we do (we may have to name it Hovind's disease) but rest assured, what Einstein thought the universe was like in his personal diary of favoured ideas has no direct bearing on what his scientific discoveries can or will prove.

 

Quote:

Concerning singularities, it is foremost a theory that can’t be proven by observation, thereby making it nonscientific.

Says the guy who clearly doesn't even know that singularities are analytic results of relativity equations and wonders why I brought up Einstein.  You're in no position to judge what is and isn't scientific, mate.

 

Quote:

There are many conflicting theories concerning singularities. For example Hawking’s Singularity theorem only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition. During inflation, the universe violates the stronger dominant energy condition and inflationary cosmologist avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning

 

Quoting a wiki article that you don't understand is a dumb idea, if he understood this at all then he would have realised it made all his other issues with The Big Bang theory utterly redundant and wouldn't have bothered posting them at all. Since he didn't lead with this question (and since I found the wiki article he plagiarised it from) I have no choice but to assume that he is not sufficiently educated to discuss it realistically and suggest he comes back when he is.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3088
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Abu Lahab

Eloise wrote:

Abu Lahab wrote:

This was too good to leave out of the ongoing saga:

You asked me where I get my information. I actually get it from many sources. The first two sources I will mention are from science textbooks that were taught in public school. In Prentence Hall General Science, 1992, page 61 it says “Most astronomers believe that about 18 – 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.” In HBJ General Science, 1989, page 362 it says “If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing.

So where's the bit about the singularity being described as the size of a small planet..? The difference between saying smaller than a 'period' (we call them "full stop"'s in Australia, whilst period has another connotation altogether LOL) and saying nothing, especially in a High school text book, is negligible. A full stop is the indicator of a point in space, and to say 'smaller than a point' in geometric terms is to say it takes up no space -- ergo, they are the same thing and if your guy knew even a fraction of what he claims to know about physics then he would know his Geometry, since it is at the heart of all physics.

that charlatan, again, claiming to know something about physics wrote:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time.

All very well to say, but I was under the impression he was trying to debate the scientific merit of the big bang theory, which, incidentally for Luminon's sake, was based on the observed expansion (indicated by red shift in distant galaxies) of the universe and, shortly thereafter, via Hawking, Penrose and Ellis was developed into a full (cosmological scale) explication using Einstein's field equations to predict what it would have been like prior to expansion. Virtually concurrently rather compelling evidence was found for the existence of a hot dense early universe in 'microwave background radiation' by Penzias and Wilson.

And if he intends to debate the Big Bang Theory he probably ought to know a little about it, like for instance that Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem proves that a singular boundary of space-time exists right where the big bang is supposed to be for all solutions to Einstein's equations of relativity.

 

cynical one liners are too good for this guy, seriously wrote:

However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.”

 The Bang in big bang refers to expansion, not explosion. It's more like the big 'blow up' as in balloon on a helium line, 'bang' is kind of a misnomer and physicists do not theorise an explosion happening 16.5 billion years ago at all.

 

here he comes with the tactics of deflection and diversion wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you mentioned Einstein’s Theory to prove the existence of the formation of matter?

No Moron, I mentioned Einstein's relativity because it is absolutely central to understanding the theory of the Big Bang. Damn, if he doesn't even know this much what the hell is he doing debating it?

 

and now here he comes with his profound misunderstanding of science wrote:

Einstein did not believe in matter ever being formed. He believed in the “Static Universe Theory.” He didn’t believe in the Big Bang. He also did not believe the Universe was expanding for that matter.

Nevertheless, it was his very own equations which provided the proofs on which the Big Bang theory is based. That's how it works in science.

Einstein is a respected historical figure and his by the by thoughts are to be afforded a modest credence as per his having been a man of great influence and intellect. However, his equations and his relativity theory, the scientific legacy of his life, are objective things, they have no obligation to his person or his opinions, they continue to exist on the weight of evidence alone, they do not depend on his credibility.

We do not have to hold Albert Einstein as "godlike" in order to admit the truth of his field equations and relativity theory. This guy appears to be suffering the strange delusion that we do (we may have to name it Hovind's disease) but rest assured, what Einstein thought the universe was like in his personal diary of favoured ideas has no direct bearing on what his scientific discoveries can or will prove.

 

Quote:

Concerning singularities, it is foremost a theory that can’t be proven by observation, thereby making it nonscientific.

Says the guy who clearly doesn't even know that singularities are analytic results of relativity equations and wonders why I brought up Einstein.  You're in no position to judge what is and isn't scientific, mate.

 

Quote:

There are many conflicting theories concerning singularities. For example Hawking’s Singularity theorem only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition. During inflation, the universe violates the stronger dominant energy condition and inflationary cosmologist avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning

 

Quoting a wiki article that you don't understand is a dumb idea, if he understood this at all then he would have realised it made all his other issues with The Big Bang theory utterly redundant and wouldn't have bothered posting them at all. Since he didn't lead with this question (and since I found the wiki article he plagiarised it from) I have no choice but to assume that he is not sufficiently educated to discuss it realistically and suggest he comes back when he is.

 

 

jesus, el, i have cold chills and i'm not even sure why...

 

i think this is appropriate commentary:

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Krauss at no point

Quote:
Krauss at no point said or implied that "a flat universe can produce itself out of nothing".

He said that it could arise out of 'nothing', without violating any conservation principles. Nothing there about what caused it to emerge.

QM points to stuff happening for no specific cause, IOW, purely random effects. No hint of an event 'causing itself'.

Only Theists are stupid/deluded/confused enough to use the idea that anything "can produce itself" as if it made any sense.

You clearly did not follow his presentation.

 

Well of course I didn't understand his presentation...

 

So your explanation is that a universe can arise out of nothing - as in, there is nothing, then the universe arose out of it?

So nothing literally produced the Universe? For example, the answer to the question, "What caused the universe?", is "Nothing caused the universe?"

To elucidate further, a feature of nothing (say, empty space) is the ability to spontaneously produce something (say, virtual particles)?

By that argument, then, a plausible answer to the question, 'What produced God?", is "Nothing".

 

This "nothing" created everything, and should be worshipped. Yes, worship nothing. You are here because nothing created you.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Jumbo, the thing is

Well Jumbo, the thing is that nobody ever said that the universe came from nothing. Well theists claim that atheist said that but I really have never known any atheist who ever said that. The most that you can really get from anyone in the atheist community is that “god did it” it not an acceptable concept.

 

A better question would be to ask “where did everything come from?”.

 

Honestly, the world of modern physics has many ideas that are possible answers but to date, nobody has come up with the one answer that really is indisputable. Of the ideas that I am aware, the general answer is that before the stuff that we know of came to be, there was other stuff. However, as I say, we don't really have the slam-dunk argument on just what that stuff was or what it did.

 

What we do know remains that “go did it” is without any merit at all.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well Jumbo, the thing

Quote:
Well Jumbo, the thing is that nobody ever said that the universe came from nothing. Well theists claim that atheist said that but I really have never known any atheist who ever said that. The most that you can really get from anyone in the atheist community is that “god did it” it not an acceptable concept.

What we do know remains that “go did it” is without any merit at all.

If "arose out of nothing" does not mean "came from nothing", you might have to start speking de Englerish, as the not-so-fortunate are getting lost. By the way, an ad homenim tu quoque-theist-did-it-too defense is a fallacy.

Quote:
A better question would be to ask “where did everything come from?”.

Frame the problem as you wish.

 

Quote:

Honestly, the world of modern physics has many ideas that are possible answers but to date, nobody has come up with the one answer that really is indisputable. Of the ideas that I am aware, the general answer is that before the stuff that we know of came to be, there was other stuff. However, as I say, we don't really have the slam-dunk argument on just what that stuff was or what it did.

 

 

Yeah, I will stop posting now.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:By the way,

jumbo1410 wrote:
By the way, an ad homenim tu quoque-theist-did-it-too defense is a fallacy.

 

Then feel free to let me know when I actually do that. My statement of fact is what it is.


Your accusation is a red herring fallacy. You have my permission to stop now.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


not registered user (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
please read

I just want to say one thing, don't bother writing back cause i will probably never visit or be able to find this site again, i'm just doing a research paper for school and i'm trying to find stuff and ended up on this page.

I uses to be just like you, i didn't beleive in God, i thought the whole idea was completly stupid. I was very stubburn, i garantee i was more stubburn than you. I was very into the subject of making sure that i made sure that everyone knew that i didn't beleive in God. Maybe a bit too much, i was very touchy and sensitive on the subject just like i can tell you are. Many people are, on either sides. I used to think wow people who beleive in God and go to church and everything are completly nuts. I saw your sign in your picture that said if Jesus comes back let kill him again. I actually have said that many a time, i went to see a Tool concert once and they have said that many a times in concert and on their songs. Everyone cheered and yelled and laughed at that. I want you to know how much i was into all that, very very passionate about proving God wasn't real, it was just a past time for people.

I also thought even if he was real, i would want to go to hell so i could sip whiskey with Kurt Cobain and chill with the devil. Thats completly wrong and stupid to say. Many people get the wrong idea of hell completly like i did. Let me tell you, you don't want to go to hell, you burn forever no escape, the flames are so hot it is pitch black down there. You will be reminded every moment in your life on earth, while in hell, all the chances you had to be able to go to heaven. It will be miserable and i willl tell you now, it is a reality, just like on earth, completly real, no dream like feelings at all.

I don't know you and you dont know me, but i want to share a few things with you. I got saved from all that, after all i have done wrong in my life i am saved and going to heaven. I am a baptist, (not those that wear dresses and bonets) i beleive in the King james Bible. I dont do the tounge speaking or do i beleive that humans now have the abilty to see the future like those in the bible. That stopped after the bible was finished being wrote. Anyway i'm just a normal as anyone else, i'm not crazy liek you are probably thinking. I have a normal life, i just restrain form certain things. I'm must happier now and formt he minute i accepted jesus into my life i felt a true difference. nothing anything in the world can replace, nothing. I knoew from that minute that jesus christ WAS real. I knew it with all my sane heart. I may not know you at all but being a SAVED christian i care for you, and i know that God loves you and doesn't want to see you go to hell.

I'm not going to try to use any smart facts from everywhere in the world out of textbooks and different people with just theories, i dont think it is nessesary. If you really think about it, some things really can't be proved, we didnt create ourselves, when it comes down to it no matter what you beleive who knows if scientific facts are real and true. All i'm saying is no one knows, i know that no one would die for a scientific fact, thats lame. I would die for a real, living all knowing God, the only God, the true and living God. I would never die for a scientific fact. The problem we have today is no one is passionate or faithful enough to beleive in God anymore. We have TVs, cell phones, internet, science books. We have all that to tell us what is soppose to be true, but let me tell you friend most of it is lies. We all rely on all that so much that no one even could care or have the time to really stop and look at the world around us. the stupid big bang or whatever other theory people have created the world. Go outside really look around. Look at the sky the flowers animal, even man sometimes. Even storm and fire. Everything is so beautiful, i know that only a true loving God created all that. please try to understand, im not trying to be pushy or weird, i want you to know what is true. Its real friend, all of it is a reality. I promise down to the deep of my heart, its all true.

I know if you don't beleive me, you will read this and say wow this person is a nut, and maybe show your friends and make fun of me and pull out every bit and peice of each subject and find a scientific fact to tell why it isn't true. I was just like you i would have done all thins and more. but scientific facts dont matter when it comes down to it, i have nothing to prove to you, because i know the truth. All that doesnt matter, what matters is whats going to happen to you. what happens to me when we both die. I know for a fact i will go to heaven when i die or when jesus comes back.

Jesus is coming back, he told us that in the bible. Did you know that the bible was made before any of the scientific books were made? It was made in 1611, thats why the King James is the right bible, it was the first printed and should be the only one today. But anyway the point is Jesus told us to look for signs of his coming. do some research on the King James bible, and then look at events in the world, The bible talks of it all, maybe not spacifically but it does tell of  things like this second timothy say in chapter 3 and in verse 2-6 "for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blashemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful,  unholy. Without natural affection, truebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:from such turn away.

Thats not all of it not only the changes in human will and have come but also the catastrophys in the world have happen that the bible talked of. You have obviously done your research on your side of things, now i think you need to get a King James Bible and do your research there along with reasearch of events and the way the attitudes of poeple have changed over the years. Look at how people used to be, so proper and nice and they acctually used to teach creation in schools. they took that out of schools and people act rediculous today make fools of themselves. The bible told us that before it happened. It was first printed and distributed in 1611! Before any of this happened, before you were born. Sir you are not God, you have not been around that long and you obviously don't know to much about it. The bible was around long before 1611 too, it was just printed then. Have you even heard of a book that have been able to stand the test of time like that, that has been able to stick around that long? i havn't, becuase God aloud that, for us to read and learn and to be able to be saved.  I dont think you can do that, its impossible you are just human, if you think you are God you are wrong my friend. Its not right for you to joke like that, out of all respect and kindness, it is wrong we are just humans put on this earth to love and serve a mighty God way more powerful than any of us can imagine. He did make our world in 7 days

please i really hope that you get to read this, God has completly changed my life for the good, let me tell you how my life was going before i got saved, i want to show you how God has blest me. I remember before i got saved, i did a lot of drugs and drinking. I have almost every drug in the book. I was spending a lot of time and money on all of that nonsense. I had a car that always broke down on me. I had no one that cared for me, my relationship with my parent were horrible. I was slowy slipping into depression and doing more drugs to make sure i never had a chance alone with myself and the reality that held against me when i wasnt high. I would have never killed my self, thats crazy first of all, but deep down i feared where i would even go in the first place. I still mocked God and made fun of him, for some reason, even though i didnt beleive in him, I HATED him., I hated the way he made me to end up witht he family i have, i hated the thing that he did to me. But he didnt do those things to me, it was the devil that kept me away from him but using earthly things to keep me away. I hade problems that i thought no one could fix, no God could fix. but one day my boyfriend of about 3 years started to go to a baptist chruch, he invited me and i went, i loved the church beleive it or not. People were nice to me and cared for me already, just like i care for your life and what happens after your life. one thing lead to another and i got saved. Now how has God blest me? I had huge car problems, having a car is important obviously to get to work and let me tell you i live in a small town and i sometimes have to travel to get somewhere. He blessed me with a new car, i have to pay for it but i'm young and he allowed me to get a car loan at a young age, not many can say that. But he also blessed me with a stable great job to pay for that. I'm going to college and getting a degree, and he is giving me the will power toi do so. I dont do drugs or drink or smoke anymore, he gave me will power to stop that. I get along with my parents now, we still are not perfect but we get along. He has help me to get out of a horriblw life, i'm so blessed now and i'm telling you this to so you what he can do to someone like i used to be.

God loves you so much. i hope you read this, i wont write back to you becuase im not looking for a fight and this isn't a question anyway. I want you to read this to yourself and just accept it the way you want, then its up to God to work in your life. I want to share with you the passage in the bible that got me saved. Accutually there are a few that first help you to understand. Its called the Romens Road

Romans 3:23   For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23   For the wages of sin is death.    (this means ETERNAL seperation from God in hell)

Romans 5:8  But God Commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Chirst dies for us.

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

abd finally Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt beleive in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thous shalt be saved.   For with the heart man beleiveth unto righteousness: and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Now to be saved i'm going to give you a prayer that you say aloud in prayer with God. You have to beleive this with all your heart :

"Lord i know that i am a sinner, i come to you humbly in prayer to ask you to forgive me for my sins, i know that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and you rose him agian on the 3rd day and he walked upon the earth, i know that this all was real and he did it for me, so Lord for give me and accepted me into your heart and i will accept you into mine, i pray you save me, save me from Hell that i may be in heaven with you one day, in Jesus' Name Amen"

Now i'm telling you this in hopes that you will accept Jesus in you heart, if not thats your choice, but maybe one day hopfully soon you will get saved and be in heaven one day. If you do get saved the next step is to read Gods word, a King James Bible. Maybe Find Your selve a Baptist church, i hope you do, i really do, once again i care for you and hope you do get saved. Friend Hell is a reality and it is horrible. But heaven is a reality too and it is wonderful and you have that choice to where you are going to go. No matter what you beleive, if you beleive that God isn't real or whatever else, you have alreadt made your choice to go to hell. But if you accept Jesus into your life then you made the choice to go to Heaven and i hope thats what you do. I know a good preacher that you can try to find. His name is pastor Jack Tripp, he got my boyfriend to come back to church through one if his sermons. He may help you. please consider the other side of things, be open minded, its always inportant in life to be open minder but dont fall into wrong things. God is true, his word is true, and he loves you and all that is going to happen that the bible says is a reality. please. God Bless i will pray for you.

ps dont let the things of the world catch on to you and brain wash or convince you of lies, be stronger than that