Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:18:12 +0000, Giant Waffle wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:22:32 +0930, Michael Gray
you decided to say:


On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:02:53 -0700, Frank Mayhar
wrote:
- Refer:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:17:39 +0000, Giant Waffle wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:37:17 -0400, Alan Anderson
you decided to say:
Giant Waffle wrote:
We have not directly observed an atom, period.

Actually, we have.

Actually, we have not.

Actually, we have. As I wrote before, look up "atomic force microscope"
some time. There have been other mechanisms used to image single atoms,
but that is the most compelling.

Or are you claiming that those physicists are liars?

I find the ion trap to be very compelling as well.
But Giant Waffle (what an apt pseudonym) might not agree.

I note that Frank jumped right to "Are they all lying?".

No. I asked you if you are _claiming_ that these physicists are liars.
And, naturally, you sidestep the question in favor of attacking something
I didn't say. Are you a coward as well as a liar?

Hey, there's scientific evidence!

You mean the results of the atomic force microscope and/or the ion trap
experiments? Yes, this is in fact scientific evidence.

_Direct_ scientific evidence.
--
Frank Mayhar http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/

Giant Waffle

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:02:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


Giant Waffle

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:37:08 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


Giant Waffle

On 25 Sep 2006 11:22:51 -0700, "Snakes and Babies"
you decided to say:


Giant Waffle wrote:

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there.
That is not evidence.

Here's where you lose me

With all due respect, I would say that you aren't very well
equipped for this discussion then.


-- you take science to task for not being able
to verify all its theories

You can pretend that's the case all you want. The fact is,
that you are equating made up, imaginary things with
science. Science is a method. When men make things up
out of sheer imagination, which is what dark matter is,
that has nothing to do with science, except that it can be
called a hypothesis. But a theory? No!

Hypotheses become theories if they have sufficient
explanatory power.

If that "explanatory power" is about "facts" that are
evidence.

"Fact" implies absolute certainty.

That is your problem. If you think that you're going
to get around the simple truth that dark matter was
invented out of pure imagination by playing word
games, you're wrong.


There is never absolute certainty.

Good luck proving that. But the truth is, you think
that by claiming that there is never absolute certainty,
that it means that "dark matter" suddenly becomes
credible.

This is a word game. And it is one in which you trapped
yourself. You are an atheist and claim that there is no
God, period.

I did? Where? Would that be before or after I professed
my belief in dark matter?

The fact is, I have made neither claim in this discussion
with you. So I would appreciate it if you'd stop putting
your words in my mouth: I have no idea where they've been.

I keep getting the feeling that you're replying to somebody
else. Is this because you've not read my replies, or is it simply
that you find it more convenient to respond to someone who
plays the game you came here to play, and thus I'm volunteered
for sock puppet duty?


Thus, you claim absolute certainty, no matter
what your next response says, in which you will pretend
that isn't what you have claimed.

I did? Where?

Do you have a PayPal account? If so, twenty bucks
will be headed your way as soon as you show me where
in our discussion I claimed with certainty that there is
no god.

Here, you may use this space --











-- cary

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:20:11 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:33:02 -0500, "El Puerco"
you decided to say:


"Giant Waffle" wrote in message
news

Your problem is that you limit it all to the natural world,
yet know in the natural world, life can only come from life.

That we don't yet know how life began on Earth is a reason to invent an
entirely new, totally unsubstantiated category of "supernatural" phenomena?

Don't play games. You intentionally snipped the facts
that I listed, because you don't like them.

Pretendsthe lying hypocrite who wouldn't know facts if they hit
himover the head because his doctrine denies reality.

Goodbye.

__

Giant Waffle

If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until you
learn some common decency and respect.

Whining hypocrite.

And do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of good
men, falsely applying them to yourself, after acting
contrary to them, as those who are wolves in sheep's clothing
often do.

Liar.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:08:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


There is never absolute certainty.

Hmmm.. Are you absolutely certain about that?


Do you have a PayPal account? If so, twenty bucks
will be headed your way as soon as you show me where
in our discussion I claimed with certainty that there is
no god.

You can play the "in this conversation" game if you want to.

The fact is, you said that there is no such thing as an
absolute certainty, which is a statement that claims an
absolute certainty and thus, you contradict yourself
(see above).

Yet you have proclaimed that there is no God. Whether it was
in this discussion or another, is irrelevant to my point.

My point is, that if there is no such thing as an absolute
certainty, then you have contradicted yourself. You
cannot claim any longer that there is no God, without
contradicting your claim that there are no absolute
certainties.

You are left to deal with your own words and no amount of
word games is going to be a big enough shovel to dig your
way out of this one.

I'm not trying to attack you Cary (may I call you Cary?).
I am merely making a point about your claim that there
is no absolute certainty, which you seem to make only
when it is convenient for you. And I am letting you know
that I will not be sucked into that type of word game,
which is designed to avoid the issue I raised about
dark matter, because you cannot dispute it, but won't
admit that. (:

And as for "dark matter", you played word games. You
think that by saying that "there is no absolute certainty",
which I never asked for, that it lends credibility to your
belief that this "dark matter" exists. Huh? How does it?
It simply doesn't. Either you can detect it, or you can't
and it is *CERTAIN* that we have not and cannot, at
least at this point in time, which makes "dark matter"
something that was made up out of sheer imagination.
I know this, because I researched it and how this idea
was brought up. There was zero evidence for it. Just
a need to claim that there must be more matter somewhere.

Now if you are not an atheist, which means that I am wrong,
then just say so and I will apologize for calling you an
atheist, when you are not one and for saying that you are
contradicting yourself in this manner. In fact, I sincerely
hope that I am wrong.

__

Giant Waffle

If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until you
learn some common decency and respect.

And do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of good
men, falsely applying them to yourself, after acting
contrary to them, as those who are wolves in sheep's clothing
often do.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Sep 2006 15:36:32 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Lucifer"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there. That is
not evidence.
Here's where you lose me -- you take science to task for not being able
to verify all its theories -- where is ONE BIT of physical evidence
pointing to the existence of God?

Many would say that the universe itself is abundant physical evidence
for the existence of God.

But arguing from numbers is somewhat invalid....many once though the
world was flat, and the centre of the universe.

I'm not sure what your point is. Evidence is evidence, regardless of
the analysis of it.

My point, ****tard, is that just because many people believe it it is
not valid evidence. If you had any level of basic reading
comprehension, you would understand that from my post.

On 26 Sep 2006 10:04:32 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Lucifer"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Many would say that the universe itself is abundant physical evidence
for the existence of God.

But arguing from numbers is somewhat invalid....many once though the
world was flat, and the centre of the universe.

I'm not sure what your point is. Evidence is evidence, regardless of
the analysis of it.

My point, ****tard, is that just because many people believe it it is
not valid evidence. If you had any level of basic reading
comprehension, you would understand that from my post.

*plonk*

Giant Waffle

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:08:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


There is never absolute certainty.

Hmmm.. Are you absolutely certain about that?


Do you have a PayPal account? If so, twenty bucks
will be headed your way as soon as you show me where
in our discussion I claimed with certainty that there is
no god.

You can play the "in this conversation" game if you want to.

Oh, I see... you've made an assumption about me, and
when I call your bluff, you back towards the door,
temporizing as fast as you can.

If you want to hold a discussion with me -- but one in
which you take both parts, and I'm only a spectator,
then it's your right. Myself, I find it eerily like
watching a Tennessee Williams play.

For the record: I strongly doubt the existence of a
god anything like the one most frequently discussed
here, but I will do not claim absolute certainty
about that. Ever. To do so would be intellectually
dishonest.

And as for your numerious claims that I "believe" in
dark matter, I note that you find my repeatedly
informing you that I have no opinion on the matter
to be ... inconvenient. And thus you paper them
over, and return to shadow-boxing with your
straw mockup of me, while I watch from the sidelines.


The fact is, you said that there is no such thing as an
absolute certainty, which is a statement that claims an
absolute certainty and thus, you contradict yourself
(see above).

Yet you have proclaimed that there is no God. Whether it was
in this discussion or another,

Oh. Have we talked before, and you're now hiding behind
another nym? Because I most certainly have not had
any discussion with "Giant Waffle" before, and yet
it seems to "know" many things about me.

Any idea where I put those car keys?

is irrelevant to my point.

My point is, that if there is no such thing as an absolute
certainty, then you have contradicted yourself. You
cannot claim any longer that there is no God, without
contradicting your claim that there are no absolute
certainties.

Ah, so, having paid lip service to my requests for
you to show me where I have said, with absolute certainty,
that there is no God, you are now feel free to insert your
hand up my back once more, and flap my lips for
your entertainment.


You are left to deal with your own words and no amount of
word games is going to be a big enough shovel to dig your
way out of this one.

Actually, I am left to deal with your version of my words.
For some reason, I feel only minimally obligated to do so.


I'm not trying to attack you Cary (may I call you Cary?).
I am merely making a point about your claim that there
is no absolute certainty, which you seem to make only
when it is convenient for you. And I am letting you know
that I will not be sucked into that type of word game,
which is designed to avoid the issue I raised about
dark matter, because you cannot dispute it, but won't
admit that. (:

Speaking of dodging the issue, why have you briskly
avoided the numerous points I have raised about
the observations motivating the dark matter hypothesis,
its highly provisional status, the existence of
competing theories in the astronomical community,
the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, the highly
indirect nature of most scientific "detections",
and my pointing out to you the distiction between
galaxies, for which the dark matter hypothesis
might explain some anomalies, with the universe,
where it plays no such role?



And as for "dark matter", you played word games. You
think that by saying that "there is no absolute certainty",
which I never asked for, that it lends credibility to your
belief that this "dark matter" exists. Huh?

Which part of my having told you that I have no opinion
on the existence of dark matter, one way or the other,
are you finding the most inconvenient?

How does it?
It simply doesn't. Either you can detect it, or you can't
and it is *CERTAIN* that we have not and cannot, at
least at this point in time, which makes "dark matter"
something that was made up out of sheer imagination.
I know this, because I researched it and how this idea
was brought up. There was zero evidence for it. Just
a need to claim that there must be more matter somewhere.

Now if you are not an atheist, which means that I am wrong,
then just say so and I will apologize for calling you an
atheist, when you are not one and for saying that you are
contradicting yourself in this manner. In fact, I sincerely
hope that I am wrong.


-- cary

wrote in message
ups.com...

If we look at any science - astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, we
see enormous and accelerating progress. If theology is science, what
are the theologist's latest discoveries , say, from 1950 ?

This kind of point can also be used to demonstrate why parapsychology and
ufology aren't truly sciences.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:11:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


Giant Waffle

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:08:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) you decided to say:


There is never absolute certainty.

Hmmm.. Are you absolutely certain about that?


Do you have a PayPal account? If so, twenty bucks
will be headed your way as soon as you show me where
in our discussion I claimed with certainty that there is
no god.

You can play the "in this conversation" game if you want to.

Oh, I see... you've made an assumption about me,

I've noted your words.


The fact is, you said that there is no such thing as an
absolute certainty, which is a statement that claims an
absolute certainty and thus, you contradict yourself
(see above).

Yet you have proclaimed that there is no God. Whether it was
in this discussion or another,

Oh. Have we talked before, and you're now hiding behind
another nym? Because I most certainly have not had
any discussion with "Giant Waffle" before, and yet
it seems to "know" many things about me.

It does not take a genius to know that you are an atheist.
Research is the key. Now why are you dodging it?

Fact: You are an atheist and you claim that there is no God.

Fact: You said that there are no absolute certainties.

Fact: You have contradicted yourself. If there are no
absolute certainties, then you cannot say that
there is no God.

Fact: You dodged my follow up question, when you said
that "There are no absolute certainties." and I asked,
"Are you absolutely certain?".

This is very telling.

Face it Cary, you're bagged.

And with that, I think we're done here.

__

Giant Waffle

If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until you
learn some common decency and respect.

And do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of good
men, falsely applying them to yourself, after acting
contrary to them, as those who are wolves in sheep's clothing
often do.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:47:50 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

And with that, I think we're done here.


Oh, if only that were so. But you're lying, as usual, or you wouldn't
have started yet another cross-posted and OT thread in the first
place.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]