GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2013, 15:34   #161
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
No, I don't feel that it disproves the existence of dieties. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence FOR them existing, though.
And we have a winner.

That's how I landed in the middle of the "Is there a god" question. Some answered yes, some answered no, I answered maybe.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:37   #162
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, I've been saying that the BBT is not yet fully explained, not by math, not by theory, which is why real scientists are still looking into it, and maybe considering slightly or radically different answers. Big chill? Another Universe? String Theory?

It's not a complete package just yet.
That's not what you've been saying. You said...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
From what we can really tell, the universe is expanding, and it probably used to be hotter. Any detailed description of what is causing that is not proven by math.
This is incorrect.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:40   #163
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Yeah, didn't you claim to have proven there is no deity?

Thanks for the reminder.
You still haven't addressed this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion, opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:42   #164
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,476


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, I've been saying that the BBT is not yet fully explained, not by math, not by theory, which is why real scientists are still looking into it, and maybe considering slightly or radically different answers. Big chill? Another Universe? String Theory?

It's not a complete package just yet.
So after about 70 posts you feel comfortable in restating this falsehood again as if I had not challenged you on it pages ago. The fact that you list all of those as alternate explanations further illustrates your shallow "popular media" level of understanding of these issues. Those theories are complimentary, not contradictory.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-06-2013 at 15:46..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:42   #165
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You are hung up on this bad, aren't you.
No, actually - I'm just curious as to how long you'll avoid admitting you made an accusation you can't back up with evidence. You're *still* avoiding that. My bet is you'll avoid it forever. Would you care to prove me wrong?

if so
Please
a) Provide evidence I've ever claimed that science can prove the existence or nonexistence of a deity (which would disprove the 'can't back up with evidence' portion, taking your statement out of contention for being a statement made without evidence)
or
b) Admit you made an accusation you have no evidence for (Which would disprove the 'will avoid admitting it' portion, by simply admitting it)
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-06-2013 at 15:53..
void * is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:43   #166
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,476


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
You still haven't addressed this...
Nor has he addressed this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Just so everyone is clear, this is the lagrangian for the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (aka "Big Bang" theory). This is the actual theory. Terms like "dark matter" and "cosmic inflation" are simply part of a plain english interpretation of the predicted results that arise from solving this function.

Religious Issues
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:45   #167
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And we have a winner.

That's how I landed in the middle of the "Is there a god" question. Some answered yes, some answered no, I answered maybe.
The question: "Do you believe in God/gods?" cannot have an answer of maybe.

Do you believe God or gods exist?
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:49   #168
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
That's not what you've been saying. You said...




This is incorrect.
And you are unaware of any point in the BBT that is not explained by the math?

Quote:
As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 × 10−35 meters.

How was the fuse lit on the big bang? Really, was it even a bang, or a chill?

And you see no questions left to answer? Really?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:50   #169
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
No, actually - I'm just curious as to how long you'll avoid admitting you made an accusation you can't back up with evidence. You're *still* avoiding that. My bet is you'll avoid it forever. Would you care to prove me wrong?

if so
Please
a) Provide evidence I've ever claimed that science can prove the existence or nonexistence of a deity (which would disprove the 'can't back up with evidence' portion, taking your statement out of contention of statements made without evidence)
or
b) Admit you made an accusation you have no evidence for (Which would disprove the 'will avoid admitting it' portion, by simply admitting it)
Void, you tend to have an unnatural attachment to certain perceived details.

Have I not simply asked, and stated I would accept your answer?

Quit dodging the question.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:55   #170
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And you are unaware of any point in the BBT that is not explained by the math?




How was the fuse lit on the big bang? Really, was it even a bang, or a chill?

And you see no questions left to answer? Really?
You are continuing to misrepresent the argument. No one is claiming that our knowledge of the BBT is complete or absolute. You claimed that there is no math to illustrate elements of the BBT that there absolutely ARE. And the fact that you keep trying to drag the argument in to one of the BBT being final and absolutely explored only illustrates that you INTENTIONALLY being dishonest. Your usual MO.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:56   #171
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Void, you tend to have an unnatural attachment to certain perceived details.

Have I not simply asked, and stated I would accept your answer?

Quit dodging the question.
And here he attempts to avoid yet again.

I am not the one dodging the question. You know (or *should* know) well that I have stated multiple times that I do not think that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

I have asked you to:

a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
or
b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

So far you have done nothing other than avoid doing either, and now you are adding on an attempt to claim it's me avoiding a question.

So again,
a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

You claimed integrity is key in another thread, did you not?
If so, which has more integrity - Claiming that I'm avoiding a question so you can avoid doing one of the above - or simply admitting you made the accusation without evidence and, you know, hey, your bad?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-06-2013 at 16:16..
void * is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 15:57   #172
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Void, you tend to have an unnatural attachment to certain perceived details.

Have I not simply asked, and stated I would accept your answer?

Quit dodging the question.
You are unbelievable. He's dodging a question? You act like a child do you know that? You've done nothing but run around the thread dodging one question after the next.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:02   #173
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,476


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And you are unaware of any point in the BBT that is not explained by the math?

How was the fuse lit on the big bang? Really, was it even a bang, or a chill?

And you see no questions left to answer? Really?
Is that what you are harping over? That the Lambda-CDM model doesn't cover an area it never claimed to cover? Really? Lambda-CDM is a theory about how the universe developed, not how it began. You do realize that there are other theories and models that do cover how "the fuse lit on the big bang"? Like cosmic inflation and the ekpyrotic model. In much the same way as abiogenesis covers how life began and evolution covers how it developed, these other theories cover how the universe began and Lambda-CDM covers how it developed.

You've been reading to many back issues of Omni again. Lambda-CDM is not and has never been intended to be the be all and end all explanation for eveything. It is only one of a set of theories that explains why the universe is the way it is today.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:03   #174
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Quit dodging the question.
Please address the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion, opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
This is just plain wrong.

Just so everyone is clear, this is the lagrangian for the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (aka "Big Bang" theory). This is the actual theory. Terms like "dark matter" and "cosmic inflation" are simply part of a plain english interpretation of the predicted results that arise from solving this function.

Religious Issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
It does not answer the questions.

Was your intent with that statement to imply that the BBT is not real science?

If not, why did you even make that statement when the subject under discussion was the BBT?

Furthermore, can you admit that I never claimed that the BBT, or any scientific theory, is disproof of the existence of a deity? Can you publicly admit that the accusation you made was wrong, or not? Remember, integrity.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:15   #175
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Please address the following...
Just because you asked, I'll answer.



No.

Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:16   #176
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Just because you asked, I'll answer.



No.

Please address the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that they are mostly speculating (as opposed to testing theories empirically without bias)? If your answer is yes then are you sure that it is actual evidence and not just personal opinion?

You are dealing in theoritical interpretations, not actual theories. Interpretations are just analogies we use to make the theories seem more sensical to us. The theories themselves are pure, dispassionate math that is either right or wrong. The math makes predictions about the nature of the universe that can either be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing. We perform these empirical tests to collect the data to see if the theory is valid. That is true evidence in its purest form.

For instance, the Standard Model of elementary particle physics predicted a specific mass for the theorized Higgs Boson particle at a given energy level. We built CERN to carry out that actual measurement and sure enough, it was found right where the Standard Model predicted. That is actual evidence and that is how actual science works.

That is not what you are doing. You are throwing around emmotion, opinion and speculation with the complete absence of any evidence. Which is all you have ever done in this forum. You don't think a specific theory is valid? Fine, let's see your data. Because I have actually looked at the data (evidence) in favor of the Lambda CDM model (aka Big Bang) and found it quite compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
This is just plain wrong.

Just so everyone is clear, this is the lagrangian for the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (aka "Big Bang" theory). This is the actual theory. Terms like "dark matter" and "cosmic inflation" are simply part of a plain english interpretation of the predicted results that arise from solving this function.

Religious Issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
It does not answer the questions.

Was your intent with that statement to imply that the BBT is not real science?

If not, why did you even make that statement when the subject under discussion was the BBT?

Furthermore, can you admit that I never claimed that the BBT, or any scientific theory, is disproof of the existence of a deity? Can you publicly admit that the accusation you made was wrong, or not? Remember, integrity.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:16   #177
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Is that what you are harping over? That the Lambda-CDM model doesn't cover an area it never claimed to cover? Really? Lambda-CDM is a theory about how the universe developed, not how it began. You do realize that there are other theories and models that do cover how "the fuse lit on the big bang"? Like cosmic inflation and the ekpyrotic model. In much the same way as abiogenesis covers how life began and evolution covers how it developed, these other theories cover how the universe began and Lambda-CDM covers how it developed.

You've been reading to many back issues of Omni again. Lambda-CDM is not and has never been intended to be the be all and end all explanation for eveything. It is only one of a set of theories that explains why the universe is the way it is today.
Let's summarize a bit here. I claimed the math does not explain everything about BBT, you claimed it did, and when I point to an area not explained by the math, that doesn't count.

OK Got it.


Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-06-2013 at 16:17..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:19   #178
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Let's summarize a bit here. I claimed the math does not explain everything about BBT
No you didn't. You claimed math does not explain aspects of the BBT that it absolutely does.

You're not going to be allowed to restate your argument to slither out of being dishonest.

Or where you just wrong? Which is it?

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-06-2013 at 16:19..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:26   #179
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,476


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Let's summarize a bit here. I claimed the math does not explain everything about BBT, you claimed it did, and when I point to an area not explained by the math, that doesn't count.

OK Got it.

So, you are claiming victory based on your ignorance of the scope of Lambda-CDM? And the fact that the area you are pointing at is explained by other theories (more math) doesn't sway you at all?

I think all you have shown is how unqualified you are to be speaking on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
No you didn't. You claimed math does not explain aspects of the BBT that it absolutely does.

You're not going to be allowed to restate your argument to slither out of being dishonest.

Or where you just wrong? Which is it?
And this point still stands, you said the scientists where creating "extrapolated" and even "imagined" data, that is a far cry from what you are saying now. I will simply assume that you can not support your original position due to ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-06-2013 at 16:31..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 16:28   #180
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
And here he attempts to avoid yet again.

I am not the one dodging the question. You know (or *should* know) well that I have stated multiple times that I do not think that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

I have asked you to:

a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
or
b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

So far you have done nothing other than avoid doing either, and now you are adding on an attempt to claim it's me avoiding a question.

So again,
a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

You claimed integrity is key in another thread, did you not?
If so, which has more integrity - Claiming that I'm avoiding a question so you can avoid doing one of the above - or simply admitting you made the accusation without evidence and, you know, hey, your bad?

I have offered to simply ask, which I did, and take you at your word. That's reasonable.

And you won't answer. So?

You tend to get stuck on minor details.
I'm not susceptible to remote control.

Last try, then I'm moving on, whether you can or not.

Do you believe that the scientific knowledge of all of humanity proves or disproves whether or not a deity has or has not existed?

Whatever your answer, I'll believe that is your answer.
Cavalry Doc is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 820
228 Members
592 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31