[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Just because you asked, I'll answer.



No.

Please address the following...

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

Originally Posted by void *

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

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]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

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?

Please link to the precise aspects of BBT that I claimed math did not explain.

I'll wait.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

And you won't answer.

The funny thing here is - I actually did answer, in the post you quoted. Unless you think the words "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." mean something other than what they mean. If that's not clear enough for you : I do not think that the existence or nonexistence of a deity/creator is provable one way or the other, I've stated this multiple times, in responses to posts you have made, and I think it's ridiculous that you pretend otherwise.

So now that I've answered, and you've claimed I won't answer while quoting a post in which I actually did answer,

Please
a) provide evidence I've ever stated that science can prove or disprove whether a deity/creator exists
or
b) Admit that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation

I'll even promise not to sig your admission, if you'd like (I wouldn't anyway, I don't generally do that kind of thing to begin with). I'm just curious as to whether or not you actually *can* publicly admit that you made an accusation you had no evidence for.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Please link to the precise aspects of BBT that I claimed math did not explain.

I'll wait.

2nd Time

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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.

[Geko45]

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

You'll run away eventually like you always do no matter what he says.


Please respond to these...

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.

Originally Posted by void *

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.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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.



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.

It's humorous that you think I am the one claiming extrapolation was used. The scientists freely admit it themselves.

A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity.

How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.

The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang", and is considered the "birth" of our universe.

Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years. The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/b/big_bang.htm

[Japle]

I really don’t understand why anyone bothers to respond to CD. You’ll never get an honest post from him. It’s been pointed out hundreds of times that he’s a troll.

If the troll was simply ignored, we wouldn’t have to wade through all these endless threads to find something worth while.

Don’t, I say again, don’t feed the troll!

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

2nd Time

You've actually got a point there. Good for you.

On reconsideration, I'd have to rephrase that.

Math does not explain every detail of why that is happening.

But even with the math, some people have different opinions. Even fellows with more combined education and time spent pondering the beginnings of the universe than all of us in this thread combined.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...g#.URLdaWdyF8E

“We organized the conference because we both felt that the standard Big Bang model was failing to explain things,” Turok says. “We wanted to bring people together to talk about what string theory could do for cosmology.”

I know, it's a shock, but we don't know everything.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Japle

I really don’t understand why anyone bothers to respond to CD. You’ll never get an honest post from him. It’s been pointed out hundreds of times that he’s a troll.

If the troll was simply ignored, we wouldn’t have to wade through all these endless threads to find something worth while.

Don’t, I say again, don’t feed the troll!

says the drive by troll.......

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It's humorous that you think I am the one claiming extrapolation was used.

You claimed extrapolation was used, and used that as a basis to claim that the BBT was just "an example" and other like statements.

Your quote of the scientist does not do that. Extrapolation may be used to create a model, or run a simulation, or be used to check various conditions, etc, but that does not invalidate the fact that they end up with a mathematical formula, that formula can be used to make predictions, and those predictions can and have been tested.

The measurement of the cosmic background radiation was not an "extrapolation". The fact that the mathematics describing the BBT stated that such CMB would exist is not "extrapolation". That prediction is a direct, falsifiable prediction - if we could not detect CMB at the levels predicted by the BBT, despite having instruments that are able to do so, BBT would have been long dead (and in fact was not generally accepted until *after* we had instruments that could detect CMB and in fact *did* detect it).

That's the difference, CD. You were claiming it's all extrapolation and nobody has data and math can't explain stuff. That is *all wrong*. The math explains what it explains, and no more, it is admitted what it can't explain, etc. Your quote about string theory shows that - why have a conference whose basis is 'lets look at what BBT is not explaining' if they're not admitting there's stuff it doesn't explain? Yet you apparently wanted to toe the line of "it's just a guess, an example, an educated guess", etc.


Lest you think I'm letting you off the hook, please:
a) Provide evidence I have ever claimed science can prove or disprove a diety
or
b) Admit that you made an accusation that I was someone who faithfully believed that science can prove whether or not a deity/creator exists without actually having evidence to support the accusation

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

You claimed extrapolation was used, and used that as a basis to claim that the BBT was just "an example" and other like statements.

...

...

What is your point? Extrapolation occurs in all sorts of fields, including science. It's a way to get to as close an answer as you can get without directly being able to test or measure it.

BBT requites extrapolation, some others are questioning whether all the assumptions made were really correct. People with a lot more education on the subject than both of us have wondered if there were flaws in the BBT.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...g#.URLdaWdyF8E

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It's humorous that you think I am the one claiming extrapolation was used. The scientists freely admit it themselves.

I find it humorous that you only replied to the part of my post to which you found it easier to respond. Setting aside that you were using "extrapolated" in a different context than they do, how do defend the "imagined" portion of that post?

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You've actually got a point there. Good for you.

On reconsideration, I'd have to rephrase that.

Math does not explain every detail of why that is happening.

No one said it did. The math equated with the BBT doesn't explain how cotton candy is made either... but no one is claiming it does.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I find it humorous that you only replied to the part of my post to which you found it easier to respond. Setting aside that you were using "extrapolated" in a different context than they do, how do defend the "imagined" portion of that post?

Imagination is very important. Educated imagination has led to a lot of discovery. Most people start with a question, and study it, and collect data, and with a little focused imagination, develop a hypothesis. And I've been told that some people start with a hypothesis. Imagine and Hypothesize are very similar.

You are less likely to discover something you cannot even imagine as possible.

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...Is it that hard for you to admit that BBT is not yet complete?

How many times have I stated that science in not incorrect only incomplete? Just now finding the need to admit that I see.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You've actually got a point there. Good for you. On reconsideration, I'd have to rephrase that.

Rephrase? that's rich. You didn't know what you were talking about.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I was agreeing with you on one of your points. But you saw fit to extrapolate a bit on your own and lose your manners again. We were talking about math, and humans perception of reality.

Try to be a little more adult, it'll help.

I didn't even insult you that time, I only responded in the same tone you did. It is what is is, like it or not. Now who needs to grow up?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Just because you asked, I'll answer.

No.

And then you provide evidence that it is indeed you that doesn't behave like an adult. What an assclown you are.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

No one said it did. The math equated with the BBT doesn't explain how cotton candy is made either... but no one is claiming it does.

So, you are conceding your initial point?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by juggy4711

How many times have I stated that science in not incorrect only incomplete? Just now finding the need to admit that I see.

Scientists can be incorrect too.

Rephrase? that's rich. You didn't know what you were talking about.

You've never reconsidered something you've said before? Are you really sure about that?

I didn't even insult you that time, I only responded in the same tone you did. It is what is is, like it or not. Now who needs to grow up?



And then you provide evidence that it is indeed you that doesn't behave like an adult. What an assclown you are.

Are you sure you want to keep going with the name calling? I see it as a juvenile response when you run out of your grown up words.

You are going to have to come to grips with the fact that your opinion isn't the only one out there. Most people can actually appreciate that. The hostile response I am getting almost certainly means that you are uncomfortable with some of my opinions, like that you likely believe a lot of what you probably thought you knew, or that you have taken some things on faith.

You're going to have to find a way to get over it. Or not. See ya around.

[Cavalry Doc]

It's still a cool picture.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

So, you are conceding your initial point?

No... You conceded yours.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

No... You conceded yours.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...g#.URMG3WdyGSp

What did you think of the article. Pretty interesting.