[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

You must live under a rock. You haven't see the the insider trading on "green" energy and the Al Gore crusade, and how much money we have thrown away on a farce. There is a lot of money and political energy wrapped up in the lie of CO2 human caused global warming.

Then producing evidence should be trivial.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape

Then producing evidence should be trivial.

I don't see why I should do the google footwork on intentional ignorance. It seems like a complete waste of my time. If someone has been so disengaged since the Clinton presidency to figure out this issue, no amount of evidence will change the mind.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I don't see why I should do the google footwork on intentional ignorance. It seems like a complete waste of my time. If someone has been so disengaged since the Clinton presidency to figure out this issue, no amount of evidence will change the mind.

So in other words... don't have any?

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I don't see why I should do the google footwork on intentional ignorance.

I needed a minute there to clean the tea off my monitor that I spewed after seeing you make reference to "intentional ignorance".

Your personal "ethic" sure gives you a lot of flexibility. First you widely reject numerous fields of science basically because you consider them to be whores to Darwin. Then you support an argument with scientists that you consider credible witnesses when they say something you like, but they're back to being whores when they make reference to the earth being old.

Then you are free to make an assertion, but you don't see why you should do the footwork to support your assertion.

It must be fun to play by your "rules".

-ArtificialGrape

[g22od]

Xenu the galactic overlord is responsible for the big bang. This I know, from my faith.

[Phaze5ive]

After wading through this mess, I am so thankful that most of the theists in my life have 'hard' science degrees and can separate faith from reality.

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

You must live under a rock.

Apparently not, I'm very well versed on these things, not just watching old videos.

You haven't see the the insider trading on "green" energy and the Al Gore crusade, and how much money we have thrown away on a farce. There is a lot of money and political energy wrapped up in the lie of CO2 human caused global warming.

How does this kind of activity, if it is actually happening, show that climate change is a lie? Aren't the science and the reaction to the science two separate things?

[Animal Mother]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

I don't see why I should do the google footwork on intentional ignorance.

You made a claim. You have been asked to back that claim up with evidence. That's why you should do it. I'm aware of what some claim with regard to climate change. I'm also aware that those making the claims are also frequently not in the least bit credible and, as in the case with the video you posted, totally misrepresent and distort the evidence.

It seems like a complete waste of my time. If someone has been so disengaged since the Clinton presidency to figure out this issue, no amount of evidence will change the mind.

Certainly an amount of zero isn't going to change anyone's mind. What you don't seem to understand is that some of us actually do examine the evidence, unlike yourself, in the course of reaching a conclusion. Present evidence that climate change is either not happening or is not the result of human activity and it will receive consideration. Claiming something and then refusing to produce any supporting evidence, as you are doing here, will only lead to the claim being dismissed out of hand.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by g22od

Xenu the galactic overlord is responsible for the big bang. This I know, from my faith.

Impossible. Xenu was destroyed by Kaldrock the Eater or Worlds before the 15th wave of nothingness. We clearly know from scientific evidence the big bang did not occur until after the 27th wave of nothingness.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)

Are you even sure there was a big bang?

http://rt.com/news/universe-creation-big-chill-259/

Maybe it wasn't a bang after all.

[g22od]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Impossible. Xenu was destroyed by Kaldrock the Eater or Worlds before the 15th wave of nothingness. We clearly know from scientific evidence the big bang did not occur until after the 27th wave of nothingness.

Ah, I see you are an adherent of the misguided 6th Synod. My sincerest apologies. I deal with 6ers often, with much patience for they are misguided but mean well. They are good people and I am sad that they are Unelect and will not be spared a seat at the Glorious Table of the Elders of Zadotopia. But such is the lot for those who have not received the Eternal Ghost Filled Mysterious Revelation of the Mountain of Zyb. Be well Unelect.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by g22od

Ah, I see you are an adherent of the misguided 6th Synod. My sincerest apologies. I deal with 6ers often, with much patience for they are misguided but mean well. They are good people and I am sad that they are Unelect and will not be spared a seat at the Glorious Table of the Elders of Zadotopia. But such is the lot for those who have not received the Eternal Ghost Filled Mysterious Revelation of the Mountain of Zyb. Be well Unelect.

Mozira will deny you her mystic lasagna. May death come swiftly to Kaldrock's enemies. And may your galactic laser panties fail you at the hour of Noblox.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Maybe it wasn't a bang after all.

Maybe not. Science should always be willing to consider possible alternatives. That's one of the reasons why it works so well. If a new theory comes along then it should be carefully examined, tested and if found to be a superior explanation of observed phenomenon then adopted.

I will say that the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (popularly known as Big Bang theory) has been extraordinarily successful at describing why the universe is the way it is today. They would have a high bar to overcome to show that their theory is a better fit.

[g22od]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

Mozira will deny you her mystic lasagna. May death come swiftly to Kaldrock's enemies. And may your galactic laser panties fail you at the hour of Noblox.

Do NOT take the name of the Divine Galactic Laser Panties in vain! Hrumph!

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Are you even sure there was a big bang?

http://rt.com/news/universe-creation-big-chill-259/

Maybe it wasn't a bang after all.

Hardly matters when it comes to model approaches to physics. Big Bang, Big Chill whatever. As long as the numbers come out reflecting observation, what language is used to describe it doesn't actually mean anything.

I know your point was to try and show how science doesn't necessarily have it all figured out and it doesn't but replacing the word Bang with Chill doesn't make a lick of difference.

Originally Posted by Geko45

Maybe not. Science should always be willing to consider possible alternatives. That's one of the reasons why it works so well. If a new theory comes along then it should be carefully examined, tested and if found to be a superior explanation of observed phenomenon then adopted.

I will say that the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (popularly known as Big Bang theory) has been extraordinarily successful at describing why the universe is the way it is today. They would have a high bar to overcome to show that their theory is a better fit.

A very high bar. Unless the Chill approach reveals things the Bang doesn't there is no point altering the language used. I would not be surprised to find that A Big Chill model results in the same numbers as the BB. Heck there are 5 types of String theory and they all describe the same thing.

We communicate using language, the universe doesn't have one beyond math. The numbers are all that matter. We could replace all language describing the universe with complete gibberish and as long as the numbers are right nothing changes.

The Jabberwocky model of physics will always be equal to whatever classical descriptions we try to apply.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by juggy4711

We communicate using language, the universe doesn't have one beyond math. The numbers are all that matter. We could replace all language describing the universe with complete gibberish and as long as the numbers are right nothing changes.

This is exactly right. Lay people get caught up in the language used, but what most don't realize is that word choice in explaining a theory is largely irrelevant. A theory of physics is expressed in the form of mathematical equations. Equations that when (hopefully) solved yield values that match observed results.

The human mind doesn't work that way so we come up with a set of analogies (called an "interpretation") that help us visualize what the equations represent. The analogies don't have to be perfect. They are just a tool to aid our understanding. Often times, lay people will point out seeming contradictions in the interpretation thinking they've stumbled upon some fundamental flaw in the theory, but that's not how it works at all.

Physics is the math, not the words.

[ModGlock17]

lots of Texas chilli would cause the BBang.

wanna know the science "behind" it ?

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by ModGlock17

lots of Texas chilli would cause the BBang.

wanna know the science "behind" it ?

As long as we don't have to smell the science behind it...

Randy

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Maybe not. Science should always be willing to consider possible alternatives. That's one of the reasons why it works so well. If a new theory comes along then it should be carefully examined, tested and if found to be a superior explanation of observed phenomenon then adopted.

I will say that the Lambda-CDM model of the early universe (popularly known as Big Bang theory) has been extraordinarily successful at describing why the universe is the way it is today. They would have a high bar to overcome to show that their theory is a better fit.

Watching the motion of celestial bodies and measuring the electromagnetic spectrum can lead to some pretty good stories. But it's all supposition that what you are seeing today, tells you what happened billions of years ago. The snapshot humanity has of this process is miniscule compared to how long the universe has been here. I have very little faith that mankind has it all figured out just yet. There is a constant search to explain it though.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
But it's all supposition that what you are seeing today, tells you what happened billions of years ago. The snapshot humanity has of this process is miniscule compared to how long the universe has been here.
...

You do understand that we can see pretty far, and that light takes time to travel, right?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

You do understand that we can see pretty far, and that light takes time to travel, right?

Yes. But if you see a galaxy a billion light years away, and you've been able to see it for a decade or so, at that distance, considering that light can bend, how accurate is your calculation of it's speed and direction? How accurate is our determination of the chemical makeup of structures outside our solar system?

It's pretty obvious that most people believe that the area of the universe we can see is expanding. Why that is happening requires a little imagination to fill in some pretty long standing blanks.

I'm not saying the big bang (and or big chill) didn't happen, I wasn't there. I'm not saying the universe isn't expanding. I'll trust that to be true, even though I haven't spent a lot of time looking through a telescope. Come to think of it, most of us haven't spent enough time looking through a telescope.

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Yes. But if you see a galaxy a billion light years away, and you've been able to see it for a decade or so, at that distance, considering that light can bend, how accurate is your calculation of it's speed and direction? How accurate is our determination of the chemical makeup of structures outside our solar system?
...

I don't have the answers to these questions.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
It's pretty obvious that most people believe that the area of the universe we can see is expanding. Why that is happening requires a little imagination to fill in some pretty long standing blanks.
...

Light takes time to travel and the universe as we know it has not existed forever, so there is a horizon beyond which we can not see because the light has not got here yet. Tomorrow, that horizon will be 1/365 light years farther away, if I understand it correctly.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
I'm not saying the big bang (and or big chill) didn't happen, I wasn't there. I'm not saying the universe isn't expanding. I'll trust that to be true, even though I haven't spent a lot of time looking through a telescope. Come to think of it, most of us haven't spent enough time looking through a telescope.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I don't have the answers to these questions.



Light takes time to travel and the universe as we know it has not existed forever, so there is a horizon beyond which we can not see because the light has not got here yet. Tomorrow, that horizon will be 1/365 light years farther away, if I understand it correctly.

We can learn a lot about the universe with telescopes. But if that told you everything, why are we sending rovers to mars again?

We are in a very small place, and have been around for a very short time, and considering even the most intelligent among us, a lot of imagination is needed to make it all fit together. We THINK there may have been a big bang (or maybe a chill), but we don't really know. We think the universe is expanding. If it is, then something must have caused it to be expanding. What that something is, is cool to ponder. There is no need to pretend we have the problem solved without any important details left out.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Yes. But if you see a galaxy a billion light years away, and you've been able to see it for a decade or so, at that distance, considering that light can bend, how accurate is your calculation of it's speed and direction?

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...distances.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

http://www.esa.int/export/esaSC/120366_index_0_m.html

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

There is no need to pretend we have the problem solved without any important details left out.

There's also no need to pretend that the important details you're ignorant of, the physicists must be also. I mean seriously, continually pointing out things you don't know and implying physicists' knowledge is no greater than yours is not an argument for anything.