close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

This is evidence of God

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Wake_jumper, Jan 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Please link to the precise aspects of BBT that I claimed math did not explain.

    I'll wait.
     
  2. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    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.
     

    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013

  3. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    2nd Time

     
  4. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    You'll run away eventually like you always do no matter what he says.


    Please respond to these...

     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    It's humorous that you think I am the one claiming extrapolation was used. The scientists freely admit it themselves.


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

    Japle John, Viera, Fl

    820
    12
    Feb 26, 2000
    Viera, Florida
    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!
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    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/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.URLdaWdyF8E



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

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    says the drive by troll.......:whistling:
     
  9. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    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/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang#.URLdaWdyF8E
     
  11. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,084
    1,137
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    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?
     
  12. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    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.
     
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    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.
     
  14. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    How many times have I stated that science in not incorrect only incomplete? Just now finding the need to admit that I see.

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

    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.
     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    So, you are conceding your initial point?
     
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Scientists can be incorrect too.

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

    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. :yawn:

    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.
     
  17. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    No... You conceded yours.
     
  18. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.