15 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerThere is only one Universe for us, Numbnuts. And being Satan's Demon Duck is not going to change that. You worship the demon's in vain. You are only a QUACK, QUACK, mister Demon Duck.
Really? That one must have passed me by. I'll have to trot over to the funding eedjits and ask if I can have some cash for a new concept. I think I'll have a blue one.
There are plenty of "new" models for universes and multiverses. I like the ekpyrotic model but it is about as useful as most religions in this regard. Untestable and zero evidence either way. And no, there doesn't have to be any kind of cause for all this. It is, get over it.
The Instructor
15 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSatan's Demon Duck? I like that. I shall adopt that as my official title in the newly formed church of Bob.
There is only one Universe for us, Numbnuts. And being Satan's Demon Duck is not going to change that. You worship the demon's in vain. You are only a QUACK, QUACK, mister Demon Duck.
The Instructor
You might like to count how many universes I mentioned in my post. Can you count that high?
18 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerIt appears the your mind has been corrupted and distorted by Satan the devil himself. Prepare for hellfire.
Satan's Demon Duck? I like that. I shall adopt that as my official title in the newly formed church of Bob.
You might like to count how many universes I mentioned in my post. Can you count that high?
The instructor
19 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with this logic.....I don't think God is deceptive so the universe must have been created in a different manner and I don't buy the light in transit theory that some YECers have used. However a relativistic effect of the universe being stretched out soon after the initial creation might explain apparent age VS young earth if the universe were a certain size then suddenly got stretched out to billions of light years we would assume that age is correct. The White-hole theory it's believed that 6 days could have passed on the earth while millions passed out in the universe. It is just a theory just as the BB is a theory
The creation of something 'mature' means the creation of a fake history. Lets say Adam had memories of his childhood, they would all be fake. Similarly, if the universe was created with starlight 'in transit' as some creationists say, then any stars you see in that starlight never existed. They are a fake history.
Manny
19 May 13
Originally posted by menace71Trouble is one theory is based on evidence and has predictive power while the other is based on nothing more than the notion that white holes might exist. We have plenty observational evidence for black holes but nothing so far to suggest white holes exist. To me, the white hole theory is just another attempt by the god bothering fraternity to force the evidence to fit the biblical account rather than changing the theory to account for the observed evidence.
I agree with this logic.....I don't think God is deceptive so the universe must have been created in a different manner and I don't buy the light in transit theory that some YECers have used. However a relativistic effect of the universe being stretched out soon after the initial creation might explain apparent age VS young earth if the universe were a ce ...[text shortened]... ions passed out in the universe. It is just a theory just as the BB is a theory
Manny
19 May 13
Originally posted by KeplerA 2012 paper argues that the Big Bang itself is a white hole. It further suggests that the emergence of a white hole, which was named a 'Small Bang', is spontaneous - all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Thus, unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect can only be detected around the event itself. The paper even proposed identifying a new group of γ-ray bursts with white holes.
Trouble is one theory is based on evidence and has predictive power while the other is based on nothing more than the notion that white holes might exist. We have plenty observational evidence for black holes but nothing so far to suggest white holes exist. To me, the white hole theory is just another attempt by the god bothering fraternity to force the evide ...[text shortened]... o fit the biblical account rather than changing the theory to account for the observed evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
The Instructor
19 May 13
Originally posted by menace71No, that doesn't actually make any sense. If the universe was compact and got 'stretched out' such that we could see stars that are now far away because they were closer when the light left them, then what we would see, is the star as it was when the light left it ie close to us, not far away. If we see stars that are apparently far away, then either the light came from stars that were far away when it left them, or we are misinterpreting the light.
However a relativistic effect of the universe being stretched out soon after the initial creation might explain apparent age VS young earth if the universe were a certain size then suddenly got stretched out to billions of light years we would assume that age is correct.
You description assumes that we are misinterpreting the light then tried to hold on to the result of the misinterpretation (that the stars are currently far away) when there is in fact no good reason for making that conclusion.
19 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you don't care about such things, you just want weapons to use against science and evolution particularly.
A 2012 paper argues that the Big Bang itself is a white hole. It further suggests that the emergence of a white hole, which was named a 'Small Bang', is spontaneous - all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Thus, unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect can only be detected around the event itself. The paper ev ...[text shortened]... 947;-ray bursts with white holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
The Instructor
20 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am fine with astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology, and other sciences as long as they do not assume evilution and long periods of time, like millions and billions of years. They should not be assuming at all.
So remove most of astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology, and a number of other sciences and you'll be fine with the little thats left.
&list=PLE2fDxB1xKXE9byqvlJq6V6WNIuxCOTZh
The Instructor
20 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThey aren't assuming long periods of time, they are using the data available. If that is assuming then so are you when you assume that there must be a creator god. You should not be assuming at all.
I am fine with astronomy, biology, geology, cosmology, and other sciences as long as they do not assume evilution and long periods of time, like millions and billions of years. They should not be assuming at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZEV9nbrfvw&list=PLE2fDxB1xKXE9byqvlJq6V6WNIuxCOTZh
The Instructor