Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2012, 06:24 PM  
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $8195
VARSITY
Why people laugh at Creationists

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Last edited by Dave Lane; 01-08-2013 at 09:56 AM..
Posts: 24,389
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 07:45 AM   #1366
CLX CLX is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nunya
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bump View Post
and I consider myself agnostic I guess.

Truth is, I don't know. I have no idea and nobody does until they die. But I'm pretty certain the bible was written by man as a tool to control people and all of that is complete nonsense.
So Bump, you are an admitted agnostic. Why are you so offended by a God you don't believe in? Why does it bother you so much that others do believe in God? As an agnostic you shouldn't care. I claim that you were brought up in some kind of church and were forced to be there against your will and that has colored your view.

We each have our own life, we each believe the way we do. I don't want to convert you to my religion or church, it seems you've already had that chance and declined. With that decision any Christian is actually no longer obligated to proselytize you. There will be more that do and until your last breath you have the opportunity to again say no, or yes. Totally your choice. I'm more inclined to share my religion with those that have not had a chance to hear the word of God, there are many that have never had that chance.
Posts: 358
CLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < CasselCLX < Cassel
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 07:59 AM   #1367
Brock Brock is offline
Do it.
 
Brock's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Larryville
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
Creationism/Big Bang/Gigantic globulous mushroom of doom/Evolution

All are religions..ban one, ban them all!
This is how an uneducated person thinks and speaks.
Posts: 42,713
Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 10:10 AM   #1368
Dave Lane Dave Lane is offline
Space Cadet and Aczabel
 
Dave Lane's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Kansas City, Mo, USA
Casino cash: $8195
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlyonsd View Post
I don't feel the need. I don't think its something I can avoid. And I don't think its something I would want to avoid.

I've got some tough questions I want answered and he better have good ones.
Why can't you avoid it? So why not ask them now, you know in case we aren't all "special" like we think and made in gods image and all. Ask away maybe we can scratch a few off the list for you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris616 View Post
High Tech is Sorcery and the people who are really powerful are literally telling people to commit crimes using the psychic interspace created by the WWW and Wireless. They are controlling peoples actions like drones . The two things are deeply intertwined. The more man's brain interfaces with machines the creepier it gets. They use brains separate from a human body in a supercomputer and you have The Image of the Beast. The military has been doing this since the 50s
Posts: 24,389
Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.Dave Lane is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:00 AM   #1369
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
This is how an uneducated person thinks and speaks.
This how an uniformed person thinks and speaks, they know not what they do.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:17 AM   #1370
Brock Brock is offline
Do it.
 
Brock's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Larryville
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
This how an uniformed person thinks and speaks, they know not what they do.
I'm not wearing a uniform.
Posts: 42,713
Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:20 AM   #1371
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
I'm not wearing a uniform.
heh nice catch, but you know what I meant.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:28 AM   #1372
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $6890
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
This how an uniformed person thinks and speaks, they know not what they do.
You called "The big bang" and "Evolution" both a religion. How about you look up the official definition of each term?
__________________
Posts: 25,806
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:32 AM   #1373
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
You called "The big bang" and "Evolution" both a religion. How about you look up the official definition of each term?
I know we've gone round and round on this. Big bang is pretty much a total myth whereas Evolution is a little more complicated. Some parts of it are easily proven, but as to how we got here it can't explain any better(or as well) as creationism.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:42 AM   #1374
Brock Brock is offline
Do it.
 
Brock's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Larryville
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
I know we've gone round and round on this. Big bang is pretty much a total myth whereas Evolution is a little more complicated. Some parts of it are easily proven, but as to how we got here it can't explain any better(or as well) as creationism.
One is a theory at least somewhat supported by observations. The other is something Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart taught.
Posts: 42,713
Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.Brock is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:44 AM   #1375
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
One is a theory at least somewhat supported by observations. The other is something Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart taught.
Like I said some parts of Evolution are fact, others are giant leaps. Lolz so Falwell and Swaggart(conmen) introduced Jesus to the people? hardly.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:51 AM   #1376
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $6890
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
I know we've gone round and round on this. Big bang is pretty much a total myth whereas Evolution is a little more complicated. Some parts of it are easily proven, but as to how we got here it can't explain any better(or as well) as creationism.
... No, the big bang is not a myth at all. There is countless proof of the Big Bang. I've provided that to you several times, but you continue to ignore that and label whatever you feel that threatens your religion as an alternate "Religion", when it's nothing of the sort.

And evolution was never ever at any time intended to explain the origins of life. I've also explained this to you. Evolution is an explanation of how species change over time. It says nothing of how those species came to exist, and it was never intended to. Again, you've built up the idea of evolution as a "Religion" because you feel it threatens a lot of the incorrect beliefs you have. When it actually does nothing of the sort.

Starting to see a pattern here?
__________________
Posts: 25,806
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:07 PM   #1377
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
... No, the big bang is not a myth at all. There is countless proof of the Big Bang. I've provided that to you several times, but you continue to ignore that and label whatever you feel that threatens your religion as an alternate "Religion", when it's nothing of the sort.

And evolution was never ever at any time intended to explain the origins of life. I've also explained this to you. Evolution is an explanation of how species change over time. It says nothing of how those species came to exist, and it was never intended to. Again, you've built up the idea of evolution as a "Religion" because you feel it threatens a lot of the incorrect beliefs you have. When it actually does nothing of the sort.

Starting to see a pattern here?
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

by Michael Rivero

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle. Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally he made a mistake.

One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around it.

Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of motion.

But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe, unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it.

Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody could explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning beneath it.

But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered) universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV, or even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed forward. This behavior was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did not have an explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible, the word "planet" appears only once, and then only as an object to be sacrificed to.

There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth, moving in its inner orbit, overtakes an outer planet, it will appear to hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path. But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle. What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than re-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed onto a suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as seen from Earth.

Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at universities with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not accurately predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort was expended trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual motions of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did not match the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the theory, but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to the evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own planets.

In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong. The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles on the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based on a moving Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular basis.

The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science.

The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and still refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the perfect word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars (Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5).

It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our technological prowess.

In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding.

Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". Indeed, the concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble himself but was proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lema'tre in 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift. The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "steady state" theory.

Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born.

Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply".

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space.

For one thing, there is the "Horizon Problem". At present, the known universe spans 28 billion light years and is assumed to be 14 billion years old. (Obviously unless we actually ARE the center of the universe, it may be assumed that the universe probably extends even further in at least one direction). Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have traveled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.

When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.

Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake.

So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions.

The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.

But they aren't.

The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity.

Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.

But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang" creation.

Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes and TV programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not.

Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular.

The assumption that there must be a beginning to the universe is merely a human invention. We believe that we see things have beginnings and ends before us, but in truth we are seeing matter change form. A particular configuration may have a beginning and an end, but that the actual matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed is an axiom of physics. Miss April may be only 20 years old, but the atoms in her heavenly body are indeed heavenly bodies, being the remains of ancient exploded stars, and in THAT form for billions of years.

Ancients believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But while we grudgingly admit that Earth orbits the sun and that our sun is nowhere near the center of the milky way, the idea that Earth is the center of all remains at the heart of the assumptions of the Big Bang theory. The "Bangers" describe the furthest objects we can detect (currently 13 billion light years) and from that calculate the age of the universe (currently set at 14 billion years).

But that only works if we ASSUME that the Earth is the center for all the cosmos that we can see. It is true that we are seeing objects out to the edge of our technological limits
and we are seeing them in all directions. We do not see an obvious end to the universe. Logically, the odds are far greater than what we can actually see is really just a tiny bubble in a far larger universe, rather than we just happen to be that one in googleplex worlds that wound up at the exact center for the expanding field of debris from the Big Bang (i.e. the location of the original singlularity). And if we abandon the assumption that we see most of the the universe from a fortunate position near the location of the original singlularity, then we cannot really know how large the universe really is, and the mathematics by which we claim to know the age based on the size break down completely. We truly are trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe.

Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.

From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r.

This works out to an event horizon light years across!

In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region.

Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.

The "Bangers" get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the bang matter (or "batter") not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless "batter" and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.

With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle", thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history's most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson (absent a piece of "massless matter" to test it with, how will we know?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather than a part of nature.

Particle physicists like to joke that studying matter with colliders is like smashing two mechanical clocks together and trying to guess what the clocks looked like based on the springs, gears, and levers that fly out. Let us take that analogy one step further and speculate that given enough speed at the moment of collision, individual teeth from the clock gears will come flying out as seperate distinct pieces. But clearly, prior to that moment of collision, they never did exist as seperate distinct pieces. Their separateness is created by the collision at that very moment. The same may well be true of the ultra-tiny particles generated by the collisions of the LHC, including whatever we may be asked to accept on faith as the "God Particle." They may be artifacts of the collision, and not of natural processes.

ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

For the purposes of this thought experiment, let us assume that God waved a magic wand and the universe popped into existence from a Big Bang, and that "somehow" the universe escaped from it's own gravity well. With the entire 2.6*1060 mass/energy of the universe confined to that small region, the temperatures and pressures amount to a super-supernova. We already know that in the cataclysm of a supernova, the heavier elements are created. That is where all the heavy elements in your body were created; inside an exploding star. Therefore, in that moment of super-creation called the Big Bang, as the universe started to operate by the rules we know today, the expanding universe should be creating all the known heavy elements.

So, how to explain the Population II stars?

Population II stars are stars with no heavy elements in them. When they explode at the end of their life cycles, heavy elements are created. These are swept up by stars that form afterwards creating Population I stars, usually with planets around them. Population I stars have heavy elements. Population II stars do not.

If the Big Bang had happened, the universe would be filled with heavy elements created in those first few moments the universe started to operate under the rules of physics we know today. There should not be any stars in existence devoid of those heavy elements. And yet there are.

The existence of Population II stars, devoid of heavy elements, directly contradicts the theory of the Big Bang.

YET ANOTHER PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN

The Big Bang is currently imagined to have occurred 14 billion years ago.

The farthest object seen in the sky by the Hubble and Keck Telescopes is 13 billion light-years distant, and is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old. It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material from the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.

But here is the problem. We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years distant not as it is today and where it is today but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years distant from earth.

In other words, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth only 750 million years after the Big Bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time. That requires the galaxy in question to travel more than 17 times faster than the speed of light, a speed limit which according to the Big Bang supporters was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old.

AN INTRIGUING QUESTION

We see in the night sky that all galaxies rotate. Stars rotate. Planets rotate. Bodies orbit around other bodies. A dimensionless singularity posited by the Big Bang cannot have rotation. So where did all this angular momentum come from if the universe emerged from the Big Bang singularity? For that matter, how do we get a variation in velocity or density emerging from a singularity

UPDATES: In 2011, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was finally switched on in the experiment it was built to carry out; to prove the existance of the Higgs Boson, the hypothetical particle necessary to reconcile the Big Bang with Special Relativity. CERN concluded that the Higgs particle does not in fact exist. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics went to three American scientists who demonstrated that the rate of expansion in the expanding universe is accelerating. Even taken at face value, this means some other force is at work other than the initial impetus of the supposed moment of creation. Something else is being seen and possibly misinterpreted! It is time to question the prime assumption that the observed red shift in the sky is attributable only to relative velocity.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:24 PM   #1378
mlyonsd mlyonsd is offline
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spink, SD
Casino cash: $6532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Lane View Post
Why can't you avoid it? So why not ask them now, you know in case we aren't all "special" like we think and made in gods image and all. Ask away maybe we can scratch a few off the list for you.
Why are chief fans being tortured? Is it one of those 40 year deals cause in case you haven't noticed we're past that.
Posts: 25,090
mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:40 PM   #1379
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $6890
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN View Post
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

by Michael Rivero
Uhh... that's your counter argument? Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com? LOL.. OK. That's why you didn't include a link huh? So a guy running a conspiracy theory website said this? Seems legit.. He also has some great hilarious theories on Obama's birth certificate and the 9/11 hoax..

I don't have the time to go through that mess and point out all the inaccuracies. But here's a couple gems.

Here's how the author is basing his opinion:

Quote:
The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle", thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history's most expensive church.
Which is the most ignorant ****ing thing I've heard in years. I can't even begin to argue nonsense like this. Anyone who calls the people working at CERN "Scientist-priests" is pretty much eliminated as any source of credible information. Complete and total fail.

Quote:
The "Bangers" get around this paradox with the theory that when the universe was created, it had no mass at all. Therefore, so the theory goes, there was no gravity and no reason the the bang matter (or "batter") not to escape the bang into the universe. Then, after the matter was conveniently far away from the singularity, it interacted with a particle named the Higgs Boson. Like the two tubes that come with epoxy, the Higgs Boson blended with the massless "batter" and produced normal matter with mass. How all the matter in the universe knew just when to mix the tubes together is still open to speculation, but usually the proponents of this theory start whispering about God under their breath at this point.

With the exception of one false alarm out of Fermilab, there has been no evidence that the Higgs Boson exists. The Large Hadron Collider was built specifically to look for the Higgs Boson, nicknamed "The God Particle", thereby revealing the religious agenda that is actually behind what may be history's most expensive church. It must be pointed out that even if the LHC, in the unimaginable fury of the high energy collisions it generates, succeeds in producing a particle that matches the description of the Higgs Boson (absent a piece of "massless matter" to test it with, how will we know?) that does not prove such a particle ever existed before, nor does it prove the Big Bang. The scientist-priests at the LHC will not be able to prove that their new particle is not itself a creation of the LHC rather than a part of nature.
__________________
Posts: 25,806
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 02:25 PM   #1380
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Uhh... that's your counter argument? Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com? LOL.. OK. That's why you didn't include a link huh? So a guy running a conspiracy theory website said this? Seems legit.. He also has some great hilarious theories on Obama's birth certificate and the 9/11 hoax..

I don't have the time to go through that mess and point out all the inaccuracies. But here's a couple gems.

Here's how the author is basing his opinion:



Which is the most ignorant ****ing thing I've heard in years. I can't even begin to argue nonsense like this. Anyone who calls the people working at CERN "Scientist-priests" is pretty much eliminated as any source of credible information. Complete and total fail.
Umm he actually defends Obama on his birth certificate. Sorry but the big bang is just a wacky ass totally unsubstantiated theory. Just as an FYI Rivero is a devout atheist.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,195
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.