Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

This is very well stated and anyone that would respond with, "Wow, just wow" doesn't get it.

 

Your guys' silly idea of what the "core principles of science is" is irrelevant to the point I'm making to begin with. It's not a "tactic" but an exercise in futility. Especially when y'all are presenting conflicting conclusions, making my head spin.

 

It may not be possible for you to conceptualise this, but is is indeed the case. The universe is expanding, but everything we see and are made of was there in the singularity at the big bang. It follows that since everything was there, then it happened everywhere.

 

Conceptualize this: we live in a three dimensional universe which is finite meaning there is an up, down, left, right, forward and back. You can only go so far in one direction then you will be at the edge of the universe. You cannot say that the edge is also the center.

 

As we have no idea IF there is an end to the Universe, it is entirely possible it is infinite. If this is the case then everywhere it is observed from would be a center of it. Also, though we seem to function in three/four dimensions, this does not mean there are ONLY three/four....it simply means our senses only allow for them.

 

I assume you mean when evaporation occurs and not dissolving.

Please take your time to parse out your grammar. The bolded is just terrible. And no, scientific hypotheses and theories require falsifiability; it is a cornerstone of science.

Grammar is terrible, don't know what you're saying.

They do? Who is calling what a science?

Sorry, no. You don't need to create a cat from scratch to conclude that a cat is a result of evolution.

It certainly is possible. How do you think kittens are born? From a sperm cell.

You have a flawed view of science, then. We can't observe black holes, but that doesn't mean researching them isn't science. Why? Because we can see the black hole's interactions with its surroundings. We don't need a direct observation of something for it to be considered science.

It isn't controversial at all.

Strictly speaking, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

sheesh that is what I thought he was talking about but i guess not. thought the earth is uniquely at the center???

 

No, it's like saying that there is no center of the Universe, which is possible and is the current theoretical explanation.

 

First off, a circular argument can't be contradictory, that is why it is called circular; it just restates the premises. So, clearly you have no idea what you're talking about and are just throwing words out to sound superior intellectually.

Secondly, what is circular or contradictory about what I just said? If you can't explain it and just repeat what you're saying ad nauseum, I'm going to assume you are a moron with no actual argumentary skills.

 

Who says that the Universe is finite?

 

What you say is true, as far as it goes.
Repeatability is a way of testing the limited amount of phenomena that can be reproduced in the lab.
That does not mean that theory is not supported heavily by data and is falsifiable, which is the test for those things that can't be reproduced, and it is why theory is not considered a final factual conclusion. It is the best solution based on the available data.
And that also is science.
Your lack of knowledge of what the tools are available to the scientist and how they are used does not mean the other investigations of these people aren't useful.
Are they as dependable as repeatable experiments? Of course not, which is why they are always considered to be theory. New data can require an adaptation to the theory.
To discount these discoveries would discount gravity for example.
Are you ready to do this?
I'm guessing you are not.

 

Not according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe is finite.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you see the diagram of the universe that I posted showing the Milky Way at the center?

 

It is not possible to have no center for something that is finite.

- - - Updated - - -

The Big Bang Theory.

 

Perhaps we have studied two different versions of this theory, as the one I am familiar with does not deal with the size of this Universe but instead the beginning of it. As we cannot observe anything beyond what light can show us, our ability to "Know" a size is limited...thus we do not have a clue what the thing actually is. If you would, please provide me with the data you have explaining the finite size of our Universe, as it may be an amazing insight we have all missed.

As for the milky way being the center of our Universe...it may be you could use a refresher on perspective:

Step outside on a clear day while on top of a very high mountain...you can see a very long distance, many miles in fact. Now, look to the East, and then the west. Regardless of the direction you gaze you will see things as at the same distance.
Now, extrapolate this experiment to the Hubble space telescope and the Universe. Due to the limitations imposed by the speed of light it will see everything from every direction as being equally far away.....thus from its perspective it is the center.


Class dismissed.

 

Let's keep it simple.
Do you think Genesis is very similar or identical to the BBT, as you stated?
If so, why does it state that there is day and night without a light source or a rotating sphere relative to that source to create the change?
Do you believe that the BBT would support the earth predating the sun?
How do these questions represent an erroneous portrayal of your statements?

 

There was a story of these guys went looking for the end of the universe. Finally there is this wall!
Up close they see signs, graffitti in every universe language. And here is one in English!

"Halt" it says,
"This is the End of the Universe"

There is a peep hole for doubters; they look.

Sure enough there was nothing there!

 

It certainly is if space is curved, which it is.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the evidence points to the Universe being flat and infinite.

 

Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Class dismissed.

 

It's so cute how you find an excuse not to respond to the citations you asked for. It looks for all the world like you just can't face the possibility of being wrong about something, and so you want to change the subject.

 

Does the same thing to me.

 

Link?

Models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite;


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

 

What part of, "I will not play your game" do you not understand?

 

"Doesn't get it...."....mmmmmm.....you tell me then, what part of that statement, I don't get.

 

I specifically asked not to get dragged into a flawed scientific logical argument: