Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[creat] Re: Was The Ark Real?/Carnivora

Expand Messages
  • Randy C
    ... Randy C: Despite the fact that JM says that he has children, I m starting to think that he is actually only about six years old. There is a type of
    Message 1 of 1816 , Aug 1 5:04 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > > johmsonmichael:
      > > Strange how you let someone reply before making such
      > > comments. There is a monkey kind which includes all
      > > the primates, excluding of course man. Man is not a
      > > primate. Nice try.

      > Dave O:
      > So is man a mammal? Everyone from Linnaeus on down
      > agrees that man is a primate. Now YOU may not be a
      > primate. Given your output in here, you could be
      > some kind of robot!

      Randy C:
      Despite the fact that JM says that he has children, I'm
      starting to think that he is actually only about six
      years old.

      There is a type of argument that young children make
      when arguing with each other. I believe that it is
      called the "infantile infinite argument". It goes
      like this:

      Child 1: My dad's smarter than your dad.
      Child 2: No he isn't.
      Child 1: Yes he is.
      Child 2: No he isn't.
      Child 1: Yes he is.
      Child 2: No he isn't.
      Child 1: Yes he is.
      ....

      And so on.

      The reason that the argument never ends is that neither
      child presents any evidence supporting their claims.
      Neither one talks about their dad's educational prowess,
      IQ, or any other piece of evidence that might be relevant
      to the argument.

      That's how JM argues. He says:

      "Man's not a primate."

      There is no supporting evidence there. So I think that
      he expects people to respond by saying,

      "Yes he is."

      In which case he would respond,

      "No he is not."

      Which would turn into the classic "infantile infinite
      argument".

      JM is unable to present any evidence supporting anything he
      says. It appears that he is expecting such an infantile
      infinite argument.

      Maybe he just needs to grow up.
    • newsentry
      ... Can you provide a reference for this to help me understand its implications? ... Yes - I should have said at the instant of the BB.
      Message 1816 of 1816 , Sep 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On 28/08/2011 3:37 PM, newsentry wrote:
        > > Dave,
        > >
        > > You sound like someone I can ask a question of:
        > >
        > > It seems to me that prior to the big bang it could be hypothesised (Paul Dirac original equation) that there was a sea of negative electron/positron energy and a positive sea of electron/positron energy. Could it be possible that due to probability and a negative well of energy formed and the positive sea of energy instantly tried to fill it.
        >
        > Uh, in pure GR, there is no 'prior to the big bang.' That is to say,
        > there is no defined time before t=0. Of course there may be some
        > entropic connection to a prior state, but that would entail some
        > exception to GR.
        > > That would cause an infinite amount of momentum energy at the point of the disturbance. Once the well is filled there is no "place" (for lack of a better word)to go this infinite electromagnetic momentum energy heated up at the point of the disurbance (singularity)and became our universe. I am not a phycisist so this just might be the craziest idea you have ever come across. But... Would it explain a singularity having infinite energy. The infinite energy would be the electromagnetic mommentum energy of empty space. The probability of this occuring would be next to nil but in a timeless virtual energy universe it might be possible???
        > >
        >
        > Actually, it might simply be that the amplitude of the shortest possible
        > wavelength of quantum fluctuation is cosmic!

        Can you provide a reference for this to help me understand its implications?
        >
        > While pure GR implies a singularity, that is probably wrong. However,
        > "before the big bang" in GR is about as meaningful as "north of the
        > north pole."

        Yes - I should have said 'at the instant' of the BB.
        >
        > --
        > Dave Oldridge
        > Skype: daveoldridge
        > Ham Radio: VA7CZ
        >
        > ----------
        >
        > Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.42 AVE 8.2.6.54 VDF 7.11.14.92
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.