Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are the one who changed the subject by bringing up the Big Bang.

The truth of the matter is that in your 7976, YOU resurrected the topic of origins by replying to an old post of mine. So once you broached that subject, the subject of the Big Bang theory is likely to be brought up.

There are plenty of reputable scientists out there with theories "at odds with" NASA. It would not surprise me to find that the "NASA scientist" is a grad student who was given the assignment on Friday, due on Monday. I suggest you read the scientific literature. Annals of Physics might be a good start. The Argumentum ad populum fallacy does not make something true.

You mean there isn't a "general consensus"in the science community as to whether or not the Big Bang (so called) had a beginning?

So answer the question. Was the universe poofed into existence 6,000 years ago, in 6 days, by an omnipotent being.

We're not discussing what I believe. We're discussing what you believe. Remember: YOU broached the subject of origins in your 7976.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The truth of the matter is that in your 7976, YOU resurrected the topic of origins by replying to an old post of mine.

Note the bold part. The genesis was yours.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You mean there isn't a "general consensus"in the science community as to whether or not the Big Bang (so called) had a beginning?

Correct. There is no "general consensus." Even if there were that would be an Ad Populum argument, a fallacy. Like I said, read the scientific literature.

Try this one on. What if the velocity of light is not constant (as Einstein assumed) but varied with time and space. This alone could explain the "red shift" which is the evidence for the expanding universe. If light is slowing down (or speeding up) then the universe could very well be collapsing rather than expanding.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Note the bold part. The genesis was yours.

Correct. There is no "general consensus." Even if there were that would be an Ad Populum argument, a fallacy. Like I said, read the scientific literature.

Try this one on. What if the velocity of light is not constant (as Einstein assumed) but varied with time and space. This alone could explain the "red shift" which is the evidence for the expanding universe. If light is slowing down (or speeding up) then the universe could very well be collapsing rather than expanding.

Was it? You don't know that. Perhaps you, too, started the subject. But what we do know is that YOU resurrected the subject by responding to a pretty old post. So, it's clear to me you wanted to talk [again] about this subject.

Good to know that you don't believe in the nonsense of "scientific consensus". So many of your comrades do when it comes to "climate change".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good to know that you don't believe in the nonsense of "scientific consensus". So many of your comrades do when it comes to "climate change".

The evidence for climate change is there. I've read the scientific literature.

Where do you think this 20 year drought came from?

[Actor]

At this point it looks like boxcar no longer believes the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Mission accomplished!

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Actor

The evidence for climate change is there. I've read the scientific literature.

Where do you think this 20 year drought came from?

I think that you have to look at other things, like the patch of sand you came from has the same amount of natural resources it did 200 years ago. Maybe when you look for "20 year drought", over the course of real time has there been before? Too much has been made to provide a narrative that is bogus!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by fast4522

I think that you have to look at other things, like the patch of sand you came from ...

Where did you get the idea that I came from a patch of sand?

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by Actor

Where did you get the idea that I came from a patch of sand?

Breadcrumbs, years of them

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

At this point it looks like boxcar no longer believes the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Mission accomplished!

You're delusional.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The evidence for climate change is there. I've read the scientific literature.

Where do you think this 20 year drought came from?

The same place from where all other droughts throughout history have emerged.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good to know that you don't believe in the nonsense of "scientific consensus". So many of your comrades do when it comes to "climate change".

This is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I stated that there is no scientific consensus regarding the origin of the universe or if the universe even had an origin. (For instance the "oscillating universe theory" popularized by George Gamow, albeit the theory dates to centuries before Gamow.) X preceded Y therefore X must have caused Y simply is not (in and of itself) necessarily true.

You claim to understand logic but posts such as the above would belie that claim.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're delusional.

Ah! I finally got a rise out of you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The same place from where all other droughts throughout history have emerged.

And that would be???

[Actor]

Originally Posted by fast4522

Breadcrumbs, years of them

So it's an ad hominem attack!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And that would be???

The natural climate cycles of the world.