The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[Cow Poke]

In science old consensus are not "proven" wrong. Some old consensus are falsified and discarded such as the 'static universe,' most other contemporary theories and hypothesis evolve and change as new information becomes available.

So, kinda like Fonzie... "I was wro.. wro.. wro... ... ok, I wasn't exactly right!"

[TheLurch]

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

The static universe is a great example of a consensus clearly being shown to be wrong.

Plate tectonics less so, in that there wasn't a clear idea of what was driving geological activity, so there was nothing to replace.

A counter example would be Mendelian genetics, where the consensus has evolved through constant modifications. Modern Mendelian genetics looks only vaguely similar to Mendel's laws, but it changed gradually and without any overthrow of old ideas. You saw a similar thing in physics with the building of the Standard Model.

All three types of processes take place. I'd just say that the last is the most prevalent, at least in the last 50 years.

[shunyadragon]

Wow, that's fundamentally dishonest. In that video, Sagan said nothing about quantum mechanics. He didn't even say that he thought that the universe always existed - he simply suggested it as a possibility. If this is the sort of thing you're using to put together your list, your list is worthless.



I didn't respond to what you said about Linde, because all i said about Linde was that he proposed eternal inflation in '96. That's it. The date is all that matters, since i was comparing it to Sagan's death, as an indication that Sagan couldn't support this concept because he was, at best, dying of cancer when it was proposed.

You can disagree if you wish, but Carl Sagan supported an eternal greater cosmos from which our universe originated.

Is this really the extent of your whole argument, a dispute over Carl Sagan.

Since you are incapable of reading comprehension, you rambled off into some issue that i didn't even mention. Therefore, i had nothing to respond to.

Your problem, you have not cited anything in support of your assertion about Linde, just an outdated? reference. nor provided any references to support your odd contorted assertions,

[shunyadragon]

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

I missed this, Plate Tectonics remains the only viable theory and hypothesis concerning the history of the earth surface and continents, but yes it has changed over the years

[TheLurch]

Is this really the extent of your whole argument, a dispute over Carl Sagan.

No, i'm just demonstrating that your list is misleading, and you're adding people to it who have never subscribed to the scientific concept you say they're supporting. Since you can't be bothered to read entire paragraphs, i'll focus in on the key words: "your list is worthless."

Your problem, you have not cited anything in support of your assertion about Linde, just an outdated? reference. nor provided any references to support your odd contorted assertions,

It's in Linde's Wikipedia entry if you want to look it up. After a series of ideas about inflation that turned out not to work, he hit upon eternal inflation in 1996. It's the one where the universe forms spontaneously, in an energetically favorable manner, from an inflationary fabric.

Which is the hypothesis, ostensibly, that you're trying to say that most physicists support. But given that you don't seem to be paying attention to what anyone's saying, including your own sources, i can't tell whether you even realize that.

[Sparko]

In science old consensus are not "proven" wrong. Some old consensus are falsified

[Sparko]

I missed this, Plate Tectonics remains the only viable theory and hypothesis concerning the history of the earth surface and continents, but yes it has changed over the years

I was talking about how Plate Tektonics was rejected by the consensus of scientists when it was proposed.

Seriously Frank, I think you need to see a neurologist. Your posts seem unfocused at best.

[seer]

When you object, citations please. You are correct on Steinhardt, he originally supported a multiverse, but Turok and him have since proposed a cyclic universe based on legitimate physicas and Quantum Mechanics.

George Ellis' belief in God does not conflict with his support of the possibility of a multiverse.

Nonsense Shuny, Steinhardt does not believe that the universe was created by a quantum nothing nor does Ellis who believe God created this universe or multiverse.

[seer]

Seriously Frank, I think you need to see a neurologist. Your posts seem unfocused at best.

I often wonder why I keep responding to Shuny, is it some kind of perverse pleasure?

[Sparko]

I often wonder why I keep responding to Shuny, is it some kind of perverse pleasure?

Half of the time I struggle just to parse his posts. The rest of the time I just shake my head.

So first he uses an appeal to authority to say that he is right because he has famous scientists on his side, but he can't show that they actually agree with him. Next he uses the argumentum ad populum fallacy to claim we should believe him because of a consensus of these scientists which he still can't show actually agrees with him.

[Sparko]

Seems like there is a news article about Shunyadragon:

Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One

[seer]

Seems like there is a news article about Shunyadragon:

Recently I asked Tass: Tass, do you believe that things pop into existence without a cause?

His response:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post487255


They will believe anything rather than allow a divine foot in the door...

[Sparko]

Recently I asked Tass: Tass, do you believe that things pop into existence without a cause?

His response:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post487255


They will believe anything rather than allow a divine foot in the door...

They just believe in magic and couch it as "science" and poof! it's all OK!

No God can't just make things appear out of nothing, that's too hard to believe, but believing things can poof themselves out of nothing, why that's perfectly scientific!

22448091_1545823968794721_1670353787062664569_n.jpg

[Cerebrum123]

So i do a detailed, point-by-point discussion of issues, and he dismisses that as too verbose.

Cow Poke does a short, cogent comment, and that gets dismissed as a lack of coherent response.

Why don't you just give us a word count of what you'd deem acceptable so that we know how to properly engage in discussions with you?

Now that you've called him out on his crap I expect either "Airball!", or as his response.

[rogue06]

Now that you've called him out on his crap I expect either "Airball!", or as his response.

It's been awhile since he's used a "duck, dogde and weave" or whatever it is.