[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Srry, I just had to kick that one in, you see..

The thing here is that you base all this on a few hours of watching TV - I bet you're good at watching TV. This makes you an expert in the String Hypothesis.

Indeed, you are such a brilliant physicist that you are probably wondering if a Nobel Prize is in your grasp.

Currently there are 11 hypotheses of Strings. Which one do you favor and why?

Look, we get enough morons here. Strings are unproven and unlikely ever to be. But there you are, believing this far-fetch rubbish and dismissing the Word of God that has brought civilization to your neighbors, if not to you.

Now, tell us all about your favorite string hypothesis... come on, we're waiting!

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: The "Big Bang"

While you're at it... WHY don't YOU tell us your favorite sting hypothesis?
(and don't bounce that question back on me, it won't work... i don't know sh!t about strings)

[Kerplunki Zerplopski]

Re: The "Big Bang"

*string Hypothesis, i meant stRing hypothesis

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

While you're at it... WHY don't YOU tell us your favorite sting hypothesis?
(and don't bounce that question back on me, it won't work... i don't know sh!t about strings)

Why, young Kerplunki Zerplop, that is easy, and I thank you for asking it. Perhaps you are a nice child deep down inside.

My favorite String Theory, is that most beautiful string of history, romance, wisdom, kindness, Fatherly advice and adventure, written in the fluid language of American, that stretches from Genesis to Revelations in the KJV1611.

Y'know, there are some people, and I admit to being amongst them, that once having reached the end, just start reading all over again.

Praise!

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Originally Posted by Ahimaaz Smith
?? What are you krabbing in your broek ??
I'm sorry, I don't speak Korean, so I have no clue how to respond.

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?
Didn't your statements come from a piece of toilet paper with a cross on called KJV?
I assume that you are, in your own pathetic way, trying to make a joke about the Holy Bible by comparing it to toilet paper. In this thread, none of my statements came from the Bible. Of course, you didn't know that because, although you criticize the Bible, you show no knowledge whatsoever of its contents.

1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??
Dude, I have a PhD from Harvard in Neuroscience, so don't lecture me on what science is and isn't until you've at least graduated high school, which will probably happen in your mid-30s. My foreskin knows more about science than you do. A theory is what you call a hypothesis that has been verified by a large body of evidence. You don't get to call it a theory just because you really think it is true, or really want it to be true. And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one.

I took a lot of math in college. I've actually read Witten's M-Theory paper (which gives the "branes" formulation of string "theory"--which is actually several classes of theories, each with an infinite number of solutions). If you, too, have read it, I would be glad to discuss the mathematics with you. But I doubt your mathematical knowledge extends much beyond counting to four, so I imagine we won't get very far discussing differential geometry.

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence. If you want to turn your back on the vast literature supporting the Biblical view of the world, that is your loss, but rejecting evidence because you don't like the religious beliefs of the scientists who published it isn't science, it is fantasy. And it's downright un-American.

Science is progressive. When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..

You can explain any orbit you want just by adding more epicycles. Fourier proved that in the 1830s. Which means that there is zero evidence disproving epicycles. Science doesn't believe them anymore because there are simpler explanations of the orbits of the planets that don't require adding more and more circles as time goes on. Progress doesn't lie in adding more epicycles, it lies in understanding the basic properties of the system. When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.

Sow God has nothing better to do than playing with little planets..
God does as God sees fit, and I am not in a position to tell Him how to spend his time. Nor are you.

Poor poor guy, get laid..
Well, there's an intelligent, scientific argument.

All right, G-Baby made a little fault here. But one fault doesn't offsets dozens of faults and contradiction in your Howly Loo Paper
Ha! Another toilet paper analogy. Aren't you the clever one? In a million years, I never would have thought of calling the Holy Bible both toilet paper and loo paper. With that kind of wit, you might want to consider a career as a writer.

If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.

So who baked the bread?
A moeder..
Again, I don't speak Korean, so I can't answer.

You missed the sentence here, IMAGINE. So if you were refering to your god here, you clearly say to me that it is imaginary
If you want to explain how the universe came about, it doesn't help to say that it came from some other universe. In fact, it makes things worse, because now you have two universes to explain instead of just one. This is a pretty basic point of logic. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to get it.

Are you having those drugs again, you mother told you so to stay away from it. It's bad for your little health, you little rascal..
You don't know me or my mother. Do you always go around telling others what their mothers think about them? If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes.

I am not a drug user, but I would rather be a crack whore than some dips*it who, when he doesn't understand what he's talking about, decides to launch a personal attack instead of discussing the issue at hand.

Except for gravity... Read it all, and don't rip his words out of their context, please. Thank you.
If you think I quoted someone out of context, feel free to quote those words in context. My point was that it isn't much of a theory when it makes no predictions that we can actually test. Where in the original post did you see a testable prediction?

Why are you comparing humans etc with gravity?? xD
I did no such thing.

So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?
G-Baby was just using metaphors for the more slowly people under you guys..
And I was just making the point that the metaphor is hiding the reality--he's talking about things that nobody has ever seen as if they were real objects like jelly and bread and ropes and sugar. I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious (I know you don't know what that means, but look it up--you obviously need some education) to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else. That's just scientific propeganda, not scientific progress.

When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.

Maybe they allready knew that there were strings, but later they made a theory about it..
They don't even know that there are strings NOW! All they have are equations, not facts.

So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.
If you are so slow of comprehension, yes.
Some people don't understand the use of sarcasm to show that a misleading metaphor does not add to a substantive discussion. You are obviously one of those people.

Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common.
Metaphors.. I think you like them, don't you. Maybe that's the only way to let it be more clear to you..
Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.

Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?
Nowp, gravity affects the ball hit by the jumpshot. Not elsewise.
No s*it. What I was asking was what makes a loop cause gravity and a line cause electromagnetism or some other force, but not gravity. I think it's a fair question, because I know that the physicists don't have an answer. They just assumed this in order to make the model work. Epicycles.

Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.
Dude, even in metaphor you s*ck.. xD
See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.

Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.
Nei, feeling love from an imaginary thing is just not my thing.. But please, don't let me stop you from your gay experiences.
What does gay experiences have to do with anything we have been discussing? And doesn't any visitor have anything better to discuss than sodomy? There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and only a handful deal with man-man sex (though, of course, that handful is pretty clearly against the whole concept). Only a moron would try to bring homosexuality into a discussion of string "theory."

OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?
Certainly not. Because those things are intelligent, they know they don't have to listen to that bullshit.
More s*it references. Well, dude, if you think the Bible is s*it, then you don't know s*it. And, frankly, it is rude to attack other people's religious beliefs, but I will give you a pass on that because you are obviously borderline retarded.

Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.
Maybe the universe existed long before, maybe forever. Try to keep up with the text please..
The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?

It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.
Well, all you have to do to be a baptist is reading the Howly Loo Paper, preaching the shit and kissing some imaginary ass.. Even simpler (perfect for dudes to who metaphors are aimed to high).
Next time, try saying "fuck" instead of "shit." It's clearly too much to hope that you'd spice up your arguments with some actual facts, but at least that would add variety to your vapid (look that up, too) prose. If you're going to swear instead of reasoning, at least make the swearing a bit more variegated (you know what to do about that word, I should hope).

I hope that answers your questions.

[Silent Wench]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Golly! This thread's confusin me. Haven't they already said the big bang was wrong or somethin?

[Sommanol Beatmeup]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Didn't this all come from some science fiction book by L. Ron Hubbard?
Didn't your statements come from a piece of toilet paper with a cross on called KJV?
I assume that you are, in your own pathetic way, trying to make a joke about the Holy Bible by comparing it to toilet paper. In this thread, none of my statements came from the Bible. Of course, you didn't know that because, although you criticize the Bible, you show no knowledge whatsoever of its contents.
Were did I say that in THIS thread your statements did? Off course I have knowledge about it. But I know that the purpose of it isn't taking it literally. I admit I don't know it out of my head, or like you guys do with "check genesis #, exodus #, ..". But I don't have to..




1st: Scientist mostly first have a theory or statement, than they try to prove it. And if they can't they search for another solution to their problem. That is science.. Searching for the truth, not reading it in a book of a non existing thing and believing it because it is written in it..
2nd: what do YOU, baptist, know about science??
Dude, I have a PhD from Harvard in Neuroscience, so don't lecture me on what science is and isn't until you've at least graduated high school, which will probably happen in your mid-30s. My foreskin (are you having gaytalk right now.. ) knows more about science than you do. A theory is what you call a hypothesis that has been verified by a large body of evidence. You don't get to call it a theory just because you really think it is true, or really want it to be true. And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one untill it has been proven.




I took a lot of math in college. I've actually read Witten's M-Theory paper (which gives the "branes" formulation of string "theory"--which is actually several classes of theories, each with an infinite number of solutions). If you, too, have read it, I would be glad to discuss the mathematics with you. But I doubt your mathematical knowledge extends much beyond counting to four, so I imagine we won't get very far discussing differential geometry.
And who was saying Pi to be 3..

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence. If you want to turn your back on the vast literature supporting the Biblical view of the world, that is your loss, but rejecting evidence because you don't like the religious beliefs of the scientists who published it isn't science, it is fantasy. And it's downright un-American.
Well, give me an example of that "proof".





Science is progressive. When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..

You can explain any orbit you want just by adding more epicycles. Fourier proved that in the 1830s. Which means that there is zero evidence disproving epicycles. Science doesn't believe them anymore because there are simpler explanations of the orbits of the planets that don't require adding more and more circles as time goes on. Progress doesn't lie in adding more epicycles, it lies in understanding the basic properties of the system. When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.
But with calculations, you can check it.. And it fits.




Sow God has nothing better to do than playing with little planets..
God does as God sees fit, and I am not in a position to tell Him how to spend his time. Nor are you.
Well, if god sees fit in playing with planets, what a pathetic thing is it then.. Can do whatever I want..




Poor poor guy, get laid..
Well, there's an intelligent, scientific argument.
Thank you, need proof for that one?




All right, G-Baby made a little fault here. But one fault doesn't offsets dozens of faults and contradiction in your Howly Loo Paper
Ha! Another toilet paper analogy. Aren't you the clever one? In a million years, I never would have thought of calling the Holy Bible both toilet paper and loo paper. With that kind of wit, you might want to consider a career as a writer.
Howly Loo Paper sounded just that little bit more..




If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.
Noach Arc.. You probably agree with me that Noach took 2 species from every living specie on earth (male and female). So here is the fault: we all know ants and bees (for example) can't survive with only 2, they need a whole colony! So that overthrows the story of Noach.




You missed the sentence here, IMAGINE. So if you were refering to your god here, you clearly say to me that it is imaginary
If you want to explain how the universe came about, it doesn't help to say that it came from some other universe. In fact, it makes things worse, because now you have two universes to explain instead of just one. This is a pretty basic point of logic. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to get it.
Two collapsing membranes, whats the difficulty in that one??





Are you having those drugs again, you mother told you so to stay away from it. It's bad for your little health, you little rascal..
You don't know me or my mother. Do you always go around telling others what their mothers think about them? If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes.
I don't need to visit someone. I'm fine, thank you. Maybe you should. Believing in imaginary things is severe!!



I am not a drug user, but I would rather be a crack whore than some dips*it who, when he doesn't understand what he's talking about, decides to launch a personal attack instead of discussing the issue at hand.
Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?




Except for gravity... Read it all, and don't rip his words out of their context, please. Thank you.
If you think I quoted someone out of context, feel free to quote those words in context. My point was that it isn't much of a theory when it makes no predictions that we can actually test. Where in the original post did you see a testable prediction?
Like the whole post..



So the flavor of the jelly just isn't relevant, right?
G-Baby was just using metaphors for the more slowly people under you guys..
And I was just making the point that the metaphor is hiding the reality--he's talking about things that nobody has ever seen as if they were real objects like jelly and bread and ropes and sugar. I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious (I know you don't know what that means, but look it up--you obviously need some education) to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else. That's just scientific propaganda, not scientific progress.
I quote:
- He's talking about things that nobody has ever seen
- I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else.

==> god..




When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.
I do, you are the one who has this jelly in his head the whole time.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.
This sentence really is against the bible, that too is full of metaphors and similes..



Maybe they allready knew that there were strings, but later they made a theory about it..
They don't even know that there are strings NOW! All they have are equations, not facts.
And the equation fits perfectly..



So there are pieces of rope baked into the bread. Mmmmm, good eats.
If you are so slow of comprehension, yes.
Some people don't understand the use of sarcasm to show that a misleading metaphor does not add to a substantive discussion. You are obviously one of those people.
And some people need a funny book to be able to handle with reality.. Now that's just pathetic.




Wait a minute, is gravity loops of rope or is it sugar? Because there's not a lot those two things have in common.
Metaphors.. I think you like them, don't you. Maybe that's the only way to let it be more clear to you..
Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.
Which retard doesn't know what irony is. If you would have a BIT of IQ, you would know that they used sugar for example because, like the gravity loops, they could possibly fall of the bread/membrane with some kind of action.



Anyway, why do closed loops cause gravity instead of some other phenomenon, like jumpshots from the top of the key?
Nowp, gravity affects the ball hit by the jumpshot. Not elsewise.
No s*it. What I was asking was what makes a loop cause gravity and a line cause electromagnetism or some other force, but not gravity. I think it's a fair question, because I know that the physicists don't have an answer. They just assumed this in order to make the model work. Epicycles.
That's a fair question indeed, and I'm not going to stop you asking questions. Look for "Loop Quantum Gravity", you will find your answer there..




Oh, I see. It's like tying your shoes by cutting the shoestrings with a scissors.
Dude, even in metaphor you s*ck.. xD
See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.
This whole answer of you is inane, or senseless. I'm sorry for you that I DO know english vocabulary..



Perhaps one day you will FEEL the love of God through prayer. But I doubt it.
Nei, feeling love from an imaginary thing is just not my thing.. But please, don't let me stop you from your gay experiences.
What does gay experiences have to do with anything we have been discussing? And doesn't any visitor have anything better to discuss than sodomy? There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and only a handful deal with man-man sex (though, of course, that handful is pretty clearly against the whole concept). Only a moron would try to bring homosexuality into a discussion of string "theory."
I thought you weren't going to use the bible in this thread..

And by the way, YOU started with "feeling the love of god" in this discussion of string theory. So only a moron woult try to..


OK, now this is getting interesting. I'm not saying I buy this string business, but, if it is true, could we build some sort of graviton communicator to preach the Gospel to these other intelligent races?
Certainly not. Because those things are intelligent, they know they don't have to listen to that bullshit.
More s*it references. Well, dude, if you think the Bible is s*it, then you don't know s*it. And, frankly, it is rude to attack other people's religious beliefs, but I will give you a pass on that because you are obviously borderline retarded.
Permission to quote myself:

Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?

Double lol??


Of course not. It emerged from the Will of God.
Maybe the universe existed long before, maybe forever. Try to keep up with the text please..
The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?
I quote G-Baby again:
Those were the problems, but can String Theory solve them? Some string theorists have suggested that the big bang, hold on, wasn't the beginning of everything at all! That the universe could've existed long before, even forever. Some aren't agreed with that idea and say that a universe without a beginning is a universe without explanation. So what is the explanation? What if String Theory is right and we're all living on a giant brane inside a higher-dimensional space? Some scientists have proposed that the answer to the big bang riddle lies in the movements of these gigantic branes. Well, it's simple: you have a brane on which we live and another one floating in the higher dimension. What is difficult about imagining that these branes collide with each other?
The text said that some scientist say this, others say that. So "why don't you try to keep up" back at you.



It does sound simple. All you have to do to be a scientist, apparently, is make up some cock and bull story about all kinds of universes and things that nobody has ever seen, then get the Jews who run the Satanic Broadcasting System to make an 18 hour documentary.
Well, all you have to do to be a baptist is reading the Howly Loo Paper, preaching the shit and kissing some imaginary ass.. Even simpler (perfect for dudes to who metaphors are aimed to high).
Next time, try saying "fuck" instead of "shit." It's clearly too much to hope that you'd spice up your arguments with some actual facts, but at least that would add variety to your vapid (look that up, too) prose. If you're going to swear instead of reasoning, at least make the swearing a bit more variegated (you know what to do about that word, I should hope).
"preaching the fuck" doesn't say it well. I gave actual facts..


I hope that answers your questions.

Try better next time..

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Were did I say that in THIS thread your statements did? Off course I have knowledge about it. But I know that the purpose of it isn't taking it literally. I admit I don't know it out of my head, or like you guys do with "check genesis #, exodus #, ..". But I don't have to..
So you know all about strings that you can't see and Bible verses that you can't quote. That is pathetic. You seem to be a double scoop of opinion without even the slightest sprinkling of fact.

My foreskin (are you having gaytalk right now.. )
Again, you seem fixated with homosexuality. Not only are you schizophrenic, you are obviously a sodomite, too.

And calling at theory doesn't mean that it is one untill it has been proven.Since you're such an expert in string theory, what is you opinion of this statement:

The string theorists are trying to push ahead without much support from relevant experiments, because there aren't any relevant experiments that can be done at the kind of scales that the string theorists are interested in.

And who was saying Pi to be 3.
Because pi is 3.

Landover Christian University has a large Creation Science Department that is wholly dedicated to showing that the Bible is backed by empirical evidence....Well, give me an example of that "proof".
Easily done. There are dinosaur tracks and human footprints running next to each other in Texas.

When you have to make up more and more hidden dimensions, and more and more undetermined constants, to make a hypothesis work, you probably have the wrong hypothesis.
But with calculations, you can check it.. And it fits.
Of course it fits--every time it doesn't fit, the string "theorists" add another dimension in which the strings can vibrate, and that makes it fit. The Ptolemaic epicycles all fit, too. Yet no scientist today believes they have anything to do with the orbits of the planets.

Well, if god sees fit in playing with planets, what a pathetic thing is it then.. Can do whatever I want..
Yes, God gave you free will, and you can do with it what you please. But your choices will have consequences.

Thank you, need proof for that one?
If I need proof of anything, I won't be asking you. You obviously have no proof to back up any of your statements.

Howly Loo Paper sounded just that little bit more..
Gosh, another zinger. You're a regular Robin Williams. You should be writing for Saturday Night Live or something.

If you have identified a "fault" in the Bible, then, by all means, tell us what it is. But, frankly, I don't think you've even opened the cover.
Noach Arc.. You probably agree with me that Noach took 2 species from every living specie on earth (male and female). So here is the fault: we all know ants and bees (for example) can't survive with only 2, they need a whole colony! So that overthrows the story of Noach.
"Noah took 2 species from every living specie?" That makes no sense whatsoever. As for bees and ants, all you need is a single queen who has already been impregnated (they store the male seed in special sacks in their bodies for months) to reconstitute an entire colony. Moreover, the Bible said that Noah took two (or 7) of each animal. Where does it say that only two got off the boat? Maybe a bunch of them gave birth during the 40 days. So that overthrows your superficial argument.

BTW, why do you say Noah took bees on the arc? The Bible says nothing about Noah taking flying insects on board:

In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. Genesis 7:13-14

Two collapsing membranes, whats the difficulty in that one??
Three difficulties: (1) In what way do the membranes in string "theory" collapse? The M-Theory explanation is that the two membranes intersect in a spacetime. (2) If our universe arose from the intersection of two membranes in a multiverse, then how did the multiverse come into being? It's like saying that human life began because the first two human beings mated with each other. It leaves out the really interesting question, which is where did the first two human beings come from? (3) What is the evidence that membranes had anything to do with cosmic origins?

I don't need to visit someone. I'm fine, thank you.
So you're in denial. Not surprising, really.

Maybe you should. Believing in imaginary things is severe!!
Believing in imaginary things is stupid.

Allow me to quote yourself: If so, I'd suggest you seek psychiatric help immediately or, even better, an exorcism, because that's the kind of thing that paranoid schizophrenics do. They also make a lot of "shit" jokes. Lol?
They also say LOL when they think they have said something funny. Everyone else on the planet says LOL when someone else says something funny.

Like the whole post..
Why stop there? Why not say the context is everything ever written on the planet by anybody? You obviously can't isolate individual ideas to string together a logical argument, and when you try to debate someone who can, you fall back on the idiotic notion every argument you can't counter takes something out of context.

That's just scientific propaganda, not scientific progress.

Dude, do wrote the following two sentences:
When something begins to resemble not correct or slightly incorrect because of the progressions science tools etc make, scientists start to recalculate and correct it. What doesn't want to say that the former statement was completely wrong, maybe just not complete..
So before you start correcting my typos, you might want to go back for some remedial education in basic grammar.

- He's talking about things that nobody has ever seen
- I believe in those things because I have seen them, but it is specious to claim that a phenomenon for which there is no proof whatsoever is like bread or anything else.

==> god..
Millions of people saw God. He preached in Nazareth, in Galilee, and in Jerusalem. He delivered sermons on hilltops. He was publicly crucified, and 500 people saw him alive three days later.

When he can measure the properties of the strings the way we can taste and feel and see jelly, then I'll be open to using this kind of metaphor. I'm sorry that you're too dense to follow my argument, but do at least try to keep up.
I do, you are the one who has this jelly in his head the whole time.
Again, you seem totally befuddled by the concept of irony. If you want me to think that you do understand it, then please tell me what the word irony means.

One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor.
This sentence really is against the bible, that too is full of metaphors and similes..
Name one.

And the equation fits perfectly..
Man, you just don't get it. Of course the equations fit perfectly! That's because whenever the equations don't fit perfectly, the theorists add one more dimension and one more universal constant to make them fit. Sting "theory" not only describes our universe, but it describes an infinite variety of possible universes. So ask yourself, if a theory explains everything that might have been, in what sense does it really explain what actually is?

And some people need a funny book to be able to handle with reality.. Now that's just pathetic.
And ungrammatical.

Are you really that dense? I DO NOT like these misleading metaphors, toilet paper boy. That's why I poked fun at them. It's called irony. You should look that one up, too.
Which retard doesn't know what irony is.
You are slow witted, but I don't think you are more than borderline retarded.

If you would have a BIT of IQ, you would know that they used sugar for example because, like the gravity loops, they could possibly fall of the bread/membrane with some kind of action.
Well, my thesis committee at Harvard seemed to think I had something on the ball when they awarded my degree. You don't need to explain the jam/jelly/bread analogy to me, I understood it perfectly well. But it is just rhetoric, designed to make us think that strings are real, and not just entirely theoretical constructs without any supporting evidence.

That's a fair question indeed, and I'm not going to stop you asking questions. Look for "Loop Quantum Gravity", you will find your answer there..
Wow, so you believe in both string theory and loop quantum gravity! Interesting, since string theory is background dependent, versus LQG, in which the native objects are topological spin networks that are independent of any underlying geometry, so the two bodies of work are mathematically inconsistent. Of course, there's no more evidence for LQG than there is for string "theory."

See my answer to the previous inane (look that one up, too) comment you made.
This whole answer of you is inane, or senseless.
In what way is it senseless to discuss whether there is any evidence to support a particular scientific hypothesis?

I'm sorry for you thatbut I DO know eEnglish vocabulary..
Apparently not. Grammar, too, seems to mystify you.

I thought you weren't going to use the bible in this thread..
Rather than providing any proof to back up your belief in string "theory," you chose to attack me personally by saying that my views on string theory are invalid because I believe in the Bible. In response, I pointed out that nothing I have said in this thread about string theory was in the slightest bit dependent on my Christianity. I am opposed to people claiming that string "theory" is true because it lacks evidence, not because it is anti-Biblical. I have no idea how God created the universe, and, if He chose to do it with strings and membranes, I have no problem with that. But I am NOT going to accept that he did it with strings and membranes unless somebody provides some proof.

This is a church website, so I don't have a problem discussing the Bible when it is germane.

And by the way, YOU started with "feeling the love of god" in this discussion of string theory. So only a mormon woult try to..
I am not a Mormon, what makes you think that I am? My feeling the love of God comment was trying to reach out to a sinner and bring him into the fold where he can share the joy that I have found in Christ Jesus. It had nothing to do with my skepticism regarding string "theory," which has nothing to do with my religious views.

Double lol??
I don't hold the fact that you are psychologically imbalanced against you. Jesus instructed me to love my neighbor as myself, and I am concerned for your mental health. If you don't want to heed the warning signs and seek assistance, well, there's not much more that I can say.

The text was arguing that the universe didn't exist long before. Why don't you try to keep up?
I quote G-Baby again:
Those were the problems, but can String Theory solve them? Some string theorists have suggested that the big bang, hold on, wasn't the beginning of everything at all! That the universe could've existed long before, even forever. Some aren't agreed with that idea and say that a universe without a beginning is a universe without explanation. So what is the explanation? What if String Theory is right and we're all living on a giant brane inside a higher-dimensional space? Some scientists have proposed that the answer to the big bang riddle lies in the movements of these gigantic branes. Well, it's simple: you have a brane on which we live and another one floating in the higher dimension. What is difficult about imagining that these branes collide with each other?
The text said that some scientist say this, others say that. So "why don't you try to keep up" back at you.
Finally, you have actually managed to string together a lucid and thoughtful argument! You are right, and I concede the point that nobody knows whether string "theory" cannot explain the origin of everything because (A) it implies that every universe was caused by the intersection of membranes in another univers that were caused by the intersection of more membranes in another universe without end or ( there was an origin that had nothing to do with intersecting membranes, but string "theory" has nothing to say about what that origin might have been.

"preaching the piffle" doesn't say it well. I gave actual facts..
Piffle? What is piffle? And as for the facts that you gave, name one.

Peace.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Sommanol Beatmeup, could I ask that HTML quotes are used please?

For example, if you want to quote "I think branes are wonderful", in your reply, type, [xquote]"I think branes are wonderful"[x/quote] (but leave out the "x"). Then you will get

"I think branes are wonderful"

This will make the thread a lot easier to read.

It will also allow Brother Ahimaaz's words of wisdom to be better savored by those visiting this thread.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

It will also allow Brother Ahimaaz's words of wisdom to be better savored by those visiting this thread.

Thank you, Brother Bathfire. I was trying to speak to him in his own language, that of children, but you are right, it is better to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.

[Nobar King]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That entire dialogue was I am sure a fascinating correspondence, but I didn't read most of it because the format was tough to follow. Sorry.

[Silent Wench]

Re: The "Big Bang"

That entire dialogue was I am sure a fascinating correspondence, but I didn't read most of it because the format was tough to follow. Sorry.

I'm with him, Mates. That was a train wreck an a half.

[Peter]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If our universe arose from the intersection of two membranes in a multiverse, then how did the multiverse come into being?

If the universe was created by "god", how did "god" came into being?

[Wide-Open]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The universe wasn't created by "god".

It was created by God.

Next.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If the universe was created by "god", how did "god" came into being?

The universe wasn't created by "god".

It was created by God.

Next.

Amen, Brother Wide.

This God mocker reminds me of a man who's trapped in a burning building, but instead of doing the natural thing and fleeing the flames, he wants to stop and ask what the fire is made out of.

There is a limit to how much we humans can wrap our minds around when it comes to comprehending the mightiness of God Almighty. Good Christians know better than to tug on His cape.