“pitts - Slightly off topic, but to expand on our math/science discussion (just for fun).

Science that is (not "based on", not "explained by") math ...

fractals

chaos theory.
last edited: 11/01/05 12:10:39 PM”

“When you come to a fork in the road… take it.

Fractals - You have to be more specific. The term "fractal" is descriptive and was invented by Mandelbrot from the Latin word "fractus" meaning "broken". Fractal Geometry is a well established branch of mathematics.

Chaos theory - This applies to both mathematics and science. Mathematical systems that exhibit chaos are deterministic while physical systems that exhibit chaos are not necessarily deterministic (because of Quantum Mechanics) or may appear non deterministic because of the complexity of the system (the "butterfly effect" or dripping of water are examples). So Chaos Theory is part of mathematics and it is also part of the set of observations of the natural world (science).”

“Id love to see how god or aliens are represnted in math. alpha and omega perhaps?

I said represented, which is much different then proof. Perhaps One could say that since none of the given theories are provable all of them could be consider more in the realm of "religeon" then science.”

“Lumberjack, do you mind if we hold the same standard for the Big Bang as you do for God when you speak of what is provable? Is the Big Bang religion? It hasn't been proven. How do you know it's proveable? It's no more proveable than God is at this point in time. At one time in history, it was not proveable that we could land on Mars. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, and that doesn't mean science wouldn't accomplish that. How do you know (a) that the Big Bang will one day be proven, and (b) that God will never be proven?

You don't know, so you're going to have to change your defintion of "religion".”

“What does it mean to say that something is "proven"? Science looks to adopt theories that are both simple and make useful predictions that can be verified by observation. The more verified observations there are the higher the degree of confidence in the theory.

There are a lot of observations that support Evolution and the Big Bang theory. Does that mean that they can't be replaced by a simpler theory that makes predictions that can also be verified and observed? Clearly it does not. In fact scientists are always looking for simpler, more fundamental theories to replace or augment the ones that are there today.”

“I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”

“science is the attempt to explain reality

mathematics is the language of science”

“I would like to ask that you substantiate two statements. Specifically these two points:

If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory.

Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically.

First, if you claim there is a trend to shy away from Big Bang as a theory then you should be able to substantiate this claim. I do not believe that this is the case.

Second, the Big Bang as a theory is based on observation of the natural universe. So to say that it has never been observed is false. The Big Bang is a consequence of Hubble's law which is an observation taken in context of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. That said there are numerous observations that support the Big Bang theory including the measurement of the predicted 2.7 degree blackbody radiation for which Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel Prize.”

“The Big Bang is a consequence of Hubble's law which is an observation taken in context of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

That statement I made was poorly worded, although I am sure many know what I meant. A better wording would have been:

The Big Bang is a consequence of Hubble's law (which is an observation) taken in context of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.”

“You asked 2 questions. I've seen evidence of the 1st, but will have to go back to find you references, it will take time, so let me answer the 2nd 1st.

Second, the Big Bang as a theory is based on observation of the natural universe. So to say that it has never been observed is false.

Two things.

(1) I didn't say it has never been observed, I said it has never been verified through observation.
(2) It has never been shown that it has been observed. It is true that we *may* have observed it, but we don't know that. There is a lot of doubt to that. We may have observed the expansive result of the Big Bang, but we have never observed the event.

Also, the Big Bang is not a consequence of any law of man. It may be theorized by a law of man, but any creation event happened irregardless of any future law of man.”

“Big Bang predicts 2.7 degree Kelvin blackbody radiation. This is measured (and two scientists were given the Nobel Prize for it).

Big Bang predicts the abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. The observed abundances match the predictions.

Big Bang predicts the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation to be about one part on 100K. It also predicts that there should be a slight unevenness that is caused by the predicted unevenness of the matter distribution. The unevenness is predicted and observed in the amounts that are predicted.

Big Bang predicts the nature of the change of the Universe over time. Looking back into time (through a telescope) we see older and older objects are things that would be more common in an early universe in Big Bang such as blue stars and quasars.

These are all predictions that the theory made that were observed (as opposed to making an observation that fits the theory). They are observations that verify the theory.
last edited: 11/01/05 4:16:47 PM”

“pitts - Before I respond, I just want to point out that that is not something that we have argued. In other words, so what? Were you refuting some past point that was made?

If I'm correct, you're trying to refute the point (1) above that I made.

If that's the case, I disagree with your conclusion.

You would have to show that these things would not otherwise exist unless *only* the precise mathematics involved in the initial explosion were integrated into those equations.

Your predictions may be explained by a big bang, but they can also be explained by an expansive explosion that was not a singularity to begin with.

That being said, I just want to clarify that I don't doubt there was a "big bang" like event. I'm am simply saying it hasn't been proven mathematically. In fact, as somebody (maybe you) have recently pointed out, the theory has been changed (or you might prefer the word "revised") many times in recent times. One of them being that there was no initial event at all, just an expansion. So much for a "bang". If those things make the big bang theory science, was the big bang theory science before those mathematical observations?”

“pitts - To answer the 1st question, I originally read this in an astro-physics book I own. I don't remember which one it was, but all of the ones I own are by famous physisists, none of which are Christians (in case that means anything to you). I don't remember which one it was in, and I'm not planning on re-reading them anytime soon.

So, in lieu of that, google has the answers ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22big+bang%22+theory+scientists+dissident&btnG=Search

Sorry I don't know where I originally read it, but it's not an uncommon belief.”

“Lumberjack, do you mind if we hold the same standard for the Big Bang as you do for God when you speak of what is provable? Is the Big Bang religion? It hasn't been proven. How do you know it's proveable? It's no more proveable than God is at this point in time. How do you know (a) that the Big Bang will one day be proven, and (b) that God will never be proven?

You don't know, so you're going to have to change your defintion of "religion".”
Sarge

SO you do see my point... big bang is as much religeon as any other theory and since we dont teach religeon in public schools...

:D Enjoy all the hair splitting”

“You do realize you just said we shouldn't teach big bang in schools, don't you?”

“The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. The term "Big Bang" was stuck onto the theory as a joke early on when the theory was new and considered very radical. The theory refers not to an "explosion" but rather the expansion of spacetime from an initial state. This expansion is modeled very precisely and mathematically by General Relativity (which deals with gravity and the nature of spacetime).

We know that the Universe is not infinitely old or else everything would be at thermal equilibrium. Hence we know that time must have a beginning which must have coincided with some initial state of the Universe. We also know that the Universe is very old because light has a finite speed and we can observe very distant objects, specifically quasars, whose light took 15 billion years to reach us (so it has to be at least 15 billion years old if not older).

The Big Bang is the theory that describes the expansion from some initial state a long time ago to the present state we observe today based on General Relativity. When you run computer models driven by this math from an initial state that is small, hot, and dense (like a singularity) you get a Universe that is shockingly like that which we observe today. So it is a theory based on observation that has a solid mathematical foundation and which makes predictions that have been observed.

The math is there. It's all done in tensor calculus (used heavily in General Relativity).

I am not sure where to go from here. There has been an explosion of topics from “what is science” to the recent conversation on the Big Bang theory. I am obviously game to talk about any and all of these topics but I am getting a bit tossed about in the different threads.”

“Dinner first...”

“The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. The term "Big Bang" was stuck onto the theory as a joke early on when the theory was new and considered very radical. The theory refers not to an "explosion" but rather the expansion of spacetime from an initial state. This expansion is modeled very precisely and mathematically by General Relativity (which deals with gravity and the nature of spacetime).

Not true. The expansion arose from an explosion according to the theory.

We also know that the Universe is very old because light has a finite speed and we can observe very distant objects, specifically quasars, whose light took 15 billion years to reach us (so it has to be at least 15 billion years old if not older).

So wikipedia is wrong about the age of the universe? You'd think these scientists would be a bit more cohesive in their understanding by now.”

“You've claimed before pitts that the Big Bang only refers to the later expansion, that it's not about the initial state of the universe.

That simply is not true.

That is key to this discussion.”

“So wikipedia is wrong about the age of the universe? You'd think these scientists would be a bit more cohesive in their understanding by now.”

i wasnt aware that wikipedia was a scientist.”

“Crash - It's not, and I didn't say it is. It's an open source encyclopedia contributed to by lots of people.”

“Can't like anyone write Wikipedia entries?”

“and I didn't say it is

no, but you implied it with that statement. who cares if wikipedia agrees or disagrees with the scientists? i dont know what the debate term is (im sure you do), but you tried to make it seem that since wikipedia is in disagreement with the scientists, the scientists cant get their act together.

i also find it interesting that one of the conservatives arguments against gay marriage is that it would require a re-defining of the term "marriage", and yet, here you are, lobbying for ID to be considered a science, but the only way to do that would require a re-defining of the term "science".
last edited: 11/01/05 7:00:07 PM”

“What I have said (in the past) was that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of causation. It doesn't speculate on how the initial state came into being. It only speculates on the expansion from that initial state. The initial state has to exist because spacetime had to have a beginning (since the Universe can't be infinitely old).

Also, the expansion is the expansion of spacetime. The distance between two fixed points increased, quite rapidly during the initial expansion. Today the distance between two fixed points is still increasing but the amount of expansion is so small we can't measure it.

The Big Bang theory isn't about some violent explosion prior to t=0 that kicked off the expansion. It is a theory of the expansion of spacetime from t=0 and the properties of the Universe this produces.

Also, I don't accept your Google search as any sort of indication of a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang. I think it's grossly unfair of you to ask me to accept this based on such sketchy information. You are basically telling me to go figure it out for myself. Since I didn't make the claim I shouldn't have to prove it.”

“Gotta go spend time with the Varsity Team. l8r
last edited: 11/01/05 7:24:46 PM”

“Can't like anyone write Wikipedia entries?

Anybody can write them, but they aren't automatically entered as definitions. They are peer reviewed.”

“you said "peer"”

“but you implied it with that statement

No, I didn't. I'm fully aware the wikipedia is not a scientist. If you want to argue that I thought that, or said that, fine. I'll let you contest that amongst yourself.”

“then tell me why you said it”

“I already did Einstein.”

“The initial state has to exist because spacetime had to have a beginning (since the Universe can't be infinitely old).

Oh boy. I love it! You earlier (in months prior on THIS THREAD) argued that an initial state DID NOT exist. Unbelieveable! LOL!

Also, the expansion is the expansion of spacetime. The distance between two fixed points increased, quite rapidly during the initial expansion. Today the distance between two fixed points is still increasing but the amount of expansion is so small we can't measure it.

Why did you post this? Is this in dispute here?

The Big Bang theory isn't about some violent explosion prior to t=0 that kicked off the expansion. It is a theory of the expansion of spacetime from t=0 and the properties of the Universe this produces.

I know what you're thinking pitts, but you're getting caught up in your own terminology and definitions.

Yes, the Big Bang theory explains expansion, but what you are wrong about it that the big bang theory ALSO is about t=0 (time = 0, the moment just as catalyst event happened). That is, the very moment the universe was created! There was an event, a catalyst, that happened at that time that cause the explosion, and consequently the expansion. Now, I know what you're thinking ... But there WAS NO EXPLOSION! Not true. What you are confusing is that some people confuse the expansion with an explosion due to the "big bang myth" you referenced earlier. That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about the catylist event. That was an explosion. Now we can get into symantics and you can say "But it wasn't a conventional explosion in that there wasn't fire and stuntmen and a loud ka-boom." That might be true, but it was an explosion, nonetheless. Here is the definition of explosion: "A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases." THAT IS THE BIG BANG!

Now, you're probably going to say (again) that the theory is not about the catalyst event. Not true! Yes, scientists focus on other parts of the event, because that is what allows them to "prove" their theory, but the explosion is very much apart of the theory. If you take that away, you have no theory.”

“Oh boy. I love it! You earlier (in months prior on THIS THREAD) argued that an initial state DID NOT exist. Unbelieveable! LOL!

Show me. This October. This thread. I went back and re-read my posts so I have no worries about you doing the same. Show me where I said that the initial state of the Universe did not exist. I reviewed the posts from October. They are still there. If I can review them surely it's not unreasonable for you to do the same to support your claim. I am certain you won't intentionally twist my words to say something you clearly know I did not.

This wouldn't be that different from your claiming that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory. Your support of your claim to a trend consisted of a Google search for the words "big bang theory scientists dissident" (which I do not accept and I am still waiting for you to demonstrate a trend).

Fred Hoyle (an astronomer in the 1900’s whom I think recently passed away) coined the name “Big Bang” theory because he thought the theory was a joke and made fun of it calling the expansion of spacetime an “explosion”. The name stuck.

There is no mention in Big Bang theory of a catalytic explosion. Support your claim that it does. Since this is a well established scientific theory you should have no problem pointing to a reference.

The “explosion” is the expansion of spacetime itself as described by the theory. The initial universe was indeed dense and hot but as spacetime expanded it rapidly cooled. You may find references to the expansion as an "explosion". One can find references to mice populations "exploding" which doesn't mean they burn up in a big fireball. It means their population expands rapidly. It is a descriptive term. In this case it is used to describe the rapid expansion of spacetime.

However all of this is rather irrelevant. It remains that the Big Bang theory, when run through a computer (using pure math) makes predictions that can be verified through independent observations. Your statement that the theory had never been verified through observation was wrong (quote: “Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically”). I have shown you are wrong by referencing well documented observations that have been made of predictions the theory makes. These are predictions the theory makes that are observed and not observations that fit the theory. I have also pointed out that the Big Bang has a rigid mathematical formulation based on tensor calculus (mathematics) and models based on the theory can be run on computers.”

“This October? I didn't say "This October!" I said "in months prior". And it wasn't too far back either.

I also re-read your posts (last night). They're there.

I'll give you one more chance to find them before I post them here so you can save face since you somehow thought I said "October". (maybe you were tired?)

I am not interested in proving to you a trend of the Big Bang theorists. It doesn't support my argument. It's just a fact I put out there. If it was a necessary point of my argument, I'd reread all of my physics books and quote it for you. It's irrelevant for this discussion. My arguments stand without that.

The history of the name of "Big Bang" is irrelevant to the meaning of it. There was an "explosion".

Are you telling me there was no catalyst event which was sudden and caused a violent burst of energy resulting in a generation of super high temperatures with the release of gases? Is that your claim?

The “explosion” is the expansion of spacetime itself as described by the theory. ... In this case it is used to describe the rapid expansion of spacetime.

So you admit there was an explosion. Good. We're on the same track now.

The rapid cooling, by the way, immediately came after the rapid heating during the catalyst event.

Your statement that the theory had never been verified through observation was wrong.

That is not true pitts. What was verified are consequences of the Big Bang happened. Not the event itself. Think pregnancies and ice cream.

Scientists have claimed they've shown dark matter exists due to their calculations of gravitational pull. Now they're saying dark matter probably does not exist. If the scientific community would have accepted those gravitational calculations as proof of dark matter, they would have been wrong. Dark Matter was NOT observed, only POTENTIAL evidence of it.”

“You have refused to support your claim that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory (other than your Google search which is wholly inadequate to demonstrate a trend).

Are you telling me there was no catalyst event which was sudden and caused a violent burst of energy resulting in a generation of super high temperatures with the release of gases? Is that your claim?

You are the one making the claim (that such a catalytic event is part of the Big Bang theory). Now you are refusing to support your claim.

That is not true pitts. What was verified are consequences of the Big Bang happened. Not the event itself. Think pregnancies and ice cream.

Is true, sarge. As I said, the Big Bang describes the expansion of spacetime from an initial hot/dense state. This expansion is observed. Hubble’s Law is based on observation (it is entirely empirical in fact) and is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang theory. We observe that objects further out in time are moving away from us faster and faster. This increase in velocity isn’t the result of motion through spacetime itself (things aren’t accelerating as they get older). The increase in apparent velocity is the result of the expansion of spacetime which is “carrying” the galaxies, stars, etc along with it.

The best measure of the rate of the expansion of spacetime is 72 +/- 8 km/sec/Mpc and comes from measurements of the Hubble Key Project measuring Cepheids in galaxies close to us.”

“HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school board member who was questioned by a federal judge about discrepancies in his testimony on the purchase of "intelligent design" textbooks was expected to return to the witness stand Wednesday.

Dover Area School Board member Alan Bonsell was to undergo redirect questioning by an attorney representing the board in a landmark trial over whether intelligent design can be introduced in high school science classes.

Bonsell testified Monday that he had received an $850 check from fellow board member William Buckingham. The check was made out to Bonsell's father, who volunteered to donate copies of "Of Pandas and People" to the district.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III asked Bonsell why he never shared that information in a January deposition when he was repeatedly asked under oath about who was involved in making the donation. Bonsell, who served as the board's president in 2004, said he misspoke.

Buckingham testified Thursday he collected $850 in donations to help purchase the books during a Sunday service at his church.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-11022005-563705.html”

“WHAT? I am not making the claim there was no catalyst event. YOU DID!

Are you trolling now?

pitts, if the Big Bang was verified, it would be BIG NEWS. It has NEVER been verified.”

“You do realize you just said we shouldn't teach big bang in schools, don't you?”
Sarge

Im saying that Theories should all be held to a single written standard before being taught as science and any thoery failing that standard omitted. Not some nebulous "community" standard which changes but rather a standard requiring a minimal amount of proof.

If we are going to teach largely unprovable assumtions to our children then perhaps we should teach them all so they can make intelligent decisions about the subject?

Perhaps it should read :
atheist's believe accidents happen
trekkies believe it was alien influences
superstitious believe it was an act of god.

Anything beyond that point is little more then speculation.

BTW due to the fact that stars do burn out , get sucked into black holes and blow up after a few million years puts the limits on the accuracy of an observations.Additionally the actual distances involved are also disputed as well. Considering the fact that we just recently realised that theres a black hole at the center of every galaxy, I wonder how much more we have missed with our observations.



one final note: The first rule of statistical math is any group of numbers can be shaped to reach almost any conclusion.”

“Read what I wrote sarge: You are the one making the claim (that such a catalytic event is part of the Big Bang theory). Now you are refusing to support your claim.

You have also refused to support your claim that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory (other than your Google search which is wholly inadequate to demonstrate a trend).

I feel it is very unfair of you to make claims that you are unable or unwilling to support.

pitts, if the Big Bang was verified, it would be BIG NEWS. It has NEVER been verified.

You are flat-out wrong.

It was big news 27 years ago. In 1978 Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for it. Read about it on the Cornell Department of Astronomy web site:

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/cmb.htm

Other observations that verify the theory include:

Big Bang predicts the abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. The observed abundances match the predictions.

Big Bang predicts the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation to be about one part on 100K. It also predicts that there should be a slight unevenness that is caused by the predicted unevenness of the matter distribution. The unevenness is predicted and observed in the amounts that are predicted.

Big Bang predicts the nature of the change of the Universe over time. Looking back into time (through a telescope) we see older and older objects are things that would be more common in an early universe in Big Bang such as blue stars and quasars.

Show me a simpler theory that is as predictive or a theory that is more predictive and then you will have BIG news.”

“Ironic dialogue from somebody who claimed that there was NO catalytic event, and ALSO claimed that there WAS at another time, depending on how it would support his argument at that time. Notably, the KEY point to this entire discussion of ORIGINS ... not the resulting universe following ORIGINS.”

“You claimed that the Big Bang theory includes a "catalytic event" that is a precursor to the expansion of spacetime. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim. Prove it.

You claimed that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim other than a Google search which is not indication of a trend and is unacceptable. Prove it.

You claimed that the Big Bang theory has not been observationally verified. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong and quoted several observations including one for which two scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize (specifically because their observation was a verification of the theory).

You claimed that the Big Bang theory is not based on mathematics. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong.

I feel it is very unfair of you to make claims that you are unable or unwilling to support when I ask you about them. Are we all just supposed to take your word for it?
last edited: 11/02/05 9:51:37 AM”

“You claimed that the Big Bang theory includes a "catalytic event" that is a precursor to the expansion of spacetime. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim. Prove it.

Hence we know that time must have a beginning which must have coincided with some initial state of the Universe.

- pitts

You cannot even agree with yourself.”

“pitts - As I've said many times before, this discussion is NOT about the expansion of the universe.

It's about ORIGINS.

You refuse to accept that because you would have to discuss what "caused" the Big Bang to come to fruition in the first place. Ironically, the point of the debate.”

“You claimed that the Big Bang theory includes a "catalytic event" that is a precursor to the expansion of spacetime. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim. Prove it.

You claimed that there is a trend in scientific thinking away from the Big Bang theory. So far you have either been unable or refuse to support your claim other than a Google search which is not indication of a trend and is unacceptable. Prove it.

You claimed that the Big Bang theory has not been observationally verified. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong and quoted several observations including one for which two scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize (specifically because their observation was a verification of the theory).

You claimed that the Big Bang theory is not based on mathematics. Prove it. I showed that you were wrong.

I feel it is very unfair of you to make claims that you are unable or unwilling to support when I ask you about them. Are we all just supposed to take your word for it?”

“History is not science and metaphysics is not science. There may be scientific methods which are helpful and relevant in History and Metaphysics. Some day there may be more scientific methods developed that could lead to a sceince of history. There may even someday be a breakthrough that leads from ID to a science of Intelligent design.

When someone argues that history and math are sciences and implies that language might be - this implies a definition of science so far from how I define science and so far from what I've understood science to be from reading in the history and philosopohy of science - I msut admit to having no idea as to whether ID in its current state meets this transormed definition of science.

Science is a discipline with serious limitations and extraordinary power. It doesn't have all the answers, or even all the questions - but it does a pretty good job of dealing with the questions it does have.”

“As far as the point of the “debate” is concerned, here it is. It started on "what is science" and you made the following claim:

“I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”
Sarge
1:28:04 PM
11/01/05

I challenged you on these claims and you have been unable to back them up. You have made additional claims in the ongoing discussion that you have also been unable to back up.”

“The POINT OF THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE is about ORIGINS.

Look through this entire thread. I've been trying to get you to recogonize that basic fact and you just refuse to. Instead you try to change the debate.

You also have changed your stance on the most BASIC and PERTINENT point of this debate, whether or not there was a "beginning" to the universe.

Stop trying to redefine the debate pitts. You're avoiding the point and it's very tired.”

“pitts - Here's a test for you. It's a "true or false" test.

Q. The intelligent design debate is about the origin of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE

Q. I, pitts, believe that there was a beginning of the universe.

TRUE or FALSE

Are you willing to respond to those most basic points of this debate, or are we going to waste our time with your diversions?”

““I would say that scientists are far from proving Big Bang. If there is a trend, the trend recently has been for scientists to shy away from Big Bang theory. Big Bang has not been "verified by observation", neither literally, nor mathematically. I am not suggesting it didn't happen (I think it's a close approximation of reality), I'm simply saying it hasn't been proven.

Yes, scientists are looking for "better" theories all the time to replace existing ones. One of those theories scientists and mathematitians are looking at is Intelligent Design theory.”
Sarge
1:28:04 PM

You are changing the topic. I challenged your statement. You have been unable or have refused to back it up. Don't try to trigger a different discussion and change the topic. I'll talk about any other topic you wish after we finish addressing the first set of false claims you made.

Either prove your claims or admit that you were saying stuff that you can't back up.”

“You never finished the first set of claims from when this discussion began. You continually try to change the goal posts.

Why won't you answer those VERY basic questions I just posed to you?

Are you not willing to discuss intelligent design? Re-read the title of this thread if you're still confused.”

“I am willing to discuss Intelligent Design. I have only read one book on the theory and I don't know if it's a good one (William Dembski, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology"). I tried to find what I thought would be a legitimate book on the topic that an ID proponent would reference. I read it with an open mind. For the record it did correct several misperceptions I had about Intelligent Design.

I will openly admit that while I feel I have a strong knowledge of the Big Bang theory and a good grasp on Evolution I only have a basic understanding of ID from this one book I read and a few web pages. I found his book interesting and easy to read. I was left quite unsatisfied by it, but that probably was more a matter of the target audience and not the content itself. I probably just wanted more detail than he could offer in this book. Then again, for all I know, this is the best that there is on this topic. I hope not.

However, I simply refuse to discuss the topic with you (personally) until you close out your previous statements which I feel you made in error and have been unable to support. I simply do not appreciate what I see is your tendency to make claims that you are unwilling to support. I just don’t think I would learn anything from you in the discussion and that any questions I would have would go unanswered. I can find other more productive forums for my personal research.”