Originally posted by Sea of red

Much of modern cosmology is speculative I'll admit, in fact I have criticized it for that for reason.. Then again, it's that same modern cosmology that apologists are quick to accept and go out of their way to claim it proves the universe was created. When I say modern cosmology I'm of course referring to the Inflationary Big Bang model.

Paul Steinhardt has been critical of inflationary cosmology, yet his theory cyclic model at it's heart uses M-theory which has received far more criticism, and rightly so.

I agree with you in substance, but not necessarily in wording. I have always considered the subject of multi-verses including cyclic models in terms of possibilities, as with the standard inflationary big bang model, which is the the one that element 771 and the gang of five, is clinging as the only one fitting the current state of our knowledge of the cosmos. It is misleading not to be skeptical of all present models as providing the difinitive answer to the ultimate nature of our universe, or the possibility of multi-verses.

The underlying question in the debate that is more important is whether the present knowledge of Quantum Theory fits an infinite eternal cosmos, or a finite temporal one. Virtually all the cosmologists I have studied favor an infinite eternal greater cosmos as best fitting our current knowledge.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

I agree with you in substance, but not necessarily in wording. I have always considered the subject of multi-verses including cyclic models in terms of possibilities, as with the standard inflationary big bang model, which is the the one that element 771 and the gang of five, is clinging as the only one fitting the current state of our knowledge of the cosmos. It is misleading not to be skeptical of all present models as providing the difinitive answer to the ultimate nature of our universe, or the possibility of multi-verses.

The underlying question in the debate that is more important is whether the present knowledge of Quantum Theory fits an infinite eternal cosmos, or a finite temporal one. Virtually all the cosmologists I have studied favor an infinite eternal greater cosmos as best fitting our current knowledge.

There's a difference between possibility and reality Shuny. Why is it when myself and 'the gang of 5' say the same thing SoR is saying, we are ignored and insulted and he is not? I think element is right, you are simply a bigot against anybody with the 'Christian' label on their post bit.

Now Pixie, as you know, what talent we have is simply what the Lord has given us. I, the Shadowmaster, realize that my incredibly good looks and amazing intelligence, come from the Lord and I simply praise him for such gifts. So also it must be with you.

Now there are some who never discovered any logic deeper than the fifth grade. Be patient with them. The Lord does not make junk. They have a purpose too. It may simply be to make everyone else look good.

Originally posted by lilpixieofterror

There's a difference between possibility and reality Shuny. Why is it when myself and 'the gang of 5' say the same thing SoR is saying, we are ignored and insulted and he is not? I think element is right, you are simply a bigot against anybody with the 'Christian' label on their post bit.

The gang of five is not saying the same thing as SoR, read the highlighted.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The gang of five is not saying the same thing as SoR, read the highlighted.

And where have we done this child or did you ignore this word of his:

Originally posted by SoR

Much of modern cosmology is speculative I'll admit, in fact I have criticized it for that for reason.

Here is something not that different that I said (note the bold):

And yet you don't actually name them, you just state, "Oh yeah, what about this!" You'll quickly find that even those who support those other theories will admit they do not have any experiment data to back their models up. That isn't a bad thing in itself because after all... many of the scientific theories we take for fact today started out that way, but some forget that many ended there and went no further. When we are talking about possibility, sure it is possible other universes exist, but when talking about actual physical or experimental evidence, there isn't any at this time, so it is rather foolish to base your entire system off from 'possible' and nothing more.

So what is all that different from what SoR said or is the reality that you see that Christian post bit and bury your head in the sand because whatever we say must be wrong? Keep it up Shuny so others can see what you do when shown wrong, bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

I don't understand how me saying much of modern cosmology is speculative means anything, most of those that keep up with the field know that. Anybody that knows me knows that of the models I've been in the inflationary camp.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The gang of five is not saying the same thing as SoR, read the highlighted.

Huh?

What highlighted?

Originally posted by Sea of red

I don't understand how me saying much of modern cosmology is speculative means anything, most of those that keep up with the field know that. Anybody that knows me knows that of the models I've been in the inflationary camp.

It is because when I say the same thing, Shuny tells me I am stuck in the Newtonian period....which is ridiculous because QM is empirically verifiable. He does this because I am a Christian and he has to maintain the "superiority" of his faith over mine. He likes to pretend that the Baha'i faith is the only faith that accepts all of science, which again is ignorance at its finest.

Originally posted by element771

Huh?

What highlighted?

This one
Originally posted by Sea of red
Much of modern cosmology is speculative I'll admit, in fact I have criticized it for that for reason.. Then again, it's that same modern cosmology that apologists are quick to accept and go out of their way to claim it proves the universe was created. When I say modern cosmology I'm of course referring to the Inflationary Big Bang model.

Paul Steinhardt has been critical of inflationary cosmology, yet his theory cyclic model at it's heart uses M-theory which has received far more criticism, and rightly so.

Originally posted by lilpixieofterror

And where have we done this child or did you ignore this word of his:



Here is something not that different that I said (note the bold):



So what is all that different from what SoR said or is the reality that you see that Christian post bit and bury your head in the sand because whatever we say must be wrong? Keep it up Shuny so others can see what you do when shown wrong, bury your head in the sand and ignore it.

Misrepresentation, I never said you must be wrong.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Then again, it's that same modern cosmology that apologists are quick to accept and go out of their way to claim it proves the universe was created. When I say modern cosmology I'm of course referring to the Inflationary Big Bang model.
.

What in the hell does this have to do with anything?

No one is talking about the relationship between cosmology and apologetics.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Misrepresentation,

Quit being a hypocrite. You should not accuse others of misrepresentation when you do it on a regular basis and refuse to own up to it.

On another thread, I think it was, I wrote that multiple universes was pure speculation. Shuny wrote back that there was evidence for that theory. But, he would not "spoon feed' when I asked for some of that evidence.

Who knows?

Originally posted by Jedidiah

Who knows?

Shuny doesn't.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Misrepresentation, I never said you must be wrong.

And yet:

The gang of five is not saying the same thing as SoR, read the highlighted.

Where is the difference dear? Going to show it someday or is that just a blind assertion you made?

Originally posted by lilpixieofterror

And yet:



Where is the difference dear? Going to show it someday or is that just a blind assertion you made?

Nothing here translates to 'you must be wrong.' Misrepresentation.