A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by joshgreen, Oct 28, 2014.

?

Do you believe observations point to our current big bang model?

Poll closed Nov 4, 2014.
  1. No

    33.3%
  2. Yes

    66.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,849
    I believe in the G Bang theory, which will be explained in great detail, in my upcoming book "G Bang: God's love affair with Earth".
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    With all of the fundies flailing around in here seems a miracle has occurred - namely that this abortion of a topic is now 4 pages long and it is STILL in the science section!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    V Bang: Finding the G-od Spot.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You are right. I am not the moderator here, but did move thread to the cesspool, however, it got the OP split off. See note in first post of this thread.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2014
  8. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Nooooo, not the cesspool!
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is link to post 2 of the Pre-moved thread (and 4 pages more of it): http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-new-breakthrough-theory-of-the-big-bang.142921/

    I tried to move the thread to cesspool by just checking the box in the OP's lower left and then moving. That only moved the OP. So I returned and used the "thread tools" to do the same, but that produced the thread at link above, totaling 4 pages now.
    My first action created this new thread that I renamed by added (the OP) to the end of the name. This thread is now closed, but one of the link above is still open (On 30Nov2014, at least)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2014
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Certainly not before time! Good work!
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Vin samplor:

    Here was what I replied to:
    So, help me, Vin samplor.

    Where would I look to see the big void that joshgreen mentioned? Should I just generally look out into space (maybe a long way away) and hope I'll see it?

    Why mentioned "edge of the universe" at all? If it's just an expression, what does it mean in the context given here? Is it just a throw-away line?

    Help me find the big void at the edge of the universe, Vin.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It has come to my attention that the following posters in the current thread are one and the same:

    Vin samplor, sal boder, stpmjag, NASAcarl

    These sock puppets have been banned.

    You must think you have a pretty weak argument when you feel the need to create sock puppets just so that somebody will agree with and support you.

    Have a nice day!
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    How embarrassing!
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Hey, I think you forgot steward! He stated joshgreen wrote a 'great book' so I do not see how he could possibly be anything other than a sockpuppet too.
     
  15. group4 Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    What a load of cr*p! Where is the proof or mathematics for this, you phony, atheistic pig?
    This isn't a forum on FAIRY TALES OR NEVER NEVER LAND, OR ANY PIXIE IN THE SKY.
    It's a science forum.
    Prove your claim or keep your magic hocus pocus to yourself.
    To claim that something that has never been proven or duplicated is science is pure ignorance. You're a fraud.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    It must be a terribly frustrating thing for someone as delusional as yourself to be found out for the dishonesty and fraud you have exhibited on this forum under at least 5 or 6 different handles.....not very christain like I must say.....
    But anyway, pick up a good science book......any good science book....Your mythical God is uneccessary. Sorry if that upsets you, but that is a fact.
    Even the Catholic church recognise Evolution and the BB, although from those points they then digress back to your pixie in the sky nonsense.
    And as the banishing of this thread has shown, you and your other gutless handles plus the absurd nature of your books, is just totally cesspool material.

    From your friendly little neighbourhood Atheist to a nasty little delusional phony gutless ummm, what are you? Muslim, conventional Christain, YEC's, or Budhist? or some other new form of demented myth?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The world will continue my friend without your nonsense and science will show the way most certainly.
    Byeeee.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2014
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    I am finding hard to post the following rather Interesting scientifically cosmolgically based video in the cesspool section, but my good and helpful nature, is driving me to give you all the support you need......

     
  18. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    Or what.

    From over your horizon.
     
  19. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    I'm generally opposed to inbreeding.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Then stop doing that.
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Abiogenesis is a topic in science, not math. The requisite math needed to follow the science is listed in a typical curriculum for life sciences, which at a minimum would include calculus and probability theory.

    In the physical sciences the math is more critical to the core studies. The process for estimating geologic age via radioisotope decay is not at all advanced, but the math needed to understand the physics of it is quite extensive.

    But abiogenesis is evident. Evidence is not the same as proof, it's merely pieces of truth being laid at your feet to pick up and study, or to attack and ridicule because it threatens your beliefs about the origins of life.

    When all other options fail, just assassinate your online persona.

    So why are you promoting fantasy?
    Then where are your studies, your specimens, your instruments, your measurements, your data, and your libraries of supporting technical references to provide corroboration? Where is your academic achievement? Failing all of that, why are you posting on a science board?
    Abiogenesis is not a claim. It is the default position once we rule out magic and hocus pocus. "Proving abiogenesis" is catering to the apologetics that tries in vain to shore up the hocus pocus of the Creation Myth. Science plays no favorites, so you are barking up the wrong tree. Instead science merely collects and processes evidence, looking for every grain of truth Nature reveals to every curious mind that probes it.

    That being said, the more direct evidence that confronts you are the extensive work products of geology, archaeology, and paleontology which as you should know provide a wealth of evidence about how life evolved. Because organisms have existed longer on Earth as colonial monocytes than as metazoans, the real focus on how life originated begins with explaining why cyanobacteria were probably the only dominant form of life for most of all evolutionary history. Understanding cyanobacteria leads to a better understanding of how primitive prokaryotes probably originated. That origin is called abiogenetic because it refers to "first cells". There were no cells from which mitotic division might occur. Instead there was something else, probably containing primitive RNA and probably enclosed in a lipid membrane. Thus the question lies there, in hopes of finding "the missing link" between first cells and the primordial soup. But that only answers "how", not if, since only a crank would introduce the hocus pocus that claims that life was created by God, aliens or any other such fantasy.
    Since you demonstrate no interest in science, no skills, then your opinions on the subject are worthless.
    Said the poster who never bothered to study science yet pretends to have the cred to speak of scientific evidence.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You're still failing to make any sense. Please try again.

    Is that your attempt at an insult, Mr. G?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page