On Apr 4, 7:51 am, "Kadaitcha Man"
gmail.com>
wrote:> "Elmer"
frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:BxhJj.1136$NU2.535@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> On Apr 4, 7:17 am, rogue
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>> On Apr 4, 3:26 am, "Kadaitcha Man"
gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:>
>>>>>>> Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn't the Universe
>>>>>>> Billions of Years Old? 3
>>>>>>> If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory
>>>>>>> will fall (with a big bang).
>>>>>>> Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of
>>>>>>> light (8). Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang
>>>>>>> theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster
>>>>>>> (9).
>>>>>>> 8. "We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a
>>>>>>> resolution to the well-known cosmological puzzles." Andreas Albrecht
>>>>>>> and Jo=E3o Magueijo, "A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to
>>>>>>> Cosmological Puzzles," Physical Review D, 15 February 1999, p.
>>>>>>> 043516-9. [The authors state that light may have traveled thirty
>>>>>>> orders of magnitude faster than it does today!]
>>>>>>> "It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea [a decaying speed
>>>>>>> of light] that has so many appealing consequences." John D. Barrow,
>>>>>>> Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the
>>>>>>> University of Sussex, as quoted by Steve Farrar, "Speed of Light
>>>>>>> Slowing Down," London Sunday Times, 15 November 1998.
>>>>>>> "If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then
>>>>>>> decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the
>>>>>>> Universe,
>>>>>>> then all three cosmological problems--the horizon, flatness and
>>>>>>> lambda
>>>>>>> problems--can be solved at once." John D. Barrow, "Is Nothing
>>>>>>> Sacred?"
>>>>>>> New Scientist, Vol. 163, 24 July 1999, p. 28.
>>>>>>> Two comments: First, each problem Barrow mentions is actually a
>>>>>>> reason for concluding the big bang theory is wrong. Second, no
>>>>>>> scientific law says the speed of light is a constant. It has only
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> assumed to be such. In fact, today it is arbitrarily defined as a
>>>>>>> constant. W.B.
>>>>>>> 9. For example, "the horizon problem" recognizes that opposite
>>>>>>> extremes of the universe have the same temperature and laws of
>>>>>>> physics. Why should this be? The universe isn't old enough for such
>>>>>>> vastly separated regions to have ever had contact with each other.
>>>>>>> Light doesn't travel fast enough--at least today.
>>>>>>>
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
>>>>>> Just that last point shows the failure of your whole proposition.
>>>>>> Heisenberg's uncertainty principal heralded the solution for the "the
>>>>>> horizon problem" as far back as 1925, and inflation theory solved it
>>>>>> completely, along with "the magnetic monopole problem" and "the
>>>>>> flatness
>>>>>> problem" in one fell swoop, you fact-dropping nutbar.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> PT.IndoSat Kupang Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
>>>>> JERRY
>>>>> You should quit grasping at straws you don't understand and actually
>>>>> learn some science. Evolution has already been proved. It's proved
>>>>> in the lab. It's proved in the field. It's proved in the fossil
>>>>> record. Mosd of what theists throw up as "proof" are nothing more
>>>>> than arguments from incredulity and straw man arguments based upon
>>>>> their lack of knowledge in science.
>
>>>>> The Big Bang and abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with
>>>>> evolution. Evolution is the process by which life changes and adapts
>>>>> in order to survive, nothing more. Even if you could prove the Big
>>>>> Bang wrong, that wouldn't disprove evolution.
>>>> sorry, my response was meant for the person you were responding to.
>
>>> I gathered that, however...
>
>>> If abiogenesis is assumed to be correct, for the sake of argument only,
>>> then your statement that "The Big Bang and abiogenesis has nothing
>>> whatsoever to do with evolution" is prima facie wrong.
>
>>> Your statement that "Even if you could prove the Big Bang wrong, that
>>> wouldn't disprove evolution" is intuitively suspicious, to say the least.
>>> There are consequences of not having a big bang that you have obviously
>>> failed to consider, no matter how improbable those consequences may seem.
>
>> Sure, without the BB there wouldn't be anything exist
>
> Invalid assumption.
>
>> Or did you mean something el
>
> You work it out, fucktard.
>
> --
> PT.IndoSat Kupang Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
JERRY
My, what a pleasant troll you are turning out to be. I hope you are
smarter than the few posts I've read indicate.
