"Pastor Dave" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:56:04 GMT, "weatherwax"
| spake thusly:
|
|
| Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
| Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big
Bang.".
|
|
| Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
|
| BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?

Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?

Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not addressed
in any of their jibberish
|
| --
|
| "There is no refuge from confession but suicide;
| and suicide is confession." - Daniel Webster
|

On 11 Apr, 00:48, "adman" wrote:

[snipped for brevity and focus]

This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun
Yahya and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract
from Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary
figure penrose came up with against the singularity.

Right?

Oh really?

Did I come up with Harun Yahya simply as a distraction to detract from
Roger Penrose's work?

Perhaps you didn't read the whole of the article you cited at the end
of your opening post, it contains the following close to the end:

" ... adopted from The Equilibrium in the Explosion, by Harun Yahya."

The title you gave this thread was "Yep, it is an impossibility!"

And your opening words (which I present here verbatim) we

"Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career .Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to
form itself after a big bang explosion."

You vehemently defended this opening posture of yours all the while,
occasionally lapsing into ad hominem attacks, which I forgive you for
doing.

And now you are taking up a position completely contrary to your
original one, and parading it as if it had been your position all
along.

That is quite remarkable.

What is remarkable,?

* * the many * * times you have backpedaled and change your position in this
thread.

I admitted my error in presuming Roger Penrose had distorted Emile
Borel's work.

I admitted one other error when my misinterpretation of certain
figures was pointed out.

However the mainstay of my arguement that Emil Borel's work was
misquoted or distorted, and that the assumption and conclusions of the
article that you cited in the very beginning of this thread are
flawed, still stands.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"adman" wrote

"Pastor Dave" wrote
| "weatherwax" spake
|
|
| Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
| Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big
| Bang.".
|
|
| Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
|
| BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?

Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?

Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It came from
the remnants of a preceding universe. You can learn more about this from
the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"

http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1


Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
addressed
in any of their jibberish

Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
illustration. Penrose does not believe in a creator.


--Wax

wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 6:07 am, "adman" wrote:
Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive career.
Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
itself after a big bang explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

CLIP

Ignore that garbage. See what Penrose himself says about the Big Bang at:
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1

(If this fails, try expanding your page so you can get the whole link on one
line.)

--Wax

adman wrote:

snip

|
| Now, go fix your news reader
|
| Mine is fine, yours is not. Fix it or earn more abuse reports.

Yours is busted, not mine. Fix it.

'fraid not moron ..... yours is definitely at fault here ...... like
everything related to you ....... and your denial of this FACT is just
proof ( as if we needed any more )of your utter stupidity .......

--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....

Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein

Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

adman wrote:

| |
| | Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
| career.
| | Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to
form
| | itself after a big bang explosion.
| | CLIP
| |
| | http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | You make the same mistake which many fundamentalists do: You take the
| word
| | of a religious website as authoritative in the field of science. That
is
| | like hiring a plumber to fix your car.
| |
| | I have read two of Penrose's books: "The Emperor's New Mind" and "The
| Road
| | to Reality". Therefore I know that the above website quotes Penrose
out
| of
| | context and misrepresents what he says.
| |
| | --Wax
|
| You are incorrect. Penrose gave an interview where he expounded on his
| computations.
| The entire point of doing the computations, was to find out how probable
the
| big bang was from the mathematical POV. Penrose got an astronomical
answer
| saying the odds were against. Exactly HOW can a mathematical answer be
MIS
| quoted? The numbers do not lie.
|
| If you actually read the book, which I doubt, you would know that
Penrose's
| answer was indeed overwhelming. .1 in 1(with trillions and trillions of
| zeros) against.
|
| Your stupidity shows.
|
| The odds are 50-50. Either it happened or it didn't. We are here to
| prove it did.

Fix your news reader.

And get an edcuation from some someplace else other then a match book cover


must ........ resist ......... urge ....... to ...... poke fun .......
at ..... adman telling someone else to "get an 'edcuation' from some
someplace else" .......
oh .... the irony .......



--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....

Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein

Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| "Pastor Dave" wrote
| | "weatherwax" spake
| |
| |
| | Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of Roger
| | Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big
| | Bang.".
| |
| |
| | Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
| |
| | BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?
|
| Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?
|
| Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It came
from
| the remnants of a preceding universe. You can learn more about this from
| the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"
|
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1
|
|
| Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
| addressed
| in any of their jibberish
|
| Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
| illustration. Penrose does not believe in a creator.

Nice back peddle.

I never once said he "believed" in a creator.

What i pointed out was the fact penrose said the **AIM** of the creator
would have to be awsome to hit the bullseye with that number that he came up
with.

Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God, and discredit
the bible.
|
|
| --Wax
|
|

"adman" wrote

"weatherwax" wrote |
| "adman" wrote
|
| "Pastor Dave" wrote
| | "weatherwax" spake
| |
| |
| | Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of
Roger
| | Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the Big
| | Bang.".
| |
| |
| | Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
| |
| | BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?
|
| Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?
|
| Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It came
| from the remnants of a preceding universe. You can learn more about
this
| from the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"
|
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1
|
|
| Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
| addressed
| in any of their jibberish
|
| Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
| illustration. Penrose does not believe in a creator.

Nice back peddle.

It's the truth. Admit it.

I never once said he "believed" in a creator.

What i pointed out was the fact penrose said the **AIM** of the creator
would have to be awsome to hit the bullseye with that number that he came
up
with.

Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God, and
discredit
the bible.

Penrose continues and shows one way the universe could have come into being
without the hand of a creator.

The fact and truth is that Penrose disagrees with your assertion that "it is
an impossibility".

--Wax

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| "weatherwax" wrote |
| | "adman" wrote
| |
| | "Pastor Dave" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" spake
| | |
| | |
| | | Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of
| Roger
| | | Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the
Big
| | | Bang.".
| | |
| | |
| | | Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
| | |
| | | BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?
| |
| | Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?
| |
| | Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. It came
| | from the remnants of a preceding universe. You can learn more about
| this
| | from the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"
| |
| |
|
http://www.msri.org/communications/v...deoid=penrose1
| |
| |
| | Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
| | addressed
| | in any of their jibberish
| |
| | Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
| | illustration. Penrose does not believe in a creator.
|
| Nice back peddle.
|
| It's the truth. Admit it.

That would only be true if i claimed Penrose believed in God.Which i did
not. He drew an analogy to a creator's aim. So you back peddel by saying it
was an illustration.

|
| I never once said he "believed" in a creator.
|
| What i pointed out was the fact penrose said the **AIM** of the creator
| would have to be awsome to hit the bullseye with that number that he
came
| up
| with.
|
| Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God, and
| discredit
| the bible.
|
| Penrose continues and shows one way the universe could have come into
being
| without the hand of a creator.
|
| The fact and truth is that Penrose disagrees with your assertion that "it
is
| an impossibility".

Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, Because PENROSE made the
claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds he
caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because the
odds were so bad it happening by itself.

THATS the truth.

Besides that, the singularity defies known physics. So where is this
"unifying theory" science needs to make their theory work?




|
| --Wax
|
|

On 11 Apr, 17:50, "adman" wrote:
"weatherwax" wrote in message

...
|
| "adman" wrote
|
| "weatherwax" wrote |
| | "adman" wrote
| |
| | "Pastor Dave" wrote
| | | *"weatherwax" spake
| | |
| | |
| | | Some of the followers of this topic may wish to see a video of
| Roger
| | | Penrose's lecture on this topic called "The Universe Before the
Big
| | | Bang.".
| | |
| | |
| | | Oh, you mean that universe that wouldn't have existed yet?
| | |
| | | BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| | Exacty. WHat freeking universe if it had NOT ben created yet?!?
| |
| | Where do all these arm chair scientists come from?
| |
| | Penrose does not claim that the universe came out of nothing. *It came
| | from the remnants of a preceding universe. *You can learn more about
| this
| | from the video of his lecture "The Universe Before the Big Bang"
| |
| |
| http://www.msri.org/communications/v...cial/VideoSpec....
| |
| |
| | Penrose said "the creator's aim" -----and notice how that was not
| | addressed
| | in any of their jibberish
| |
| | Penrose's reference to "the creator's arm" was only used only as an
| | illustration. *Penrose does not believe in a creator.
|
| Nice back peddle.
|
| It's the truth. *Admit it.

That would only be true if i claimed Penrose believed in God.Which i did
not. He drew an analogy to a creator's aim. So you back peddel by saying it
was an illustration.

|
| I never once said he "believed" in a creator.
|
| What i pointed out was the fact penrose said the **AIM** of the creator
| would have to be awsome to hit the bullseye with that number that he
came
| up
| with.
|
| Fact truth. Many of you will stop at nothing to discredit God, and
| discredit
| the bible.
|
| Penrose continues and shows one way the universe could have come into
being
| without the hand of a creator.
|
| The fact and truth is that Penrose disagrees with your assertion that "it
is
| an impossibility".

Harun Yahya made the claim, and i made the claim it was an
impossibility.Why? Yje number is so big. And, *Because PENROSE made the
claim that the creator's aim had be very very good to hit those odds he
caculated.Thereby insinuating that it would take a GOD to hit the
probability and that "the creator's aim" had to be THAT good because the
odds were so bad it happening by itself.

THATS the truth.

A reminder of what you posted in response to a recent posting of mine:


This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun Yahya
and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to detract from
Roger Penrose's comments of a creator's aim and the extraordinary figure
penrose came up with against the singularity.




"This never was about defending Harun Yahya and his assertions. Harun
Yahya and his viewpoint is simply a distraction you came up with to
detract from Roger Penrose's comments ... "

Now you are admitting that you did take up with Harun Yahya's
position.

Perhaps you should remain consistent in your stance, or at least have
the decency to admit you were in error, rather than switching sides
the way you are doing, and making out like whatever position you are
speaking from is the position you have always held.


Besides that, the singularity defies known physics. So where is this
"unifying theory" science needs to make their theory work?

|
| --Wax
|
|