plus, you KNOW that his "teaching" at MIT was not as a faculty member but as a Graduate assistant: 7 years = the time it takes to get a PHD!!!! - if he actually went there at all
This guy is a charlatan through and through
if someone is an alum of MIT can you please go to the alum page, register and look him up.
"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is usually the right one."
Now, let's see. Was the universe created in a matter of days by an almighty God who somehow exists outside of that universe, but whose existence cannot be proven? Or was it the result of a phenomenon soon to be explained by science?
What technique was used to determine this age, simply
astronomical observation, or was chemical analysis also
included in the calculation?
I ask this as he seems to be very loose with his science. Picking and choosing, much like fellowship.
"51 years ago leading medical scientists were asked about DNA structure."
"What the hell are you talking about?" was the common answer.
I might also point out that galaxies and expanding universes are also recent concepts.
I tried to read this, but it was a joke. He was trying so hard to slip and slide in order to get something from nothing.
I wonder if fellowship posted this as a trick. To see if we could see poor science when it was put in front of us.
No doubt he will be adding this to his list of fraudulent science.
edit: I'm guessing he is pulling creationist leg here, to see how gullable creationists can be. And as we know, they can be very gullable.
Where do I start? You describe me in very low terms. Fellowship is low and ignorant is the essence of your tone with the above post. I will say I do not do that to others here in the forum and I will never understand why people do this to me as they do. I would think if people have their differences they could be more mature about it and maintain some minimum level of respectful dialogue. I said in a reply to Powerdoc that I have my differences with Dr. Schroeder. I was excited to read his ideas as I like to consider a wide range of thought. Does this mean I am a believer of his theory? No. In fact I take difference with his ideas. I made sure to read it 5 times and consider it with a high degree of dilligence. At the end of the day in fact I do not agree with what he has had to say on balance. Did I enjoy reading his viewpoint? Yes. I like to evaluate things from many vantage points.
Where do I start? You describe me in very low terms. Fellowship is low and ignorant is the essence of your tone with the above post. I will say I do not do that to others here in the forum and I will never understand why people do this to me as they do. I would think if people have their differences they could be more mature about it and maintain some minimum level of respectful dialogue. I said in a reply to Powerdoc that I have my differences with Dr. Schroeder. I was excited to read his ideas as I like to consider a wide range of thought. Does this mean I am a believer of his theory? No. In fact I take difference with his ideas. I made sure to read it 5 times and consider it with a high degree of dilligence. At the end of the day in fact I do not agree with what he has had to say on balance. Did I enjoy reading his viewpoint? Yes. I like to evaluate things from many vantage points.
Fellowship
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
I couldn't read through his essay once. It was complete crap. He couldn't even spell Hubble correctly. He was sloppy in picking and choosing what he wanted to use to prove a proposition.
A popularity poll?? Oh yes, real good science (well, it is if you are a creationist).
You would call this fraudulent science if an "evolutionist" had done it. You would have called "evolutionists" gullable for believing it.
This is way off topic, and I don't mean for it to be so.
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
I couldn't read through his essay once. It was complete crap. He couldn't even spell Hubble correctly. He was sloppy in picking and choosing what he wanted to use to prove a proposition.
A popularity poll?? Oh yes, real good science (well, it is if you are a creationist).
You would call this fraudulent science if an "evolutionist" had done it. You would have called "evolutionists" gullable for believing it.
This is way off topic, and I don't mean for it to be so.
*whispers* Don't complain about spelling early in your post if you are going to misspell gullible later on...
>>What the hell gives the christian myth such weight? Oh yeah, it's popular.
Sorry, I didn't mean to favor the christian myth over the others. The other myths are just as good, but that's all they are, myths.
Actually the other creation myth are so much better than the judeochristian one. Try reading some real good Native American stories. I also like the original Greek ones as well.
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
Actually I think that could be said about many in AI if you are going to start naming names. That is another matter. You and others love to bring it to my attention when I post something "empty of thought". I think that is a cop out. We all do it so use your standards universally. Don't be double minded and incorporate double standards please.
As for Schroeder I don't buy what he has to say I did give his views consideration but at the end I am not impressed with his logic flaws.
I just ask that people here can use respect with other members of the forum.
Actually I think that could be said about many in AI if you are going to start naming names. That is another matter. You and others love to bring it to my attention when I post something "empty of thought". I think that is a cop out. We all do it so use your standards universally. Don't be double minded and incorporate double standards please.
You are the master, however.
You post without any critical analysis.
Why don't you go through the essay and give us your opinion?
Why don't you go through the essay and give us your opinion?
I gave you a chance to be civil now you are just being childish. I will tune you out at this point. If you want me to listen to you further I will but in the mean time I am not going to bother with you. You have chosen to be rude so you can have your rudeness to yourself. I will ignore it.
I gave you a chance to be civil now you are just being childish. I will tune you out at this point. If you want me to listen to you further I will but in the mean time I am not going to bother with you. You have chosen to be rude so you can have your rudeness to yourself. I will ignore it.
Ta Ta
Fellowship
lol, I'm rude because I asked you to supply an opinion?
Because I asked you to supply a critical analysis?
Ok, would you please give us a critical analysis of the essay?
They find quasars at what they think is the edge of the universe.
Putting aside the concept of an " Edge " the paradox about finding Quasars at the edge of the universe, means that you would have to add at least another couple of Billion years to the age of the universe.
Why ?
Because Quasars ( Quasi-Stellar Objects ) are the end result of super giant stars having reached the end of their lives , & collapasing into a theoretical Black hole or near abouts, thereby producing powerful x-ray emissions from their surfaces.
I acknowledge there is a lot of speculation as to the sources of these X-ray bursts, but I am putting it down to these Quasi Stellar Objects.
Either way, these quasars take Billions of years to form..even the short life spanned ones ( generally the Bigger the star, the shorter the life ) take at least 1 to 2 billion years to come to the end of their normal life before reaching the theoretical condition needed Quasar formation.
So finding Quasars at the " edge " of the " known " universe raises more questions than it answers.
I've been reading a lot of opinions of well respected cosmologists that the age of the universe may very well be in the 100 billion year range. It would seem to tie up a lot of loose ends.
I've been reading a lot of opinions of well respected cosmologists that the age of the universe may very well be in the 100 billion year range. It would seem to tie up a lot of loose ends.
Sure that's not a typo error..you don't mean 10 billion do you?
I can't think of any cosmologists who would suggest the figure of 100 billion...unless they're trying to promote a hybrid " Steady-state with lots of material popping out of nothingness " but I think the "Cosmic background radiation" evidence has pretty well put a very nail into the steady state coffin.8)
Comments
plus, you KNOW that his "teaching" at MIT was not as a faculty member but as a Graduate assistant: 7 years = the time it takes to get a PHD!!!! - if he actually went there at all
This guy is a charlatan through and through
if someone is an alum of MIT can you please go to the alum page, register and look him up.
Originally posted by xenu
Other analysis can give a minimum age and a maximum age.
Plotting backwards is one way.
Having many ways is good, as it gives independent confirmation of the age of the universe.
For example, stars cannot be older than the universe.
With a nickname like yours, I thought you'd immediately launch into the 'fact' that the universe is 4 quadrillion years old.
Originally posted by audiopollution
With a nickname like yours, I thought you'd immediately launch into the 'fact' that the universe is 4 quadrillion years old.
Once I receive your cheque, we can talk.
Originally posted by xenu
Once I receive your cheque, we can talk.
Originally posted by lolo
Occams Razor:
"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is usually the right one."
Now, let's see. Was the universe created in a matter of days by an almighty God who somehow exists outside of that universe, but whose existence cannot be proven? Or was it the result of a phenomenon soon to be explained by science?
Hmmm, I wonder...
Good thing those aren't the only two options
Originally posted by xenu
From the link given by fellowship :
"Hubbell", um, yeah.
Age of universe given as 15 bilion years.
Is this the minimum age, or maximum age.
What technique was used to determine this age, simply
astronomical observation, or was chemical analysis also
included in the calculation?
I ask this as he seems to be very loose with his science. Picking and choosing, much like fellowship.
"51 years ago leading medical scientists were asked about DNA structure."
"What the hell are you talking about?" was the common answer.
I might also point out that galaxies and expanding universes are also recent concepts.
I tried to read this, but it was a joke. He was trying so hard to slip and slide in order to get something from nothing.
I wonder if fellowship posted this as a trick. To see if we could see poor science when it was put in front of us.
No doubt he will be adding this to his list of fraudulent science.
edit: I'm guessing he is pulling creationist leg here, to see how gullable creationists can be. And as we know, they can be very gullable.
Where do I start? You describe me in very low terms. Fellowship is low and ignorant is the essence of your tone with the above post. I will say I do not do that to others here in the forum and I will never understand why people do this to me as they do. I would think if people have their differences they could be more mature about it and maintain some minimum level of respectful dialogue. I said in a reply to Powerdoc that I have my differences with Dr. Schroeder. I was excited to read his ideas as I like to consider a wide range of thought. Does this mean I am a believer of his theory? No. In fact I take difference with his ideas. I made sure to read it 5 times and consider it with a high degree of dilligence. At the end of the day in fact I do not agree with what he has had to say on balance. Did I enjoy reading his viewpoint? Yes. I like to evaluate things from many vantage points.
Fellowship
pfflam, I would really like to know which "other" options you have in mind.
Originally posted by lolo
>>Good thing those aren't the only two options
pfflam, I would really like to know which "other" options you have in mind.
Why do all the other creation myths get ignored in this discussion? What the hell gives the christian myth such weight? Oh yeah, it's popular.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Where do I start? You describe me in very low terms. Fellowship is low and ignorant is the essence of your tone with the above post. I will say I do not do that to others here in the forum and I will never understand why people do this to me as they do. I would think if people have their differences they could be more mature about it and maintain some minimum level of respectful dialogue. I said in a reply to Powerdoc that I have my differences with Dr. Schroeder. I was excited to read his ideas as I like to consider a wide range of thought. Does this mean I am a believer of his theory? No. In fact I take difference with his ideas. I made sure to read it 5 times and consider it with a high degree of dilligence. At the end of the day in fact I do not agree with what he has had to say on balance. Did I enjoy reading his viewpoint? Yes. I like to evaluate things from many vantage points.
Fellowship
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
I couldn't read through his essay once. It was complete crap. He couldn't even spell Hubble correctly. He was sloppy in picking and choosing what he wanted to use to prove a proposition.
A popularity poll?? Oh yes, real good science (well, it is if you are a creationist).
You would call this fraudulent science if an "evolutionist" had done it. You would have called "evolutionists" gullable for believing it.
This is way off topic, and I don't mean for it to be so.
Sorry, I didn't mean to favor the christian myth over the others. The other myths are just as good, but that's all they are, myths.
Originally posted by xenu
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
I couldn't read through his essay once. It was complete crap. He couldn't even spell Hubble correctly. He was sloppy in picking and choosing what he wanted to use to prove a proposition.
A popularity poll?? Oh yes, real good science (well, it is if you are a creationist).
You would call this fraudulent science if an "evolutionist" had done it. You would have called "evolutionists" gullable for believing it.
This is way off topic, and I don't mean for it to be so.
*whispers* Don't complain about spelling early in your post if you are going to misspell gullible later on...
Originally posted by lolo
>>What the hell gives the christian myth such weight? Oh yeah, it's popular.
Sorry, I didn't mean to favor the christian myth over the others. The other myths are just as good, but that's all they are, myths.
Actually the other creation myth are so much better than the judeochristian one. Try reading some real good Native American stories. I also like the original Greek ones as well.
Originally posted by xenu
Try reading your posts. They are empty of thought. Don't take the criticism personally. Use it to grow.
Actually I think that could be said about many in AI if you are going to start naming names. That is another matter. You and others love to bring it to my attention when I post something "empty of thought". I think that is a cop out. We all do it so use your standards universally. Don't be double minded and incorporate double standards please.
As for Schroeder I don't buy what he has to say I did give his views consideration but at the end I am not impressed with his logic flaws.
I just ask that people here can use respect with other members of the forum.
Fellowship
Originally posted by BR
*whispers* Don't complain about spelling early in your post if you are going to misspell gullible later on...
Actually, I believe both are correct ...
checks dictionary ... yep ... gullible and gullable.
I don't mind the occasional spelling error, do it myself.
But you would think he would have got that one right.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Actually I think that could be said about many in AI if you are going to start naming names. That is another matter. You and others love to bring it to my attention when I post something "empty of thought". I think that is a cop out. We all do it so use your standards universally. Don't be double minded and incorporate double standards please.
You are the master, however.
You post without any critical analysis.
Why don't you go through the essay and give us your opinion?
Originally posted by xenu
You are the master, however.
You post without any critical analysis.
Why don't you go through the essay and give us your opinion?
I gave you a chance to be civil now you are just being childish. I will tune you out at this point. If you want me to listen to you further I will but in the mean time I am not going to bother with you. You have chosen to be rude so you can have your rudeness to yourself. I will ignore it.
Ta Ta
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I gave you a chance to be civil now you are just being childish. I will tune you out at this point. If you want me to listen to you further I will but in the mean time I am not going to bother with you. You have chosen to be rude so you can have your rudeness to yourself. I will ignore it.
Ta Ta
Fellowship
lol, I'm rude because I asked you to supply an opinion?
Because I asked you to supply a critical analysis?
Ok, would you please give us a critical analysis of the essay?
Could you please tell us why you were empowered?
Originally posted by BR
They find quasars at what they think is the edge of the universe.
Putting aside the concept of an " Edge " the paradox about finding Quasars at the edge of the universe, means that you would have to add at least another couple of Billion years to the age of the universe.
Why ?
Because Quasars ( Quasi-Stellar Objects ) are the end result of super giant stars having reached the end of their lives , & collapasing into a theoretical Black hole or near abouts, thereby producing powerful x-ray emissions from their surfaces.
I acknowledge there is a lot of speculation as to the sources of these X-ray bursts, but I am putting it down to these Quasi Stellar Objects.
Either way, these quasars take Billions of years to form..even the short life spanned ones ( generally the Bigger the star, the shorter the life ) take at least 1 to 2 billion years to come to the end of their normal life before reaching the theoretical condition needed Quasar formation.
So finding Quasars at the " edge " of the " known " universe raises more questions than it answers.
8)
Originally posted by Outsider
I've been reading a lot of opinions of well respected cosmologists that the age of the universe may very well be in the 100 billion year range. It would seem to tie up a lot of loose ends.
Sure that's not a typo error..you don't mean 10 billion do you?
I can't think of any cosmologists who would suggest the figure of 100 billion...unless they're trying to promote a hybrid " Steady-state with lots of material popping out of nothingness " but I think the "Cosmic background radiation" evidence has pretty well put a very nail into the steady state coffin.8)