musKeeto:
So what would you advice Scientists to base their models/conjectures on? The BIBLE?
You know the purpose of a model, don't you?

Again trying too hard to skirt around the point.

Of course no one expects scientists to base their models on the bible... but what have they based the big bang model on? Where is the empirical evidence for the model itself?

And what's the point?
Are models designed/built within the realms of logic or not?

davidylan:
On what grounds do you find it "plausible"? Do you understand those scientific models? What do they tell us about how the earth was created? Any empirical evidence to support those models?
Blind illogical faith in science is no better than blind illogical faith in the bible.

Yes! I understand them. Go read about them yourself in order to get a better understanding. I'll even help you get started.

http://www.nhgeology.org/nebula3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://science.discovery.com/videos/the-planets/

And this model is still been challenged........
http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/new-study-challenges-conventional-planet-formation-theory_785718.html

What blind illogical faith do I have in science? You act as if i have a vested interest in these scientific models when I don't care whether you accept them or not. you're funny.

@davidlan:

We know that you already have your conclusions on how everything works.
Kindly permit those of us that seek to know the chance to free exchange ideas without the bitterness and acrimoy that you seem to bring with you to almost every thread.

In typical fashion you have turned this thread into a bitter verbal theatre of war.

Martian:

Yes! I understand them. Go read about them yourself in order to get a better understanding. I'll even help you get started.

http://www.nhgeology.org/nebula3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
http://science.discovery.com/videos/the-planets/

And this model is still been challenged........
http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/new-study-challenges-conventional-planet-formation-theory_785718.html

What blind illogical faith do I have in science? You act as if i have a vested interest in these scientific models when I don't care whether you accept them or not. you're funny.

the typical musical chairs i have come to expect from clueless atheists. Yes he "understands" but cannot explain it in simple language here. Only a few posts ago he said he could not explain the models since he was not an "expert"... all of a sudden he now understands them but since he is too busy to explain them (never mind the fact that he virtually lives on the web), he rather comes around with copy-paste articles from the web.

plaetton: @davidlan:

We know that you already have your conclusions on how everything works.
Kindly permit those of us that seek to know the chance to free exchange ideas without the bitterness and acrimoy that you seem to bring with you to almost every thread.

In typical fashion you have turned this thread into a bitter verbal theatre of war.

how did i turn this to a verbal theater of war? I just asked you all very simple questions, it is ok to not know.

musKeeto: And what's the point?
Are models designed/built within the realms of logic or not?

Again more vague nonsense from you. THIS particular model is built within which the realms of which logic? where is the empirical evidence to support it? We are not generalizing here dude.

davidylan:

I believe it by faith. However the irony is that it takes far more faith to believe that the laws of physics just appeared out of thin air by random chance...

the joke is on you bro.

No, they don't appear, they are not created, they don't commence. They get entities their characters!

davidylan:

Stop decieving yourself... your claims are just as illogical as you think religion is. You claim to base your views on the "natural world"... well how did that "natural world" appear? By magic? The laws of gravity developed how? By random chance? How did the earth form? By flinging two higgs bosons at each other? How did unicellular organisms evolve to complex multicellular plants, humans and animals? by random statistical chance? And you ask why your i think your claims are rooted in blind faith?

You keep holding an assumption that all things are created!

davidylan:

the typical musical chairs i have come to expect from clueless atheists. Yes he "understands" but cannot explain it in simple language here. Only a few posts ago he said he could not explain the models since he was not an "expert"... all of a sudden he now understands them but since he is too busy to explain them (never mind the fact that he virtually lives on the web), he rather comes around with copy-paste articles from the web.

lol, do you have a problem with reading? Saying I can't explain it clearly and providing links for you to read is now "musical chairs"?? Why do I need to explain planetary formation to you anyway? Am I supposed to know and teach you??

Please, in the name of sweet baby jesus, when did I say I was too busy to explain it? When did I copy and paste? I posted links to help resolve your planetary accretion headaches.

davidylan:

1. Reason and logic in what exactly? It is logically implausible and statistically impossible that the earth created itself by random chance.

2. Natural world? How did it come about? By magic?

Still holding the world MUST be created. By holding such an unjustified assumption, the next rational step is to accept a Creator.

Kay 17:

No, they don't appear, they are not created, they don't commence. They get entities their characters!

Confused. can you explain that sentence pls? In your haste to post a response, you dont seem to have thought through your comment at all.

Kay 17:

You keep holding an assumption that all things are created!

and your assumption is that they appeared by magic?

Martian:

lol, do you have a problem with reading? Saying I can't explain it clearly and providing links for you to read is now "musical chairs"?? Why do I need to explain planetary formation to you anyway? Am I supposed to know??

Please, in the name of sweet baby jesus, when did I say I was too busy to explain it? When did I copy and paste? I posted links to help resolve your planetary accretion headaches.

not at all. Just not going to be taken in by that silly dishonest atheist trick again. First you said you could not explain the models THEN suddenly you now understand them but cant be bothered to explain it. The time taken to scour the web for the links you pasted would have sufficed to describe the model in 3-4 lines.

Kay 17:

Still holding the world MUST be created. By holding such an unjustified assumption, the next rational step is to accept a Creator.

If the world wasnt created, then where did it come from? thin air?

davidylan:

not at all. Just not going to be taken in by that silly dishonest atheist trick again. First you said you could not explain the models THEN suddenly you now understand them but cant be bothered to explain it. The time taken to scour the web for the links you pasted would have sufficed to describe the model in 3-4 lines.

And the time you've spent yapping could have been spent reading about the models yourself.
Just because I understand it doesn't mean i can go into the details without making errors....................and that's what you want because you won't top asking me to explain everything about it. lol

so instead I provided you with links so that you can read them yourself and accept or discard as you please....................based on your "blind faith"

davidylan:

Again trying too hard to skirt around the point.

Of course no one expects scientists to base their models on the bible... but what have they based the big bang model on? Where is the empirical evidence for the model itself?

are you insisting you are unaware of the body of proofs for the Big Bang OR you don't think there is any proof??

davidylan:

and your assumption is that they appeared by magic?

no, that by virtue of EXISTing, means they had always existed in either actuality or potential.

Martian:

And the time you've spent yapping could have been spent reading about the models yourself.

You brought up the models... the onus is on you to educate us on how logical they are. Not hiding behind semantics and telling others to "go and read" what you obviously do not understand sufficiently enough to discuss.

Kay 17: are you insisting you are unaware of the body of proofs for the Big Bang OR you don't think there is any proof??

Where is the proof for the big b[i]a[/i]ng dude. spill the beans.

Kay 17: no, that by virtue of EXISTing, means they had always existed in either actuality or potential.

What a load of rubbish. you are a trip dude. Read the above again and see if it makes sense to you.

So the earth... by virtue of existing means it had ALWAYS existed either in reality or in your dreams? When did the concept of time and space begin? Explain logically.

davidylan:

If the world wasnt created, then where did it come from? thin air?

but the irrational option is to think they popped out of nothing! Which is a contradiction. If they aren't from nothing, then they always existed.

davidylan:

Where is the proof for the big b[i]a[/i]ng dude. spill the beans.

you claim to be a scientist, are you unaware of the proofs for BIG BAN.G??

davidylan:

What a load of rubbish. you are a trip dude. Read the above again and see if it makes sense to you.

So the earth... by virtue of existing means it had ALWAYS existed either in reality or in your dreams? When did the concept of time and space begin? Explain logically.

YES it has. BUT in different forms.

Kay 17: you claim to be a scientist, are you unaware of the proofs for BIG BAN.G??

WHERE is the evidence dude? Show us here.

Kay 17:

YES it has. BUT in different forms.

the earth has ALWAYS existed? What a trip this dude is.
Ok in what form did the earth exist and how do you know this? Evidence?
Where did the concepts of time and space begin?

davidylan:
You brought up the models... the onus is on you to educate us on how logical they are. Not hiding behind semantics and telling others to "go and read" what you obviously do not understand sufficiently enough to discuss.

I said i was aware of models that I find plausible. The onus is on you to read about them if you want. I stated that I wasn't an expert in the field, so that should be your cue to find out for yourself. Why will I discuss something with someone who says he doesn't have any idea what the subject is about AND refuses to go learn for himself.

Why do you want to have a discussion about planetary accretion anyway? What is your point?

Kay 17: but the irrational option is to think they popped out of nothing! Which is a contradiction. If they aren't from nothing, then they always existed.

But the idea that they "always existed" is itself bogus and an exercise in blind illogical faith.

davidylan:

the earth has ALWAYS existed? What a trip this dude is.
Ok in what form did the earth exist and how do you know this? Evidence?
Where did the concepts of time and space begin?

Note: in actuality OR potential.

Kay 17:

Note: in actuality OR potential.

How would the earth exist in "potential"? Please explain.

davidylan:

But the idea that they "always existed" is itself bogus and an exercise in blind illogical faith.

WHaT other rational option is left??

Kay 17:

WHaT other rational option is left??

I'm asking you... educate me please since you logical scientists know it all.
You are claiming that the earth must have ALWAYS existed in one form or the other NOT because you have proof that this is actually the case but because LOGICALLY it is impossible for the earth to appear out of nothing. Well you tell us what evidence underlies your blind faith in this idea.

You have been skipping my question though - when did time and space begin?