It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kegs
These are arguments from personal incredulity. Inability to personally comprehend a concept does not negate the facts it's based on.
Originally posted by ebe51
This is simple....
There was no big bang. Go look at the Hubble ultra deep field picture...
Here's a link...
upload.wikimedia.org...
...what do see in this picture?
Well something like 10,000 fully formed galaxies. We see in this picture a snap shot from about 13 billion years ago. So if the big bang were true we should see galaxies in the beginning stages of formation, yet that's not what we see. If science was truly scientific it would be time to find a new theory, but sense sciences now days is as much politically driven there will be no new theory. Personally I'm content with the Gen. 1:1 account for creation.
[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]
Originally posted by NGC2736
The only equally infinite comparison I have found is ego. Boundless and without border or end.
Your reality is not a proven fact any more than any other theory or concept expressed here.
Not being able to conceive of a beginning in no way proves there was no beginning. And acting like anyone who dares to think otherwise is a fool, only shows the size of your conceptual abilities as compared to the reach of your ego.
Originally posted by birchtree
You know this post has made me do quite a bit of research...
Originally posted by birchtree
You know this post has made me do quite a bit of research, and thanks to some of you this is what I think could happen, we will call it the "H-Theory".... A lot of humanity beleives in cycles even in the opening of Ecclesiates it speaks of cycles. In science there are 3 types of Cosmic Holes the Black Hole, The White Hole and the Worm Hole. Of course Black Holes are stars tht have came to an end and fall in upon themselves being unable to support their own gravity. White Holes disperse matter from some where. Worm Holes (Einstein-Rosen Bridge) open momentarily in an unstable event, that would be unable to predict or keep open without a discovery of negative matter (Which might exist somewhere).
OK how about this-all three are connected into the cycle of an event. A Star collapses causing a black hole, sucking up matter crushing it, basically recycling matter. At some point a worm hole opens passing the matter through space time creating a white hole ( Essentially A Singularity) taking the old and starting a new Universe or Galaxy (Of course this would be part of the Multiverse Theory, by which there is an open unoccupied expanse of space by which our universe and other universes are expanding into)
How about that could it be possible?
[edit on 13-12-2007 by birchtree]
Originally posted by NGC2736
What you have missed with your boundless conceptual abilities is the fact that my response was centered on your contemptuous manner in addressing another member and stating, as if you had God-like knowledge, that his idea was "invalid". Going even further, you determined it was "The big stupid" and thereby judging it, and by extension, the other member, as stupid.
You can most assuredly believe, speculate, and propound any idea or concept you wish, but unless you can prove some infinite abilities of your own, then your proclamations are just more wind passing in the night, and no more valid than the next person's.
By mortal standards, when someone attempts to invalidate someone else, and having nothing to to show as proof, it appears to others as the noise of a terminal ego.
You will note that I gave you applause for your well structured reply to me. I feel that you are on the verge of true consciousness, and I want to encourage that. Besides, if you continue with your harshness towards the opinions of others, I'm sure you'll need the points for those cute little warning stickers.
So, on topic. Where is the logical or physical proof of your assertions?
Originally posted by NGC2736
But that is just the point... There are a multitude of ideas, yours among them.
By logical proof, I mean just that. Without trying to point out the shortcomings of others, can you tell readers here what you find valid in your theory? Can you show how it explains the cosmic order/disorder better than other theories?
Can you accept whatever shortcomings others may find with your theory, without resorting to pronouncements of an uncivil nature?
Please, don't try walking on water. Drowning is eternal, or at the very least, unpleasant.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Originally posted by kegs
These are arguments from personal incredulity. Inability to personally comprehend a concept does not negate the facts it's based on.
I comprehend the concept. The concept is invalid.
Can you show me my personal incredulity and where I stated that I do not comprehend the big bang? The big bang theory is so far behind me that I've forgotten its useless logic, mathematics, and ambivalent coherency. All it does for me is stand as an error. A peice of work that I can use to reprove eternity true someday, if not already. It's funny how people apply the concept of eternity to time and forget space. Space for some odd reason is allowed to be finite while time is eternal... and energy of both. The big bang... Bleh. The big stupid.