XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: Barry@saymyname.com   
      
   On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:57:00 -0600, Christopher A. Lee   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:05:11 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 07:42:45 +0100, Melzzzzz  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:52:11 +1100   
   >>>Lucifer Morningstar  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:31:22 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >On 15/11/2016 8:01 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:   
   >>>> >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:02:19 -0600, Christopher A. Lee   
   >>>> >>  wrote:   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:34:36 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar   
   >>>> >>>  wrote:   
   >>>> >>>   
   >>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R.   
   >>>> >>>> Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:   
   >>>> >>>>   
   >>>> >>>>> There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found   
   >>>> >>>>> in the expansion of the  universe.   
   >>>> >>>>> Also in the interpretation of quantium  mechanics. But   
   >>>> >>>>> there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.   
   >>>> >>>>   
   >>>> >>>> That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone   
   >>>> >>>> who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.   
   >>>> >>>   
   >>>> >>> Bollocks.   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >> That's what the multiverse is. Pure made up nonsense.   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >Okay, but who or what group made up the multiverse nonsense?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I don't know but it should be recorded somewhere.   
   >>>> The multiverse idea was made up by someone desperate for   
   >>>> an answer. It has no scientific basis.   
      
   From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .   
      
   Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of   
   scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts   
   to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode   
   public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of   
   fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a   
   philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be   
   falsified.   
      
   Arguments against multiverse theories   
      
   In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the   
   Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety   
   of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :   
      
       For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be   
   tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some   
   regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,   
   but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that   
   there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a   
   limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on   
   faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme   
   multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological   
   discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to   
   explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as   
   invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in   
   scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of   
   faith.   
      
   >>>> Black holes went from being a crazy idea to being 'fact'   
   >>>> without any being discovered.   
   >>>   
   >>>What about supposed pictures of black holes? Science is sure they are   
   >>>there...   
   >>   
   >>That's my point. Some scientists believe black holes exist even   
   >>though none have been detected.   
   >   
   >Of course they have, imbecile.   
   >   
   >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse   
      
   Nothing in there supporting the existence of black holes.   
      
   >>>> The Big Bang theory seems   
   >>>> to have been accepted as fact without being proven.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Big Bang theory is based on observation.   
   >>   
   >>BB is based on interpretation. Nobody observed BB.   
   >   
   >Sigh.   
   >   
   >But the predicted effects have been observed. First by Penzias and   
   >Wilson who won a Nobel Prize, and subsequently the Berkeley/NASA COBE   
   >project and even the Hubble space  telescope, which has observed the   
   >early state of the universe going back to less than half a billion   
   >years after it - and confirmed the predictions of our model as far   
   >back as them   
      
   The assumption is that nothing changes as we go back in time.   
      
   >>>Also flat standing still Earth   
   >>>from Bible is based on observation. What you see is what you think it   
   >>>is. But be prepared for radical changes as instruments of observation   
   >>>get more advanced ;)   
   >>   
   >>BB theory makes assumptions that are not valid.   
   >   
   >Such as?   
      
   That nothing changed as we go back in time.   
      
   --   
   I call shenanigans on all theistic religions   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)