Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

David R Tribble wrote:

What's being discussed (rather erratically) is the apparent
contradiction between Han's insistence that actual infinity
cannot exist, and his insistence that Creationism is a more
valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang.

Except that I did NOT say the latter. Merely suggesting the alternative
makes me already a fundamentalist, in the eyes of the narrow-minded.

You *did* evidently say that Creationism is a more plausible theory
than the Big Bang, which you dismissed as plainly false. Here, let's
refresh your memory.

,----
| Virgil wrote:
| | > In article <ddc9b$497d7185$82a1e228$8280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
| > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | >>Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
| >>
| >>>umumenu@xxxxxxxxx writes:
| >>>
| >>>>There hasn't been a Big Bang.
| >>>
| >>>It's fascinating to see just how much you know! You're so much
| >>>smarter than all those ivory tower posers.
| >>
| >>Do you know what empirical evidence is in support of a Big Bang ? Do you
| >>agree that assuming the existence of a Big Bang is a huge extrapolation
| >>of this empirical evidence ?
| > | > Is there any better evidence for some other beginning? | | Good old Creation ?
`----

All can I see is a question mark an the end, not an exclamation mark.

You clearly said that the Big Bang theory is false.

Unless you believe that Creationism is also obviously false, then it
seems to me that you are committed to the view that Creationism is
more plausible than the Big Bang theory.

Is Creationism an obviously false theory? If not, do you retract your
claim that the Big Bang theory is obviously false?

You force me to choose between black and white. How about colour?
There are aspects in both theories that may turn out to be false.
There are aspects in both theories that may turn out to be true.

The part of the Big Bang theory saying that the universe starts with
a singularity is obviously false. Because there ARE NO singularities
(empirically) in Physics: Horror Infiniti.

The order in which life forms appear on earth according to the Bible
is NOT even TOO much deviant from the same order in evolution theory,
given the fact that the writers were illiterates, according to some.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm

Not bad for a first approximation, I'd say ..

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible
    ... contradiction between Han's insistence that actual infinity ... and his insistence that Creationism is a more ... valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible
    ... contradiction between Han's insistence that actual infinity ... valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang. ... You *did* evidently say that Creationism is a more plausible theory ... |>>Do you know what empirical evidence is in support of a Big Bang? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible
    ... contradiction between Han's insistence that actual infinity ... and his insistence that Creationism is a more ... valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang. ... |>>Jesse F. Hughes wrote: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: From Ziltch
    ... creationism. ... admit this may be revoked if the first stages of evolution occurred on ... for the origin of life, other than the big bang or creationism, then I ... for MATTER origins I have only ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible
    ... valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang. ... seems to me that you are committed to the view that Creationism is ... which might well qualify as a singularity by any standards. ... then a photon is created ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast