Time - Change the word from sound to time

[Polymath257]

So says the one that has been proven to make false statements, ludicrous.

In that paper of 373 pages, show me *one* calculation of anything that we know to be the case. Show me *one* test that can determine whether it is true or false. Show me *one* place where what it proposes is better in any empirical way to what we already have.

Instead, what you show us is vague wanderings that show no comprehension of the true aspects of what s being discussed. We see non-sense and flowery imagery instead of calculation and reason. And we see fluttering generalities instead of the specifics required of an actual scientific proposal.

You, who claims to want empirical facts instead of speculation! Admit that you simply do not like the fact that the *real* science contradicts views that you hold dear. Admit that you don't understand enough of this material to judge whether something is reasonable or delusional. Admit that instead of wanting to understand, you want to play 'gotcha' and hide the truth rather than revealing it.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok.



You never asked him those questions in this thread. How do we deal with this turn of events?

/E: I would like to point out also that the last question, about the "dot/singularity," is one of those "stupid questions" where one would first need to explain to you why the question is stupid before it could be answered... ESPECIALLY if you have been paying attention to what Polymath has been trying to tell you.

Which, I might add, I did in another thread. Of course, he ignored my answers there also because he insisted I adopt his world view to answer his questions.

 

[Ted Evans]

Anyone can be an "authority", IF, they are not challenged with questions, not so much so then, they are left with allegations, accusations which they cannot prove.

I have irrefutably proven the BB theorists have nothing more than speculations, conjecture, beliefs. Hey, if they can make those kinds of unsubstantiated assertion then I have the same right.

 

[Darkstorn]

Anyone can be an "authority", IF, they are not challenged with questions, not so much so then, they are left with allegations, accusations which they cannot prove.

You made such accusations and allegations.

I have irrefutably proven the BB theorists have nothing more than speculations, conjecture, beliefs.

You are welcome to believe that. But from the content of this thread, and others, it is apparent, to me, that you have not irrefutably proven anything except perhaps your own ability at understanding what's being discussed here.

Hey, if they can make those kinds of unsubstantiated assertion then I have the same right.

Are you making the claim that your assertions are unsubstantiated? I agree.

 

[Ted Evans]

do you think you could do better? I will gladly list them for you if you wish.

Evidently not, no quotes of the claimed answers and no interest in seeing the list. Just more proof of what I wrote.

 

[Darkstorn]

Evidently not, no quotes of the claimed answers and no interest in seeing the list. Just more proof of what I wrote.

You never asked those questions in this thread.

 

[Ted Evans]

the "dot/singularity," is one of those "stupid questions" where one would first need to explain to you why the question is stupid before it could be answered...

Now that is a brilliant response if I have ever read one.

 

[Darkstorn]

Not that is a brilliant response if I have ever read one.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Ted Evans]

You never asked those questions in this thread.

What was the subject, him answering questions, or, him answering questions in this thread? Did you specify this thread or did just make the claim that he answered my questions?

 

[Darkstorn]

What was the subject, him answering questions, or, him answering questions in this thread? Did you specify this thread or did just make the claim that he answered my questions?

You never asked him those questions in this thread. How do we deal with this turn of events?

 

[Ted Evans]

Are you making the claim that your assertions are unsubstantiated? I agree.

Now that is precious.

 

[Darkstorn]

Now that is precious.

Nah. What's truly precious is the way you're making deflection an art of sorts.

/E: Once again. You made claims that Polymath didn't answer your questions and that you can as a result ignore everything he says just like that. But he did answer to your questions in this thread.

So... In order for me to prove that he did answer to your questions, i(who is neither you or polymath) must find his answer to questions NOT FOUND IN THIS THREAD.

So. I'm asking you, and i feel like i'm already giving you way more than you're entitled to here, what do you propose we do to deal with the fact that you never asked the questions in this thread?

 

[Ted Evans]

You never asked him those questions in this thread. How do we deal with this turn of events?

That came after this but who cares about details and facts, right?

I feel he's answered your questions with FAR more effort than they deserve. Only for you to later invent the claim that your inane questions were not answered, when they were.

 

[Darkstorn]

That came after this but who cares about details and facts, right?

Obviously you don't. I'm referring to these questions:

[Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

What is your definition of “beginning”?

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?]

Where exactly can i find these questions? I mean, in order for me to go around proving you wrong instead of you having to prove yourself right first.

 

[Ted Evans]

You didn't answer my question.

How about we make an agreement, from here on, I will agree to answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, you will agree to do the same, will you? Is that not a great way to prove who is honest and who is not, who is making unsubstantiated claims and who is not? I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but that is not done with talking points. Ask me questions that I cannot answer and I certainly will acknowledge that my views are wrong, will you do the same?

Three questions, how many will be answered, or how many excuses for not doing so or, and how many will just be ignored?

 

[Darkstorn]

How about we make an agreement, from here on, I will agree to answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, you will agree to do the same, will you? Is that not a great way to prove who is honest and who is not, who is making unsubstantiated claims and who is not? I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but that is not done with talking points. Ask me questions that I cannot answer and I certainly will acknowledge that my views are wrong, will you do the same?

I'm only arguing this claim:

And like I said, and you just proved, you cannot answer questions

You still haven't verified it to be true.

Three questions, how many will be answered, or how many excuses for not doing so or, and how many will just be ignored?

I somehow get the feeling that your entire post is an excuse for something else so...

/E: I'm also arguing this:

So says the one that has been proven to make false statements, ludicrous.

Again, where's the proof?

And this too:

I have irrefutably proven the BB theorists have nothing more than speculations, conjecture, beliefs. Hey, if they can make those kinds of unsubstantiated assertion then I have the same right.

Again, where's this irrefutable proof?

 

[Ted Evans]

I'm only arguing this claim:

I got it and just as I thought, you are not about to have a discussion if both parties must agree to answer all questions they may be asked. That is irrefutable proof of who is honest and who is not.

 

[Darkstorn]

I got it and just as I thought, you are not about to have a discussion if both parties must agree to answer all questions they may be asked.

You haven't answered all questions directed at you yet though. How do you explain that?

That is irrefutable proof of who is honest and who is not.

Heh. That is your belief.

I'm still making a claim like this: You made unsubstantiated claims. They remain unsubstantiated. That is all. Anything else here is you trying to deflect this fact.

 

[Ted Evans]

Obviously you don't. I'm referring to these questions:

OK, here is a question that I asked Polymath in this thread, can you quote his answer to the question as it was asked. You do know the difference in "answer" from "response" do you not? And you did say that he had answered my questions, correct?

So "time" is not a part of creation, is that what you are saying? Strange since most "scientific" sources seem to mention "time" quite often in the subject of creation, or have you missed that?

BTW, I know what his response was but I am anxiously waiting for your spin on it.

 

[Ted Evans]

You haven't answered all questions directed at you yet though. How do you explain that?

Gee, I am sorry, I must have missed where you agreed to this, can you quote your answer for me? It is very simple, only one word required, yes or no.

How about we make an agreement, from here on, I will agree to answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers, IF, you will agree to do the same, will you?