Inflation Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

[abaddon]

Rhutchin, the oldest dildo is older than the Biblical universe. Just give up the ghost, man.

I wonder who did the research on that? Got a citation?

The world's oldest known  dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm, Germany.

It's life-sized and highly polished.

 

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin, the oldest dildo is older than the Biblical universe. Just give up the ghost, man.

I wonder who did the research on that? Got a citation?

View attachment 451

The world's oldest known  dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm, Germany.

It's life-sized and highly polished.

I see - First assume the dildo is 30,000 years old and then conclude that the dildo is 30,000 years old.

 

[James Brown]

I see

Nope.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see - First assume the dildo is 30,000 years old and then conclude that the dildo is 30,000 years old.

Where did you find that this is the way they dated the dildo?
Or are you making shit up?

 

[rhutchin]

I see - First assume the dildo is 30,000 years old and then conclude that the dildo is 30,000 years old.

Where did you find that this is the way they dated the dildo?

They found it in a cave that they assumed was 30,000 years old so the dildo was also dated at 30,000 years.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see - First assume the dildo is 30,000 years old and then conclude that the dildo is 30,000 years old.

Where did you find that this is the way they dated the dildo?

They found it in a cave that they assumed was 30,000 years old so the dildo was also dated at 30,000 years.

Where did you find that they assumed it was a 30000 year old cave? I'm guessing they actually used a more complicated dating system that just assuming a date.

I think you're making shit up again.

 

[bilby]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

Established fact?? The age of the universe is an estimate derived by certain methods.

Estimates are not established facts unless you really meant to say that it is an established fact that people have estimated the age of the universe.

It is an established fact that the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies. The estimates are about whether it's closer to 13.7 or 13.9 (yes, that's how much we've narrowed it down by now) billion years, not whether it's billions or thousands.

To make your statement true, it will have to be:

It is an established fact that the estimated age of the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies.

To borrow from The Big Bang Theory (the TV show, not the explanation of how the universe started); That two guys are arguing over whether or not a tomato is a vegetable, does not lend weight to your idea that it might be a suspension bridge.

 

[rhutchin]

I see - First assume the dildo is 30,000 years old and then conclude that the dildo is 30,000 years old.

Where did you find that this is the way they dated the dildo?

They found it in a cave that they assumed was 30,000 years old so the dildo was also dated at 30,000 years.

Where did you find that they assumed it was a 30000 year old cave? I'm guessing they actually used a more complicated dating system that just assuming a date.

You are correct when you say, "I'm guessing..." You seem to have no idea, so you adhere to your statement of faith and believe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where did you find that they assumed it was a 30000 year old cave? I'm guessing they actually used a more complicated dating system that just assuming a date.

You are correct when you say, "I'm guessing..." You seem to have no idea, so you adhere to your statement of faith and believe.

You seem to have a very firm idea, but absolutely fuck-all in the way of evidence to support it. But that's just a guess on my part based on your lack of answering the question before you.
So i'll ask again.

Where did you find that they assumed it was a 30000 year old cave?

Or did you just make that shit up?

I don't know what they did, because i trust that if they published, without taking the steps to actually date the find, and document their efforts, then peer review will wrap that dildo up in their paper and shove both of them up their collective ass. But that's how science works.
If you can find that they did, as you say, assume the age of the cave and then assume that anything found in the cave is exactly as old as the cave, and you can find this in their paper, you could be among the first to do the shoving!
But you won't.
Because you did not find the methods they used for dating. And you distrust those methods, anyway. So you tell untruths about people using the science so that you can belittle their efforts for no better reason than you disagree with their conclusions.

I'm sure your skybeast is excited that you're willing to spread baseless gossip in his name.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's easy to get a universe if you have God; otherwise, it seems pretty much impossible to do.

I prefer, "It's easy to get a god if you have a universe; otherwise, it IS impossible to do.

I've shown you my universe, now show me your god.

 

[Malintent]

That wasn't a dildo!!! It was a holy piece of pottery created thousands of years ago by a people that worshipped several gods.. one of which, the goddess of reproduction, apparently appreciated statues of erect penises.

 

[untermensche]

This is how scientists debate inflationary theory.

I don't know how they manage to not talk about the gods responsible for the universe. Mars and Jupiter.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt-eGKa34M[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah@#! Entertainment presented as science!
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Underseer]

This is how scientists debate inflationary theory.

I don't know how they manage to not talk about the gods responsible for the universe. Mars and Jupiter.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt-eGKa34M[/YOUTUBE]

What an absurd claim. Anyone with any sense can tell that Zoroaster created the universe.

• The universe exists
• I cannot explain the existence of the universe
• Therefore, Zoroaster created the universe

Why is this simple logic so hard for people to understand?

The universe proves Zoroaster. Just like lightning proves Zeus. Just like thunder proves Thor. You atheists are surrounded by evidence of the existence of gods, yet somehow you come to the conclusion that no gods exist. I will pray that all of you atheists start using logic and reason so that you will stop being evil people.

 

[Tom in Napa]

More than inflation is not all it's advertised to be. Ditto for the Big Bang.

Has anyone read The Electric Sky by Donald E Scott? Or considered the case for a plasma universe, which recognizes that electrical forces are vastly stronger than gravitation?

Some BB apologists ask What do electrical engineers know about cosmology?

I dispose of that silly Q with the equally silly What do cosmologists know about electrical forces?

Then I get serious, but I won't do that until I hear/see from folk here.

 

[Kharakov]

Then I get serious, but I won't do that until I hear/see from folk here.

You can't see dork matter. It doesn't interact electromagnetically.

 

[Tom in Napa]

You can't see dork matter. Is that a typo, or do I not see it because I am/am not a dork?
It doesn't interact electromagnetically. Of course; it's a consequence of BB assumptions.

 

[Kharakov]

You can't see dork matter. Is that a typo, or do I not see it because I am/am not a dork?

Not a typo, and definitely not intended to insult you. It was supposed to be a joke about how dark matter stays out of the light, which is why you can't see it. Unfortunately it looks like I was insulting everyone here though, since I was replying to "I won't do that until I hear/see from folk here."

Apparently I was behaving like a dork.

 

[Tom in Napa]

By several Urban Dictionary definitions being a dork is okay, and for science students even a compliment.

 

[Underseer]

You can't see dork matter. Is that a typo, or do I not see it because I am/am not a dork?
It doesn't interact electromagnetically. Of course; it's a consequence of BB assumptions.

It's not a consequence of big bang assumptions. It's a consequence of a variety of experiments/observations that could not be explained without positing the existence of a lot more matter than we can detect. We can now detect it someone directly through gravitational lensing.