Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?

Jim Spaza wrote:
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>>["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>On 2005-08-30, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>AC wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29 Aug 2005 19:44:03 -0700,
>>>>Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>AC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 29 Aug 2005 08:17:54 -0700,
>>>>>>lifepndrs@xxxxxxxxx <lifepndrs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have been reading your various threads for awhile now and until
>>>>>>>yesterday am thought you were full of S---! I thought why not; I'll
>>>>>>>test god once again and I felt pretty sure nothing would happen. Boy,
>>>>>>>was I wrong. To make a long story short, my wife and kids attend
>>>>>>>church every time the door is open and I am sick to death hearing about
>>>>>>>all their church talk. Well, yesterday am I went to their church to
>>>>>>>call upon your almighty god and to prove to them how wrong they are. I
>>>>>>>was the one wrong. When the invitation came and still nothing, I was
>>>>>>>about ready to leave when all of the sudden I felt myself walking down
>>>>>>>the aisle and talking with one of the church elders. I relayed my
>>>>>>>story to him and the next thing I knew I sensed this overwhelming
>>>>>>>desire to KNOW God personally. To sum it all up, I am now a Bible
>>>>>>>carrying, God believing, saved man. Thanks be to God for his saving my
>>>>>>>A-- from eternal hell.
>>>>>>>Thanks Jim, keep up the threads. People are reading and God is at work
>>>>>>>even if all you get are negative responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't think many of the responses have been anti-Biblical or
>>>>>>anti-Christian. We're trying to discern why Jim can clearly decide that
>>>>>>some things are not to be literally interpreted or followed (ie. why is he
>>>>>>an Old Earth Creationist, why does he think that homosexuality is evil but
>>>>>>doesn't feel its his duty to kill witches).
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a difference between acknowledging and obeying a law from God
>>>>>and having the authority to be God's enforcer on earth of that law.
>>>>
>>>>So you personally will kill witches, but won't require that I do?
>>>
>>>Goodness gracious. I don't personally kill witches. Now you're being
>>>silly. Unless God gives you distinct permission to go above our legal
>>>system, unless you have the authority from God to execute His judgment,
>>>then we gentiles are NOT allowed to play avenging angel.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>I have no desire to mock Jim's faith, but I do think that he is
>>>>>>extraordinarily inconsistent in what he accepts from science and what he
>>>>>>doesn't. Now I learn he rejects Big Bang cosmology (or at least a strawman
>>>>>>of it) and yet has no problem with physics being used to determine the age
>>>>>>of the Earth. It's as if there are two Jim Spazas, one who is keen to
>>>>>>understand science, and the other that just wants any science that doesn't
>>>>>>confirm his religous beliefs to go away.
>>>>>
>>>>>The difference between the Big Bang and the age of the universe is that
>>>>>age is directly measurable while the Big Band is a conclusion created
>>>>>because there is no other explanation acceptable to scientists.
>>>>
>>>>Uh, no, Jim. The Big Bang cosmological model is related directly to
>>>>observation. You simply don't want to accept Big Bang cosmology so you try
>>>>to come up with some explanation that sounds good to your ears . You don't
>>>>even actually seem familiar, from what I've seen, with the evidence for the
>>>>Big Bang, so how can you even justify what you state? This borders on
>>>>willful ignorance, Jim.
>>>
>>>I was given three reasons for the Big Bang theory: background cosmic
>>>microwave radiation, Hubble expansion, and nucleosynthesis.
>>>
>>>I studied the Berkeley website which was presented. The problem with
>>>all these pieces of evidence is that they are not conclusive enough.
>>
>>Conclusive enough for what?
>
>
> For me to say "Yes, I now believe that surely this is what happened."
>
>
>>Given that this is the first time you have apparently seen this material,
>>isn't it a bit brazen to think that your feeling is significantly educated
>>to be meaningful?
>
>
> My own feelings are meaning to me alone. I don't expect anyone to base
> their beliefs on how I feel.
>
>
>>>There are alternative explanations for each and all of these together.
>>
>>Really? Perhaps you'd like to share one?
>

I can't answer all of these, but I'll try one or two...

> OK. Cosmic Background Radiation.
>
> If it came only from the ancient Big Bang explosion, then all of it
> would more than likely have dissipated or been absorbed by now. If the
> radiation is even today being generated by material still cooling down
> from the Big Bang, then we ought to be able to find point sources for
> it.
>
> Certainly, our own planet is still cooling. Certainly, if we can
> detect this radiation (not too hard considering any radiotelescope will
> do the trick), then we can certainly find material sources for it.
> But, the radiation is uniform from all directions. There are no
> discernible sources. But, there should be if it is still being
> generated. If it is no longer being generated, then why do we see
> uniform radiation without it being absorbed, blocked, dissipated, or
> changed over time?
>
> I don't know why it got created. I just don't think that a Big Bang
> created it 14 billion years ago.

What is the basis for your disbelief in the Big Bang? Your questions
here indicate that you don't yet understand the science. Wouldn't it be
better to reserve judgement until you understand than to deny it simply
because you don't understand it?

For what it's worth, I don't understand it all that well either.

> And, as for it being uniform, there is a picture chart showing, using
> visible colors, the radiation pattern in the universe. It doesn't
> appear that uniform.
>
> http://timeline.aps.org/APS/resources/85_06a.jpg

Jim, you need to help me out here. All you've provided is the URL of an
unannotated bitmap image. From this, I have absolutely no idea what I'm
looking at. Could you provide a reference with some text, please?

> The Hubble Expansion.
>
> We see objects moving away from us, right? Are we sure?
>
> Why then don't most of these Big Bang scientists equate "expansion
> redshifts", the hallmark and basis for Hubble Expansion, with Doppler
> redshifts? Why do they say that the velocities measured by astronomers
> are not the recession velocities used in the velocity-distance law
> (velocity x time = distance)?
>
> Also, the theory states that objects farther away are moving faster
> than objects closer. Yet, how do we know where the "center" of the
> universe is? How do we know where the dime-sized singularity was right
> before it exploded? We would have to know this in order to say that
> the universe is expanding, as opposed to contracting or just moving to
> one side.

We don't know where the center of the universe is, and we will never
know. We don't need to know where the center is to tell whether the
universe is expanding. The way that this is traditionally explained is
as follows: take an uninflated balloon and draw dots all over it.
Inflate the balloon. While doing so, observe what happens to the dots.
You will note that they will all be moving away from each other. Stated
another way, from the perspective of each dot on the balloon, all of the
other dots are moving away, and those that are moving away fastest are
those dots which are furthest away on the balloon's surface. On the 2
dimensional surface of the balloon, there is no center of expansion.
Does this help?

"just moving to one side"? What can this possibly mean? Would this not
imply the existence of some frame of reference outside the universe by
which such movement could be measured?

> Give me a little leeway here. It's been a few years since I studied
> astronomy.

You may have as much leeway as you like. I find your questions in this
post to be good ones, generally better than your average post. I'm going
to look forward to reading the other responses to your questions here.

> Nucleosynthesis.
>
> See somewhat fuzzy on this one, but getting more educated as I go.
>
> It appears that the theory states that the three lightest elements were
> created within minutes of the Big Bang occurring. All other elements
> were created in stars or by humans. Yet, how do we know this?
>
>
>>>Again, it is the conclusion that all three must point to a Big Bang
>>>that is disagreeable.
>>
>>All three do point to the Big Bang. If you'd like to suggest an
>>alternative which is supported by all three, then by all means do so.
>>
>>
>>>Look. From a religious standpoint, God may really have used a Big Bang
>>>to get everything going. I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>
>>Actually, it appears that you do, since you reject the notion as
>>disagreeable even though that suggestion is clearly supported by
>>evidence.
>>
>>
>>>It's the dismissal of all alternatives in favor of something that looks
>>>like nature HAD to come into existence through purely natural means
>>>that is the problem.
>>
>>How could we decide if the universe came into existance through means
>>other than purely natural?
>
>
> We know that it probably wasn't natural when the basis for a theory is
> supernatural. For example, when you say that the entire universe was a
> singularity before it exploded where all laws of physics and chemistry
> do not apply and where science is useless...then you have a
> supernatural, non-natural means. At this point, the singularity has
> about as much a chance of existing as God, from a skeptical standpoint.
>
>
>>>As an aside, I find it interesting that the Big Bang theory
>>>necessitates the dismissal of all science and laws of nature in order
>>>to create the original dime-sized mass which contained all universal
>>>matter and energy.
>>
>>It is statements like this which should give you pause about the degree
>>to which you understand cosmology.
>
>
> Did I state something false about a singularity which is the beginning
> of everything according to the Big Bang theory?
>
>
>>>I read that this original mass is to be considered
>>>a singularity where all laws of chemistry and physics do not apply.
>>>Hmmm...how convenient. If I tried something supernatural like that,
>>>I'd be immediately accused of dismissing science when it was convenient
>>>and making up things.
>>
>>If scientists proposed any such thing, perhaps your criticism would be
>>worthwhile.
>
>
> "According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence
> as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity"
> and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for
> sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of
> physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black
> holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is
> thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into
> infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind).
> These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our
> universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small,
> infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did
> it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."
>
> http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
>
>
>> Mark
>
>

.

Relevant Pages