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


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-09-02, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> On 2005-08-30, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > 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."
>
> What you believe doesn't really matter.
>
> What you "surely" believe especially doesn't matter.
>
> >> 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.
>
> See, the rest of us don't choose to "believe in" the Big Bang. We study
> the evidence, the methodology used to generate conclusions from observations,
> and if such things seem sound, we accept the results as tentatively correct.
>
> Consider the example of the Coelocanth. Conventional wisdom was that it was
> an extinct form of fish. It was entirely rational to believe that was the
> case, as no credible sightings of a fish like it had ever been seen, and
> the fossil evidence suggested that they were all many millions of years old.
> Suddenly, a living specimen (well, recently deceased specimen) was recovered,
> and what do scientists do? Do they say "it can't possibly be a coelocanth,
> they went extinct millions of years ago!". No, they accept the new evidence
> and work with it.
>
> Were they wrong about the coelocanth? Of course they were. Was it a mistake
> to think that the coelocanth was extinct? No, that was what all evidence
> told them.
>
> No scientist "believes in" the Big Bang. Something could be found tomorrow
> that would overturn our idea of how the universe works. But TODAY, with the
> evidence we have TODAY, it's the best idea that we have. We don't need
> to be sure about our knowledge, our knowledge only needs to be useful.

Sounds good. Then, perhaps I have a different intellectual threshold
where a theory becomes officially supported by the facts and becomes
the best idea. It's not that big a deal. Some scientists get upsets
when skeptics don't accept their understanding of the facts. Some
Christians do the same thing, except with religion.

>
> >> > There are alternative explanations for each and all of these together.
> >>
> >> Really? Perhaps you'd like to share one?
> >
> > 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.
>
> See Jim, this is why you deserve a smack down. You can't even see the
> edge of clue from where you are, and you are pretending like what you say
> is reasonable. You haven't got a clue about the probability that all
> the radiation would have dissapated. Real cosmologists do.

You can smack me down all you want. However, it would be nice if you
or someone would answer these questions I have.

>
> > 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.
>
> Here's something to get you close to where you might see a clue: there
> were no point sources at the time the universe was cooling. The cosmic
> background radiation doesn't come from stars.

Please smack me with the present-day source of the radiation, if any.

>
> > 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?
>
> *sigh*
>
> > I don't know why it got created. I just don't think that a Big Bang
> > created it 14 billion years ago.
>
> Yeah, but let's face it, you pretty much don't understand anything having
> to do with it, so perhaps your opinion isn't worth much.

You're not be very helpful.

>
> > 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
>
> Golly, you look at a picture which is color coded, and you conclude that
> "it doesn't look that uniform".

Yes. It really doesn't look that uniform.

>
> http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/DMR_Images.html
>
> The following image just shows the reduced map (i.e., both
> the dipole and Galactic emission subtracted). The cosmic
> microwavebackground fluctuations are extremely faint, only one
> part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 degree Kelvin average
> temperature of the radiation field.
>
> One part in 100,000 seems pretty damned uniform to me.

Maybe not.

"The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang
and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early
universe."

So, it really isn't uniform. It is based on the layout of the early
universe. OK. If this radiation was emitted long ago, why hasn't it
either been mostly absorbed or dissipated massively by now?

>
> > The Hubble Expansion.
> >
> > We see objects moving away from us, right? Are we sure?
>
> "Sure" isn't something that science ever promises. I asked you to
> share your theory which explained the evidence, or to give a reasoned
> explanation why the conclusions of scientists are wrong. Merely asking
> if we are "really, truly, honest Injun sure" doesn't really qualify.

It qualifies if a scientist is asking me to accept as FACT an
agreed-upon theory.

>
> > Why then don't most of these Big Bang scientists equate "expansion
> > redshifts", the hallmark and basis for Hubble Expansion, with
> > Doppler redshifts?
>
> Expansion redshifts _are_ Doppler redshifts.

Not to be disrespectful, but I think that others disagree with you.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/wavelengthshift.html

"The redshift due to the expansion of the Universe. Contrary to popular
belief, this is not a Doppler shift."

>
> > 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)?
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Red shifts are correlated to
> distance. The further galaxies are away from us, the faster they appear to
> be receding.
>
> > 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?
>
> We don't. In fact, the idea is absurd. There is no center to the
> expansion: space itself is expanding. Everywhere. That's what is
> carrying galaxies away from us (and each other).

By what science can we say that space itself is expanding?

If there really was a singularity which exploded, wouldn't this be the
center of the universe since all matter accelerated away from this
point?

>
> > How do we know where the dime-sized singularity was right
> > before it exploded?
>
> The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Asking where the 'singularity' was
> is meaningless, as space and time were also created.

....and I get critiqued for bringing a supernatural Supreme Being into
the discussion. Now, time and space create themselves from nothing
using purely supernatural means.

>
> > 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.
>
> No, we'd have to know that if your cartoon version of the Big Bang were
> true.

Hey, buddy. I'm just taking what you scientists say happened and
running with it. You're the ones who say that the Big Bang couldn't
occur naturally given the existing laws of science. Cartoons and the
Big Bang seem to be the only aspects of this universe where science
doesn't apply.

>
> > Give me a little leeway here. It's been a few years since I studied
> > astronomy.
>
> While cosmology isn't exactly light reading, it's pretty clear that whatever
> cosmology you have "studied", it didn't take.
>
> > 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.
>
> Humans have only managed it in limited amounts in the last century or so.
>
> > Yet, how do we know this?
>
> How indeed. Why do you think scientists say this?
>
> You haven't a clue. And yet, you think that there must be something
> wrong with the idea.

Then, proclaim the truth to me instead of telling me how I haven't a
clue. Inform this mediocre astronomer. Enlighten this student who
obviously doesn't know an expansion redshift from manual downshift.

>
> >> > 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.
>
> This would be more compelling if you knew what the hell you were talking
> about.

Hey. No reason to bring hell and religion into this discussion. :-)

>
> >> > 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?
>
> It is actually hard to find anything you've stated about the Big Bang
> which is even remotely correct.
>
> >> > 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/
>
> Bleh. Terrible. No wonder you are confused. It's not surprising to
> find that the contact for that page is the "All about GOD Ministries,
> Inc." Whoever wrote that had an understanding only slightly better than
> your own.
>
> Try reading something decent, like Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Finally you offered me something concrete other than insults. Next
time, just post the hyperlinks. Thanks.

>
> Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Commentary: From Einstein to Kinsey: How Colleges and Universities Hide the Truth from Our Kids
    ... > Two such eminent scientists are Drs. Georges Lemaitre and Judith ... > believe he explained the universe and where it came from. ... the data that supports the Big Bang ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did I miss this new Global Warming material
    ... The big bang was thought up by a priest ... ... It took real "scientists" to actually eventually produce the evidence that ... the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval ... At the time, Einstein believed ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim & Mary Walker
    ... Why must you start with a presupposition that the universe had a start? ... There was ALSO ALREADY TIME, even at the big bang, no matter how small ... No rate means distance equals zero; no time means distance equals zero; ... well acredited scientists. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... fallacy that scientists claim so. ... the definition of science. ... In fact the Big Bang has more evidence than Black Holes. ... conclude that the universe began in the Big Bang. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with answersingenesis.com?
    ... Cosmic Background Radiation. ... >> If it came only from the ancient Big Bang explosion, ... the radiation pattern in the universe. ... the theory states that objects farther away are moving faster ...
    (talk.origins)