Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 01:53:06 -0500
On 2005-09-09, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2005-09-03, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no center of the
>> >> universe. There is no movement in absolute terms. Again, this simply
>> >> shows a lack of familiarity with both the evidence and the theory.
>> >
>> > If there was a singularity at one time, whatever its location was would
>> > be the center of the universe.
>>
>> *sigh*
>
> Are you feeling OK? You seem to sign a lot.
I just get tired of your cartoon version of physics. If my son came home
from school with as muddled an idea about what the Big Bang is as you, I'd
sue the school for gross incompetence. Better to leave a child completely
ignorant than to fill there heads with nonsense like this.
>> >> > Maybe the
>> >> > majority of the universe is standing still while our part is expanding.
>> >>
>> >> Again, there is no absolute motion. And even if this sentence made
>> >> sense, what would you conclude from it? In what way would this be
>> >> contrary to BB cosmology?
>> >
>> > Because showing half the universe standing still and the other half
>> > expanding would be evidence that there was no Big Bang as previously
>> > thought. How can you have a Big Bang with such a disparity in the
>> > motions of stellar bodies?
>>
>> All parts of the universe we can observe seem to be expanding, so your
>> point is moot.
>
> "Seem" to be expanding? "Seem" is not enough to render contrary points
> moot.
Yes, just as the sun "seems" to come up in the morning. Tomorrow,
something radically different could happen, just to spite me, but we
know of no counterexamples: there is no place observed where the universe
doesn't appear to be expanding.
>> >> > Heck. Maybe God just threw the planets and stars into the universe
>> >> > and gave everything a gentle push in different directions.
>> >>
>> >> And maybe angels push the planets in their orbits.
>> >>
>> >> > The derivation of all atoms from Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium...I'm
>> >> > not familiar enough with this aspect to support or critique it.
>> >>
>> >> Im glad to here that you have some sense of your limitations. What I
>> >> am curious about however, is why you think you are familiar enough with
>> >> BB cosmology to critique that?
>> >
>> > It doesn't make sense at its most basic levels:
>>
>> Perhaps you should try to master the material at its most basic level
>> before you try to make that claim.
>
> Thanks for that helpful, uplifting advice. 'preciate it.
There is a common problem: those who are competent think they are competent
because they are competent to judge, but those who are incompetent also think
they are competent because they are incompetent to judge. This means that
there is very little way to avoid self delusion, unless you subject yourself
to the criticism of others. This can be a helpful thing, in that it
reveals flaws which you yourself are incapable of detecting, but it is only
helpful if you are willing to accept the idea that maybe you don't know what
you are talking about.
You don't have a basic understanding of this material. I don't know how
you can argue otherwise.
>> > 1) A singularity which defies all laws of science;
>>
>> Your obsession with singularities comes from reading pop science or
>> worse treaments of the subject.
>
> Someone tell Stephen Hawking that Mark says that he's full of crap.
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
It is your understanding of Hawking which presents the real problems.
>> > 2) Theoretical dark matter which cannot be seen, measured, or analyzed
>> > and which MUST exist for the motions of bodies in space due to a Big
>> > Bang.
>>
>> It can of course be measured by its gravitational affects on other bodies
>> that we can see.
>
> So, then you are totally OK with acknowledging the existence of
> something based solely on its supposed effect on a measureable body?
Why woudn't I be? That's how people found Neptune. That's how radar works.
Hell, that's how your eyeballs work.
>> > 3) Red shift values being clustered around certain quantities and not
>> > spread across all possibilities. Strange if the Big Bang produced a
>> > spectrum of heavenly bodies with supposedly random velocities.
>>
>> I don't even pretend to understand what that means.
>>
>> > 4) Cosmic radiation being supposedly uniform yet the matter that is
>> > apparently dispensing this radiation is clustered into galaxies.
>>
>> The cosmic microwave background isn't generated by the matter that is
>> clustered in galaxies.
>
> Well, if not galaxies and certainly not dark matter, then what else is
> there? It can't still be bouncing around from over 10 billion years
> ago.
13 billion. And yes, it can. It's the left over heat energy of the
opaque early universe.
>> > 5) Light elements being so abundant? Why do some stars today not have
>> > ANY helium in them?
>>
>> Which stars are these, Jim?
>
> http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Cat?J/A%2BA/363/1040
>
> I thought that we determine what elements are in which stars by the
> spectrum of light produced.
*sigh*
>> >> > Isotropy? The fact that all the universe appears similar? If so, why
>> >> > do we find clusters of stars and black holes in some areas and
>> >> > relatively none in other areas? Random chance?
>> >>
>> >> Again, as described earlier, if you look on a large enough scale, this
>> >> is not the case, we see clusters of stars and galaxies and black holes
>> >> equally dispersed. And it is on that large scale that the similarities
>> >> are important.
>> >
>> > Now, we really don't see them that equally dispersed, do we? I mean,
>> > if you zoom out the lens enough, anything can look uniform.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > General relativity? Why does the Big Bang theory necessitate general
>> >> > relativity everywhere and at all times EXCEPT when theorizing how all
>> >> > the cosmic matter and energy was stuffed onto a dime (singularity)?
>> >>
>> >> (Paragraph again broken for clarity)
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you mean by this. General Relativity is the basis
>> >> of Big Bang cosmology and is what predicts how the universe was once
>> >> much more dense.
>> >
>> > Does general relativity still apply to this singularity before it
>> > exploded? If not, why not?
>>
>> Again, your childish obsession with singularities don't have much to do
>> with real cosmology.
Hint: there is no "before" the Big Bang, in any meaningful sense of the
word. The Hawking page you sent me to above helps explain it quite
nicely, as does his "Arrow of Time" book.
>> >> > The very science that points to the Big Bang itself breaks down, by
>> >> > scientists' own admission, when zero hour is considered.
>> >>
>> >> No, not even when zero second is consiered. Only when the most minute
>> >> part of the zeroth second is considered. At that point, GR and Quantum
>> >> Theory conflict. Shrug. So what? We have an accurate picture
>> >> streatching back to the billionth part of the billionth part of the
>> >> billionth part of the first second. Any theory that encompases that
>> >> first fraction of a second is going to match the current predictions up
>> >> until that point.
>> >
>> > So what? Are you kidding me? That's like driving for 14 billion years
>> > along a road which is advertised to lead to your home, only to find the
>> > road dead ends at an impassable chasm with your home in sight.
>>
>> If the chasm is impassable, it's impassable. Not much else to do. If you'd
>> like to quibble that we don't know everything that happened in the first
>> fraction of a billionth of a second that the universe existed, that's fine,
>> but it does seem like a quibble.
>
> That's like creating an entire Christian religion complete with a
> Bible, books, preachers, and changed lives...only to die and find out
> there is no God.
>
> It's not a quibble.
It's a quibble.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Well that was a rather long post. Anyway, Id like to try to re-iterate
>> >> a few points. 1) General Relativity predicts the Big Bang. 2) General
>> >> Relativity is confirmed every day, not just in the lab, but by devices
>> >> that are a part of our everyday life. 3) As AC indicated earlier, the
>> >> age of the universe is developed from the same model as the BB.
>> >>
>> >> In the end, you do not appear to understand either the theory behind GR
>> >> or BB cosmology, or the evidence for it. This is not really a cut on
>> >> you, GR is a fairly difficult subject to approach. But what seems
>> >> wrong is that when you see something that doesnt make sense to you,
>> >> rather than recognise that you dont have a strong grasp on the theory
>> >> and dig for further information to try to understand, you claim the
>> >> theory isnt well supported and it shoulnt be believed.
>> >
>> > Dude, if you cannot explain a theory and show legitimate evidence
>> > without obvious discrepancies in just a few paragraphs, then the theory
>> > probably isn't accurate.
>>
>> Jim, you are ignorant. Cosmology is complicated. You obviously have
>> neither the skill nor the inclination to learn what it says, and yet
>> have the audacity to proclaim that because you are unwilling to figure
>> it out, it must therefore be wrong.
>>
>> Pathetic.
>>
>> Mark
>
> Thanks for the constructive criticism, pal.
If you'd like to advance ignorance as a reasonable position, I'm certainly
justified to call you on it.
Mark
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils.
- Next by Date: Re: It's pointless to argue about Evolution, as it's essentiallya Religion with believers.
- Previous by thread: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
- Next by thread: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
