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

On 2005-09-11, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I never said that I understood this Big Bang to the level that you
> understand it. One of the reasons that I am here is to learn. You're
> not helping that much.

You've repeated statements which are cartoon versions of physics: to
call them straw men would be to assign a degree of credibility that they
do not deserve. You've then gone on to question the conclusions of
scientists because your largely uninformed opinion is that your opinions
on the origins of the universe are just as likely to be correct as
theirs. These are not the actions of someone interested in learning.
These are the actions of someone trying to show (to others and perhaps
to themselves) that their ideas are justified and valid without actually
going to the work of actually demonstrating that they are.

>> >> > 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
>
> And if you enjoy advancing intellectual arrogance towards those of
> lesser understanding, you'll understand if others don't seem to want
> you for their teacher.

My arrogance doesn't mean that I am wrong. It doesn't make it more likely
that I am right, but it doesn't make it less likely either.

Ignorance does not have that property.

Mark


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Ok, what DOES amuse me
    ... Pretty much everyone here except you, yeah. ... that's pretty hard for me to judge. ... I don't think you're competent to judge the matter. ... considered one of the better mathematicians in the world. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Are any of you Dylan fans, "Boomers"?
    ... resonance with one of Moonpie's pet issues: "If you're not a musician, ... you're not competent to judge music". ... But he does have an axe to grind about the public's fascination with singers. ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
  • Re: Jumping red lights not dangerous... as long as you are in a car and doing almost 50 Mph in a 30
    ... it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving ... I note the judge said "You drove too fast. ... The *jury* found the defendant not guilty of DD. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Using Bicarbonate Against the Swine Flu & Colds
    ... able to judge other people's competency. ... I am more competent than anybody in this ng on toxemia and the soil theory. ... Yes Carole Your "pet peeve is being made and idiot out of ..." ... You bob are incompetent in plenty, have preconceived ideas and very biased. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Science be damned!
    ... Well, Gerard? ... " I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their ... To be competent to judge whether ...
    (talk.origins)