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


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2005-09-11, spaza9a@xxxxxxxxx <spaza9a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2005-09-10, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> > In a way. I am arguing that the evidence for the Big Bang theory is
> >> > very thin.
> >>
> >> But Jim, you simply don't know enough to make that claim.
> >>
> >> > The evidence exists; but, it is thin. And other counter
> >> > arguments, made from other scientists, have not been dismissed.
> >>
> >> Which claims and which scientists are those Jim? Be specific.
> >
> > http://recessiongalaxies.ifrance.com/
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020429080540.htm
>
> why would you call Salomon Borensztejn a scientist?

Isn't anyone who uses scientific methodologies (theory, test, analyze,
compare, peer review, etc.) to learn the truth a scientist?

>
> He repeats some of your major themes.
>
> You've admitted that you don't really know much about cosmology.

I have admitted that I don't know as much as the fine people in this
forum. Fortunately, SOME of you have helped me greatly.

>
> Does this set off any warning bells for you?
>
> It should.

Why do you believe that this should have set off warning bells?

>
> [ snippage ]
>
> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alphabet soup.
> >> >
> >> > Is that like a "no comment"?
> >>
> >> No, it means that nobody understands what you are trying to say. I
> >> suspect that is because even you don't know what you are trying to say.
> >> That is why I labelled the same as "word salad".
> >
> > Well, when you list out every body in space and it's respective red
> > shift, are the values evenly distributed or are they clustered around
> > certain numbers?
>
> If by "body", you mean galaxies, then statistically they lie along a
> line which correlates distance and red shift in a linear relationship.
> Back to Ned Wright's FAQ:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
> That's what the second graph shows.

Interesting. It certainly looks like good supporting evidence. I hope
that all the scientists involved were competent, honest, and not
biased.

>
> >> >> > 4) Cosmic radiation being supposedly uniform yet the matter that is
> >> >> > apparently dispensing this radiation is clustered into galaxies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sigh. The CMBR dates to before galaxies formed. This argument is the
> >> >> equivalent to saying that my mother can't be 48 years old, since on a
> >> >> photo from 1977 she's twenty.
> >> >
> >> > Then why is this radiation still bouncing around the universe after 14
> >> > billion years? Surely, it should have dissipated, been absorbed, or
> >> > merely flown to the edge of this expanding universe, as you put it, by
> >> > now. But, this radiation is everywhere with no perceivable gaps. Are
> >> > you sure that you guys did your homework?
> >>
> >> What is certain Jim is that you did _not_ do your homework.
> >>
> >> The CMBR is emitted uniformly throughout all of space. Any radiation
> >> that makes it to the "edge" [sic] of the universe is equal to the radiation
> >> from the edge of the universe reaching here.
> >
> > Wonderful, I guess. Has anyone pondered what happens to radiation to
> > reaches the edge of the universe?
>
> Do you understand what [sic] means?
>
> There is no "edge" to the universe.

So I've heard. This Big Bang theory (the time and space part) gets
weirder as the details emerge.

>
> >> >> > 5) Light elements being so abundant? Why do some stars today not have
> >> >> > ANY helium in them?
> >> >>
> >> >> Point me out some such stars.
> >> >
> >> > Aren't there any stars that don't have a spectrum of emitted light
> >> > indicating Helium?
> >> >
> >> > http://www.answers.com/topic/supernova
> >> >
> >> > Type 1C
> >>
> >> Jim, what is your point?
> >>
> >> The universe is mostly hydrogen, followed by helium.
> >
> > Nevermind.
> >
> >>
> >> >> > > > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's not true. Think of, for instance, exponential functions.
> >> >
> >> > Fair enough. Point taken.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, as already said, GR breaks down in singularities. Now, what makes
> >> >> you think this is relevant to BB cosmology?
> >> >
> >> > Because, without a singularity to start everything, we're left with
> >> > alternative explanations that have the matter of this universe not
> >> > starting all in one piece.
> >>
> >> Sweet Zombie Jesus... This is even more absurd than your fixation with
> >> multiple common ancestors.
> >>
> >> > If all matter came from several locations
> >> > within this universe or even from multiple singularities (not an
> >> > impossibility with all the talk of multiverses going on), then all
> >> > expansion, nucleosynthesis, and cosmic radiation theories would have to
> >> > be seriously reworked.
> >>
> >> Word salad.
> >
> > OK. Let me try to put this differently. If there was no singularity
> > or if this universe (the "shell" if you will) always existed, then what
> > is science's best guess about how the various celestial bodies got
> > going?
>
> If the earth were made of cheese and pigs could fly, then what would be
> the price of gas on Tuesday next?
>
> Cosmologists rejected the Steady State hypothesis because it is irreconcilable
> with available evidence. For instance, you asked why the CMBR wouldn't have
> simply dissapated: that question actually is the _right_ one to ask in the
> case of the Steady State universe. With (literally) all the time in the
> universe, there would be no reason for the CMBR.

If the CMBR is letover radiation from the Big Bang, not merely photons
of light at a lower energy level or is otherwise generated within the
universe today.

>
> >> >> > > > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> And *your* argument is like saying that because of that chasm cutting
> >> >> off the last few meters, the rest of the road doesn't exist.
> >> >
> >> > The road, in this case, does NOT lead to home. It leads to a different
> >> > source.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude, if you don't understand a theory, you're objections to it are
> >> >> probably not worth the bytes they're written into.
> >> >>
> >> >> And what on earth makes you think GR and BB cosmology should be easy to
> >> >> understand?
> >> >
> >> > Hah! When it comes to explanations of God, the Bible, and possible
> >> > supernatural causes of events, skeptics are so quick to claim Ockham's
> >> > Razor and look elsewhere.
> >> >
> >> > Yet, what happens if I were to invoke Ockham's Razor with this
> >> > supernatural singularity which single-handedly created all matter,
> >> > time, AND space at the same time and which cannot be analyzed, tested,
> >> > and reproduced by science?
> >>
> >> Because of course it can and has been analyzed, tested and reproduced by
> >> science. You simply are too ignorant and, dare I say it, stupid to
> >> understand it.
> >
> > A singularity has been reproduced under controlled conditions?!?
> >
> > By the way, I hope that you're not a teacher with that kind of attitude
> > towards those of lesser education than you.
>
> Everyone is responsible for their own education.
>
> >> > I am rebuked and told that I don't understand the theory, others are
> >> > smarter than I and I should just abide by what they say, and I am
> >> > willfully dismissive of the evidence which is just so obvious to
> >> > everyone else.
> >>
> >> Jim, you _don't_ understand the theory at even the most basic level.
> >>
> >> You don't have to accept what anyone has to say. Believe what you like,
> >> it's no skin of the universe's nose. But you _are_ in error. You are
> >> steadfastly repeating absurdities while people are trying to spoonfeed
> >> you knowledge. This knowledge isn't obvious, it concerns events which
> >> happen at very great or very small time intervals far outside the experience
> >> of most humans. But neither is it impossible to see, if one has the
> >> courage to look.
> >>
> >> > If you guys are trying to teach the world about the
> >> > universe, you're really not doing a good job...in my humble opinion.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it is the student who is not doing a good job.
> >
> > Oh, of course. It's always the student's fault.
>
> You seemed eager to assume it must be the teacher's fault....
>
> Mark

Just telling it like it is.

.

Relevant Pages