Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
- From: Mark VandeWettering <wettering@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:00:25 -0500
On 2005-09-14, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2005-09-13, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > AC wrote:
>> >> On 10 Sep 2005 16:39:17 -0700,
>> >> Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > By the way, why is my less-than-dark matter such nonsense?
>> >>
>> >> Because a) you haven't actually defined it and b) you haven't provided any
>> >> evidence for it.
>> >
>> > I've defined it as the exact same thing as dark matter but which some
>> > radiation. The evidence for it, which was pretty much shot down in
>> > this forum, is the existence of the background radiation.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Is it the
>> >> > idea itself or that the Big Band theory explains better this cosmic
>> >> > radiation?
>> >>
>> >> If CMBR was all there was and you had some sort of evidence for whatever
>> >> less-than-dark-matter was then they might have equal footing, but you are
>> >> forgetting General Relativity, nucleosynthesis and the Hubble expansion.
>> >> The Big Bang fits within these very well indeed (elegantly, if I might be
>> >> permitted a terribly subjective term). It's a multiple data point based
>> >> theory.
>> >
>> > That's pretty much what others said too.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Don't feel bad Jim, even Einstein didn't like the idea of an expanding
>> >> universe, though his own calculations showed that it must be so. That was
>> >> why he inserted the cosmological constant to get rid of the expansion.
>> >> Later he called that the greatest mistake of his life.
>> >
>> > I don't feel bad. I just don't think that such an idea passes the
>> > Ockham's Razor test (much simpler to have a static universe) nor the
>> > sniffer test (smells like a lot of scientific baloney). I think that
>> > the Big Bang theory would hold more water (I can believe this aspect of
>> > it) if it were just an explosion of matter and energy, not time and
>> > space.
>>
>> Why would a theory which is unable to describe the observed patterns of
>> redshift and the expansion of space "hold more water" than one which does?
>
> Because you would be dealing with matter and energy, not time and space
> itself. May I venture a guess and say that matter and energy are much
> easier to define, analyze, and manipulate than time and space itself.
Yeah, but unfortunately your theory doesn't *actually work*. That's the
problem. Yes, it is simpler. I suppose that being simple enough for
you to understand is comforting, but *it doesn't work*. It doesn't
explain the available evidence.
> I'll have to research red shift more. I can see how scientists think
> that most or all galaxies are traveling away from each other. I don't
> yet see how anyone can conclude that space itself is expanding as
> opposed to being in a steady state or already-existing infinite state.
*blink*
>> > Here's the big question. How would you scientifically test the theory
>> > that the universe itself is expanding?
>>
>> The pattern of redshifts is the most compelling argument: redshifts
>> increase linearly with distance. You simply can't have that property
>> over a spherical shell surrounding our current position unless _all_
>> galaxies are moving away from each other.
>
> I can see this aspect.
Then why did you say that you "could not yet see how anyone can conclude
that space itself is expanding"?
Mark
>
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Aaron Clausen
>> >> mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The first Law of Thermodynamics
- Next by Date: Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
- 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
|
Loading
