I have posed these questions before, just not at this blog. Secular scientists want to force feed our children and us illogical theories. Big Bang, like evolution, has no evidence just assertions based on ignorance.big bang problem #1: Missing antimatter problem. (Baryon number) How much in the universe, ZERO. One fluke exception is not an answer either, there should be plenty.
big bang problem #2: Monopoles problem. magnets have +/- and at high temperatures greater then the core of a star can create singular poles and the big bang started at infinite temperature and that would be hot enough. Guess how many we find ZERO.
big bang problem #3: Singularity point problem. The Big Bang DOES NOT even explain the origin of the universe. How did that singular point get there?
big bang problem #4: Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger's take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang.
big bang problem #5: Population 3 stars there should be these type of first stars everywhere all over the universe. Any guess to how many are out there...ZERO! All stars have trace amounts of the heaver elements.
Now I will admit I had help (like Dr. Jason Lisle) for these points but science cannot explain there theories they try to teach the kids. These are things with no evidence, just assertions based on ignorance.
Here is another point that cannot be answered. Now for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up?So, what happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. You have to discount science and the entire laws of physics to believe in no God.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4 "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
This will go down in history of mankind's second biggest blunder. Apparently a great number of Scientists agree that the Big Bang Theory is Busted (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
If that isn't an 'appeal to authority' this one sure is:
I have no desire to "force feed" you anything. (You said "you;" so I am assuming you are talking about the readers of your blog.) The actual readers of your blog are not in a position to force feed anyone anything. I rather doubt that any of us have such a desire, even if we could.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, my understanding is that general relativity is not intended for "powerful gravitational fields" but rather to explain the effects of gravitational field on objects travelling at near-light speed. Still, there is an interesting question. Is it possible to reconcile even in approximation quantum mechanics and general relativity. They appear to co-exist in our world; but if they are logically contradictory, the anomoly would mean our world is a fake. This problem is not intimately tied to the big bang. Observations are that the two mentioned ideas are at least approximately correct.
Why should there be stars with no heavier elements? Space contains such trace amounts and gravity can be expected to pull them in.
(You said "you;" so I am assuming you are talking about the readers of your blog.)
ReplyDeleteI have since corrected my wording, thanks for pointing that out.
Off topic:
ReplyDeleteI noticed (and read) your "no atheist in foxholes" link. I have a sneaking suspicion that you didn't read it.
Of course the proposition is not literally true; indeed some soldiers lose their pre-existing belief in God when confronted with the horror of war. But, worse, the expression is apparently normally interpreted as meaning that people who profess atheism don’t really mean it, that their true colors come out under pressure. I had (apparently erroneously) thought rather the reverse. I had always taken the expression to mean that mankind’s hunger for religious beliefs comes from a desperate desire for divine intervention – or, failing that, comfort – when confronting death. Something more along the lines “There are no unsoiled underpants in foxholes.” I am in sympathy with the character in a novel who said “That maxim, ‘There are no atheists in foxholes,’ it’s not an argument against atheism — it’s an argument against foxholes.”
Dan- you are correct, there are unsolved problems in cosmology, just as there are unsolved problems in evolution and indeed in all sciences. In fact, there are probably many things that will never be explained perfectly, for several reasons: lack of evidence (e.g. not all organisms fossilize), intractability (sheer complexity, such as trends in politics), lack of interest and/or funding, and last but not least, lack of time: you say that Jesus will probably return before logic leads us to the Creator; my secular doomsday version is that we will probably bomb/poison/starve ourselves back to the Stone Age before we have, say, cures for all diseases.
ReplyDeleteBut should we should simply chuck any theory with flaws or unknowns? No. In order to explain things so that we can make predictions, build machines, and indeed simply get up in the morning, we must have theories, either explicit or implicit, that work well enough. This is true not only of scientists, but of everyone- or perhaps I should say, we are all scientists.
Of course, "well enough" is pretty fuzzy. What works well enough for me might not be good enough for you. For instance, I am pretty computer-illiterate: I can run programs, but when something serious goes wrong (as it often does at home, where we have Windows- at work, I have a Mac, and far fewer problems), I have to call in an expert. My theory of computers suffices for my purposes, but it is quite superficial and probably simply wrong in many particulars.
Science, (from "scientia", literally "knowledge", is simply the attempt to gather facts and propose theories that explain those facts, as well as possible. Theories are always subject to correction, or defenestration, if a better theory comes along.
I apologize if I sound like I'm lecturing you, Dan. You probably know all this stuff anyway, but it's helpful to me to say this so it's as clear as possible to myself as well. My point about evolutionary theory, and cosmology, is simply this: the theories are not perfect. But they are the best we have: they explain most of the facts, and they have made many successful predictions. More to the point: they have no competition that works as well or better.
I'll just comment on one point in your post, #3: no, the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the Universe. And while there are theories about that (quantum point fluctuations, for instance), for my purpose here, they are beside the point. We might put the question more simply: why is there Something instead of Nothing? This may well be one of those questions that we will never be able to answer (although my favorite answer is, "why not?").
In any case, this is not a blow against cosmological theory, because no theory has an answer. If you say the answer is "God", I will say that is simply begging the question: why is there God? How did God come to exist? All of the traditional theological answers to this are mere wordplay: God is the "Uncaused Cause", God was here forever, God is outside of time, space, natural limitations, whatever. Basically, all of these answers are simply saying "It's magic!" or "It's unknowable". There are at least two problems with this "answer".
One- I could just as well say that the origin of the singularity was eternal, or was outside of time and space, or is unknowable, or magic, and my explanation is just as good and simpler, because it doesn't have an extra entity (God) in it.
Two- positing a God doesn't explain anything. If the God theory made predictions about what we would observe that science didn't, or better predictions, there would be good reason for considering it, but it doesn't. Going back to the Big Bang theory- if the Bible, say, had predicted the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, then I would have been very impressed. As it was, however, the Big Bang theory predicted it, and it was discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. That's one reason the Big Bang theory is still considered good.
By the way- one of the key experiences of my life was visiting the Bell Lab, where an astrophysicist friend of mine worked, and going inside the antenna where the discovery was made. That helped bring science down from the clouds and ivory towers into the realm of human hopes and dreams for me.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteBut should we should simply chuck any theory with flaws...
Then we agree? If the theory fails to be proven I agree, we should look elsewhere. Any theory that cannot hold up the evidence should be reevaluated and re-hypothesized. Why repeat to get failed results? Since the beginning of time a square peg in a round hole doesn't work why are evolutionist and big banger's forcing the data to "make it fit?"
Science, (from "scientia", literally "knowledge")
Yea great point now add con- meaning with. so conscience literally means with knowledge. You know in your soul that God exists but reject your own thoughts. That's another discussion all together.
"is simply this: the theories are not perfect." That is my point now. A theory that is correct is perfect, it will fit logically. Like mathematics, there is a perfect fit/explanation for things and to inject a theory that is full of holes and flaws is disingenuous to the public. To teach it in public schools as truth is criminal!
"But they are the best we have"
Not true that is all that they choose to accept. There are plenty of other theories including but not limited to, a Creator, but those get rejected and not funded, based on the prejudices of the secular (scientific)community.
"If you say the answer is "God", I will say that is simply begging the question: " Hate to break this news to you but, every single theory out there is "begging the question."
We just proved it by this post about BB.
"All of the traditional theological answers to this are mere wordplay:" *sniff, hypocrisy the same can be said about evolution and big bang also. All you can do is explain it away" with no true evidence. It's faith based! You believe it to be true, but can't prove it yet. Sound familiar? "It's unknowable"
"and my explanation is just as good and simpler, because it doesn't have an extra entity (God) in it."
You explanation is acceptable "because" it doesn't have an extra entity (God) in it. Get it?!
"if the Bible, say, had predicted the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation,"
How about radio waves? Job 38:35 written 3,500 years ago said that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech but did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12)
I think this should it's own post
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou are re-interpreting the writing. Job 38:35 is simply the biblical god boasting that only he has the power to control lightning.
Job 38:35 "Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?"
ReplyDeletePvblivs: "You are re-interpreting the writing. Job 38:35 is simply the biblical god boasting that only he has the power to control lightning."
Sure that would explain the first part but why was it worded with the addition to the last part "that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?"
"Sure that would explain the first part but why was it worded with the addition to the last part 'that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?'"
ReplyDeleteAncient people had a tendency of personifying things they did not understand. So, it is quite possible that they thought lightning was a being that could stop and speak. And it is better fit than trying to fit it to radio waves, which require intrumentation to detect.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteSorry I came back, but Clostridiophile posted something about you finally arguing something about evolution. Then I found you posted this piece.
Seriously Dan, I would not use arguments unless I could understand them. It seems like your "scientists" know very little about science. This is especially important because you wrote lots of stuff that have no meaning whatsoever.
Just an example, let us say that "problem 2" describes something close to a reality. Let us say that you mean that monopoles could be formed at high temperatures, and let us say that the big bang had such temps at the beginning. Why should such monopoles stay formed after the universe cooled down? The monopoles would have to be bound to something, and if such somethings disintegrated, there would be no reason for the monopoles to stay, right?
Now for "problem 4." General relativity and quantum mechanics do not exist separate of each other, they do not contradict or anything like that. There is no such thing. What some physicists want to find is a theory encompassing both of them, an integration of these things. The big bang does not require such synthesis. It would be nice because the calculations would be easier to handle. For now all that it means is that whatever they need to calculate on the side of relativity they do by using such stuff, whatever they need from quantum mechanics they do using quantum mechanics. A bit more work. That is it. It is pretty much like saying that it would be nice if we could have a single theory for evolution and the origin of life. I do not see the need, but some biologists might want such a thing. Still, evolution explains diversity of life, and origin of life is another problem. Linked to evolution (you need life so that it can evolve), yet evolution stands by itself all right, while origin of life is a work in progress that does not depend on evolution whatsoever.
Now, you might be just confused by my arguing. Well, that is what happens when you use arguments you do not understand.
I also visited the web page you pointed to (your "scientist" source). It is very easy to note how silly they are. Take this for example:
Recently, and as has been widely reported, astronomers announced the discovery of an extra-solar planet in the distant M4 star cluster. Like essentially all the extra-solar planets that have been discovered to date, the detection of this planet goes against evolutionary predictions, but is consistent with the Bible.
As far as I know, and I know a lot about it, evolution is not concerned whatsoever, at all, with planets. Not a single theory within evolution talks about planetary discovery. The statement is thus absurd from the beginning. So, why keep reading it? The supposed scientists do not even know what they are criticizing.
So, Dan, be careful where you take your notes from. Make sure you understand them well. Do a bit of homework. Also, make sure what is it that you are criticizing. This is why we cannot take creationists seriously, they always show no understanding of any theory they criticize.
G.E.
get_education,
ReplyDelete"Seriously Dan, I would not use arguments unless I could understand them...Now, you might be just confused by my arguing. Well, that is what happens when you use arguments you do not understand...So, Dan, be careful where you take your notes from. Make sure you understand them well. Do a bit of homework. Also, make sure what is it that you are criticizing. This is why we cannot take creationists seriously, they always show no understanding of any theory they criticize."
Yawn, You just failed in all your logic because all you use are 'ad hominem' logical fallacies. So when you come out of the clouds and use logic I will listen to you. You're annoying.
I will address this little gem though
"Still, evolution explains diversity of life, and origin of life is another problem."
Dude, you're not getting away with this one. The Bible describes diversity "of their own kind" but evolution theory says we came from primordial soup. FOUL!! FOUL!! after all Darwin's book of evolution was called "on the Origin of Species" Sorry you can't get away with that here at this blog, go to RD's and possibly you can, but not here. FAILED!
Here, I said this to Quasar earlier: "Not true. The Bible says things are made from their own kind. 'Kinds' are probably best represented today by the classification 'families'
For example, the horse family. Equidae, includes horses, zebras, donkeys, and extinct horses. Horses and zebras can be breed with each other and produce "zorses", and donkeys and horses can be breed to produce mules and hinnies. This indicates that they are probably from the same created kind. You could make the same argument for Cats also: lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, and house cats all from the same family. Canine also, but canine and cats don't breed and cannot mutate."
What evolution claims is that ALL families of EVERY species arrived from ONE source. Pond Scum.
Nice try though...next.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"So, it is quite possible that they thought lightning was a being that could stop and speak."
quite possible, quite possible
Do you have proof for this claim? No? OK then
which require [instrumentation] 'for humans' to detect. (that's what you meant right?)
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI did not use ad hominem. Please do not get confused about logic and at least read what I said. The only thing that looks like an "attack on the person rather than on the problem" is that I said you should understand what you write. But then I told you a bit about the problems with your arguments. I never said the arguments were wrong BECAUSE you do not understand them, I said not understanding them makes them weak.
If this is not true, why did you just yawn and not read any of what I said.
So, evolution does not state that we all come from a primordial soup. The primordial soup is ORIGIN OF LIFE. Darwin did, however, state that evolution MIGHT imply that all living forms are descendants from an original living organism, but nothing about the soup. Go read the origin and you will see. I dare you to find any reference to a primordial soup in the origin. As I said, at least learn what it is that you are criticizing.
Since I am juts annoying (because you cannot handle my arguments?), and since you cannot contain your anger, I am done. Thanks for debunking me so well, I am impressed by your logic: "You are annoying, I accuse you of fallacies without even reading the arguments, ergo you are wrong."
For a second I thought you were a bit better, you know, because I read that you accepted a couple of your mistakes. Guess I was wrong. (Yeah, I know, ad hominem. May I accuse you of "ad hominem" too? After all, you started by saying I am annoying.)
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you also need to know that humans and chimps, and gorillas, and bonobos, not only belong to the very same family, but we go on to belong to the same sub-family. With chimps and bonobos by pure accident of classification we are in different genus, but when we look at the DNA differences in other species, genera, ad so on, we should actually be in the same genus with the two chimps. In other words, since "Homo" was coined before "Pan," chimps should be called "Homo troglodytes."
Enjoy your debunking.
G.E.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI am noticing a pattern here. You decree that something must be a particular way. I give an alternative that fits the facts better. And you call for "proof" that the alternative is correct. We have no way of proving what actually transpired several thousand years ago. What we have is like trying to reconstruct a jigsaw puzzle with only 1 percent of the pieces. However, I must note your double standard. You seem to think that you are entitled to make claims with no proof, but then you call for proof for any other possibilities.
None of what I have said in this post is an argument against your position; so don't bother saying ad hominem. I am only pointing out that your methods are convincing only to those who already agree with you. Those who are undecided will be put off.
Consider this some advice from a serious skeptic. Imagine what you think the world would be like if the bible was a fairy tale. If you can find any changes from the world we see, you can use those as arguments. But please note, if you do it halfway, you will fail. You cannot do this by imagining no god but keeping "total depravity." You are attempting to argue against people who do not believe in "total depravity."
"You are attempting to argue against people who do not believe in "total depravity."
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter what you believe in though? What matters is the truth. I can scream I don't believe in trucks all day, but when I run into a street I will still get hurt by one.
Romans 3:10-11: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
Ra McLaughlin "even acts of generosity and altruism are in fact egoist acts in disguise."
Apparently Scientists agree that the Big Bang Theory is Busted (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteSInce I am annoying, I will only say that you should learn to read properly. I wold recommend looking for "reading comprehension" in your local yellow pages, and go take a good course.
The letter to new scientist does not state that these scientists think the big bang theory is "busted," but that more work is required before accepting it. This is more a complain about where the funds for research should go, in order to fully test the theory.
So, you seem to be the busted one.
Annoyingly,
G.E.
By the way, and out of annoying curiosity, if the big bang were truly busted (I do not care, really), how would that debunk atheism?
ReplyDeleteAnnoyingly,
G.E.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Does it matter what you believe in though?"
If you are trying to convince me of the correctness of your assertions, it does. You are not going to convince me of something I don't already believe by invoking something else I don't believe. How would you convince someone who couldn't see trucks and thought you were imagining them of their reality? Repeating "trucks are real" would be unpersuasive. He might be convinced that you believed. But if you want to convince someone you are not wrong, you have to consider what it would mean if you were.
Dan, you say:
ReplyDeleteso conscience literally means with knowledge. You know in your soul that God exists but reject your own thoughts.
Are you God? How do you know what I know in my soul? I hear this over and over from Christians, in one form or another. Some variations:
"You know in your heart of hearts that God exists"
"You deny God's existence because you don't want to submit to His authority"
"You hate God"
It seems that many believers simply cannot imagine that one might simply not believe in God. Try this Gedankenexperiment: imagine that I say all these things to you, but substitute "Thor" (or your own favorite non-existent entity) for "God".
A theory that is correct is perfect, it will fit logically. Like mathematics, there is a perfect fit/explanation for things and to inject a theory that is full of holes and flaws is disingenuous to the public. To teach it in public schools as truth is criminal!
No scientific theory is "perfect", Dan. Mathematics is not a natural science: while it is of course an indispensable part of all sciences, it is a system of formal logic, in which statements can be absolutely true by definition. Natural sciences, such as cosmology and biology, are subject to limitations of accuracy in measurement and computational power, and thus can never be "perfect" in the sense that math is.
I said (about current scientific theories):
But they are the best we have
You replied:
Not true that is all that they choose to accept. There are plenty of other theories including but not limited to, a Creator, but those get rejected and not funded, based on the prejudices of the secular (scientific)community.
In the first place, plenty of "other theories" are funded, for instance ID by the Discovery Foundation. And the reason they are rejected by the scientific community, religious as well as secular, is due to the scientific community's "prejudice" in favor of evidence. If it could be scientifically shown that, say, the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, it would mean instant fame and a Nobel Prize for those responsible, not to mention redounding to the eternal glory of God.
Sorry, Dan, there is no secular plot to repress creationism: there's simply no evidence for it, that's all.
Are you God?
ReplyDeleteNo but God said it, so it's so. I trust God and that's the difference. Your conscience (with knowledge) knows that lying is wrong, true? If yes (throughout mankind) then I can make the absolute statement of absolute truth.
"Sorry, Dan, there is no secular plot to repress creationism: there's simply no evidence for it, that's all."
There are millions of people that disagree with that position. There is plenty of evidence. Expelled, the movie pointed to just a choice few but evidence still. Which renders your statement false.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI told you that the expelled in expelled were either not expelled because they were creationists, but out of their lack of productivity (not all profs, creationists or not get tenure, the only difference between the mediocre ones in expelled and other mediocre ones is that those in expelled were creacionists). One of them did not get tenure because he lost precious research time writing non-scholarly stuff about creacionism.
Again, denying that there is eidence for evolution, if you are working in the field, or close to it, is but s single sign of lack of honesty and of scientific rigor.
Now, is this looks like ad hominem, it is not. You talk about expelled as "proof" of an anti-creacionist conspiracy. You need to know the truth. Even if it "insults" the "heroes" of the mockumentary. If truth is insulting, so be it. I accept the expulsion from your blog. But I can only be honest.
G.E.
Also, I know several scientific creacionists who do not deny their beliefs, but do not deny the evidence for evolution either. Many have tenures, and work quite nicely. They just do not pretend that science and religion are the same.
ReplyDeleteAlso again, Francis Collins would be out of the system already if it were true that there is a conspiracy against creacionists.
G.E.
get_education,
ReplyDeleteYou are not expelled.
"They just do not pretend that science and religion are the same."
And neither do I.
I updated Evolution is a fraud post to include a list of scientist that believe evolution to be a fraud. Check it out at the bottom (UPDATE:)
Evolution is a fraud!
Also from "Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution"
"Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally."
You should check it out
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI checked out a few of the scientist in that list. For instance, I thought that such guy of MIT would be a very interesting case ... I google the guy, and he appears only in discovery institute, and other creationist things. I did the same with other names, and same result. I cannot claim that my sample is good enough, but I could not find them to be scientists, or at least find that they were doing some serious research (the "irreducible complexity" guy does appear as doing research though. But the argument has been clearly debunked).
So, I am left to think how these scientists can be called scientists and not appear as such when googling. Of course, I did not check them all,
Anyway, I find it OK to be a scientist and "believe" that evolution did not happen. But, if as a scientist, you claim that there is no evidence, you better present some tangible proof debunking it. Note also that your sample of "scientists" is rather small. Granted, you could claim that they are not willing to come out of the closet. But in anonymous interviews those who think evolution is true overwhelm the numbers who deny it. This is not an argument from authority, but an argument that shows that, if you know the evidence, it is pretty hard to deny that evolution is a fact.
That is all for now,
G.E.
Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally.
ReplyDeleteDan, let us keep the meanings clear. The statement means that religion can come as an obstacle to properly see and weight the evidence. This does not mean that evolutionists can't separate evolution from religion. It means that those who deny it can't separate science from religion. If we see a problem we have to state it. If your religious beliefs obfuscate your mind for the clear and unbiased weighting of the evidence, we have to say it. So, who is at fault there? If, because of your religion you think evolution is not true, then you have to still weight the evidence and let it speak for itself, instead of just deny it.
We also claim that pre-conceptions about how evolution works can obfuscate a scientist mind, and oppose the easy falling into evolutionary "teleology." And nobody is claiming that evolutionists can't separate teleology from evolution.
We call the problems by name. If the problem s that some scientist cannot separate his beliefs from his scientific work, then the no-separation is not in the evolutionist, but in the person who denies the evidence with no roper weighting due to such beliefs.
I hope this was clear.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to scienceagainstevolution. I visited, and it is full of this kinds of double meanings (as above with the "evolutionists can't separate evolution from religion").
Please take them critically before you get in trouble. For instance, I followed carefully through the thermodynamics one, and it claims the snowflake argument to be stupid by changing the meaning of the argument. It is too obvious. Check it out.
As I said, it is fine with me if you want to believe in God, but I find it troubling when people get arguments from elsewhere, and the arguments are actually misleading and charged with either lies or fallacies.
G.E.