Quote by EntropicForceIt
has nothing to do with a sense of humour, Plunkies. Since you've decided to act like a spoiled little boy, I'm
done wasting my time on you. Tell your parents to get you a proper babysitter or start paying me for babysitting
you.
Wow you sure do like trying to insult people. And insulting them for being insulting is even better. At least mine are
funny and not to be taken seriously though. No, but being called a spoiled brat by some old lady over the internet is
like acid to me. I'm in tears right now. I hope you're satisfied!
Quote: As you said, life is harsh, so you'd better start learning to
cope with it rather than expecting everyone else to coddle you for your pretenses. In fact, I'll leave you with a
quote that, if you are not intellectually lazy yourself, you'll think on:
"How much boundlessly stupid naivety is there in the scholar's belief in his superiority, in the good
conscience of his tolerance, in the simple, unsuspecting certainty with which his instincts treat the religious man as
inferior and a lower type which he has himself evolved above and beyond." - Friedrich
Nietzsche
Great. You should quote atheists more often, it makes you seem more credible. Of course I was never religious so it
really has nothing to do with me.
Quote: What this means is that new discoveries change our understanding of the universe, but they don't change science itself. We're still using the same technique - experimentation - as Newton did
when he discovered his Laws of Motion. In other words, scientific knowledge
changes, but the discipline of science hasn't changed.
Yeah? And? If you have an alternative to experimentation I'm sure every scientist on the planet would love to hear
it. (Note: Faith is not an answer).
Quote: Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood,
not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. Moreover, in
the world we live in, oftentimes it's ruled by internal dogma and money, which means that experimentation depends
entirely on what funding individual researchers are able to obtain.
As opposed to religion? Which isn't fallible (hah!) and SHOULD be worshiped (evidently)? Which isn't limited
at all (I guess when you're just making up stories you don't have to limit yourself)? Which is never ruled by
internal dogma or money(Religion? NEVER!)?
Yeah I'm aware that humans are flawed. Are you aware that flawed humans created religion too?
Quote: But I asked the question first: how do you know? I'm asking because I am genuinely curious. Every time I've asked it people tend to
try and dodge the question rather than speaking honestly.
People probably dodge it because it's a meaningless, irrelevent, hypothetical, unrealistic question.
Quote: However, without getting too technical (If you want, I can get into
the technical problems such as the quasar with enormous redshift that was found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy (NGC
7319) with far lower redshift - only 8" from its centre - or that no dark matter has been found in the Milky Way
galaxy) we have a few problems:
Yeah I suppose you COULD get too technical. But instead you'll just copy and paste the 7 following problems from a
christian propaganda website. Ok. I'll play along too.
Quote: 1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original
concentration of energy. But where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum
mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Moreover, the theory still
rests on the assumption that matter is pre-existing. But where did that matter
come from?
Obviously you do not know the meaning of a "Quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum", which shows a
clear lack of research on your part. A vacuum fluctuation has zero mean (average) energy. Therefore no original
concentration of energy is needed for a vacuum fluctuation to exist. Vacuum fluctuations do exist, and their effect has
been experimentally measured in a process known as the "Casmir Effect". This is a process by which differences
in energies due to vacuum fluctuations cause two metal plates that are held very close together to be pushed
together.
Quote: 2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration
proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding
outward.
The forces that existed at this time are greatly different from the forces that we experience today. This is because of
the different energy density of the universe. The extremely high energies, and the different forces that go with them
acted as an anti-gravity and caused the universe to balloon outwards.
Quote:
3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An
explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form
intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
Its interesting that in the previous point you assert that gravity overcomes all, and prevents the creation of the
universe, yet here you say that gravity is too weak to pull gas together into stars and galaxies. Anyhow, it has been
observed in images of the Cosmic Background Radiation from the big bang that inhomogenities were present in the energy
distribution. This means that there was an uneven spread of mass and thus (after the matter had cooled and slowed from
the initial expansion) the more dense parts of the universe would have attracted each other and eventually formed stars
and galaxies.
Quote: 4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require
an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are
found in space.
I find it quite amusing here that you have used the logic that "Some models are wrong therefore all models must be
wrong".
Both these sentences are correct (almost), but what you are implying is not. The models that predict (not require) equal
amounts of matter and antimatter have not taken into account the recent evidence of CP violation in the decay of matter
and antimatter. Put simply, this means that matter and antimatter decay at different rates (it has been observed as an
experimental fact in the K-meson system, and I am currently involved in the observation of this effect in the B-meson
system), and this means that in a system that produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, more matter will be left
over in the end. To produce all the matter in the known universe only a very small difference (1 in a million or less)
is required, and measurement of this difference is currently underway.
Quote:
5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true,
then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for
the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.
I would very much like to see these experiments. Did you not mention them because you know they are false? I cannot say
anything more until you reveal what these experiments were.
Quote:
6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward.
Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. But for oscillation to occur, the
universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred
times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is
"missing."
This "missing" mass has no effect whatsoever on the big bang model. The suggestion that this idea was made up
to avoid an origin and destiny to the universe (and hence a god) is absurd. Also you have stated that scientists
"assume" this to be true. This is also false. We do not know if the universe is closed -
("oscillating") , open (will continue to expand forever) or flat (will expand forever, but that expansion will
slow down to almost nothing). Recent evidence is pointing to somewhere between open and flat, but like all good science,
this is open to debate.
Quote: 7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed
everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where are the other life forms that
should by all rights be present on other planets?
It is widely recognised that life requires special conditions in order to survive and evolve. It is also recognised that
for a civilisation to evolve these conditions must be extra special ( eg easy to access copper and tin deposits for a
bronze age to develop, stable climate for cities to grow, Oxygen to allow invention of fire, etc. ). Therefore it is not
unreasonable to assume, based on the evidence of the other planets in our solar system, and the planets that we have
detected so far orbiting other stars, that life supporting planets are not common. For us to be receiving radio signals
from other civilisations they must have developed radio before us since radio travels at the speed of light, and have
sent signals strong enough for us to hear. A signal that is sent in all directions looses strength proportional to the
square of the distance travelled. This means that for a far away civilisation it would be quite difficult for us to
detect their signals, above the background noise of the universe. Another complication is that we have to be listening
at the same frequency that the aliens sent the signal at. Since this frequency could be almost anything, we can only
guess at what frequency they might use. Putting these all together, it is no wonder we haven't heard anything. And
the possibility always remains that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. If this is true, it does not
affect the big bang model, since evolution of life and creation of the universe are separate issues.
Quote: In fact, holes such as these, along with conflicting data, lead a
number of scientists to publish "Open Letter to the Scientific Community" online (www.cosmologystatement.org)
and in New Scientist. Admittedly, for me this is less of a spiritual question
and more of a scientific/intellectual honesty one.
Uh huh. Well good for you for being "intellectually honest". You're doing a super job there.
Quote: Thing is, once we have all the information gathered, there comes a
point when people who place their faith in the Big Bang theory just start pulling things out of their bums rather than
accepting that there are things we can't answer.
No one in science doubts there are things we have yet to answer. But religion is the very definition of "pulling
things out of their bums".
------
Quote by LunarTwilightThe
fossils dating to the Cambrian Explosion are representatives of the "modern animals" that are here
today.
Eh? There were no mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and none of the fish were similar to anything modern. What do you
mean by a "representative"?
Quote: In the light of the matter, there are quite a number of scientists
who believe that evolution at the phyla level is just not possible. And by the way, it is the cause of the Cambrian
Explosion that is undergoing debate, not the fossils themselves.
Huh? So what? I know a a scientist with a degree in truthology from Christian Tech that says evolution is a bunch of
hooey! Doesn't make the claim any more reasonable. And I never disputed the fossil records, just your
interpretation of how they got there.
Quote: -Biological Information
Every single of the one hundred trilliion cells in our body contains six feet of DNA that is coiled inside the cell. The
DNA contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out extensive and precise assembly instructions for every
single one of the proteins from which our bodies are made. Not even one hypothesis has suceeeded or come close to
explaining how information got into biological matter (e.g. by natural means, random chance, or sucessive, slight
modifications.) It is very unlikely.
Oh no. Not more god of the gaps. Just because you can't concieve of how something got there doesn't
necessarily mean it was god or magic or something.
DNA likely evolved from a simpler replicator, RNA, which likely had a simpler one, nucleic acids or somesuch. I
don't claim to be an expert on this type of thing but I know bs when I see it.
Quote: -Physics
Gravity in the universe is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. There
are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require extremely accurate calibration in order to ensure
that a universe can sustain life. (Let alone intelligent life?)
But that's only life that WE know. Perhaps life fine-tunes itself to the cosmos and not vice versa (which makes
sense with evolution yes?). It's also possible that some of those parameters rely on each other, . If the values
are interconnected then the chances are reduced and there are fewer parameter than what appears. I mean physics may
restrict them from taking any different values (so there may not really be thirty parameters).
Quote: "The truth of claims of atheism simply cannot be proved - How
do we know there is no God? The simple fact of the matter is that atheism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go
beyond the available evidence." - Alister McGrath
The truth claims of a-leprechaunism simply cannot be proved - How do we know there are no leprechauns? The simple fact
of the matter is that a-leprechaunism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.
Wow it's like magic. Take any silly idea you have and insert it into that quote and it suddenly looks
reasonable!
Quote: The bottom line is - people should stop criticizing or being
disrespectful to the scientists who have chosen to believe in the existence of a god (after all, everyone is entitled to
their own beliefs) - and that we should not disrespect those that do not believe in one, either. (But its unlikely the
arguments between the two will stop.)
No one really has a problem with what a scientist believes. If he chooses to believe in god or thor or whatever then
that's fine, as long as his dogma doesn't affect his science.
