Unanswered questions by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
And now another question... why do atheists always assume things and then let it go? It actually stops scientific research. Like since we are talking about the big bang, scientist assumed this is how it happend when really it could have happened a different way but they stop all research towards finding new ways and cling to this idea of the big bang
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
They don't stop. End of story. Sorry. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
BlasBalls, no one here lends you any credence. Shouting about ignorance when one lacks even a basic understanding of science or the scientific method, who makes sweeping claims about atheists based on info 150 years out of date...

Christians have a bad habit of thinking that they can just take atheists' arguments and flip them around and they'll still be just as valid or effective. Sorry kiddo, ignorance is ignorance, and you are guilty of it.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:15 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(03-03-2013 07:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 06:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you believe in a big bang, you believe in it as matter of faith. Yes there is a big bang theory, but that theory only states that in the past the universe was in a hotter more dense state. It does not actually model a bang. The reason it does not model a bang is because prior to 10^-36 seconds its too hot for our current laws of physics and we do not have working physics for that temperature and above.

Now you may claim that we can extrapolate back to a big bang and therefore infer its existence. However in order to extrapolate anything one must know the rules of what it is you are extrapolating. For instance one rule of a line that it is a straight curve that passes through any two points. Armed with that knowledge you can extrapolate a line as far back or as far forward as you want provided you know one portion of the line(and the rule for a line). But what happens if the rule for a line you are using ceases to operate...can you continue to extrapolate? No... you cannot. The ability to extrapolation is dependent on knowledge of the rules in effect. The same is true for the big bang. Because our laws of physics breaks down before the bang, we can't model it, we can't say with any credibility that it actually happened. We can't even infer it happened by extrapolation. We believe it happened as a matter of faith.

Modern physics still has to jump start the universe to have a working model, just like the thiest of old.


Your error here is that a scientist doesn't "believe in" the Big Bang, it is just a model, just a possibility - it is not an article of faith.
It is replaceable by something with better explanatory power.


^What Chas said.


I don't have 'faith' that Krauss' explanation is the 'one true explanation', and will be a sufficient answer forever and ever. I'm not going to start worshiping Krauss as a prophet, nor will I build a church or a religion around him and his theories; I will not do harm to others in the name of his theories, not threaten others with eternal torture for not believing in them.


All his ideas are mathematically sound and reasonable, given our current state of knowledge. This knowledge is ever changing, and as we get new and better information, we can draw newer and more accurate conclusions. Then Krass' explanation will no longer be the most sound or accurate, and we'll move onto a more accurate theory with greater explanatory power. I am not personally invested in the belief that they are correct, I do not have 'faith' that they are correct. Its just the most reasonable explanation I've found so far.


But for the here and now, his explanation is good enough for me. Combine that with Occam's Razor and it's far more more plausible than any god having a hand in it, let alone your specific God.


So remind me how our ignorance is proof for your God again? Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 02:09 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(03-03-2013 02:32 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 06:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you believe in a big bang, you believe in it as matter of faith. Yes there is a big bang theory, but that theory only states that in the past the universe was in a hotter more dense state. It does not actually model a bang. The reason it does not model a bang is because prior to 10^-36 seconds its too hot for our current laws of physics and we do not have working physics for that temperature and above.

Now you may claim that we can extrapolate back to a big bang and therefore infer its existence. However in order to extrapolate anything one must know the rules of what it is you are extrapolating. For instance one rule of a line that it is a straight curve that passes through any two points. Armed with that knowledge you can extrapolate a line as far back or as far forward as you want provided you know one portion of the line(and the rule for a line). But what happens if the rule for a line you are using ceases to operate...can you continue to extrapolate? No... you cannot. The ability to extrapolation is dependent on knowledge of the rules in effect. The same is true for the big bang. Because our laws of physics breaks down before the bang, we can't model it, we can't say with any credibility that it actually happened. We can't even infer it happened by extrapolation. We believe it happened as a matter of faith.

Modern physics still has to jump start the universe to have a working model, just like the thiest of old.
Krauss' universe from nothing is based on physics which we have no confidence that they actually work at the time of the inception of the universe....and thats an optimistic view.


Your ignorance of cosmology rivals your ignorance of biology.

The Big Bang can be empirically confirmed by observation all the way back to approx. 100 seconds after it happened. Our physics is sufficient to handle the conditions and theoretically model up to approx. 1 second after the big bang. Speculative studies have gone as far as a microsecond after the big bang; but these are speculative and are known to be so.

The Big Bang is not some theoretical boondoggle. It was deduced and confirmed by observation. The joke in my signature came from a joke based on one of the most successful experiments of all time, which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the universe expanded from a point source: the Cosmic Background Explorer probe, whose measurements of the cosmic microwave background matched our predictions of the black body curve of an expanding universe so closely that you can't see the error bars on a graph that will fit on a chalkboard.

[Image: 600px-Cmbr.svg.png]

To make this simple, the curve is what is theoretically predicted by Big Bang cosmology. The Xs are the experimental results. The error bars are too small to see. The theory came first and the experiment confirmed it. Although explanations of what caused the Big Bang are varied and hypothetical in nature, the fact that the Big Bang happened is accepted by all cosmologists, and not on faith; on the basis of evidence and logic.

Quod Erat Demonstrandem, bitches.





It doesn't take faith to consider that credible. Just to deny it.

You are so wrong. The big bang is not the big bang theory. You error by conflating the two. You see Big Bang theory doesn't describe the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory describes the aftermath of the big bang which is assumed to have happened. It is only an assumption because there is no theory of what banged, how it banged, etc. If you think understand physics at the planck density....write a paper, you would certainly win the Nobel or a Fields.

Faith is believing in something with no evidence. We don't even know what the big bang is let alone have any evidence for it. The only thing we have evidence for is that the universe expanded from a hotter more dense state. If you believe anything more that, such as that universe exploded from a primordial atom or singularity, or popped into existence from nothing, you are believing in something in which there is no evidence, therefore what ever it is you believe is an article of faith.

As far as my understanding of biology, it was you who couldn't tell the difference between biological and non biological evolution. It was you who denied memetic evolution. You haven't shown much credibility in biology so you're not in a position to criticize me in that respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(03-03-2013 10:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 07:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't have 'faith' that Krauss' explanation is the 'one true explanation'.....

.....But for the here and now, his explanation is good enough for me. Combine that with Occam's Razor and it's far more more plausible than any god having a hand in it, let alone your specific God.
Translation, "I am putting my faith in Krauss' explanation for now."
There is nothing wrong with that. I know "faith" is an imflamatory word for you atheists, but be honest....its part of the human condition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 02:32 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Your ignorance of cosmology rivals your ignorance of biology.

The Big Bang can be empirically confirmed by observation all the way back to approx. 100 seconds after it happened. Our physics is sufficient to handle the conditions and theoretically model up to approx. 1 second after the big bang. Speculative studies have gone as far as a microsecond after the big bang; but these are speculative and are known to be so.

The Big Bang is not some theoretical boondoggle. It was deduced and confirmed by observation. The joke in my signature came from a joke based on one of the most successful experiments of all time, which confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that the universe expanded from a point source: the Cosmic Background Explorer probe, whose measurements of the cosmic microwave background matched our predictions of the black body curve of an expanding universe so closely that you can't see the error bars on a graph that will fit on a chalkboard.

[Image: 600px-Cmbr.svg.png]

To make this simple, the curve is what is theoretically predicted by Big Bang cosmology. The Xs are the experimental results. The error bars are too small to see. The theory came first and the experiment confirmed it. Although explanations of what caused the Big Bang are varied and hypothetical in nature, the fact that the Big Bang happened is accepted by all cosmologists, and not on faith; on the basis of evidence and logic.

Quod Erat Demonstrandem, bitches.





It doesn't take faith to consider that credible. Just to deny it.

You are so wrong. The big bang is not the big bang theory. You error by conflating the two. You see Big Bang theory doesn't describe the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory describes the aftermath of the big bang which is assumed to have happened. It is only an assumption because there is no theory of what banged, how it banged, etc. If you think understand physics at the planck density....write a paper, you would certainly win the Nobel or a Fields.

Faith is believing in something with no evidence. We don't even know what the big bang is let alone have any evidence for it. The only thing we have evidence for is that the universe expanded from a hotter more dense state. If you believe anything more that, such as that universe exploded from a primordial atom or singularity, or popped into existence from nothing, you are believing in something in which there is no evidence, therefore what ever it is you believe is an article of faith.

As far as my understanding of biology, it was you who couldn't tell the difference between biological and non biological evolution. It was you who denied memetic evolution. You haven't shown much credibility in biology so you're not in a position to criticize me in that respect.

You're just mad because I called you out on your bullshit. I full well understand memetic evolution and all other kinds. You problem was trying to write a definition for all kinds of evolution without even understanding what evolution is. And after Bucky, Chas, and Clydelee explained it to you... Three or four times... Instead of acknowledging their corrections you went off on yet another tangent, as you are so wont to do.

Don't mistake my letting others refute your arguments for being unable to refute them myself. I have dealt with far more capable theists than you. You are middling competent at best, but annoyingly dishonest in your tactics, even openly so when you admitted yourself to using the red herring tactic to get out of tight spots. I try not to waste my time on those who know they have to lie and cheat to advance their position... But alas, SIWOTI.


The Big Bang can refer either to the event that started the universe, or to the cosmology that resulted from that event. The cosmology is sound and the evidence is abundant. In addition, we can prove that there was an event. What that event was, if the question even has meaning, is yet to be known, though we have some very good potential answers, some of them quite recent.

Wasting time on semantics is another red herring. I'd almost think you were lowland Scottish, all this herring. Or maybe it's a Swedish buffet. Never can tell with a dishonest cad like you.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:45 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Translation, "I am putting my faith in Krauss' explanation for now."
There is nothing wrong with that. I know "faith" is an imflamatory word for you atheists, but be honest....its part of the human condition.

Is faith so loose that accepting any answer must be faith? Every person believes in some things that they cannot prove for sure, so is that faith? Then everyone has faith. What worth has it then? How is this the "greatest virtue" when every sod from village idiot to pedophile priest has faith? If faith means giving some idea or someone any credence, then the word is redundant: it's called trust or acceptance.

Instead you are intentionally conflating two ideas: tentative acceptance or trust, with the possibility of changing ones' mind; and unwavering, unbreakable faith that something is true. Atheists object to the latter, not to the former.



Reasonable people change their beliefs depending on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.



But I'm sure you'll find some diversion or lie that you can use to change the subject now your bullshit has been called. Well, let's hear it then. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 03:00 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:38 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Never can tell with a dishonest cad like you.
I forgive you for calling me a dishonest cad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 03:06 AM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(04-03-2013 02:45 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Is faith so loose that accepting any answer must be faith? Every person believes in some things that they cannot prove for sure, so is that faith? Then everyone has faith. What worth has it then? How is this the "greatest virtue" when every sod from village idiot to pedophile priest has faith? If faith means giving some idea or someone any credence, then the word is redundant: it's called trust or acceptance.

Instead you are intentionally conflating two ideas: tentative acceptance or trust, with the possibility of changing ones' mind; and unwavering, unbreakable faith that something is true. Atheists object to the latter, not to the former.

Phaedrus, you've finally said something of substance.

I'll concede that EvolutionKills faith in Krauss' explaination is not the same as say Egor's faith in God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: