YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

SAVAGE
Superfan
SAVAGE's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2006-06-24
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Quote:
You say you start with scientific fact, what fact? The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. If you want to persist in believing a theory is a fact, that's not very logical. If you want to establish your beliefs as fact, then present some evidence. All you do is poke your finger at theists, but you present no evidence for your own theories. Proof, you say, you demand proof. Proof of what? That God doesn't exist? Why don't you try to prove your atheistic viewpoint based on fact? How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded? How did that happen, and who was there to record it? And on what basis do you trust the "authorities" that you rely on? How can you say that organisms evolved into higher and higher forms when the laws of entropy say otherwise? You are believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it. Where is the proof of your own world view?

I gotta rip a new on on this person....a little help here:

What fallacies is she using, and I mean what the Fuck?

Dude I gotta apologise if I ever sounded this dumb!

A MESSAGE TO ALL THEISTS:

 

CRY ME A RIVER

 

BUILD ME A BRIDGE

 

BUT IN THE NAME OF NOTHING GET OVER IT.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

You say you start with scientific fact, what fact? The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. If you want to persist in believing a theory is a fact, that's not very logical. If you want to establish your beliefs as fact, then present some evidence.

^Creationist misunderstanding of the basics of science, I tell you lads, you should group togeather and do a podcast about this. Anyway as far as I recall Scientifically, Theories are based on facts, and that they are thoroughly tested by the scientific community before its called a fact, Really, Darwin had the hypothesis of natural selection, its since been tried and tested and examined to the extent that its a theory. Please correct me if I got something wrong there, that way I will learn. Smiling

All you do is poke your finger at theists, but you present no evidence for your own theories. Proof, you say, you demand proof. Proof of what? That God doesn't exist?

^.... You cannot prove a negative, however, I myself would love to see evidence for something that is somehow 'god'.

Why don't you try to prove your atheistic viewpoint based on fact? How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded? How did that happen, and who was there to record it?

^If we don?t know now, there is probably people out there on working on discovering the answer, and you don?t have to be there to know it happened, from what I know, it can be backed up by observations of the current state of the universe, I hear there was some larf about background radiation that kind of puts one more thumb up for big bang. Best wait till someone with better knowledge can confirm or deny that.

And on what basis do you trust the "authorities" that you rely on?

^Because the scientific community is one more focused on acquiring the best answer to questions, its gone over time and again to make sure with the aim to disprove. As opposed to theology, which is focused on preserving the current answer at all costs, ignoring lack of evidence or evidence against is faith afterall, that game isn?t played in science, and if it was, it would not take hundreds of years for the community to bring it up.

How can you say that organisms evolved into higher and higher forms when the laws of entropy say otherwise?

^Ok, I think I've heard the answer, but I don?t even begin to understand the answer, so to spout it out would not be a good thing to do, yellow or larry probably knows and understands it, so I will leave it up to them.

You are believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it. Where is the proof of your own world view?

^Of course, this is an assumption that this person is a theist, but to accuse science, something based completely in nature, driven by facts and evidence, of this, when the person in question probably bases their lives around something with completely no evidence at all, its laughable.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Re: YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Quote:
You say you start with scientific fact, what fact? The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

True... they are theories... nobody said otherwise...
Quote:
If you want to persist in believing a theory is a fact, that's not very logical.

It's far more logical that to believe in a supernatural being or to believe in virgin-born children, or to believer that women were created out of the rib of a man.
Quote:
If you want to establish your beliefs as fact, then present some evidence.

Well gee ! What can I say ! Look who's talking ! Have theists presented ANY FACT AT ALL ? ANY PROOF AT ALL on the existance of God or any other pink unicorns that you've got over there in those books of yours?
Quote:
All you do is poke your finger at theists, but you present no evidence for your own theories.

But at least we try to find the evidence, and if it sais our theories are incorrect, we drop them. Which is not really what I can say about theists.
Quote:
Proof, you say, you demand proof. Proof of what? That God doesn't exist?

No, we want proof that God DOES exist... and no theist alive or dead has EVER provided a single glimpse of evidence that is not logically contradictory.
Quote:
Why don't you try to prove your atheistic viewpoint based on fact?

Well, we do try that, actually...
Quote:
How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded?

We don't know what was there before. We're not supposed to know all the answers... if we knew them, what need would there be of a God ?
Quote:
How did that happen, and who was there to record it?

And when God allegedly created the world, who was there to record it ?
Quote:
And on what basis do you trust the "authorities" that you rely on?

On the basis of presenting a theory that has nothing unbelivable in it, or supernatural, and that doesn't completely contradict itself, or common sense, or rational logic... (like the theist theories do)
Quote:
How can you say that organisms evolved into higher and higher forms when the laws of entropy say otherwise?

The law of entropy does say that whenever there is a transformation of energy of any kind, certain original energy is lost, as it becomes available as "potential energy" in order for the actual act of transformation to be done. Now I might be an idiot... but how does this link with evolution over millions of years exactly ... ? To me it is an indication that this particular theist doesn't much know what she's talking about, and thought like this: "Hey, the preacher told us that the law of entropy is opposite to evolution and stuff... therefore it must be so !"... even though she never read the law to realize it has no connection whatsoever.
Quote:
You are believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

Nio, actually, we're trying to find our evidence... and so far we have succeeded. It is theists that believe in spite of evidence... as any intelligent being can prove that:
- free will and omniscience are not possible simultaneously
- omniscience and omnipotence are not possible simultaneously
- the Bible is so out-of-date, that there isn't ANYONE in this world that can still conform to the standards... it's not possible...
etc. etc. etc.
Quote:
Where is the proof of your own world view?

Learn: chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics, etc. There is our proof.

SAVAGE, the person you quoted seems to me as if she's an Amish or something... The fallacy she's using is that law of entropy thing... which doesn't have any connection to evolution... also she states that there's no evidence for our world view (heck, than what is all the science? just a fairy-tale?)...

Hope this helps Smiling

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Holy fuck, this is brutal.

Quote:
You say you start with scientific fact, what fact? The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

No, evolution is a theory and a fact.

Listen to this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=592&start=0

Quote:
If you want to persist in believing a theory is a fact, that's not very logical. If you want to establish your beliefs as fact, then present some evidence.

The only evidence required to establish evolution as fact is the simple fact that life and the allele frequencies of groups of organisms change over time. This is the FACT of evolution, and it was known (though not genetically) even before Darwin's time.

The THEORY of evolution explains the FACTS.

As far as evidence for the theory of evolution goes, how about stuff like this:

What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?

We should expect related species to look similar.

What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:

What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?

Quote:
All you do is poke your finger at theists, but you present no evidence for your own theories.

Look up.

Quote:
Proof, you say, you demand proof. Proof of what? That God doesn't exist? Why don't you try to prove your atheistic viewpoint based on fact?

You're ignorant on what atheism is. I simply don't believe in gods, because I see no evidence for them. I think I can refute some human notions of god, but you'll have to tell me where to start, as there are literally thousands of gods that people believe in. Start by clearly defining you god, and we can go from there.

Quote:
How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded?

There was never literally nothing. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn?t create the universe from nothing, that He didn?t simply say ?Let there be Light? and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn?t be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you?ve actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You?ve simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because ?nothing? is an incoherent concept. ?Nothing? is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because ?nothing? quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing ? but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

?The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.? - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Quote:
How did that happen, and who was there to record it?

We don't know exactly how it happened, and nobody was there to record it - that does not me we do not have evidece for it (BTW, were YOU there to see Jesus?):

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there?s a little thing called Olber?s Paradox, which is why the night sky isn?t filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn?t reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there?s the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe ? gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions ? more support for the Big Bang.

And there?s time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

Quote:
And on what basis do you trust the "authorities" that you rely on?

On the basis of scientific peer review. This is an indisputed way to check the facts and observations of scientific findings. One person says they found X, so another researcher attempts to repeat their experiments. When the find the same same things, that's pretty solid evidence for the experiment.

In terms of fossils or geological observations, we do the same thing. Independent researchers look for the same things. If they find them in predicted geological strata or at predicted distances from earth at predicted intensities, it is evidence for the finding.

BTW, why do YOU trust the "authorities" in your Bible?

Quote:
How can you say that organisms evolved into higher and higher forms when the laws of entropy say otherwise? You are believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it. Where is the proof of your own world view?

The law of entropy says no such thing, you are simply displaying your own ignorance here.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics either, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is a spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below <= and >= will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity?s sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.

As far as earth goes, it is not a closed system. We have constant input energy from the sun.

If your objection from the second law via entropy were valid for evolution or the Big Bang, it would ALSO have to be valid for a mothers womb. The same principles apply, as a mother's womb is also an open system.

Please understand a scientific concept before trying to use it in an argumentative fashion. Educate yourself.

Quote:
I gotta rip a new on on this person....a little help here:

What fallacies is she using, and I mean what the Fuck?

Dude I gotta apologise if I ever sounded this dumb!

Well, I hope I helped, and you never sounded that dumb, btw.

You were ignorant when it came to quite a few scientific matters, but at least you knew enough not to repeat bullshit psuedo-science arguments to people who knew what they were talking about. IOW, you were never arrogant, and never deceptive.

For me that says a lot about you and why you are where you are now, Savage. You weren't willing to lie to us or to yourself in order to maintain your faith. You were willing to be honest with yourself.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Unholy mackrel !

That's a sure long explanation. I'll mark it down for future reference, should someone else ever try to dip me into advanced physics, thinking I'll lamentably fail to see the lamentable failure of their argument.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

All of the sections are actually already available in other sections of this forum, and have been for quite some time.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Re: YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

As you know, Mike, you are my hero, but I do have a question for you - a very small one...

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Quote:
How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded?

There was never literally nothing. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.[/qoute]

Don't the laws of thermodynamics only apply to spacetime in its current form(post big bang)? For example, classical physics, our notion of time, etc. apply to a post big bang universe only. Is this not true of the laws of thermodynamics?

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

It is possible there has been more than one big bang

If we end up in a big crunch then a future big bang is a possibility


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

StopEvangelists wrote:
As you know, Mike, you are my hero, but I do have a question for you - a very small one...

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Quote:
How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded?

There was never literally nothing. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.[/qoute]

Don't the laws of thermodynamics only apply to spacetime in its current form(post big bang)? For example, classical physics, our notion of time, etc. apply to a post big bang universe only. Is this not true of the laws of thermodynamics?

The first law of thermodynamics has no such limitation that I am aware of. We cannot say with any certainty what happened before the Big Bang - that is what physicists and cosmologists mean by the "laws of physics breaking down".

However, we CAN reasonably extrapolate from what is known. There has NEVER been a contradiction to the law of conservation of matter-energy, and I don't see how passing through a singularity ought to alter how matter-energy behaves. Like I said, it IS an extrapolation, but it is a very reasonable one, I think - I know of no cosmologist who would disagree.

It is certainly a more resonable and scientific explanation than "goddidit".

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

AddisAbaba wrote:
It is possible there has been more than one big bang

If we end up in a big crunch then a future big bang is a possibility

Absolutely, I mentioned that above, I think.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Saganite
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Re: YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

SAVAGE wrote:
Quote:
You say you start with scientific fact, what fact? The Big Bang Theory is just that...a theory, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. If you want to persist in believing a theory is a fact, that's not very logical. If you want to establish your beliefs as fact, then present some evidence. All you do is poke your finger at theists, but you present no evidence for your own theories. Proof, you say, you demand proof. Proof of what? That God doesn't exist? Why don't you try to prove your atheistic viewpoint based on fact? How is it that first there was nothing, and then it exploded? How did that happen, and who was there to record it? And on what basis do you trust the "authorities" that you rely on? How can you say that organisms evolved into higher and higher forms when the laws of entropy say otherwise? You are believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it. Where is the proof of your own world view?

I gotta rip a new on on this person....a little help here:

What fallacies is she using, and I mean what the Fuck?

Dude I gotta apologise if I ever sounded this dumb!

Savage, bro. Just do what I do whenever someone starts talking about how the Big Bang is just a theory and didnt neccissarily happen. Just break out the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation on them. It's pretty much solid slap-in-the-face PROOF of a big bang and cosmic expansion.

Granted, fundies have never fucking heard of the CMB, and they'll just look at you like a looney, but that's half the fun. If they HAVE heard of and understand what the CMB is, and they still deny a big bang, then they're just being purposfully contrary. There's really no other conclusion one can come to other than a Big Bang event. 13.7 billion years ago, there was a whopping big KABOOM as the universe grew from an infinitessimally small point, and started expanding.

The best part is, that the CMB is freely availible to anyone with a functional radio telescope. You dont even need a good one, or know where to look, look ANYWHERE and you'll pick it up! The light echo of the big bang. Right FUCKING THERE YOU TARDS!

I vote YES http//underdogryan.blogspot.com/2005/09/should-men-fling-poo.html


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Next time someone brings up this "evolution is just a theory" crap, ask them if they also apply this reasoning to antibiotics. They could get the original antibiotics then, or the newer stuff that can handle the resistent forms the bacteria has evolved into...


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
YEllow its time to rip someone a new one

Quote:
The Big Bang is a theory ... Evolution is a theory

Since when are theories bad? Did I miss a meeting?

Theories are great. In fact there is no better invention of mankind than a good theory. Boy does a good theory get the job done!

In fact here's a good argument against creationism. It isn't a theory.


BarkAtTheMoon
Rational VIP!
BarkAtTheMoon's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
rickyroma wrote:Quote:The

rickyroma wrote:
Quote:
The Big Bang is a theory ... Evolution is a theory

Since when are theories bad? Did I miss a meeting?

Theories are great. In fact there is no better invention of mankind than a good theory. Boy does a good theory get the job done!

In fact here's a good argument against creationism. It isn't a theory.

Exactly. Could we find a creationist theist somewhere, anywhere that actually knows the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial definition of theory? Their definition of theory = scientific hypothesis, not scientific theory. Big difference. It's a shame when people are completely unfamiliar with the scientific method. That's elementary school science. Anyone over 10 years old who uses that argument has proven their lack of education and any chance of a positive influence on society and should immediately be added to the list of candidates for retro-active abortions to keep them from infecting the gene pool.

So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
the Hubble Telescope proves

the Hubble Telescope proves that the big bang happened

it can view to a maximum of about 13.5 billion lightyears away

why?
because after that point, light cannot reach us.

why can't light reach us from that point?
because, relative to us, the sources of light are travelling faster than the speed of light.

but isn't that impossible? einstein's relativity says that nothing can be faster than light.
exactly. that means the objects themselves aren't travelling faster than light. space itself is.

that's the key. space itself is expanding.
imagine a balloon inflating; the surface of the balloon is space, and anything can move on the surface of that balloon.

so you travel from point A to point B, and then go back again.
you discover it takes you longer to get back, and it seems further.
this is because the balloon is expanding, hence the surface of the balloon is getting larger.

that's exactly what's happening to the universe right now, except we have 3 space dimensions.

and there we have it. space itself, therefore the universe is expanding - an not only that, but accelerating too.
proof of the big bang.


brainman
brainman's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Don't know if everyone

Don't know if everyone already knows this or not, but an Abbot of a Catholic church, Lemetre, invented the Big Bang Theory. And...an atheist named Hoyle coined the term Big Bang Theory for Lemetre's idea as an insult to him, and he created the Steady State Theory. The catholic church needed/wanted a creation theory to explain "creation." Thus, later Steven Hawking would recieve honors from the Pope for his work on the Big Bang Theory (specifically for proving the possibility of singularities).


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
brainman wrote:Don't know if

brainman wrote:
Don't know if everyone already knows this or not, but an Abbot of a Catholic church, Lemetre, invented the Big Bang Theory. And...an atheist named Hoyle coined the term Big Bang Theory for Lemetre's idea as an insult to him, and he created the Steady State Theory. The catholic church needed/wanted a creation theory to explain "creation." Thus, later Steven Hawking would recieve honors from the Pope for his work on the Big Bang Theory (specifically for proving the possibility of singularities).

Good points and all covered in my original rebuttal to FDW.com.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.