Poll

Do you believe the big bang theory to be correct

Yes
39 (57.4%)
No
3 (4.4%)
Yes (but only because there isn't a better theory yet)
21 (30.9%)
No (but only because it lacks scientific merit)
5 (7.4%)

Total Members Voted: 53

Voting closed: April 26, 2006, 08:25:55 PM

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Big Bang Theory

  • 220 Replies
  • 58101 Views
?

troubadour

  • 551
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #60 on: May 13, 2006, 02:20:16 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Quote from: "troubadour"

Hydrogen atoms are single protons. Single protons are Hydrogen.
 


No, hydrogen atom is single proton, single neutron, and single electron, not just protons.

Quote from: "troubadour"

They emerged from photons smacking into each other at high velocities. We can reproduce this in labs.

Ok, where did protons come from? And how neutrons and electrons appeared?


No, a Proton and and Neutron is HEAVY HYDROGEN, or Deuterium. A Proton is Hydrogen.

When 2 photons collide with enough energy, they can form a proton and anti-proton, or electron and positron, or an assortment of other forms of matter(Neutrinos, WIMPS, etc).

High school physics man.

Quote from: "googleSearch"

That's simple - all that is alive you see around you was created from nothing by the word of God. But you won't accept this, you'd want proof. I don't have such proof for you, because my statement is unprovable. So you see the falsification to evolution is unprovable, which makes evolution unfalsifiable.


This applies:

Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #61 on: May 13, 2006, 11:33:38 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"


By God, maybe.



So, you allow God into your theory. If you belive God could do that why can't you believe that he did all the things that Bible describes?
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #62 on: May 13, 2006, 11:46:07 AM »
Cute comic.

Here is scientific fact-conclusion for you:
Facts:
1. Take a frog and blow the horn - it jump away
2. Cut 2 legs off the frog and blow the horn - it still jumps away, but not too far.
3. Cut 2 other legs and blow the horn - it sits and doesn't jump.
Conclusion:
Frogs can't hear without legs.


There are more than one conclusion to the facts: one right and many-many wrong ones. You people seem to chose wrong ones most of the time.
Logged
?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #63 on: May 13, 2006, 06:31:19 PM »
...You do realize that your mock-experiment doesn't really test anything other than your willingness to cut the legs off a hapless creature right?  The fact that the frog moves or doesn't move wouldn't indicate whether it is hearing your horn or not, simply whether it moves or not.  The only conclusion you could draw from this is: When a frog has no legs, it doesn't jump away from loud noises (of course, you'd have to test with a variety of noises, just to be sure, but the premise is the same).  If you know what your experiment is testing, then it's pretty hard to draw a false conclusion.
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2006, 07:53:26 AM »
Quote from: "6strings"
...You do realize that your mock-experiment doesn't really test anything other than your willingness to cut the legs off a hapless creature right?  The fact that the frog moves or doesn't move wouldn't indicate whether it is hearing your horn or not, simply whether it moves or not.  The only conclusion you could draw from this is: When a frog has no legs, it doesn't jump away from loud noises (of course, you'd have to test with a variety of noises, just to be sure, but the premise is the same).  If you know what your experiment is testing, then it's pretty hard to draw a false conclusion.


So you do have to kinda know the conclusion you're trying to achive, right?
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2006, 08:29:54 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
So, you allow God into your theory. If you belive God could do that why can't you believe that he did all the things that Bible describes?


Sure, I'll allow him where he fits, but only for conversational purposes.  If we find that there's no theory explaining, for example, why a set of something like twenty numbers have the values they do, I can't really complain if somebody says, "God picked them."

On the other hand, when we have more useful explanations for phenomena, I think I'll prefer them.  Here, "more useful" means "more likely to allow us to make predictions that we can test."

Anyway, did you read the much longer, more detailed, less tongue-in-cheek paragraph of my post, or just the part that you thought (erroneously) you could offer a clever, biting response to?

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #66 on: May 15, 2006, 08:45:38 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Here is scientific fact-conclusion for you:
Facts:
1. Take a frog and blow the horn - it jump away
2. Cut 2 legs off the frog and blow the horn - it still jumps away, but not too far.
3. Cut 2 other legs and blow the horn - it sits and doesn't jump.
Conclusion:
Frogs can't hear without legs.

There are more than one conclusion to the facts: one right and many-many wrong ones.
You people seem to chose wrong ones most of the time.


I'm calling the police; this misrepresentation of the scientific method is nothing short of criminal.

You don't draw conclusions by arbitrarily ignoring different parts of the experiment; it's called a "hidden assumption", and is the bane of all so-called Creation Science.  But anyway, if you were to draw such a conclusion, it would generate (in the mind of a real scientist, that is) another prediction: any experiment that tests the hearing of a frog will fail if the frog has no legs.

Some experiments to test that prediction:
1)  Train a frog to stick out its tongue whenever it hears a buzzing sound; this shouldn't be too hard.  Cut off the frog's legs and play the puzzing sound.
2)  Put electrodes in the frog's brain to measure how it responds to sound.  Cutt off the legs, make some sound and see if there's any correlated brain activity.

Was it so hard for you to make this realization?  Or did you just think you could catch science with its pants down by using a totally brainless analogy (the other bane of Creation Science)?

Quote
So you do have to kinda know the conclusion you're trying to achive, right?


You have to know exactly what it is you're trying to measure, if that's what you mean.  

However I suspect it's not what you mean; I suspect you mean to imply that Creationism is no more guilty of the sin of circular reasoning than is real science.  Do you have the belief that all scientists conclude what they want to believe every time they do an experiment?  You will be disappointed to learn that most of "modern physics" arose out of experiments whose results were totally contradictory to what experimenters were hoping to find.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2006, 09:10:04 AM »
Erasmus, I think he was saying that FE's are drawing invalid conclusions from their experiments, just like he draws an invalid conslusion from his experiment.

For example the experiment to prove that the Earth is accelerating up is to drop an object and measure the rate the Earth accelerates up at it. However it's not valid because the object could just as easily be accelerating down, so you need to do that torsion experiment to see if gravity exists.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2006, 09:56:56 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Erasmus, I think he was saying that FE's are drawing invalid conclusions from their experiments, just like he draws an invalid conslusion from his experiment.


Well first off he's not talking about FE conclusions but about mainstream scientists' conclusions.  I think.

Anyway, I realize that he's saying that (only, about mainstream science).  But if he's not also saying that mainstream science actually suffers overall by the drawing of invalid conclusions, then he's not saying anything at all.

So, assuming he's trying to actually make a complaint about the way science works, he's wrong.  He's just setting up a straw man, and doing it out of ignorance of how science really works.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2006, 08:55:30 AM »
The point of the frog example was to show you that from same facts people can conclude different and even opposite things. For example, when I see a fossil I conclude that at some point in the past it died, whereas you conclude that they not only died, but also had an affspring, and not just offspring, but offspring that was somehow different (more evolved). And why do you do that? because it fits your conclusion (your evolution thoery).

Funny you should mention circular reasoning, because as far as I know different layers of strata in your evolution are dated by the fossils found in them (index fossils), and in turn, fossils are dated by the layer of strata they were found in.

If you think this is science - then there is no hope for you.
Logged
?

troubadour

  • 551
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #70 on: May 16, 2006, 09:18:53 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
The point of the frog example was to show you that from same facts people can conclude different and even opposite things. For example, when I see a fossil I conclude that at some point in the past it died, whereas you conclude that they not only died, but also had an affspring, and not just offspring, but offspring that was somehow different (more evolved). And why do you do that? because it fits your conclusion (your evolution thoery).

Funny you should mention circular reasoning, because as far as I know different layers of strata in your evolution are dated by the fossils found in them (index fossils), and in turn, fossils are dated by the layer of strata they were found in.

If you think this is science - then there is no hope for you.


So we would have no idea on the date of a layer of soil without fossils and vice versa?

Could it be possible that in some cases where we already know the age of the layer of soil a fossil is found it, it would be safe to assume that fossil is as old at the layer it is found in? And if we do not know the age of a layer of soil, but we have seen fossils of the same creature before and they have been dated by various methods, that we can use the fossil to find the age of the layer?

Also, Evolution theory is a scientific and well-thought out attempt to describe what we see around us, it's origins, and where it is all going. Creationism is a religiously motivated movement to try to stop evolution theory because it doesn't work with their religious beliefs.

The only people they have really managed to convince is other creationists.
Logged
?

troubadour

  • 551
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #71 on: May 16, 2006, 09:20:36 AM »
BTW, don't be mad that the big bang has more evidence for it then your were told at your bible meetings. Just learn something and go back and shove it in their face. There is no reason that christianity isn't compatable with the Big Bang Theory.
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #72 on: May 16, 2006, 12:32:51 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"

Could it be possible that in some cases where we already know the age of the layer of soil a fossil is found it, it would be safe to assume that fossil is as old at the layer it is found in?


It would be safe, BUT layers of soil don't come with age stickers, so how do you know the age of it? Same with fossils - no age stickers. And please don't bring up any radiometric dating methods because the ages of strata and fossils were established way before radiometric dating was invented.

Quote from: "troubadour"

Also, Evolution theory is a scientific and well-thought out attempt to describe what we see around us, it's origins, and where it is all going. Creationism is a religiously motivated movement to try to stop evolution theory because it doesn't work with their religious beliefs.


You take out word "scientific" and I completely agree with your statement. It is the battle between 2 religions.
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #73 on: May 16, 2006, 12:37:02 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
BTW, don't be mad that the big bang has more evidence for it then your were told at your bible meetings. Just learn something and go back and shove it in their face. There is no reason that christianity isn't compatable with the Big Bang Theory.


What evidence are you refering to? You don't know where matter came from, you don't know what made "nothing" explode. You don't know how electrons or neutrons appered. You have no working model of star formation. What evidence?

And there is a big reason why Christianity is not compatable with big bang - read the Bible, it is right in the beginning of it.
Logged
?

Marshy

  • 106
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2006, 03:32:08 PM »
yup go created the heavens and the earth. just cause i can read it doesnt mean i have to be a sheep who hangs on to every word.
Logged
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus
?

troubadour

  • 551
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #75 on: May 16, 2006, 03:38:15 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"

What evidence are you refering to? You don't know where matter came from, you don't know what made "nothing" explode. You don't know how electrons or neutrons appered. You have no working model of star formation. What evidence?



Yes we do. I told you how matter is created and it's not a theory, it's FACT. Smack 2 photons together and you get matter. We have done it in labs with lasers to create matter from energy. And it was not "nothing." It was a point of infinite density and curvature. And it was not simply and "explosion," it was the beginning of the rapid expansion of space and time. And we know how stars form. Looking in the sky today we can find millions of examples of stars in different stages of their life. Combine this with general relativity, the theory that so far has correctly predicted what we have seen on a wide scale in the universe, and we know how stars are formed.

The only "evidence" you can offer me is a book with a mish-mash of mythical stories thrown together into a book 1700 years ago. Christianity is just another religion like any other and isn't any more valid then the next one. While scientists, physicists, and mathmaticians try to explain the phyiscal universe, religious fanatics try to stop them at every chance because it forces them to rethink what they have believed their whole lives. It is easier to keep believing a comfortable falsehood then try to comprehend a frightening new reality.

(Like how when your dead that's it. Remember what it was like before you were born? No because you didn't exist, and when you die you won't exist again either.)
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #76 on: May 16, 2006, 04:26:52 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
The point of the frog example was to show you that from same facts people can conclude different and even opposite things.


Is that like saying that upon tasting the same food people can have different emotional or somatic responses?  I think that's basically the only point to your statement; if so, I don't care.  It's obviously the case that two people might conclude the same things, but only one could be right.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2006, 04:32:23 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
[It would be safe, BUT layers of soil don't come with age stickers, so how do you know the age of it? Same with fossils - no age stickers.


No, but early geology was mostly interested in relative ages of stuff.  That is, more recent strata are above older strata.  It is only in the 20th century that absolute dating become possible -- and then I get to bring in my radiometric methods.

Quote
You take out word "scientific" and I completely agree with your statement. It is the battle between 2 religions.


Just pretend, for the rest of the discussion, that evolution is not a religion; you might learn some things that you thought impossible to learn.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #78 on: May 16, 2006, 04:35:05 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
What evidence are you refering to? You don't know where matter came from, you don't know what made "nothing" explode. You don't know how electrons or neutrons appered. You have no working model of star formation. What evidence?


This paragraph is equivalent to "I don't know anything about physics and refuse to try to learn; and, I have not been paying attention to earlier parts of the discussion in this thread."

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #79 on: May 22, 2006, 10:26:29 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "googleSearch"

What evidence are you refering to? You don't know where matter came from, you don't know what made "nothing" explode. You don't know how electrons or neutrons appered. You have no working model of star formation. What evidence?



Yes we do. I told you how matter is created and it's not a theory, it's FACT. Smack 2 photons together and you get matter. We have done it in labs with lasers to create matter from energy. And it was not "nothing." It was a point of infinite density and curvature. And it was not simply and "explosion," it was the beginning of the rapid expansion of space and time. And we know how stars form. Looking in the sky today we can find millions of examples of stars in different stages of their life. Combine this with general relativity, the theory that so far has correctly predicted what we have seen on a wide scale in the universe, and we know how stars are formed.

The only "evidence" you can offer me is a book with a mish-mash of mythical stories thrown together into a book 1700 years ago. Christianity is just another religion like any other and isn't any more valid then the next one. While scientists, physicists, and mathmaticians try to explain the phyiscal universe, religious fanatics try to stop them at every chance because it forces them to rethink what they have believed their whole lives. It is easier to keep believing a comfortable falsehood then try to comprehend a frightening new reality.

(Like how when your dead that's it. Remember what it was like before you were born? No because you didn't exist, and when you die you won't exist again either.)


Lots of blahbady-blah with no real evidence.
2 photons you say? And the HELL did you get those photons? "a point of infinite density and curvature" huh? And where the HELL did it come from? and why did it start to expand?


And that supporting statement: "Looking in the sky today we can find millions of examples of stars in different stages of their life" THAT sure proves that you know how one forms. Classic evolutionist argument: "Well, we are here aren't we - that proves we evolved!"
Like I said before - there is no working model for star formation. You want to prove there is one - present it, don't just say that there is one.


And why did you bring up the bible? Are you attacking it because you have nothing to defend your belief? I though it was science, isn't it supposed prove things empirically and beyond any doubt? Well, if it really is science, than use you scientific methods to prove your point.
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #80 on: May 22, 2006, 10:41:48 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"


No, but early geology was mostly interested in relative ages of stuff.  That is, more recent strata are above older strata.  It is only in the 20th century that absolute dating become possible -- and then I get to bring in my radiometric methods.

-Erasmus


Charles Lyell invented geologic column and assigned dates to all layers in 1863 which is still in use today. And that was before 20-th century.
So based on these dates fossils were dated, then index fossils were named for all the layers, and then different layers of strata were dated by the index fossils. Can't get more circular than that.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #81 on: May 22, 2006, 07:19:31 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
2 photons you say? And the HELL did you get those photons? "a point of infinite density and curvature" huh? And where the HELL did it come from? and why did it start to expand?[/quotes]

What's the point of these questions?  Is it to show that there are things not yet understood, or that perhaps the regulars on this forum don't know every detail of the theory?  Really, I can't imagine what worthwhile rhetorical goal you could possibly have in asking this.

Quote
And that supporting statement: "Looking in the sky today we can find millions of examples of stars in different stages of their life" THAT sure proves that you know how one forms. ... Like I said before - there is no working model for star formation. You want to prove there is one - present it, don't just say that there is one.


Um, the statement does support that.  When you have a rigorous model that makes falsifiable predictions and yet stands up to experiment (as illustrated by the fact that you can look at stuff in the sky and see predictions the model makes), that counts as a "working model".

Quote
I though it was science, isn't it supposed prove things empirically and beyond any doubt?


Science does not claim to do the latter half of what you allege it to claim.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #82 on: May 22, 2006, 07:25:13 PM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
So based on these dates fossils were dated, then index fossils were named for all the layers, and then different layers of strata were dated by the index fossils. Can't get more circular than that.


How is it circular?  It's a relative scheme; nothing absolute is being claimed.

It's like if I pointed to a certain red fruit and saying, "Okay, let's call that an apple."  Then later pointed to another red fruit and said, "That's an apple too," and you call it circular reasoning.

It's not.  It's application of an existing and admittedly arbitrary scheme.

Are you getting any closer to a point?

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #83 on: May 22, 2006, 08:08:23 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"


How is it circular?  

-Erasmus


Ok, here is dumbed down version:
- How old is this bone?
- 5 mil yrs. old
- How do you know?
- Because I found it in the layer that is 5 mil yrs old.
- Ok, how do you know that the layer is 5 mil years old?
- because I found a bone in there that is 5 mil years old.

How is this not circular reasoning.

And another thing Erasmus, since you don't own this forum, try not to answer question that were directed at somebody else, let other people participate. I already know where you stand on the issue, I'd like to hear other opinions.
Logged
?

troubadour

  • 551
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2006, 02:41:28 AM »
google I refuse to bring myself to your level of ignorance. If you want to learn about basic physics, then go pick up a high school physics book. A Photon is a unit of light energy. The most basic unit of light is a quanta. Where did it come from? IT IS ENERGY, IT DID NOT COME FROM ENERGY.
Logged
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2006, 07:59:59 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
google I refuse to bring myself to your level of ignorance. If you want to learn about basic physics, then go pick up a high school physics book. A Photon is a unit of light energy. The most basic unit of light is a quanta. Where did it come from? IT IS ENERGY, IT DID NOT COME FROM ENERGY.


You keep missing the question I'm trying to ask. I never asked you what the atom of photons are made out of, I asked you how were they created in the first place. You always give me answer in terms of other matter or energy, how other particles, when combined, make up photon, electron, whatever, I know that. I know it's possible. Now tell me how all those particles came into being in the first place, out of nothing. How did they violate first law of thermodynamics? explain that, if you can.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2006, 11:27:38 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
How is this not circular reasoning.


It is; it just isn't the reasoning that scientists use.

Quote
And another thing Erasmus, since you don't own this forum, try not to answer question that were directed at somebody else, let other people participate. I already know where you stand on the issue, I'd like to hear other opinions.


No, you'd like not to hear my opinions.  If you want to direct questions at an individual and nobody else, PMs make a great medium for that.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #87 on: May 23, 2006, 01:22:54 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

It is; it just isn't the reasoning that scientists use.


Oh, but it is. Layers are dated by fossils found in them (they call them index fossils), and fossils by the layers. Such system was founded in late 19 century and still in use now.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

No, you'd like not to hear my opinions.  If you want to direct questions at an individual and nobody else, PMs make a great medium for that.

-Erasmus


Noted
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #88 on: May 24, 2006, 01:41:34 AM »
Quote from: "googleSearch"
Layers are dated by fossils found in them (they call them index fossils), and fossils by the layers. Such system was founded in late 19 century and still in use now.


Indeed; however, that method is not used (by itself) to determine that such-and-such a fossil or such-and-such a layer is, for example, five million years old; simply that some fossils are older than / the same age as others, or that some layers are older than / the same age as others.

*edit* So in fact, the reasoning goes much more like:
Geologist: I found a bone in a layer of sediment, so the layer must be about the same age as the bone.
Sceptic: How old is the bone?
G: About the same age as the layer.
S: Sounds like circular reasoning.  How do you know?
G: I know because the is-the-same-age-as relation is symmetric.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

googleSearch

  • 257
Big Bang Theory
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2006, 08:14:20 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
that method is not used (by itself) to determine that such-and-such a fossil or such-and-such a layer is, for example, five million years old

-Erasmus


What else was used before rediometric dating?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »