Conversation with James about God, the Big Bang, and the Foundation of Science (Part 2)

This is a continuation of the long conversation with with Christian creationist James McKenzie. I am answering his post found in the previous thread here. James begins:

It seems that we are near reaching an impasse on our “science/ foundations/ philosophical/ beginning of the world argument. You seem bent to tell me that a mathematical consequence is all I should need to trust the theories and field equations. I am trying to tell you that a field equation that works on paper does not dictate or prove what happens in real life. While I admit I do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards, your inability or lack of agreeing to explaining them to me further does not help me.

Hey there James,

The problem is not that you “do not understand the field equations frontwards and backwards” – the problem is that you don’t understand them at all. You don’t even understand the concept of experimental verification which is the very foundation of science. The equations do not merely “work on paper!” I’ve explained this to you a billion times, and you still do not understand. The equations have been TESTED by comparing their predictions with OBSERVATIONS. This is how science works. E.g. the field equations explain the real world measurements of the perihelion of mercury, the real world measurements of the gravitational bending of light around (first confirmed in eclipse of 1919), the real world measurements of time dilation (confirmed a trillion times a day by the GPS system), etc., etc., etc. Your ignorance of such basic facts makes conversation with you impossible. It’s like trying to talk to a freaking rock. You are thick as a brick.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that you understand them enough to understand the weight of your own justified or not justified argument and position. It is one thing to say that I know long division and I know that x/y=Z, the long division proves it. But just as a teacher would want a student to demonstrate that he/she actually “knows” the math and would expect the student to show his work, I also am curious if you could show “the work.” Instead of just copying and pasting some graphic of an equation, can you demonstrate and explain how the real life values are inserted into the equation and how the values correspond to the big bang theory at large (time and starting point).

James, those graphs and links to the experimental tests are the very proof you asked for. You have not written a word challenging any of the evidence I presented. You just keep repeating the ludicrous assertion that the scientific evidence derived from real life measurements does not count as “real life evidence”. Nothing could be more absurd. I have presented the evidence and you have not shown any understanding, let alone refutation, of it.

Bottom line, I want you to see your double standard, Richard. You start off that the theory is right unless I or someone else can prove or demonstrate that it is wrong.

Not true. I have never begun with any such assumption. Ironically, you describe your own position with perfect clarity since you have nothing but blind faith in your ignorant superstitions inherited from primitive pre-scientific men.

You also say that your acceptance of the big bang theory is based on science, but you and I know both know the actual good science used as evidence for the big bang do not require or proof a big bang. There is no proof for the big bang, only circumstantial evidence.

I never said there was any “proof” in an absolutely sense. That’s not how science works. I said the Big Bang is the best fit to the evidence (which is much more than mere “circumstantial evidence” as you would know if you understood the science).

But at the same time, you say that the Bible is wrong and God should not be taken to likely exist unless there is demonstrated evidence.

I say exactly the same thing about the Big Bang. We use evidence (logic and facts) to discern between truth and error. If you think you have a better way, please let me know what it is.

I have no concrete evidence that the God of the Bible is real and that His Word is true, I have basis for that evidence.

You have nothing but philosophical arguments based on metaphysical speculations and religious dogmas inherited from ignorant primitive men. You have not shown me any evidence, let alone any “basis”  for any evidence.

But your starting position for God is that He is not real unless there is reliable evidence or proof.

A more accurate statement would be that I start with the idea that everyone should demand evidence before believing in any of the gods and/or metaphysical speculations invented by humans, including but not limited to Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Karma, Astrology, Cosmic Consciousness, the philosophers’ “Pure Being”, Tarot Cards, the Tooth Fairy and the Almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I really don’t understand how you could continue to misconstrue my position given  the thousands of words I have written explaining it (especially since it seems so simple and common-sensical).

You make fun of creation because it does not sound scientific even though endless energy from no where and with no cause is about as scientific as God did it. When it comes to the actual mechanics of how and why they work and do what they do, no one really knows.

The fact that science is not omniscient does not make it equal to your ignorance.

I mock creationism because of its gross absurdity and blatant dishonesty. You are a poster boy of all that is wrong with creationism. You reject vast domains of science such as Evolution and General Relativity when in fact you understand none of it. You have been deceived by utterly corrupt creationist conmen. There is no excuse. They are not merely ignorant. They are deliberately deceiving simple minded gullible Christians, filling their heads with lies.

Why are you so easily accepting of the big bang theory without any real concrete evidence but not God?

I am not “so easily accepting of the big bang theory”. It’s just the best fit to the data, as I’ve explained to you approximately 2.3 trillion times now.

You might ask me the same thing. This is the normal rebuttal of an atheist. It goes like this: why am I so accepting of God and not the big bang? But there is a problem with your rebuttal. Your starting and accepted position is pushed that yours is of science and mine is of faith. But in reality, your position is of faith as well. You require an element of faith to accept the big bang theory.

Your false assertion is based on an equivocation of the word “faith.” This is a matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge). One of the better definitions of knowledge is “justified true belief.” So yes, true knowledge and your religious fantasies share a comment element called “belief” or “faith.” But that’s as far as the equivalence goes. You cannot justify your dogmas and many of them have been proven false. Therefore, you religion is by definition “not true” whereas science is by definition “true” inasmuch as it has met the burden of justifying the truth of its beliefs.

Your rebuttal would have so much more significance to me if you admitted we are debating one acceptance, assumption, faith versus another.

Nothing could be more absurd. You are equating blind belief in Allah/Yahweh/Zeus with science!

Nobody knows how the first stars formed, nobody knows where biological life came from, nobody knows how planets formed around stars without colliding into each other and into the star. Nobody knows why there is something rather than nothing.

The fact that nobody knows some things means that you don’t know those things either, so they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot prove the truth of your fairy tales by appealing to ignorance. But this is what you must do because there is no place for you god in the real world.

You cannot just mock a Christian for using a catchall phrase like “God just created it.” When you say, it just evolved, it just naturally selected that way, it just… It is a double standard.

There is no double standard. Your comment is an absurd caricature. Evolutionary scientists do not say idiotic things like “it just naturally selected that way.” It is painfully obvious you have never read any scientific literature about evolution.

Now, if you were to admit that your theory has an element of faith required, then we can debate which position sounds more logical, congruent, is more consistent with itself etc.

I’ve already admitted that. The epistemological definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” shares one element with your blind, ignorant, and unjustified superstitions – namely, “belief.” That’s it. You cannot justify your ignorance by appealing to more ignorance about where everything came from! You need to understand this fact.

And if you think the big bang is more consistent and logical, I can say, okay for you. But if you try to tell me that you reject the Bible because I cannot prove it is true it is not scientific at points but your entire theory is, I say bologna. I am calling your bluff out.

Don’t be absurd. You have done nothing but reveal the emptiness of your own hand. You have nothing but bluff, bluster, and blatant creationist bullshit. You don’t even understand the elementary terms of the sciences that you reject in favor of the ignorant superstitions you inherited from primitive men.

So please understand, you can hold to any position you want to and realize that you are blindly accepting something by faith. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Bible because it requires faith and accept science saying that it does not require faith.

Say what? You are now claiming that modern science – based fundamentally on experiment, observation and replication – is “blind” like your religion? Seriously? Wow. Religion and the damage done.

The heavens “do” declare the glory of God and the earth shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1

It seems more accurate to say that the “heavens” – via General Relativity and the age of the universe – have conclusively declared the absurdity of your fundamentalist creationism.

You can believe that a being created it all and has out smarted everyone. Or you can believe that hydrogen and helium somehow came into existence from energy and took over from there, out smarting everyone today observing all that has been formed, for no reason.

James

Yes, everyone is free to believe what they want concerning things for which there is no evidence. But that seems pretty inconsequential since no one has any way to know anything about that God, if he/she/it/they actually exist.

 

 

This entry was posted in Christianity, Debunking Bullshit, Losing My Religion, Why Christianity is False. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

233 Comments

  1. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted September 29, 2015 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    Right then smartypants: instead of thrashing around in the shallows, why don’t you step up to the big boys table, and work your way through the problems with the following list for us. Please show all working, and references.

    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

  2. James
    Posted September 30, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Does redshift predict or demonstrate that all objects in space are moving apart from each other?

  3. Posted September 30, 2015 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Does redshift predict or demonstrate that all objects in space are moving apart from each other?

    First, not all objects in space are moving apart from each other.

    Second, I don’t know what you mean. Red and blue spectral shifts are simply observed facts. How could a fact like spectral shift “predict” anything? In science, we make predictions based on theories which are either confirmed or disconfirmed by observation. Of course, there is a subtle connection between theory and fact because the same observation can sometimes be interpreted as two different kinds of “fact” under competing theories. But that’s much too advanced for our discussion here. You need to begin with a basic understanding of the science, and a willingness to learn and discern between truth and error independent of your antiquated religious prejudices.

  4. Posted September 30, 2015 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Right then smartypants: instead of thrashing around in the shallows, why don’t you step up to the big boys table, and work your way through the problems with the following list for us. Please show all working, and references.

    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

    Oh … so the intellectual “big boys” use phrases like “smartypants” and reference fringe sites by cranks who believe in the “Face on Mars” and space aliens and who-knows-what other malarkey? The site you linked is from the late Tom Van Flandern who created it to promote his fringe speculations which are very popular with people lost in lunatic conspiracy theories as well as with pseudo-intellectual Christian fundamentalists who are desperate to deny science that contradicts the Bible. Here’s a podcast from the Exposing PseudoAstronomy site that describes his claims as “wacko-conspiracy/crazy/pseudoscience“:

    https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tom-van-flandern/

    Your comments have all the characteristics of a crazed conspiracy theorist. Are there any conspiracy theories you don’t believe in? Are you a 9/11 Truther? Do you think Obama is the Antichrist? Or maybe a shape-shifting reptilian alien? Do you believe Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings were conspiracies too?

  5. James
    Posted October 1, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Again, you debate the presupposition and the premise not the actual data. Sigh and yawn

    I’m sure your post will be a mumble jumble when i get around to viewing it.

    James

  6. tracy fyler
    Posted October 1, 2015 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    To James and R A :GREETINGS fellow clay vessels of getting to the matter of the heart….please share thoughts to simplicity 1) What do you have that you did not receive? 2)Is truth absolute? 3)is yes and no an absolute? 4) can mathematics be absolute? 5)There are no absolutes ! ? 6) are aboluutes necessary for plotting coordinates? 7) without absolutes do we begin at No beginning and work to No end ? 8) do you own anything, is there only one sovereign answer? 9)is not society easily manipulated by misinformation? 10) is our heart often deceived by pride? lies? 11) do we live in an eleven dimensional
    Holographic program? 12)do we exist or have purpose? 13)can you love a robot?hmm tricky need more
    Information… 14)does virtue exist ? 15)does love require a choice? 16) could mother’s be well qualified to answer about love? 17)does evil exist? 18) is virtue/evil a noun,verb,philosophy, spirit, meaningless word?
    19)is the eye satisfied with hearing or the ear with hearing? 20)does man learn anything from history… Spangler and Thormbe cyclical history 21)What are the most important aspects of life?
    3 7’s what is not based on 7 light sound matter gestation periods lunar cycles
    Back to basic can two walk together except they both agree? If there was projected big bang would not
    Time dilation be exponentially rapid at beginning? Time/gravity/space? If man has a sovereign will the choosing between temporal and eternal could be wise to find contenment out of contention ion content ,
    At rest nothing broken nothing missing balance action completion admiration reflection illumination
    Duplication exaltation Question…what do you desire, treasure the most that’s the matter of the heart …
    Which some say is the seat,( policy maker) of the mind,will,emotions,,,,, some defined as soul as in sole
    “possession” of humans being that of sole soul choice* The power to choose love over hate lies over truth
    The god knowledge of decernment over God of Life peace over violence to be /not to be the equations (formally Question) of eternity? As in giving your teenager keys to the new car …. Freedom to choose can be very costly but can you love a robot? Speaking on singularity decades ago Disney said the more machines become like men the more men will become like machines.hum dinger of a choice similar to
    When May West was stated when given a choice between two evils she’ll pick the one she has not tried
    Yet… Now all seriousness aside The one question we ALL must answer …the one that can reveal all problems are spiritual and deal with relationship as in ALL things are related as they correspond yo the Center of All centers the answer to this question determines all outcome of all equations is
    What is God like? have to take this phone call
    *some other time , together × 3

  7. Posted October 1, 2015 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Again, you debate the presupposition and the premise not the actual data. Sigh and yawn

    I’m sure your post will be a mumble jumble when i get around to viewing it.

    James

    Get real James. I have presented a mountain of evidence to you and you didn’t understand a word of it. You didn’t even try to answer most of it. On the contrary, you just ignored most of it.

    Your “sign and yawn” is quite ludicrous in light of the fact that you can’t intelligently discuss, let alone refute, the mountain of evidence that has been presented to you.

  8. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted October 3, 2015 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    If Van Flandern is such a kook, it should be easy to demolish his 30 points. But I guess it’s even easier just to dismiss him out of hand because, wait, you believe the government account of Sandy Hook. Gosh, you even believe the government account of 9/11! And you mock others for subscribing to fairy stories! Oh dear.

  9. James
    Posted October 6, 2015 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    You said,
    I mock creationism because of its gross absurdity and blatant dishonesty. You are a poster boy of all that is wrong with creationism. You reject vast domains of science such as Evolution and General Relativity when in fact you understand none of it. You have been deceived by utterly corrupt creationist conmen. There is no excuse. They are not merely ignorant. They are deliberately deceiving simple minded gullible Christians, filling their heads with lies.”

    DO you have proof of the lies that they are deliberately telling? (saying something that you do not agree with is not evidence of a lie) Do not be a sophos moros, such a wise fool, otherwise known as a sophomore.

    I do not need to refute the “evidence” you put forth. None of your evidence proves a big bang. It demonstrates an expanding at best which is agreeable with creation.

    You have said repeatably that the big bang is the theory that best fits the evidence and what we observe. Correct?

    Then why using this theory did we not predict such planets as our giants in our own solar system. Why does the theory of star formation and planet formation fail utterly? Why is the shape of the universe not as predicted by the big bang model? WHy is the temperature of our universe so uniform? And if inflation is the answer than how do we solve the problems that inflation causes? Are you even aware of these problems? Why are the shapes of galaxies not able to be billions of years old because of angular velocity?
    You can say all you want about the mighty big bang being the theory for explaining what we see. It explains a concept. That is all. All the evidences you cite work in a created universe that did not have to a have a billion year ago big bang at all. The actual nuts and real life objects are not explained at all. As it rests, a creator is still the best explanation for planets, stars, and galaxies.

    James

  10. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    DO you have proof of the lies that they are deliberately telling? (saying something that you do not agree with is not evidence of a lie) Do not be a sophos moros, such a wise fool, otherwise known as a sophomore.

    Ha! Are you serious? There is an overwhelming mountain of proof. Take a look at this post on my forum where I exposed the lies spewed out by Christian apologist Carl Gallup. If you want more, just Google “creationist lies.” You’ll have enough reading material to keep you busy till you die.

  11. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Why does the theory of star formation and planet formation fail utterly?

    You keep saying that. Please cite evidence from legitimate peer reviewed scientific journals that support your claim.

  12. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Why is the shape of the universe not as predicted by the big bang model?

    What shape do you think was “predicted”? What shape do you think the universe actually has? Please cite some legitimate scientific sources. (No self-published creationist crap.)

  13. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    And if inflation is the answer than how do we solve the problems that inflation causes?

    What “problems” are you talking about? Please cite legitimate scientific sources.

  14. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    All the evidences you cite work in a created universe that did not have to a have a billion year ago big bang at all.

    Your assertion is radically absurd. There is no cosmological theory that would fit with a universe less than a billion years old because we can see objects many billions of light years distant.

  15. Posted October 6, 2015 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    As it rests, a creator is still the best explanation for planets, stars, and galaxies.

    Ha! A “creator” is no explanation at all! That’s like a child who asked “Mommy, why is the sky blue?” accepting the “explanation” that it’s because “The Invisible Pink Unicorn farts blue sky.”

    Merely saying that your imaginary God, for whom there is no evidence, “did it” is no explanation of any kind.

  16. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    I asked if you could provide evidence of so called creationist lies. You responded with this:

    —“Ha! Are you serious? There is an overwhelming mountain of proof. Take a look at this post on my forum where I exposed the lies spewed out by Christian apologist Carl Gallup. If you want more, just Google “creationist lies.” You’ll have enough reading material to keep you busy till you die.”—

    The video certainly raises controversy for many. But the video is harder to challenge than you think. Even if you could “prove” the information in the video is incorrect, you would have greater difficulty proving it was prepared and delivered with malicious deceitful intent. You have proven nothing you set out to prove. Your sourcing of Tiktaalik is not new news to anyone who dove into the issue of evolution and transitional fossils. I have heard of Tiktaalik from many sources. But have you heard that the date of Tikaalik is off from evolutionary timeline. It lived after some its alleged predecessors. Bottom line, the assertion that Tikaalik is a real transitional fossil cannot be proven or denied. It is not a bullet proof case either way is the point. You have circumstantial evidence that has to be interpreted. You might as well say that dinosaurs prove that a transition between reptiles and birds exist. Their existence does not prove that. It is interpretation. The Celocanth (spelled wrong) was also cited as a transitional fossil until modern living ones were found unchanged. One fossil Tikaalik is no ways near proving anything. Call me when you have millions (which is what Darwin truly predicted).

    On the other part of your reply.

    You really want me to Google “creationist lies.” You really are a double standard dick head. There is no easier way to say, I am sorry. You tell me no creationist websites. I get that. A bias can be a bad thing. I get that. What kind of websites and what kind of bias do you think you or I would find looking for creationists lies? You are stuck on yourself and your own position and bias it is absurd. You think a creationist bias makes one unfit for thinking clearly, logically, and soundly. But you do realize that all scientific websites have a bias? Stephen Hawking said himself that it is impossible to perform cosmology with ideology. Are you going to tell me that you know more than Stephen Hawking or that Hawking is a creationist supporter? It amazes me how little you actually know when you have previously said that you have dug “so deep.” You even said something to the effect that “not many or no one has dug as much as me.” This seems more and more unlikely since you think all the problems I have listed are made up creationist arguments and objections. They are not, again. You are dick head.

    James

  17. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    You seem unaware that this is a real recognized problem within main stream scientists (not creationists):

    Why is the shape of the universe not as predicted by the big bang model?

    —-What shape do you think was “predicted”? What shape do you think the universe actually has? Please cite some legitimate scientific sources. (No self-published creationist crap.)——

    You reply as if I am making up stuff or citing some creationist half wit. I am not citing Kirk Cameron here, which WOULD be bad.

    But just to let you see that the problem is real, check this out. I mentioned this before, but you probably just shrugged it off as a creationist bull. BTW, that is typical of a narrow minded buffoon.

    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_inflation.html

    Btw, you can google problems with inflation and find REAL scientific websites talking about it, not just creationist websites that you swear are just not trustworthy.

    James

  18. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Here is another website that recognizes the flatness of the universe problem that you knew nothing about.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

    I sure thought that someone like you who had done so much digging would have known this. Pathetic, your true colors are showing.

    James

  19. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    And if inflation is the answer than how do we solve the problems that inflation causes?

    What “problems” are you talking about? Please cite legitimate scientific sources.

    The above sources talk about unknown issues with inflation. Such as how did inflation start and how did it stop? Where did the inflaton particle come from? No body knows. You say that God just did it is no real explanation. I get that. But my point all along is that your only alternative might as well be the pink unicorn waved her magic wand and poof inflation happened and then stopped.

    At the end of the day, the real story is that you guys know nothing but a concept. You really don’t know how it happened, why, and how. Many the unicorn made the energy implode. Maybe the unicorn helped the hydrogen turn into mass. Maybe a princess fairy helped the first stars appear.

    Thank you for the laughs so far. You have verified for me that the big bang model posses no real threat to the Bible. We both know that the Bible has some theological questions to sort out. I am not a blind Bible acceptee. It really ticks me that you keep saying that I deny evolution and the big bang JUST BECAUSE OF THE BIBLE. that right there is an evolutionist lie. If I dropped my Bible and faith in God right now, I would be no more inclined to accept evolution or big bang as any real explantion or solution to what we see today. I would probably still believe in somekind of deity who created for his pleasure and enjoyment. Maybe its like a big sims game and we are his cheap entertainment. I would accept that before thinking the big bang makes sense. You are more than delusional if you think I am here just because I am a blind Bible supporter.

    James

  20. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Again, if the Big bang theory does such a good job at explaining our universe, then why do we need string theory for the math to work out? Why do we need 10>500 or even infinite universes to make our universe plausible by math and odds? This is what string theory is all about. Were you not aware?

    Again if the Big bang theory is so good at explaining our universe, then why did scientists dream up dark energy and dark matter to “FURTHER” explain why the visible matter behaves as it does and how the universe was able to “expand” as believed and how it is observed.

    http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

    You act like creationists are making up this stuff. This is well known within the scientific community. I suggest you read up on it before you blindly accept it.

    James

  21. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    this above link that I posted even states that all believed visible matter is now only believed to be 5%. The rest is dark energy and dark matter. How pathetic is that? You say that the big bang does such a good job at explaining what we see. It does it SO WELL that now we think what we SEE is only about 5% of what there is. The rest is there because it needs to be there for the theory to work.
    Again, pathetic. You should do some real digging. WHAT! Were you never told this? Don’t they believe in open minded and clear communicating with no bias in schools? I mean, its not like they want you to accept a theory without knowing all the known factors first, right?

    James

  22. James
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    You might as well say that a unicorn and a phantom caused the universe to expand in such a way that makes the universe fit the theory. But I agree, dark matter and dark energy sound so much more… scientific.

    James

  23. MichaelFree
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    James said: “Maybe its like a big sims game and we are his cheap entertainment”.

    Now we’re talking James, now that’s some good stuff. This world without civilization is the law of the jungle, much of the Golden Rule righteously goes by the wayside when it’s do or die, eat and drink or die. It’s a rat race.

    Reminds me of the kids at that school in Oregon who said the murderer was asking them if they were Christian and then was killing Christians. Would you want your kid to tell that murderer the truth or to lie? The answer is to lie! I would want my kid to come home. Not all lies are born of evil. That murderer commits two crimes, making truth tellers lie and murder. The bible says different. The bible is a sick book written by sick men where God is a murderer.

    I’ve seen people probably stealing at the grocery store, you think I bother them? No way. Food is do or die stuff. Please steal, by all means, and eat. You want to steal from the mom and pop store and then we’ll have an issue, but the big box store, please, go for it. So-called civilization got rich people living in private neighborhoods, like a dream, I’ve been there, it’s beautiful, while homeless hungry people steal from Safeway.

    Rat race planet.

    Just my two cents, you guys are having a good conversation, don’t want to get off-topic.

  24. MichaelFree
    Posted October 12, 2015 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Peter’s sins weren’t that he lied to murderers to save his life, they were that he lied to a healer that he would go to his death with him. He had his opportunity and he failed, three times. Risen righteous Jesus was happy to see him alive at the shore, because righteous Jesus had a good heart, and was compassionate.

    That’s all.

  25. Posted October 13, 2015 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Why is the shape of the universe not as predicted by the big bang model?

    What shape do you think was “predicted”? What shape do you think the universe actually has?

    You reply as if I am making up stuff or citing some creationist half wit. I am not citing Kirk Cameron here, which WOULD be bad.

    But just to let you see that the problem is real, check this out. I mentioned this before, but you probably just shrugged it off as a creationist bull. BTW, that is typical of a narrow minded buffoon.

    Here is another website that recognizes the flatness of the universe problem that you knew nothing about.

    James,

    Please try to be a little more reasonable. The Flatness problem is common knowledge to anyone even slightly familiar with General Relativity. I have been aware of it for many years. It is simply insane for you to suggest that I would have “shrugged it off as a creationist bull.” It and the Horizon problem were the primary motivation for the theory of Inflation! How could you say such crap? I mean seriously? How could you possible think that anyone familiar with General Relativity would mistake the two primary problems with the Big Bang for “creationist bull”? Your comments make no sense at all.

    I asked you those questions because YOU didn’t seem to know what YOU were talking about. I was simply asking for clarification. That’s how conversations work. It is quite absurd to take my questions about your understanding as evidence that I never heard of the two central problems with the Big Bang. You had asked three questions: “Why is the shape of the universe not as predicted by the big bang model? WHy is the temperature of our universe so uniform? And if inflation is the answer than how do we solve the problems that inflation causes?” Now given that you mentioned inflation, I should have inferred that you were talking about the Flatness and Horizon problems, but you have never mentioned either by name in our long conversation (as far as I know) so I was wondering if you knew what you were talking about. My curiosity was also piqued because you appeared to know that Inflation was invented to solve those problems, so why would you be asking about what is common knowledge? Furthermore, your assertion that the Big Bang “predicted” a particular “shape” to the universe is simply false, so I asked for clarification by writing: “What shape do you think was “predicted”? What shape do you think the universe actually has?” I was trying to find out if YOU knew what YOU were talking about. You had not mentioned either problem by name and you appeared to think that General Relativity predicted a particular shape to the universe, so I wanted clarification.

    I do think a much better response would have been for you to demonstrate your knowledge by answering the questions rather than using them to falsely accuse me of not understanding basic physics.

  26. Posted October 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    You act like creationists are making up this stuff. This is well known within the scientific community. I suggest you read up on it before you blindly accept it.

    No, I have never suggested that creationists are “making up” anything when they cite legitimate problems with the Big Bang. I have read all about the issues and I do not “blindly accept” any of the tentative solutions. But neither do I accept the creationist attempt to use our current scientific ignorance as proof of their ignorant religious dogmas.

    The real issue is that creationists point out problems only so they can use them to declare “Gawd did it!” That is antithetical to science, knowledge, and truth. Do they offer any alternate hypothesis? Nope. You admit that Inflation solves the flatness and horizon problems, but then ask “what about the problems caused by inflation?” And on and on it goes. There are no “problems” for you to solve because your religious beliefs are totally divorced from reality. You can make up any story you want with no fear of REALITY ever contradicting it because you ignore reality altogether. Case in point: Christians declare that “God is trustworthy” when in fact God is absolutely untrustworthy. There is not one thing any human can actually “trust” God to do for them. If God were half as trustworthy as the average garbage man, there would be no debate about his existence! The fact that we debate his existence proves absolutely that he is absolutely untrustworthy. I explain this in detail in my article Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion. I would be delighted if you chose to answer there.

  27. Posted October 13, 2015 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    The above sources talk about unknown issues with inflation. Such as how did inflation start and how did it stop? Where did the inflaton particle come from? No body knows. You say that God just did it is no real explanation. I get that. But my point all along is that your only alternative might as well be the pink unicorn waved her magic wand and poof inflation happened and then stopped.

    Not true. The unanswered questions are on the fringe of a vast body of established science. It is nothing like the ludicrous religious superstitious cosmology taught in the Bible. If you could get clear on this point and admit the truth our conversation may begin to make progress.

    At the end of the day, the real story is that you guys know nothing but a concept. You really don’t know how it happened, why, and how. Many the unicorn made the energy implode. Maybe the unicorn helped the hydrogen turn into mass. Maybe a princess fairy helped the first stars appear.

    Not true. We can calculate the gravitational bending of light. We can explain the perihelion of Mercury. We can calculate time dilation. Your claims are ludicrous and utterly ignorant. You simply reject reality in favor of your dark religious superstitions inherited from ignorant primitive ancestors.

    Thank you for the laughs so far. You have verified for me that the big bang model posses no real threat to the Bible.

    Talk about laughs! Countless Christians have used the Big Bang as evidence for God! Your rejection of it is absurd, especially from a Christian perspective. I’ve asked before and will ask again – exactly what should we see if God really did create as described in the Bible? Please describe exactly what we would expect to see if we looked out into the cosmos given your concept of God and creation.

    We both know that the Bible has some theological questions to sort out. I am not a blind Bible acceptee. It really ticks me that you keep saying that I deny evolution and the big bang JUST BECAUSE OF THE BIBLE. that right there is an evolutionist lie. If I dropped my Bible and faith in God right now, I would be no more inclined to accept evolution or big bang as any real explantion or solution to what we see today.

    Say what??? Have you ever offered any explanation better than the Big Bang? Have you? Nope! All you have done is said “here’s a problem, there’s a problem.” The fact that there are unsolved problems does not mean that it is not the best theory we have. If you disagree, then you must present a better theory. Have you done that? Nope.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that you reject modern science for any reason other than BECAUSE THE BIBLE.

  28. James
    Posted October 13, 2015 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Im sorry the big bang is not automatically correct just because no better theory is there. That is like saying the Bible is the correct religion because no better religion exists. That fact does not make the Bible doctrines truth. Just because I cannot supply a better theory does not mean I should just accept the big bang since it is the best so far.
    So far, the big bang needs string theory and dark matter and energy and inflation for it to even work. And that does not explain where the first stars came from, how planets formed, how galaxies formed.

    Have you heard about the gigantic quasars? One was found in 2013 that challenges the conventional wisdom of today’s cosmology, ie the big bang.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/130111-quasar-biggest-thing-universe-science-space-evolution/

    The big bang only adds us when with “evidence” when you stop and consider points A,B,C,D. WHen you look at points A-Z, it comes up short of providing real explanations that are mixed with conceptual theories (not real explanations), and with seemingly contradictions.

    The faulty science around Red shift has also been known since Halton Arp predicted and confirmed it. He is not talked about since his work undermines the most popular cosmological theory to date.

    James

  29. James
    Posted October 13, 2015 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that you reject modern science for any reason other than BECAUSE THE BIBLE.

    Classy, then you are just calling me a liar. Don’t be a jerk

  30. Posted October 13, 2015 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that you reject modern science for any reason other than BECAUSE THE BIBLE.

    Classy, then you are just calling me a liar. Don’t be a jerk

    No, I am not calling you a “liar.” I think it is much more likely that you are reacting to my comments without thinking. It seems to me most likely that if you seriously reflect on the freaking TRUTH, you will see that you are rejecting modern science BECAUSE THE BIBLE.

    I would be delighted, of course, for you to correct me if I am wrong. The only thing I would ask is that you explain your position in a way that may be understood.

    Thanks!

  31. James
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    It is not probable to falsify the big bang. If a new discovery comes up that disagrees with the current theory as it stands, people just modify it to make it work. You ask me to ponder the truth. What truth is that? A theory is not truth. You have gravitated to a conceptual theory that is conceptually functional. The fact that it is “worked” and “altered” to match current observations could merely be circular reasoning and looking for escape tatics. You cannot prove it either way. I could say everything appears to be designed and orderly so therefore it must be designed. All theorists have done is come up with changes to make their educated and calculated guesses still fit. No real answers on how the actual elements and matter did what did and why exist.

    So when i stop and consider the truth, i realize that all you have is conceptual truth that needs a bunch of made up stuff that sounds scientific to make it work. How rare is our universe? Too rare to be plausible. That’s ok, if there are an infinite number of universes then the math is quite probable. Hello string theory. There is no real science in string theory it all. Oh, how it inflation slow down. There must be anti matter and dark energy (a weaker force that can allow the initial unknown process of inflation to slow and decay). It is all made up stories. You might as well say God did it. When it comes down to it, it can all produce the same results. God caused the universe to inflate and then he caused to slow down. You have no real explanation. Stop fooling yourself. You have fell for your own position’s double talk and bait and switches.

    James

  32. James
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    The double standard is that i am admitting my position requires faith. You are not willing to admit that. There is an element of faith to accepting inflation, big bang, dark energy etc. you just don’t want to admit it because then your precious science would sound subjective and open to interpretation.

  33. James
    Posted October 14, 2015 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    You made the common bait and switch. You used the word truth for something that only is a concept. You have picked up habits from left media and atheistic scientists and theorists. It is okay. How is it the big bang is truth until i can provide a better explanation or disprove it, but everything else is wrong unless i can prove it true? You already said science is not in the business of proving things. But yet you have the nerve to tell me to consider the truth. Are you like dark vador and i must search my feelings, i know it to be true? One thing, this is not a movie or script.

  34. Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    It is not probable to falsify the big bang. If a new discovery comes up that disagrees with the current theory as it stands, people just modify it to make it work.

    That’s how science works James. Theories that successfully explain a large body of facts are not just discarded the moment we encounter something that doesn’t seem to fit. The first thing we must do is review the data and the theory and see if we missed something or if there is a way to extend the theory so that it can successfully explain the new data as well as the old.

    For example, many people attempted to modify the exceedingly successful theory of Newtonian Mechanics to make it consistent with electromagnetism. They failed. Einstein found the solution by creating a new theory called Special Relativity which makes the same predictions as Newton’s theory when the velocities are small relative to the speed of light. The new theory explained all the same results as the old, and extended it to include new phenomenon that were not even imagined previously.

    You say that people “just modify it to make it work.” Yes James, that’s what scientists do. They constantly test their theories against the evidence and modify or reject them as necessary. That’s why science continues to advance year after year. What would you suggest they do? Just quit at the first unexplained phenomenon and declare “God did it”?

    You ask me to ponder the truth. What truth is that?

    The truth that you reject established science BECAUSE THE BIBLE.

    A theory is not truth. You have gravitated to a conceptual theory that is conceptually functional.

    Your language is seriously confused. What do you mean by a “conceptual” theory? All theories are conceptual. Are you saying that the theory of electromagnetism, which is tested and confirmed trillion times a day with modern electronic devices, is not actually true?

    It is particularly ironic that your interpretation of the Bible is every bit as much a “theory” as any scientific theory, except that it is not based on verifiable evidence for the most part. So by your own words, your interpretation of the Bible cannot be “true” because it is “conceptual.”

    The fact that it is “worked” and “altered” to match current observations could merely be circular reasoning and looking for escape tatics. You cannot prove it either way.

    That might work for a while. Many people are so devoted to their theories that they resist even the most powerful evidence of error. And that’s what the scientific method is all about. Science is extremely competitive. It is fundamentally Darwinian – only the theories that best fit reality survive. The scientific community is ferocious. There are great stakes and the smartest people on the planet compete to prove each other wrong. This is the fierce beauty and power of science, and that is why science was able to lift humanity up and out of the dark ages of ignorant superstitions and religions.

    I could say everything appears to be designed and orderly so therefore it must be designed.

    Oh my freaking dog! You think that is an accurate representation of science? You think scientists would allow each other to just make up whatever mindless crap entered their mind? WOW. You’ve never heard of the scientific method? You seem to be utterly, totally, and absolutely ignorant of the most basic elements of the science that you reject. Wow. Wow. Wow. You blow my mind.

    All theorists have done is come up with changes to make their educated and calculated guesses still fit. No real answers on how the actual elements and matter did what did and why exist.

    Don’t be absurd. Scientists have built countless of devices that require extreme expertise and skill (such as the Hubble space telescope and the Large Hadron Collider) to test their theories. Your ignorance is as deep as the ocean.

    It is simply ridiculous for you to constantly harp on the fact that there remain many unanswered questions. We only discovered DNA, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics in the last hundred years or so. Science is in its infancy, and yet look how far it surpasses the silly superstitions found in the Bible.

    So when i stop and consider the truth, i realize that all you have is conceptual truth that needs a bunch of made up stuff that sounds scientific to make it work.

    Again, you prove nothing but your own radical ignorance of the most elementary aspects of science. All theories are conceptual, and scientific theories are tested with observations. It is ludicrous beyond description for you to constantly assert that the observations supporting General Relativity and the Big Bang, such as the cosmic background radiation, abundance of light elements, gravitational lensing, the perihelion of Mercury, time dilation, and ten thousand other facts, are “just made up.”

    How rare is our universe? Too rare to be plausible.

    You don’t know that. Universes could be as common as dirt for all you know. You just made that up. And again, you are appealing to ignorance to find a place for your God. Will you never learn the vanity of your method?

    That’s ok, if there are an infinite number of universes then the math is quite probable.

    Or if there are other explanations that we have yet to discover. E.g. Inflation solves the apparent “fine tuning” of the geometry (flatness problem). It doesn’t matter if there are problems with inflation because you don’t know that they won’t have a similar elegant solution. Your entire approach is upside down and backwards. You cannot prove your God by appeal to the limitations of our current knowledge.

    Hello string theory. There is no real science in string theory it all.

    Agreed. And so what? It’s just speculation at this point. It’s not even a theory yet because no one has found experimental methods to test it.

    Oh, how it inflation slow down. There must be anti matter and dark energy (a weaker force that can allow the initial unknown process of inflation to slow and decay). It is all made up stories. You might as well say God did it.

    Get real James! There is no reason to accept speculative theories if there is no evidence. You should treat your belief in God the same way. Indeed, if you applied one percent of the skepticism you have for established science to the Bible, you would reject it in a heartbeat.

    When it comes down to it, it can all produce the same results. God caused the universe to inflate and then he caused to slow down. You have no real explanation.

    Yes, when it comes to “ultimate” explanations that cannot be tested by observation and evidence, anyone can say whatever they want without fear of contradiction. I could say that the Invisible Pink Fairy farted out the galaxies. That’s the level of your “God did it” explanation. But it would be false to say that the theory of inflation is anything like that because it is part of a very well tested and established theory called General Relativity. And it is natural, like all observable facts of reality. A natural explanation that integrates with an established scientific theory is light years beyond the infantile superstitions and mythological cosmology found in the Bible.

    Stop fooling yourself. You have fell for your own position’s double talk and bait and switches.

    I have no idea what you are babbling about. I have not written anything that could be mistaken for “double talk” or “bait and switch.” Your confusion is as deep as the ocean.

  35. Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    You made the common bait and switch. You used the word truth for something that only is a concept.

    The concept of “truth” is a freaking concept.

    And all theories are conceptual.

  36. Posted October 14, 2015 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    The double standard is that i am admitting my position requires faith. You are not willing to admit that. There is an element of faith to accepting inflation, big bang, dark energy etc. you just don’t want to admit it because then your precious science would sound subjective and open to interpretation.

    There is no double standard. I do not accept inflation “by faith.” I do not even “accept” it at all except as a possibility that is rather intriguing because it solves a couple of the problems with the Big Bang.

    Your tactic is painfully transparent. Creationists constantly try to drag science down to their level of ignorant blind belief, as if science were not based on logic, facts, experiments, and observations. The motivation is perfectly clear – they know they have no more evidence for Yahweh than the Tooth Fairy. And worse, we have strong evidence that it would be impossible for Yahweh to exist because the Bible describes him with logically incoherent attributes and says that he did things that are patently false, such as creating a three-tiered universe in accordance with the mythological cosmology of the Ancient Near East.

  37. James
    Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    You lie to yourself and thereore others. You cannot say that you accept inflation as a good way to explain a couple of problems. More times than not you are trying to get me to accept the big bang as fact, and consequently that would include inflation and dark matter and energy (which are not detectable and are absolutely as made up as the tooth fairy.) the problem with the big bang is not the congruent math and theories. The problem is the whole premise. You believe a universe and its elements can just do what they to do to get us where we are today. The premise is wrong. No amount of math or no correct theories takes the inncorrect and illogical premise away. It is the elephant in the room that no one talks about because it is embarrassing to admit you have no clue.

    You keep saying that i cannot use ignorance to insert a need for a god. No, i use common sense to insert the need for a god. Meanwhile, you are the hypocrite that uses ingorance to say maybe inflation did it. Maybe dark energy did what we cannot observe to be done. There is no difference. You are inserting theories where there is ignorance and calling it truth and facts. Call it scientific or guessing. But don’t press me to accept it is fact when it is far from being a fact.

    James

  38. James
    Posted October 15, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    If all scientists including you just think that the big bang is simply the best going theory we have currently and still needs work done, then why does everyone treat it like fact and promote it like “that is the way it happened”? You watch Nova or read anything, they describe the big bang not as this is how we think it happened but this is how it happened. You guys are so arrogant and stuck on yourselves. At least I as a Christian can admit what I accept as conceptual truth is my belief. It is not a fact. Ironically, the BIble says it requires faith. If the Bible did not require faith to accept it, it would disprove the BIble. But archaeology and history and fulfilled prophecies verify the Bible more than any other religion. Is it enough to make it fact? Of course not, it is still called a faith for a reason.

    But don’t lie to yourself.

    James

  39. Posted October 15, 2015 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    You lie to yourself and thereore others. You cannot say that you accept inflation as a good way to explain a couple of problems. More times than not you are trying to get me to accept the big bang as fact, and consequently that would include inflation and dark matter and energy (which are not detectable and are absolutely as made up as the tooth fairy.) the problem with the big bang is not the congruent math and theories.

    What the freaking blork are you jabberwocking about? I lie to no one. I most certainly can say that I “accept inflation as a good way to explain a couple of problems.” That doesn’t mean I think it is “fact.” I am not asking, and never have asked, you to “accept the Big Bang as fact.” On the contrary, I have never said anything other than that it is the best fit to the data we currently possess.

    Dark matter is detectable by its gravitational effect. How the freaking zookdork could you be ignorant of this fact?

    Please explain exactly which “maths and theories” are “not congruent” with the Big Bang. And if you are correct, why do the vast majority of cosmologists agree that it is the best fit to the data? And most importantly, what exactly is the alternative that you suggest? A blind ignorant declaration that “gawd did it?” Brilliant! With such deep insights, you are sure to win the next Nobel Prize.

    The problem is the whole premise. You believe a universe and its elements can just do what they to do to get us where we are today. The premise is wrong. No amount of math or no correct theories takes the inncorrect and illogical premise away. It is the elephant in the room that no one talks about because it is embarrassing to admit you have no clue.

    What is the “inncorrect and illogical premise” of which you blather? Your words make no sense at all. Evolution is as well established as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Indeed, it is the second law that drives evolution, and so evolution is inevitable. I’m talking about both chemical and biological evolution. The “elephant” of which you speak is the fact of evolution (which you blindly deny).

    You keep saying that i cannot use ignorance to insert a need for a god. No, i use common sense to insert the need for a god.

    Your “common sense” is the ignorance you inherited from the writers of the Bible.

    Meanwhile, you are the hypocrite that uses ingorance to say maybe inflation did it. Maybe dark energy did what we cannot observe to be done. There is no difference. You are inserting theories where there is ignorance and calling it truth and facts. Call it scientific or guessing. But don’t press me to accept it is fact when it is far from being a fact.

    What the freak are you babbling about? There is no hypocrisy in accepting a speculative theory as possible. I freely admit that no one has any certain knowledge about the ultimate origin of the universe! What is wrong with your brain? I’ve explained this to you 2.3 trillion times. Our ignorance of origins is not evidence for your ludicrous gawd.

  40. James
    Posted October 16, 2015 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Ok, so the best you can offer me is this. Accept that the big bang is possible conceptually. Ok, now what? Oh, and by the way, the big bang is plausible if an energy source can appear from no where, if string theory is true, if a universe knows how to inflate itself, if energy can turn into hydorgen, and if hydrogen can turn to matter, and if matter can condense into stars in an endless vacuum (which goes against physics), and then planetismals can form into planets (overcoming the migration problem which goes against physics).

    But sure, you have demonstrated a concept is possible. A unicorn perhaps helped the first stars form. Conceptually that is possible too. You do not have gaps to work through. You have vast canyons. If the only size gaps was how max the dog got his spots or stripes, i would be unreasonable to reject something like evolution. But the fact that you have no idea how the first stars formed, i am wise to be sceptical that the big bang is far from a reasonable solution and explanation to reality.

    Besides, your words are against you. At least some of them. You already agreed that string theory is not good science. But main stream scientists including Stephen Hawking exclaims that string theory and the multi universe concept are necessary for the big bang theory. So you have shot your arm off. You are trying to argue that you have the intellectual scientific high ground with your theory, but you and i both know it doesnt work without concepts that are recognized already as false sciences. The multi universe concept is super natural. We cannot detect them. They would be beyond nature. But i say god and everyone scientific screams no unnatural explanations. Hypocracy through and through.

    But ok, the big bang is the best conceptual explanation for our universe. Now what? So what. It is not saying much, it is best of one popular theory. I know there are more alternatives, but they are rejected mostly in main stream. So I’m just using your self confidence against you to piss you off.

    James

  41. Posted October 17, 2015 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Ok, so the best you can offer me is this. Accept that the big bang is possible conceptually. Ok, now what?

    No, that is NOT what I’ve been saying at all. I have repeated my position a billion times and you still can’t even state it accurately? How can you be so freaking dense? The Big Bang is the best fit to the evidence we have. It follows as a consequence of the field equations of General Relativity which have been supported by many experimental tests and observations of the cosmic background radiation, red shift caused by expansion, the abundance of light elements, etc., etc., etc.

    Oh, and by the way, the big bang is plausible if an energy source can appear from no where,

    Wrong again. The Big Bang does not say anything about where the energy came from. People are free to speculate how the energy could have come from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum or a black hole from a parent universe or eternal inflation or that it was farted out by the Invisible Pink Unicorn or by the bloody genocidal war god of a primitive iron-age tribe from the Ancient Near East.

    I’ve explained this error to you many times. Why do you continue to repeat it? And besides, your doctrine is that God created the energy “from nothing” so your position is self-defeating. (Yes, yes, I know you can make up some sort of excuse to justify your inconsistency – please don’t bother.)

    if string theory is true,

    String theory is not required for the Big Bang.

    if a universe knows how to inflate itself,

    The “universe” does not need to “know” anything because it is not (in all likelihood) a sentient being. Your language is terribly confused. If inflation is what the universe did, then its no different than any other natural law that obeys equations, like the equations of electromagnetism and gravity. The universe does not need to “know” how to solve the differential equations that describe those phenomena.

    if energy can turn into hydorgen,

    That is an experiment fact. Never heard of E = mc^2? Never heard of the hydrogen bomb where hydrogen is turned into energy? The process goes both ways.

    and if hydrogen can turn to matter,

    Hydrogen IS matter!

    I’m guessing you are talking about nucleosynthesis which also is an established scientific fact.

    and if matter can condense into stars in an endless vacuum (which goes against physics),

    Ha! That’s just another Young Earth Creationist talking point that has been very well refuted by Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross in his article called Creation of the First Stars which opens with these words:

    Scientific evidence for the biblically predicted big bang creation model1 is both overwhelming and compelling. In fact, astronomers have been able to identify a very specific big bang creation model that explains the origin, history, and design of the universe simultaneously.

    And ends with these words:

    The most detailed modeling yet achieved for the earliest star formation in the history of the universe, based on the big bang creation model, matches detailed observations of that history. Miller and Sarfati are wrong. Rather than big bang cosmology being falsified, it has been affirmed. The biblically predicted big bang creation model has passed yet another test.

    Ross’s claim that he Big Bang was “predicted in the Bible” is quite absurd, of course, but at least he understands the scientific evidence (which is why he’s trying to force the Bible to fit it).

    and then planetismals can form into planets (overcoming the migration problem which goes against physics).

    You have yet to show any real understanding of any science. You seem to have no interest in science at all except to tear it down to make room for your pre-scientific superstitions.

    But sure, you have demonstrated a concept is possible.

    I have done infinitely more than that. I have presented advanced mathematical equations and many scientific observations that are best explained by the concept of the Big Bang. And you have not refuted a word of it.

    A unicorn perhaps helped the first stars form. Conceptually that is possible too.

    Correct. And it is precisely as likely as your belief that an iron-age war god from the Ancient Near East did it.

    You do not have gaps to work through. You have vast canyons. If the only size gaps was how max the dog got his spots or stripes, i would be unreasonable to reject something like evolution. But the fact that you have no idea how the first stars formed, i am wise to be sceptical that the big bang is far from a reasonable solution and explanation to reality.

    There is no wisdom in your inverted skepticism. You are fanatically skeptical against established science (of which you are almost entirely ignorant) in favor of ludicrous superstitions and mythological cosmology written by ignorant primitive men. The irony is stunning to behold.

    You are extremely skeptical of established science and entirely gullible for demonstrably false religious superstitions.

    Besides, your words are against you. At least some of them. You already agreed that string theory is not good science.

    Not true. I never said that. You had said “There is no real science in string theory it all” and I agreed, saying that it’s “just speculation at this point. It’s not even a theory yet because no one has found experimental methods to test it.” My words are true. Your comment is demonstrably false, as usual. You cannot even quote me accurately. Your sloppy and confused comments are the root of most of the confusion in this discussion.

    But main stream scientists including Stephen Hawking exclaims that string theory and the multi universe concept are necessary for the big bang theory. So you have shot your arm off.

    I very much doubt that any scientists have said that because all competent scientists know that string theory is nothing but a speculation at this point. But even if some of them did, it wouldn’t do any harm to my position because that would just your opinion of their opinion and you haven’t even given any source to support your words. So once again, your comments are empty and void.

    You are trying to argue that you have the intellectual scientific high ground with your theory, but you and i both know it doesnt work without concepts that are recognized already as false sciences.

    The science of modern cosmology is based on the field equations of General Relativity and observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Large Hadron Collider, and the collective effort of the entire scientific community. It most certainly is the “intellectual scientific high ground.” The problem is that you are attacking science of which you are totally ignorant, and you are doing that only because it contradicts the superstitions taught in your cult manual.

    The multi universe concept is super natural. We cannot detect them. They would be beyond nature. But i say god and everyone scientific screams no unnatural explanations. Hypocracy through and through.

    Not true. You are confused about the meaning of supernatural. When you say God you mean something that is not natural. When a scientist says “multiverse” they mean something that is every bit as natural as everything else studies in science. Once again, you are simply confusing yourself with meaningless words.

    But ok, the big bang is the best conceptual explanation for our universe.

    You keep using that word “conceptual.” I don’t think you have any concept of what it means. All explanations are “conceptual” by nature.

    But ok, the big bang is the best conceptual explanation for our universe. Now what? So what. It is not saying much, it is best of one popular theory. I know there are more alternatives, but they are rejected mostly in main stream. So I’m just using your self confidence against you to piss you off.

    So what? Indeed. You are the one obsessed with questions science has yet to answer because you are desperate to find a place for your God. The absurdity, of course, is that you are implicitly admitting that your “God hypothesis” is no more significant than an unsupported theory like string theory. Now think about this. The irony is quite delicious. You reject all speculative theories as worthless even as you admit that your God hypothesis is nothing but a speculation.

    That was fun. Thanks!

  42. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 18, 2015 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Richard Said, “So what? Indeed. You are the one obsessed with questions science has yet to answer because you are desperate to find a place for your God. The absurdity, of course, is that you are implicitly admitting that your ‘God hypothesis’ is no more significant than an unsupported theory like string theory. Now think about this. The irony is quite delicious. You reject all speculative theories as worthless even as you admit that your God hypothesis is nothing but a speculation.

    That was fun. Thanks!”

    ————————————————

    Ditto to that.

    Creationism is a by-product of sola scriptura, which says that the Bible is the whole, complete, and literal Word of God, and to question it is to commit blasphemy espite all evidence to the contrary, creationists *must* make the real world fit into the model literally described in the bible.

    Oft with very entertaining and hilarious results! LOL. :-D

    Open-mindedness is a noble virtue when it serves inquiry, but deceit in the guise of “open-mindedness” has become a pox during my lifetime. Examining gaps in our understanding of evolution in order to come to a better understanding of how the world works is noble; claiming that the gaps necessarily imply the existence of supernatural forces contrary to observable experience is vile!

    Dogma is not inquiry. And not every side deserves equal time in a serious conversation among adults trying to come to terms with the world around them- some claims are true and some aren’t, some things can be observed and others can’t, some things can be proved and others can’t.

    The first problem is that science is not a compedium of facts a dogmatic declaration, or static body of knowlexge, it is a dynamic process. The testing of sequential hypotheses is similar to Newton’s Method for finding the root of a differentiable function- each iteration gets closer to the truth, but the Truth is never obtained.

    The problem with the “God in the Gaps” argument is that there will always be a gap in which to insert God. That’s fine if you want to believe God is there, but science will continue to try to narrow those gaps.

    Which one is the gap where God lives? When should science stop looking?? Never. So as a scientific hypothesis. Creationism and ID is totally useless, and therefore not science.

    Beyond that, mathematical attempts to “prove” the need for an Intelligent Designer have thus far been a larger pile of horse crap. The reason for this is that the scientific method requires testable hypotheses.

    Ok, all of the arguments for I.D, creationism (young earthers) et al presupposes the same singularity – a supernatural entity. This construct is neither provable nor disprovable and relies soley on faith. So really, the sum of it all is whether one chooses to believe in a god, or that all creation is the sum total of natural processes. No amount of arguing will change anyones mind and for those that do change it will be a result of personal inner conflict which leads them to one or the other conclusion.

    We now know how and where earthquakes originate, mountains rise and fall, how hurricanes and tornados form, mudslides, drought, floods and famines, and ALL are now (and almost globally) accepted as to derive from natural causes and processes.

    We no longer ascribe them to a God or gods. And this works (or is in the process of working) for essentially all of the processes found in nature. Sure, there are ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, ‘gaps’ (perhaps) at the cellular level, certainly ‘gaps’ in chemical and atomic processes

    But attempting to fill in those ‘gaps’ as being the result of a primitive late Iron Age creator or Intelligent Design forsakes all of the ‘gaps’ that have now been filled in by science. In other words, many ‘gaps’ from two, 20, 2000 years ago or 200 million years past have been filled in and present day’gaps’ will most assuredly be filled in somewhere down the road, as science progresses in its understanding.

    The fact that we don’t necessarily fully understand how cancer(s) work does not preclude us from knowing that they do and developing treatment strategies. The ‘gap’ in our cancer knowledge doesn’t keep us from treating and learning nor does it imply that cancer operates outside of the known natural physiological rules. As we test and try various treatments, the results add to the body of knowledge, ultimately resulting in the filling in of those ‘gaps’.

    Science operates; postulates, hypothosizes, theorizes, falsifies, tests and concludes, always leaving room for changes, additions and deletions. Science learns from trial and error and so is cumulative, while dogmatic religion eliminates knowledge in favor of unprovable concepts and is instead reductive.

  43. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 18, 2015 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    he Production of Stars Based on Math and Laws of Physics

    The Evidence

    Creationists have argued that primordial stars cannot form, and that stars are not forming in the universe now…

    For instance, In the Beginning: The First Source of Light and the Reionization of the Universe.

    It’s a 136 page review of the physics of the infant universe, including the formation of primordial stars, by Rennan Barkana, at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, and Loeb.

    First, we know that primordial stars, and non primordial stars, can and do form. Second, the assertion that clouds are “a hundred times too hot” to form stars is directly refuted by the analysis that appears in section 3.3, “Molecular Chemistry, Photo-Dissociation, and Cooling”, as well as chapter 4, “Fragmentation of the First Gaseous Objects”. The Jeans mass is about 30,000 solar masses, and will fragment to form an accreted hierarchy, but the cooling mass limit is higher, about 500,000 solar masses.

    This means that, as presumed, the first primordial stars were very massive by the standards of star formation we are now used to.

    Recent observations with NIRSPEC, an infrared spectrometer on the Keck telescope, reveals temperatures in the photodissociation region of 9500 K. But that’s for the hot halo gas. The same data show a molecular hydrogen temperature of 930 K. (“Hot stars and cool clouds: The photodissociation region M16″ N.A. Levenson et al., Astrophysical Journal 533(1): L53-L56, April 10 2000).

    Observations with ISOCAM (an instrument on the Infrared Space Observatory) show even lower temperatures, about 250-320 Kelvins, in the main nebular cloud (“ISOCAM images of the ‘elephant trunks’ in M 16″, G.L. Pilbratt et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 333(1): L9-L12, May 1 1998).

    Observations of molecular emission from the dense dust knots reveal the gas to be a “surprisingly warm” 60 K, while the dust is as cool as 20 K. Furthermore, model simulations of the earliest stages of star formation produce results that look just like what is actually seen in the Eagle Nebula (“The Eagle Nebula’s fingers – pointers to the earliest stages of star formation?”, G.J. White, et al.”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 342(1): 233-256, February 1999).

    But the Eagle Nebula images, as spectacular as they are, are not the only star formation show in town. Indeed, the venerable Hubble has done far better, if it’s star formation you want to know about.

    Astronomy 122: Birth and Death of Stars is a University of Oregon class for non science majors, delivered entirely over the Internet. The lectures are well illustrated, especially lecture 14, “Star Formation”. There you will find illustrations of how the basic theory of star formation has long been known to work; a collapsing, rotating cloud produces a flat disk, and eventually axial jets form, primarily because the protostar wind is blocked by the equatorial disk, though magnetic field focusing plays a role as well.

    Look at the lecture diagrams first, and then look at the HST images of “proplyds” in the Orion Nebula, and the HST Orion Nebula Mosaic. You see disks, as expected, with protostars in the middle, as expected. Even better, look at Hubble Observes the Fire and Fury of a Stellar Birth, where we see disks and the predicted axial jets. The time lapse image of HH-30 shows that you can see the motion in the axial jet. That motion has even been turned into a movie.

    Blind assertion and wishful thinking simply don’t cut it in a field dominated by science.

    Science may not be perfect, but it is consistent. It is absurd, and no other word will do, to argue that star formation does not or cannot happen, unless you can demonstrate why the images here are not images of star formation, and unless you can demonstrate why the physics that leads inevitably to star formation is wrong.

    Word games and quote mining won’t do, objections have to be quantitative and valid. There are no valid creationist objections to star formation, primordial or otherwise. Simple physics leads inevitably to star formation.

    The formation of stars

    This Hubble image shows part of the Tarantula, the brightest star-forming region in the local Universe. This nebula is found in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a companion galaxy of the Milky Way.

    To astronomers and laymen alike the topic of star formation has always been a particularly appealing one. The reason being that important clues about our genesis lie hidden behind the veil of the dusty, and often very beautiful, star forming molecular clouds.

    Our Earth and the Solar System were born 4.6 billion years ago and our knowledge of the event is sparse. Astronomers turn their eyes to the birth of other stars and stellar systems in neighbouring stellar ‘maternity wards’ and use these as a time machine to see a replay of the events that created our own Solar System.

    Star forming regions also feature in some of the most attractive images Hubble has made.

    Inside the Orion Nebula

    The Orion Nebula is a region of star formation in the Milky Way. Hubble images have revealed “proplyds”, discs of dust around newly born stars that are thought to be planetary systems in the early phases of their creation.

    The large mosaic of 15 Hubble images showing the central part of the Orion complex is one of the most detailed images of a star forming region ever made. It shows a very young star cluster blowing a ‘bubble’ in its remnant parent cloud of glowing gas so that the stars start to be seen in visible light – like the smoke in a forest fire being driven away by the heat.

    Hubble’s high resolution has been crucial in the investigation of the dust disks, dubbed proplyds, around the newly born stars in the Orion Nebula. The ‘proplyds’ may very well be young planetary systems in the early phases of their creation. The details that are revealed are better than what has been achieved with ground-based instruments, and thanks to Hubble we have today visual proof that dusty disks around young stars are common.

    Peering through dust

    Above, the Carina Nebula imaged in visible light by WFC3. Below, the same area imaged in infrared, revealing the stars hidden by the dusty clouds.

    Star birth always seems to take place in dusty environments, where Hubble’s infrared capabilities have been necessary. Dust clouds scatter visible light, but let infrared light through unimpeded, meaning infrared observations are often the only way to see young stars.

    The upgrades installed on Hubble during the servicing mission in 2009 mean that Hubble’s is an extremely capable telescope for making infrared observations. The new Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument is designed to make detailed images both in visible light and in infrared, and offers greatly improved capabilities in the infrared compared to what was possible before the servicing mission.

    WFC3’s images of the Carina Nebula made in visible light show dense clouds of dust and gas. But the images taken by the camera of the same region in infrared make the dust fade, leaving just a faint outline of its location. The young stars forming inside the cloud are suddenly revealed. While the dust clouds make for very pretty pictures, they can often get in the way of what astronomers really want to see.

    Star formation and the history of the cosmos

    Galaxy cluster Abell 383 is a gravitational lens. This process bends and amplifies the light from faraway galaxies, letting astronomers study star formation in galaxies that would normally be too distant and too faint to see.

    Hubble has also contributed to our understanding of star formation beyond the confines of the Milky Way. Neither Hubble nor any other telescope is able to see individual stars outside of the Milky Way and a handful of nearby galaxies in the so-called Local Group. However, the telescope has contributed to major discoveries about star formation in the far reaches of the Universe. This is important as faraway galaxies are seen far back in time, because of the huge distances their light has needed to reach us. Studying starlight from the most distant objects Hubble has observed gives clues about how stars formed in the early years of the Universe, and how they have changed over time.

    This is not the realm of attractive Hubble images like those we save to our computer desktops — these objects can be too distant and too small to see clearly, and sometimes appear just as dots or small blobs in the images. Their unimpressive appearance does not mean they are impossible to study, however. Tricks such as spectroscopy (splitting light into its component colours) let scientists deduce many properties of the objects emitting the light, even if they can’t see them clearly. This is an important area of collaboration between Hubble and ground-based telescopes: while Hubble produces detailed images which help identify objects and their precise location in the sky, large telescopes on the ground are often in a better position to study their spectra.

    Gravitational lensing (where the gravity of a galaxy cluster between us and the object being studied bends light beams towards us) is also part of astronomers’ arsenal as they study these faint and distant galaxies.

  44. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 18, 2015 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    To Richard:

    Oh, you’re making too much Sense dude! Please stop makin’ sense, because it seems these sola-scriptura bible-cultus believing types aren’t ready to evolve past Iron Age primitive mysticism, lore and myth. (I’m sorry, I’m getting the giggles again, here.) LOL. :-D

    They are like the horses that made that dung pile they call a Creationist Museum. If that “museum” doesn’t make you wanna start drinking, nothing will…

    And you know what they say about horses:

    Horses are scared of two things,
    1. things that move.
    2. things that don’t.

    Being alone with their fellow horses in the universe scares the Sh*t out of them, then they build a museum to enshrine it!

    Any “chance” you creation believing types are going to get some new arguments any time soon? I suspect that you could try for billions of years of 24 hour days and creationists would still be spouting the same old, tired, and repeatedly “conspiratorial” reputed nonsense.

    Here’s what they do: ignore the fossil record, near phylogenetic sequence similarity, comparative anatomy (Pentadactyl limbs, insect limbs, aquatic tails, wings, eyes, etc.), radiometric dating, and examples of evolution like the Hyracotherium to the modern day horse and modern evidence like the sympatric speciation of the Hawthorn fly.

    And just for the record, Science doesn’t require a declaration and “faith.” There are people who understand basic science and “concepts” are actually capable of using their minds, and then there are people like them.

    Q: Even if these true-blue BeLIEver types who are horribly, horribly wrong, do we really need to mock them? ”

    A: Well I don’t f**king need to, no. It’s just a Bonus! Trying to shame me for calling horsesh*t horsesh*t really isn’t going to work. That dog won’t hunt.

    P.S. God Says:
    “Every time I have a few bong hits and mellow out, you people keep getting serious on me. Can’t we all just get along and laugh at the bad dioramas? The cheesy/scary mannequins and the horribly skewed explanations to life’s questions.”

  45. Posted October 18, 2015 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    The Production of Stars Based on Math and Laws of Physics

    The Evidence

    Hey there Svpia-Bpvmt777,

    Thanks for sharing that info. The really sad and pathetic fact is that anyone interested could have found it themselves, and saved themselves from public embarrassment.

    The great irony of religious fundamentalism is that it breeds a contempt for the truth to such an extent that truth cannot be received even when it is spoon fed. I call that “irony” because the whole point of religion is that it is supposed to be the “Truth” with a capital T, and yet believers despise it because it contradicts their religious superstitions.

  46. Posted October 18, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Oh, you’re making too much Sense dude! Please stop makin’ sense, because it seems these sola-scriptura bible-cultus believing types aren’t ready to evolve past Iron Age primitive mysticism, lore and myth. (I’m sorry, I’m getting the giggles again, here.) LOL. :-D

    Thanks man! Glad somebody appreciates my efforts.

    Any “chance” you creation believing types are going to get some new arguments any time soon? I suspect that you could try for billions of years of 24 hour days and creationists would still be spouting the same old, tired, and repeatedly “conspiratorial” reputed nonsense.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath! They’ve pretty much exhausted the field of possibilities. The only place left for their gawd is the dark dank mist of ignorance and the vain untestable metaphysical speculations.

    The problem is that we have proof their God does not exist because they claim that God is “trustworthy” which is demonstrably false. If God were half as trustworthy as the average garbage man there would be no debate about his existence. Therefore we know there is no trustworthy God and the God of the Bible has been proven false. QED

    I talk about this more here: Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion

    Here’s what they do: ignore the fossil record, near phylogenetic sequence similarity, comparative anatomy (Pentadactyl limbs, insect limbs, aquatic tails, wings, eyes, etc.), radiometric dating, and examples of evolution like the Hyracotherium to the modern day horse and modern evidence like the sympatric speciation of the Hawthorn fly.

    In short, the reject all science that contradicts their primitive superstitious and demonstrably false religious dogmas.

    Shine on, my friend!

  47. MichaelFree
    Posted October 18, 2015 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    The only reason you can prove that their God is false is because everything in the Universe to them revolves around the bible. Facts like the existence of dinosaurs, which PROVE the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, gets thrown out along with the truth about lots of other things in favor of superstitions. This is not criminal on their part, it’s just ignorance, blind belief, and indoctrination, and if anything, human beings have the right to be ignorant. However, this by no means disproves the existence of a supernatural intelligent being.

    You know what’s really horseshit? Using cultic words and iconography that venerate a dishonorable and immoral human behavior compass that tells its followers to “do what thou wilt” instead of an honorable and moral compass that that tells its followers to “do unto others as you would have done unto you”. If speaking to bible-believers about their beliefs and how false they are, and using truth to do it, honorably, why then dishonorably use words and iconography that venerate an evil deity being that is opposed to the way of righteous Jesus in the Gospels, who, say what you will about the character, followed the Golden Rule, harmed no one during the story, and yet religionists killed him, not because he did anything bad in life, but because he wasn’t like their religion, so they did “what they wilt” to him. They killed him for religious reasons. Their religion was, and is, “do what thou wilt”. Human beings are much more than mannequins, the living natural world is much more than a diorama, and the Golden Rule is a provably good and honorable path in life.

  48. Posted October 18, 2015 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    The only reason you can prove that their God is false is because everything in the Universe to them revolves around the bible. Facts like the existence of dinosaurs, which PROVE the Earth is older than 6,000 years old, gets thrown out along with the truth about lots of other things in favor of superstitions. This is not criminal on their part, it’s just ignorance, blind belief, and indoctrination, and if anything, human beings have the right to be ignorant. However, this by no means disproves the existence of a supernatural intelligent being.

    Hey there Michael,

    That’s a good point. I agree completely. There could be some sort of “cosmic intelligence” or whatever that I know nothing about. The only reason I can say that Yahweh doesn’t exist is because the claims made about him are falsifiable, such as him being trustworthy, kind, or righteous.

  49. James
    Posted October 18, 2015 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Unbelievable

    At least someone can insert actual data to debate instead of just repeating that “I know nothing about which I talk about” and “it is just your faith that causes you to reject well established science.” (paraphrase)
    Excuse me, I had no idea (sarcasm) that we have seen dust circling distant stars. Who am I to reject this solid evidence for the first stars?

    Richard says that we have no reason to believe that the universe can obey the natural laws to form itself. (paraphrase) I do not feel like scrolling up to quote you. It is late as it is. But a natural law is not a thing. A natural law is a recognized pattern. How can the recognized pattern have a part in forming what we see? It is circular and it is sad that you do not even realize it. It is more logical to accept that natural laws must have come from a law giver. But you just can’t seem to admit that because no one can use science to calculate a divine being. I feel like the folly of man has turned to asking and answering his own questions to make himself feel like he is so smart and consequently has put in place a safety net for avoiding considering God.

    Michael, please retain an open mind. I know Richard is more close minded than he admits. We have made discoveries that falsify evolution for sure. Preserved soft tissue on dinosaurs clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs could not be 60 million years old. But this is how old they “have to be” for the theory to be intact. How many dinosaurs actually got redated with the more modern P/Ar dating? Many of the dinosaur fossils you can go see in museums have been there for a while and what was used was probably carbon dating which has been NOW rendered not accurate because its half life is too short to measure anything over 10.000 years old. hmm, this is interesting. But have you heard of fossils at the museums being removed to date them? Of course you have not. I wonder why people assume that carbon dating “must be” wrong since its half life is not long enough. Why doesn’t anyone ask if Argon’s half life is too long to give correct dates for fossils that are young? If you take a mile stick to measure something shorter than an inch, you are not going to get an accurate date. If there was a world wide flood, which there is evidence for, then all samples would be unreliable and at the same consistently yielding an older date due to water solubility. Even if the world wide flood is rejected, there is still evidence for local floods all over the earth. But scientists would rather trust one method of radiometric dating than the other methods that tell us the earth, sun, and moon are not as old as they should be for evolution to even be true. The moon has been consistently moving from the earth at 1.5 inches a year. You use measurable confirmable science, and you realize that the moon would have been too close to the earth to support life forming to fit the theory of evolution. I have given other problems that are well known that have been ignored. But I appreciate something finally being said about star formation and I will have to look at it more.

    Do not be so close minded Michael. I am lost hope for Richard. He is angry at a God that he claims he does not believe in. He will deny such a claim from me of course. But he has a whole article to explain why the God of the Bible is untrustworthy. How can someone be untrustworthy who does not exist? If he was being logical and not too busy being angry at God, he would have realized his mistake. He probably meant to say that people’s faith in God is subjective and not reliable or provable. Sure, I’ll say that. It is called faith after all. All he has really demonstrated is that modern cosmology is scientific in its explanations. I could use science to explain how a log cabin in the woods form. I could say that we would predicted something to exist made from wood filled with trees that are also wood. We could also notice that one side of the cabin looked older than another side and properly predict that one side must have formed before the one. We could use “science” to figure out just how much earlier and so on. But all of this measuring and calculating and science is moot since we KNOW by knowledge and logic that log cabins do not form on their own. They are built and designed. As simple as a log cabin is, it requires a designer. But these scientists will try to convince you that a universe can form by itself. How can they assume this? They get away with it because they rely on ignorance which is ironically what they excuse creationists to rely on. They also assume that biological life and intelligence and form on its own. They will say things like our bodies are just chemicals, you know nothing about which you speak. Yeah, and the Mona Lisa is just paint strokes on a page right? Yeah, it takes 2 billion neurological communications in your body. If one happens out of order, it doesn’t work. If a simple log cabin or a painting cannot reasonably be considered for coming about on its own, why do we assume or pretend to think that life could? Is braille just divots on a page? Yes and no. It is dots or divots on a page, but those divots mean nothing unless the information was put and arranged by intelligence and was received by intelligence. Everything in biology follows instructions to know what to do what it does. That does not just happen. There is no reasonable reason to consider it happening on its own.

    James

  50. MichaelFree
    Posted October 19, 2015 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    James,

    You said:

    “Do not be so close minded Michael”.

    Ok. I’ll rephrase what I wrote:

    “Facts like the existence of dinosaurs, which 99.9% PROVE the Earth is older than 6,000-10,000 years old, gets thrown out along with the truth about lots of other things in favor of superstitions.”

    You said:

    “But these scientists will try to convince you that a universe can form by itself”.

    But these religionists will try to convince you that a God can form by itself.

  51. Posted October 19, 2015 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Unbelievable

    At least someone can insert actual data to debate instead of just repeating that “I know nothing about which I talk about” and “it is just your faith that causes you to reject well established science.” (paraphrase)

    What are you babbling about James? I have presented a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that you could not understand, let alone refute. I presented the evidence for General Relativity (perihelion of Mercury, gravitational lensing, time dilation, etc., etc., etc.) and you didn’t understand a word of it and falsely claimed that I never presented any “real life evidence.” So I presented it again, and you wrote nothing that indicated any understanding. Why do you keep repeating such blatantly absurd falsehoods?

    Excuse me, I had no idea (sarcasm) that we have seen dust circling distant stars. Who am I to reject this solid evidence for the first stars?

    That’s not the only evidence. No real scientists think that we need a god to explain the formation of stars we see happening around us today or the formation of the first stars. Your fixation on such a ludicrous creationist talking point is very revealing. And again, it is utterly absurd because it doesn’t matter if there were a problem with our current knowledge of star formation because our ignorance is not evidence for your god.

    I’ve explained this 2.3 trillion times now, and yet you continue repeating the mind-numbing creationist crap. YOu are not an astrophysicist. You don’t even understand the most basic elements of General Relativity. Yet you keep harping on supposed “problems” with science that imply your infantile war god from the iron age is the creator of all reality? Get real!

    Richard says that we have no reason to believe that the universe can obey the natural laws to form itself. (paraphrase) I do not feel like scrolling up to quote you. It is late as it is. But a natural law is not a thing. A natural law is a recognized pattern. How can the recognized pattern have a part in forming what we see? It is circular and it is sad that you do not even realize it. It is more logical to accept that natural laws must have come from a law giver. But you just can’t seem to admit that because no one can use science to calculate a divine being. I feel like the folly of man has turned to asking and answering his own questions to make himself feel like he is so smart and consequently has put in place a safety net for avoiding considering God.

    The meaning of “natural law” is the subject of much debate by philosophers of science. It causes some confusion because the word “law” in the normal sense refers to human laws that entail a law giver. Many creationists see this and immediately leap to your conclusion, that it is “more logical” to think they come from a law giver. I don’t see any logic in your assertion at all. I think it would be great if you would like to explain it further. At least we would be discussing something relating to the topic of this thread.

    You say natural law is not a “thing.” I agree. But if it’s not a “thing” then why does it need to “come from” somewhere? Your words seem incoherent to me. Perhaps the confusion is around the meaning of “thing.” It seems you mean “physical thing.” Is that correct? If so, that has nothing to do with the discussion, because natural law is an abstract thing. It is interesting you make a point of this, because the same is true of logic. It is not a “thing” and does not have an independent existence. This is the central error of Presuppositional Apologetics which confuses language by treating logic as a “thing” that “exists” and so requires an explanation like “God.” That’s not true at all. Logic is merely what we mean by our words and how they relate to reality.

    Michael, please retain an open mind. I know Richard is more close minded than he admits. We have made discoveries that falsify evolution for sure. Preserved soft tissue on dinosaurs clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs could not be 60 million years old. But this is how old they “have to be” for the theory to be intact. How many dinosaurs actually got redated with the more modern P/Ar dating? Many of the dinosaur fossils you can go see in museums have been there for a while and what was used was probably carbon dating which has been NOW rendered not accurate because its half life is too short to measure anything over 10.000 years old. hmm, this is interesting. But have you heard of fossils at the museums being removed to date them? Of course you have not. I wonder why people assume that carbon dating “must be” wrong since its half life is not long enough. Why doesn’t anyone ask if Argon’s half life is too long to give correct dates for fossils that are young? If you take a mile stick to measure something shorter than an inch, you are not going to get an accurate date. If there was a world wide flood, which there is evidence for, then all samples would be unreliable and at the same consistently yielding an older date due to water solubility. Even if the world wide flood is rejected, there is still evidence for local floods all over the earth. But scientists would rather trust one method of radiometric dating than the other methods that tell us the earth, sun, and moon are not as old as they should be for evolution to even be true. The moon has been consistently moving from the earth at 1.5 inches a year. You use measurable confirmable science, and you realize that the moon would have been too close to the earth to support life forming to fit the theory of evolution. I have given other problems that are well known that have been ignored. But I appreciate something finally being said about star formation and I will have to look at it more.

    Ah … the dredges from the bottom of the putrid pit of corrupt creationist lies.

    They’ve all been refuted. There is no excuse for spewing them out here. But at least you now have fully exposed your “intellectual” heritage.

    I have to go to work. I’ll answer more later.

    Richard

  52. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    “Shine on, my friend!”

    Your entire approach is encapsulated right there. Someone agrees with you: “my friend”. Someone disagrees: “idiot”.

    Funny thing is, it was exactly the same when you were a Christian. Only thing that has changed is the labels. Your entire schtick is nothing but ego needing to be “right”. Tomorrow, you might change your position again, but it will still be ” shine on friend” to whoever is on your side, and “go f*ck yourself” to whoever dares oppose you.

    See, you were never really a Christian, because to be a Christian is to love your enemies. When you claimed to be a follower of Christ, you would have heaped insult on insult on Svpia-Bpvmt777 and been best buddies with James. Now it’s the other way round. Tomorrow, who knows.

    James I salute your patience, and your integrity and your politeness despite the barrage of pathetic insults which have been hurled your way. You are loving your enemy. It’s a credit to you.

  53. James
    Posted October 19, 2015 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Hello there Richard,

    You keep ranting that general relativity and all its components provide a mountain of evidence for the big bang. You are still using a bait and switch of your own side and you probably do not even realize it because everyone who accepts the big bang uses the same tactics.
    Instead of just asserting this accusation like you do to me when you just blab out that I am wrong go look it up the answer is out there for you to find, I will actually explain why you are wrong here.

    I have trying to get through to your think skull that general relativity does not help the big picture of the big bang. General relativity is in fact a well established reality in science. No big bang theorist or creationist debates that at all. But when I look up “evidence for the big bang” online in general or on youtube, all I find are the same jumps in logic. The premise or hypothesis is this: because we have a mountain of evidence that galaxies are moving away, we know that in the past they were closer together. The mountain of evidence is for the galaxies moving apart. This is established.
    The bait and switch occurs when you attach the actual evidence for galaxies moving apart to the hypothesis that they must have started at a single point of origin (call it a singularity, a dense energy source etc). But the mountain of evidence does not tell us about the origin or how close anything was in the beginning. We only know from the actual “mountain” of science that they were closer together at some point in the past and they moving apart now. THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS ESTABLISHED!!!!! Everything else is a hypothesis and is interpretation and theory.

    I tried to tell you this earlier and it is like you didn’t read it or you thought I was reading some creationist crap. But I am not. Look up for yourself “evidence for the big bang” on youtube. Every video that I watch makes the jump of logic and assumption that I just described above. Are they all wrong or not giving a full explanation? I will provide some examples. Notice the first guy. He is convinced like you that there is a ton of established evidence. Then he lists the hypothesis. Then he lists ALL the EVIDENCE for an expanding universe. That is all he does. No evidence for a confirmed expanding universe confirm its origin. That is only a hypothesis that the big bang is based on. DOn’t believe me, watch for yourself.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrYF_hxxUM

    ALso watch a professor who teaches about theoretical phycis for a living tell you that the big bang stems from a hypothesis FROM the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, not the actual evidence itself. The video is long, he first explains the big bang of course, around 29 minutes or so, he starts making conclusions and limitations on the big bang theory itself. He also makes statements about relativity. Why don’t you argue with him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxptIJS7kQ

    James

  54. James
    Posted October 19, 2015 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    —The meaning of “natural law” is the subject of much debate by philosophers of science. It causes some confusion because the word “law” in the normal sense refers to human laws that entail a law giver. Many creationists see this and immediately leap to your conclusion, that it is “more logical” to think they come from a law giver. I don’t see any logic in your assertion at all. I think it would be great if you would like to explain it further. At least we would be discussing something relating to the topic of this thread.—-

    You say natural law is not a “thing.” I agree. But if it’s not a “thing” then why does it need to “come from” somewhere? Your words seem incoherent to me. Perhaps the confusion is around the meaning of “thing.” It seems you mean “physical thing.” Is that correct? If so, that has nothing to do with the discussion, because natural law is an abstract thing. It is interesting you make a point of this, because the same is true of logic. It is not a “thing” and does not have an independent existence. This is the central error of Presuppositional Apologetics which confuses language by treating logic as a “thing” that “exists” and so requires an explanation like “God.” That’s not true at all. Logic is merely what we mean by our words and how they relate to reality.——

    I never said that natural laws were things. You got off subject in your reply. I did say that natural laws are patterns. Gravity behaves and adheres to recognized laws. But gravity could not be in force in the beginning to form dense matter like stars since there were no stars first place to have the gravity force. You cannot say we get gravity from dense enough matter like stars and say that dense matter like stars formed from natural laws in place like gravity. The light particles coming together would not have been strong enough. Only once a star is established and has its own gravity force would gravity be in place, not before. If you push down on a spray can, which way does the air flow, the more condensed air, product flows outward into the less dense air space. The less dense air does not get sucked into the dense can. There is no container in outer space. How would the weak gravitational force of light particles overcome the empty vacuum space of outer space?

    James

  55. Posted October 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    “Shine on, my friend!”

    Your entire approach is encapsulated right there. Someone agrees with you: “my friend”. Someone disagrees: “idiot”.

    Not true. I have no problem admitting intelligence in folks who have different opinions. You are just making up ludicrous ad hominem because you cannot justify your arguments. I have never called anyone an idiot because they disagree. Your assertion is a blatant lie. The worst you can accuse me of is asking questions like “how can you be so dense” when person demonstrates a profound incorrigibility and repeats the same errors after they have been explained many times. That is nothing like the false accusation you threw at me.

    Funny thing is, it was exactly the same when you were a Christian. Only thing that has changed is the labels. Your entire schtick is nothing but ego needing to be “right”. Tomorrow, you might change your position again, but it will still be ” shine on friend” to whoever is on your side, and “go f*ck yourself” to whoever dares oppose you.

    Not true. I am quite happy to admit my errors. What do you think I’ve been doing in my many posts in which I’ve debunking my former claims? LOL

    Your comments have no meaningful content. They are pure ad hominem, false assertion, and false caricature. You remind me of Terry Blanchard who spewed out similar tripe filled with false accusations (see here). After failing to support his argument with logic and facts, he resorted to mere assertion that opened with “You really are full of shit” and ended with “So now: flip out. Get all bent out of shape. Call me names. And then go fuck yourself.” I had not called him any names. I had not used any expletives. All I did was defend my position with logic and facts and he ignored every word I wrote. His response is amazing to behold in light of his previous “meek and mild” accusations that all the name calling and “lack of dignity” on my blog is caused by me. On the upside, people like Terry make my job a lot easier. They demonstrate how dogmatic religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Judging by your comments, you could be Terry Blanchard.

    See, you were never really a Christian, because to be a Christian is to love your enemies.

    And of course everyone can see the abundant love for both humanity and truth that flows from your keyboard. LOL

  56. Posted October 19, 2015 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    The bait and switch occurs when you attach the actual evidence for galaxies moving apart to the hypothesis that they must have started at a single point of origin (call it a singularity, a dense energy source etc). But the mountain of evidence does not tell us about the origin or how close anything was in the beginning. We only know from the actual “mountain” of science that they were closer together at some point in the past and they moving apart now. THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS ESTABLISHED!!!!! Everything else is a hypothesis and is interpretation and theory.

    There is no bait and switch. The concept of the singularity is not an independent hypothesis made up out of nothing. It follows by necessity from the classical field equations of General Relativity coupled with the observed expansion. I’ve explained this many times. If you accept the field equations (which you say you do) then the singularity follows by necessity, just like the parabolic path of a rock that obeys Newton’s laws of motion.

    Of course, a true singularity is only implied if classical (non-quantum mechanical) General Relativity is true. I explained this in my first post address to you. Here is what I wrote:

    All physicists acknowledge that the known laws of nature break down at the singularity. And that’s why we can only speak of what happened after the Big Bang. We simply don’t know anything about the singularity itself. There may not even have been a singularity since it is likely that quantum effects would take over at that scale. But no one knows because we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

    I do not understand why you keep pressing this point. As far as I can tell, you accept everything except the “hypothesis” that the expansion can be extrapolated back to a very small hot dense beginning. If that is the case, then it seems you are suggesting that God created the universe relatively recently (like a million years ago) in a state that was almost as large as currently, and that extrapolating beyond that point would be an error. Is that it? If so, it sounds like a variation on the “appearance of age” argument that apologists use to try to harmonize cosmology with the relatively young universe taught in the Bible.

    It would really help if you would just lay your cards on the table and tell us what you really think. We’ve been going round and round repeating the same points for months now.

  57. Posted October 19, 2015 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    I never said that natural laws were things. You got off subject in your reply.

    That’s exactly correct James, and that’s why I never said you did! On the contrary, I quoted you as saying they were NOT things, and I went on to say that I agreed. I did not get “off track” in any way at all. My comments were a basic review of the elementary facts relating to natural law as discussed by philosophers of science.

    I did say that natural laws are patterns. Gravity behaves and adheres to recognized laws. But gravity could not be in force in the beginning to form dense matter like stars since there were no stars first place to have the gravity force. You cannot say we get gravity from dense enough matter like stars and say that dense matter like stars formed from natural laws in place like gravity. The light particles coming together would not have been strong enough. Only once a star is established and has its own gravity force would gravity be in place, not before.

    Where do you come up with this crap? Your comments directly contradict the field equations. The strength of gravity is based on the energy density tensor. It does not matter if the energy is in the electromagnetic field or particle fields or whatever. Your comments are utterly meaningless in the context of General Relativity. Why do you presume to be able to comment on something you know nothing about?

    If you push down on a spray can, which way does the air flow, the more condensed air, product flows outward into the less dense air space. The less dense air does not get sucked into the dense can. There is no container in outer space. How would the weak gravitational force of light particles overcome the empty vacuum space of outer space?

    Seriously? You don’t even understand how dust clouds in space condense under the force of gravity? This has been known for over a hundred years. Anyone with a passing familiarity with cosmology knows about the Virial Theorem which gives the conditions for gravitational collapse. If you had any interest in science, truth, and reality you could have looked it up yourself.

    Why are creationists almost always totally ignorant of the science they reject?

  58. Posted October 19, 2015 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    I am lost hope for Richard. He is angry at a God that he claims he does not believe in. He will deny such a claim from me of course. But he has a whole article to explain why the God of the Bible is untrustworthy. How can someone be untrustworthy who does not exist? If he was being logical and not too busy being angry at God, he would have realized his mistake.

    James,

    Your comment is absurd. The whole point of my argument is that we know that the God of the Bible does not exist because the Bible says he can be trusted but we know he cannot. Here is how I explained in in a recent post in this thread:

    We have proof their God does not exist because they claim that God is “trustworthy” and that is demonstrably false. If God were half as trustworthy as the average garbage man there would be no debate about his existence. Therefore we know there is no trustworthy God and the God of the Bible has been proven false. QED

    There is debate about his existence because he is not trustworthy. That debate could not exist if he were trustworthy because trustworthiness entails existence. Therefore, we have proof that the Christian God does not exist.

    How anyone could misinterpret my proof for God’s nonexistence as a presumption of his existence is beyond me. Your brain seems seriously broken dude. This is beyond ridiculous. Is there no concept so simple that you could not fail to understand it?

    Add to this the absurdity of your claim that I am “angry” at a gawd who doesn’t exist. Oy vey! You’re breaking my brain!

    He probably meant to say that people’s faith in God is subjective and not reliable or provable. Sure, I’ll say that. It is called faith after all.

    It’s called “faith” because it is delusional. That’s why all cults require “faith”.

  59. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted October 20, 2015 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    ” I have never called anyone an idiot because they disagree. Your assertion is a blatant lie. ”

    Ah yes, I see where I went wrong now. “Moron” is your preferred term, not “idiot”.

    …………………………………………………………………………….

    It’s even in the Talmud and the Bible you freaking moron!

    You LYING FREAKING MORON!

    Your assertions are ludicrous beyond description. Your stubborn stupidity has made you appear to be a moron David. And worse, a lying moron. And worse yet, an arrogant, lying moron. 

    He seems be a complex combination ofpsycho/troll/moron.

    A psychtrollmoron!

    Your moronism runs deep sylvius. You are utterly devoid of truth. Your light is darkness! 

    YOU are presenting YOURSELF as a “freaking moron” when you pile LIES UPON LIES and when you assert absurdities over and over and over again. 

    The moron associates all hexagons with 666 because hexagons can be formed from six equilateral triangles and triangles have three sides so leaps through a schizophrenic non sequitur from six three-sided things to three sixes! The guy is literally insane. Utterly deluded. Nuts. Crazy. 

    Where have you made up anything like me? Ha! What a pathetic joke! You have made up piles and piles of words and phrases not found in the Bible you freaking brain dead moron!

    Damn straight, you freaking deluded moron!

    you are so bloody stupid that you didn’t realize that anyone can play your moronic game.

    That’s why I asked. I have repeated the same point quadrillions of times and you continue to repeat the same errors like a brain dead moron.

    Geisler has LOST HIS MIND. We are witnessing the Moron of Morons defending the Liar of Liars.

    How utterly moronic! Pure delusion. It doesn’t matter how many times I bring this to your attention, you just ignore what I say and post more moronic bullshit.

    How can you be such a moron as to not understand something so plain and obvious?

    You can’t refute a word I write, so you mock yourself and make yourself look like a moron

    What kind of moron are you?

    You freaking moron!

    Your poor pathetic moron!

    etc etc etc etc

  60. Posted October 20, 2015 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    ” I have never called anyone an idiot because they disagree. Your assertion is a blatant lie. ”

    Ah yes, I see where I went wrong now. “Moron” is your preferred term, not “idiot”.

    Thank you for presenting the evidence that confirms the truth of my words. As I said, I have never called anyone an “idiot” (or moron, or any other such term) merely because they disagree. On the contrary, I have always presented EVIDENCE that justified the statement and used it only in cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence that is staring them in the face (and typically spewing mindless ad hominem without any hint of rational argument).

  61. Posted October 20, 2015 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Geisler has LOST HIS MIND. We are witnessing the Moron of Morons defending the Liar of Liars.

    I’m really glad you brought this one up. Norman Geisler is one of the premier Christian apologists. He spewed out ludicrous lies to defend the outrageous lies of Ergun Caner, the fake ex-Muslim terrorist and former President of Liberty University Theological Seminary. And of course Liberty spewed out lies to cover Caner’s lies. And then after the truth finally forced Liberty to gently let their beloved liar go, the lunatic fundamentalist Christians at Brewton-Parker College hired him as president. The scandal revealed the intellectual and moral corruption that saturates evangelical Christianity. It is a perfect example of how fundamentalism tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Seeing that open sewer flow from the heart of evangelical Christianity helped free me from the shackles of the cult. I wrote more than a few articles about it:

    Ergun Caner’s Crimes Against God and the Global Community

    Statement from Liberty To Lie University (with Annotations)

    Free Will Baptists Hide Evidence of Caner’s Lies

    Dazed and Confused Geisler flings self upon Caner’s Funeral Pyre

    2013 New Year Reflections: How Integrity led me into and drove me out of Evangelical Christianity

    Here is a snippet from the last article in the list that explains how the open sewer of evangelical lies helped free me from the cult.

    So what happened on May 3, 2010? That was the day that I wrote my article Ergun Caner’s Crimes against God and the Global Community. Caner was your typical bombastic Baptist preachin’ man who lies as easily as he breathes. Shortly after 9/11 he began promoting himself as a former member of the “Islamic Youth Jihad” trained in Turkey who came to America in his teens “to do that which was done on 11 September.” He invented this false history to launch himself into national fame as an “inside expert on Islam.” And as would be expected, his lies were uncritically accepted and heralded by many of the most prominent leaders in evangelical Christianity. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University, personally chose him to be the President and Dean of his Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. There was no question about the facts. He had posted his lies on his own website and proclaimed them in countless sermons. And what did the “Christian leadership” do? They conspired to cover it all up and slander anyone who spoke the truth. I followed the scandal for months, and was utterly dismayed to see the leadership of Liberty University, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, prominent apologists like Norm Geisler and John Ankerberg, and many evangelical Christian ministries covering up the lies and attacking anyone who would speak the truth. This was the final straw for me. The most fundamentalist Christians – those who proclaimed Christ with the most fervor – proved themselves to be active agents of both intellectual and moral corruption. Like the proverbial frog in boiling water, I had unconsciously assimilated many lies from my decade of Christian fellowship. You’ve gotta be careful about the company you keep. I needed a dose of ipecac, the emetic syrup used to induced vomiting after a poison has been ingested. And that’s what this scandal provided, as I explained in my post of May 22, 2010 called Ergun Emetico Caner: The Ipecac of God (Nuclear, Weaponized):

  62. James
    Posted October 20, 2015 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Hey Richard,

    Before I start adding comments, I wanted to see if you finished commenting on what had already been said. I do not even want to touch your comparison of God to a garbage man yet. That would spin us off to theology for sure, or whatever that analogy falls under. :/

    But,
    I provided a link to a video where a theoretical professor at Princeton said straight in the video that the beginning according to the Big bang is just a hypothesis. I wanted you to hear it from him. This guy teaches this stuff for a living. Did you even watch the video? He is not a creationist. If anything, he explains how the big bang model provides a worthy explanation. He also said that the model has needed tweaking along the way. This is something that you have admitted as well.

    I would appreciate your opinion on what he said. The video is long but you can skip to about 29m-35m to hear what he has to say. But I wanted to give you the chance to watch the whole video if you wanted to so I would be labelled as cherry picking quotes. This guy who is fully qualified to teach about the big bang can say that the beginning is just a hypothesis, but you say that the beginning is based off more than that. General relativity is how things move relative to each other. Yes, the science says that galaxies are moving apart. We have classical and modern tests to prove this. I get this. It is not that I haven’t heard or read you. But there is no test to apply the physics of today into the origin of the past is the point. This science can not be applied to an origin. We talked about this early on. The same science and processes used in operating and functioning do not work or apply in its origin and creation. I do not eat food the same way as I make it, cook it, or prepare it.

    There are a few other things that I will ask for clarification on. But I think long comments do not produce good thorough replies. I want to limit that.
    James

  63. Posted October 20, 2015 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    I provided a link to a video where a theoretical professor at Princeton said straight in the video that the beginning according to the Big bang is just a hypothesis. I wanted you to hear it from him. This guy teaches this stuff for a living. Did you even watch the video? He is not a creationist. If anything, he explains how the big bang model provides a worthy explanation. He also said that the model has needed tweaking along the way. This is something that you have admitted as well.

    Hey there James,

    Yes, I watched most of the video. His lecture supports everything I have written on this topic. Specifically, beginning at about 1:09:30, in answer to the question “Did the Big Bang happen” Dr. Steinhardt said this:

    There is first of all the idea that the universe was once hot and it’s been expanding and cooling, and space is stretching. For that, we have overwhelming evidence that it’s true, and we actually have enough overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present. So that idea is definitely the case.

    Now if you pin them and ask them the question, “Does that mean you are confident from your observations (or whatever reason) that the Big Bang was a beginning?” Most of them will say “Well, that’s a common view but we don’t know it to be true.” We have no proof it is true because in fact what’s happening is we are extrapolating to points that we can’t observationally test using this theory which at a certain point we know can’t be properly extrapolated too far back because if you go too far back we know quantum effects become important and Einstein, when he developed his General Theory didn’t know about quantum – well, it wasn’t developed to include quantum physics. So we know the theory we’re extrapolating isn’t correct and we don’t yet have a replacement.

    So your assertion that there has been a “bait and switch” concerning the fact that the universe was initially a very tiny hot dense point has been falsified by “overwhelming evidence” according to the lecture you posted.

    You need to admit your error on this point. It is extremely important because you repeated that error many times and used it as “evidence” of a “bait and switch” which never happened. Here is what you wrote:

    The bait and switch occurs when you attach the actual evidence for galaxies moving apart to the hypothesis that they must have started at a single point of origin (call it a singularity, a dense energy source etc). But the mountain of evidence does not tell us about the origin or how close anything was in the beginning. We only know from the actual “mountain” of science that they were closer together at some point in the past and they moving apart now. THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS ESTABLISHED!!!!! Everything else is a hypothesis and is interpretation and theory.

    The professor says that the “overwhelming evidence” goes back to 1 second after the Big Bang when the universe was very tiny and hot. You say the evidence doesn’t tell us anything about “how close anything was in the beginning.” Your statement is false.

    Note that the professor confirmed that a true singularity (of infinite density) is not known to have happened because of quantum effects. This has been my position from the beginning. But the fact that we can’t reliably extrapolate further than 1 second when the universe was a very very tiny hot dense dot says nothing to support your claims about any “bait and switch.” You assertions have been completely falsified. You really need to admit this point. There is no way that the universe was created in the relatively recent past in roughly the same condition as we see it now.

    Also, I would like a very brief and and lucid statement of why you think your point was important. As far as I can tell, the only reason you would want to press that point is so you could invent the idea that God created the universe pretty much as we see it today in the relatively recent past. Is that correct? If so, you now know that idea is totally contradicted by what the good doctor calls “overwhelming evidence.”

    Thanks! Great chatting!

    Richard

  64. Posted October 20, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    James,

    In my original post addressed to you (link), you described the Big Bang as “pseudo-science.” You have frequently said that “there is no proof for the big bang, only circumstantial evidence.” You said “It conflicts with the very laws of science that matter can be neither created or destroyed.” But now you have posted a link to a lecture by an expert in the field who contradicts you on all those points. Specifically, he says “we have overwhelming evidence that it’s true, and we actually have enough overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present.

    It would be good if you could clarify your position.

    Thanks!

    Richard

  65. Posted October 20, 2015 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Before I start adding comments, I wanted to see if you finished commenting on what had already been said. I do not even want to touch your comparison of God to a garbage man yet. That would spin us off to theology for sure, or whatever that analogy falls under.

    That would be fine. I would be happy to discuss that analogy, and more importantly the general question of God’s trustworthiness, with you. Just reply to my post Is God Trustworthy? The Root of Religious Delusion and we can discuss it in that comment stream.

    All the best to you my friend,

    Richard

  66. Posted October 20, 2015 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Hey there James,

    Here is an excellent lecture by the man who wrote the book answering the question “How Old is the Universe” –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyOYyhtB2P4

  67. James
    Posted October 21, 2015 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    For the record, i already did respond to you in that “is god trustworthy thread.” But i am not sure i want to keep up with two conversations. Kind of time consuming right now as it is.

    It is interesting what you choose to respond to from my lecture link. You didnt answer my question. You focused on some other part of the video that you would rather comment on. The professor said near 28m-35m that the beginning is just a hypothesis. So he either contradicted himself or he restated more thoroughly where you watched a full explanation.

    Here is the thing. The only reason you can successfully extrapolate back to a few seconds before the big bang is because you are not loyal to any current and or past predictions and calculations. Everytime new data or whatever is found, you just change the math, add or subtract changes, then make math= x (the data we see.

    Anyone can do this. If we know our math must equal 50. I can say look, my math calculations are spot on because 5+5+5+5+5=25. Then we see nee data. So the answer should be 65. So we say there must have been more additions or multipling in the beginning. So now you say see, 10×2+ 8+7+6+5+4+3+3+2+2+2+1+1+1=65. And you say our calculations are so spot how could people question it. Simple, in 5 years from now, it will be something else iust like 10 years ago and 20 years ago it was also something else. You have made a web of self created solutions and problems to them. That is all.

    James

  68. Posted October 21, 2015 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    It is interesting what you choose to respond to from my lecture link. You didnt answer my question. You focused on some other part of the video that you would rather comment on. The professor said near 28m-35m that the beginning is just a hypothesis. So he either contradicted himself or he restated more thoroughly where you watched a full explanation.

    Hey there James,

    I most certainly did answer your question. I really don’t understand how you could have missed it. Here is a transcript of the part the the lecture you cited. It begins at 35:30 –

    We don’t know that the Big Bang is the beginning. That was always a hypothesis. We don’t know that’s true from General Relativity, we don’t know that it’s true from our understanding of Quantum Gravity. It’s just a hypothesis that if you take the universe and stretch it back in – and, and and follow it back in time, it will eventually converge to a – well, if you believed Einstein’s theory all the way back to that point, it would converge to a point and then somehow that would be a beginning. Maybe it’s not. We don’t know that. We know that in fact Einstein’s theory is incomplete. It doesn’t even include Quantum Physics. So we know as we reach that point, there’s some point where Quantum Mechanics comes in, but we don’t know yet what – we don’t yet have a Quantum Theory of Gravity at hand – so we can’t say for sure what happens at that point. So it’s reasonable, if you don’t like what happened, if you’re not satisfied with it, to contemplate the alternative possibility that the Big Bang is not the beginning and then see where that leads you. And that is the line of reasoning that eventually led to this alternative we want to talk about now which is this idea of a Cyclic Universe.

    Compare this with the answer I gave by quoting from the same lecture, beginning at 1:09:30, where Dr. Steinhardt answered exactly the same question:

    There is first of all the idea that the universe was once hot and it’s been expanding and cooling, and space is stretching. For that, we have overwhelming evidence that it’s true, and we actually have enough overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present. So that idea is definitely the case.

    Now if you pin them and ask them the question, “Does that mean you are confident from your observations (or whatever reason) that the Big Bang was a beginning?” Most of them will say “Well, that’s a common view but we don’t know it to be true.” We have no proof it is true because in fact what’s happening is we are extrapolating to points that we can’t observationally test using this theory which at a certain point we know can’t be properly extrapolated too far back because if you go too far back we know quantum effects become important and Einstein, when he developed his General Theory didn’t know about quantum – well, it wasn’t developed to include quantum physics. So we know the theory we’re extrapolating isn’t correct and we don’t yet have a replacement.

    Dr. Steinhardt was perfectly consistent throughout his lecture. He gave the same answer to the same question at two different times. And look at what he said. It is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning. If you believe Einstein’s Equations all the way back, then you get a singularity. But there is good reason to doubt Einstein’s theory is correct when we get to exceedingly small sizes because of quantum effects. Here is how I put it in my first post addressed to you over three months ago:

    All physicists acknowledge that the known laws of nature break down at the singularity. And that’s why we can only speak of what happened after the Big Bang. We simply don’t know anything about the singularity itself. There may not even have been a singularity since it is likely that quantum effects would take over at that scale. But no one knows because we don’t have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

    Why do I have to keep repeating the same elementary facts over and over and over again? I have no idea how you could fail to understand something this plain and simple, especially since I have repeatedly explained it to you and the good doctor confirmed every word I wrote.

    All the best,

    Richard

  69. James
    Posted October 22, 2015 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Are u done replying?

    James

  70. Posted October 22, 2015 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Are u done replying?

    James

    No, I have a lot more to say, but it would be good if you first answered the replies I have already given.

    Look at my last reply. Do you understand it? You said I didn’t answer when in fact I have repeated the same answer many times, which also is confirmed by the answer given TWICE by the authority you cited in the video you linked. Why are you not answering? Why did I have to repeat the same answer so many times? Why didn’t you understand the answer given TWICE by the authority you cited?

    Richard

  71. MichaelFree
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    I think it’s fascinating that human beings haven’t figured out what created the Universe, although that’s some chore we’ve given ourselves (it’s a bit further along than learning how to use fire). “God-being-creator” enthusiasts can’t be proven wrong in regard to the matter and neither can scientists, because no one knows for sure what happened.

  72. Posted October 25, 2015 at 4:25 am | Permalink

    I think it’s fascinating that human beings haven’t figured out what created the Universe, although that’s some chore we’ve given ourselves (it’s a bit further along than learning how to use fire). “God-being-creator” enthusiasts can’t be proven wrong in regard to the matter and neither can scientists, because no one knows for sure what happened.

    Ha! That’s an excellent perspective you put on the issue. If you think learning to use fire is recent, how about Quantum Physics and General Relativity? LOL And we’re supposed to have all the answers now or “gawd did it?” Doh.

  73. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    Hey Richard,

    The immediate question is: how are we failing in getting good science out to the masses? How are we letting the creationistd get the spotlight instead of the actual scientists who are everyday revolutionizing our knowledge of the world around us? What can be done?? It’s really frustrating.

    You’ve got thousands and thousands of scientists doing actual research and then a handful of creationists spouting off about how “there has never been shown ____” which is *exactly* what the thousands of scientists have shown thousands of times!

    How the Speciation of fruit flies? The Crreationshits are plain wrong. They have speciated many times. Dobzhansky did a rather famous paper on it back in 1966. Weiner has several pages on fruit fly speciation in The Beak of the Finch. The miracle of speciation has been observed, documented, written up, and studied for 60 years!

    But how could they miss Dobzhansky’s paper from 1966? It’s not a difficult search at all. It’s mentioned in Weiner’s book, with solid bibliography.

    You have clearly shown how it is nearly impossible to explain the basic scientific facts and concepts to the point where they are actually listened to. When you “dumb them down” you get attacked for being too simplistic, but when you discuss them honestly and intellectually, you get attacked for being an elitist “secular humanist agenda” or atheist conspiracy by “main stream scientists” (or part of the secret conspiracy and satanic agenda) That’s just ridiculous.

    A famous example of this ilk is like that of the “Face on Mars”. It took someone five minutes to spot a blurry face-like feature in one of the Viking Orbiter Images and maybe a few days or weeks worth of idle speculation to concoct a pseudoscientific theory about the existence of the ancient civilization on Mars that “created” it.

    How many billions of dollars, millions of person hours did it take until it was possible for scientists to effectively debunk that wacky theory by supplying high-res photos from Mars Global Surveyor over 20 years later? (Of course, that wasn’t the only reason to go back to Mars, but MGS was specifically targeted to get those pictures.)

    And what was the response from the “true believers”? A few accepted they were wrong, but other slung accusations of lies, deceit, incompetence and cover-ups at the hard working folks at NASA. It was sickening to hear.

    Sound familiar? Creationists and IDists will scoff at this comparison, but the parallels are striking, despited the seeming triviality of the Mars Face example.

    As I’ve said before, it’s human nature to desire to be privy to some greater truth, but it’s also human nature to want to achieve that goal without having to work hard for it, if possible. Mars enthusiasts scan the daily images from the Mars Rovers looking for and “finding” all sorts of alien beasties and machinery just lying there waiting to be picked up

    And the more detailed and factual you get, the sillier they get, until they reduce themselves to “I’m rubber and you’re glue!” LOL.

    The point being, it is impossible to explain the facts and the science to someone who doesn’t want to listenand understand.

    For evolution this problem is magnified 1000x because it is in addition viewed as a direct attack on a believers personal religious views. It is the catch-22 of explaining science to people that have pre-conceived ideologies against science.

    I guess the only solution is to keep plugging away at it, keep talking to people, and keep trying to teach science to our children. Small wonder that so many people want to just throw up their hands and say to hell with it.

    So you keep shinning on too!

    P.S. Thanks also for calling out the professional paid liars like William Lane Craig and others on their lies, loud and clear and often!

  74. James
    Posted October 26, 2015 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Hello Richard,

    I understand what you say. But understanding is not the same thing as accepting. You shrug off creationism because you say “it is not a real explanation.” You say, “Just saying God did it is not an explanation.” I have heard you many times. You do not have to repeat it again. But I do not on the flip side accept the big bang as something that I should just accept as being as good as fact just because it is the best scientific theory that we have so far. Just because there is math and science experimentation does not make it more valid than a view that lacks math and a scientific theories and equations.

    Why don’t you spell out for me as many reasons as you can possibly think of for why I should think the big bang is the more reliable asserted explanation for our existence instead of creation?

    I can already guess some of your reasons, but none of them are really moot. You still have no REAL explanation. You have some predictions that you back up with math. When the reality of what is out there changes, you change the math and theories and add stuff to match reality. Big whoop

    James

  75. James
    Posted October 26, 2015 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Hello Svpia,

    You said:
    —–“You’ve got thousands and thousands of scientists doing actual research and then a handful of creationists spouting off about how “there has never been shown ____” which is *exactly* what the thousands of scientists have shown thousands of times!—–”

    You make it sound like all real scientists who have contributed real innovations and technological advances did it with no faith. But how many real scientists were there from past generations that several did believe in God? Get real, scientists can be motivated by their faith or lack of it to do good science. There have been good contributions from Christian scientists and non-Christian alike.

    You said,
    ——“How the Speciation of fruit flies? The Crreationshits are plain wrong. They have speciated many times. Dobzhansky did a rather famous paper on it back in 1966. Weiner has several pages on fruit fly speciation in The Beak of the Finch. The miracle of speciation has been observed, documented, written up, and studied for 60 years!”—-

    You act like creationists are just ignorant and do not know about these studies. Speciation is perfectly congruent within biblical creation. The only speciation we do see and have studied is congruent with creation and species reproducing after their own kind or family (which is the normal accepted definition of kind). So we have studies of fruit flies speciating into different kinds of fruit flies. So what? How does this proving the evolution from one common ancestor? It does nothing. You can prove that natural selection produces more fit species through your studies, but this study does nothing to prove the theory of evolution. Darwin expected to find millions of transitional fossils. We have found 100s of disputed fossils that require interpretation.
    So yes, the miracle of speciation has been observed and documented.

    **Can you give me one observed speciation from one family to a different family? **
    You actually debate issues better than Richard, so maybe you will give an answer. The usual retort is that we have not been living long enough to observe this change. This is a typical moot retort. You cannot base your evidence off of ignorance of what we have not observed. If the fact is that we have not observed it, then the only speciation that we can and have observed supports biblical creation, not enough to support the theory of evolution definitively. We have not seen sufficient data to assert that natural selection can account for all the variety and complexity that we see in biological life. Phenotype comparisons only account for 5% of what makes humans and apes similar. The modern chimp is still on the level of a 3 year old toddler. Why didn’t any of the intermediate smarter apes survive? In other words, isn’t it convenient that only the apes that are as smart as a 3 old live today? I guess generations 299,000 died off even though natural selection says that they had to have an edge over the predecessors. At this point, your only option for a retort is to appeal to theory and ignorance (an opportunity to insert what you think). Funny, creationists do not get away with doing it, why should you?

    James

  76. Posted October 26, 2015 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Just because there is math and science experimentation does not make it more valid than a view that lacks math and a scientific theories and equations.

    That’s right James. Just because we have “math and science” to explain how computers work, there is no reason to think that is a better explanation than saying that little fairy farts do the computations.

    There’s no arguing with logic like that.

    Creationists say there is no difference between science and fantasy. No surprise there.

  77. Posted October 26, 2015 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    I understand what you say. But understanding is not the same thing as accepting. You shrug off creationism because you say “it is not a real explanation.” You say, “Just saying God did it is not an explanation.”

    James,

    Your train of thought has gone off the rails. This has nothing to do with the question of ultimate origins. Neither you nor I has an answer to that.

    We are talking about established scientific results. The expert that YOU cited in the link that YOU posted said that we have “overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present“. Your assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudo-science” had been refuted by the expert that you cited. Your assertion that the established science does not tell us how “big” things were near the beginning has been proven false. Your assertion that there has been a “bait and switch” has been revealed to be utter absurdity.

    Will you admit any of these facts? Of course not. You won’t even dare respond to them at all! That is how creationists protect their delusions from reality.

  78. Posted October 26, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Why don’t you spell out for me as many reasons as you can possibly think of for why I should think the big bang is the more reliable asserted explanation for our existence instead of creation?

    James, James, James,

    How can you say such things? Did you even watch the video you posted? The video that YOU posted contrasted two theories about the universe: the Big Bang (with a beginning) vs. the Cyclic Universe (which is eternal and has no beginning). He described the Big Bang as the CREATION MODEL and contrasted it with the Cyclic Universe which was NOT created. Your comments are totally incoherent with the video that you linked. From a scientific view, the Big Bang is the “creation model” in contrast with the Cyclic universe which exists forever. This is one of the reasons so many Christians (such as Hugh Ross) try to use Big Bang as evidence of God and the Bible.

    I can’t believe I have to keep explaining this too you. I’ve explained it more than once before. How is it possible you don’t understand? Did you watch the video???

  79. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted October 27, 2015 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    “Thank you for presenting the evidence that confirms the truth of my words. As I said, I have never called anyone an “idiot” (or moron, or any other such term) merely because they disagree. On the contrary, I have always presented EVIDENCE that justified the statement and used it only in cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence that is staring them in the face (and typically spewing mindless ad hominem without any hint of rational argument).”

    This is too funny. The irony is entirely lost on you. Half of the examples I cited were when you were a Christian, calling people “morons” for, as you put it, “cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence”, for example, denying Christianity. And the other half was when you were not a Christian, calling Christians “morons” for, as you put it, “cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence”, for example, in these cases, defending Christianity.

    So whichever side you happen to be on today, if your interlocutor should happen to present, as you put it, ” cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence”, they are a moron. Then tomorrow, you will take the other side, and yesterday’s moron is today’s “shine on friend”, whilst today’s “shine on friend” becomes tomorrow’s moron. Yesterday’s evidence becomes today’s irrationality, and yesterday’s incorrigibility becomes today’s evidence.

    Do you ever wake up and have to check yourself to remember what side you are on? By no means! It’s always easy: you are the genius, and the other guy is the moron!

    Fake exemplary quote, from 2008: “I wrote thousands of pages on the Biblewheel, yet you ignore them all, you moron”.

    Fake exemplary quote, from 2012: “I wrote thousands of pages debunking the BibleWheel, yet you ignore them all, you moron.”

    Morons, morons, everywhere. So many morons. You stupid moron! No, you are a moron! I never called you a moron! Yes, you did, you moron! What a moron. What a complete moron. How dare you tell me that I called someone a moron, you moron. I only call people morons when they are, actually, morons.

    Anyway, we are trying to have a very serious discussion here about the origin of the cosmos, between some very gifted people, who know everything in a very very brainy way indeed, unlike certain morons who just won’t pay attention, and are examples of cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence, so I would appreciate it if you would stop these moronic interruptions. Thank you.

  80. James
    Posted October 27, 2015 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You quoted me saying:
    Just because there is math and science experimentation does not make it more valid than a view that lacks math and a scientific theories and equations.
    You said:
    That’s right James. Just because we have “math and science” to explain how computers work, there is no reason to think that is a better explanation than saying that little fairy farts do the computations.

    There’s no arguing with logic like that.

    Creationists say there is no difference between science and fantasy. No surprise there.—–

    I did not equate science with fantasy. Those are your words, not mine. You miss my point entirely focusing on what you think is the problem. The Bible is not blocking my absorption of true science.
    The word science used to mean knowledge. Now today, science means experimentation and theory. So if there is no fancy explanation or theory worthy of a Nobel, then it is not science. True science searches for knowledge not the best looking man made theory.
    Any science applied to the big bang, the beginning requires a hypothesis that cannot be verified. You are still relying on ignorance to propose that you have more than you can verify. So does saying we have calculations that go back to one second before the big bang sound impressive. Yes, it does. But I have trouble believing that the natural laws back in the near beginning functioned the same as they do today. And if we all acknowledge that they must have been different, why are people like you acting like experts about something that cannot be verified and studied. You are still applying theory where there is ignorance. To me, there is not much difference with adding a god where there is ignorance versus adding a theory. You ultimately arrive at the same place. A story that you have to accept and believe about the unknown.

    Mark it down, science will NEVER figure out the origin of the universe and why the universe does what it does. That question is out of range of man’s ability to perform science. So if scientific experimentation cannot answer how we came into being and why, then the questions that theoretical science is attempting to answer are really not that important. Actual true science that advances technology and a better way of life has contributed much. The fact that we have better pictures of Pluto, kind of cool, but not really helpful for anyone. This does not mean that we do not seek knowledge of course. But people have made science and their self absorbed theories and intellects their own personal god. Read Romans 1:18-ff. Instead of seeing the glory of God in creation and asking ourselves how God created it, we are asking ourselves where did we come from, are we alone, how did it come to being, how long ago. Odd that the big questions that you admit science has not answered yet, are the questions that science theory is still looking for but will never find.

    James

  81. Posted October 27, 2015 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    Fake exemplary quote, from 2008: “I wrote thousands of pages on the Biblewheel, yet you ignore them all, you moron”.

    Fake exemplary quote, from 2012: “I wrote thousands of pages debunking the BibleWheel, yet you ignore them all, you moron.”

    Key word being “fake.” If you want to show where I rejected a comment as “ignorant” or “moronic” when in fact it was not, please do so. As it stands, you have not written a single word with any content. You have not shown any error in any judgment I made. You have written nothing of substance for me to respond to.

    Anyway, we are trying to have a very serious discussion here about the origin of the cosmos, between some very gifted people, who know everything in a very very brainy way indeed, unlike certain morons who just won’t pay attention, and are examples of cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence, so I would appreciate it if you would stop these moronic interruptions. Thank you.

    As usual, you have offered ZERO CONTENT to the conversation. You seem to be fixated on ad hominen, as if accurately judging idiotic comments as idiotic were some sort of crime. If you want to convict me of error, you need to quote the actual error and prove your point. Good luck with that.

  82. Posted October 27, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    So whichever side you happen to be on today, if your interlocutor should happen to present, as you put it, ” cases of extreme irrationality and incorrigibility when a person repeatedly denies evidence”, they are a moron. Then tomorrow, you will take the other side, and yesterday’s moron is today’s “shine on friend”, whilst today’s “shine on friend” becomes tomorrow’s moron. Yesterday’s evidence becomes today’s irrationality, and yesterday’s incorrigibility becomes today’s evidence.

    Can you substantiate any of your claims with actual quotes in context? If not, then your words are empty.

    Here’s what you need to do. You need to find a quote where I rejected an argument as “moronic” merely because of my bias without presenting any evidence based on logic and facts. If you can’t do that, your accusations will remain empty and unjustified.

  83. James
    Posted October 27, 2015 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You said:
    We are talking about established scientific results. The expert that YOU cited in the link that YOU posted said that we have “overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present“. Your assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudo-science” had been refuted by the expert that you cited. Your assertion that the established science does not tell us how “big” things were near the beginning has been proven false. Your assertion that there has been a “bait and switch” has been revealed to be utter absurdity.

    Will you admit any of these facts? Of course not. You won’t even dare respond to them at all! That is how creationists protect their delusions from reality.—–

    I have no problem admitting a teacher agrees with you regarding main stream science. It wouldn’t be main stream science unless many people agreed and thought the same. But agreeing about something does not make it right, truth, or more valid. Before 1960, main stream thought there was no beginning at all. Forty years from now, we might think something else. But the arrogance that the generation who thinks this or that will be the same.

    My assertion that the big bang is pseudo-science was not refuted.
    My assertion that science does not tell us how big things were near the beginning has not been proven false just because I cannot prove it is true. You are still pleading to ignorance and making assertions. How does the “overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present” actually work? How can or did we observe the universe expanding one second after its start? You are still asserting that what we observe today confirms what happened in the past. It does not. You have created a strong man and now are wrapped up in your lies, baits and switches that you do not even see it. I am also convinced that the average Joe, Frank, Bob, and Richard scientists are not even aware of the strong man or bait and switches. They have been spoon fed and told what to accept and will be labeled a creationist or ID-ist if they challenge it. But admitting fault with the big bang has nothing to do with god or ID. The motivation for the fault whether right or wrong does not remove the fault.

    You ask me to trust field equations. You might say that there is no reason to doubt them. The same science that says we can “know” up to a second before the big bang said that Pluto was believed to be 4 billion years old. Now, after more observation, now scientists are saying about 1 million years old. What percentage were they off by? 1000%? Apply this margin of error to the big bang time table. While this does not help biblical creation, that is not my point. Theoretical science does not need the assertion of god to fail on its own. It fails because it changes itself when it is proven wrong (but this does not make it right). It own miss-calculations are enough to make honest people doubt its validity.

    James

  84. Posted October 27, 2015 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    I did not equate science with fantasy. Those are your words, not mine.

    Yes, those are my words which I wrote to make clear the implication of your words. You had said that “Just because there is math and science experimentation does not make it more valid than a view that lacks math and a scientific theories and equations.” So please tell me where my words went wrong. A fantasy is a view that does not have any “math and science experimentation” supporting its truth. You said that such views are no less valid than views supported by math and science experiment. How is that NOT saying that science is no better than fantasy?

  85. Posted October 27, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    The word science used to mean knowledge. Now today, science means experimentation and theory. So if there is no fancy explanation or theory worthy of a Nobel, then it is not science. True science searches for knowledge not the best looking man made theory.

    Your comment reveals your gross ignorance of the meaning of “theory” in a scientific context. Theories are the PINNACLE of all science. They are what science aims to achieve. They are what science is all about. In science, a theory is an explanation of a body of facts that has been tested and confirmed in every way imaginable. The Theory of Electromagnetism. The Theory of Gravity. Etc., etc., etc.

    Your comment is classic creationist claptrap. “Man made theory” – as if there were any other kind! And you contrast that with “truth” that you get from where? Your ass? You demonstrate the fundamental hatred that creationism breeds for science, knowledge, and truth. You plainly state that views supported by science are not “more valid” than views not supported by science. So thinking that computers are controlled by little fairy farts is just as “valid” as computer science? Wow. Wow. Wow.

  86. Posted October 27, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Any science applied to the big bang, the beginning requires a hypothesis that cannot be verified.

    Science is not “applied to” the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a consequence of the best theories we have based on the best observational evidence we have.

    The science we have breaks down near the beginning because we don’t have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But that does not invalidate our knowledge of what happened after the Big Bang.

    You are still relying on ignorance to propose that you have more than you can verify.

    Not true. I am not “relying” on ignorance for anything. That’s what you have been doing from the beginning. Your only argument has been “science doesn’t know x, y, or z, therefore my gawd did it!”

    And again your comment shows how how creationists attempt to drag science down to their level of blind ignorant belief, as when you insisted that science relies on “faith” like believing in Allah, Yahweh, or the gawd of Mormonism from the planet Kolob. Nothing could be more absurd.

    So does saying we have calculations that go back to one second before the big bang sound impressive.

    You have repeated this error many times. You’ve said it in two posts just today. We do not have any calculations that go back BEFORE the Big Bang! Our calculations can only go back to some fraction of a second AFTER the Big Bang.

    So does saying we have calculations that go back to one second before the big bang sound impressive. Yes, it does. But I have trouble believing that the natural laws back in the near beginning functioned the same as they do today. And if we all acknowledge that they must have been different, why are people like you acting like experts about something that cannot be verified and studied.

    Your trouble “believing” things is no reason for anyone to doubt them. You have not shown much knowledge of science, and what little knowledge you have is grossly distorted by the creationist propaganda you have imbibed. Do you have any evidence that the laws have changed over time? Do you realize the kind of evidence we have to the contrary? Have you forgotten that we are looking BACK IN TIME when we look at distant galaxies?

    The fact that they were different very very very near the Big Bang gives no reason to doubt the evidence we have for what happened after the Big Bang. The expert you cited emphatically stated that we have “overwhelming evidence” supporting cosmology. It appears you have no concept of what the word “evidence” means in a scientific context. He specified it was OBSERVATIONAL evidence. You cannot just ignore it (unless you choose to be ignorant).

    You are still applying theory where there is ignorance. To me, there is not much difference with adding a god where there is ignorance versus adding a theory. You ultimately arrive at the same place. A story that you have to accept and believe about the unknown.

    There it is! You see no difference between theories tested and confirmed by evidence vs. utterly unsupported imaginary gawds like Zeus, Yahweh, and Allah. You just confirmed again that you see no difference between science and fantasy, as when you explicitly said that views supported by “math and science experiment” are not “more valid” than views with no such support. You really have revealed the essence of the creationist “mind.”

    Mark it down, science will NEVER figure out the origin of the universe and why the universe does what it does. That question is out of range of man’s ability to perform science. So if scientific experimentation cannot answer how we came into being and why, then the questions that theoretical science is attempting to answer are really not that important.

    That’s the kind of thing people used to say before airplanes were invented. Man will never be able to fly! If gawd had meant for man to fly, he would have given him wings! Etc., etc., etc. The glory of science is that it silences ignorant assertions like yours on an almost daily basis.

  87. Posted October 27, 2015 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    You ask me to trust field equations. You might say that there is no reason to doubt them.

    I have never asked you to “trust” the field equations. I have never told you that there is no reason to doubt them. How can you utter such absurdities? I have simply explained that they are the best explanation we have for gravity and they are supported by a broad range of evidence.

    The same science that says we can “know” up to a second before the big bang

    There you go again! Stating the exact opposite of what the theory actually says. We only know what happened AFTER the Big Bang, not before.

    The same science that says we can “know” up to a second before the big bang said that Pluto was believed to be 4 billion years old.

    Bullshit. We did not estimate the age of Pluto using the “same science” we use to date the age of the universe or the earth. You assertion is manifestly absurd and pathetically ignorant. We can date the age of the earth and the universe because we can make appropriate observations. We didn’t have the ability to make such detailed observations of Pluto, so its date was much more speculative. Your attempt to impugn all science because we did not yet have the observational evidence to accurately date Plute is quite perverse. It reveals creationism corrupts the minds and morals of believers.

    Now, after more observation, now scientists are saying about 1 million years old. What percentage were they off by? 1000%? Apply this margin of error to the big bang time table.

    Again, it is ludicrous for you to suggest that an error in one area of science due to lack of observational evidence implies that all science is equally dubious. Your whole approach to science has been utterly perverted by creationism.

    While this does not help biblical creation, that is not my point. Theoretical science does not need the assertion of god to fail on its own. It fails because it changes itself when it is proven wrong (but this does not make it right). It own miss-calculations are enough to make honest people doubt its validity.

    Uhh … OK James. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that science should NOT change when it is proven wrong? I guess this explains why you never change no matter how many times you’ve been proven wrong. LOL

    This brings us to the heart of the intellectual perversion known as creationism. I’ve heard this a thousand times. Creationists declare that science is unreliable and “can’t be trusted” because it continually corrects itself when found to be in error! In the creationist mind, their book of superstitions and magic written in the iron age is perfect and trustworhty because it “never changes” unlike bad old science which is constantly adjusted to fit the facts.

    Wow. Thank you James! Thank you, thank you, thank you! You have realed the essential perversion of the creationist mindset.

  88. Posted October 27, 2015 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    I have no problem admitting a teacher agrees with you regarding main stream science. It wouldn’t be main stream science unless many people agreed and thought the same. But agreeing about something does not make it right, truth, or more valid.

    You appealed to him as authoritative when you thought he said something that supported your position. But when he totally contradicts everything you said and plainly states that the Big Bang is solid science based on “overwhelming evidence” you just ignore it. How typical. How pathetic.

    Before 1960, main stream thought there was no beginning at all.

    So what? They didn’t have anything like the evidence we have today. Are you suggesting that science has never advanced, and that we are as ignorant today as in the dark ages?

    Forty years from now, we might think something else. But the arrogance that the generation who thinks this or that will be the same.

    And what of the arrogance of your generation that blindly asserts, contrary to all evidence, that the Bible is God’s Word?

    My assertion that the big bang is pseudo-science was not refuted.

    It has been totally refuted. The Big Bang may turn out to be false, but that doesn’t mean it is pseudoscience. It is based on solid science which the authority you cited described as “overwhelming observational evidence.”

    My assertion that science does not tell us how big things were near the beginning has not been proven false just because I cannot prove it is true.

    It most certainly has been proven false. The “overwhelming evidence” accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists says it was very tiny. You have not written a word refuting any of the science. Not. One. Word.

    And besides, what does it matter? What point are you trying to make? I’ve asked twice, and you never answered. As far as I can tell, you are trying to find a way to say that God may have created the universe pretty much as we see it now in the relatively recent past (less than a million years ago) and that it has been expanding since that time. Is that correct? Is that why you have been pressing this “size” issue? If not, then why?
    .

    You are still pleading to ignorance and making assertions.

    Not true. My assertions are based on evidence and I do not appeal to any ignorance. On the contrary, I plainly state that there are things we cannot know because of ignorance. I do not “plead to ignorance” in support of any assertion about what actually happened.

    How does the “overwhelming evidence to describe it in full detail with full observational evidence beginning from one second all the way up to the present” actually work? How can or did we observe the universe expanding one second after its start?

    If you had any real interest in the answer you would have educated yourself a long time ago. The evidence is not hidden in a closet somewhere. It is freely available on the internet for all who truly seek truth.

    You are still asserting that what we observe today confirms what happened in the past. It does not.

    Everything we observe is of the past. When we look at distant galaxies we are seeing them as they were billions of years ago. Your assertion is absurd.

    You have created a strong man and now are wrapped up in your lies, baits and switches that you do not even see it.

    Ha! I challenge you to quote two or three of the “lies” you think I am “wrapped up in.”

    And as for your “bait and switches” language – that is typical of the corrupt creationist liars. They constantly assert that there is a vast scientific conspiracy of evil atheists who created the Big Bang and Evolution because they hate gawd. How freaking pathetic.

    I am also convinced that the average Joe, Frank, Bob, and Richard scientists are not even aware of the strong man or bait and switches. They have been spoon fed and told what to accept and will be labeled a creationist or ID-ist if they challenge it. But admitting fault with the big bang has nothing to do with god or ID. The motivation for the fault whether right or wrong does not remove the fault.

    Again, your comments are absurd. Many scientists challenge the Big Bang and other scientific theories without being called “creationists” or “ID.” The difference, of course, is that they use REAL SCIENCE to challenge REAL SCIENCE. The creationists and IDiots just use lies and rhetoric and rely upon the ignorance of people bred from youth to blindly believe what they’ve been told.

  89. James
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Can you provide examples of people challenging the big bang with real science, ad you say, and being applauded and published in science literature for doing it?

    Just curious, this is hard to find in an internet search without getting creationist web pages
    I have more to say but no time to say it now
    James

  90. Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Can you provide examples of people challenging the big bang with real science, ad you say, and being applauded and published in science literature for doing it?

    What do you mean by “challenging the Big Bang”? Please be specific. If you are talking about people who challenge the overwhelming observational evidence for what happened after the Big Bang, then yes, that group consists mostly of creationists, conspiracy theorists, and similar folks driven by agendas that require them to deny established science.

    If, on the other hand, you are talking about people who challenge the nature of the Big Bang itself, whether it was a true singularity of infinite density, whether it was a true beginning or just another bang in an infinite series of bangs in a cyclic universe, etc., etc., etc. then that group consists mainly of legitimate scientists (as you know since the lecture you linked presented those kinds of challenges).

    As for your personal “challenge” about the size of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, you have not presented anything but assertion and I am not familiar with any such challenges from legitimate scientists.

    Great chatting!

    Shine on my friend,

    Richard

    PS: Why do you refuse to answer my question about why you challenge the size of the early universe? I have asked at least three times now.

  91. MichaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Any science teacher who teaches that God-being is not real is a liar. They can say that there is no evidence for God, but they cannot say that God is not real.

    It’s not scientific to declare that God-being is not real.

  92. Posted October 28, 2015 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Any science teacher who teaches that God-being is not real is a liar. They can say that there is no evidence for God, but they cannot say that God is not real.

    It’s not scientific to declare that God-being is not real.

    That’s true if the God-being has absolutely no measurable effect on reality. But if that’s the case, the what would it even mean to say it exists?

  93. MichaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    The only reason that God-beings existence has no proof to substantiate it is because individuals subjective experience (measurable effect) with God-being is rightfully not counted as proof of the existence of God-being for all people to see.

    What does it mean? It means life and the universe is a little more complex than the tools we have to measure it, therefore saying that God is not real is a lie, but saying that God may exist is the truth.

    Perhaps God-being is waiting for something to occur before it reveals itself.

  94. Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    The only reason that God-beings existence has no proof to substantiate it is because individuals subjective experience (measurable effect) with God-being is rightfully not counted as proof of the existence of God-being for all people to see.

    What’s the difference between the “subjective experience with God-being” and mere fantasy?

  95. MichaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    When the subjective experience was not a fantasy.

  96. Posted October 28, 2015 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    What’s the difference between the “subjective experience with God-being” and mere fantasy?

    When the subjective experience was not a fantasy.

    And how are people supposed to distinguish between what is and is not mere fantasy if they have nothing but their subjective feelings to go by?

    Have you never noticed the world is filled to overflowing with with contrary fantasies that are declared to be authentic experiences of God? Muslims, Hindus, and Christians of every variety claim that their personal “subjective experience” is the “real thing.” Are you saying they are all true?

  97. MichaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    You said:

    “And how are people supposed to distinguish between what is and is not mere fantasy if they have nothing but their subjective feelings to go by?”

    I’m talking about things of everyday life, like brushing your teeth with a toothbrush, or taking a shower. I think we know what these things are and that our experiences with them are real. Think of jury duty. Most people know what reality is an can then rightfully sit on a jury in a criminal trial. That is how one distinguishes between what is reality and what is fantasy. What one “sees” is not fantasy. Like seeing a folded up napkin sitting on a table.

    You said:

    “Have you never noticed the world is filled to overflowing with with contrary fantasies that are declared to be authentic experiences of God? Muslims, Hindus, and Christians of every variety claim that their personal “subjective experience” is the “real thing.” Are you saying they are all true?”

    They obviously cannot all be true because they differ and thus cancel each other out, at least in regard to the disposition of non-believers of their faith.

    You said this (regarding Muslims, Hindus, and Christians):

    I’m talking about the existence of deity, not the existence of religion. It’s a scientific question. I’m saying that agnosticism and proper respect for the possible existence of deity are what is scientifically known at this point.

  98. MIchaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    I’m saying that agnosticism and proper respect for the possible existence of deity are what is scientifically known at this point:

    Just like the existence of heaven:

    Here’s a link to a Wikipedia page on near-death experience. Read the beginning paragraphs and then skip to section 2.8 on “cross cultural research”. Here’s a quote from the page: “some NDE researchers in the field of near-death studies advocate for a transcendental (supernatural) explanation (for NDE)”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

    I had one of these when I almost drowned as a child. You better believe I believe in heaven. Imagine a society that en masse mocked those who believe in heaven, and taught in the schools that heaven wasn’t real, what kind of society would that be? It would be a disgrace is what it would be. Freedom of speech, thoughts, and beliefs, these are human rights, no matter how ridiculous someone’s speech, thoughts, and beliefs are.

  99. MichaelFree
    Posted October 28, 2015 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

    And I’ve thought about what if God-being really is a pink unicorn that farts out universes. I wouldn’t mock it. I’d have to respect that pink unicorn that farts. It wouldn’t be a sneer on my face. I would be dead serious. Although I wouldn’t have to respect it if it was a liar, a thief, or a physical attacker, a rapist, a murderer, a torturer, or an enslaver, but rather I’d turn my back to it, and look to the most high to come and help me.

  100. MIchaelFree
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God”.

    Words of righteous Jesus.

  101. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    Saying and Claiming “Gawwd-Did-It” is not an informative as an explanation. Our universe is expanding and there had to be an explanation of natural physical-reasons for the observed expansion ala lex parsimony, which means “law of parsimony” a solving-problem principle called (Occam’s Razor).

    There is just no getting around that simple fact.

    Once on allows for processes that have nothing to do with the universe as we know it (in contrast to the way nature and modern cosmology operates), then anything goes.

    Creationists allege “creation ex nihilo”- which modern cosmology *does not* postulate- truly does does violate the 1st law if thermodynamics, since it posits that the universe was brought into existence out of nothing by some supernatural-woo processes, “supernatural” meaning (in this case) “a violation of natural law.”

    Nor would creationism better “explain” any violation of natural law than naturalism- even if we were to hypothetically concede that the universe did come into existence through a process that violates natural law.

    Anyone with half-a-brain could find the “real life tests” that support the mathematical equations of General Relativity and as it relates to the Big Bang, Expansion and Inflation in a few seconds.

    An informed audience asked simple intelligent questions of all the most basic discoveries and pertinent basic facts:

    -The primary observations that the universe is expanding emerged between (1910-1930/1940s-1950s)

    -The CM background radiation was first observed in the Penzias and Wilson at a temperature of 2.7 kelvins (1965)

    -COBE, the data collected by NASA’s WMAP satellite, and many ground and balloon-based experiments such as Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, Cosmic Background Imager, and Boomerang (1993)

    -WMAP (2012)
    -Euro Planck Satellite (21 March 2013)
    -Higgs Boson (14 March 2014)

    There is a mountain of evidence supporting.
    [Case Closed] IMHO.

  102. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    Again, sorry for the typos.

  103. James
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Why do i refuse to answer your question about the size of the universe?

    I will answer the question. But first i must point out that you are just in to labeling. You have done it several times in the last few comments. If i told you that i was a young earth creationist (which i have already), then you will just say, thank you for telling me why you are such and such. Or you would say that explains why you say and argue what you do. This is just labeling. I could ask you what you think. And if you said that you assert that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Then i could say thank you that tells me a lot about your presuppositions. But in reality, either question and answer deals little with evidence. It is all just labels.

    How do i think the universe? Do i think God created relatively recent like in the last million years or even 10,000 years? What i think is not relavent to you. So why bother ask me unless you just want to name label which i said also does nothing. Why don’t you discuss and explain the actual observable evidence that requires the universe to be 13.8 billion years old and why the earth and sun have to be 4 billion years old? I can give reasons why to doubt that the universe and the things in it are millions and billions of years old. The angular velocity with galaxies proposes a problem for galaxies being billions or even several million years old. How old does the big bang predict galaxies formed?
    According to nebula theory of star and planet formation, the planets and our star should have formed about the same time. This causes a problem if Pluto can only be a million years old. What observable testable data is that based off anyway? Its young looking surface? We have moons in our solar system that are quite active. It strongly suggests that they are not billions of years old. The moon is ressessing from the earth at 1.5 in a year. This is measurable common knowledge. Look it up. This does not pose a problem with a biblical time scale, but with a time scale of billions of years for evolution and the big bang, it creates questions that need to be andwered. Have they been answered?
    If all you have for evidence is distant star light (which is a measure of distance not time), and radio metric dating, then it appears our universe is much older. If you look at hundreds of other factors, the universe seems to be younger than a million years. How old i think the universe is not relavent. How old the data says the universe says it is about itself is more relavent.

    Before you label me about not understanding how distant star light poses a problem, let me explain. I have heard honest creationist scientists says that we do not have an explanation for how to account a young biblical cosmology with distant stars. The premise of course is that if we can see these stars that are billions of light years a way, then the time for the light to get here must have time to transpire. I get the concept. But i think there is more to distant star light that we do not understand yet. Some future discovery mighy reveal one way or the other (that they are really old or do not have to be that old)

    Consider this. You said when we look at distant stars that we looking into the past. This does not help your big bang argument but whatever. Unless you are looking at stars forming at the beginning, you are just looking at star activity that is behind, it is not live. You see an explosion. It is not just happen. But it happened several light years ago.
    But let me propose to you something interesting. Let us say that we are observing a distant star and watching its glow and shadows. We say that there could be a planet based on measurable factors and that what we are observing is in the distant past. With me so far? Cause this speculation is happening.
    Now let us propose hypothetically that this star that we are observing does have life like ours. And they are similar to us. They are observing our star and watching its shadows and think there could be life on a planet near by. They could also assert that they are watching the distant past just as we assert. Doesnt this pose a logical inconsistency with our consequential math of space time? Does this not also reveal that our view of space time is a bit genocentric. Who is to say who is in the distant past? We not really looking at the past but just in the past relative to us. We are just not able to see it life based on far away it is. But the fact we can see it at tells us it came into being at least that many light years ago. Any way interesting to think about.

    James

  104. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Comparison of CMB results from COBE,
    WMAP and Planck

    2013 Euro Planck Satellite Data Release

    On 21 March 2013, the European-led research team behind the Planck cosmology probe released the mission’s all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background. This map suggests the universe is slightly older than thought: according to the map, subtle fluctuations in temperature were imprinted on the deep sky when the universe was about 370,000 years old.

    The imprint reflects ripples that arose as early in the existence of the universe as the first nonillionth (10−30) of a second. It is currently theorised that these ripples gave rise to the present vast cosmic web of galactic clusters and dark matter.

    According to the team, the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years old, and contains 4.82±0.05% ordinary matter, 25.8±0.4% dark matter and 69±1% dark energy. The Hubble constant was also measured to be 67.80±0.77 (km/s)/Mpc.

    Update
    2015 Data Release

    Results from an analysis of Planck‍‍ ’​‍s full mission were made public on 1 December 2014 at a conference in Ferrara, Italy. A full set of papers detailing the mission results were released in February 2015.

    2012 WMAP Data Release

    More agreement with previous WMAP results on parameters such as the density and distribution of matter in the Universe, as well as more exact results with less margin of error.

    Confirmation of a Universe with a 26% content of dark matter. These results also raise related questions about the positron excess over electrons detected by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, an experiment on the International Space Station. Previous research suggested that positrons could be created by the collision of dark matter particles, which could only occur if the probability of dark matter collisions is significantly higher now than in the early Universe. Planck data suggests that the probability of such collisions must remain constant over time to account for the structure of the Universe, negating the previous theory.

    [Validation of the simplest models of inflation], thus giving the Lambda-CDM model stronger support.

    That there are likely only three types of neutrinos, with a proposed sterile neutrino flavour unlikely to exist.

    The WMAP data are very well fit by a universe that is dominated by dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. Other cosmological data are also consistent, and together tightly constrain the Model. In the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, the age of the universe is 13.772±0.059 billion years. The WMAP mission’s determination of the age of the universe to better than 1% precision was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records.[6] The current expansion rate of the universe is (see Hubble constant) of 69.32±0.80 km·s−1·Mpc−1. The content of the universe presently consists of 4.628%±0.093% ordinary baryonic matter; 24.02%+0.88% −0.87% Cold dark matter (CDM) that neither emits nor absorbs light; and 71.35%+0.95% −0.96% of dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant that accelerates the expansion of the universe.

    9-year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2012). On December 20, 2012, the Nine-year WMAP data and related images were released. 13.772±0.059 billion-year-old temperature fluctuations and a temperature range of ± 200 micro-Kelvin are shown in the image.

    In addition, the study found that “95-percent” of the early universe is composed of dark matter and energy, the curvature of space is less than 0.4 percent of “flat” and the universe emerged from the cosmic Dark Ages “about 400 million years” after the Big Bang.

    Cobe

    The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), also referred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to cosmology. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and provide measurements that would help shape our understanding of the cosmos.

    This work provided evidence that supported the Big Bang theory of the universe: that the CMB was a near-perfect black-body spectrum and that it had very faint anisotropies. Two of COBE’s principal investigators, George Smoot and John Mather, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for their work on the project. According to the Nobel Prize committee, “the COBE-project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science.

    The DMR was able to spend four years mapping the detectable anisotropy of cosmic background radiation as it was the only instrument not dependent on the dewar’s supply of helium to keep it cooled. This operation was able to create full sky maps of the CMB by subtracting out galactic emissions and dipole at various frequencies. The cosmic microwave background fluctuations are extremely faint, only one part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 kelvin average temperature of the radiation field.

    The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early universe. The density ripples are believed to have produced structure formation as observed in the universe today: clusters of galaxies and vast regions devoid of galaxies (NASA).

    Higgs Boson

    So you can think of the Higgs search as an attempt to make waves in the Higgs field [create Higgs bosons] to prove it’s really there.

    The Higgs boson is essentially a ripple in a field said to have emerged at the birth of the universe (or Big Bang) and to span the cosmos to this day … The particle is crucial however: it is the smoking gun, the evidence required to show the theory is right.

    A Higgs boson of mass ≈125 GeV has been tentatively confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013

  105. MichaelFree
    Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    I said:

    “Just like the existence of heaven”.

    It should say:

    “Just like the possible existence of heaven”.

  106. Posted October 29, 2015 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    I will answer the question. But first i must point out that you are just in to labeling.

    Not true. I wanted an answer so I could understand your point of view. I need to know why you reject the overwhelming observational evidence that the universe began very small, hot, and dense. It may not have been a true singularity of infinite density because of quantum effects, but that does not support your assertion that we have no evidence it was very small, hot, and dense.

    And for all those words you wrote, you didn’t even answer my question! I still need to guess what you really believe because you refuse to be open, honest, and direct about it. This makes it very difficult to have a meaningful conversation because basically you are mumbling and being very evasive.

    You have done it several times in the last few comments. If i told you that i was a young earth creationist (which i have already), then you will just say, thank you for telling me why you are such and such. Or you would say that explains why you say and argue what you do. This is just labeling.

    Not true. It is explaining why your position is wrong.

    I could ask you what you think.

    And I would do everything in my power to answer with clarity, openness, and honesty.

    And if you said that you assert that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Then i could say thank you that tells me a lot about your presuppositions. But in reality, either question and answer deals little with evidence. It is all just labels.

    Not true. When I told you that I believed the universe is 13.7 billion years old, I gave a mountain of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

    How do i think the universe? Do i think God created relatively recent like in the last million years or even 10,000 years? What i think is not relavent to you. So why bother ask me unless you just want to name label which i said also does nothing.

    Your beliefs are of central importance because they are driving you to reject the overwhelming observational evidence that contradicts them.

    Why don’t you discuss and explain the actual observable evidence that requires the universe to be 13.8 billion years old and why the earth and sun have to be 4 billion years old?

    That’s exactly what I’ve been doing for months with you James. You simply refuse to engage the evidence. You have not refuted any of the evidence I have presented.

    I can give reasons why to doubt that the universe and the things in it are millions and billions of years old.

    Yes, reasons you have picked up from creationist sites. By your own admission, you can’t find any good evidence from mainstream scientists. You should take a moment to reflect on that fact.

    The angular velocity with galaxies proposes a problem for galaxies being billions or even several million years old. How old does the big bang predict galaxies formed?

    Please present a legitimate scientific source for your claim and we can discuss it.

    According to nebula theory of star and planet formation, the planets and our star should have formed about the same time. This causes a problem if Pluto can only be a million years old.

    Ha! Is that a joke? Who said “Pluto can only be a million years old?” Please site a legitimate source and we can discuss it.

    There are many possible explanations, but there’s no need to discuss them because you are not interested in science or the truth. Your only interest is to troll through science and cherry pick any little fragment you can hijack to support your religious dogma. This is how all creationists work. Everyone knows it. Nothing could be more obvious. Here’s an excellent article from a former young earth creationist who explains how it works (link). And no, this is not “labeling” – I am simply presenting evidence for my assertions.

    It strongly suggests that they are not billions of years old. The moon is ressessing from the earth at 1.5 in a year. This is measurable common knowledge. Look it up.

    That’s more creationist claptrap that has been refuted a thousand times.

    This does not pose a problem with a biblical time scale, but with a time scale of billions of years for evolution and the big bang, it creates questions that need to be andwered. Have they been answered?

    The Biblical time scale is utterly absurd and contrary to all evidence.

    Now let us propose hypothetically that this star that we are observing does have life like ours. And they are similar to us. They are observing our star and watching its shadows and think there could be life on a planet near by. They could also assert that they are watching the distant past just as we assert. Doesnt this pose a logical inconsistency with our consequential math of space time? Does this not also reveal that our view of space time is a bit genocentric. Who is to say who is in the distant past? We not really looking at the past but just in the past relative to us. We are just not able to see it life based on far away it is. But the fact we can see it at tells us it came into being at least that many light years ago. Any way interesting to think about.

    Your comment contains a fundamental error. Your suggestion that they “are observing our star and watching its shadows” is written in the present tense. This means that you are thinking they can see us instantaneously. But that’s impossible because they are light years away. Your suggestion that there could be an “inconsistency” is based on your erroneous presupposition that they could see us instantaneously.

    There is nothing “geocentric” about our view of spacetime. On the contrary, relativity destroyed the error of geocentrism.

    And FYI – your phrase “many light years ago” suggests you think that a light year is a length of time, when in fact it is a distance in space.

    All the best,

    Richard

  107. Svpia-Bpvmt777
    Posted October 30, 2015 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    The Top 10 Claims Made by Young Earth Creationshits to Counter Scientific Theories

    One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion — namely a universe that’s 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and ‘young Earth creationists’ have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.

    1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

    Quite obviously, creationists aren’t able to gloss over the fact that dinosaurs existed. They are clearly a part of the fossil record. But in accordance with the Bible, creationists insist that they lived contemporaneously with humans. And in fact, they say this explains why dragons play a prominent role in our mythological record. Moreover, creationists claim that human footprints have been found alongside dinosaur tracks at Paluxy, that a petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks, and that some sandal footprints have been found alongside trilobites. Other theories suggest that the Great Flood shook up and redeposited the fossil record so that it appears that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived. Real evidence and proper interpretation of the fossil record, however, supports the idea that humans first emerged about 200,000 years ago — long after the demise of dinosaurs who went extinct 65 million years ago.

    2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved

    This is what biochemist Michael Behe refers to as irreducible complexity. He and other creationists complain that a complex biological system, what is comprised of many interacting parts, would cease to function properly in the event of any alteration. Proponents of intelligent design use this argument to claim that anything less than the complete form of a fully functional biological system (or organ) would not work at all — what would be catastrophically detrimental to an organism. In other words, all mutations have to be bad. The only way for an organism to evolve, the ID defenders say, is for God to guide the process every step of the way. This is silly, of course — organisms are not that fragile. And in fact, evolvability is an indelible aspect to life.

    3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant

    When we look up at the sky at night, we’re actually looking back in time. Given the vastness of the universe, it can take upwards of millions and even billions of years for the light from the most distant celestial objects to reach us. Creationists have a rather convenient explanation for this problem: The universal constants, including the speed of light, are not constant at all. It’s quite possible, they surmise, that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, allowing it to reach the Earth in time for Adam to see it. Others speculate that the Big Bang theory is simply wrong, and that a new ‘creationist cosmology’ is required to reconcile the apparent anomaly in our observations. As the Creation Answers Handbook claims:

    The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

    Failing this, creationists can always default to the most convenient of explanations: God simply created the light ‘on it’s way,’ so that observers on Earth could see the stars immediately without having to wait. Mmmm, handwaving….

    4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape

    Given that Scripture doesn’t provision for evolution, the discovery of ancient human relatives like Australopithecines and Neanderthals is deeply problematic. To explain this away, creationists argue that anthropologists are misreading the fossil record and inaccurately conflating Homo sapiens with other ape species. When it comes to Neanderthals, they say there was no such thing — that these are human remains and not some distant relative. And to explain the morphological differences, creationists simply argue that these were disfigured humans, or people suffering from rickets or arthritis.

    5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust

    According to Abraham Loeb, an astrophysicist from Harvard whose work gets cherry picked by creationists, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” Creationists, like Jonathan Sarfat, have used the arguments of Loeb and others to make their case against the ‘nebular hypothesis’ — the theory that stars and planets formed over the course of billions of years as gravity brought gasses and particles together to create large masses. It’s impossible, they say, for stars to form from nebulas. They claim that terrestrial planets could never congeal from “blobs” of gas and dust, as other objects would constantly provide resistance and disruption. Creationists also argue that the temperature of nebulas following the Big Bang would have been far too hot to facilitate contraction, and that the particles would have pushed away from each other. Other inconsistencies include the sun’s axial tilt and the presence of inexplicable gas giants. As Sarfat notes, the best explanation comes from the Bible, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” In other words, when in doubt, attribute any kind of natural phenomenon to God. Gotcha.

    6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

    The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe and all its systems are progressively moving towards disorder, or entropy. Evolution, on the other hand, implies the improvement of a species — what creationists say is a gross violation of the Second Law. This contradiction, say the creationists, implies that ‘evolutionists’ are fundamentally wrong in their assumptions — that changes to systems should be regressive and not progressive. What they fail to understand, however, is that the 2LT should only be applied to the universe as a whole, or a closed energy system — which the Earth is most certainly not. But moreover, evolution does not always lead to improvement or increased complexity. Organisms are either well adapted or poorly suited to their environments at any given point in time. And in fact, some species evolve towards too much complexity (i.e. over-specialization) and detrimental adaptations that can lead to outright extinction. Evolution is by no means a process of improvement; it’s merely an autonomous system that’s driven by variation and selection.

    7. The Flood caused the ice age

    Like the presence of dinosaurs, the ice age is another conundrum that demands a response — a glacial period that occurred during the last years of the Pleistocene, approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Actually, this is an easy one, say the creationists. According to Genesis, most of the Flood water came from underground — what resulted in warmer than average oceans and a significant increase in global snowfall. This gave rise to the ice sheets and the pluvial periods. In addition, large amounts of volcanic dust in the atmosphere blocked crucial sunlight, which caused cooler summers. Moreover, the ice age is a geological phenomenon that can also explain why there’s no trace of the Great Flood in the sedimentary record. And on a related note, some creationists contend that the sedimentary layers were caused by the tremendous weight of the flood waters above the ground.

    8. Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work

    For years, scientists have used radiocarbon dating to get a sense of how old ancient objects really are. They’re able to do this by exploiting the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials. To sweep this inconvenient truth aside, some creationists claim that radioisotope decay rates aren’t constant — and that all processes in nature vary according to different factors. Others argue that carbon dating gives inaccurate results, pointing to changing ratios of 14C in the atmosphere and varying amounts of cosmic rays reaching the Earth — what would affect the amount and ratios of 14C produced. Additionally, some claim that the Genesis Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance; the water, they argue, buried huge amounts of carbon (which became coal, oil, etc.) lowering the total 12C in the biosphere. Read this to see why they’re wrong.

    9. DNA is God’s signature on all living things

    Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information that can be read by humans, must be the result of intelligence. The information within DNA — what facilitates the assembling of proteins and enzymes — wouldn’t be coherent if someone, namely God, wasn’t scripting it. Creationists clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work — and how the scientific endeavor is largely an effort to translate the mysteries of the universe into a language we can understand.

    10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

    The Grand Canyon formed about 70 million years ago — at a time when the dinosaurs still ruled the Earth. This geological time scale is obviously a problem for creationists, who simply respond by suggesting that it was created in one fell swoop when the flood waters retreated (it’s amazing how many things can be explained by the Great Flood). Not only is there no evidence to support this claim, it is a geologic impossibility. Moreover, it would have likely created a huge, straight, washed out chasm, and not the intricate and winding Grand Canyon we know today. And of course, creationists are loath to explain why there’s only one Grand Canyon on Earth.

    Want to learn more about debunking creationism? Check these books out:

    The Counter-Creationism Handbook
    Believing Bullshit
    Other sources: EvoWiki, TalkOrigins, Creation.com.

  108. James
    Posted October 30, 2015 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Svpia,

    I hope you realize that most creationists know the “counter” arguments. I don’t have much time right now. But you didnt even answer the problems you mentioned. You also make some improper comparisons. Biblical creation does allow for evolution. No one doubts that things evolve and change over time. Creationists do not accept that all species evoled from a common ancestor. The actual data strongly suggests that speices speciate within their own family or kind. We have only dead fossil claims. So like it or not, we have more evidence for a creation allowance of change but not for evolution from one common abcestor.

    Your attacks are a joke. Why is there only one grand canyon? If it happened slowly over 70 million years then shouldnt there be more terrain like the grand canyon? Our inability to answer a question does not make your inability or theory that much more plausible. Get over yourself. It is fun to watch you gus try so hard. Thanks for the entertainment.

    James

  109. James
    Posted October 30, 2015 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You said,
    —-And FYI – your phrase “many light years ago” suggests you think that a light year is a length of time, when in fact it is a distance in space.——

    You debate like any other liberal jerk out there. Why would you not ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt that I said it incorrectly? Especially since I had already said that light year is a measure of distance not time. I already get the concept. But thank you for showing that you do not believe in giving the benefit of the doubt and being a gentleman when debating. You should have said, I know that you know light year is a measure of distance because you said so already. But the way you said it here sounds wrong that way. You should say it this way. // But you don’t do that. You have no desire to teach me anything. You just want to point out that I don’t accept science because of my pagan old fashioned, unevolved beliefs. But you are wrong. And you have been told that. And you have even replied back that you cannot accept that. You have it in your little tunnel vision brain that all creationists are creationists because of their beliefs. The tides turn the other way too. I know people who were taught evolution and the big bang their whole life, and through studying science became creationists. You doubt this because you cannot possibly see how anyone can see creation (or biblical creation) when looking at the earth, sun, solar system or universe in general. But whether you accept it or not, people do turn the other way at times. (ie from accepting evolution to accepting biblical creation)

    But let me give you an example of asking for clarification instead of jumping on an opportunity to twist your words like politicians do in debates. //
    People who do that, btw, demonstrate that they are not really interested in debating for finding truth. They show that their ultimate goal is to shoot down the other person by making him/her look like the fool. For instance, you cannot recall any legitimate (what you call legitimate) scientist challenge the big bang. What do you call a legitimate scientist? Someone who does not challenge the big bang? So someone who challenges the big bang must be a non-legitimate scientist or a conspirator. Isn’t this a little circular? Do you have any other additional markers or qualifying distinctions to mark the legitimate verses non legitimate? There are several scientists with doctorates who studied in the same schools with the same students who accept and deny the big bang. The interesting thing is this. Most if not all science doctorates know about the big bang and evolution. You cannot even go to a legitimate Christian school without using a text book that teaches from those premises. I work at a Christian school. It uses secular science text books. So by default, any Christian scientists who accept biblical creation and reject the big bang and evolution do not reject it because they have never been presented with the so called “evidences.” They deny it because see through it that it is not as squared up as propagated.
    You have no problem admitting that you or we do not have all the answers yet. While this does not enable anyone to insert a God in place of a scientific explanation, this does make your scientific explanation more valid or certainly complete. So what is the hurt in questioning it, challenging it? All science breaks down at the singularity. Doesn’t that leave room to consider non-scientific solutions then?
    Example of asking for clarification:
    You said:
    —-It has been totally refuted. The Big Bang may turn out to be false, but that doesn’t mean it is pseudoscience. It is based on solid science which the authority you cited described as “overwhelming observational evidence.”—–

    In the same paragraph you said that the big bang may turn out to be false and it is based on solid science. How can this be? Can you clarify what about the theory may be seen to be false?

    You see what I did there. I asked for clarification instead of just running on and on about you seemingly made a controversial point. Because from a cursory reading, it sounds like you contradicted yourself. How could something that is based on “solid science” be found out in the possible future to be false? What are you constituting as solid science? All the things you keep listing? But this is your solid evidence? You see, I need clarification before I can safely assume you are in error or are just flat out stupid.

    To me, you keep saying you have explained it. Just telling me that general relativity, red shift, the expanding of the universe, and the cosmic background radiation does not explain how this all means the big bang has to be the way main stream science says it is currently.
    As it is, one could say inflation is the answer. But another could say that inflation is just a made up escape tactic to make the math line up with the CMB that when further studied did not fit the original expected theory. So you added inflation. Was this the answer or an escape tactic to keep a theory viable? Who is really to say? When you make up particles like an inflaton, excuse me for having doubts. All i see is a huge equation. One side is the theory and math and one side is the observed universe. Several times what is observed does not match the current theory and math. So we add inflation, so we add dark energy. Anyone can change one side of an equation to make it solve the other side. But I want to know where is the control to say those numbers are the only way it works. In other words or a for instance, can the math be made to work if you remove or lesson inflation and the increase or decrease the time? How many known numbers are there and how many assumed numbers are there? Why does the beginning have to be small, dense, hot? Just saying that it is a mathematical concept is not an explanation. This is the math that you have chosen to be the answer, in my opinion how I see it. Tell me other wise.

    There are lots of people who accept the big bang for what they believe to be good solid reasons. I do want to understand it. How can I make an informed decision without understanding it? You don’t want me to blindly accept it do you without understanding it? So far, you have not demonstrated that you understand it. Just repeating a check list of “evidences” is not substantial proof of understanding and comprehension. So why don’t you add some meat to your assertion lists. All you say is if you want to know about it, look it up. I have watched several videos on the big bang and evidence for it. They all seem to make mistakes and jumps in logic that I do not follow is legitimate. Its like they want to get away with not showing their work and people just to accept that it is right. That is called being spoon fed and being indoctrinated to think it threw yourself. Funny, that is what creationists are labeled for doing.

    James

  110. James
    Posted October 30, 2015 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    You have no problem admitting that you or we do not have all the answers yet. While this does not enable anyone to insert a God in place of a scientific explanation, this does make your scientific explanation more valid or certainly complete.

    Opps typo, there should be a “NOT” in front of does. So it should say does not make. Dont want you to take advantage of a typo to make some waste of time reply.

    James

  111. Posted October 30, 2015 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    You debate like any other liberal jerk out there. Why would you not ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt that I said it incorrectly? Especially since I had already said that light year is a measure of distance not time. I already get the concept. But thank you for showing that you do not believe in giving the benefit of the doubt and being a gentleman when debating. You should have said, I know that you know light year is a measure of distance because you said so already. But the way you said it here sounds wrong that way. You should say it this way.

    If you are going to lecture someone about what it means to be a “gentleman” it would probably be wise to refrain from beginning with insults about being “like any other liberal jerk out there.”

    I agree we should all strive to avoid creating unnecessary offense. Unfortunately, your comment made it clear that you are grossly confused about the most basic elements of relativity. I was responding to your suggestion that there may be a “logical inconsistency with our consequential math of space time” because observers watching us from another planet “could also assert that they are watching the distant past just as we assert.” The truth, of course, is that’s exactly what those observers should say if they knew it took time for light from Earth to reach them. Obviously, observers from another planet could NOT see what we are doing right now because it takes time for the light to get to them. They could only see our past, never our present. Your comment could only make sense if you forgot that light takes time to travel! Your suggestion that this may “reveal that our view of space time is a bit genocentric” confirms that you forgot that observations made from either planet will be retarded by exactly the same amount of time. That’s why we could only see their past and they could only see our past. There is perfect symmetry in the Theory of Relativity.

    Now look what you have chosen to do. You totally ignored my explanation of your gross error (for which there is no charitable explanation) and focussed entirely on the horrible “offense” that I dared to correct a relatively minor error about light years. This is what ideologues typically do when they get caught making errors. They totally ignore the camel even as they strain at gnats, doing everything in their power to distract the conversation and avoid admitting truth. You are doing the very thing you falsely accuse me of doing.

    Look at the many words you have written! And almost none of them have anything to do with the points I have made. You are a master of diversion. You frequently refuse to answer my straight questions (even when I repeat them many times) because you know the answer will reveal your folly.

    But you don’t do that. You have no desire to teach me anything.

    Not true. I have explained many things to you in great detail in the hope you will learn and understand. I have repeated my explanations dozens of times, and yet you refuse to even respond, let alone engage the evidence.

    You just want to point out that I don’t accept science because of my pagan old fashioned, unevolved beliefs. But you are wrong. And you have been told that. And you have even replied back that you cannot accept that. You have it in your little tunnel vision brain that all creationists are creationists because of their beliefs. The tides turn the other way too. I know people who were taught evolution and the big bang their whole life, and through studying science became creationists. You doubt this because you cannot possibly see how anyone can see creation (or biblical creation) when looking at the earth, sun, solar system or universe in general. But whether you accept it or not, people do turn the other way at times. (ie from accepting evolution to accepting biblical creation)

    I’ve heard of a few people who claimed that they became “biblical creationists” by “studying science” but they turned out to be liars. In truth, they all began as Bible believers and that’s why they reject the science. A good example of such corrupt “testimony” is found in an article called “Confession of a Former Evolutionist” which was written by a Rod McQueen, a long-time pastor in Herbert Armstrong’s hyper-fundamentalist cult called the Worldwide Church of God. In his “confession” he said this:

    “I was raised on the milk of evolutionary theory. In year twelve at high school, our biology class required an in-depth study of the theory of evolution. I was zealous for what was taught. I swallowed the supportive evidence as if it were proof. Not mindlessly, mind you; I really felt it was quite compelling.”

    OK – so in HIGH SCHOOL he was a convinced “evolutionist.” What happened after that? He went straight from High School to study Theology at Ambassador College, founded by cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong! His assertions are absurd. It is highly doubtful that he ever had any understanding of evolution beyond the average high school student. You can read more about it in this post on my forum.

    But let me give you an example of asking for clarification instead of jumping on an opportunity to twist your words like politicians do in debates.

    There you go again. Let me remind you of the context of my comment. I was answering a mind-numbing absurdity that you posed as a possible “logical inconsistency” in relativity based on the ludicrous proposition that observers on other planets could see what we are currently doing without there being any time lag caused by the speed of light. It was in that context that I said your reference to “light years ago” was an error. And what did you do? You whined about how “offensive” it was for me to point out your minor error even as you totaly ignored the huge error that I was explicitly correcting. Your tactics are transparent. You focus on minor points in an effort to make me look bad and to divert the conversation from the gross error that I exposed.

    People who do that, btw, demonstrate that they are not really interested in debating for finding truth. They show that their ultimate goal is to shoot down the other person by making him/her look like the fool.

    You are describing your own transparent tactics. You typically ignore the errors that I expose and change the topic.

    For instance, you cannot recall any legitimate (what you call legitimate) scientist challenge the big bang. What do you call a legitimate scientist? Someone who does not challenge the big bang? So someone who challenges the big bang must be a non-legitimate scientist or a conspirator. Isn’t this a little circular?

    No, it’s not circular at all. If there really is “overwhelming observational evidence” as reported by the expert YOU cited in the lecture YOU linked, then rational people will not be found challenging it. They could challenge the evidence, of course, but that hasn’t been happening because the evidence is very solid. Your rejection of modern cosmology and acceptance of a young earth has nothing to do with any scientific evidence. It is based entirely on your belief in the Bible. It is scientifically no different than believing in a flat earth. That’s how freaking insane it looks to any modern well-informed individual.

    Do you have any other additional markers or qualifying distinctions to mark the legitimate verses non legitimate? There are several scientists with doctorates who studied in the same schools with the same students who accept and deny the big bang.

    You are equivocating over the meaning of “Big Bang.” I’ve explained this 2.4 trillion times now. There is the “overwhelming observational evidence” that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago as a very hot, small point. It may not have been a true singularity of infinite density because of quantum effects, so there is debate about that. And there is debate about other aspects of the Big Bang. But there is no debate about your young earth creationism which is universally rejected by all legitimate scientists. Sorry. That’s just how it is.

    The interesting thing is this. Most if not all science doctorates know about the big bang and evolution. You cannot even go to a legitimate Christian school without using a text book that teaches from those premises. I work at a Christian school. It uses secular science text books. So by default, any Christian scientists who accept biblical creation and reject the big bang and evolution do not reject it because they have never been presented with the so called “evidences.” They deny it because see through it that it is not as squared up as propagated.

    I have never said that creationists reject the science because they “have never been presented with the … evidence.” If that were true, they would not be guilty of wilfully corrupting their minds in service of their dogmas. Their beliefs are blameworthy because they have no excuse for rejecting the evidence.

    You have no problem admitting that you or we do not have all the answers yet. While this does not enable anyone to insert a God in place of a scientific explanation, this does make your scientific explanation more valid or certainly complete. So what is the hurt in questioning it, challenging it? All science breaks down at the singularity. Doesn’t that leave room to consider non-scientific solutions then?

    There is no harm at all in asking questions and challenging established science. On the contrary, that is the essence of the scientific method. But that’s not what you and the other creationists are doing. You troll through science looking for bits and pieces you can twist and pervert to make room for you gawd. You are not doing anything like science.

    You said:
    —-It has been totally refuted. The Big Bang may turn out to be false, but that doesn’t mean it is pseudoscience. It is based on solid science which the authority you cited described as “overwhelming observational evidence.”—–

    In the same paragraph you said that the big bang may turn out to be false and it is based on solid science. How can this be? Can you clarify what about the theory may be seen to be false?

    Newton’s Mechanics was based on the best observational evidence of his day. It was based on solid science. Then we made more observations and found it was “false” in the sense that it was only an approximation of the more accurate theory of Relativity. Get it?

    You see what I did there. I asked for clarification instead of just running on and on about you seemingly made a controversial point. Because from a cursory reading, it sounds like you contradicted yourself. How could something that is based on “solid science” be found out in the possible future to be false? What are you constituting as solid science? All the things you keep listing? But this is your solid evidence? You see, I need clarification before I can safely assume you are in error or are just flat out stupid.

    Newtonian Mechanics is still solid science because Relativity reduces to it in the limit of low velocities. If it turns out that the Big Bang is false, it will be in the sense that Newtonian Mechanics is false. It will never be the case that new observations will support a young earth cosmology. I can say it with the same certainty with which I say that no new observations will prove the earth is flat. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.

    To me, you keep saying you have explained it. Just telling me that general relativity, red shift, the expanding of the universe, and the cosmic background radiation does not explain how this all means the big bang has to be the way main stream science says it is currently.
    As it is, one could say inflation is the answer. But another could say that inflation is just a made up escape tactic to make the math line up with the CMB that when further studied did not fit the original expected theory. So you added inflation. Was this the answer or an escape tactic to keep a theory viable? Who is really to say? When you make up particles like an inflaton, excuse me for having doubts. All i see is a huge equation. One side is the theory and math and one side is the observed universe. Several times what is observed does not match the current theory and math. So we add inflation, so we add dark energy. Anyone can change one side of an equation to make it solve the other side. But I want to know where is the control to say those numbers are the only way it works. In other words or a for instance, can the math be made to work if you remove or lesson inflation and the increase or decrease the time? How many known numbers are there and how many assumed numbers are there? Why does the beginning have to be small, dense, hot? Just saying that it is a mathematical concept is not an explanation. This is the math that you have chosen to be the answer, in my opinion how I see it. Tell me other wise.

    There are strong reasons to believe the field equations of General Relativity are correct. (E.g. perihelion of Mercury, gravitational lensing, time dilation, GPS, etc.) We have no other theory that comes close to matching its success. Therefore, when confronted with observations that don’t fit with the best theory we have, we look to see if there is a way to include the new observations with the existing theory. If this is found to be impossible, we may be forced to go looking for a new theory. This is how science works.

    None of this makes any room for young earth creationism. Sorry.

    There are lots of people who accept the big bang for what they believe to be good solid reasons. I do want to understand it. How can I make an informed decision without understanding it? You don’t want me to blindly accept it do you without understanding it? So far, you have not demonstrated that you understand it. Just repeating a check list of “evidences” is not substantial proof of understanding and comprehension. So why don’t you add some meat to your assertion lists. All you say is if you want to know about it, look it up. I have watched several videos on the big bang and evidence for it. They all seem to make mistakes and jumps in logic that I do not follow is legitimate. Its like they want to get away with not showing their work and people just to accept that it is right. That is called being spoon fed and being indoctrinated to think it threw yourself. Funny, that is what creationists are labeled for doing.

    Your answered your own question when you said “They all seem to make mistakes and jumps in logic that I do not follow is legitimate.”
    If you can’t understand cosmology when taught by experts who have devoted their lives to the topic, then it’s little wonder you don’t understand it when I try to teach it to you.

    More to the point: How is it possible that you feel qualified to judge the experts as making “mistakes and jumps in logic” when you don’t even understand the most basic elements of modern cosmology? Do you understand tensor calculus and the mathematics of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces (the mathematical foundations of GR and QM)? If not, you have no warrant to make any judgments at all. Or what? Would you barge into an operating room, grab the scalpel from the surgeon’s hand, and show him how to do it? You know nothing of which you speak. And yet you feel justified to question the scientific and mathematical logic you cannot begin to understand? I can think of few things more arrogant than for an ignorant Bible believing Young Earth Creationist exalting himself above all the stars of the planetary scientific community. Please take no offense. I’m just telling you the truth as I see it.

    I hope the conversation continues.

    All the best,

    Richard

  112. James
    Posted October 31, 2015 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    I respect your comments back. I think we can both on being more respectful. I am on my phone since my computer is busy working on a video protect. I’m using wonderful technology to transfer home vidoes on vhs to digital.

    But what you call changing the subject or dodging questions is not quite fair. We both have long replies and neither one of us both fully respond to each other’s points each and every time. If you want to say for the record that you do a better job than me, okay, you have that right.

    I know if i scroll up there would be points that i want clarification and things that i missed to respond to. It is also harder to copy and paste on my phone. So i save comments and replies that benefit greatly from copying and pasting to when i am in front of a computer.

    But you brought up a point of space time when you replied to me. I said something to the effect that we have observed the near beginning universe, in the past. Then you responded that everytime we look out into space that we are looking into the past. So yes, i get your point. But your reply does not help the lack of evidence i am trying to point out to you within the big bang. All you can admit is that we lack the ability to watch stars, closer or more distant to us, in the past, it is not live. I realize that any potential people looking at our star would be viewing us in the past not live either. But it is all relative past. I also brought up the whole subject in this light and for these reasons. One, to show that it doesnt help your point that we “have studied the early universe in its formation.” Seeing a star in the past is not the same thing as watching a forming star or watching a universe under inflation. Have we obserbed a universe under inflation? If we havent, then why are we asserting we have observable evidence up to the right after the big bang? (Thank you for catching my mistake when i said before. That is not what i meant.)
    So as i see it, all the things we observe are either happening now or not live. They are coming into being or forming or under the influence of inflation. This was point one. The second point to bring it up because i was mentioning someone i thought was interesting to think about. You say we look at the distant past when we look out into space. While that is all said and good, it still doesn’t help my lack of understanding how people can assert we have observed evidence up to the start of the big bang, right after it happened.
    I also think, just an interesting point, that since we are bent on finding evidence of life on distant planets orbiting distant stars, in all fairness, it is even less likely we could see the signs of alien life sice we would be observing many years behind. So unless life formed on an extremely early planet, we would observe too late into the past to see the progressed life. So we are looking at relative past to us, not the past that makes the evidence for the big bang more viable.

    James

  113. James
    Posted October 31, 2015 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    I am not questioning the expertise of the scientific community. That would be a personal accusation. I am questioning the nature of the scientific community counting their chickens before their eggs hatch. If they do not have all the answers yet, then why don’t they more willingly admit that. But no, every generation thinks they got it. But yet, every decade proofs that a change was needed. So if yiu want me to admit that the big bang is the best that we got so far, okay, i admit that. But that doesnt equate to anything of real value to me. Sometimes the best scientific answer is not the right one. So all i am saying is don’t give out nobels for your ten chickens and make publications about your ten chickens when you may only have 8-9 hatch.

    James

  114. James
    Posted October 31, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    I honestly think adding inflation is just as non scientific as saying god did it. You just call it something other than God and it can be now scientific worthy. I call hogwash. People added something to make their math work out is all i am seeing. People are still appealing to ignorance. So i do not like being assused that creationists appeal to God when their is a gap of unknown solution. I see inflation and other made up things as doing the same thing.
    Like how do we have comets in our orbit when they should last more than 100,000 years. So the escape tatic, which has no evidence but appeals to ignorance, is that there is a nearby source producing more comets replenishing the ones who have long died off. There is no observed source. It is pure appeal to ignorance to save the notion that our universe is not as old. Like i said before, don’t count a solution as a solution until you have actual evidence for it.

    James

  115. Posted October 31, 2015 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    I respect your comments back. I think we can both on being more respectful.

    Hey there James. I agree completely. The conversation gets quite tedious when the level of mutual respect drops.

    I am on my phone since my computer is busy working on a video protect. I’m using wonderful technology to transfer home vidoes on vhs to digital.

    Sounds like a good idea. Digital is a much more stable format and easy to back up and share. The magnetic tapes disintegrate over time.

    But what you call changing the subject or dodging questions is not quite fair. We both have long replies and neither one of us both fully respond to each other’s points each and every time. If you want to say for the record that you do a better job than me, okay, you have that right.

    I agree that it’s very difficult to answer each and every point. But in the future, if a question is repeated we should take note and do our best to answer.

    Have we obserbed a universe under inflation? If we havent, then why are we asserting we have observable evidence up to the right after the big bang?

    Because the inflationary period ended at about ten to the minus 32 seconds after the Big Bang whereas the “overwhelming observational evidence” goes back to only the first second.

    Why do I have to explain such elementary facts? How is it possible that you could think yourself qualified to cast doubt on relativistic cosmology if you don’t even understand the most basic elements of the theory?

    So as i see it, all the things we observe are either happening now or not live. They are coming into being or forming or under the influence of inflation. This was point one.

    I’m sorry James, but your words make no sense to me. Nothing is currently “forming under the influence of inflation.”

    The second point to bring it up because i was mentioning someone i thought was interesting to think about. You say we look at the distant past when we look out into space. While that is all said and good, it still doesn’t help my lack of understanding how people can assert we have observed evidence up to the start of the big bang, right after it happened.

    Because the evidence we observe coheres with the field equations of General Relativity and it all combines to form a coherent picture all the way back to about a second after the Big Bang. The theory breaks down at that point so we can’t speak with the same degree of certainty. This was all discussed in great detail in the video you linked. Didn’t you watch it?

    Great chatting!

    Shine on, my friend.

    Richard

  116. Posted October 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    I am not questioning the expertise of the scientific community. That would be a personal accusation. I am questioning the nature of the scientific community counting their chickens before their eggs hatch. If they do not have all the answers yet, then why don’t they more willingly admit that. But no, every generation thinks they got it.

    I have never seen a legitimate cosmologist who doesn’t admit that we don’t have all the answers yet. Can you please cite one or two? If not, then maybe you should correct your comment.

    But yet, every decade proofs that a change was needed.

    Not true. Science becomes more and more stable as time goes on because of the constant process of refinement. The discovery of the expansion of the universe was a huge change, but it’s very unlikely that discovery will every be proven false. Just like the flat earth theory. It was a big change to learn the earth is a sphere, but that change will never itself change because the earth is in fact a sphere. Science becomes more and more stable as more and more is learned.

    So if yiu want me to admit that the big bang is the best that we got so far, okay, i admit that.

    Wonderful! Does that mean that you are correcting your previous assertion that the Big Bang is “pseudoscience”?

    But that doesnt equate to anything of real value to me. Sometimes the best scientific answer is not the right one. So all i am saying is don’t give out nobels for your ten chickens and make publications about your ten chickens when you may only have 8-9 hatch.

    Speaking of Nobel prizes, two have been given in regards to evidence supporting the Big Bang. One in 1978 for the initial discovery of cosmic background radiation and one in 2006 for its detailed measurement.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that serious scientists are letting each other “count eggs” that haven’t hatched. I get the impression you have no concept of the profoundly competitive nature of science. It is very much like evolution – only the scientific theories that best fit reality survive.

    Great chatting!

    Richard

  117. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted November 1, 2015 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    “Here’s what you need to do. You need to find a quote where I rejected an argument as “moronic” merely because of my bias without presenting any evidence based on logic and facts.”

    “Richard A. McGough
    ‏@RichardMcGough
    And this guy thinks he should be President of the United States? What a moron. http://fb.me/11NR2LxJl
    9:14 AM – 19 Sep 2012″

  118. Posted November 1, 2015 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Can you substantiate any of your claims with actual quotes in context? If not, then your words are empty.

    Here’s what you need to do. You need to find a quote where I rejected an argument as “moronic” merely because of my bias without presenting any evidence based on logic and facts. If you can’t do that, your accusations will remain empty and unjustified.

    And this guy thinks he should be President of the United States? What a moron.
    http://fb.me/11NR2LxJl

    Thanks for trying, but the link doesn’t work. But even if it did, it only proves how far you must go in your vain effort to justify your false assertions.

    The fact that you have to troll through my Facebook comments proves that you know that you cannot justify your false assertions about my discussion here on my blog. You posted a long list of fragmentary quotes from this blog ripped out of context as “evidence” that I always reject opponents as “morons” merely because they disagree with me. So I challenged you to provide evidence, and you IGNORED all those quotes that you had posted and went trolling desperately through my Facebook in hopes of finding some shred that you could use to justify you ludicrous lies.

    Now that you have exposed your fundamentally deceptive tactics, I must refine my challenge:

    Here’s what you need to do. You need to find at least three quotes from debates here on my blog where I rejected an argument as “moronic” merely because of my bias without presenting any evidence based on logic and facts. If you can’t do that, your accusations will remain empty and unjustified.

    I increased the requirement to three because you assert that this is a general flaw in my character. If your words had an ounce of truth in them it should be trivial for you to present the evidence.

    Good luck with that. LOL

  119. James
    Posted November 2, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    I do not get how anyone can say that the observed evidence goes back to one second after the big bang? This is the main issue i do not get that i cannot get passed. If you could explain this to me, then i would be in a better position to judge informatively. Are we just assuming gravity works the same to form stars before there were stars then it does now?

    James

  120. James
    Posted November 2, 2015 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Am i changing my assertion that the big bang is psedo science? I think what i said afterwards already told u i need more clarification.
    But at any rate, the BB’s whole foundation is based on psedo science which i know the whole scientific community doesnot try to deny or hide. But that honesty does not change the essential fact.
    Second, no one knows how energy knew how to convert to matter and organize itself. What we built in switzerland was supposed to give us answers. We can take a little mass and a lot of energy and produce more mass. But what have we observed the mass do? I think in time past people thought that the big bang was initiated by two unknown sources colliding with one another. Now that assertion had been discarded.
    Third, i am not convinced we know enough about the first star formation and galaxy formation to say that the big bang is solid science. We do not even have a working theory for how Neptune and Uranus came into being. Surprised? I was too a little but not really when we stop and consider what we do not know.

    So in answer to your question, i do not recant my assertion that the big bang is still psedo science. The parts of the big bang are said to be based on solid science is moot to me. It is like a skilled carpenter who knows how to build a house, has the blueprints all drawn out in perfection, but has no idea where and how he will provide the materials for the project. Kind of pointless to go on contract until that is figured out. But go ahead, say what has been said before. Science is not concerned with the questions that it cannot answer. The theory is not required to answer them yet to be viable. I call cop out.
    If anything, science has demonstrated that the beginning calls for a unscientific answer since science cannot provide one. You can retort that i do not know that yet. But that is not the scientific way. We have to go with the best we have and know now. So a supernatural divine origin is the best we have now, wouldn’t you agree?
    After all, the professor in the link said that the BB needs string theory and the multiverse concept to explain the fine tuning dilemma. Did you watch the video thoroughly? You had said previously that scientists do not typically regard the multiverse as required. But Stephen Hawking thinks the opposite. He thinks it is required. I can look up the quote latter. So the odd thing is that the multiverse concept says that anything is possible since there are an infinite number of uiverses and possible scenarios. Not only does this concept become non falsifiable (if everthing is possible), But it is also possible the biblical God exists in one of those universes. Maybe He fine tuned our universe. The big bang says it is possible when you carry it out to its carried out conclusion.

    James

  121. Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I do not get how anyone can say that the observed evidence goes back to one second after the big bang? This is the main issue i do not get that i cannot get passed. If you could explain this to me, then i would be in a better position to judge informatively.

    Hey there James,

    Do you understand how we discovered the structure of atoms through “observed evidence” without actually seeing the individual atoms, electrons, protons, etc.? It’s the same in all fields of science. We make inferences from things we can observe.

    Are we just assuming gravity works the same to form stars before there were stars then it does now?

    Of course we assume gravity “works the same” – why would anyone question that? I presume it is because you have been reading anti-scientific creationist literature. If there really is a reason to assume that gravity worked differently, the surely you can find a legitimate discussion of it the peer reviewed literature. I will answer more when you do.

    All the best,

    Richard

  122. Posted November 2, 2015 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    But at any rate, the BB’s whole foundation is based on psedo science which i know the whole scientific community doesnot try to deny or hide. But that honesty does not change the essential fact.

    Is that a typo? Did you really mean to say that the whole scientific community knows that the Big Bang is based on pseudo-science? What about the vast majority of cosmologists who say it is solid science established on observational evidence? Are they lying, or insane, or what? I truly do not understand your comment. The fact that there are unanswered questions because we don’t have a quantum theory of gravity does not mean that the whole theory is “based on pseudoscience.”

  123. James
    Posted November 2, 2015 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Maybe i should phrase that better. The BB’s start is recognized to be based on pseudo science since nearly everyone admits that all science breaks down at the singularity.
    I also say inflation is an convenient appeal to ignorance. It could have happened, we don’t know that it did. Our math works out if it did. So let us assume that it did.

    About inferences, yes, we use inferences to solve criminal cases and so and so on. But i think you need to consider what we already discussed earlier and infer from context, ie our universe. The same forces that keep a universe in its present functions, cannot be the same forces that created them. Remember our talk about technology and even preparing food. The same process for preparing a bowl of cereal is not the same process one uses to eat that bowl. I can convert analog vhs tapes to digital using a simple process in a video editing software on a very complicated machine. Thankfully, i do not have to be an expert on how analog signals transfer to ditigal to accomplish what i aim to accomplish. I do not have to write code for the software and develop hardware for the computer. You see stars and galaxies doing what they do now and think we know how they came into being. Is there an explanation of galaxy formation?

    Regarding gravity, the force of gravity that keeps a star in tact cannot be called upon to explain how it formed. Since the gravity created by the star is not present before the stars existence. Am i missing something? The concept seems so simple to me that so many assume and are wrong to assume it so blindly and wishfully.

    James

  124. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted November 3, 2015 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    “What about the vast majority of cosmologists who say it is solid science established on observational evidence? Are they lying, or insane, or what?”

    They are neither lying or insane.

    But the fact that you pose the question that way is very revealing about your “sociology of knowledge”, if I can use that phrase. You are constantly framing these debates in such terms. Whichever side of the debate you are on, you find it very difficult to attribute good faith to the other side, or even to suppose that the other side could attribute good faith to your side. It is knowledge as bloodsport. Cosmologists who assert that the Big Bang is true are obviously not “lying”, nor are they “insane”. Nor are they necessarily “correct”. There are many dissenting views and opinions on all aspects of the Big Bang theory. It is not the case that all of these dissenting views are coming from young earth creationists. There are absolutely reputable, dyed-in-the-wool cosmologists who are fully paid up members of the orthodox scientific method, who offer alternative approaches. You must be aware of these surely. for example Jahr, and Arp. It may or may not be that these, or others, make a case that you would agree with, but they are not lying. Nor are they insane. They demonstrate that there is variety, there are different understandings, and that knowledge is not a monolithic single slab of “truth”.

    This applies in all fields. People construct models of the world in which to function as human beings, and this is true no matter what one believes or doesn’t believe. The reason people settle on one side or the other of a debate is because it resonates with the rest of the reality model they have constructed. Sometimes it happens that people’s reality model changes. And with it, their opinions then change. You are indeed a perfect example of this. You changed your reality model when you went from Christian to non-Christian. Does that mean you were insane or lying when you were a Christian. Of course not. You held those beliefs sincerely in good faith. Does it mean you are lying or insane now that you are not a Christian? Of course not. You hold your current views in good faith.

    What is troubling is this notion that because someone else has a different model of reality, they must be lying, or insane, or, indeed, a moron. This error in thinking has been amplified by the internet, so one can find a million examples of it. People are at each other’s throats, because of these different reality models. Whether it is evolution versus creation, or Big Bang versus creation, or Christianity versus Atheism: there is good faith on both sides of each debate. Indeed, I am yet to meet a person from either side who does not hold their views in good faith.

    So why is it necessary to demonise the other person? It is a cheap method of prolonging the debate. It is counterproductive. It assumes that there really is such a thing as absolute truth, and that we humans are capable of discerning absolute truth. In truth, neither of these propositions is true. Truth is an evolving, unfolding, unwrapping process that depends on scope and scale. Humans are flawed beings with tiny brains who construct these tiny tiny models of the unfathomably huge cosmos, in order to make it through each day. And yet, we fling this stuff back and forth as if the entire debate consists of nothing but people who know the truth, and liars, insane people and morons who stand in its way.

    For goodness sake: you of all people, having been through such a profound volte face, should be able to grasp the concept that truth is subtle, nuanced and dependent on the larger frames of reference of our individual lives in which it is constructed. Your opponent is not a liar. Nor is he a moron. Nor is he insane. He or she is someone coping with the massive strangeness of being a human, trying to figure out why things happen, why things are the way they are. Every path is different, and every human experience is different, and as a result, there an infinite number of potential models of reality that people derive in order to function. Within those models, people can wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, be nice to their spouse, etc etc. The models are full of approximations, errors, misperceptions and downright wrong elements, but this is true of all of us. Atheists are not immune from this, and neither are cosmologists or evolutionary biologists. There is not some independent absolute truth that these people have grasped through some superior process. And indeed, the philosophy of science makes this absolutely plain. Science is an evolving understanding. Today’s Big Bang is not the Big Bang of thirty years ago, and if the theory is still standing in another thirty years, it will be unrecognisable from what it is today. Does that make today’s cosmologists a liar? Of course not. No less than it makes Howard Arp a liar. or Professor Hans-Jörg Jahr. See his work described here:
    http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/do-we-have-the-big-bang-theory-all-wrong

    But as long as we continue to construct these dialogues along these exclusionary lines, pitting each other against the other side in this drawn-out, knock-em-down fight to the death against liars, insane people and morons, then we are stuck in a whirlpool of error of our own making.

    The trick is to be able to consider the other side of every argument without freaking out. No one’s head ever exploded from entertaining seriously the other side of the debate. There are problems with the Big Bang. There are problems with Climate Science. There are problems with Darwinian evolution. One way to deal with the problems is to hurl abuse at those who want to look at those problem areas, and who find themselves unable to support the consensus position. That’s the internet 2015. But it does not have to be this way. If we would only begin by assuming good faith on the part of our “opponents”, we would make much more headway in coming to a useful group understanding of this strange universe in which we find ourselves manifest. We have nothing to lose but our illusions. Truth is not about consensus, or majority vote. These are just attributes of popularity of various reality model constructs. As Einstein himself said, when confronted with a book with the title “Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein)”: “If I am wrong, one would be enough”.

    I implore you Richard to go beyond this current brittle stage where the struggle to describe reality is simplified into a brutal battle between the Consensus and the Liars/Insane/Morons of the world. It is all far more subtle than that. And people are more subtle than that. And the complexity of reality is far more subtle than that.

  125. Posted November 3, 2015 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    “What about the vast majority of cosmologists who say it is solid science established on observational evidence? Are they lying, or insane, or what?”

    They are neither lying or insane.

    But the fact that you pose the question that way is very revealing about your “sociology of knowledge”, if I can use that phrase. You are constantly framing these debates in such terms. Whichever side of the debate you are on, you find it very difficult to attribute good faith to the other side, or even to suppose that the other side could attribute good faith to your side. It is knowledge as bloodsport. Cosmologists who assert that the Big Bang is true are obviously not “lying”, nor are they “insane”.

    Your tactics are as transparent as they are perverse. I am not “constantly framing debates in those terms.” That’s your false narrative that you can’t support with any facts. It’s nothing but the purest ad hominem – the lazy intellect’s way of attacking arguments that it can’t actually refute. You ripped that quote out of context and totally misconstrued its meaning to fit your obsessive need to cast me as some sort of intellectual villain, whom you diagnose with your amazing psychic psychoanalytic powers. Look at what I actually wrote, and why:

    Is that a typo? Did you really mean to say that the whole scientific community knows that the Big Bang is based on pseudo-science? What about the vast majority of cosmologists who say it is solid science established on observational evidence? Are they lying, or insane, or what? I truly do not understand your comment. The fact that there are unanswered questions because we don’t have a quantum theory of gravity does not mean that the whole theory is “based on pseudoscience.”

    I was responding to James’ assertion which, if true, would mean that the “whole scientific community” consists of people who are radically contradicting themselves when they say that the Big Bang is based on solid science. That contradiction was the focus of my comment. It had nothing to do with “framing” either side in any way. I was trying to help him see that blatant contradiction by noting they’d have to be lying or insane. There was no lack of “good faith” implied in my comment. I was not “framing an argument” with a bias towards any “side”. I was simply trying to show him that his assertions were logically incoherent.

    The really pathetic thing about your attack is that you yourself called me a “total fool” in one of your first posts here. And you’ve spewed out a bunch of similar crap which reveals your sanctimoniously preaching to be nothing but rank hypocritical bullshit. The irony, of course, is that your false picture of me is a perfect portrait of you!

    Cosmologists who assert that the Big Bang is true are obviously not “lying”, nor are they “insane”. Nor are they necessarily “correct”. There are many dissenting views and opinions on all aspects of the Big Bang theory. It is not the case that all of these dissenting views are coming from young earth creationists. There are absolutely reputable, dyed-in-the-wool cosmologists who are fully paid up members of the orthodox scientific method, who offer alternative approaches. You must be aware of these surely.

    Of course I know all that, and you know I know it because I’ve said it a hundred times on this blog, often in debate with James. There is no justification for you lecturing me on such elementary facts as if I were ignorant of such things. You are just trying to create your ludicrous caricature of me as some sort of intellectual villain. Your tactics are transparent.

    It may or may not be that these, or others, make a case that you would agree with, but they are not lying. Nor are they insane. They demonstrate that there is variety, there are different understandings, and that knowledge is not a monolithic single slab of “truth”.

    I never suggested they were lying or insane for holding different views. That is your false narrative that you created by ripping my words out of context.

    This applies in all fields. People construct models of the world in which to function as human beings, and this is true no matter what one believes or doesn’t believe. The reason people settle on one side or the other of a debate is because it resonates with the rest of the reality model they have constructed.

    Or because they have been indoctrinated in some ideology. It’s pretty easy to tell by the methods they use and the answers they give when challenged with logic and facts.

    Sometimes it happens that people’s reality model changes. And with it, their opinions then change. You are indeed a perfect example of this. You changed your reality model when you went from Christian to non-Christian. Does that mean you were insane or lying when you were a Christian. Of course not. You held those beliefs sincerely in good faith. Does it mean you are lying or insane now that you are not a Christian? Of course not. You hold your current views in good faith.

    And again, you are totally misrepresenting me. I have never said anything that would justify such comments from you.

    I am the same as when I was a Christian. I believed because I thought I had evidence it was true. I then examined that evidence and concluded it false. I most certainly have not “simply replaced faith in Christ with faith in science” as you falsely asserted in a previous. The only thing that changed was my estimation of the validity of the evidence for Christianity.

    What is troubling is this notion that because someone else has a different model of reality, they must be lying, or insane, or, indeed, a moron.

    There you go again! Repeating your tired old narrative. I have never written a word that would justify such a caricature of my character. I have challenged you three times now to provide evidence that I rejected ideas based on mere bias rather than logic and facts and you have utterly failed to provide it.

    So why is it necessary to demonise the other person? It is a cheap method of prolonging the debate. It is counterproductive.

    I really think you need to ask yourself that question.

    For goodness sake: you of all people, having been through such a profound volte face, should be able to grasp the concept that truth is subtle, nuanced and dependent on the larger frames of reference of our individual lives in which it is constructed.

    Your lectures sound a lot like when James began his explanation about “how to be a gentleman” by calling me a “liberal jerk.” Irony isn’t just for taking wrinkles out of your clothes. Looks like your character could use a little ironing.

    Your opponent is not a liar. Nor is he a moron. Nor is he insane.

    Often true. Often not. Often they are all three. And I’ve got more than enough evidence if you would like me to provide it. For example, have you never heard of Ergun Caner who lied for ten freaking years from the pulpit? He was president of Liberty Theological Seminary and they LIED, LIED, and LIED AGAIN to cover up his idiotic moronic bullshit lies. Anyone who dared to speak the truth was attacked by these wonderful Christian leaders. And famous Christian apologists like Norm Geisler and John Ankerberg joined in the coverup. You can read all about it in a series of articles indexed by Ergun Caner.

    And of course that’s just a hint of the kind of corruption that flows from an ideology that threatens believers with eternal torment for mere disagreement. Look at the raving lunatics followed by millions of mindless christian minions (Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, Harold Camping, Ken Ham, etc., etc., etc.).

    My words are more than justified. And you confirm them since you have never dared to show the context of any of the quotes you found where I rejected an argument as “moronic”.

    But as long as we continue to construct these dialogues along these exclusionary lines, pitting each other against the other side in this drawn-out, knock-em-down fight to the death against liars, insane people and morons, then we are stuck in a whirlpool of error of our own making.

    There you go again, repeating your false narrative. I do not construct the dialogues along exclusionary lines. But I know someone who does. YOU! Here are some of the choice words you spewed out at me without an ounce of charity or “good faith” –

    Maxwell’s Ghost: Right then smartypants: instead of thrashing around in the shallows, why don’t you step up to the big boys table, and work your way through the problems with the following list for us.

    Maxwell’s Ghost: Oh, how awfully generous of you. And how completely wrong. Educate yourself, you total fool, about the global warming scam. Start with Climate Audit, where you will find real science, not your screeching half-baked fanboi reverse engineered personal pyscho nonsense.

    Maxwell’s Ghost: Yes, the global warming blindspot perfectly illustrates your entire problem, namely, the fact that you have simply replaced faith in Christ with faith in science. Now, anything with a label “science”, you automatically defend to the death exactly like some rabid crazed fundamentalist. The problem is that the so called “climate science” is no such thing. It is not science. It is a travesty of science. It breaks all the rules of good science, which you would know if you actually spent any time reading properly the dissenting views.

    Behold your hypocrisy!

    The trick is to be able to consider the other side of every argument without freaking out. No one’s head ever exploded from entertaining seriously the other side of the debate.

    Certainly looks like your’s did – a long time ago apparently.

    I implore you Richard to go beyond this current brittle stage where the struggle to describe reality is simplified into a brutal battle between the Consensus and the Liars/Insane/Morons of the world. It is all far more subtle than that. And people are more subtle than that. And the complexity of reality is far more subtle than that.

    Dude! You’re a conspiracy theorist who rejects cosmology, evolution, and climate science! You call people “total fools” if you merely suspect that they may disagree with your lunatic ravings.

    Oh! The Irony! The Hypocrisy! The Arrogance! My brain’s gonna blow!

    Have you forgotten all that crap you wrote here on my blog? Here’s a gem:

    Maxwell’s Ghost: If Van Flandern is such a kook, it should be easy to demolish his 30 points. But I guess it’s even easier just to dismiss him out of hand because, wait, you believe the government account of Sandy Hook. Gosh, you even believe the government account of 9/11! And you mock others for subscribing to fairy stories! Oh dear.

    There it is. You reject climate science, evolution, and cosmology and blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, 9/11, and who knows what else.

    That’s it folks! Nothing more to see here … but looney tunes.

    Looney tunes

  126. Posted November 3, 2015 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    First we have this:

    Maxwell’s Ghost: Educate yourself, you total fool, about the global warming scam.

    And then we have this:

    Maxwell’s Ghost: Your entire approach is encapsulated right there. Someone agrees with you: “my friend”. Someone disagrees: “idiot”.

    Seems like someone may be trying to educate himself but is having a hard time because he just can’t listen to someone so freaking arrogant and lacking in self-awareness.

  127. Posted November 3, 2015 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Maybe i should phrase that better. The BB’s start is recognized to be based on pseudo science since nearly everyone admits that all science breaks down at the singularity.

    James,

    I think the problem is caused by your confused use of the term “pseudoscience.” The fact that the known laws break down at the singularity does not mean that the entire theory of the Big Bang is “based on pseudoscience.” Your words make it sound like the Big Bang is as absurd and unfounded as Astrology or Young Earth Creationism.

    I also say inflation is an convenient appeal to ignorance. It could have happened, we don’t know that it did. Our math works out if it did. So let us assume that it did.

    No, that is a pathetic caricature of the concept of inflation which is a hypothetical PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE that has consequences that can be worked out and so it offers a possible explanation that can be tested against evidence. That’s totally different than a “God hypothesis” which contains no explanation that could be tested or that could be used to make predictions. Your God hypothesis is just a placeholder for ignorance. It gives no knowledge of anything. You could say God, Allah, the Invisible Omnipotent Pink Unicorn, Zeus, or whatever. There is a world of difference with a the concept of a physical principle. It is really quite ridiculous that you focus on science in your effort to defend the Bible given that the Bible is blatantly false on a hundred scientific points. Simply stated, nothing could be more absurd than to blindly believe the Bible while rejecting modern science.

    About inferences, yes, we use inferences to solve criminal cases and so and so on.

    Wow. You TOTALLY missed the point! I mean TOTALLY! How is anyone supposed to get through to you? I’ve been discussing these things with you for months and you continue in the same errors. It’s just crazy how you can choose to believe a book full of fairytales that have been proven false with demonstrable evidence even as you reject all modern science of which you are fundamentally ignorant. I am stunned.

    But i think you need to consider what we already discussed earlier and infer from context, ie our universe. The same forces that keep a universe in its present functions, cannot be the same forces that created them.

    Not true. There is no reason to believe the laws of nature are not as eternal as reality itself. Only the observable universe had a beginning. We have no evidence that reality itself had a beginning.

    You see stars and galaxies doing what they do now and think we know how they came into being. Is there an explanation of galaxy formation?

    Sure. Look it up. Let me know if you want me to explain something if you don’t understand it.

    Regarding gravity, the force of gravity that keeps a star in tact cannot be called upon to explain how it formed. Since the gravity created by the star is not present before the stars existence. Am i missing something? The concept seems so simple to me that so many assume and are wrong to assume it so blindly and wishfully.

    Wow. Your assertion reveals an ignorance as deep as the ocean, as dark as a moonless night. How is it possible you could utter such absurdities? Gravitation is responsible for the formation of the stars. All particles, no matter how small, are attracted to all other particles by the force of gravity. I’ve measured it myself in the lab. This is common knowledge. How is it possible you could be ignorant of something so basic? Stars form by gravitational collapse. Look it up.

  128. MichaelFree
    Posted November 4, 2015 at 4:07 am | Permalink

    “You reject climate science, evolution, and cosmology and blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, 9/11, and who knows what else”.

    You reject people questioning depopulation (murder) and deindustrialization proposals, you reject the fact that one species doesn’t beget other species in this world, you reject God (mock deity), you reject that you were created by God (unknown force), you reject that God (unknown force) created the Universe, and you blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories about people not being sane for questioning an anti-gun governments narrative of Sandy Hook, or for questioning a sick perverted guilty of crimes against humanity war criminal thug terrorist-creating governments account of 9/11, you reject anti-vacciners who are aren’t anti-vaccine at all but who are anti-aluminum and anti-mercury and anti-pumping babies full of poison, and who knows what else.

    That’s it folks! Nothing more to see here … but looney tunes.

  129. Posted November 4, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    You reject people questioning depopulation (murder) and deindustrialization proposals,

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not rejected those things. You can talk about depopulation all you want. And there are people who think it would be a good idea. I’m not one of them, but I can see their point.

    you reject the fact that one species doesn’t beget other species in this world,

    Of course. Speciation is a fact. Are you saying that you reject evolution and all the evidence (DNA, fossils, phylogenetic tree of life, etc.) supporting it?

    you reject God (mock deity),

    Not true. I don’t know of any God to reject and if there were a God I wouldn’t reject her/him/it/them. What I do reject are blatantly false and irrational beliefs about the various gods that humans have invented.

    you reject that you were created by God (unknown force), you reject that God (unknown force) created the Universe,

    Defining God as an “unknown force” reveals the vacuity of the concept. Is it wrong for me to reject vacuous concepts?

    and you blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories about people not being sane for questioning an anti-gun governments narrative of Sandy Hook, or for questioning a sick perverted guilty of crimes against humanity war criminal thug terrorist-creating governments account of 9/11, you reject anti-vacciners who are aren’t anti-vaccine at all but who are anti-aluminum and anti-mercury and anti-pumping babies full of poison, and who knows what else.

    Yes, I generally have little patience for conspiracy theorists who blindly believe anything but the truth. And why? Because it is a scientific fact that conspiracy theorists tend be extremely gullible and this is proven by experience every day when you see that they don’t just believe one or two conspiracy theories but many if not most that are floating around the septic parts of the web.

    It is absurd for you to assert that I “blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories” about conspiracy theorists being freaking nuts. I’m not “believing” anything but what I’ve seen with my own eyes. I’ve been running this site for years and have seen every variety wacko. I speak from experience and can support my words with evidence.

  130. James
    Posted November 4, 2015 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    Regarding star formation. I have looked it up. But it seems people jump to conclusions instead of relying on evidence. But let us agree on an explanation that is already proposed and then open it to critique and discussion. Here is one: a layman’s explanation from a mainstream source. Do you agree with it or would you make any changes to it?

    Well, it and the other stars that came before.

    As they died, they donated the heavier elements we need for life.

    But how did they form?

    Stars begin as vast clouds of cold molecular hydrogen and helium left over from the Big Bang.

    These vast clouds can be hundreds of light years across and contain the raw material for thousands or even millions of times the mass of our Sun.

    In addition to the hydrogen, these clouds are seeded with heavier elements from the stars that lived and died long ago.

    They’re held in balance between their inward force of gravity and the outward pressure of the molecules.

    Eventually some kick overcomes this balance and causes the cloud to begin collapsing.

    That kick could come from a nearby supernova explosion, collision with another gas cloud, or the pressure wave of a galaxy’s spiral arms passing through the region.

    As this cloud collapses, it breaks into smaller and smaller clumps, until there are knots with roughly the mass of a star.

    As these regions heat up, they prevent further material from falling inward.

    At the center of these clumps, the material begins to increase in heat and density.

    When the outward pressure balances against the force of gravity pulling it in, a protostar is formed.

    What happens next depends on the amount of material.

    Some objects don’t accumulate enough mass for stellar ignition and become brown dwarfs – substellar objects not unlike a really big Jupiter, which slowly cool down over billions of years.

    If a star has enough material, it can generate enough pressure and temperature at its core to begin deuterium fusion – a heavier isotope of hydrogen.

    This slows the collapse and prepares the star to enter the true main sequence phase.

    This is the stage that our own Sun is in, and begins when hydrogen fusion begins.

    If a protostar contains the mass of our Sun, or less, it undergoes a proton-proton chain reaction to convert hydrogen to helium.

    But if the star has about 1.3 times the mass of the Sun, it undergoes a carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle to convert hydrogen to helium.

    How long this newly formed star will last depends on its mass and how quickly it consumes hydrogen.

    Small red dwarf stars can last hundreds of billions of years, while large supergiants can consume their hydrogen within a few million years and detonate as supernovae.

    James

  131. Posted November 4, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Regarding star formation. I have looked it up. But it seems people jump to conclusions instead of relying on evidence. But let us agree on an explanation that is already proposed and then open it to critique and discussion. Here is one: a layman’s explanation from a mainstream source. Do you agree with it or would you make any changes to it?

    Hey there James,

    Good job with the review. I didn’t see anything that would fit your impression that “people jump to conclusions instead of relying on evidence.” You’ve said things like that a lot and I really don’t know what you are talking about.

    There was only one point in your review that I think needs clarification:

    They’re held in balance between their inward force of gravity and the outward pressure of the molecules.

    Eventually some kick overcomes this balance and causes the cloud to begin collapsing.

    Where did you get the idea that there must be a “kick” to overcome the balance? The total mass and density of the cloud is sufficient to cause collapse. Here’s how the wiki describes it:

    An interstellar cloud of gas will remain in hydrostatic equilibrium as long as the kinetic energy of the gas pressure is in balance with the potential energy of the internal gravitational force. Mathematically this is expressed using the virial theorem, which states that, to maintain equilibrium, the gravitational potential energy must equal twice the internal thermal energy.[1] If an interstellar cloud of gas is massive enough that the gas pressure is insufficient to support it, the cloud will undergo gravitational collapse. The mass above which a cloud will undergo such collapse is called the Jeans mass.

    Do you understand and agree with the mathematics mentioned in that article?

    Great chatting! It feels like we are making real progress.

    Richard

  132. MichaelFree
    Posted November 5, 2015 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    I said:

    “You reject people questioning depopulation (murder) and deindustrialization proposals”

    Anyone who pays attention to “climate change” must of heard so-called scientists state figures for the carrying capacity of the Earth, and even figures as low as half a billion or one billion people. There is only one way to achieve those figures = murder.

    I said:

    “You reject the fact that one species doesn’t beget other species in this world”.

    It’s kind of hard to convince a God-believer that God didn’t create them but rather they evolved from apes = “your religious beliefs are bullshit” = “your God is a fantasy” = “you are an animal” = dehumanization = “why be moral” = “there is no such thing as objective morality” = “do what thou wilt”…list goes on and on and on. The way to get people en masse to do evil in this world is to dehumanize your fellow human beings. Personally, I tend to believe in evolution as proposed by science, but I am not 100% sure of its validity.

    I said:

    “You reject God (mock deity)”.

    I apologize for this one. I’m sure you wouldn’t mock deity if it showed itself. Something about pink unicorns farting out universe is dismissive of deity in a way that rubs me the wrong way.

    I said:

    “You reject that you were created by God (unknown force)”.

    Science has not proven anything in regard to human origins or the origins of the Universe.

    “You reject that God (unknown force) created the Universe”,

    Science has not proven anything in regard to human origins or the origins of the Universe.

    I said:

    “You blindly believe the raving conspiracy theories about people not being sane for questioning an anti-gun governments narrative of Sandy Hook, or for questioning a sick perverted guilty of crimes against humanity war criminal thug terrorist-creating governments account of 9/11, you reject anti-vacciners who are aren’t anti-vaccine at all but who are anti-aluminum and anti-mercury and anti-pumping babies full of poison, and who knows what else”.

    It’s kind of cute to call people a “conspiracy theorist”, dismissing them out of hand, as if many things that were once considered a “conspiracy theory” didn’t turn out to be true.

  133. James
    Posted November 5, 2015 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    It was not a review from me. It was literally a copy of paste of a guys laymen’s explanation. He was the one who said there must be a trigger. It was his words not mine. He is a popular youtube poster. He has lots of laymen type explanation videos on science topics. So just relaying what i copied and pasted. It was not an interpretation from me at all. You guys need to get together and agree on an explanation. He may be wrong or lacking something in his explanation or you may be presuming too much in theory. I will have to talk more later. I can post the link later if you would like as well.

    Bye for now
    James

  134. James
    Posted November 5, 2015 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Here is a quote from a science journal, not wiki or youtube.

    “The Formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics. No current model can reproduce all the observations.”
    -Word-Thompson D., Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science 4, January 2002, vol 295 no 5552, pp. 76-81.

    James

  135. James
    Posted November 5, 2015 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    All the models that currently exist require materials to exist that the stars produce such as a supernova. A supernova cannot help produce the first stars for obvious reasons. Collision of galaxies is another theory for new stars but sheds no help on the first star(s). Compression is the typical way most believe that proto stars are formed. But the more dense material within the interstellar gas cloud are believed to come from stars in the first place.

    And if the math above is true that you cited from a wiki page (not a real science page), but regardless, I will not focus on attacking the source of your quote but rather the logic. So again, if the quote and math is true, shouldn’t we not see such big gas clouds? Isn’t it kind of blind arbitrary to state that all clouds once they get so big they are capable of overcoming their equilibrium? So all big interstellar clouds that we can observe now are in a state of collapsing? None of them are expanding or staying in mostly a state of equilibrium? My initial thought is that all interstellar clouds will go through stages of expanding and contracting based on various factors. This is secondary to the real issue at hand though.
    This is theory and questioning, from the side of proposing and the side of critiquing. What does the observed evidence actually tell us so far? How long have we actually studied a single interstellar cloud collapse or expand? Have we actually seen a star form from a cloud? If so, how can we isolate the occurrence did not happen from outer influences like galaxies or supernovas which do not help give an explanation for the first stars?

    Does you wiki page discuss this?

    James

  136. Posted November 5, 2015 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Here is a quote from a science journal, not wiki or youtube.

    “The Formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics. No current model can reproduce all the observations.”
    -Word-Thompson D., Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science 4, January 2002, vol 295 no 5552, pp. 76-81.

    Seriously? That quote is from the freaking abstract of the paper. There’s no way to judge its significance without reading the actual paper which you didn’t provide. Did you even read the article? If not, then you are merely quote mining, which is one of the most common and egregious errors consistently committed by creationists.

    And there is nothing wrong with the wiki citation I gave. The information was accurate, the sources were listed, and you could have confirmed every word in a matter of minutes.

  137. James
    Posted November 6, 2015 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    So then discuss the observances with the theory. I propsed some points. You only replied with an accusation of quote minning. So prove that such a quote means nothing because the observances and theory is so solid.

    James

  138. Posted November 6, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    So then discuss the observances with the theory. I propsed some points. You only replied with an accusation of quote minning. So prove that such a quote means nothing because the observances and theory is so solid.

    I did not accuse you of quote mining. I said “Did you even read the article? If not, then you are merely quote mining.” Your answer strongly suggests that you did not read the article. And worse, you snipped out the most significant portions of the abstract. You quoted only the first and last sentences! Here is the full abstract (source):

    The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics, as it underlies many other questions, on scales from the formation of galaxies to the formation of the solar system. The physical processes involve the turbulent behavior of a partially ionized medium containing a non-uniform magnetic field. Current debate centers around the time taken for turbulence to decay and the relative importance of the roles played by magnetic fields and turbulence. Technological advances such as millimeter-wave cameras have made possible observations of the temperature and density profiles, and statistical calculations of the lifetimes, of objects collapsing under their own self-gravity and those on the verge of collapse. Increased computing power allows more complex models to be made that include magnetic and turbulent effects. No current model can reproduce all of the observations.

    Why did you quote that abstract? Are you seriously suggesting that it gives evidence that star formation does not occur through natural law? Look at what the abstract says. It says that the “physical processes involve the turbulent behavior of a partially ionized medium containing a non-uniform magnetic field.” Do you have any idea how complex and difficult it is to model turbulence? Does the fact we can’t make perfect mathematical models of the weather on earth mean that it is being controlled by invisible supernatural beings?

    Your reference to that abstract is a perfect example of the kind of ridiculous quote mining that characterizes most creationist arguments. And that’s why creationists cannot be trusted. Nothing could be more pathetic or absurd than deliberately deceiving people in the hope of defending the so-called “truth” of the Bible.

    If you viewed the Bible with half the skepticism you have for established science, you would reject it in a heartbeat.

  139. James
    Posted November 9, 2015 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    And your replay is typical. This is why discussion about the evidence and observations never take place between creationists and big bang theorists. All you do is make accusations of quote mining. The first and last sentence of most good written paragraphs are the most important. And in this case, everything in the middle is not an assertion based on evidence. Why dont you nail my “quote mining” with the ample solid science and observation of star formation. Then the quote mining would be shown to be moot.
    Where is the refute that says this is the observed evidence of star formation? Your reply inplies that your “observational evidence” relies on what computer models reproduce. Computer models reproduce what they are programmed to reproduce. The fact that modeling turbulence is difficult is not my problem and i see little point in bringing that up when you bring up observation evidence instead. It’s like you want me to revere the people who work so tirelessly at these hypothetical models. Yes, impressive. But moot when YOU want to say star formation is based on solid evidence and observation. Computer models is not the same thing. All your struggling goes away when you can admit that there is a degree of blind faith with star formation and that there are things we have no clue about yet. (Like how the first ones formed)
    Comparing models of star formation to predicting weather patterns is a bad false anaolgy. It is a pathetic attempt to imply predictions made on a computer should be trusted. But i will not leave my criticism without more explanation. Why is it a bad analogy? We can fairly quickly test the weather prediction models with the actual weather. We don’t have to assume the model is right. The in coming weather tells us when they got it right and when they got it wrong. And news flash, sometimes they get it wrong. Weather patterns are not mathematical numbers but are more complex and make changes that are not always predictable. This does not mean we stop creating weather models or don’t use them. It just means they predict general patterns but cannot tell you everything. So please do not derail your reply by making some moot accusation that creationists do not like models or reject using them. No, we just say that the models that have no way to varify them are not true to being real scientific models with the scientfic method.
    Now compare with star formation. Have we actually observed a star form that was predicted using computer models? How do you apply the scientific method of observation and retest to star formation? It can be done quite easily with the weather. Modifications can be made when errors occur. What control data and observations are in place to falsify the star formation models? Is there anything?

    James

  140. James
    Posted November 9, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    There is also an assuption here combined with a bait and switch. Just because we observe turbulence does not mean that turbulence is used to form stars. So any evidence recorded for turbulence is assuminh the cause and effect of that turbulence. So now the resulting assumption creates a bait and switch. Because many assume turbulence is evidence of the star formation process, people equate evidence for turbulence with evidence for star formation. Can you equate the actual observed phenomena which has evidence with the interpretation that it goes to star formation?

    James

  141. Posted November 9, 2015 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    And your replay is typical. This is why discussion about the evidence and observations never take place between creationists and big bang theorists. All you do is make accusations of quote mining. The first and last sentence of most good written paragraphs are the most important. And in this case, everything in the middle is not an assertion based on evidence.

    James,

    Your comment is a perfect example of the utter absurdity of creationist quote mining. You didn’t even understand the abstract, let alone the paper that you never read! Your statement that “everything in the middle is not an assertion based on evidence” is total bullshit. Here again is the full text of the abstract which twice mentions “observations”:

    The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics, as it underlies many other questions, on scales from the formation of galaxies to the formation of the solar system. The physical processes involve the turbulent behavior of a partially ionized medium containing a non-uniform magnetic field. Current debate centers around the time taken for turbulence to decay and the relative importance of the roles played by magnetic fields and turbulence. Technological advances such as millimeter-wave cameras have made possible observations of the temperature and density profiles, and statistical calculations of the lifetimes, of objects collapsing under their own self-gravity and those on the verge of collapse. Increased computing power allows more complex models to be made that include magnetic and turbulent effects. No current model can reproduce all of the observations.

    Look at the words highlighted bold. They talk about the technological advances that “have made possible observations of the temperature and density profiles.”

    Look at the last sentence which you quoted. It said that no models were able to match all the observations. This is the essence of the scientific process – to create mathematical models that match observations.

    You are making an utter fool of yourself and confirming every ugly stereotype creationists have worked so hard to earn. You don’t even bother to read, let alone understand, the science that you reject.

    Your assertion that “The first and last sentence of most good written paragraphs are the most important” is likewise absurd because there would be no way for you to know what the last sentence was talking about if you snipped out the middle part. Look again at what it said: “No current model can reproduce all of the observations.” Observations of what? Models of what? That’s explained in the part you snipped out.

    Where is the refute that says this is the observed evidence of star formation? Your reply inplies that your “observational evidence” relies on what computer models reproduce. Computer models reproduce what they are programmed to reproduce.

    Your words are totally confused. You have it exactly backwards. We design mathematical models to match observational data. That’s what the abstract was talking about when it said that “no current model can reproduce all of the observations “. T

    The fact that modeling turbulence is difficult is not my problem and i see little point in bringing that up when you bring up observation evidence instead. It’s like you want me to revere the people who work so tirelessly at these hypothetical models. Yes, impressive. But moot when YOU want to say star formation is based on solid evidence and observation.

    Again, your words indicate you don’t have a clue what you are babbling about. The difficulty in modelling turbulence is extremely relevant because that is one of the reasons there are “no current models” that “can reproduce all the observations.” I was talking about the paper you quoted, and you didn’t even understand that.

    Where is the refute that says this is the observed evidence of star formation?

    The world is filled to overflowing with the evidence. The only way you could possibly be ignorant of it is if you have chosen to remain ignorant. Here is an example of what you would find if you simply opened your eyes:

    Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview
    Charles J. Lada, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA USA 02138

    The problems of star and planet formation are among the most important challenges facing modern astrophysical research. Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process. However, stars form invisibly deep within cold and dark molecular clouds. Observations of these stellar birth sites at infrared and millimeter wavelengths from space and the ground have resulted in considerable progress toward a physical understanding of stellar origins. In this contribution I will review the empirical basis for our current understanding of the process of star formation with an emphasis on the origin of low mass (sunlike) stars.

    There is no excuse for your gross ignorance on these matters.

    Comparing models of star formation to predicting weather patterns is a bad false anaolgy. It is a pathetic attempt to imply predictions made on a computer should be trusted. But i will not leave my criticism without more explanation. Why is it a bad analogy? We can fairly quickly test the weather prediction models with the actual weather. We don’t have to assume the model is right.

    It is a perfect analogy. We never “assume” that the model is correct! We test it against OBSERVATIONS. It’s exactly the same with both weather and star formation except that it’s more difficult to observe stars because of distance and other factors. But in both cases, we make models and check to see if they match observations. The better the model matches the observations, the more confidence we have that it is correct. This is the whole point of the paper that you cited! It is utterly pathetic that I need to explain this to you. Your rejection of science is based on nothing but blind religious dogmatism, no different than a freaking Muslim, Mormon, or Scientologist.

  142. James
    Posted November 10, 2015 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    You cited this:
    —Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process.—

    Please elaborate on what we have actually observed. I have asked this already a long with how long have we actually observed any nebula, interstellar clouds that are at equilibrium and are collapsing. Have we actually seen a star form from thus processes?

    You said:
    —We never “assume” that the model is correct! We test it against OBSERVATIONS—
    And:
    —we make models and check to see if they match observations. The better the model matches the observations, the more confidence we have that it is correct.—

    And my point above is this you can observe all the collapsing clouds that you want. That does not prove how stars form. If you would just answer what we have actually observed we would be so much farther along. You could nail me right now with actual evidence and observation. Unless you can prove the model coincides with actual star formation from beginning to end and not just cloud activity, all the observations are speculation and assuming your conclusions.

    All I can gather is the point of the article is to build a strong man of evidence for “star formation” when it is just giving evidence and observation of cloud activity that is posing as “solid evidence for star formation. If I am wrong, then just say so by giving the observed evidence.

    James

  143. James
    Posted November 10, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Your rejection of science is based on nothing but blind religious dogmatism, no different than a freaking Muslim, Mormon, or Scientologist.

    You keep saying this. You don’t know how hard it is to hold back from giving you a piece of my mind. I have told you repeatedly that I do not reject science because of my faith. I reject science theory because it is not solid, period. It is my faith that helps me see things correctly and look at them critically instead of taking them at blind, spoon fed doctrine. I bet you have a hard time with my statement and think it is utter nonsense to think that someone like me (a creationist) could look at things more critically than a scientist.

    You are stepping on your own toes, at least the toes of scientific theory. And let me explain how.
    1. You say boldly with strong confidence that “science” follows and goes where the evidence takes us and where the observations take us.
    2 But when observations do not match a current theory, the theory is just modified with no respect to actual direct observations. The alterations are not based on something we can prove or observe, but just a consequence of keeping the theory alive. How does this support that science goes where the evidence leads us? You have even said why throw out a theory if something can be modified to keep it intact. Your own comments reveal the truth that scientific theory is about keeping theories alive more than following where the actual evidence takes us. It is more like we change our story when the observations make us change it. Inflation is not observed. It is not based on observing anything. Multiple universes is not based on observations, it cannot be. It is based on story telling to make a theory more believable. The idea that planets in our own solar system must have formed elsewhere than took their current positions is not based on evidence but story telling BECAUSE the theory does not match the observations. It is that simple. The theory is too elastic and to open to change to ever be falsified. Any story that can be be imagined to save the theory is highly regarded and awarded while anyone who challenges it is labeled either a conspirator or a god lover. Tell me I am wrong.

    So forgive me when you do not understand how someone like a creationist can be more objective and more open than someone who blindly just keeps changing their theoretical story every time it is necessary.

  144. Posted November 10, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    You cited this:
    —Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process.—

    Please elaborate on what we have actually observed. I have asked this already a long with how long have we actually observed any nebula, interstellar clouds that are at equilibrium and are collapsing. Have we actually seen a star form from thus processes?

    I gave you the name of the paper that explains the evidence. It is available free online. Just google it. Here again is the abstract (which answers your question):

    Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview
    Charles J. Lada, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA USA 02138

    The problems of star and planet formation are among the most important challenges facing modern astrophysical research. Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process. However, stars form invisibly deep within cold and dark molecular clouds. Observations of these stellar birth sites at infrared and millimeter wavelengths from space and the ground have resulted in considerable progress toward a physical understanding of stellar origins. In this contribution I will review the empirical basis for our current understanding of the process of star formation with an emphasis on the origin of low mass (sunlike) stars.

    Note that the EVIDENCE is the same as the EVIDENCE that you deliberately SNIPPED OUT of the abstract that you posted:

    The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics, as it underlies many other questions, on scales from the formation of galaxies to the formation of the solar system. The physical processes involve the turbulent behavior of a partially ionized medium containing a non-uniform magnetic field. Current debate centers around the time taken for turbulence to decay and the relative importance of the roles played by magnetic fields and turbulence. Technological advances such as millimeter-wave cameras have made possible observations of the temperature and density profiles, and statistical calculations of the lifetimes, of objects collapsing under their own self-gravity and those on the verge of collapse. Increased computing power allows more complex models to be made that include magnetic and turbulent effects. No current model can reproduce all of the observations.

    There is no excuse for your gross ignorance on these matters. It doesn’t matter how much evidence is presented, you mindlessly reject it all! And worse, you reject it without even reading it, let alone understanding it. You are a perfect example of how ideologies like creationism tend to corrupt the minds of believers.

    And my point above is this you can observe all the collapsing clouds that you want. That does not prove how stars form. If you would just answer what we have actually observed we would be so much farther along.

    I have answered and you have ignored my words. It is an OBSERVED FACT that stars form in collapsing clouds. This is explained in the paper I have now twice cited. Here is what it says:

    The discovery of the interstellar medium of gas and dust during the early part of the twentieth century provided a crucial piece of corroborating evidence in support of the concept of present epoch Galactic star formation. Subsequent observations of interstellar material established that clouds of interstellar gas and dust had roughly stellar composition and were considerably more massive than a single star or group of stars. This revealed that the raw material to make new stars was relatively abundant in the Galaxy. …

    For much of the last 50 years direct observation of the star formation process and the development of a theory to explain it, have been severely hampered by the fact that most stars form in dark clouds and during their formative stages are invisible optically. Fortunately, advances in observational technology over the last quarter century opened the infrared and millimeter-wave windows to astronomical investigation and enabled direct observations of star forming regions and this has significantly expanded our knowledge of the star formation process. …

    When observed at a dark site on a clear moonless night the Milky Way is truly an impressive sight. One its most prominent characteristics is that it is split down the middle by a dark obscuring band. The band consists of the superposition of many interstellar dark clouds which contain tiny opaque dust grains that very effectively absorb and scatter the background starlight. These dark clouds are the sites of star and planet formation in the Galaxy. Millimeter-wave observations in the 1970s demonstrated that these clouds were primarily molecular clouds made up of very cold molecular hydrogen gas (H2). Indeed with temperatures of between 10-50 K, these objects are the coldest objects in the universe. Early molecular-line surveys performed with the CO molecule (the most easily detected species in such clouds) showed that the molecular mass of the Galaxy was about 2 x 109 M¯, concentrated tightly within the galactic plane and dominated by Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs).

    The whole freaking paper is filled with the evidence you keep asking for. There is no excuse for your gross ignorance.

  145. Posted November 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    I have told you repeatedly that I do not reject science because of my faith. I reject science theory because it is not solid, period.

    Get real James. You do not even bother to read, let alone understand, the science that you reject. You have proven this hundreds of times in conversation with me. Just look at what you did with that abstract you cited. You SNIPPED OUT the part that explained the evidence and then asserted that it wasn’t there! And then when I posted a thorough review of the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE you totally ignored it and repeated your moronic mantra that there is no evidence. I’m sorry, but I cannot see how your words could be described as anything but delusional, in a most literal sense.

    It is my faith that helps me see things correctly and look at them critically instead of taking them at blind, spoon fed doctrine. I bet you have a hard time with my statement and think it is utter nonsense to think that someone like me (a creationist) could look at things more critically than a scientist.

    More objectively? Wow. You’ve got to be kidding. You don’t even bother to read, let alone understand, the science that you reject. Your words could not be more absurd.

    No one is asking you to take anything as “blind spoon fed doctrine.” I have presented the evidence and you have simply ignored it.

    But when observations do not match a current theory, the theory is just modified with no respect to actual direct observations. The alterations are not based on something we can prove or observe, but just a consequence of keeping the theory alive. How does this support that science goes where the evidence leads us? You have even said why throw out a theory if something can be modified to keep it intact. Your own comments reveal the truth that scientific theory is about keeping theories alive more than following where the actual evidence takes us. It is more like we change our story when the observations make us change it.

    Your comments indicate you have no concept of how science works. I’ve already explained this to you in minute detail and you showed no understanding. Maybe you didn’t even read it. I was responding to your comment that “If a new discovery comes up that disagrees with the current theory as it stands, people just modify it to make it work” which is pretty much what you just repeated again (proving that you haven’t learned a thing). So here again is how I explained it (maybe you’ll try to respond this time?):

    That’s how science works James. Theories that successfully explain a large body of facts are not just discarded the moment we encounter something that doesn’t seem to fit. The first thing we must do is review the data and the theory and see if we missed something or if there is a way to extend the theory so that it can successfully explain the new data as well as the old.

    For example, many people attempted to modify the exceedingly successful theory of Newtonian Mechanics to make it consistent with electromagnetism. They failed. Einstein found the solution by creating a new theory called Special Relativity which makes the same predictions as Newton’s theory when the velocities are small relative to the speed of light. The new theory explained all the same results as the old, and extended it to include new phenomenon that were not even imagined previously.

    You say that people “just modify it to make it work.” Yes James, that’s what scientists do. They constantly test their theories against the evidence and modify or reject them as necessary. That’s why science continues to advance year after year. What would you suggest they do? Just quit at the first unexplained phenomenon and declare “God did it”?

  146. MichaelFree
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    The only place left for James’ God is at the beginning of observed creation. But there it is (because you can’t see it of course). And there are natural processes there also, which should be able to be observed.

    The scientific method has made an inhospitable planet into islands of pure luxury. Medicines, which have saved millions of lives, are built on the scientific method. You really can’t quit at the first unexplained phenomenon and declare “God did it”, just as Richard has said. Science is a noble profession because it values the truth above all else.

    Ultimately God is not about whether or not it created the Universe, but rather whether or not God is good or evil, or whether or not God even exists at all.

    The witness of truth is that the God of the Bible and of Christianity is evil. You can’t knock on someone’s door and ask for worship while threatening that if you don’t worship he will torture you for eternity. He is evil, slam the door on him. A follower of truth does this, that is for sure.

  147. Maxwell's Ghost
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    “The fact that you have to troll through my Facebook comments proves that you know that you cannot justify your false assertions about my discussion here on my blog. ”

    Er no. I googled Richard McGough moron, and it’s the first thing that came up.

    My point is not that there is some justification for calling people a moron, you moron. My point is that it is always fucking rude to call people morons. Always. You moron.

  148. Posted November 12, 2015 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    My point is not that there is some justification for calling people a moron, you moron. My point is that it is always fucking rude to call people morons. Always. You moron.

    Ha! So you want to prove you are fucking rude, logically incoherent, and incapable of forming a rational argument? You didn’t need to bother. It’s all self-evident. You started your career here by calling me a “total fool” without any justification. And then you ignored all the logic and facts of my arguments and focused on my “offensive language” like the best of the PC Police. The real irony is that you waste all these words charging me with ad hominem which is itself an ad hominem attack.

    You are one messed up piece of work MG. You need to let it go. You can’t accuse me of being “fucking rude” without accusing yourself. But it’s not too late to change. If you want to contribute something of intelligence and value to this conversation, you are most welcome. But you will never succeed in your ludicrous attempt to win an argument by calling me rude.

  149. James
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Copied and pasted from the link you shared above:

    —“Despite its spectacular success in explaining the life histories and deaths of stars,
    the theory of stellar evolution is incomplete in a very fundamental aspect. It is not
    able to account for the origin of stars. Knowledge of the physical mechanism for the
    formation of stars is essential for understanding the evolution of the galaxies and the
    universe from the earliest times after the big bang to the current epoch of cosmic
    history. Development of a theory of star formation is also crucial for understanding
    the origin of planetary systems which, in turn, is important for evaluating the
    possibility of biology beyond the solar system.”—–

    and more:

    —-“The inability of the theory of stellar evolution to explain star formation likely
    points to the inherent complexity of the physical process itself. Consequently construction
    of a theory of star formation must require a strong foundation of empirical
    data or observation. The empirical study of star formation is greatly facilitated by
    a fundamental property of the universe. Namely that star formation has been a
    continuous and ongoing process which in our galaxy extends into the present epoch.
    Consequently, the physical process of star formation can be investigated by direct
    observation. The realization of ongoing star formation in our galaxy was an important
    milestone in twentieth century astronomy and as such merits some further
    discussion. By the middle of the twentieth century the theory of stellar structure
    and evolution had demonstrated that certain luminous stars, OB stars, burn their
    nuclear fuel at such prodigious rates that they can live for only a small fraction of
    the lifetime of our galaxy. The very existence of such stars clearly indicated that
    star formation has occurred in the present epoch of Galactic history.”—-

    You probably do not even see it, but the article assumes a starting premise that it cannot prove. And consequently makes conclusions from its starting premise that also should not be trust because it cannot prove the starting premise. Depending on your starting premise, you will interpret data as being a strong conclusion for or against your premise. For instance: the very existence of such stars (that cannot exist so long because of their life time cycle) clearly indicated that star formation has occurred in the present epoch of Galactic history.”

    A few points should be made here. Michael, I hope you are reading so someone who is still a true seeker will take note of their flawed logic.
    1. They are assuming a distant past so any stars that can live that long must have formed more recently. Maybe God formed all stars more recently and some are just made differently and not made to last as long as others. There is no observed evidence for either starting premise. People can only infer from observations to come up with premises. But you see how one can look at quick burning stars as signs of more recent (comparative) formation and how others can see it as evidence that the universe must not be so old (billions of years) since these stars are still around. What you really read with these papers is a lot of strong man observation posing as evidence, but it is moot to a true origin discussion (which was and is my question). And you will find interpretation based on starting premises. Take note to watch for them Michael, open your eyes.

    2. Also, this is not empirical observational evidence of stars forming. Seeing and interpreting these are younger stars because they cannot live so long is based on starting premises that cannot be observed. Again, Richard, have we actually observed a star form from a condensing cloud? yes or no, this article strongly suggests that we have not since it would say so.

    3. Michael, this is for you especially, saying God had a hand in forming stars or creating them initially is not a give up or cop out. This is a moot, rude, under handed accusation that means very little to any real scientist. Saying that God did it is a STARTING PREMISE not a cop out conclusion that makes one stop observing and exploring the world. Did Isaac Newton cop out when he discovered and developed the theory of gravity just because he believed in God? No, Newton maybe thought gravity works because God made gravity to work, but that did not make him throw in his towel and just say god did it. I hope Michael you can see the difference between people who may give up because they want a lazy answer (not saying that does not happen too) and people who just have a different starting premise. With one starting premise, people will be bent on asking how did natural processes create what we see. With a designer premise, one will be bent on asking how did the designer create what we see. Operational science can continue and flourish under either premise because real science works under either premise. In the same vain, one can say that just saying “natural processes” did it is also a cop out lazy starting premise. So if God or a more natural way can neither be proven or falsified, why is one regarded as valid science but the other as a cop out? That question is for Michael. How can a whole scientific community say only natural explanations are allowed when their whole starting premise breaks down scientifically? Another good question for Michael.

    3. This is a huge valid point here to follow up on my point 2. Secular (void of designer, creator) or creationist cosmology have a starting premise that is not scientific. One just assumes that natural forces and processes created it all and one assumes a designer, creator created the natural processes and or everything in it. Either premise breaks down scientifically at the beginning. But as we have discussed already, it is more likely that a universe that functions and works orderly could not create itself with the same processes that make it run. It is a chicken and egg problem. It leads to fine tuning problems, which a designer answers but random, natural chance does not.

    4. You say this Richard,

    —That’s how science works James. Theories that successfully explain a large body of facts are not just discarded the moment we encounter something that doesn’t seem to fit. The first thing we must do is review the data and the theory and see if we missed something or if there is a way to extend the theory so that it can successfully explain the new data as well as the old.

    For example, many people attempted to modify the exceedingly successful theory of Newtonian Mechanics to make it consistent with electromagnetism. They failed. Einstein found the solution by creating a new theory called Special Relativity which makes the same predictions as Newton’s theory when the velocities are small relative to the speed of light. The new theory explained all the same results as the old, and extended it to include new phenomenon that were not even imagined previously.

    You say that people “just modify it to make it work.” Yes James, that’s what scientists do. They constantly test their theories against the evidence and modify or reject them as necessary. That’s why science continues to advance year after year. What would you suggest they do? Just quit at the first unexplained phenomenon and declare “God did it”?—–”

    You made another faulty comparison. You compared a science which needs tweaking and adjusting that CANNOT be verified with a science that needed tweaking that COULD be verified. Comparing the science of star formation with the theory of relativity to special relativity is not a good comparison. General relativity only applies to things already in motion, not their creation and origin anyway. General relativity is worthless in a discussion on origins. It has great benefits to explaining how things move and relate once they are in motion. But how did they get in motion in the first place is not something general relativity can even guess at. See what I did there Michael. I blew up Richard’s bad comparison.

    There is no way to confirm inflation occurred or that there are multiple universes. The lecture I quoted and cited says that the big bang requires these “patches” to work. I know Richard accepts inflation out of convenience of mathematics now working (not observation) and that he already says string theory is not good science. So Richard’s science cosmology is already appealing to non good science to stay afloat. So my accusation that your science and its starting premise does not follow the evidence where it truly leads but mostly follows its starting premise and theories has not been refuted. Your reply has been unpackaged and revealed to be ineffective.

    I hope you take note Michael. You can examine and come to conclusions however you like. But do not think all creationists are blind or liars and all secular main stream cosmologists are noble and free from biases distorting their interpretations. Everyone has a starting premise that molds their interpretations and conclusions. Do not be fooled for a minute about that.

    James

  150. James
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Did you even read the whole paper? Look at the end and the author’s conclusion and closing statements. In summary of this paper, you could say this: we know more now then we used to and is still plenty that we do not know, including the origin of stars and particularly the big ones.

    SO like I said already, do not count your godforsaken eggs before they hatch and you may realize that God was necessary for them to hatch in the first place.

    Read:

    The story of stellar origins described in the previous section represents the current
    paradigm for star formation research. However, it is only a small part of the
    whole story. For example, a major defficiency with the current theoretical paradigm
    is that it cannot yet predict the form of the IMF. Another issue to be considered
    is that most stars form in clusters and the physical process of star formation in the
    clustered environment (or mode) is not yet understood. In addition, the current
    paradigm has not been extended to massive stars such as those stars (m∗ > 7-8 M¯)
    which begin their post-protostellar evolution as hydrogen burning objects and never
    experience a pre-main sequence phase of post-protostellar evolution. The details of
    the formation of such massive stars are much less known. Our lack of understanding
    of the details of how these heavier stars are constructed is largely due to a combination
    of the rarity of massive stars, the rapid evolution of such objects and the
    very destructive nature of their interaction with their surrounding natal material.
    There are indications that the theory of low mass star formation may be extendable
    to the formation of high mass stars. For example, very young high mass stars seem
    to be surrounded by disks and are found to produce bipolar outflows like low mass
    stars. On the other hand, entirely new mechanisms such as stellar mergers in the
    central regions of dense clusters may be required to explain the formation of the
    most massive stars. Developing a theoretical picture of massive star formation and
    star formation in the clustered environment are two of the most important challenges
    facing modern star formation research.
    Another outstanding problem that deserves attention is the formation and early
    evolution of GMCs and the dense cores within them. It is clear that the mechanism
    responsible for creating the mass spectrum of dense cores and, in particular, the
    most massive dense cores, is ultimately responsible for the fact that most stars form
    in embedded clusters. Solving the problem of embedded cluster formation requires
    solving the problem of dense core formation. Yet our understanding of cloud and
    core formation is meager. Understanding these issues presents another important
    challenge for star formation studies. What are the critical observations that will
    reveal how clouds are formed and how dense cores evolve to become star forming
    factories? It is not clear that new capabilities or technological developments will help
    answer this question. Our ability to detect and measure the gaseous component of
    molecular clouds has existed for more than thirty years, yet little progress has been
    made in determining even such basic facts as the ages of molecular clouds. Here
    the challenge will be to devise new ways of thinking about the problem and new
    Star Formation 21
    applications of existing capabilities to address it. Perhaps the most exciting prospects
    for major progress lie in the area of understanding planet formation and the early
    evolution of planetary systems. The development of new observational facilities will
    have great impact on this problem. Spectroscopic capabilities in the mid-infrared
    (e.g., Spitzer Space Telescope, SOFIA) will enable detailed studies of disk SEDs
    and permit the identification of such features as disk gaps which are expected to
    accompany planet formation. Facilities such as ALMA may even be able to directly
    image such disk structures. Such capabilities will also enable the direct observation
    of the gaseous component of disks, something which is of critical need and has been
    difficult to obtain with existing instrumentation. In the future large 30 meter class
    ground-based telescopes operating at the diffraction limit in the near-infrared may
    be able to resolve and directly image recently formed planetary companions around
    young PMS stars. Finally, there is much interest in understanding star formation
    in the earliest epochs of cosmic history. How were the first stars formed? To what
    extent can we use what we know about present day star formation to address this
    problem? Will direct empirical study of this process be possible?
    Star formation is a complex and rich phenomenon. Its study will continue to be
    a major focus of astronomical research into the foreseeable future and will help advance
    our overall understanding of both the nature and evolution of the astronomical
    universe.”——————

    James

  151. MichaelFree
    Posted November 12, 2015 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    “So if God or a more natural way can neither be proven or falsified, why is one regarded as valid science but the other as a cop out? That question is for Michael. How can a whole scientific community say only natural explanations are allowed when their whole starting premise breaks down scientifically? Another good question for Michael”.

    James, I have no idea what created the Universe. It could of been done by a God deity, I don’t know, I don’t particularly care one way or the other. Having no God in the Universe doesn’t offend me either. If I was descended from apes I think it’s awesome. If I was created by a God deity I think it’s awesome. Your problem with me is you knocking on my door and threatening me, a non-religious humanist, with eternal torture, while calling your God deity love and truth, which it surely is not, therefore your problems are lying (your God is not love or truth), stealing (your God is not love or truth), and murder (torture). They are not my problems, they are your problems. Your religion is not noble.

    You will never know God deity until you stand for all people and then you will have a standard by which to judge God deity. Until then you will be stuck worshiping evil and calling it good and attempting to justify evil like that attributed to God in Numbers 31 or Christianity’s doctrine regarding the disposition of non-believers. In short, you will not win a morality argument with me, you will always have to refer to the Bible and its deity to attempt to justify your immorality, while I can truthfully and scientifically refer to love and truth to justify my morality. You point to the Bible and to your religion while I point to my neighbors. It is a scientific fact that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures and the God of Christianity are evil. Take that to the bank.

  152. Posted November 12, 2015 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Did you even read the whole paper? Look at the end and the author’s conclusion and closing statements. In summary of this paper, you could say this: we know more now then we used to and is still plenty that we do not know, including the origin of stars and particularly the big ones.

    SO like I said already, do not count your godforsaken eggs before they hatch and you may realize that God was necessary for them to hatch in the first place.

    Was there anything in that paper that you think would suggest a god was needed for explanation? If not, then what’s the point? All the evidence we have supports the idea that stars, like everything else we observe, form through natural law. Our ignorance of some details doesn’t suggest otherwise. And it doesn’t even matter if it turns out that a god was necessary because unlike religious believers, none of my eggs are in a basket labeled “ignorance.” I don’t claim knowledge I don’t have and it makes no sense to put faith in something for which there is no reason or evidence.

    Questions about the ultimate origins are irrelevant because no one knows. You don’t know. I don’t know. So it’s irrelevant in the debate about religion.

  153. Posted November 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Again, Richard, have we actually observed a star form from a condensing cloud? yes or no, this article strongly suggests that we have not since it would say so.

    Yes or no? The abstract of the article answers your question. Here it is for the third time (relevant sentence highlighted bold, like the last time I posted this):

    Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview
    Charles J. Lada, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA USA 02138

    The problems of star and planet formation are among the most important challenges facing modern astrophysical research. Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process. However, stars form invisibly deep within cold and dark molecular clouds. Observations of these stellar birth sites at infrared and millimeter wavelengths from space and the ground have resulted in considerable progress toward a physical understanding of stellar origins. In this contribution I will review the empirical basis for our current understanding of the process of star formation with an emphasis on the origin of low mass (sunlike) stars.

  154. Posted November 12, 2015 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    In summary of this paper, you could say this: we know more now then we used to and is still plenty that we do not know, including the origin of stars and particularly the big ones.

    Everything we know about the real world is natural. Everything we don’t know about the real world is unknown so we can’t use it as the basis of any belief, such as “God exists.” It’s fine if you want to believe that a god exists, but I don’t see how you could ground that belief in knowledge.

  155. MichaelFree
    Posted November 13, 2015 at 2:50 am | Permalink

    True, true, true, true, true, true, and true:

    “Everything we know about the real world is natural. Everything we don’t know about the real world is unknown so we can’t use it as the basis of any belief, such as “God exists.” It’s fine if you want to believe that a god exists, but I don’t see how you could ground that belief in knowledge”.

    Any God deity that may exist would have to show itself for the whole world to see and to record and then any belief in God deity would be based in knowledge and not in belief. Then God deity would be natural and known.

  156. James
    Posted November 13, 2015 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    The sentence you highlighted in bold has a progressive verb meaning that it is merely a declaration that we are currently in the process of observing a process in motion.

    Here it is again, read carefully:
    —–“Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process.”——

    Being formed, it is does not say that we have actually witnessed a star form. It is assuming that what we are observing is star formation. That is all you highlighted. You highlighted an assertion from a paper that we think we are observing star formation.

    This is not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that what we are observing is confirmed star formation. All you have to say is that we do not have what I am asking for.

    Your only comeback was that everything we observe ( ie not actual star formation) suggests that everything occurs naturally.

    You might as well apply that logic to things we know how they formed and see what happens. I can watch my computer with its advanced and even evolved technology update itself, fix itself, power itself down, and run over 80 behind the scene processes at one time. So since all I have observed is these naturally occurring processes within my computer, it would be logical (using your logic) to suggest that these same processes created the computer. No? Why can’t I make that suggestion? It does not work because we know how computers came about, by intelligence. And yes, technology evolves, but only through intelligence. Appealing to ignorance does not work. Any child can grasp the concept that a complicated computer, a painting, words on a page, a building, do not appear from natural processes. But since we were not there when biological formed or when the universe formed, let us assume they came about from the same forces that govern them. Face it, you are appealing to common sense or observation here. You are appealing to ignorance with no logical basis.

    Michael,

    I was not trying to stuff my faith down your throat. I was trying to tell you that much of today’s scientific theory is “SPAME” stuff posing as material evidence. They do not have evidence for actual star formation. They have observed clouds contracting and other activity and assume it is responsible for our star’s origin. The paper even said that the evidence cannot account for star’s origin and that the evidence is not complete. So no, that does not mean I can or should just automatically stuff my God where there is a lack of knowledge. That is not what I am saying. I am just exposing the futile attempt of their ability to act like they have their act together. You watch NOVA or the discovery channel, they do not say that we think we have all the answers. They come off as we know everything up until the big bang occurred, That notion is ridiculous. To not know the origin of stars is to not know the majority of what makes up the material universe.
    This is more theology, but your comment that you do not care if we were created by deity or evolved from apes is sad to me. The difference is quite huge if you think about the implications of both. If we came from random, no point or purpose, then there is no point or purpose other what we choose to make subconsciously for ourselves. If we were created by someone with a purpose, then our life has a purpose and meaning. I think deep down you know your life has meaning and purpose. So which worldview best fits what you know deep inside yourself. Think about it and be honest with yourself. Don’t take my word or Richard’s word. You keep mentioning that the Biblical God is a God of evil because of the heinous commands that the Bible records Him giving, like killing women and children. While the Bible does record God as a forgiving God of love, it also spares no apology for describing God as a God who is holy and demands justice. The people God had killed were evil. They worshiped false gods and sacrificed their children to these false gods. God was merely the judge of their execution. Do you accuse a judge for being guilty of murder for carrying out a just sentence? Of course not, now another issue to consider is this. Was the sentencing and command just? If you say no, then God is unjust, but you have to demonstrate why a holy and just God has no right to sentence wicked people to death. If you say that God was just in issuing this command, then you may realize that there were no other options. God knew this. He knew the hearts of the people. He knew the evil He was trying to spare His nation from taking apart in. He knew that if He allowed these wicked people to coexist with Israel that the wicked people would end up corrupting Israel.

    Some people incorrectly compare the command of the Biblical God to kill people with Muslims killing others. There is a huge distinction to make note of. God was executing justice on wicked people. Muslims kill because anyone who does worship Allah is an infidel and should die.

    There is more to say, but this is a start.

    James

  157. MichaelFree
    Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    James, you can try to justify lies, thefts, physical assaults, rapes, murders, torture, and enslavement, all committed by your God, and you will never succeed. Your God would be better off tying a millstone around his neck and drowning himself than to kill a baby or to enslave and rape women. Your justifying of Numbers 31 neglects the slavery and rape that occurred, how do you justify that James, if those people were no good, why were they good for forced labor and rape? Your God is a evil piece of shit baby killer, adult killer, rapist, and enslaver, an inhuman savage. The only reason why you call him holy is because you say he doesn’t torture you, because you bow to him. You got tricked James, into bowing to a murdering torturer. That is what the Bible is now isn’t it James.

    You seem to think that not believing in some invisible bogeyman that tortures non-believers of the invisible bogeyman is somehow a crime. Do you think you’re special James for bowing to a torturer, is that your salvation James, really, do you understand how pathetic and cruel your bogeyman is? Your bogeyman wants to be loved and worshiped so badly that it threatens you with eternal torture if you don’t love and worship him. That’s not love, it’s not worship, it’s a threat, it’s an evil threat.

    One need not look any further than Christianity’s history of spreading your pathetic religion by the sword to know it’s true heart. All I have to do is look at a photograph of my father, who died an atheist many years ago, to know that your bogeyman is evil. My dad was a good man. Your God is evil and a false God. End of story.

  158. Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    The sentence you highlighted in bold has a progressive verb meaning that it is merely a declaration that we are currently in the process of observing a process in motion.

    Your English makes no sense to me. Why double up the concept of “process”? Are you suggesting there is a difference between “observing a process in motion” and being “in the process of observing a process in motion”? And what does “in motion” add to the idea? Can there be a “process” that is not “in motion”?

    Here it is again, read carefully:
    —–“Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process.”——

    Being formed, it is does not say that we have actually witnessed a star form. It is assuming that what we are observing is star formation. That is all you highlighted. You highlighted an assertion from a paper that we think we are observing star formation.

    This is not what I asked for. I asked for evidence that what we are observing is confirmed star formation. All you have to say is that we do not have what I am asking for.

    Modern cosmologists do not merely “think” they are observing the formation of stars. They have an overwhelming body of evidence that leads ineluctably to that conclusion. That’s what the paper was all about.

    And of course the paper does not say that we have actually observed an individual star form from beginning to end. That would be absurd because the process takes around a million years. If you had read the paper with understanding, you would have understood that they base their conclusions on observations of thousands of stars at different stages in their evolution. They use that data to make inferences and test hypotheses.

  159. Posted November 13, 2015 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Your only comeback was that everything we observe ( ie not actual star formation) suggests that everything occurs naturally.

    Not true. I was responding to your comment that there is “still plenty that we do not know, including the origin of stars.” I was pointing out that everything we actually do know about the real world is natural. I was talking about real knowledge based on logic and facts that can be verified. There may be things that are supernatural, but know one knows. You may believe, but you do not have justification for your belief and so it is not knowledge (in the epistemological sense of justified true belief).

    You are obsessed with our ignorance of ultimate origins because that’s the only place for your god. There is not one demonstrable observable fact that requires a god for an explanation, so you must appeal to ignorance.

    You might as well apply that logic to things we know how they formed and see what happens. I can watch my computer with its advanced and even evolved technology update itself, fix itself, power itself down, and run over 80 behind the scene processes at one time. So since all I have observed is these naturally occurring processes within my computer, it would be logical (using your logic) to suggest that these same processes created the computer. No? Why can’t I make that suggestion? It does not work because we know how computers came about, by intelligence.

    That’s a ridiculous analogy for two reasons. First, computers and paintings are human artifacts that have absolutely nothing in common with stars. Second, you have never presented any evidence that stars require an “intelligence” to cause them to form.

    We have overwhelming evidence that stars form from gravitational collapse. It seems quite absurd to suggest that such an entropic, turbulent, chaotic process as gravitational collapse would require “intelligence” to cause it to happen.

    And yes, technology evolves, but only through intelligence. Appealing to ignorance does not work. Any child can grasp the concept that a complicated computer, a painting, words on a page, a building, do not appear from natural processes. But since we were not there when biological formed or when the universe formed, let us assume they came about from the same forces that govern them. Face it, you are appealing to common sense or observation here. You are appealing to ignorance with no logical basis.

    Nothing could be more absurd than your assertion that I am “appealing to ignorance.” I am doing no such thing. I am appealing to mathematically precise logic and mountains of evidence that proves stars form through gravitational collapse.

    And again, your analogy is absurd. Computers, paintings, and books have nothing in common with the formation of stars. You have not presented any evidence that suggests that “intelligence” would be required to cause gravitational collapse. Are you also suggesting that angels are needed to hold the moon up in the sky?

    The “design implies a designer” argument fails because you have presented no evidence of any kind that stars are “designed.”

  160. Posted November 13, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    The paper even said that the evidence cannot account for star’s origin and that the evidence is not complete.

    Your words are terribly confused. The paper said that the THEORY cannot yet account for all the EVIDENCE.

    The EVIDENCE is that which must be explained (accounted for) by the THEORY.

  161. Posted November 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    They do not have evidence for actual star formation. They have observed clouds contracting and other activity and assume it is responsible for our star’s origin.

    Not true. It is not a mere “assumption.” It is an observed fact. The paper we have been discussing presents the overwhelming evidence. Here is a a relevant quote:

    Consequently, construction of a theory of star formation must require a strong foundation of empirical data or observation. The empirical study of star formation is greatly facilitated by a fundamental property of the universe. Namely that star formation has been a continuous and ongoing process which in our galaxy extends into the present epoch. Consequently, the physical process of star formation can be investigated by direct observation. The realization of ongoing star formation in our galaxy was an important milestone in twentieth century astronomy and as such merits some further discussion. By the middle of the twentieth century the theory of stellar structure and evolution had demonstrated that certain luminous stars, OB stars, burn their nuclear fuel at such prodigious rates that they can live for only a small fraction of the lifetime of our galaxy. The very existence of such stars clearly indicated that star formation has occurred in the present epoch of Galactic history. In 1947 the Armenian astronomer V.A. Ambartsumian showed that such OB stars were almost always members of stellar groupings he termed OB Associations. The space densities of stars in OB associations were well below the threshold necessary to prevent their disruption by Galactic tidal forces. Ambartsumian calculated dynamical ages for the associations that were much less than the age of the galaxy. These dynamical ages turned out to be in good agreement with the nuclear ages of the stars and independently provided evidence that star formation is still an active process in the Galaxy. The discovery of the interstellar medium of gas and dust during the early part of the twentieth century provided a crucial piece of corroborating evidence in support of the concept of present epoch Galactic star formation. Subsequent observations of interstellar material established that clouds of interstellar gas and dust had roughly stellar composition and were considerably more massive than a single star or group of stars. This revealed that the raw material to make new stars was relatively abundant in the Galaxy. These three pieces of evidence, 1) stellar evolution theory, 2) expanding OB associations and 3) the interstellar medium, constitute three basic “proofs” of ongoing star formation in the Milky Way. This concept was further bolstered by the work of Walker (1954) who found a large population of low mass stars to lie above the main sequence in the HR diagram of the young cluster NGC 2264, consistent with the predictions of Henyey et al. (1955) and later Hayashi (1961) who showed that the locations of these stars in the HR diagram indicated that they were contracting pre-main sequence stars that had not yet initiated fusion reactions in their cores.

    Your assertion that scientists merely “assume” that stars are currently being formed in collapsing dust clouds looks like a flat out lie. A deliberate deception. I’m sorry to use such strong language, but how could there be any other possibility given that you are such a well-informed “expert” on the subject? Here’s how Jesus put it: If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

  162. MichaelFree
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 4:45 am | Permalink

    I’m sorry James but to me “God” is righteousness, a spirit, not a deity, expressed through our words and through our deeds in the world. Therefore all human sins attributed to God in the Hebrew Scriptures and all human sins attributed to God by many Christians I dismiss out of hand as having not occurred if God deity is righteous like righteousness itself is righteous, which is always, always righteous. When I read Numbers 31 I imagine myself sitting in a room with a baby and how the very act of not harming that baby is worth more than life itself. The inclination is to protect the baby with your life. The blood of babies on grown men’s hands should not be attributed to God just as raping women should not be attributed to God. Slavery should not be attributed to God. And Christianity has God torturing souls for eternity. Torture should not be attributed to God. Even a caveman knows these things are immoral. Why is your deity worship allowing sin against the unbeliever–that’s a transgression you shouldn’t put upon God. Until you love thy neighbor (all people) as thyself regardless of their religion then you will never fulfill the commandments. The commandment is to make people equal, see them as Christians, as thyself, and see goodness where there is goodness and to be good to other people, and to judge fairly.

  163. James
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    I thank you for your honesty in responding. But i must critique your replies some.

    1 You assert that because the Bible teaches that unbelievers will go to Hell and therefore be tortured for eternity is a sin against unbelievers. Is this correct? I do not want to interpret things incorrectly from you.
    2 if so, then where should the unbelievers go? If there is only a heaven and hell, should the unbelivers who are mostly good people just automatically go to heaven? You seem to imply that nearly no one is bad enough for hell. But i think your perception on what determines who goes where is off. No doubt, Richard, may have contributed to your false perception. But let me inquire further. So if you do not think morally good people like your atheistist father is not deserving of hell, why does he deserve heaven? Why do any of us deserve heaven and why do any of us deserve something other than hell? You seem to have a third party wisdom perspective on this. So please share your thoughts. What is the purpose of the biblical heaven and hell in your thinking?

    James

  164. James
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You said:

    —-“Your assertion that scientists merely “assume” that stars are currently being formed in collapsing dust clouds looks like a flat out lie. A deliberate deception. I’m sorry to use such strong language, but how could there be any other possibility given that you are such a well-informed “expert” on the subject?”—-

    Seriously, the expert had spoken and has said that the evidence is not complete and cannot account for the star’s origin, period. Stop looking at our universe with your head up your butt.
    How can you even suggest that there is no evidence for a fine tuner? Our universe is finely tuned. It is a reality that is so recognized within the scientific community that a whole branch of physics (string theory) and the metaphysical concept of the multiverse exists because of the perceived fine tuning. Do not fool yourself. You keep saying that I have to give evidence for a designer. The evidence for a designer is there. I will give you the same courtesy: look it up. You just assume the natural forces got it right the first time. Forces like gravity and the expansion rate of the universe are seen to coexist in perfect harmony to make any chance of life even remotely possible. If the constant of gravity or the expansion of the universe constant got tweaked just 10<60 or 10<120 respectfully, they universe would just collapse on itself.
    These are well known figures. So please enlighten us with your assumed naturalistic explanation and refute.

    And regarding star formation, the expert gives a bunch of math equations and assertions that we have observed cloud activity. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR STAR FORMATION. How can you seriously accept such nonsense so blindly. If we have not even once observed one star form this way, then the whole assertion that all these observances is just an assertion, There is no evidence for star formation. But please, go on ahead and blindly accept your head in the sand naturalistic view and premise while asserting no designer is acceptable as a premise unless I can prove a designer is necessary. The very nature of our universe proves to a high mathematical certainty that a designer is not only required but is a much more logical premise. Besides, you can't be against metaphysical premises. The entire BB starts from a metaphysical premise. All science breaks down at the singularity.

    Your rejection of my computer analogy is merely you taking the analogy too literally. OF course, computers are nothing like stars or biological life for that matter. The assertion and comparison cannot be taken that far. The comparison only needs to be noted that such a complex item like a computer is not created by the same processes that run and control it. And yes, stars forming and biological life are much much more complex than a computer. So if simple things that mankind can make require a designer, why do you think such complex things may not require one?

    James

  165. James
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    I will say that evidence for a fine tuner does not automatically mean that the biblical God is the fine tuner. That would be a jump in logic. To explore that belief or assertion will take further study.

    James

  166. MichaelFree
    Posted November 16, 2015 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    “You assert that because the Bible teaches that unbelievers will go to Hell and therefore be tortured for eternity is a sin against unbelievers. Is this correct?”

    It’s not the Bible that teaches that, it’s your interpretation of the Bible that teaches that, which is just one of thousands of competing interpretations of the Bible. Of course torture is a sin. Most “unbelievers” live normal lives and then die. They are not any better or any worse in life than your average “believer”. They are just normal. They never murder and never torture anyone in life. You don’t get to torture peaceful non-believers for the non-crime of not believing. That book corrupted your morality on this James. Most people live peaceful lives and then die. If torture were righteous then why not torture prisoners in society instead of trying to rehabilitate them? We all know we don’t torture because it’s barbarism, but for some reason, your God gets away with it to “believers”. Seeking to rehabilitate criminals is more moral and more just than your God.

    I only believe in the afterlife, one afterlife for all people. Just as all people are born on the same Earth we all go to the same afterlife. Life is a lesson. We are born wanting to be treated good by other people, and life is the test to see whether or not we will treat other people good in life. A hypocrisy test, which your God fails miserably. Your interpretation of the Bible makes Adolf Hitler infinitely more moral than your God.

  167. Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Seriously, the expert had spoken and has said that the evidence is not complete and cannot account for the star’s origin, period. Stop looking at our universe with your head up your butt.

    The expert said no such thing. And again, your words are terribly confused. You are repeating the same error that I recently exposed and explained (and which you ignored). It is not the “evidence” that is supposed to “account for the star’s origin.” It is the THEORY that accounts for (explains) the EVIDENCE of star formation. And that’s what the expert actually said:

    Despite its spectacular success in explaining the life histories and deaths of stars, the theory of stellar evolution is incomplete in a very fundamental aspect. It is not able to account for the origin of stars. … The inability of the theory of stellar evolution to explain star formation likely points to the inherent complexity of the physical process itself. Consequently construction of a theory of star formation must require a strong foundation of empirical data or observation.

    If you could get your head out of your ass long enough to read what is actually written, you would understand that he was comparing two theories:

    The Theory of Stellar Evolution vs. the Theory of Star Formation

    There is not one word in that paper that supports your assertion that stars are not continuously being formed in the galaxy or that we cannot observe their formation. On the contrary, the “expert has spoken” (to use your phrase) and declared that there is a lot of evidence that stars are being continuously formed in our galaxy which enables us to observe it. Here again is what the expert said:

    The empirical study of star formation is greatly facilitated by a fundamental property of the universe. Namely that star formation has been a continuous and ongoing process which in our galaxy extends into the present epoch. Consequently, the physical process of star formation can be investigated by direct observation.

    He then went on to explain the details of the evidence.

    The realization of ongoing star formation in our galaxy was an important milestone in twentieth century astronomy and as such merits some further discussion. By the middle of the twentieth century the theory of stellar structure and evolution had demonstrated that certain luminous stars, OB stars, burn their nuclear fuel at such prodigious rates that they can live for only a small fraction of the lifetime of our galaxy. The very existence of such stars clearly indicated that star formation has occurred in the present epoch of Galactic history. In 1947 the Armenian astronomer V.A. Ambartsumian showed that such OB stars were almost always members of stellar groupings he termed OB Associations. The space densities of stars in OB associations were well below the threshold necessary to prevent their disruption by Galactic tidal forces. Ambartsumian calculated dynamical ages for the associations that were much less than the age of the galaxy. These dynamical ages turned out to be in good agreement with the nuclear ages of the stars and independently provided evidence that star formation is still an active process in the Galaxy. The discovery of the interstellar medium of gas and dust during the early part of the twentieth century provided a crucial piece of corroborating evidence in support of the concept of present epoch Galactic star formation. Subsequent observations of interstellar material established that clouds of interstellar gas and dust had roughly stellar composition and were considerably more massive than a single star or group of stars. This revealed that the raw material to make new stars was relatively abundant in the Galaxy. These three pieces of evidence, 1) stellar evolution theory, 2) expanding OB associations and 3) the interstellar medium, constitute three basic “proofs” of ongoing star formation in the Milky Way. This concept was further bolstered by the work of Walker (1954) who found a large population of low mass stars to lie above the main sequence in the HR diagram of the young cluster NGC 2264, consistent with the predictions of Henyey et al. (1955) and later Hayashi (1961) who showed that the locations of these stars in the HR diagram indicated that they were contracting pre-main sequence stars that had not yet initiated fusion reactions in their cores.

    Your words are total bullshit.

    Again, you have proven that you have no interest in understanding the science that you reject. Your write like a common creationist who trolls through science looking for bits and pieces that can be ripped out of context to create the illusion of support for your ludicrous religious dogmas.

    Your reveal your utterly inconsistent logic and extreme bias when you uncritically accept anything a scientists says if you think it supports your position while totally rejecting the same science that was used to arrive at that conclusion! Case in point: your claims about “fine tuning” are based on the validity of modern Big Bang cosmology which you reject as “pseudoscience.” And yet you appeal to those same “pseudoscientists” if they say something that you can hijack for your cult. Nothing could be more absurd or transparent. The depth of your self-delusion is stunning to behold.

  168. Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    I will say that evidence for a fine tuner does not automatically mean that the biblical God is the fine tuner. That would be a jump in logic. To explore that belief or assertion will take further study.

    Much of the evidence for fine tuning is based on General Relativity and Big Bang cosmology. That “evidence” would be total bullshit if the universe were as young as you think it is. Therefore, your appeal to “fine tuning” is self-defeating. It is radically incoherent and totally contradicts your primary belief about the age of the universe.

    In short, you arguments are fundamentally irrational and incoherent.

  169. Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Our universe is finely tuned. It is a reality that is so recognized within the scientific community that a whole branch of physics (string theory) and the metaphysical concept of the multiverse exists because of the perceived fine tuning.

    There you go! Appealing to science that is “recognized within the scientific community.” Like evolution, common descent, and the age of the universe … all things that you deny. You are a poster child for the utterly incoherent madness that defines the creationist mind. You troll through science looking for bits and pieces you can hijack to support your religious delusion, never realizing that you are appealing to the very science that you reject!

  170. Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    The comparison only needs to be noted that such a complex item like a computer is not created by the same processes that run and control it.

    That comparison fails. You have never given any reason to think that stars cannot form through gravitational collapse.

    And worse, you contradict the very experts to whom you appeal. They all agree that we have observational evidence of the process of star formation.

    And yes, stars forming and biological life are much much more complex than a computer. So if simple things that mankind can make require a designer, why do you think such complex things may not require one?

    Your assertion is absurd. Stars are not “more complex” than computers or life. They are very simple in comparison. For example, the life expectancy of a star is determined by a single parameter, its mass. That’s because the process is governed by very simple processes like gravity and nuclear fusion which are very entropic. There is no complex structures like printed circuits or DNA. Your analogy is utterly fallacious.

  171. Posted November 16, 2015 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    And regarding star formation, the expert gives a bunch of math equations and assertions that we have observed cloud activity. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR STAR FORMATION. How can you seriously accept such nonsense so blindly. If we have not even once observed one star form this way, then the whole assertion that all these observances is just an assertion, There is no evidence for star formation.

    Your caricature of the evidence as a “bunch of math equations and assertions that we have observed cloud activity” only demonstrates, yet again, that you are utterly ignorant of the most basic elements of the science you reject. You don’t even understand it when it is spelled out for you in bold font.

    The title of the paper is Star Formation in the Galaxy, An Observational Overview

    It was written by Charles J. Lada of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

    It has been peer reviewed by other scientists.

    It explicitly declares that “Stars and their accompanying planetary systems are continuously being formed in the Galaxy enabling direct observation and investigation of the star forming process.”

    It supports that assertion with 23 pages of evidence and many references to other peer reviewed papers written by other scientists that support it’s claims.

    Your ignorant rejection of this massive body of scientific evidence is nothing short of delusional.

  172. Posted November 16, 2015 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    And regarding star formation, the expert gives a bunch of math equations and assertions that we have observed cloud activity. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR STAR FORMATION. How can you seriously accept such nonsense so blindly. If we have not even once observed one star form this way, then the whole assertion that all these observances is just an assertion, There is no evidence for star formation.

    Your words are utterly absurd and contrary to all facts. Here is a video in which Dr. Lada, who wrote the paper we have been discussing, says that using modern telescopes you can “actually see the young objects, the forming stars, the things that are occurring, the continual process of planet and star formation right before your very eyes.” He then backs up his claims with actual images from the Hubble telescope.

    You can find that quote at 1:00:40 in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9nWbuW7fEY

  173. James
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    I do not know how you can’t see this simple reality. If we have not observed an actual star form though these natural observed processes, then how can we be so sure that the activity we are observing will result in an actual star? I think they are guilty of infering too much from observation and assuming a desired conclusion and result.

    James

  174. James
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    You say you believe in an after life. Can you elaborate on this? Or is this what your personal view accepts at this point?
    You also say that “my interpretation” of the Bible is one that teaches unbelivers will be tortured for eternity in hell. Can you provide another valid, contextual interpretation of the entire Bible that suggests otherwise?
    Also it would be helpful to hear what you think the Bible teaches is the purpose of heaven and hell.

    James

  175. James
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You said:

    —Your reveal your utterly inconsistent logic and extreme bias when you uncritically accept anything a scientists says if you think it supports your position while totally rejecting the same science that was used to arrive at that conclusion! Case in point: your claims about “fine tuning” are based on the validity of modern Big Bang cosmology which you reject as “pseudoscience.” And yet you appeal to those same “pseudoscientists” if they say something that you can hijack for your cult. Nothing could be more absurd or transparent. The depth of your self-delusion is stunning to behold.
    —-There you go! Appealing to science that is “recognized within the scientific community.” Like evolution, common descent, and the age of the universe … all things that you deny. You are a poster child for the utterly incoherent madness that defines the creationist mind. You troll through science looking for bits and pieces you can hijack to support your religious delusion, never realizing that you are appealing to the very science that you reject!”——

    Fine tuning is within the big bang cosmological position, not because your naturalistic cosmology predicted it or requires it but it is forced to acknowledge it. Fine tuning is not dependent or a requirement validating your cosmological naturalistic premise. You are making illogical rebuttals and is quite obvious that you have little to go on for a real rebuttal, otherwise, you would have nailed me with it. I am appealing to scientists in a perfectly coherent way. The things scientists put forth that are actually supported by observational and confirmed data should be trusted, like constants which have been tested. You keep trying to fool yourself and me with these improper comparisons. Comparing star formation science and things like the gravitational constant are two different things. One is confirmed and the other is not confirmed. Don’t fool yourself.
    The age of the universe is not confirmed and neither is common descent. These are assumed from inferences which are not justified. They are based on naturalistic premises which also cannot be confirmed. I appealed to the gravitational constant which is confirmed. So please, tell me how I am trolling and picking and choosing? The way I see it, I am “choosing” to agree with what is truly good science and that which can be confirmed and rejecting or at least being skeptical of “science” which is based off theories and story telling when the data is lacking, falls short, is missing, or incomplete. There is a huge difference.

    So in essence, most of your reply is accusational l in tone which I just defended. You could just simply reply with how the universal constants are perfectly consistent within a naturalistic cosmology.Then, the trolling comment would be rendered completely valid and pertinent. But so far, all you did was say that I should accept anything main stream scientists say and not be so choosy with what I choose to criticize. This is the opposite of what real science is all about.

    Creationists are not trolling jerks. We are merely pointing out an inconsistently with your starting metaphysical premise and the actual observations and data. It does not lay coherently. String theory would not exist if there was not a realization of the fine tuning. So I was bewildered when before you acted like there was no fine tuned discrepancy or debate or awareness in the main stream. It is well known otherwise, there would not be people getting grant money to try to experiment and prove string theory and write about the multiverse concept (which they are all metaphysical concepts that cannot be proven with science)

    Always fun talking, I agree, we are making progress,

    James

  176. MichaelFree
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    James,

    “You say you believe in an after life. Can you elaborate on this?”

    Yes, I almost drowned as a non-Christian child and had an NDE where I was going to heaven but then returned. It was awesome, I was happy, and felt at home.

    “You also say that “my interpretation” of the Bible is one that teaches unbelivers will be tortured for eternity in hell. Can you provide another valid, contextual interpretation of the entire Bible that suggests otherwise?”

    Yes, Jesus prayed for all people when he went to the cross, that we should all be forgiven. He said that all things are possible with God, but with men (Christianity) this is impossible.

    You want to play ask question games James instead of attempting to justify your evil religion?

    1. Does God want followers who do not lie and who instead tell the truth?
    2. Is the Bible full of contradictions, errors, and moral abominations attributed to its God?

    Without using an idol (Bible), but rather using your built-in God-given morality, why don’t you attempt to justify one single instance of murdering healthy babies in the world or the raping of women in the world, that would be helpful James.

    Or here’s another way: are the Hebrew Scriptures Law and Prophets equivalent to the Golden Rule?

  177. Posted November 17, 2015 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Fine tuning is within the big bang cosmological position, not because your naturalistic cosmology predicted it or requires it but it is forced to acknowledge it. Fine tuning is not dependent or a requirement validating your cosmological naturalistic premise.

    Your words are utter rubbish. You appealed to Big Bang cosmology (which you reject as “pseudoscience”) when you claimed the universe is fine tuned. Here is what you wrote:

    Forces like gravity and the expansion rate of the universe are seen to coexist in perfect harmony to make any chance of life even remotely possible. If the constant of gravity or the expansion of the universe constant got tweaked just 10<60 or 10<120 respectfully, they universe would just collapse on itself.

    Where do you think those numbers came from? Did you check? Of course not. You don’t give a damn about truth. All you care about is trolling the internet for any half-baked claim you think will support your religious delusions. The numbers originally came from Paul Davies and have been popularized through the work of Robin Collins. They are based fundamentally Big Bang cosmology, as you see in this quote from Dr. Collins (found in many publications such as here, here, here, and here for a few examples from the first page of Google):

    If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91.]

    See that? The numbers you quoted refer to the initial explosion of the Big Bang which you reject. Your claim about fine tuning would have no meaning if the Big Bang were not true.

    With every comment your write, your confirm anew that you have absolutely no understanding of the most basic elements fo the science that you reject.

    You are making illogical rebuttals and is quite obvious that you have little to go on for a real rebuttal, otherwise, you would have nailed me with it.

    I have nailed it a hundred times. You don’t understand my rebuttals because you don’t understand the science even when it is explained to you on a kindergarten level.

    I am appealing to scientists in a perfectly coherent way. The things scientists put forth that are actually supported by observational and confirmed data should be trusted, like constants which have been tested.

    Oh really? So now you claim that scientists have observed whole universes collapsing because the strength of gravity was different than what we measure in our universe?

    This is why I say your claims are utterly inconsistent and irrational. You blatantly cherry pick incoherent bits and pieces from science that you think support your case without realizing that you had previously rejected that very same science!

    You keep trying to fool yourself and me with these improper comparisons. Comparing star formation science and things like the gravitational constant are two different things. One is confirmed and the other is not confirmed. Don’t fool yourself. The age of the universe is not confirmed and neither is common descent. These are assumed from inferences which are not justified.

    So now you are claiming that the expansion caused by the Big Bang would have collapsed if gravity differed by one part in 10^60 has been confirmed through observation? Wow.

    This reveals the utter inconsistency of your claims. You BLINDLY believe any scientific claim, no matter how speculative, if you can hijack it to support your religious delusion. No one has ever OBSERVED whole universes collapsing because of the strength of gravitation or expansion rate! Your appeal to those claims is radically hypocritical.

    They are based on naturalistic premises which also cannot be confirmed. I appealed to the gravitational constant which is confirmed.

    Not true. You appealed to Big Bang cosmology which you reject as “pseudoscience.”

    So please, tell me how I am trolling and picking and choosing?

    I’ve done that seven ways to Sunday. See above.

  178. MichaelFree
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    James,

    When I read the Gospels I interpreted hell as a condition that human beings have and may continue to live with here on Earth, not as a place of physical torture of souls. I believe everyone goes to heaven but when we arrive in heaven we are all confronted by our hypocrisy in regard to how we treated other people here on Earth. The Gospels are the literal epitome of hypocrisy if Jesus tortures unbelievers souls, the same Jesus whom most people on Earth if they heard the Gospel story would proclaim Jesus innocent and not deserving of torture (no one is). When they wanted to hurt Jesus what did he say to them, he said what bad deed did he do to deserve it, and they said that it wasn’t his deeds that bother them, but rather that Jesus said he is the Son of God (a religious murder in other words). What bad deed does the Jew do, or the Muslim, or the atheist, to deserve to be hurt in hell? What bad deed do they do to go to hell? I know what it is, it’s that they say they are Sons of God also, and the atheist says he is an equal human being, just like Christians say about themselves–just more religious murders in other words, the standard of hypocrisy. My not following a literally hellish and demonic doctrine and instead seeking peace and righteousness, it is not a crime, the Universe would implode first or the one running the program would unplug the computer.

  179. James
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You said,

    —-“Where do you think those numbers came from? Did you check? Of course not. You don’t give a damn about truth. All you care about is trolling the internet for any half-baked claim you think will support your religious delusions. The numbers originally came from Paul Davies and have been popularized through the work of Robin Collins. They are based fundamentally Big Bang cosmology, as you see in this quote from Dr. Collins (found in many publications such as here, here, here, and here for a few examples from the first page of Google):

    And copied and pasted: “If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91.]”—–

    I said this:I am appealing to scientists in a perfectly coherent way. The things scientists put forth that are actually supported by observational and confirmed data should be trusted, like constants which have been tested.
    —-
    Then you responded: Oh really? So now you claim that scientists have observed whole universes failing to exist because the strength of gravity was different than what we measure in our universe?
    ———————-

    So now do you doubt the gravity constant assertion put out by Paul Davies? He obviously made the statement without observing other universes expanding too quickly or collapsing too quickly. So how can he make the statement without being questioned by you but I repeat what he says, and you think I am absurd for suggesting that we have observed other universes collapsing or expanding too rapidly.

    So how is it if I accepted the big bang metaphysical premise, you and I would have no problem talking about Paul Davies’ statement and assertion that the gravity and expansion rate of the universe are fine tuned to exist. But if I do not accept the big bang metaphysical premise, then I am in error for bringing up the recognized finely tuned constant in the first place.
    So could it be that the gravity and expansion rate constants can be seen without the premise of the big bang? After all, there is evidence that the universe is expanding today and not collapsing under its own gravity. So where do you get off remarking that only someone who accepts a metaphysical premise like the big bang can use the gravitational and expanding universe constants in an argument for a finely tuned universe? Get over yourself and your big bang pseudo premise.

    You are still ultimately delaying the inevitable here. Why don’t you just explain how a naturalistic premise is justified with the evidence of a finely tuned universe? The fact that all you do is attack my motive for bringing it up shows that you have no real rebuttal with justified evidence. We could mention other finely tuned constants in our universe besides gravity and expansion rate. BTW, creationists have no problem with an expanding universe. We just reject the premise that an expanding universe could only have begun from a singularity over 13b years ago. We could mention the odds of our earth and all the factors that are present to make life possible.

    So why don’t you stop delaying and rebuttal for real this time giving an explanation of how a universe that is fine tuned for life came about by chance and natural processes?

    James

  180. James
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Michael,

    You seem confused in your understanding of the Bible and what it teaches. You also seem like you are still deciding what you believe and want to accept about a deity, after life, and life in general. So let me at least help you put some perspective on any Biblical teachings you may or may not understand.

    ——Yes, I almost drowned as a non-Christian child and had an NDE where I was going to heaven but then returned. It was awesome, I was happy, and felt at home.—–

    My coworker also says he had a ND experience. For similar reasons, he believes in an after life and a heaven. While some people regard this as subjective basis for accepting anything, one should not under estimate or dismiss human experience so easily. So many people have reported similar near death experiences, could they all be out in left field? So I appreciate you sharing this.

    “You also say that “my interpretation” of the Bible is one that teaches unbelivers will be tortured for eternity in hell. Can you provide another valid, contextual interpretation of the entire Bible that suggests otherwise?”

    You seem convinced that heaven is a real place but hell is just a figurative place that people create in their own problems. But this interpretation while an okay private belief is not valid in scriptural teaching. Both heaven and hell are talked about as real places that people are being sent to and going to. So if one is figurative, the other is figurative. If one is real, the other is real (at least from Biblical teaching)

    ——-Yes, Jesus prayed for all people when he went to the cross, that we should all be forgiven. He said that all things are possible with God, but with men (Christianity) this is impossible.——

    Yes, Jesus did pray for all people when he went to the cross. But let us back up, who is Jesus to you? You already reveal that you are undecided on this or incoherent since at one point you said that God is just truth. But then you congratulated me for suggesting that god could be some guy “up there” playing Sims with us down here on earth for his enjoyment. Now you are quoting Jesus. Are you quoting Jesus with an understanding that He is a mere man who lived, taught some good things and was killed, or quoting Him believing that He is God? Because if you just believe that Jesus was a good moral teacher, then why quote that he prayed for all men at all? What he says or prayed would mean very little. Are you quoting Jesus as if He is the Son of God? Or are you just proposing what the Bible teaches or are you quoting from your interpretation here?

    Anyway, just because Jesus prayed that all men would be forgiven does not automatically mean that all men would be forgiven. Jesus did say that with God all things are possible but with men not all things are possible. Jesus said this when a rich young ruler asked Jesus what must he do to have eternal life. The man bragged that he had kept all the commandments from his youth, which was a lie since no man is capable of doing this. (can you imagine someone who never told a lie, never coveted etc) Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor and then follow Him? The man went away sorrowful because he had great possessions. Jesus knew the man’s heart was convinced that his eternal life was up to him. He did not ask Jesus to save him. He asked Jesus what must “I do” to have eternal life. The man thought he could earn his eternal life by being a good moral person. Jesus made the concluding statement after this and said, with men “this” is impossible but with God all things are possible. This is in direct answer to the disciples question of who can be saved when Jesus said hardly a rich man could enter the kingdom.
    So I think you are foolish to bring up this statement from Jesus in supporting that good moral people can earn their way to heaven. Jesus said that with men it is impossible but with God all things are possible. If it were possible for men just to be good to get to heaven, then why did Jesus have to die in the first place?

    Previously in conversation, you deny that man in inherently sinful, but rather assert that mankind generally seeks what is good. If this is true, then why did Jesus feel the need to die for mankind. Because man is basically good Jesus died for them? Why did Jesus say that with men “this” (having eternal life, entering the kingdom of heaven) is impossible? Read Matthew 19:16-24

    You want to play ask question games James instead of attempting to justify your evil religion?

    1. Does God want followers who do not lie and who instead tell the truth? Yes, I am not sure where you are going with this question or what you are trying to imply? The Bible never teaches that followers of God will never sin, lie etc. The Bible teaches that we need to trust and follow God because we are sinners. The Bible teaches us to not continue to live in sin as well.
    2. Is the Bible full of contradictions, errors, and moral abominations attributed to its God? I am not sure what kind of question this is. What do you expect me to say? yes? I think the fact that we are having this conversation strongly suggests that I do not thing the Bible is full of contradictions.

    —–Without using an idol (Bible), but rather using your built-in God-given morality, why don’t you attempt to justify one single instance of murdering healthy babies in the world or the raping of women in the world, that would be helpful James.

    I already gave an explanation above (previous post) why God may have felt the need to issue such a command. See that to respond. If you reject my response or wish to critique it, by all means. But please do not carry on like I keep ignoring it and it is unanswered.
    Can you provide the text that you believe is referring to God commanding people to rape women? I want to be on the same page as you.

    —–Or here’s another way: are the Hebrew Scriptures Law and Prophets equivalent to the Golden Rule?

    One could say that it is possible to summarize the Old Testament Law with the golden rule. Jesus summarized it with two similar commands: love God with all your heart, mind, strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:37-40

    But I will not say that the OT law and prophets are the same as the golden rule. That would be an unequal comparison. It is an odd question. Can you tell me where you were going with that?

    James

  181. MichaelFree
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    James,

    You said:

    “Anyway, just because Jesus prayed that all men would be forgiven does not automatically mean that all men would be forgiven”.

    I guess even Jesus’ prayers go unanswered in the world huh James? That’s some God you’ve created, who prays to himself and then doesn’t answer his own prayers. Meanwhile in the Gospels Jesus and the Father are two separate beings with two separate minds and Jesus is the son of the Father. That book clearly teaches that God and Jesus are two separate beings with two separate minds. Does the Father answer the Son’s prayers? I guess your answer is no.

    You said:

    “But I will not say that the OT law and prophets are the same as the golden rule. That would be an unequal comparison. It is an odd question. Can you tell me where you were going with that?”

    Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”.

    You said:

    1. Does God want followers who do not lie and who instead tell the truth? Yes.
    2. Is the Bible full of contradictions, errors, and moral abominations attributed to its God? What do you expect me to say? yes? I think the fact that we are having this conversation strongly suggests that I do not thing the Bible is full of contradictions.

    I expected a yes answer for the first question and a no answer for the second question, when the true answers are yes for both questions. Only because I am speaking to a fundamentalist so-called Christian, who can’t see the truth when it is right before his own eyes, did I expect a no answer for the second question.

    Epitome of contradiction in the Bible:

    Jesus said:

    Luke 14:26 Jesus said: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and yes, even his life, he is not able to be My (God) disciple.

    1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

    Jesus said: “love one another”.

    Jesus said: “hate everyone including yourself”.

  182. Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    So now do you doubt the gravity constant assertion put out by Paul Davies?

    Your question is a ludicrous non sequitur. I didn’t say a word about the validity of his calculations. I simply pointed out the rank hypocrisy of your appeal to his conclusions given that they are based fundamentally on Big Bang cosmology which you reject as “pseudoscience.” The fact that you carefully and consistently dodge my primary point indicates that you know you cannot answer.

    Your position is literally insane. You are a poster child for how fundamentalist ideology corrupts the minds of believers.

    He obviously made the statement without observing other universes expanding too quickly or collapsing too quickly.

    That’s right, and you have adamantly rejected all such conclusions as “pseudoscience” so it is literally INSANE for you to be appealing to them now merely because you think they support what you want to believe.

    With every post, you demonstrate how fundamentalist ideology corrupts the minds of believers.

    So how can he make the statement without being questioned by you but I repeat what he says, and you think I am absurd for suggesting that we have observed other universes collapsing or expanding too rapidly.

    It is absurd because you have adamantly declared that the Big Bang, upon which his conclusions are based, is pseudoscience. It is literally insane for you to appeal to Big Band cosmology to support your belief in fine tuning.

    So how is it if I accepted the big bang metaphysical premise, you and I would have no problem talking about Paul Davies’ statement and assertion that the gravity and expansion rate of the universe are fine tuned to exist. But if I do not accept the big bang metaphysical premise, then I am in error for bringing up the recognized finely tuned constant in the first place.

    Yes, you are in error. Your error is egregious and morally inexcusable. If you don’t accept Big Bang cosmology, then you don’t accept the premises upon which Davies’ calculations are based, and so you have no reason to believe they are valid. The fact that I have to explain such elementary facts demonstrates, yet again, how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt both the mind and the morals of believers.

    So could it be that the gravity and expansion rate constants can be seen without the premise of the big bang? After all, there is evidence that the universe is expanding today and not collapsing under its own gravity. So where do you get off remarking that only someone who accepts a metaphysical premise like the big bang can use the gravitational and expanding universe constants in an argument for a finely tuned universe? Get over yourself and your big bang pseudo premise.

    Your comment demonstrates, yet again, that you don’t have half a clue of what you are babbling about. The numbers you posted came from the calculations of Paul Davies which were based fundamentally on Big Bang cosmology. Specifically, the number 10^60 came from his application of the field equations to the first 10^-34 seconds after the Big Bang. You don’t even know what the numbers you copied and pasted mean! And yet you believe you have “proof” or your ludicrous religious delusions? And so we see the damage done by your religion. And that’s why I’m so glad you keep posting. You are helping free people from the horrible bondage of Christianity (and other dogmatic religions like Islam) by showing how it corrupts the minds and morals of believers.

    You are still ultimately delaying the inevitable here. Why don’t you just explain how a naturalistic premise is justified with the evidence of a finely tuned universe?

    You have not presented any evidence of any fine tuning.

    The fact that all you do is attack my motive for bringing it up shows that you have no real rebuttal with justified evidence.

    Not true. I did not merely attack your motive. I showed that you are speaking out of your freaking ass and totally contradicting your own words. You have consistently rejected Big Bang cosmology as pseudoscience and then you appealed to Big Bang cosmology as proof of fine tuning. You are literally insane.

    BTW, creationists have no problem with an expanding universe. We just reject the premise that an expanding universe could only have begun from a singularity over 13b years ago.

    That’s not a freaking “premise”! No one merely “presumed” that number! It is a conclusion based upon the best evidence. Is there no bottom to the abyss of your mind?

  183. Andy Clark
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    I’m sad to see you have given up on Christ. Many people give up on Christian Fundamentalism but it is rather important not to throw out the Baby with the bath water. Have you considered the Orthodox Church? Are you really, deep down, happier now you say you have found Psychobabble instead of Jesus?

  184. Posted November 19, 2015 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    I’m sad to see you have given up on Christ. Many people give up on Christian Fundamentalism but it is rather important not to throw out the Baby with the bath water. Have you considered the Orthodox Church? Are you really, deep down, happier now you say you have found Psychobabble instead of Jesus?

    Hi Andy,

    What exactly is this “Psychobabble” you think I have found? I have no idea what you are talking about.

    But yes, I am much happier now that I am free from the shackles of Christianity. Of course, there is a kind of happiness in religious delusions, but once once wakes from the delusion that all vanishes like a dream.

    I am familiar with the Orthodox church and there is much about it I found appealing when I was a Christian. But that is quite irrelevant now that I do not believe Christianity is true.

    Richard

  185. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    Your ignorance and stubborness is showing and it is horrid and ugly. All leading cosmologieste recognize that there are fine tuning elements and evidence for fine tuning. Look fine tuning and Steven Hawking. He admits that the eidence for a fine tuned universe is hard to explain away or discount. Are you going to argue with him because you are afraid to admit that a finely tunned universe may need a designer?

    You keep saying that i appeal to big bang cosmology to support fine tuning. This is not true. Any honest cosmologist will tell you that we cannot prove that the universe started from a singularity. This is just a premise that since the universe is expanding it must have been closer together at one point in the past. So while being closer together is fundamentally and logically demonstrable, it does not automatically follow that the universe had to start from a singularity. This is a metaphysical premise with math to back it up but the math cannot be verified. The lecturer said in his video that the beginning is just based on a premise. You like to just stubbornly argue. I can’t argue with such stubborn obstinance. Gravity being a recognized constant has no direct dependence on there being a big bang. You are ignorant to suggest otherwise.

    James

  186. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Why did string theory and the multiverse concept ever come from if it wasnt from the evidence for fine tuning? You are really showing yourself to be the ignorant fool. You can accuse me all you want for appealing to big bang cosmology to support fine tuning. I am not. Fine tuning evidence is independent of big bang premises. But even if i were guilty, better to be the guy pointing out a flaw of a fine tuned order in a naturalistic premise than to be the fool who thinks his naturalistic premise fits a fine tuned universe.

    James

  187. Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    All leading cosmologieste recognize that there are fine tuning elements and evidence for fine tuning.

    That’s because they believe the calculations based on the Big Bang are correct. You reject that idea and so your appeal to their conclusions is logically absurd.

  188. Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Look fine tuning and Steven Hawking. He admits that the eidence for a fine tuned universe is hard to explain away or discount. Are you going to argue with him because you are afraid to admit that a finely tunned universe may need a designer?

    Again, his conclusion is based on Big Bang cosmology which you reject. It is therefore utterly absurd for you to appeal to it as evidence of anything.

  189. Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    You keep saying that i appeal to big bang cosmology to support fine tuning. This is not true. Any honest cosmologist will tell you that we cannot prove that the universe started from a singularity. This is just a premise that since the universe is expanding it must have been closer together at one point in the past. So while being closer together is fundamentally and logically demonstrable, it does not automatically follow that the universe had to start from a singularity.

    And again you demonstrate your abject ignorance of the science you are trying hijack. The claim about gravity and the expansion rate being fine tuned to one part in 10^60 is based on the value of a formula at time t = 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The calculation was really quite absurd first because it is based on extremely unlikely assumptions to simplify the calculations, and second because number is nothing but the inverse of the time since the Big Bang singularity. Davies simply cut off the calculation at the Planck time because that’s where the physics breaks down. It is an utterly meaningless number based on many assumptions that you absolutely reject as meaningless. Your appeal to his calculation as evidence is utterly absurd.

  190. Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    This is a metaphysical premise with math to back it up but the math cannot be verified. The lecturer said in his video that the beginning is just based on a premise. You like to just stubbornly argue. I can’t argue with such stubborn obstinance. Gravity being a recognized constant has no direct dependence on there being a big bang. You are ignorant to suggest otherwise.

    Your words are utter rubbish. I do not like to “stubbornly argue.” I have proven my point and you have not shown any error in anything I have written. Your appeal to Big Bang cosmology as proof of fine tuning is literally insane because you reject the premises upon which the calculations are based. The fact that you can’t even understand my criticism reveals your utter incorrigibility. There is no excuse for such stubborn ignorance.

    Here is what you must do. Show the calculations that support your assertion of fine tuning of gravity to one part in 10^60. If you can’t do that, you confirm every word I have written.

  191. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    You are not pointing out contradictions. You are merely showing that you do not understand Jesus’ words and why He said what He said. You are probably getting lost in translation. Sometimes a Greek idiom can throw off an English translation. For instance, Romans 9 says regarding Jacob and Esau, that God loved jacob but hated Esau. Some have used this to show a disagreement. God who is taught that He does not hate is said to hate. Love and hate is a Greek idiom showing the contrast of how God chose to use Jacob and Esau. God didnt literally hate Esau, he chose to use jacob and not esau to further the messianic line which was a big deal with hebrew culture since esau was older. You would know this if you actually studied the bible with dictionaries and lexicons instead of “researching” people’s comments like Richard or other hater bible pages who make similar mistakes.

    So i am more than willing to continue conversation about the bible if you actually want to hear it out and ponder it to make your own conclusions. But if your mind is already made up, then i would be wasting my time. People can only lead one to water, no one including God wants to make someone drink.

    God made people to have free will. Free will is what gives love value. God could have programmed us from the beginning to never sin and to love only Him. But love is not love if it is forced or programmed. God had to create free will and an opportunity to not love to give love any value.
    So people ask why did God put a tree in the garden if He knew they would sin, God did it to create value to love. God wanted people to love Him back by choice. Does that make God a egotistic maniac for subjecting a whole world with sin just to have free will love? No, do people have children knowing full well that they will grow up saying “i hate you,” will get hurt and suffer pain, will have to work for the rest of his her life to make ends meat. But people keep having kids not because there a 1,000 practical reasons not to have kids, but because a life with real love and relationships is more valuable than enduring a temporal time of suffering. What is 50-80 years of a non perfect life for a better life for all eternity?
    God is the potter and we are the clay. God wants to mold people into finer vessals. He can only work with clay that will yield to Him, to the potter. God cannot work with clay that is hard and stubborn or clay that thinks his way is better, or that he is good enough on his own. God is not about letting “good” people in heaven. God is holy and cannot have contact with sin. Adam and eve walked with God in the garden before they sinned. If God just let good moral people into heaven, then what would be the point. Being in heaven is to be with God, in perfect harmony. You can’t do that if you have sin, even a small amount in comparison to others who have “big sin.”
    If you just make a commitment to be more moral or better than a criminal, then what have you accomplished? You have accomplished more morality than a criminal. God has higher standards and higher goals for people that he will allow come into heaven.
    Why did God do it this way? I honestly do not have all the answers. But i do know that God did start with angels who were in heaven. All was good until lucifer decided that he should be like god and greater than god. He rebelled and 1/3 of the angelic host followed lucifer. Who i am to understand the mind of God? But maybe just pure speculation, God decided he would rather have people in heaven who could better appreciate what god did for them and people whose troubles grew them into better people who would not become and repeat the mistake of satan, lucifer.
    Just a thought. So what is god to do with people who don’t get on board and be moldable and allow God to work in their lives. Heaven is no place for them. They will corrupt heaven if they try to do things in their own way. To reject the ways of god is to reject God. To reject God and His ways is to say that your ways are better. These thoughts are reflective of lucifer in Isaiah 14. Why does god delay if more people are rejecting him than coming to Him? God is longsugfering for more to come to Him. It is a natural consequence.

    But if you think you think you could design a better world and afterlife, then feel free to share your benevolent wisdom. Please do not leave out love and free will. People have always longed for utopia, world peace, no more hunger etc etc. but how many government structures have to fail before we realize that we are not capable of bettering ourselves as a whole from the inside out. Capitalism corrupts those who make it to the top. Communism corrupts those in power. No manmade system can remove laziness, greed, man’s desire for power. Some checks and balances can work or contain some of it. But no system can drive it away.

    This reality is what the bible and esp the old testament is supposed to teach us. Israel had more then enough gracious chances to prove themselves to be obedient to god. They failed time and time again. The law was never intended to make them righteous. The law tells us God’s perfect holy standard and tells us the cost and ugliness of our sin.
    But today’s culture wants to believe a lie that man is mostly good and it is his environment that makes him bad. Where did the bad environment come from? Any solution man can come up only limits or maybe can supress his evil tendencies and temptations. My faith and upbringing tell me that i should not sleep around for instance. But that does keep my eyes from lusting and looking around. Why? Because i am human. God died for our sins not so He could let morally good people come to heaven. He died so He could redeem us from our sin entirely. We have to trust in him though. If you are trusting in yourself, then you will not like heaven which will be all about a relationship and dependence on God.

    How is it fair that god did not get this message out to everyone? How can He punish people for not knowing that jesus died for their sins?
    God has revealed himself to the world through his creation so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-ff explains that man knows enough internally that there is a god and that he should seek him out. If people do not seem him out and suppress the truth with naturalism, then that is their issue, Not God’s. Psalm 19:1 says the heavens declare the glory of God. Today, science wants us to believe that all of what we see comes about naturally. It is a lie based on a metaphysical premise.

    Don’t be closed minded Michael. You have had the personal nd experience that no one can deny you. You know there is more to this life than the physical. Everyone knows that otherwise we wouldn’t need a metaphysical beginning. Do not reject the Bible, the biblical God without properly studying it.

    James

  192. Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Why did string theory and the multiverse concept ever come from if it wasnt from the evidence for fine tuning? You are really showing yourself to be the ignorant fool. You can accuse me all you want for appealing to big bang cosmology to support fine tuning. I am not. Fine tuning evidence is independent of big bang premises.

    We are not talking about fine tuning in general. I only challenged you on one point, namely your claim about the gravity and the number 10^60. You have shown no understanding of your error on that point. That calculation is based fundamentally upon Big Bang cosmology. It was bad enough that you made this error in the first place. The fact that you persist in it even after it has been exposed and explained suggests that you don’t give a shit about truth. Nothing could be more ironic, or pathetic, given that your religion is based on the idea that Jesus Christ is the truth.

  193. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    “we are not talking about fine tuning in general.”

    Maybe that is your agenda. But the fact that one can appeal to big bang cosmology and find evidence for fine tuning and ignore it is the real issue here. Then you have the audacity to say that there is not evidence for fine tuning when cosmologists using “science” that you recognize have evidence that the universe is fine tuned.
    The problem is that a naturalistic view point of the origin of this universe does not fit the data of a fine tuned universe, period. The fact that cosmologists know this can still carry on about the big bang and their naturalistic premise is saddening. Science is supposed to follow where the evidence takes you. If the evidence leads us to accepting that the universe is fined tuned, why don’t cosmologists explore that more instead of inventing metaphysical non-scientific theories to counter around the “inconvenient anthropic principle” and the evidence for fine tuning?
    Could it be that cosmologists are more loyal to their naturalistic cosmology and premise than they are to the actual evidence?
    You got bigger fish to worry about than accusing me of appealing to big bang cosmology to point out the universe is fie tuned. You are dodging the issue by making personal accusations. The real problem for you is that one can appeal to naturalistic cosmology and fine evidence for it being fine tuned and not naturalistic at all. But yet you want to still assert that there is no evidence for fine tuning even though main stream cosmologists have affirmed of the evidence for it.
    There is no rabbit hole shovel long enough to pull you out of the web of disdain and hatred you have trenched yourself in. You are stuck and can’t argue so you attack. Go ahead, Im laughing at your attempt to change the focus of the conversation off the pathetic attempt of main stream cosmology staring at the evidence in their eyes are looking elsewhere to solve it. (instead of common sense)

    James

  194. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Maybe that is your agenda. But the fact that one can appeal to big bang cosmology and find evidence for fine tuning and ignore it is the real issue here. Then you have the audacity to say that there is not evidence for fine tuning when cosmologists using “science” that you recognize have evidence that the universe is fine tuned.

    I am ignoring nothing. I have never said that “there is not evidence for fine tuning”. You are flat out lying. And why are you lying? Because you know you cannot answer. I have exposed a fundamental error and gross inconsistency in your claims and you refuse to admit it. So you are doing everything in your power to distract from the truth. Nothing could be more pathetic or absurd.

    The error I have exposed is fatal to your claim concerning gravity and the number 10^60. Your words are utterly inconsistent and self-contradictory. You appeal to assertions that are based on the same science as the Big Bang (the numbers work only when you use time t = 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang singularity). And worse, the calculation is based on exactly the same assumptions that you have adamantly been rejecting over and over and over again for months on this blog.

  195. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that a naturalistic view point of the origin of this universe does not fit the data of a fine tuned universe, period. The fact that cosmologists know this can still carry on about the big bang and their naturalistic premise is saddening.

    Again, your words are radically incoherent. If the scientists did not “carry on about the big bang” then much of the evidence for fine tuning would be lost because it is based on Big Bang cosmology.

    If the universe were as young as you believe, then there would be no meaning to the “balance” between expansion rate and gravity because there would not be enough time for the universe to collapse so that argument would fail. The depth of your ignorance is truly pathetic. You have no clue what you are babbling about. You have no clue about any of the science. Your claims are radically incoherent and self-contradictory.

  196. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    You are dodging the issue by making personal accusations.

    Not true. I have never made any personal accusations to dodge any issue. On the contrary, the “accusations” are simply the unavoidable conclusions drawn from the fact that you refuse to admit truth no matter how clearly it has been presented.

    Anyone with half a brain can see that you were directly appealing to conclusions drawn from Big Bang cosmology. Your denial of this point is pathetic beyond belief. It indicates something worse than mere ignorance since you persist even after the facts have been explained on a kindergarten level.

  197. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    But yet you want to still assert that there is no evidence for fine tuning even though main stream cosmologists have affirmed of the evidence for it.

    Again, I have never said there is no evidence for fine tuning.

    You really need to stop with your lies.

  198. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    There is no rabbit hole shovel long enough to pull you out of the web of disdain and hatred you have trenched yourself in.

    I hate nothing but the lies that have put your mind in such bondage.

    Your religion breeds a contempt for truth in the minds of believers. Nothing could be more pathetic.

  199. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

    Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

    Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

    Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.

    Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

    Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

    Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”

    Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”

    Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that “the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000­0000000000, but instead: 1000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe.”

    You can’t listen to these comments and say that there is no evidence for fine tuning. At best you cannot deny evidence for a fine tuner, you should at least be open to theistic big bang cosmology.
    But you are not open to it. You have said that there is no reasons to believe in a designer. We have’t even talked about evolution and biological life which is far more complicated and far less likely without a designer. But go ahead and proceed to provide naturalistic explanations for this fine tuning.

    James

  200. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    You are stuck and can’t argue so you attack. Go ahead, Im laughing at your attempt to change the focus of the conversation off the pathetic attempt of main stream cosmology staring at the evidence in their eyes are looking elsewhere to solve it. (instead of common sense)

    Ha! You really thought such a fat lie could fly? You are the one who is trying to dodge my point by bringing up other forms of fine tuning that I haven’t said a word about. And why are you trying so desperately to change the subject? Because you know you cannot defend your claim about the number 10^60. I’ve proven your wrong and you refuse to admit it.

    And now that you’ve proven your absolute refusal to admit any truth no matter how clearly demonstrated, only a fool would follow you down your diversionary rabbit trail into all the other claims about fine tuning.

    I have proven you wrong. You cannot answer. So you dig a deep deep rabbit hole to bury the truth.

    Nothing could be more transparent, or pathetic. Especially since now you are falsely accusing me of doing the very things you do!

  201. Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    You can’t listen to these comments and say that there is no evidence for fine tuning.

    I have never said there was “no evidence for fine tuning.”

    What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

  202. James
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I had already said there are other areas of fine tuning that could be addressed. Since you are so opposed to me picking on gravity and the expansion rate of the universe, how about something else.

    The particular energy state of the election is fine tuned. The balance being the positive charge from protons and the negative charge, energy from electrons is in perfect balance. But never mind, I’m sure the first stars got this right the first time on there own making new elements in perfect balance.

    Speaking of stars again, I watched the video you linked. The video was mostly a history of star formation history as advertised. He showed actual footage of a spinning disk cloud. Then the “video” after the short footage was just computer simulation. But the spinning disk cloud is interesting to watch and could be evidence of stars forming now. But this does not help demonstrate how the first stars form. What elements are spinning in this cloud? IF there is anything but hydrogen, nitrogen, and lithium, then all you have demonstrated is that current interaction with other already stars can help trigger other stars to form, at best. How can one isolate that this spinning disk cloud could be a population 3 star? or that population 3 stars are even possible? What elements condense in clouds currently to view activity of cloud condensing? If only elements heavier than lithium can help a cloud condense, then you are still stuck with a chicken or egg logic problem. Thought I would throw this in.

    How about strong and weak nuclear force? They exist fine tuned. They could not evolve slowly over time to get it right. Our understanding of chemistry is not dependent of the big bang cosmology. Big bang cosmology proposes that it has an explanation for where the elements came from. But that is not the same thing.

    James

  203. Posted November 19, 2015 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    I had already said there are other areas of fine tuning that could be addressed. Since you are so opposed to me picking on gravity and the expansion rate of the universe, how about something else.

    If you refuse to admit your error about the fine tuning of gravity, why would anyone bother to discuss your other claims?

    I would be willing to discuss other claims of fine tuning after you answer my points concerning gravity and the number 10^60. You need to show that you understand why it was utterly absurd for you to appeal to conclusions based on Big Bang cosmology very near the singularity. Also, you need to explain how the number was calculated and why anyone should think it is valid.

  204. Posted November 19, 2015 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Fred Hoyle … Roger Penrose … Arthur Eddington … Frank Tipler … Paul Davies … Michael Turner … Paul Davies … Roger Penrose … Steven Weinberg

    You can’t listen to these comments and say that there is no evidence for fine tuning.

    And everyone of those experts would have declared that your belief in a young earth is as inexcusable and ignorant as belief in a flat earth. Guaranteed.

    Consistency is not really your strong suit, is it?

  205. Andy
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Hello again, thank you for replying so quickly. I am glad you have a fairly positive view of Orthodoxy. I suggest you attend a liturgy. You see, faith in Christ is not a delusion, and is not so easily dismissed with talk of magical thinking, etc, if one is truly honest with oneself. I am not the best person to discuss Orthodoxy with, as I am no expert, but I believe you will find much grist for your intellectual mill if you are prepared to give it a chance. We are all broken. Our pride, anger, selfishness, lust, etc leads us astray. Ultimately, God is beyond our words and even concepts, so rational argument has limits. But to experience the transcendence of God through icons and the beauty of the liturgy is to find Truth. I hope you are willing to at least ‘waste’ one Sunday morning on seeing for yourself.

    I end with a quote:
    ‘It is not good when we return the love of those who love us, yet hate those who hate us. We are not on the right path if we do this. We are the sons of light and love, the sons of God, his children. As such we must have His qualities and His attributes of love, peace and kindness towards all’
    +Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica.

    For my own very many daily failings in this area, may The Lord have mercy on my soul. I hope you found it of worth.

  206. MichaelFree
    Posted November 20, 2015 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    James,

    Pull out your dictionary and your lexicon and prove to me this is not a contradiction. If you cannot do that then admit that it’s a contradiction. Saying that you believe it’s not a contradiction is not the same thing as saying that it’s not a contradiction. Prove to me this is not a contradiction:

    Luke 14:26 Jesus said: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and yes, even his life, he is not able to be My (God) disciple.

    1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

    _____

    If God exists and God doesn’t judge people according to their goodness in life but rather judges people according to their religion and whether or not they accept Jesus as their savior, then why do so many Christian denominations that accept Jesus as their savior turn around and condemn other Christian denominations that accept Jesus as their savior also? You all not only accept non-believers in Jesus going to hell but also accept believers in Jesus going to hell. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with your religion? This is the kind of shit that McDonald’s does to Burger King and has nothing to do with God. It’s a battle of snake-oil salesman, a battle of collection plates. What’s the worst possible thing to threaten someone with? Oh, I know, eternal torture, that’s gotta suck, let’s get ‘em into church with a threat of eternal torture, aren’t we geniuses, aren’t we clever, and aren’t we special.

    Meanwhile the servant of the Lord does no violence, abhors violence, and would never bow to violence. Violence is an abomination. Violence is not justice.

  207. MichaelFree
    Posted November 20, 2015 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    James,

    Gospel of Thomas Saying 7: Jesus said: “Blessed is the lion which the man eats, and the lion will become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion eats, and the lion will become man”.

    The lion is all religious texts ever written. Blessed is the man that reads them and retains his humanity towards other human beings, and cursed is the man that reads them and loses his humanity towards other human beings.

  208. Andy
    Posted November 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Michael it is easy to take verses out of context to try to suggest contradiction. Jesus is talking about radical commitment to God over human ties. John is talking about basic kindness to others. There is no contradiction, only an important balance. Paradox is acceptable in trendy zen koans but you allow for none in the NT?

  209. MichaelFree
    Posted November 20, 2015 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Andy,

    Actually John is talking about loving your brother and Jesus is talking about hating your brother. You haven’t proven anything different with your interpretation. Read it plainly.

  210. MichaelFree
    Posted November 20, 2015 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Andy,

    John says that without loving your brother you have no commitment to God. Why would God torture my brother Jon who is an atheist, a good person who hates violence, and whom I love with all my heart?

  211. MichaelFree
    Posted November 22, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Andy,

    The Gospels are meant to be interpreted in relation to the real world.

    When I read the Gospels I was not offended when Jesus said to “love one another” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (my atheist brother is my literal neighbor, he lives next door to me).

    Jesus’ deeds throughout the Gospels showed that he was a good person. He was a healer and was not violent. Therefore when he says that no one can be his disciple unless they hate their brother, one is wise to interpret this not as an evil saying, but rather a good saying: I interpret it as hating sin, hating lies, hating thefts, hating physical assaults, and hating showing no fairness or mercy in justice; and when one does this they will see sin all around them amongst the goodness, and they will also most likely see sin in their loved ones deeds (hate your loved ones) and even in our own inclinations in regard to our own deeds (hate oneself); but the true disciple overcomes and can smile at their own bad thoughts (inclinations) because they don’t act on them. Hate the sin and not the sinner.

    Torture is violence. If God does violence then God is a hypocrite, and if there is any lesson to learn from the Gospels, it is to not be a hypocrite.

    I will not separate myself from all of humanity. If I became a Christian I would separate myself from my brother and he would no longer be “as myself”.

  212. MichaelFree
    Posted November 22, 2015 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Andy,

    In essence, when comparing the two verses and reading them plainly, they contradict each other. One must interpret what Jesus said about hating people and make it righteous instead of unrighteous (remember his deeds showed that he was a good person in the Gospels, and that he was not unrighteous).

    Your interpretation contradicts what Jesus said when he said “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “love one another”. This is what you said: “Jesus is talking about radical commitment to God over human ties. John is talking about basic kindness to others”.

    Without commitment to human beings you will have no commitment to God. You will never fulfill the commandment to truly love God until you fulfill the commandment to truly love one another (other human beings).

  213. James
    Posted November 23, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    You want me to admit that i appealed to big bang cosmology to support a theistic belief. Okay, i admit that the 10^60 calculation would probably not have been found if it were not for the calculations of big bang scientists.

    Okay, now what? The fact that main stream scientists recognize the fine tuning and still believe in some naturalistic premise of an origin is still on the table to duscuss. Admiting what i admitted while satisfying your desire to get me to say something, it has done nothing for your naturalistic position.

    James

  214. James
    Posted November 23, 2015 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Michael,

    Luke 14:26 Jesus said: “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and yes, even his life, he is not able to be My (God) disciple.

    1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

    This issue of interpretation is not as subjective to his or her opinion as you think. It is not like well these 10 guys think it means this and these 10 other guys think it means that so I’ll guess we will never know.
    For any “good, textual” interpretation, one must consider several factors.
    1 The CONTEXT, this includes both the actual verse, and the surrounding context.
    2 Under context, but equally important to consider is the PURPOSE of POINT of the passage. Being able to distinguish the main points, sub points, and support material is important and crucial to a good textual interpretation.
    3 Another point to consider is the language and translation. Understanding Koine Greek (in this case since it is NT passage not OT) is important. Sometimes a good literal Greek translation makes a rough or not so clear English translation. I have explained a possibility of this before.

    So apply these principles to consider to our passages in question. Is it more fitting to say they are a contradiction or more fit to say there is no contradiction? These are two agreed upon options here.

    What is the surrounding context of Luke 14:26? Jesus is being followed by a great multitude in verse 25. These people were seeking miracles. They had no desire to be followers of Jesus. This section of Scripture is about the cost of true discipleship. Look also at v27: Whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me, he cannot be My disciple. Jesus is talking about being disciples. Verses 28-32 is support material or teaching illustration to illustrate His main point. Jesus talks about a man who considers or counts his cost. v33 Jesus reverts back to His main point and concludes that anyone who does not forsake his possessions cannot be MY disciple.

    Jesus was not teaching true followers of Jesus have to live poor, destitute lives. He is (1) thinning the crowd of passerby’s who just want to see Jesus do miracles. (2) Jesus is teaching that true discipleship is hard. To be committed to Jesus means you have to be not as committed to your material possessions and even family at times.

    The 3rd principle of language I could apply better to the text with more studying. There is a really cool Lexicon that does not just tell you what Greek words mean, but also tells the range of meanings that they have been used in other contexts. So if we were wondering if this language of hating your father and mother sounds like a brash hard statement, we could see if it is Greek idiom for being committed or just a bunch of theologians trying to put a fake interpretation in the text to “save” the Bible from apparent contradiction. This lexicon would tell us how other contemporary texts, outside the Bible, uses similar words and language to show the reader the full syntactical range of the words and phrase. But good commentators also will tell you what the Greek words mean because they have looked it up.

    There is also a parallel passage Matthew 10:37 (34-39), where Jesus says the same thing but it captures more the heart of Jesus’ words than the Luke passage does. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me.” Again, the context of this passage is the cost of discipleship. The same verse following in Matthew is the same verse following in Luke. The Matthew passage though does have an additional verse at the end of this section v39: “He who finds his life for my shall lose it. And he who loses his life for My sake shall find it.” Jesus was teaching that a true, beneficial life is found in following Jesus. His main point is not that we have to hate people to love Jesus. His main point is that you have to love me first and foremost to have a true life of discipleship. The context clearly demonstrates this. Tell me if I am missing something or if I am out in left field.

    Now let’s look at the 1 John 4:20 and apply the same principles and see if there is a contradiction.

    What is the context of 1 John? John is speaking to Christians. This is to be noted as a contrast to Jesus who was speaking to a crowd of miracle seekers who had no idea what true discipleship would cost. Try reading the whole book of 1 John to see this more clearly instead of zeroing in on one singled out verse.
    I john is speaking to Christians and disciplining them in their already walk with God. There were probably people that John was addressing that said they love God but showed no love to their fellow man. John is pointing out their contradiction. He basically said you guy’s walk talks louder than your talk talks. John was admonishing Christians to live out their faith as they have been instructed to.
    It was Jesus’ own words in Matthew 5:23 that anyone who is angry with his brother should leave his gift on the altar and get it right with his brother before trying to make an offering to God. In other words, when you living in hatred, what good does a religious offering to God do? God says it does nothing. David in writing the Psalms knew this and wrote about it in Psalm 51 after he sinned with Bathsheba (which was wrong and God gave David consequences for it) Psalm 51:16: “For you do not desire sacrifice; or else I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.”

    Jesus had to correct the rampant Judaism of that day that had taken truly valuable religion that loves people and cares for others and turned it into lip service and making yourself look better than others. If you only knew how the Pharisees were in that day, religious leaders. Read Matthew 23, Jesus had choice words for them.

    I hope this helps puts some meat on my interpretation and why I do not think it is just an assumed interpretation, or a convenient interpretation, but one that is justified considering the context and point of the passages.

    James

  215. MichaelFree
    Posted November 23, 2015 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    James,

    In essence, when comparing the two verses and reading them plainly, they contradict each other. This is a fact, even when you say that “hate” is just another word for “less of a commitment toward” someone.

    One must interpret what Jesus said about hating people and make it righteous instead of unrighteous (remember his deeds showed that he was a good person in the Gospels, and that he was not unrighteous).

    Your interpretation contradicts what Jesus said when he said “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “love one another”. This is what you said: “So if we were wondering if this language of hating your father and mother sounds like a brash hard statement, we could see if it is Greek idiom for being “committed” or just a bunch of theologians trying to put a fake interpretation in the text to “save” the Bible from apparent contradiction”. And you said this was a parallel passage: ““He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me.”

    Without commitment to human beings you will have no commitment to God. You will never fulfill the commandment to truly love God until you fulfill the commandment to truly love one another (other human beings). Therefore you have to interpret this passage to be in agreement with the realization that commitment to human beings is where God is found: “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of me.” A righteous interpretation of it is: “He who loves father or mother more than not sinning, more than following the truth, is not worthy of me. And he who loves son of daughter more than not sinning, more than following the truth, is not worthy of me”. What does this mean? It means don’t hide or cover-up or participate in sinning with loved ones, but rather love righteousness more than unrighteousness, and be willing to call out all people who are acting unrighteously, including your loved ones. Can you imagine a loved one telling you that they love Jesus more than you, and how that must feel, and that what is actually being said by that person towards you is hurtful towards you? Imagine your wife telling you that she loves Jesus more than you. Is Jesus a good person or an asshole? Interpret him as a good person and not as an asshole. Can’t you relate anything about the Bible to reality and come up with a righteous interpretation? Now imagine a loved one telling you that you will not get away with unrighteousness in their presence, but rather you will be called out on all your sins and your sins will be called sins, and that you do this because you love them and because you hate sin. Your love for them is the same love that you have for Jesus, as love is love, and it shall not be divided nor mixed with unrighteousness. And suddenly someone telling you that they love you but hate unrighteousness is not hateful towards you but rather a loving act and deserving of praise.
    _____

    There are many legitimate interpretations of the Gospels but I haven’t heard very many righteous ones.

  216. MichaelFree
    Posted November 23, 2015 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    James,

    Therefore when he says that no one can be his disciple unless they hate their brother, one is wise to interpret this not as an evil saying, but rather a good saying: I interpret it as hating sin, hating lies, hating thefts, hating physical assaults, and hating showing no fairness or mercy in justice; and when one does this they will see sin all around them amongst the goodness, and they will also most likely see sin in their loved ones deeds (hate your loved ones) and even in our own inclinations in regard to our own deeds (hate oneself); but the true disciple overcomes and can smile at their own bad thoughts (inclinations) because they don’t act on them. Hate the sin and not the sinner.

    Take care.

  217. Posted November 23, 2015 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    If you refuse to admit your error about the fine tuning of gravity, why would anyone bother to discuss your other claims?

    I would be willing to discuss other claims of fine tuning after you answer my points concerning gravity and the number 10^60. You need to show that you understand why it was utterly absurd for you to appeal to conclusions based on Big Bang cosmology very near the singularity. Also, you need to explain how the number was calculated and why anyone should think it is valid.

    You want me to admit that i appealed to big bang cosmology to support a theistic belief. Okay, i admit that the 10^60 calculation would probably not have been found if it were not for the calculations of big bang scientists.

    No, I did not ask you to merely admit that you “appealed to big bang cosmology to support a theistic belief.” I asked you to admit your error and show you understand why it was an error. You did not do that. And worse, when you say it “would not have been found” you make it sound like you think the fine tuning of the Big Bang would exist even if there were no Big Bang, which is obviously absurd. You need to admit your error. Your appeal to the fine tuning of the Big Bang was utterly absurd given your adamant rejection of the Big Bang.

    And of course you have never presented any reason to think the number 10^60 was correct anyway. You haven’t even explained what it means or how it was derived. You are cherry picking bits and pieces from Big Bang cosmology that you think support your case even as you reject Big Bang cosmology in general. That’s just nuts.

    Okay, now what? The fact that main stream scientists recognize the fine tuning and still believe in some naturalistic premise of an origin is still on the table to duscuss. Admiting what i admitted while satisfying your desire to get me to say something, it has done nothing for your naturalistic position.

    Most of the fine tuning recognized by mainstream scientists is a consequence of Big Bang cosmology which your reject. It would not exist if your young earth creationism were true. It is, therefore, quite absurd for you to appeal to it.

    It is also absurd for you to suggest that I was just trying to “satisfy my desire” to get you to “say something.” My only purpose was to get you to admit a very basic truth that is central to our discussion. If you can’t do that, then conversation with you would be a waste of time, except as a demonstration of how religious fundamentalism tends to corrupt the minds of believers.

    And fine tuning is irrelevant anyway because we don’t have sufficient knowledge to come to any certain conclusion. Its all just speculation at this point. It does not threaten a naturalistic understanding of the universe because if there is a mind ordering reality, there is no reason that mind could not be natural. Merely asserting fine tuning (when you yourself do not even understand it) is no kind of threat at all.

  218. James
    Posted November 24, 2015 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Michael,

    ——-“Can you imagine a loved one telling you that they love Jesus more than you, and how that must feel, and that what is actually being said by that person towards you is hurtful towards you? Imagine your wife telling you that she loves Jesus more than you. Is Jesus a good person or an asshole?”—–

    Yes, I can imagine because I know and my wife knows what Christ has done for us. Christ is more worthy of my wife’s love than I am. Christ is never selfish. I can be selfish at times. Christ died for my wife and I. TO this day, I have not died for my wife. Christ has the power and authority to forgive sins. I do not have such authority or ability to forgive my wife’s sins to the extent that she can escape the coming future judgment. I can forgive her sins to me personally to restore the relationship between her and I, but that is all it accomplishes. So yes, I can imagine my wife telling me that she loves Jesus more than me. It is not offensive to me. It is comforting to me. I am temporary, at least my stay on this earth is. What if I was all the world to my wife and she believed that she couldn’t live out me. Sounds like a sappy chick flick or disney movie. What if something happens to me, and my wife adopted the philosophy of attaching the value of her life to me? She would be devastated. You see attaching an unhealthy and out of balance value on anything temporal leads to devastation. Don’t get me wrong. If either one of us were to die, the other would be sad and grieve, but we would not have sorrow like others who sorrow without hope. Our hope is not built on anything this world has to offer. My hope is built on what Christ has done for me which nothing in this world can take away. I could lose my house, my son, my wife, or anything else of great value, and it would be challenging, sad, a worst day ever scenario. But none of that changes what I have in Christ, eternal hope and glory.

    But I can see how someone who is not a believer follower of Christ take offense to the notion that a loved one could possibly love Jesus more than a spouse or child etc. My father in law is not a Christian and he would take offense to the idea that I should put Jesus first over my wife or put my commitments to Jesus first over my wife. To a lot of good moral people, family comes first. I get that. Jesus never said to abandon your family or neglect your relationships or responsibilities.

    Another way to see it is this: the more I am committed to Christ, the more the rest of my life falls into place. If I am committed to Christ and follow the truth in His word, the better father, husband, worker I will be. If someone says that they are committed to Christ but do not even care about their family, that person needs to re-evaluate what it means to follow Christ. They are not doing it right.

    James

  219. James
    Posted November 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    —No, I did not ask you to merely admit that you “appealed to big bang cosmology to support a theistic belief.” I asked you to admit your error and show you understand why it was an error. You did not do that. And worse, when you say it “would not have been found” you make it sound like you think the fine tuning of the Big Bang would exist even if there were no Big Bang, which is obviously absurd. You need to admit your error. Your appeal to the fine tuning of the Big Bang was utterly absurd given your adamant rejection of the Big Bang.—–

    You are making an assumption because you assume that people who make calculations under the premise of a big bang cosmology, that the calculations only work with a big bang premise. So I only see the need to say that the number 10^60 would not have stated if not for the calculations that are based on the rate the universe must have had to expand from the singularity.

    But the universe is still expanding today, Gravity is still at work today. Noticing that these forces work together, are fine tuned, and are not collapsing our universe is still noticeable without accepting the big bang premise.

    —And worse, when you say it “would not have been found” you make it sound like you think the fine tuning of the Big Bang would exist even if there were no Big Bang—-

    I would actually rather say that the universe would not likely be fine tuned if the universe came about from a big bang. See there you made the bait and switch. The fine tuning of the big bang is not a real thing. The fine tuning of the universe is the real thing. The fact that scientists under the flagship of the big bang premise discovered that the universe is fine tuned is not a point for big bang naturalistic cosmology and no one else can touch on it. It more means that big bang cosmologists accept a naturalistic premise that does not fit the discovered evidence.

    —And fine tuning is irrelevant anyway because we don’t have sufficient knowledge to come to any certain conclusion. Its all just speculation at this point. It does not threaten a naturalistic understanding of the universe because if there is a mind ordering reality, there is no reason that mind could not be natural. Merely asserting fine tuning (when you yourself do not even understand it) is no kind of threat at all.—

    Face it, you have no real retort. You shrug off that such speculation is irrelevant. It is only being labeled “irrelevant” to you because anyone speculating the possibility of a fine tuner with the evidence of a fine tuned universe is bad for you. Anyone with two brain cells left and come to a conclusion that a universe that appears to be fine tuned was most likely fine tuned and did not get that way through unguided, natural, chances. IF you truly follow where the evidence leads you, it leads you to a fine tuner.

    —Most of the fine tuning recognized by mainstream scientists is a consequence of Big Bang cosmology which your reject. It would not exist if your young earth creationism were true. It is, therefore, quite absurd for you to appeal to it.—–

    This is a similar mistake in logic as before. It is not a direct consequence of the premise of the big bang. Cosmology and scientific discoveries of the universe (not the big bang) being fine tuned are not dependent on the big bang premise. It is only when you extrapolate backwards that you get into real big bang cosmology. Everything we are studying today and can observe today reveals evidence of order and design, not just that it came about through natural chance. The fact that scientists made the discovery that the universe (not the big bang) is fine tuned is no point for the big bang naturalistic premise. IT is a point against it. And you are too ignorant to see it.

    Any scientist can make calculations today and notice signs of fine tuning and design with no reference to the big bang premise. The big bang cosmology does not own the discovery of fine tuning. The fact that they were the ones to notice the fine tuning is the sad ironic part of it all. That should have been the end of the naturalistic premise, but no, we can keep the naturalistic premise alive with the multiverse and string theory. After all, speculation is irrelevant and pointed out to be worthless, unless it naturalistic. THIS IS MY POINT. it is a double standard and it has led to false science to save what should be a dying naturalistic premise.

    James

  220. James
    Posted November 24, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    ** note to insert above, the fine tuning of the big bang is an oxymoron.

  221. Posted November 24, 2015 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    You are making an assumption because you assume that people who make calculations under the premise of a big bang cosmology, that the calculations only work with a big bang premise. So I only see the need to say that the number 10^60 would not have stated if not for the calculations that are based on the rate the universe must have had to expand from the singularity.

    Once again your comment confirms your gross and inexcusable ignorance. The calculation of the number 10^60 depends fundamentally on Big Bang cosmology. The number is derived by extrapolating back 13.75 billion years to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang singularity! It has no meaning outside of Big Bang cosmology that assumes the universe began as a tiny hot point. I’ve explained this to you three times and you have never responded with any understanding at all. Here again are the explanations I gave you. On November 17 I wrote this:

    Where do you think those numbers came from? Did you check? Of course not. You don’t give a damn about truth. All you care about is trolling the internet for any half-baked claim you think will support your religious delusions. The numbers originally came from Paul Davies and have been popularized through the work of Robin Collins. They are based fundamentally Big Bang cosmology, as you see in this quote from Dr. Collins (found in many publications such as here, here, here, and here for a few examples from the first page of Google):

    If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies, 1982, pp. 90-91.]

    See that? The numbers you quoted refer to the initial explosion of the Big Bang which you reject. Your claim about fine tuning would have no meaning if the Big Bang were not true.

    And how did you respond? With rank gibberish that had nothing to do with the evidence I presented. So I presented the evidence again on November 18:

    Your comment demonstrates, yet again, that you don’t have half a clue of what you are babbling about. The numbers you posted came from the calculations of Paul Davies which were based fundamentally on Big Bang cosmology. Specifically, the number 10^60 came from his application of the field equations to the first 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. You don’t even know what the numbers you copied and pasted mean! And yet you believe you have “proof” or your ludicrous religious delusions? And so we see the damage done by your religion. And that’s why I’m so glad you keep posting. You are helping free people from the horrible bondage of Christianity (and other dogmatic religions like Islam) by showing how it corrupts the minds and morals of believers.

    And again, you showed no understanding of the evidence (you didn’t even bother to address it) and merely denied that you were appealing to Big Bang cosmology. So I presented the evidence a third time on November 19:

    And again you demonstrate your abject ignorance of the science you are trying hijack. The claim about gravity and the expansion rate being fine tuned to one part in 10^60 is based on the value of a formula at time t = 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The calculation was really quite absurd first because it is based on extremely unlikely assumptions to simplify the calculations, and second because number is nothing but the inverse of the time since the Big Bang singularity. Davies simply cut off the calculation at the Planck time because that’s where the physics breaks down. It is an utterly meaningless number based on many assumptions that you absolutely reject as meaningless. Your appeal to his calculation as evidence is utterly absurd.

    And again you totally ignored the evidence and tried to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) by switching the topic to other kinds of fine tuning, so I exposed and explained your error yet again:

    We are not talking about fine tuning in general. I only challenged you on one point, namely your claim about the gravity and the number 10^60. You have shown no understanding of your error on that point. That calculation is based fundamentally upon Big Bang cosmology. It was bad enough that you made this error in the first place. The fact that you persist in it even after it has been exposed and explained suggests that you don’t give a shit about truth. Nothing could be more ironic, or pathetic, given that your religion is based on the idea that Jesus Christ is the truth.

    You then spewed out a blatant lie, asserting that I had “the audacity to say that there is not evidence for fine tuning” when in fact I never said any such thing. So I exposed and explained that error and then presented, for the FOURTH TIME the evidence you been desperately seeking to deny, suppress, ignore, dodge:

    The error I have exposed is fatal to your claim concerning gravity and the number 10^60. Your words are utterly inconsistent and self-contradictory. You appeal to assertions that are based on the same science as the Big Bang (the numbers work only when you use time t = 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang singularity). And worse, the calculation is based on exactly the same assumptions that you have adamantly been rejecting over and over and over again for months on this blog.

    You then falsely accused me of doing the very thing you have been doing throughout this thread, saying “You are stuck and can’t argue so you attack. Go ahead, Im laughing at your attempt to change the focus of the conversation.” So I exposed, yet again, the pathetic and perverse lies that flow so freely from your corrupt creationist heart:

    Ha! You really thought such a fat lie could fly? You are the one who is trying to dodge my point by bringing up other forms of fine tuning that I haven’t said a word about. And why are you trying so desperately to change the subject? Because you know you cannot defend your claim about the number 10^60. I’ve proven your wrong and you refuse to admit it.

    And now that you’ve proven your absolute refusal to admit any truth no matter how clearly demonstrated, only a fool would follow you down your diversionary rabbit trail into all the other claims about fine tuning.

    I have proven you wrong. You cannot answer. So you dig a deep deep rabbit hole to bury the truth.

    Nothing could be more transparent, or pathetic. Especially since now you are falsely accusing me of doing the very things you do!

    The one thing of value in this conversation is that you have demonstrated over and over and over again how fundamentalist religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. You know you cannot answer so you twist like a serpent to dodge and pervert truth to justify yourself and exalt yourself in your satanic pride. Nothing could be more absurd, given your rank ignorance of the most basic elements of the science you reject.

  222. Posted November 24, 2015 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    I would actually rather say that the universe would not likely be fine tuned if the universe came about from a big bang. See there you made the bait and switch. The fine tuning of the big bang is not a real thing. The fine tuning of the universe is the real thing. The fact that scientists under the flagship of the big bang premise discovered that the universe is fine tuned is not a point for big bang naturalistic cosmology and no one else can touch on it. It more means that big bang cosmologists accept a naturalistic premise that does not fit the discovered evidence.

    And this reveals, yet again, your gross and inexcusable ignorance. The calculation you presented involving the number 10^60 was based fundamentally on Big Bang cosmology. According to your previous comments, it was nothing but a meaningless “mathematical concept” which you have adamantly rejected over and over and over again. But now that you think you can hijack this bit of science to support your ridiculous, absurd, and perverse religious delusion, you declare it is some kind of “fact” independent of Big Bang cosmology? Your ignorance is truly disgusting and is exceeded only by your Satanic arrogance. It is utterly pathetic sick vomit. It reveals how fundamentalist religion completely corrupts the minds and perverts the morals of believers.

  223. Posted November 24, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    This is a similar mistake in logic as before. It is not a direct consequence of the premise of the big bang. Cosmology and scientific discoveries of the universe (not the big bang) being fine tuned are not dependent on the big bang premise. It is only when you extrapolate backwards that you get into real big bang cosmology.

    And this reveals, for the millionth time, that you have no clue what you are babbling about. The calculation of the number 10^60 was based explicitly upon the evaluation of the field equations at time t = 10^-43 seconds after the freaking Big freaking Bang freaking singularity. That’s “extrapolating back” to as close to the singularity as anyone could get. Your words are total bullshit.

  224. MichaelFree
    Posted November 25, 2015 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    James,

    Most Christians are good people James. Most of you are good neighbors in the world. I mean this from my heart.

    If Jesus the person suddenly appeared before you supernaturally as you were playing with your son and smiling with him and having a good time and asked you to put a knife to the throat of your son and to kill him, would you?

    I bet your answer is no. And I would love you for it, and so would Richard, and so would your wife, and so would every good person who has ever lived. The Spirit of God would love you for it as the Spirit of murder is not the Spirit of God. I love you James, and your son. If your son was walking down my street and I saw him you better believe that I would be there for him if he was in need, to the best of my ability. There is nothing more profound in this world than to understand this commandment from righteous Jesus, and to follow it always: “help other people who are in need when you can”. When people help other people who are in need they are truly doing deeds done in God.

    If Jesus suddenly appeared before you supernaturally, and asked you to put a knife to the throat of Jews, Muslims, other non-Christians, atheists, and homosexuals, and to kill us, would you?

    I know your answer is yes James. You bow to something that hates us without a cause, as most of us are good people James. Most of us would love you for not killing your son and sacrificing him to a demon, so why not do the same for us? You will never know the one true God until you see with your eyes and hear with your ears and know what it is means to “love thy neighbor (all human beings) as thyself”. Christianity instructs me to do otherwise than to “love thy neighbor as thyself”, don’t you understand this James? You want to make a good person (me) who respects all groups of people into a person who divides the groups of people into one accepted group (your religion) and it is total bullshit. That book cannot say “love thy neighbor as thyself” and then have religions come out of it that don’t follow that commandment. It makes “love thy neighbor as thyself” into hypocritical words spoken by liars.

    The Christians say “join us as we love our neighbors as ourselves”, and the one who understands says “shut up liar”.

    The one who understands does this and knows what it means:

    “That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes”.

  225. MichaelFree
    Posted November 25, 2015 at 3:39 am | Permalink

    James,

    Righteous Jesus in the Gospels was a law-giver and loving Jesus the person is not enough. He said this. He said: Matthew 7: 21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth (law-giver) the will of my Father (which is in the Gospels) which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work (deeds) iniquity”.

    Righteous Jesus said there was a way to do our words and a way to do our deeds, which is the true way.

    Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

  226. MichaelFree
    Posted November 25, 2015 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    James,

    Your son’s crying voice and him telling you to not kill him is the voice of God. The voice of the deity that appeared before you is the voice of evil.

    Take care.

    God is a Spirit.

  227. MichaelFree
    Posted November 26, 2015 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    James,

    If Jesus and God came to Earth and told their followers to lie, to steal, and to murder in the world, would Jesus and God be holy? The answer is no, they would not be holy. By their deeds they would not be holy. Just because Jesus is Jesus and God is God does not make them holy, it is their deeds that makes them holy.

    Not lying, not stealing, and not murdering is holy, and don’t let anyone or anything tell you otherwise. Torture is murder as it is the process of murder, the painful part, and yet you believe that a righteous God murders unbelievers for eternity, and that a righteous God does violence and calls it justice. Why not stand up instead and be ashamed of torture, and be ashamed of lies, thefts, and murders? When I see a Christian carrying a bag why is it that my teacher Jesus’ so-called follower carries in their bag the Spirit of murder and not the Spirit of life, the Spirit of hypocrisy and not the Spirit of truth?

    I believe that deity is coming to show itself in the world, and that it is probably coming to correct the lies told about it and its nature, that it is coming for its redemption, and in the process, the redemption of all of us.

  228. James
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    I hope everyone had a nice thanksgiving. I took a break. I just logged in to see the new replies. I will have to reply later.

    James

  229. James
    Posted December 3, 2015 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Richard,

    I am not sure if you understand how absurd your argument and accusation really is. If I am trying to point out an inconsistency within the big bang cosmology, what cosmology should I appeal to in order to challenge it?

    Your accusation {that the only evidence that I am appealing to is absurd because I am appealing to a big bang cosmology to make the appeal} is a waste of time, moot accusation. There are other evidences besides the 10^60 number to point out the fine tuning of the universe. I am not sure why you spent about 90% of your relies on talking about the 10^60 number anyway. I had already admitted that the number would not have been calculated if it were not for big bang cosmologists. But they found and still want to claim our origin is naturalistic and fine tuned is the issue.

    That’s what I find so ironic. Naturalistic Big bang cosmology in my view has refuted itself. How can a naturalistic big bang have evidence of fine tuning? I would think studying big bang cosmology would give evidence for a naturalistic universe since the premise of the big bang is naturalistic. But that is not what they find.

    So did I appeal to big bang cosmology to say that the universe is fine tuned? Yes, Do I accept the big bang premise? No, I do not. And it is for reasons like as I describe above. I do not have enough faith to believe in a naturalistic premise that has evidence of being fine tuned. There is an illogical inconsistency there that you need to admit to. A naturalistic big bang that is fine tuned some how on its own is an oxymoron. It is the elephant in the room. You are a moron for saying that I cannot appeal to big bang cosmology to point out its issues or problems. Can someone appeal to the Bible (something they do not believe) to point out apparent contradictions? Yes, and then they can be discussed. But you think that I have no right to appeal to big bang cosmology because I do not accept the cosmology in the first place. Well, I just gave you one of many reasons why I do not accept it because it is inconsistent.

    So go ahead, keep wasting your time and accuse me of appealing to a cosmology that I do not accept to support that the universe is fine tuned. It is moot because others factors besides the 10^60 number show that the universe is fine tuned. The sad part for you is that I am able to do this. If there was evidence of a naturalistic universe, one should find it within big bang cosmology. But I and others can find evidence for fine tuning within big bang cosmology when according to you guys, it should not be there. Isn’t it ironic that when trying to come up with a premise that is naturalistic and one that does not need a god or fine tuner, they still find need for a fine tuning.

    Isn’t science about challenging itself and its own premises and conclusions? Well, I just challenged the big bang naturalistic premise. It does not fit the evidence of happening on its own by chance. If anything, appealing to big bang cosmology to point out fine tuning does not help a biblical time scale or faith in the biblical God, I know that. I am not an idiot or jumping to unrational, unjustified conclusions. At this point in the conversation, I am more trying to point out the inconsistencies and double standard nature of the big bang cosmology. But because the evidence for fine tuning cannot be avoided even within big bang cosmology at least should have you open to theistic or deistic big bang cosmology. After all, if naturalistic speculation is encouraged on things like the multiverse and string theory, I guess we should expect to see speculation on deistic big bang cosmology.

    I for one would like to see the whole big bang cosmology challenged, and people dedicated to find a theory that does not have so many inconsistencies. Instead, we have scientists ignoring or minimizing the inconsistencies and mending the big bang premise and adding non scientific patches just to keep it alive. It is a fool’s dead end.

    James

  230. James
    Posted December 3, 2015 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Michael,

    —If Jesus the person suddenly appeared before you supernaturally as you were playing with your son and smiling with him and having a good time and asked you to put a knife to the throat of your son and to kill him, would you?—-

    You are speaking in a ill rational non-logical hypothetical. According to the teaching of God’s Word, why would God command me to kill my son? God did give a command to Abram to kill his son Isaac,but God did not have follow through. You are merely giving a hypothetical situation where either outcome creates a problem of injustice, one being murder or disobedience. Please give commands that God would give based on New Testament teaching which is what we are under now.

    There is more to look over on your comments Michael, but no time right now. Take care

    James

  231. Posted December 5, 2015 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure if you understand how absurd your argument and accusation really is. If I am trying to point out an inconsistency within the big bang cosmology, what cosmology should I appeal to in order to challenge it?

    James,

    Your assertion is as absurd as it is dishonest. You know you did not cite the 10^60 number in an effort to show any inconsistency in Big Bang cosmology. You didn’t even know it was a consequence of Big Bang cosmology when you cited it! And worse, you continued to DENY it was based on Big Bang cosmology even after I had explained it to you twice. Now you want to pretend you were citing it to show an inconsistency in a theory you said it wasn’t based on? Wow.

    Your assertion that there would be an inconsistency is also absurd because the Big Bang is not necessarily natural. Many Christians believe that God created the universe by creating the Big Bang. The only reason you reject it is because it contradicts your belief in a young earth.

    Your accusation {that the only evidence that I am appealing to is absurd because I am appealing to a big bang cosmology to make the appeal} is a waste of time, moot accusation. There are other evidences besides the 10^60 number to point out the fine tuning of the universe. I am not sure why you spent about 90% of your relies on talking about the 10^60 number anyway. I had already admitted that the number would not have been calculated if it were not for big bang cosmologists. But they found and still want to claim our origin is naturalistic and fine tuned is the issue.

    Again, your words are not true. I never said that was the only evidence you are appealing to. Why do you keep uttering blatant falsehoods?

    And it doesn’t matter if there are other claims about fine tuning. Those claims do not mean it is “moot” to expose the errors in your claim about the number 10^60. On the contrary, if you can’t admit your blatant errors on that point, why should anyone bother discussing anything with you? You have proven quite conclusively that you despise truth.

    And worse, you are repeating the false assertion that Big Bang cosmologists merely “found” this example of fine tuning, as if it would still exist even if the Big Bang were not true. I corrected this error in my last post, and as usual, you have shown no understanding.

    That’s what I find so ironic. Naturalistic Big bang cosmology in my view has refuted itself. How can a naturalistic big bang have evidence of fine tuning? I would think studying big bang cosmology would give evidence for a naturalistic universe since the premise of the big bang is naturalistic. But that is not what they find.

    Who said the Big Bang was “naturalistic”? Every scientist admits that NO ONE KNOWS what caused the Big Bang. Many Christians believe that the God caused the Big Bang. Indeed, Hugh Ross calls it the “big bang creation model” and says it was “predicted by the Bible.” I explained this to you about six weeks ago (link) and you have yet to show any understanding.

    So did I appeal to big bang cosmology to say that the universe is fine tuned? Yes, Do I accept the big bang premise? No, I do not.

    It is good that you finally admit the truth of what I have been repeating for over a month. But I am mystified how you could assert such a blatant absurdity as if it were true. It is utterly illogical to say that you believe in results that are based fundamentally on a premise you reject. Let me spell it out for you:

    1) If the Big Bang is true, then the expansion rate was fine tuned to 1 part in 10^60;
    2) The Big Bang is not true.
    3) Therefore … ???

    If you reject the Big Bang, then you cannot appeal to any consequences that depend upon it. This is the most elementary logic.

    I do not have enough faith to believe in a naturalistic premise that has evidence of being fine tuned. There is an illogical inconsistency there that you need to admit to. A naturalistic big bang that is fine tuned some how on its own is an oxymoron. It is the elephant in the room.

    Again, no one knows if the big bang happened naturally or was created by a god or whatever. Many Christians believe god created the big bang. So there is no “illogical inconsistency.”

    And no one knows if there is or is not a naturalistic explanation for the apparent fine tuning. Case in point: There is a lot of independent evidence for inflation, and inflation gives a naturalistic explanation for flatness and homogeneity which were thought to be fine tuned.

    So again we see that you have only one standard: you accept science if it says what you want it to say, and you reject it otherwise. That is the intellectually corrupt fruit of your religion.

    You are a moron for saying that I cannot appeal to big bang cosmology to point out its issues or problems. Can someone appeal to the Bible (something they do not believe) to point out apparent contradictions? Yes, and then they can be discussed. But you think that I have no right to appeal to big bang cosmology because I do not accept the cosmology in the first place. Well, I just gave you one of many reasons why I do not accept it because it is inconsistent.

    I have never said you can’t appeal to big bang cosmology to show inconsistencies in it. I have said you cannot appeal to arguments that depend on the truth of the big bang if you reject the truth of the big bang. This is the most elementary logic imaginable. And you don’t understand it. Wow.

    Your analogy with the Bible is flawed. Anyone can quote what the Bible says and show inconsistencies. That’s not what you have been doing with cosmology. You have refused to answer the most basic questions about your claims. Case in point: I asked you to explain how the number 10^60 was derived and you refused. All you write are incoherent word salads seasoned with ignorant gibberish. You refuse absolutely to even answer my questions about your claims because you know you don’t have a clue what you are babbling about.

    If there was evidence of a naturalistic universe, one should find it within big bang cosmology. But I and others can find evidence for fine tuning within big bang cosmology when according to you guys, it should not be there. Isn’t it ironic that when trying to come up with a premise that is naturalistic and one that does not need a god or fine tuner, they still find need for a fine tuning.

    The evidence for a naturalistic universe is overwhelming. There are no observable repeatable phenomena that require an supernatural agent to explain. The only place left for your God is in the dark recesses of human ignorance concerning unknowable things about “origins” that cannot be tested by direct observation.

    I explained this to you months ago and you didn’t understand what I said and mistook it as an assertion that there is no evidence for “fine tuning.”

    Isn’t science about challenging itself and its own premises and conclusions? Well, I just challenged the big bang naturalistic premise.

    You haven’t challenged any premise of the Big Bang. As I’ve explained many times, naturalism is not a premise of the Big Bang. No one knows if a God did it or not.

    It does not fit the evidence of happening on its own by chance.

    You have not demonstrated that. On the contrary, the only thing you have demonstrated is that you don’t have a clue what the science actually says. I have asked you to explain how the number 10^60 was calculated and why anyone should think it is good evidence, and you have refused.

    At this point in the conversation, I am more trying to point out the inconsistencies and double standard nature of the big bang cosmology. But because the evidence for fine tuning cannot be avoided even within big bang cosmology at least should have you open to theistic or deistic big bang cosmology.

    You have not pointed out any inconsistencies or double standards. Your assertion that the Big Bang happened by purely naturalistic processes may be believed by many scientists, but is irrelevant because it doesn’t affect any of the predictions of the theory so people are free to believe God did it without fear of contradiction.

    I for one would like to see the whole big bang cosmology challenged, and people dedicated to find a theory that does not have so many inconsistencies. Instead, we have scientists ignoring or minimizing the inconsistencies and mending the big bang premise and adding non scientific patches just to keep it alive. It is a fool’s dead end.

    Your assertions are ludicrous. You have no clue how scientists work. They are not interested in “ignoring or minimizing the inconsistencies.” On the contrary, all the greatest scientific revolutions have come by carefully looking for inconsistencies that show a theory is incorrect. For example, Newtonian Mechanics ruled uncontested for 300 years. It seemed impossible that it could be wrong because it had been confirmed in so many ways for so many years by so many scientists. But then Einstein noted that there was an inconsistency with Maxwell’s Theory of Electromagnetism and the resolution of that inconsistency gave birth to Special Relativity. Likewise, Quantum Mechanics was born by an inconsistency between Maxwell’s Equations and classical Thermodynamics.

    Your caricature of scientists as religious ideologues is profoundly ironic, since that is the rhetoric used by radically irrational and ignorant religious ideologues known as young earth creationists. They have created a caricature of scientists that looks exactly like their own selves.

  232. James
    Posted December 18, 2015 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    So you think it is perfectly logical to accept a naturalistic fine tuned big bang is plausible? What is plausible may not be more likely. You accuse me of accepting or denying science unless it agrees with what I believe, but you do exactly the same Richard. Any naturalistic explanation is automatically assumed to be plausible by you no matter what.

    I cannot argue with stupidity. It is wrong to say there is no evidence of a fine tuner when your own evidence behind your own theory says that it is fine tuned to the 10^60. I supposed that just happened. In order to accept a naturalistic big bang, that is what you must accept. It just happened that way, fine tuned in all.

    You keep bringing up religious people who accept God created the universe with the big bang. Why? IS that you accept? no, then why bring it up at all. Is that what I accept? No, it calls for speculation.

    My WHOLE POINT HAS BEEN this. I call what I believe faith. You call what you accept science. But your science needs faith and chance to be even plausible.

    Have a good Christmas Richard, and may God bless your soul,

    James

  233. Posted December 18, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    So you think it is perfectly logical to accept a naturalistic fine tuned big bang is plausible?

    I never said anything like that. We have not had a chance to discuss any legitimate examples of fine tuning because you refuse to admit your errors about the number 10^60.

    Some examples of supposed fine tuning can be explained by naturalistic processes. Others are not correct at all. Some remain to be explained and may remain unexplained. But given that cosmology is a very young science, it is utterly absurd to try to leap to grand claims merely because they support what you want to believe. This is particularly absurd in your case because you adamantly reject most of the conclusions of the science that you cherry pick for your fine tuning! It is truly insane for you to reject modern cosmology except when you can hijack bits and pieces to support your beliefs that contradict everything else about it.

    You accuse me of accepting or denying science unless it agrees with what I believe, but you do exactly the same Richard. Any naturalistic explanation is automatically assumed to be plausible by you no matter what.

    Your comment is incoherent. It makes no sense to compare cherry picking with the assumption of methodological naturalism.

    And it is absurd for you to say I “do the same thing.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not cherry pick and I do not “automatically assume” any naturalistic explanation is plausibe no matter what. Your words are false.

    I cannot argue with stupidity. It is wrong to say there is no evidence of a fine tuner when your own evidence behind your own theory says that it is fine tuned to the 10^60. I supposed that just happened. In order to accept a naturalistic big bang, that is what you must accept. It just happened that way, fine tuned in all.

    Why do you keep repeating the same lies? I have never said there was no evidence for a fine tuner.

    And why do you keep repeating the same errors? You cannot appeal to the results of cosmology only when they suit your argument! Its utterly absurd to appeal to a scientific conclusion when you reject the foundation upon which it rests. And worse, the number 10^60 is not valid anyway. The calculation was flawed. I talked to Dr. Robbin Collins and he confirmed this and said he doesn’t use that number any more.

    You say there’s no arguing with stupid? Tell me something I didn’t know!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>