• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are basically defining self-directed as having any influence which we currently understand.
Click to expand...
no
I defined it exactly as I said it is.
Any process that does not require external intelligently derived intervention for that process to occur.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
no
I defined it exactly as I said it is.
Any process that does not require external intelligently derived intervention for that process to occur.
Click to expand...

You used gravity as an example. You are now stating that gravity is not an external source of influence?


I am trying to understand what you are saying.

Any force that acts upon a creature is self-directing in regards to that creature unless that force is intelligent?

Is man's cloning of sheep self-directed or ... what?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You used gravity as an example. You are now stating that gravity is not an external source of influence?
Click to expand...
it's non-intelligent.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Any force that acts upon a creature is self-directing in regards to that creature unless that force is intelligent?

Is man's cloning of sheep self-directed or ... what?
Click to expand...
I've answered, no it's not self-directed. Now what does cloning represent to you?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please evidence that there was a beginning. Please understand that if there is no evidence for a beginning then your premise that there was a beginning is unevidenced.

This is pure logic.
Click to expand...
I presented the evidence, but you won't argue against it because the initial premise that there is a beginning is, allegedly, false.

The fact that there is no such initial premise in the argument seems to have eluded you. That there was a beginning is the conclusion, not the premise.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Please evidence that there was a beginning. Please understand that if there is no evidence for a beginning then your premise that there was a beginning is unevidenced.
Click to expand...
Okay, for a minute, ignore cosmic background radiation. Ignore cosmic expansion and red-shifted galaxies. Ignore that all this evidence fits the theory.


...wait. Why are you ignoring all this evidence?
 
Upchurch said:
Okay, for a minute, ignore cosmic background radiation. Ignore cosmic expansion and red-shifted galaxies. Ignore that all this evidence fits the theory.


...wait. Why are you ignoring all this evidence?
Click to expand...
It's a truly genius piece of logic - there's no need to argue against any evidence that there was a beginning because it's based on the initial premise that there was a beginning, which is faulty. And if you ask why the premise is faulty, it's because it has no evidence! :bwall
 
wollery said:
It's a truly genius piece of logic - there's no need to argue against any evidence that there was a beginning because it's based on the initial premise that there was a beginning, which is faulty.
Click to expand...
The flaw, of course, is that evidence isn't based on a premise.

Jerome: if you want to claim that the evidence for the beginning of spacetime is not evidence, you actually must address it. When I brought up background radiation, you asked if it could not have any other source. It's a valid question, but there is currently no other plausible explanation for it. Do you have one?

And then there are the other things like cosmic expansion. If we assume there wasn't a Big Bang, we need yet another reason to explain that. Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
I want to punch myself for typing this, but it's the truth... with all the tangental dosido B.S. that JDG is "contributing" to this thread, I wish DOC was posting more.

I feel so dirty...
 
Upchurch said:
Jerome: if you want to claim that the evidence for the beginning of spacetime is not evidence, you actually must address it. When I brought up background radiation, you asked if it could not have any other source. It's a valid question, but there is currently no other plausible explanation for it. Do you have one?

And then there are the other things like cosmic expansion. If we assume there wasn't a Big Bang, we need yet another reason to explain that. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Radiation from ancient stars. If there was no beginning than stars would be expelling radiation from a multitude of vectors and as this has been happening for eternity we find that said radiation has "smoothed" out and are unable to determine a direct source.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Radiation from ancient stars. If there was no beginning than stars would be expelling radiation from a multitude of vectors and as this has been happening for eternity we find that said radiation has "smoothed" out and are unable to determine a direct source.
Click to expand...
Except that stars and galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout the universe. We would not expect to see a more or less evenly distributed radiation field if it were merely radiation from ancient stars .

Not to mention the fact that, given the constancy of the speed of light, the further we look, the further we look back in time. It isn't like we're seeing a variation of radiation based on distance.

What else do you have, and what about the red-shifted galaxies?
 
Upchurch said:
Except that stars and galaxies are not evenly distributed throughout the universe. We would not expect to see a more or less evenly distributed radiation field if it were merely radiation from ancient stars .

Not to mention the fact that, given the constancy of the speed of light, the further we look, the further we look back in time. It isn't like we're seeing a variation of radiation based on distance.

What else do you have, and what about the red-shifted galaxies?
Click to expand...

Let’s not forget the black body spectrum of the CBR which is not “smooth” and stars are not black bodies.
 
The Man said:
Let’s not forget the black body spectrum of the CBR which is not “smooth” and stars are not black bodies.
Click to expand...
Stars are black bodies, with extra absorption or emission (depending on what type of star) due to atomic and molecular energy transitions. The CMB is a smooth blackbody to within 0.01%.


ETA What was your point?
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
Stars are black bodies, with extra absorption or emission (depending on what type of star) due to atomic and molecular energy transitions. The CMB is a smooth blackbody to within 0.01%.


ETA What was your point?
Click to expand...


Basically what you just said, that the emission and absorption spectra due the composition of the stars would alter the ideal black body spectral curve. If you are applying “smooth” to mean conforming to the ideal blackbody spectrum curve that’s one thing but I would hardly consider that curve itself to be “smooth” (having sharp peak at about 5 waves / centimeter). I probably should have qualified my statement by saying stars are not perfect black bodies.

Then of course there is the other issue of temperature, due to the CBR space is 2.7 degrees Kelvin which has reduced by a factor of 1100 (from 3,000 degrees Kelvin) since the universe became transparent to radiation some 400,000 years after the Big Bang. This reduction is due to the expansion of the universe since that time. If, as Jerome proposes, the CBR is due to emissions from stars that has continued over an “eternity” then the entire universe would at least be at the average temperatures of stars since the emissions have been ongoing for an eternity but the universe is not yet infinitely expanded (no Big Rip yet).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom