Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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.

Your point is impressive, yet would be valid only if there was a beginning. If stars have been living their life-cycles over a time period which has no beginning, in theory no time, than it would be expected that we could not see from whence the radiation came.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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).

Not if there is an equilibrium of sorts in the universe.

 

[jj]

Not if there is an equilibrium of sorts in the universe.

If you argue for this, provide evidence. If you don't have evidence, ...

... And the third billygoat gruff ...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you argue for this, provide evidence. If you don't have evidence, ...

... And the third billygoat gruff ...

I am arguing that the Big Bang is not evidenced. If you are arguing that the Big Bang is evidenced than you will have to evidence a beginning.

See, I am not the one arguing that I know the answer, you seem to be. If I present a reasonable explanation for the evidence outside of your beliefs than it is your responsibility to defend your assertion.

 

[Upchurch]

Your point is impressive, yet would be valid only if there was a beginning.

Not at all. Cosmic expansion and cosmic background radiation are not points to be validated or invalidated. They are observable, testable (and re-testable) pieces of data that science first predicted and then accurately described (and then further predicted, etc.).

The Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise.

If stars have been living their life-cycles over a time period which has no beginning, in theory no time, than it would be expected that we could not see from whence the radiation came.

You misunderstand. Stars don't form, fly, or burn out willy-nilly throughout space. They cluster.

More than that, and as I mentioned before, the speed of light is constant over all inertial reference frames. The further out you look, the further back in time you look. Given the model you are suggesting, we would expect to see the same radiation being emitted constantly throughout the universe. That isn't what we see. What we see is radiation coming from one point in time.

We also see every point in the universe expanding away from every other point in the universe.

The Big Bang theory describes these things very well. If you feel you must try to discredit a scientific theory that has challenged and re-challenged and come through it with all the more backing, you need to be able to find evidence that specifically contradicts it. If you want to replace the Big Bang theory with your own ideas, you need to at least account for all the physical phenomena that the Big Bang accounts for and, preferably, phenomena that the Big Bang does not account for.

So far, you've done neither. Your claim that there is no evidence for the Big Bang is simply not true. (see wollery's description of your circular reasoning, re: evidence only valid if we assume a beginning point in time) Your alternative suggestion does not sync up with the evidence.

 

[Olowkow]

There is indeed no explanation for what happened before the Planck time where the Big Expansion (Bang) is concerned. So what? I give it a couple years, and we will more than likely understand this as well as we understand everything afterwards.

If one is to cling to a world view with a foundation of supernatural beliefs, I would imagine that it would be based on something more robust that the lack of cleverness on the part of a few 21st century astronomers. What happens to the supernatural once it is no longer supernatural? It is science fact.

There is no need at this time to explain "beginnings", since there is so much more to learn in the meantime about the evolution of the universe from very near the beginning. Actually, it is quite a lot more fascinating than arguing that god did it, if one takes the time and trouble to investigate the scientific arguments.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am arguing that the Big Bang is not evidenced. If you are arguing that the Big Bang is evidenced than you will have to evidence a beginning.

You are quite wrong. There's lots of evidence. What there is not is any theory that explains why it happened, or predicts under what circumstances it might happen. We also don't know if it was the beginning of this or any other universe, we just know that there were no observable events before it.


Meanwhile, DOC, covering an entirely different topic, has apparently decided that, "I don't know, that's just what I think," is a perfectly good answer for why he believes the assertions from the OP.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are quite wrong.

You quoted me stating what my argument was. Then you tell me I am wrong about the position I hold? Interesting tactic. Tell you opponent that they don't know what position they are arguing.

There's lots of evidence. What there is not is any theory that explains why it happened, or predicts under what circumstances it might happen. We also don't know if it was the beginning of this or any other universe, we just know that there were no observable events before it.

Stating that there is lots of evidence is not evidence.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

There is indeed no explanation for what happened before the Planck time where the Big Expansion (Bang) is concerned. So what? I give it a couple years, and we will more than likely understand this as well as we understand everything afterwards.

Your argument is that you believe that your beliefs will be evidenced in the future.


Can you not see that this is the same argument of creationists?

 

[Upchurch]

Stating that there is lots of evidence is not evidence.

Nor does stating that evidence is not evidence mean there isn't any evidence.

You have been presented with at least two big pieces of evidence of the Big Bang theory (cosmic background radiation and cosmic expansion) which you have stated is not evidence. You've presented an alternate description of one of them, which does not match the details of phenomena.

Stating that these phenomena are not evidence of the Big Bang is not sufficient.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am arguing that the Big Bang is not evidenced. If you are arguing that the Big Bang is evidenced than you will have to evidence a beginning.

Stating that there is lots of evidence is not evidence.

Can you not see that this is the same argument of creationists?

No wonder I thought you were a creationist.

ETA: And you still haven't addressed the redshift of galaxies.

 

[Upchurch]

Your argument is that you believe that your beliefs will be evidenced in the future.

Jerome, what beliefs are you referring to? Olowkow did not mention any specific belief in what would be found. He's merely extrapolating based on the rate of progress.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not at all. Cosmic expansion and cosmic background radiation are not points to be validated or invalidated. They are observable, testable (and re-testable) pieces of data that science first predicted and then accurately described (and then further predicted, etc.).

The Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise.

Yet if steady state theory had predicted this, steady state would be the accepted theory.


Can you honestly not see that the prediction does not make the theory correct? Are you not seeing that divination is but self selecting as to those perceived as the true diviners? Do you really think that man has progressed beyond magic being used to manipulate the masses? You are aware that the wizards used knowledge to pretend magic. Why do you think this human societal characteristic has disappeared?

 

[Upchurch]

Yet if steady state theory had predicted this, steady state would be the accepted theory.

But it didn't so it isn't. That's the way this works. The theory that is best supported by the evidence is the one that is accepted.

Can you honestly not see that the prediction does not make the theory correct?

Um, what? If a theory correctly predicts a consequence of a phenomena and that consequence is subsequently observed, how does that not support the theory?

Are you not seeing that divination is but self selecting as to those perceived as the true diviners?

Whoa. You're equating a controlled, peer reviewed experiment to woo'ish cold reading? Seriously?

Jerome, you're missing a critical understanding of the scientific method.

 

[Meadmaker]

Stating that there is lots of evidence is not evidence.

This time you are quite correct. I have provided no evidence. However, people much more knowledgable than I have provided it in many widely available books. If I have accepted a false authority, I can live with that.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Um, what? If a theory correctly predicts a consequence of a phenomena and that consequence is subsequently observed, how does that not support the theory?

If a Magi predicts an eclipse does that make the Magi correct about his powers over the heavens?

 

[Upchurch]

If a Magi predicts an eclipse does that make the Magi correct about his powers over the heavens?

If a Magi does it consistently and others can repeat his methodology with the same results, yes.

Jerome, the "predictions" I'm referring to is not divinely inspired knowledge. I'm talking about logical consequences of evidenced based understanding of a situation.

For example, let's say I have a box with two buttons and two lights on it. When I press one button, one of the lights turns on. When I press the other button, the other light turns on. From this and a knowledge of electricity and circuits, I can make a prediction about what is going on inside the box. When I open the box, my hypothesis is either confirmed or it is rejected. If I tell Meadmaker that my hypothesis is true, he can also look into the box to verify my findings. If enough people check my hypothesis and nobody falsifies it, it becomes a theory, perhaps "the Button Box theory".

Let's say that a new box with three buttons and three lights shows up. Based on what know from the Button Box theory, we can make a prediction about what is going on in the three button box. If the prediction is correct, the Button Box theory is maintained. If the prediction is incorrect, the Button Box theory is either changed to fit the new information or rejected entirely.

Don't get confused by my use of the word "prediction". Like "theory", it means something different when used in a scientific context than when it is used in it's more common usage.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If a Magi does it consistently and others can repeat his methodology with the same results, yes.

Jerome, the "predictions" I'm referring to is not divinely inspired knowledge. I'm talking about logical consequences of evidenced based understanding of a situation.

For example, let's say I have a box with two buttons and two lights on it. When I press one button, one of the lights turns on. When I press the other button, the other light turns on. From this and a knowledge of electricity and circuits, I can make a prediction about what is going on inside the box. When I open the box, my hypothesis is either confirmed or it is rejected. If I tell Meadmaker that my hypothesis is true, he can also look into the box to verify my findings. If enough people check my hypothesis and nobody falsifies it, it becomes a theory, perhaps "the Button Box theory".

Let's say that a new box with three buttons and three lights shows up. Based on what know from the Button Box theory, we can make a prediction about what is going on in the three button box. If the prediction is correct, the Button Box theory is maintained. If the prediction is incorrect, the Button Box theory is either changed to fit the new information or rejected entirely.

Don't get confused by my use of the word "prediction". Like "theory", it means something different when used in a scientific context than when it is used in it's more common usage.

Your example does not follow the line of inquiry here.


If a proponent of the steady state theory had predicted BGR before a proponent of BBT would that be the the explanation that you would accept today?

Does BGR disprove steady state theory?

 

[arthwollipot]

If a proponent of the steady state theory had predicted BGR before a proponent of BBT would that be the the explanation that you would accept today?

No, because the steady state theory did not conform to observed reality. For example, the SST predicted that matter is being constantly created in the universe. This is not observed. The BBT is consistent with observed reality.

Does BGR disprove steady state theory?

Yes. The background radiation is inconsistent with SST, because there is no reason for it to exist in that theory and has no cause. The background radiation was predicted by the BBT, before it was ever observed. This is one of the many reasons why mainstream cosmologists feel that the BBT is a more accurate picture of the universe.

BBT predicted BGR.
SST did not predict BGR.
BGR was observed.
We therefore have more confidence in BBT than we do in SST.

 

[six7s]

WTF do all those TLAs stand for?