• 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.
BBT - Big Bang Theory
SST - Steady State Theory
BGR - BackGround Radiation

Jerome only used BBT and BGR - I added SST for convenience. Apologies if it confused you.
 
You're a gentleman and a scholar*...

Thank you, kind sir :)










_______________
* Must be lonely, in Aus, huh?

:p
 
Doesn't the balance of heavier elements go against a steady state universe, as we look back in time - at more distant stars an galaxies don't the spectra indicate less metallicity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

In a steady state universe wouldn't all stars have already acheived and equilibrium metalicity?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your example does not follow the line of inquiry here.
Click to expand...
It does. However, I'm concerned that you are confusing shot-in-the-dark guessing with systematic theoretical predictions.

A scientific prediction is one that is a logical consequence of the theory. It is roughly of the format: "If X is true, we would expect to see Y." By testing for Y, we then either validate or invalidate X.

To use a more concrete example: If the Big Bang theory is true, we would expect to see cosmic background radiation. We go look for cosmic background radiation. Having found that cosmic background radiation exists, we (at least partially) validate the Big Bang Theory.

This is the core of the scientific method. Hypothesize, Test, Evaluate, Repeat.


JEROME DA GNOME said:
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?
Click to expand...
It isn't a matter of who guesses what first. It is a matter of whether or not the phenomenon is a consequence of the theory.

For example: If steady state theory were true, we would expect to not find any cosmic background radiation. Having found that cosmic background radiation exists, we invalidate steady state theory.



JEROME DA GNOME said:
Does BGR disprove steady state theory?
Click to expand...
Yes.

eta:
Wikipedia article on Steady State Theory
Although the [Steady State Theory] model had a large number of supporters among cosmologists in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of supporters decreased markedly in the late 1960s with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and today only a very small number of supporters remain. The key importance of the steady-state model is that as a competitor to the Big Bang, it was an impetus in generating some of the most important research in astrophysics, much of which ultimately ended up supporting the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
Doesn't the balance of heavier elements go against a steady state universe, as we look back in time - at more distant stars an galaxies don't the spectra indicate less metallicity?
Click to expand...
Yes.

In a steady state universe wouldn't all stars have already acheived and equilibrium metalicity?
Click to expand...
No, the Universe would have run out of usable hydrogen and there wouldn't be any stars.

You have to have hydrogen to form stable stars (because other fusion reactions aren't stable or self sustaining) and they convert anywhere between 5% and 30% of that hydrogen to heavier elements, depending on the type of star (rough figures from memory, may not be completely accurate). Doesn't take a genius to see that you run out of usable hydrogen after just a few generations of stars.
 
wollery said:
Yes.

No, the Universe would have run out of usable hydrogen and there wouldn't be any stars.

You have to have hydrogen to form stable stars (because other fusion reactions aren't stable or self sustaining) and they convert anywhere between 5% and 30% of that hydrogen to heavier elements, depending on the type of star (rough figures from memory, may not be completely accurate). Doesn't take a genius to see that you run out of usable hydrogen after just a few generations of stars.
Click to expand...


Even if we were to grant some infinite, inexhaustible, readily available yet unknown supply of hydrogen, upon which, Jerome, has not even bothered to remark, the temperature issue still makes that mute.



The Man said:
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).
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Not if there is an equilibrium of sorts in the universe.
Click to expand...


There are all sorts of equilibrium in the universe, Jerome; the one particular equilibrium addressed in my statement is thermal equilibrium. A basic element of any high school physics class. Heat energy (measured in calories) is transferred from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. Once everything is at the same temperature no net transfer of heat energy occurs or thermal equilibrium is reached. Given sufficient time everything will reach the same temperature or thermal equilibrium. Given an infinite amount of time or an infinitely regressive past, everything would already be at the same or similar temperature. The fact that this is not the case demonstrates that the past can not be infinitely regressive and must be finite or in other words have some beginning. Not evidence, Jerome, but proof.


JEROME DA GNOME said:
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.
Click to expand...

John A. Wheeler

“Time is what prevents everything from happening at once”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No problem, I appreciate the correction and just took the opportunity to have a little word fun. Although I certainly don’t mind driving some people crazy I try not to make a habit out of it.
 
<aside>

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 19,400 for "cow orker".

Is this some sorta movement????



And the only reason I'm
singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a
situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
Click to expand...

</aside>
 
Gee, a quote.

Ironically, the term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true. However, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 was taken as almost undeniable support for the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Or please give a better un-testable idea (not a testable theory like the big bang is), like a so-called god poof it all into existence after it was poofed into existance.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
wollery said:
No, the Universe would have run out of usable hydrogen and there wouldn't be any stars.
Click to expand...
The Steady State theory predicted that matter would be created at various points around the universe. It was necessary to avoid the problem you just outlined. However, this neither agrees with observed reality, nor follows the first law of thermodynamics.
 
arthwollipot said:
The Steady State theory predicted that matter would be created at various points around the universe. It was necessary to avoid the problem you just outlined. However, this neither agrees with observed reality, nor follows the first law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Is that how science works? Parts of a theory are incorrect so you disregard the entire theory?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How are those theories about the origin of life working out? When will you disregard abiogenesis?
Click to expand...
"disregard"?

What alternative theories are there? I really don't get this fake controversy. Ignorance is not evidence.

Let me repeat that.

Ignorance is not evidence. What we don't know about the origins of life tell us NOTHING.

Is there anything about that Jerome that is difficult for you to understand? Could you seriously and sincerly think about what I've asked and stated and respond in a sincere manner?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Is that how science works? Parts of a theory are incorrect so you disregard the entire theory?
Click to expand...
A theory is rejected when one or more of its key predictions, or any of its necessary requirements are shown to be incorrect.

In the case of steady state theory, several of its requirements and predictions have been shown to be false.

None of the requirements or predictions of the Big Bang theory have been shown to be false. In fact, quite the contrary.

You're a stuck record Jerome, you keep asking for the evidence, then when it's presented you say it isn't relevant because the initial premise is incorrect, then when challenged about what initial premise that is you state what the conclusion is, then you fail to respond to people pointing out your error, then you start again.

Any chance you'll ever actually address any of the science or logic, or are you just going to keep asking open questions that have no meaning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom