• 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 have evidence that "things must have a beginning"?
Click to expand...
Jerome, you have proven yourself incapable of recognizing the vast quantities of evidence presented to you so far. Why should anyone waste their time presenting evidence that you either won't, or can't, comprehend?
 
I've given up responding to the trolls on this thread. Until DOC and the others can reply substantively, with evidence, there's no point in engagement. Straw men, attemts at "the wedge", and outright misrepresentation really don't further a debate.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is the thought based upon the presumption that there was a beginning.

If your logic; which is outstanding by the way, begins with a false premise than it is not evidence.
Click to expand...
Presumption does not equal Evidence. The Big Bang has tons of evidence to support it, if you don't believe that, that is your choice, and if so, please tell us about that choice and show how it fits the evidence.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Fitter said:
Jerome, you have proven yourself incapable of recognizing the vast quantities of evidence presented to you so far. Why should anyone waste their time presenting evidence that you either won't, or can't, comprehend?
Click to expand...

So you don't have evidence. Just beliefs based upon conditioning and desires.
 
Paulhoff said:
Presumption does not equal Evidence. The Big Bang has tons of evidence to support it, if you don't believe that, that is your choice, and if so, please tell us about that choice and show how it fits the evidence.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

I have presented inconsistencies in the theory and all I get in return is hand-waving and a chorus of your wrong because the evidence; which is not presented, says so.


Can you honestly not see this is nothing more than dogmatic belief based upon conditioning and desire?

Upchurch himself even presented as known fact that which was not because he just knew that the theory had been evidenced. To his credit he admitted his error, but unfortunately he did not admit that his error disputes the fact which he was espousing.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
So you don't have evidence. Just beliefs based upon conditioning and desires.
Click to expand...
I get it, your trying to set the record for being the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. Congratulations I think you've got a really good shot at it.:)
 
Fitter said:
I get it, your trying to set the record for being the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. Congratulations I think you've got a really good shot at it.:)
Click to expand...

You are evidencing my assessment just a couple of posts ago and the OP at the same time.

I have presented inconsistencies in the theory and all I get in return is hand-waving and a chorus of your wrong because the evidence; which is not presented, says so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Out of curiosity, you are aware that this thread was about the evolutionary origins of humans? Right?
Click to expand...

Yep, and the Big Bang is needed to get to abiogenesis and abiogenesis is needed to get to evolution and thus human origins.

This is such a weak tactic, yet used so often. Generally it is used unconsciously. Claiming that you are talking about something else and thus ignoring the inconsistencies which collapse the house of cards. This is called compartmentalizing, it is a trick the human minds plays upon itself when attempting to hold inconsistent ideas.
 
Jerome, we've all seen the standard of evidence you consider acceptable. Several very knowledgeable posters have presented ample evidence whenever you have requested such. Dismissively waving this evidence away in no way makes you less wrong.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Upchurch himself even presented as known fact that which was not because he just knew that the theory had been evidenced. To his credit he admitted his error, but unfortunately he did not admit that his error disputes the fact which he was espousing.
Click to expand...
You're exaggerating. The Big Bang does not rely on evidence for or against Hawking radiation, nor did I say it did. I was thinking of quantum fluctuations, which I always paired with Hawking radiation.

Regardless, cosmic background radiation and cosmic expansion are both strong evidences for the the Big Bang theory. If you want to claim that the Big Bang did not happen, you still need to explain why these two phenomena do not support it. Thus far, all you've managed to do is simply claim that they do not, but that is insufficient. Please explain why they do not.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I have presented inconsistencies in the theory
Click to expand...
No, you've stated that there are inconsistencies in the theory, but I have yet to see you actually point any out, beyond saying that the initial premise is faulty, or that the evidence doesn't support it. I challenged you to address the theory, evidence and logic. You responded that it was unnecessary because the initial premise was faulty. That isn't presenting inconsistencies, that's a mantra.

and all I get in return is hand-waving and a chorus of your wrong because the evidence; which is not presented, says so.
Click to expand...
You've been presented with tonnes of evidence, all of which you dismiss without actually addressing, because you claim it's based on a false premise.

Can you honestly not see this is nothing more than dogmatic belief based upon conditioning and desire?
Click to expand...
Can you honestly not see this is nothing more than dogmatic belief based upon conditioning and desire?

Upchurch himself even presented as known fact that which was not because he just knew that the theory had been evidenced. To his credit he admitted his error, but unfortunately he did not admit that his error disputes the fact which he was espousing.
Click to expand...
Care to address particle/antiparticle pair production? How about the net mass-energy of the Universe being zero?

I ask again - any chance of you actually addressing the science, or are you just going to hide behind your mantras again?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is the thought based upon the presumption that there was a beginning.
Click to expand...
The Big Bang is a conclusion based on the expansion of the universe, as evidenced by the cosmological redshift. Even if we're in a cyclical universe, where the Big Bang is really a Big Bounce, at some point, the whole universe consisted of nothing but energy. This too is a conclusion, based on studies of the CMBR.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, and the Big Bang is needed to get to abiogenesis and abiogenesis is needed to get to evolution and thus human origins.
Click to expand...
I see you ignored all the other points I raised, every single one of whom would have exterminated any pre-existing life on Earth. Which is what we are discussing...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Conversion is not destruction or creation. Here the talk will devolve into semantics.

Anyways, explain the energy needed and where it was when the Big Bang created matter.
Click to expand...
The energy "before" and after the Big Bang was zero. It's just a rearrangement - gravitational energy converts to matter.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, and the Big Bang is needed to get to abiogenesis and abiogenesis is needed to get to evolution and thus human origins.
Click to expand...
So, when people are discussing how an engine works, you feel it appropriate to discuss oil refining?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
This is such a weak tactic, yet used so often.
Click to expand...
By tactic, you mean fact? Generally it is used unconsciously.
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Claiming that you are talking about something else and thus ignoring the inconsistencies which collapse the house of cards.
Click to expand...
JdG, no.

I was simply amused that you still pretend that this thread is about bigbang theory.
 
Atheist don't need to know what science says in order not to accept that preachers and gurus don't know... an atheist just is a person who doesn't believe in god. Most don't believe in anything supernatural and I suspect most are scientifically literate as well. Nobody hides the knowledge of our origins unless it's to keep the crazy irrational people at bay. Most scientists are more than proud that we humans have figured out what no humans could know before and they feel sad for people who feel compelled to "believe in" some other version because they imagine this is essential for salvation or a sign of "faith"(ignorance?) which they imagine as ennobling.

Jerome denies being a creationist, but so do many creation. He thinks people will take him more seriously if he says he isn't, I suspect. But his arguments are identical... I think he's arguing with skeptics so that he can tell himself that his "alternate belief" (which he never really states or gives evidence for) has withstood skeptical scrutiny. He resorts to the same ad homs, tangents, and nothingness to keep himself convinced his woo is true as all woo do. He hears what isn't there and continually misses what is and shows an amazing lack of interest in current knowledge in science.

He thinks he already knows all there is to know on the topic. Creationists think that other people don't know things... because they are just finding stuff out... and it hurts their egotistical view of themselves as god's special creation (or whatever alternate view they've been indoctrinated to "believe in")
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Can you honestly not see this is nothing more than dogmatic belief based upon conditioning and desire?
Click to expand...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

So with all the evidence learned so far, what does your beginning of the universe look like, or will you remain dogmatic and not tell us and only point to the first 10^-44 second and say lookie here there is this one problem with the big bang that seems not to be a problem.

Paul

:) :) :)

This is a list of researchers in the physics field of loop quantum gravity.

Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Mohammad Ansari, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Abhay Ashtekar, Pennsylvania State University, USA
John Baez, University of California, Riverside, USA
Benjamin Bahr, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein Institute), Germany
John W. Barrett, University of Nottingham, UK
Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Martin Bojowald, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Luca Bombelli, University of Mississippi, USA
Johannes Brunnemann, University of Hamburg, Germany
Steve Carlip, University of California, Davis, USA
Dan Christensen, University of Western Ontario and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Alejandro Corichi, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
Daniele Colosi, Instituto de Matemáticas - UNAM, Mexico
Louis Crane, Kansas State University, USA
Olaf Dreyer, Imperial College London, UK
Bianca Dittrich, Perimeter Institute, Canada
Christian Fleischhack, University of Hamburg, Germany
Laurent Freidel, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Rodolfo Gambini, Montevideo University, Uruguay
Florian Girelli, European Science Foundation, France
Kristina Giesel, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
Adam Henderson, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Matthew Hogan, SM&T R&D Labs & Ohio University, USA
Viqar Husain, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Giorgio Immirzi, Universita' di Perugia & INFN Perugia, Italy
Christopher Isham, Imperial College London, UK
Jerzy Jurkiewicz, Jagiellonian University, Poland
Kirill Krasnov, University of Nottingham, UK
Tomasz Konopka, University of Waterloo and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Jerzy Lewandowski, Warsaw University, Poland
Etera Livine, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), France
Renate Loll, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Gerald Mahan, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Seth Major,Hamilton College, Clinton, NY, USA
Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Donald Marolf, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Merced Montesinos, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico
Hugo Morales-Tecotl, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Iztapalapa, Mexico
Karim Noui, Universite Francois-Rabelais-Tours, France
Robert Oeckl, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico
Daniele Oriti, University of Cambridge, UK
Alejandro Perez, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, USA
Tomasz Pawlowski, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Jorge Pullin, Louisiana State University, USA
Martin Reuter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Andrew Randono, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Michael Reisenberger, Montevideo University, Uruguay
Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Theorique, Marseille, France
Hanno Sahlmann, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
David Sloan, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Rafael Sorkin, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Simone Speziale, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Artem Starodubtsev, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Daniel Sudarsky, Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM, Mexico
Victor Taveras, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Thomas Thiemann, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
Bill Unruh, University of British Columbia, Canada
Yidun Wan, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Canada
Edward Wilson-Ewing, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Oliver Winkler, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert-Einstein-Institute), Germany
José A. Zapata, Instituto de Matemáticas, UNAM, Mexico
Aleksandar Mikovic, Lusofona University, Portugal
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom