Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[RandFan]

"Everywhere l look, something reminds me of her..."
(Frank Drebin)

Damn, that was going to be my response.

You and I apparently have a memory for mammaries.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Atheist don't need to know what science says ...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

We have already been over this one. Phil admits that the math and physics do not work.

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

You are giving a model which may alter the Big Bang theory as evidence that the theory is correct.

"My paper introduces a new mathematical model that we can use to derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it travels through the Big Bounce, which replaces the classical idea of a Big Bang as the beginning of our universe,"

You honestly think this is evidence of the validity of the theory?

 

[CriticalThanking]

The dating is not certain, in fact it is a lot of circular guessing. The "earliest" rocks are deemed so because they show no life.

I can't let this one go undiscussed. Dating of rocks using no biological components put an age boundary on the earth and solar system. See talkorigins for a start. It is interesting that the page discusses creationist objections, often focusing on "assumptions." I know, I know, you are not a creationist. Fine, but the few semi-real arguments you are putting forth are the same arguments.

While for reasons I still cannot understand you consider the Big Bang to be an unfounded assumption, you have not addressed (offered evidence or shown the logic to be faulty) the other converging lines of evidence from joobz, wollery, upchurch, and others that all point to a point earlier in time in which there could not have been biological life. (Aside - the Big Bang is perfectly consistent with these observations.)

Suns do not burn forever. They have to burn fuel (destroy/convert matter ). We understand very well how suns form and how they die. We have no evidence that they have existed forever.

All of our understanding of physical processes indicate they behave consistantly across time and place. It is only at the extremes of size and forces that we have difficulty modelling what happens (the equations "don't make sense" to our limited modeling ability). It still happens, we just have difficulty with the math. Even throwing out the Big Bang, there is no evidence that the earth has always been here, that suns have always burned, etc. The evidence is directly against it.

Perfectly consistent with our understanding of physical processes, there was a point when there was no life in our solar system, much less on an earth. As others have pointed out, Steady State Theory fails because of physical observations. So even if life here came from some other solar system that existed before ours formed, that other solar system must also have had a beginning. So - there was a time with no biological life in the universe, and such life exists now. There must have been a point in which "life came from non-life." That statement is consistent with the evidence, and makes no assumptions other than physical laws are not capricious.

If my facts or logic are faulty, others will point it out and I welcome that. My sense of wonder is kindled by a universe that behaves in the manner it does. There is so much to investigate. Abiogenisis is just one more fascinating topic being investigated because that is where the evidence leads.

I need to go rewatch Cosmos.

CT

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I can't let this one go undiscussed. Dating of rocks using no biological components put an age boundary on the earth and solar system. See talkorigins for a start.

From you link:

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

 

[Prometheus]

From you link:



Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

Are you suggesting we have to throw rocks at you for you to prove the evidence exists?

 

[CriticalThanking]

We have already been over this one. Phil admits that the math and physics do not work.

Yes, we have been over this - and you still do not acknowledge what that means. You sound like DOC and his crap about what the LUCA paper was really saying. BTW - to Worm for getting the author to clarify the paper.

My toaster is broken. It "does not work." I have a mathematical equation describing the path my little red wagon takes when pushed. The equation has time as a variable. Yet the equation says nothing about the behavior of the wagon before the push (at or before t=0). So the equation "does not work" at or before t=0. Yet it still accurately describes the results from that point forward. The phrase "does not work" does not mean the same thing to each. Phil is not saying "the math is wrong but I still believe in it," but instead "the math does not model what what happens at t=0" (or before Plank time). Whether bounce or bang, the theory still makes predictions and has made many successful predictions. As other continue to point out, if a prediction fails, the theory will be amended or superceded.

CT

 

[Paulhoff]

We have already been over this one. Phil admits that the math and physics do not work.

You are giving a model which may alter the Big Bang theory as evidence that the theory is correct.

You honestly think this is evidence of the validity of the theory?

We, for someknown reason, are "Waiting with baited breath" for your insight to how it all begain, until then, I for one am done with asking anymore questions to you, I will be answering others here.

And please also tell us what you mean by using the word "Theory", this is very important.

Paul

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Phil is not saying "the math is wrong but I still believe in it," but instead "the math does not model what what happens at t=0" (or before Plank time).

Math and physics do not allow for t=0. If t=0 is not possible than the rest is nothing more than faith based upon desire.

If the foundation of an idea is admitted false than only the insane or dishonest continue to believe the idea is true.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

I wish you would be more specific. Perhaps you missed this section:

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

They go on to show the evidence supports the conclusion. You once again fail to show evidence. Hand waving instead of critically thinking is not an ideal way to go through life, but you appear to be able to do it just fine.

CT

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We, for someknown reason, are "Waiting with baited breath" for your insight to how it all begain, until then, I for one am done with asking anymore questions to you, I will be answering others here.

I have stated many times that I do not know how it all began, in fact I question that there was ever a beginning.

And please also tell us what you mean by using the word "Theory", this is very important.

This is a fun one. Theory has a multitude of meanings in various contexts. The amusing thing is that many times the supporters of Darwin and the like will equate established scientific theories as far as the validity of said theory with mere hypothesis by using the word theory to describe both ideas.

Now, if you think it is honest presentation to use a word with many meanings to obscure reality in the above description than you have fallen into dogma.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

...like natural rights

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I wish you would be more specific. Perhaps you missed this section:
They go on to show the evidence supports the conclusion. You once again fail to show evidence. Hand waving instead of critically thinking is not an ideal way to go through life, but you appear to be able to do it just fine.

CT

From your quote:

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter

Again with the unevidenced guesses to build ideas.


If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

...like natural rights

 

[CriticalThanking]

Math and physics do not allow for t=0. If t=0 is not possible than the rest is nothing more than faith based upon desire.

If the foundation of an idea is admitted false than only the insane or dishonest continue to believe the idea is true.

Wow - so my red wagon did not exist before the push? Please explain how math does not permit this. Please show where physicists admit that the idea of a big bang is false. Are all physicists insane or dishonest? Perhaps they are all acting purely out of faith (religious definition - belief without evidence)?

I'd discuss this with you more, but since I didn't exist before I started typing this reply (t=0), I must be insane or dishonest to assume I now exist. Wait - being insane or dishonest would impy I exist....

Better folks than I have given more articulate responses and better evidence. So I will simply leave you with the one piece of evidence you have a chance of understanding.

CT

 

[CriticalThanking]

From your quote:


Again with the unevidenced guesses to build ideas.


If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

HAHAHAHA! Congratulations. You did not read the next paragraph, you are a creationist, or you are losing it (not mutually exclusive categories).

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

Thanks, JdG. I needed the laugh.

CT

 

[The Man]

From you link:



Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

Is that why you choose to go through life making statements that are neither fact nor evidenced? Is there some aspect of your “gnomience” that would somehow discount the phrase “(by several radiometric dating methods)” as in fact a statement of evidence?

“Gnomience”- Whatever it is that Jerome seems to believe would constitute science, similar to “Gnomevidence”.

“Gnomevidence”- Whatever it is that Jerome seems to believe would constitute evidence.

 

[RandFan]

Statements of fact that are not evidenced is no way to go through life.

Let me ask you a question, how do you know that the Heliocentric model is correct and the Geocentric one is not?



Wittgenstein: "Why did people believe the Sun went around the Earth".
Anon: "because that's the way it looks..."
Wittgenstein: "what would it look like if the Earth went around the sun?"

 

[Paulhoff]

dogma.

You have no idea what that word means.

Paul

 

[The Man]

Again with the unevidenced guesses to build ideas.


If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

What you mean like this?

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.

or this?

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

And finally the BS topper of them all

I prefer not to make unsubstantiated guesses to which the evidence does not point. I certainly understand why humans want to have answers, but I will not accept answers which are nothing more than beliefs based upon desire.

If only, Jerome