Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[DOC]

This is to all extent and purposes just a rehash of a previous thread, I will leave this one open and close the "original" however any further such breaches (which you have been previously warned about) will result in further action which may include suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:

Sure, the inflationary theory of cosmology states that vacuum fluctuations resulted in a gravitational singularity. This is essentially a point of zero volume containing all of the mass and energy we see in the current universe. Since the volume was zero, density was infinite and spacetime essentially did not exist yet. General relativity indicates other values at infinity in this singularity as well, but most people are most aware of the density value. Just after t=0, known as the Inflationary Period, elementary particles began to separate out. Less than a second later, the fundamental forces separated as well.

One of the reasons it is known as inflationary cosmology is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, at least not the type one normally thinks of. It is an expansion, separation, and cooling. Once things have cooled enough to allow for "normal" matter, the four fundamental forces, particularly gravity, take over and, ta-da!, here we are almost 14 billion years later.

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

 

[learner]

I have always been an atheist. I was born that way and have remained unadulterated since. I have since learnt of the theory of the "big bang" (I think of it as a "big expansion") so i comply with your last paragraph. Having acquired this knowledge has upped my admiration of science and the scientific method. It in no way has increased, for me, the likelihood of a god or gods. Invoking a god or gods doesn't seem to me to be the way to answer any questions regarding the universe. The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.

 

[wollery]

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 100 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:

Why not quote an actual theoretical astrophysicist on this subject?

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom.

Which is completely consistent with everything that astronomers and physicists know about the Universe, and which, if anyone took a serious look at the data, would obviously follow from the evidence at hand.

My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

No idea, but it's not relevant to the real question.

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

Almost certainly not. But again, this is not relevant to the real question.


The real question is, why don't you make an effort to understand what the scientists are actually saying, and look at the evidence that they use to come to these conclusions, rather than skim reading what a single person on an internet forum presents as a simplified version, and presenting it (in strawman version) as some sort of vain attempt to prove that science says patently foolish things, and that all scientists are clearly idiots?

I have some questions for you DOC -

Do you understand the basic tenets of relativity? Do you understand the basic principles of the scientific method? Do you know how the evidence for the inflationary theory was gathered? Do you understand how the arguments for the inflationary theory developed from the evidence that was gathered? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Singularity"? Do you understand what is meant by the term "Quantum Fluctuation"?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then please provide the evidence to back up the assertion by explaining them in your own words.

 

[matt.tansy]

Did I know it? Yes
How many atheists know it? Most
If they didn't know it, would they then believe in the far more implausible
god theory? No

 

[JoeEllison]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

 

[learner]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

DOC? Why are you so eager to display and reinforce your own ignorance, instead of actually learning things?

Well said that man...

 

[volatile]

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

 

[devnull]

this is just so sad..... its beyond words.

 

[Mashuna]

Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of a 100 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

I've done thorough research on this question, ever since I saw it posed in the 'Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins' thread. I have polled over 4,000 self-described atheists, and here is the breakdown of the results.

81.7% Already knew this
17.4% Didn't know this, and when it was explained to them said 'Really? Huh, that's kind of cool. I didn't know that.' Interestingly, every single one of them used those exact words. I don't know why, but it's outside the scope of this particular poll. Maybe further research could be interesting.
1.8% Filled the poll in twice.

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

As described above, my extensive research indicates no.

 

[JoeEllison]

Can we have a forum book drive for this guy? He obviously needs to read something that isn't on a screen for once.

I'll gladly buy him an undergraduate cosmology textbook, if only I thought he'd read it.

Same here... I've got some pretty good "layman" level books from real scientists too, that I would be willing to give DOC if I thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that he would give them a fair and honest reading.

 

[DOC]

The obvious problem of god origin arises. I appreciate that the idea, that all matter came from such a small source, is hard to comprehend. a god that did it is harder for me to comprehend... My view for what its worth.

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning -- much like Genesis believes the universe had a definite beginning.

 

[joobz]

Well the God of Christianity is "eternal" by definition so the Christian God can't have an origin since He always existed. Scientists as little as 100 years ago believed the universe was eternal. But they now believe the universe had a definite beginning, in the same way Genesis believes the universe had a beginning.

Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

 

[volatile]

Doc - I will buy you both Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and Simon Singh's Big Bang if you promise to read them and review them here. Would you do that? Take the time to learn about the things you so lazily decry?

 

[DOC]

Wouldn't it be more fruitful for DOC to actually learn something about any single topic, rather than posting multiple threads containing serious strawmen and illogical attacks on "modern science" and atheism?

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

 

[Damien Evans]

Actually modern science "theorizes" that the approximate 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe came from not only something smaller than a pea but something smaller than a single atom. I used a pea though because we can actually visualize its size.

You might ask how could "all" of the matter of 10 billion trillion stars which exist in an estimated 100 billion galaxies come from something smaller than an atom. Here is how Hokuele says it is theorized to have happened by inflationary theory which some in this forum say or imply is modern mainline science:



Ok, so we have several people saying or implying that mainline science is theorizing that all of the matter (or physical material) of the 10 billion trillion stars in the known universe came from something smaller than an atom. My question is what percentage of atheists in the world do you estimate do not know this fact?

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information, and then found out about it, do you believe this would in any way effect his feelings about science or his feelings about a possible God?

This isn't even worth the time to type a reply to.

 

[joobz]

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.


Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with. In a direct analogy, how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?

 

[DOC]

Are you saying that Universe was non-existent when it was a singularity?

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

 

[JoeEllison]

What are the serious strawman and illogical attacks on modern science and atheism?

You don't actually know anything about science, or even basic English. For instance, you don't understand that "zero volume" doesn't mean"smaller than a pea", or what a "singularity" is, or how all the evidence and math works. So, your description is a strawman. You don't have the foundation to talk about the subject, you've shown no interest in gaining that background, so all of your comments based on second- and third-hand incomplete layman's descriptions are strawmen by definition. You are ignorant in the literal sense: you just don't know what you are talking about.

Then, based on your ignorance, you go after atheists who are "ignorant" only in the sense that you are saying things that they "don't know" because you are saying things that aren't true, and that science doesn't say. Furthermore, your claim that doubts about specific scientific theories somehow mean that your religious viewpoint has any validity is an illogical position... a pathetic joke of a position, truth be told. If it turns out that science is wrong on something, it doesn't make your superstition any less foolish and ignorant, period. One has nothing to do with another.

 

[DOC]

It's the implication that you ask. THe premise of this question (unlike your evolution one) is correct. Modern science theory does say that the entire universe was at one time smaller than a pea.


Now, you imply much in this question. And that is what people are taking objection with...

What am I implying and what are people objecting to?

 

[volatile]

How can you say it "was" a singularity, and what is your definition of a singularity.

If I buy you Singh's excellent, readable book which will explain just that in interesting detail and easy-to-understand prose, will you read it? In other words - do you really want the answers to this question or are you just content to believe what you were told first?

Please, I'm serious. I am pretty much broke, but I will gladly spend my own money on two wonderful books that will answer all the silly questions ypu persist on posting here. Will you accept my offer? It is conditional on you reading them and posting reviews of your thoughts on them here.