(Ed) Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[lionking]

Originally Posted by DOC

I'm "done" talking with you unless you talk about the topic and not me personally. The evidence is in post 233. And I see you've been a member over 2 years with 34 posts.

And pointing out someone's post count is on topic?

[mrshadyvale]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Well keep posting. Don't let someone like DOC prevent you from contributing to a thread because he sure as hell doesn't contribute anything just volume. He "wins" an argument by pure repetition until everyone else gets bored and leave.

I have no intention of discontinuing my activity by any means. I have not only enjoyed discussing many separate topics here, but there is so much education and wisdom to be shared that I have learned a great deal as well.

Oh... wait... that was the wrong response... I think what I meant to say was:

BOO! Get away from here! I'm a scary troll! I've been in the shadows for several years just waiting of someone deserving of my trollitude! Boowhahahaha!

[Darat]

To all participants - please keep to the topic of the thread and avoid the personalisations.

Posted By:Darat

[mrshadyvale]

My apologies to the admins for participating in taking this so far off topic... back onto the topic at hand:

DOC, I think many of us have been asking for clarification on what the "pea" theory has in connection to Atheism. What is it about that particular scientific idea that directs it into any particular group of people?

And, I would really like you to answer the question regarding the topic as asked by joobz several times, please.

Thank you.

[mrshadyvale]

DOC, we would like to get back to the topic at hand, but we cannot get back to the discussion if you do not address the questions directed towards you.

Please, there are many aspects of this theory we can discuss in regards to the question you posted, but the discussion will continue to go nowhere unless the questions asked are addressed.

Could you please clarify your view on how this theory is related to the existence of a supreme being?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by DOC

Many years of life experience. If others have a different opinion so be it.

Although we have evidence for our opinions Doc. Where's yours?

[wahrheit]

Originally Posted by DOC

Maybe later in their life when they have the time to dwell on it, it probably will baffle some like it baffled and irritated Einstein.

Oh noes, the thread got Einsteined, again.

What exactly was it that baffled and irritated Einstein?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by joobz

Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact. What occurs is as you add heat (increase the enthalpy of the water), the kinetic energy of each individual molecule exceeds the cohesive intermolecular forces resulting in the escape of the water molecule from the liquid state to the gas state. The tendency of the escape to occur is determined by the water's fugacity.
We all can stand to learn.

You're right. And I appreciate the correction.
If you turn the heat up even higher, the water molecule will break up. Of course, by then, it's a steam molecule.

Shows how easy it can be to use the wrong language to explain things you understand. If I'd used "H2O" instead of "water", you'd have had no leg to stand on....

Originally Posted by bokonon

I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement.

That's what I meant, but it's not what I said.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by DOC

are not in any way similar, Mrshadyvale. It sounds trollish to me especially coming from someone with 32 posts.

I can still give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

If I thought for a second that your books had answers, I would take the time in my busy life to read them.

Which science books have you read?
And how many recommendations would you need to check Simon Singh's book out of the library (or accept a free copy)?

Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Seriously,
if the first chapter doesn't get you hooked, I'll let you off for not reading the rest.

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by DOC

2 Billion people might say the same thing about the "Sermon on the Mount".

I've read the Sermon on the Mount. And many other religious texts.

Which science books have you read? Which web articles? Which documentaries have you watched?

[Undesired Walrus]

Scrutinised by whom? You DOC? Singh is popularising a theory that has more evidence than any other theory in the history of human knowledge.

It's a tremendous book and very (perhaps too much) respectful of religion.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not blind faith. I understand the scientific method, logic, reason, experimentation, publishing, peer review, replication and the predictive power of theory. I understand that theoretical physicists make prediction and then test them and other scientists try to tear those theories apart.

My belief in QM and relativity is more along the lines of trust. I'm not convinced it's true, because I don't understand it. But I have seen plenty of evidence to convince me that the theory holds water.

In the same sense, I have faith in Newton's laws -- even though I know for a fact that they are wrong. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. And a bridge doesn't have to be indestructible for me to trust it with my weight.

[Mark Felt]

On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.

I have an extremely shoddy grasp of cosmology, but it seems that if a then b, correct?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

In my case, it's because they're books, so quite extensive. It's not like quoting part of an article, small quotes lose out on all the context.

Also, I'm lazy*

*Except when conducting extensive polls of what atheists think. How are you doing in that regard, Doc?

[Undesired Walrus]

However, DOC brings up a point about 'cause and effect'. It seems several people here believe he is confused about this being a vital part of science, and I think it would be helpful for both DOC and other layman if this could be expanded on.

If something violates 'cause and effect', is this a miracle?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

If you believe the last, then call our bluff. Scrutinise the book. Tear it apart.

Here is an excerpt:
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9...g/excerpt.aspx

The first part of the chapter discusses many creation myths and explains why a scientific theory is different to such myths.

From page 9:
"Every genuine scientific theory must make a prediction about the universe that can be observed or measured."

Singh then goes on to explain how Eratosthenes measure the circumference of the Earth -- though he modernises some of the maths. Depending on whether Eratosthenes meant the Olympic stade or the Egyptian stade, he was accurate to 15% or 2% (Eratosthenes worked in Alexandria, Egypt).

After that comes the size of the moon and the sun and their distance from the Earth. Philosophers had already worked out how to measure that, they only lacked the size of the Earth. Singh explains how.

On the assumption that the sun is a long way away, the size of the Earth's shadow is much the same as the size of the Earth. From the time the first edge of the moon crosses into the Earth's shadow during a lunar eclipse, to the time the opposite edge of the moon crosses into the same shadow: 50 minutes.

Time for the first edge of the moon to cross from one side of the Earth's shadow to the other: 200 minutes. This implies that the Earth is about 4 times as wide as the moon. (Assuming constant speed)

Distance to the moon?
The method is based on similar triangles.

That takes us to page 15, the first chapter ending on page 80. The diagrams will help understand.

Alternatively, use google. Or ask questions in the science forum.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.

It used to be thought that all the matter could wizz past each other.

[Mark Felt]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

It used to be thought that all the matter could wizz past each other.

Seriously? Was this particular theory named anything easily searchable?

[asmodean]

Originally Posted by joobz

DOC, that's my rewording of the definitions provided in those sources.
If it is wrong, I would be happy to correct myself. Wollery is the most qualified to make that analysis.

Now, you've avoided this question of mine 3 times.
Do you believe that when the universe was a singularity that it did not exist?

and this question of mine 2 times.
how do you feel about the question:
Do most christians know that they practice ritualistic canabalism?

Zero volume, finite mass, infinite density. (a 10SM singularity has indeed a very finite mass, for instance =)).

As for DOCs "Where do you get the definition from", well. Start by crack open a basic math book and check for singularity. Basically (and I quote from memory here so pedantic mathematicians, please don't kill me), a point where a function is not defined (1/x has a singularity at x=0).

As I recall the story being told, when Schwarzschild derived his solution to a specific case of the field equations he found that under certain conditions masses would undergo gravitational collapse, and further that under these conditions the collapse wouldn't stop and that a (mathematical) singularity formed as the volume occupied by the collapsing mass reached 0.

badly mangled from memory but the essence should be correct. If not I blame too much work, too little play, and not enough coffee... :P

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

On the OP, because the thread has become reasonably catty and I'm not really interested:

What's the alternative?

If we take as a given that the universe is expanding (which may or may not be true, but all signs point to yes; I've also read that the rate of expansion is accelerating, though how you'd measure this is beyond me), then it follows that if we track backwards through the history of time that the universe will shrink. Extrapolating from this, it follows that the totality of the universe was once in one location.

I have an extremely shoddy grasp of cosmology, but it seems that if a then b, correct?

There are others who are far more knowledgeable in this area, but I'll have a crack. All observations show the universe to be expanding as measured by the red shift of the light coming from stars and galaxies - this is as close to a fact as you can get in this field, and yes the rate of accelleration allows cosmologists to estimate the time of the big bang. I think that some would nitpick at the word "location" as before space and time, which commenced at the big bang, the idea of location is meaningless. But as others have said, the big bang theory and the concept of all matter and energy in the universe originating from a singularity of infinite density fits all observations far better than other theories, like the steady state theory.

And like others, I highly recommend Simon Singh's book.

Finally, welcome to the forum.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Mark Felt

Seriously? Was this particular theory named anything easily searchable?

I found a quote:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_bigbang.html

Quote:

Others claimed that the idea of an initial singular point of infinite density arose only because we had adopted a picture in which the universe was expanding at the same rate in every direction. Thus when the expansion was traced backward everything arrived at one point simultaneously. If, however, the expansion were slightly asymmetrical (and in reality it is), then when we traced it backward the imploding material would be out of step, so it might well avoid producing a singularity.

“When these objections were explored, they failed to remove the expected singularity. In fact, the addition of pressure actually assisted its creation, because of Einstein's famous discovery that energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc2). Pressure is just another form of energy and thus is equivalent to mass; when it grows very large, it creates a gravitational force that opposes the repelling effect we usually associate with a pressure. Trying to avoid the singularity by increasing pressure was self-defeating; it actually made the singularity worse! Moreover, when Einstein's theory of gravitation was used to find other possible types of universes—universes that expand at different rates in different directions, or possess variations from place to place—the singularity remained. It was not just an artifact of symmetrical universe models. It seemed to be ubiquitous.”

So the theory doesn't have much backing now. But the maths to knock it is beyond me.

If you want another alternative to the big bang, you can google for solid state theory -- as lionking mentions.

And, yes.
Welcome to the forum.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Joobz it sounds like you make up your own lexicon (example: canabalism). You should stay as close as possible to the wording of the sources you read.

So, you avoid substance due to a spelling error? I do not truly expect anything different since you have no evidence for your OP assertion.


Allow me to make an equal assertion.
If more people knew that christianity preached the worship of a diety who viewed symbolic cannibalism and who has slaughtered innocent children, people would be less likely to be christian.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Let's make a deal, if you admit that you were significantly wrong that knowing the common description of the origin of the universe would make people less likely to be atheists, I will personally add my own request for joobz to formally admit he swapped the terms for mass and density. After all, there is no shame in being wrong, correct?

And while you are at it, how about you explain in your own words the difference between mass and density and how that affects the discussion of a gravitational singularity.

I'm willing to agree to this. DOC, will you put up?

[asmodean]

Originally Posted by mrshadyvale

So your only evidence that I am a "troll" is that I have only 32 posts to my name?

Do you have more evidence, or is this remark much like your others?

Well, quality over quantity, eh? =)

Still, quantity is a quality in itself. :P

[DOC]

Originally Posted by bobhope2112

...If the universe is eternal, as you say God is...

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

[DOC]

Originally Posted by joobz

So, you avoid substance due to a spelling error? I do not truly expect anything different since you have no evidence for your OP assertion.

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

really? So communion doesn't involve transubstantiation and doesn't represent the eating of Jesus' body and blood?

[Fredrik]

DOC, you asked for an excerpt from the Singh book. You can get it yourself at Amazon. Link.

Now how about an answer to the question I asked in #105?

I see that my question isn't the only one you're ignoring. You're ignoring every question that tries to get you to explain what your point is.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by DOC

Spelling had nothing to do with it. Your use of the word cannibalism to describe the Catholic ritual is absurd. Also to imply that that ritual is a part of all Christianity is wrong.

Transubstantiation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Fredrik

DOC, you asked for an excerpt from the Singh book. You can get it yourself at Amazon. Link.

Now how about an answer to the question I asked in #105?

I see that my question isn't the only one you're ignoring. You're ignoring every question that tries to get you to explain what your point is.

I beleive DOC's reluctance is linked to a tit-for-tat situation. In the other thread regarding evolution, DOC claimed how Norman Geisler, "one of the World's great apologist's" made arguments against atheism that were concrete. Everyone demanded that DOC present the arguments here instead of demanding by proxy. As such, DOC is doing the same thing here.


So, the form of the argument is the same, the substance is different.

Differences include:
1.) theist apologetics isn't evidence based and it is not independantly verifiable.
2.) I went to the amazon text and found blatant illogical statements (E.g., sasyiny university is derived from a contraction of unity and diversit) that made me distrust the honesty of the text.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Ysidro

Transubstantiation:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

of course, the apologetic is that this represents a "spiritual body/blood" and therefore doesn't count as cannibalism. This is of course why I said symbolic cannibalism. The symbolism is there directly. It isn't imagined. It is blatant.

[Ysidro]

Originally Posted by joobz

of course, the apologetic is that this represents a "spiritual body/blood" and therefore doesn't count as cannibalism. This is of course why I said symbolic cannibalism. The symbolism is there directly. It isn't imagined. It is blatant.

That or we'll just end up with No True Scotsmen again. Which was sort of my point. But then, if no one else can make Doc see he might not have all the answers I doubt I'll be able to.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

Originally Posted by DOC

The bible is the one that says God is eternal:

Deut. 33: 27, Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 93: 2, Ps. 102: 27, Ps. 146: 10, Isa. 57: 15, Isa. 63:16, Mal. 3: 6, Rom. 1: 20, 1 Tim. 1: 17, Heb. 13: 8, Rev. 22: 13

So, rather than posting what is said, you're posting references? Are you worried about them being scrutinised?


Anyway, how does a document written by many different people over centuries prove anything? The bible is true because the bible says it is?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

For some reason the phrase "pearls before swine" comes to mind

[bokonon]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

I'm sure that's it. Your steel-trap mind was so quick to understand the reams of explanations introduced and re-introduced in the abiogenesis thread that I'm sure no one expects they'd have to type each book in its entirety several times in this thread before concluding that you'd never grasp the material they'd so painstakingly provided.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by DOC

And also do you believe that if an atheist did not know the above information [about the Big Bang --ed], 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?

Going back to the OP, I’m going to answer the question.

An atheist finding out for the first time what the BB entails might react as follows...

1. “Science is coming to some highly startling conclusions that are very difficult to understand on their face. I wonder how they reached those conclusions? There must be a lot of extremely interesting evidence coupled with some really high level mathematics, the latter of which is surely beyond me. Damn my ignorance! Someone remind me, how is ignorance remedied again...?”

2. “If I’m wrong and there is a God, He must be even more powerful than those religious folk say. After all, they have Him uttering a few words of Hebrew, and -- poof -- there’s the universe! Whereas the God that science is revealing has done things which the God of the Bible never came close to. In fact, this DOC character seems to think his God couldn’t have created the BB because it’s just impossible. I wonder what he thinks ‘all-powerful’ or ‘omnipotent’ means...”

3. “Well, a superficial description of the BB by someone who’s shown no mastery of the subject convinces me it’s not worth believing no matter the evidence. Therefore, I’m converting to Christianity, which is clearly my only remaining alternative. Now, where’s that church with all the hot chicks...”

[gypsey]

Quote:

bokonon

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOC
Bring in some excerpts. I curious why no one will bring in any excerpts. Are they worried about it being scrutinized.

I'm sure that's it. Your steel-trap mind was so quick to understand the reams of explanations introduced and re-introduced in the abiogenesis thread that I'm sure no one expects they'd have to type each book in its entirety several times in this thread before concluding that you'd never grasp the material they'd so painstakingly provided.

His mind really is like a steel trap
Rusty and Illegal in 37 States

as for the OP I can honestly say that while I didn't know exactly what Science had to say it doesn't make any difference to the state of my belief or disbelief
while doc on the other hand could turn a fanatic to atheism with his hypocrisy and dishonesty, I would be ashamed to be a member of anything he was a part of and would go out of my way to disassociate from him

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So, rather than posting what is said, you're posting references? Are you worried about them being scrutinised?


Anyway, how does a document written by many different people over centuries prove anything? The bible is true because the bible says it is?

The Bible says that God is Eternal, and he created the earth, the Universe and everything. The Bible says it is true, therefor, God has always existed, and he created the Earth.

Since God created the earth, the Universe, and everything, and it is known to be true, therefore, the Bible must be true...

Personally, I'd much rather that Doc read those books. Asking for 'excerpts' to discuss would be much like taking only 'excepts' from a Shakespearian play to discuss the entirety of it. Of a great novel, or, heaven forbid, taking excerpts from the bible.

These topics on the Big Bang and the formation of the Universe is a BIG BIG subject. I really don't understand it, but these sound like good books to do so. The only reason I suspect that Doc is willing to read these books (For FREE!) is because they would contradict his carefully held version of reality, and actually challenge his intellect.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

After all, if other people offer to give you $50 or $100 worth of books that explain their position, and you are unwilling to read those books, what does that say about you?

It says that you are very, very afraid of how actual knowledge of the real world could affect your faith in Sky Daddy.