Creationism.

[Jack_www]

Caligastia that is insterting. I will make sure to read both posts. I assume its a quote from that book you were talking about?

[Bereta_Eder]

does it also say that blacks are inherently inferior to the cosmic nexus? it wouldnt be a caligastia post if it didnt.

[Jack the Bodiless]

One day in God's reckoning is equal to a thousand years in ours.

It always amuses me just how far some folks will take that single figure-of-speech remark. I think it's rather obvious that it was never intended as anything more than a way of saying "God is eternal and views things long-term", but that hasn't stopped people dragging Biblical verses out of context, multiplying all durations measured in days by 365,000, and struggling to make sense of the result.

According to the Bible, Jesus was dead for "three days". So it's another 1,000 years to go before the resurrection?

Much the same happened with "with God, all things are possible" = "God is omnipotent". If I were to say "Heck, I have no idea what Osama Bin Laden will try next, he's capable of anything", am I declaring OBL to be omnipotent?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You should be careful with your terminology. If you really mean 'evolution' in the above then I agree with your parallel - all three are observed phenomena, so they (in all but definition) do exist. But I supest that you mean 'evolution by natural selection', in which case they are not the same. Evolution by natural selection is a theory (despite what you said earlier) of how evolution comes about, in the same way that Newton's laws or general relativity are theories of gravity.

Gee, considering earlier in this thread I explicitely made the differentiation between the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution, I can only suspect you posted this erroneous assumption as to my intent because you didn't read the thread. Thanks!

I don't trust people like Dawkins. I find it interesting how so many untrained advocates of evolution accept Dawkins word as a matter of faith. )

I don't see how you gleaned the implication I take Dawkins' word as a "matter of faith," except through yet another unfounded assumption. All I did was paraphrase one of his sentiments I happen to agree with. Does that mean I must accept everything he says? Hardly.

However, I do find Dawkins to be far more reliable a source for scientific information than, say, Phillip Johnson. I'll also weigh his words on evolutionary matters a bit more than I will a chemist's or physicist's, as he is actually a zoologist.

To suppose that faith and religion should operate the same way as science is just ludicrous. Faith by definition doesn't need proof.

Considering Dawkins point wasn't to deride faith, it's a moot point. The quote was specifically talking about Creationists attempt to foist their dogma into science classes. No, faith does not require proof, and Dawkins wouldn't assert otherwise. But science does.

No respectable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is accepted truth. They would say it is the best model we have, but that is as far as it goes.

Bull****. I guarantee you a vast majority of cosmologists would tell you they accepted the Big Bang as scientific truth. Hell, even anti-Big Bang scientists acknowledge it is widely accepted, hence their claims to be heroic Davids against the scientific Goliaths:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964318806/103-7747415-1126210?v=glance&vi=reviews

"From the Preface: Big Bang cosmology is so thoroughly entrenched that it is accepted as virtual truth throughout the scientific community and, as a result, throughout the general populace."

There are a lot of unanswered questions. Since you seem to believe in the Big Bang, maybe you can answer them?

There are a lot of unanswered questions about gravity. So what? There being unanswered questions doesn't make the prevalent theory false--for that, you need to show something that isn't merely inexplicable by current knowledge, but contradictory. If you could show the universe to be, say, actually collapsing, that would contradict the Big Bang. But since everyone agrees it is expanding away from a single point, any such questions still have to fit into that observation, don't they?

Re: Baryon asymmetry:

http://www.desy.de/~mratz/DESYInfoE.html

Note that there is a thesis that is attempting to explain such asymmetry. Is it proven? No, but it is a potential answer to the question. A quick google search came across numerous such potential answers. How does any of that even remotely approach invalidating the Big Bang? We don't know the precise answer to the question, but that doesn't invalidate the BB.

Or what about dark matter?

Again, a lack of an answer to what dark matter is or how it works doesn't in any way invalidate the observation of the Big Bang's effects. Until it is conclusively proven that such particles do not exist, we have to assume that the answer still lies within the framework of BB. Such questions don't invalidate BB. They may require a recalibration of the current BB model (which has changed a lot), but not the abandoning of the theory.

Yes - there are lots, they are only not so accepted as the big bang, and to be fair have even more extreme problems than the bb has. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or for that matter the big bang right.

I'd like to see some of these non-BB theories and how they explain the dispersal of the matter of the universe. However, as you say, they aren't as accepted, and I'd wager there isn't any theory remotely as accepted as the BB.

Regardless of all this, my question initially was why a particular poster claimed it was "bull-honkey." He didn't substantiate that opinion, just stated. I wanted to see what he felt was a more likely explanation. Since you yourself acknowledge there is no better one than BB, I'd like to hear his rationale.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Caligastia that is insterting. I will make sure to read both posts. I assume its a quote from that book you were talking about?

Yeah, the book also has a lot of other interesting topics click here if you're interested.

[problem_child]

Wacolyte.

[MikeH]

It's always interesting reading what some nut-job has written.

[problem_child]

Like staring at an exotic meal you would never consider eating, and saying something like 'It's got all curly bits in it...' with a curious voice.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Gee, considering earlier in this thread I explicitely made the differentiation between the fact of evolution and the theories of evolution, I can only suspect you posted this erroneous assumption as to my intent because you didn't read the thread. Thanks!

It doesn't matter what you said earlier - if you continue to use the same word/phrase for the same thing, people will get confused. Would people not get confused if I used the word 'gravity' to mean general relativity, no matter how I had 'defined' it in a previous post?

I don't see how you gleaned the implication I take Dawkins' word as a "matter of faith," except through yet another unfounded assumption. All I did was paraphrase one of his sentiments I happen to agree with. Does that mean I must accept everything he says? Hardly.

I didn't say you did. What you believe is your business. But very many people do believe everything he says. (It is interesting that you assume my phrase 'untrained advocates of evolution' automatically applies to you.)

Considering Dawkins point wasn't to deride faith, it's a moot point. The quote was specifically talking about Creationists attempt to foist their dogma into science classes. No, faith does not require proof, and Dawkins wouldn't assert otherwise. But science does.

Oh come now. Dawkins never passes up an opportunity to deride faith, even though he has it in abundance himself. Since you paraphrase him rather than quote, it is hard to tell, but the tone certainly implies derision.

Bull****. I guarantee you a vast majority of cosmologists would tell you they accepted the Big Bang as scientific truth. Hell, even anti-Big Bang scientists acknowledge it is widely accepted, hence their claims to be heroic Davids against the scientific Goliaths:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964318806/103-7747415-1126210?v=glance&vi=reviews

"From the Preface: Big Bang cosmology is so thoroughly entrenched that it is accepted as virtual truth throughout the scientific community and, as a result, throughout the general populace."

I find it amusing that you quote a book which reinforces my point. From be back cover of the book:

The credibility of the Big Bang has been forever destroyed.

I certainly wouldn't go as far as this guy. Like the scientists he quotes, I think the final 'truth' will turn out to be something 'big bang like', but not the model as is.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about gravity. So what? There being unanswered questions doesn't make the prevalent theory false--for that, you need to show something that isn't merely inexplicable by current knowledge, but contradictory. If you could show the universe to be, say, actually collapsing, that would contradict the Big Bang. But since everyone agrees it is expanding away from a single point, any such questions still have to fit into that observation, don't they?

First of all the theories of gravity we have now are inconsistant. Finding a consistent theory of gravity is one of the biggest challanges physics faces.

As for the big bang again, the observation of collapse would not invalidate it at all. It would just imply that we were in the collapsing phase, being pulled together by gravity. Even a steady state, with no movement wouldn't invalidate it because we could just be at the stationary point. Much more interesting would be the observation that we are accelerating outwards, but of course this is what was recently observed and which many cosmologiest arer currectly trying to explain:

http://arXiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0204492

Re: Baryon asymmetry:

http://www.desy.de/~mratz/DESYInfoE.html

Note that there is a thesis that is attempting to explain such asymmetry. Is it proven? No, but it is a potential answer to the question. A quick google search came across numerous such potential answers. How does any of that even remotely approach invalidating the Big Bang? We don't know the precise answer to the question, but that doesn't invalidate the BB.

This is quite funny, because I know this guy (Michael Ratz). I actually had his job, until I left 2 years ago. I'll say hi to him from you next time I see him (I work with his boss a lot).

I know a lot of people working on baryogenisis. There are a lot of papers being written about it:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+T+BARYOGENESIS

But the problem is not solved, and without a solution, the big bang remains inconsistent with observation.

Again, a lack of an answer to what dark matter is or how it works doesn't in any way invalidate the observation of the Big Bang's effects. Until it is conclusively proven that such particles do not exist, we have to assume that the answer still lies within the framework of BB. Such questions don't invalidate BB. They may require a recalibration of the current BB model (which has changed a lot), but not the abandoning of the theory.

Once again, if a solution to the dark matter problem is not found, the BB cosmology is inconsistent. (This is actually one of the easier problems to solve, and i think it will be fixed with the discovery of supersymmetry.) You can't have it both ways: one the one hand you condemn creationists for not confronting the inconsistancies of a 7 day creation, but with the other you wave away the inconsistancies of the Big Bang.

All that I am asking is that people don't believe everything they are told by the media and scientists trying to sell books (there are so many errors in 'A Brief History of Time'!). Almost everything is on the web these days - if you are interested in a subject there are plenty of good scientific papers from well reputed insitutions

Any respectable physics paper (and unfortunately a few not so respectable ones, even though the crackpots are filtered out) are available here:

http://arXiv.org/

I'd like to see some of these non-BB theories and how they explain the dispersal of the matter of the universe. However, as you say, they aren't as accepted, and I'd wager there isn't any theory remotely as accepted as the BB.

For example, http://arXiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0106007

If you ever meet Veltman, who won the Nobel Prize a few years ago, don't get him started on this topic, because you won't get him to stop....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It doesn't matter what you said earlier - if you continue to use the same word/phrase for the same thing, people will get confused. Would people not get confused if I used the word 'gravity' to mean general relativity, no matter how I had 'defined' it in a previous post?

Except that I didn't use it that way after I clarified it. You're making that up in your head as a strawman to argue against. Can you get over it now? Thanks.

Your analogy is piss-poor anyway, since even if I were using Evolution the observation and Evolution the mechanism interchangeably, it wouldn't be remotely similar to using gravity and relativity similarly, now would it?

I didn't say you did. What you believe is your business. But very many people do believe everything he says. (It is interesting that you assume my phrase 'untrained advocates of evolution' automatically applies to you.)

Since I was the only person who mentioned Dawkins, why shouldn't I assume that you would avoid a specious tangent directed and people who obviously aren't here to make a senseless point? Don't worry, I won't make the mistake of assuming you'd avoid such things in the future.

Oh come now. Dawkins never passes up an opportunity to deride faith, even though he has it in abundance himself. Since you paraphrase him rather than quote, it is hard to tell, but the tone certainly implies derision.

Show me where Dawkins "derides" people of faith. He obviously doesn't agree with religiouscists, but I've never seen him "deride" anyone, unless you use the word "deride" interchangeably with "disagree with."

At any rate, the passage is specifically referring to Creationists trying to push their religious views into science. You can make all the assumptions about intent you want (you are prone to that, it seems), but you are in error.

I find it amusing that you quote a book which reinforces my point. From be back cover of the book:

Funny, but the point of quoting the book was to show that even those opposed to BB readily acknowledge that it is vastly accepted by cosmologists, making your previous claim bunk.

I'm glad you wouldn't go so far as that guy, though--he is not a trained cosmologist, after all, but an engineer.

First of all the theories of gravity we have now are inconsistant. Finding a consistent theory of gravity is one of the biggest challanges physics faces.

Does this render the observation of gravity false? No. You yourself acknowledged above that gravity is an observed phenomenon and therefore true, whatever the state of the theory of the mechanics may be.

As for the big bang again, the observation of collapse would not invalidate it at all. It would just imply that we were in the collapsing phase, being pulled together by gravity. Even a steady state, with no movement wouldn't invalidate it because we could just be at the stationary point. Much more interesting would be the observation that we are accelerating outwards, but of course this is what was recently observed and which many cosmologiest arer currectly trying to explain:

Yes, and nowhere have I seen any cosmologist posit that the accelerating dispersal is a contradiction of the BB, merely that they have to now incorporate that observation into existing theories. It is still consistent with the observation that all matter is moving away from a single point.

This is quite funny, because I know this guy (Michael Ratz). I actually had his job, until I left 2 years ago. I'll say hi to him from you next time I see him (I work with his boss a lot).

I know a lot of people working on baryogenisis. There are a lot of papers being written about it:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+T+BARYOGENESIS

But the problem is not solved, and without a solution, the big bang remains inconsistent with observation.

It is not solved conclusively, but without proof that the barogenesis problem renders BB impossible, it doesn't yet pose a strong challenge to the observation of the BB, just poses a challenge to incorporating the new information into BB theory.

Once again, if a solution to the dark matter problem is not found, the BB cosmology is inconsistent (This is actually one of the easier problems to solve, and i think it will be fixed with the discovery of supersymmetry.)

Until the dark matter problem is proven to actually contradict the BB without hope of solution within BB theory, then BB will still stand based on the fact so many other observations support it.

You can't have it both ways: one the one hand you condemn creationists for not confronting the inconsistancies of a 7 day creation, but with the other you wave away the inconsistancies of the Big Bang.

Come on, I know you know as well as anyone what a boondoggle 7-day Creationism is in scientific terms. The fact is that overwhelming amounts of observation and scientific evidence don't just present problems for it, but provenly contradict it to a point that makes it scientifically untenable. There's a big difference between BB, which is scientifically accepted by most cosmologists and which you yourself stated is the best answer out there so far, and Creationism, which isn't remotely the best scientific answer.

All that I am asking is that people don't believe everything they are told by the media and scientists trying to sell books (there are so many errors in 'A Brief History of Time'!). Almost everything is on the web these days - if you are interested in a subject there are plenty of good scientific papers from well reputed insitutions

Your assumption that people here believe everything a single scientist or book tells them is just another unwarranted one. I've read enough about Evolution from multiple sources to know that it is vastly supported by science and is has been shown to be true by scientific standards to such a degree as to be practically irrefutable. As for Darwinism, I've read about it and countervailing ideas enough to have made my own opinion that is the best model for how evolution occurs, and scientists by and large agree with that as well.

[LordVipper]

Not too good, I must admit. It sounds so similar to Turkish that I get confused.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

No respectable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is accepted truth. They would say it is the best model we have, but that is as far as it goes.

Bull****. I guarantee you a vast majority of cosmologists would tell you they accepted the Big Bang as scientific truth. Hell, even anti-Big Bang scientists acknowledge it is widely accepted, hence their claims to be heroic Davids against the scientific Goliaths:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0964318806/103-7747415-1126210?v=glance&vi=reviews

"From the Preface: Big Bang cosmology is so thoroughly entrenched that it is accepted as virtual truth throughout the scientific community and, as a result, throughout the general populace."

But then, isn't all scientific theory considered to be "the best model we have at the moment"? That is why it is called a theory.

[Boris Godunov]

Read the whole effing thread, SB!

[Skanky Burns]

Big Bang isn't a theory?

[Boris Godunov]

READ!