npetreley I'm calling you out, you still have not told us what fields you are a scientific expert in, nor have you shown us any papers you have published in these fields.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Big Bang
- Thread starter Sky
- Start date
Doug,
I think npetreley has a bachelors in computer science. He's been both a employed programmer and a linux journalist. He has never been a scientist.
I think npetreley has a bachelors in computer science. He's been both a employed programmer and a linux journalist. He has never been a scientist.
Upvote
0
I can't help but wonder how he managed a B.S. in even the most lenient of CS majors.
I was required to take quite a few science classes for mine (admittedly, I took more than I needed, and honors to boot, but still) as well as a great deal of mathematics.
I can't imagine how Nick could have slogged through all that and still not know the scientific method, or even the basics of biology.
I was required to take quite a few science classes for mine (admittedly, I took more than I needed, and honors to boot, but still) as well as a great deal of mathematics.
I can't imagine how Nick could have slogged through all that and still not know the scientific method, or even the basics of biology.
Upvote
0
In that case, why does he feel qualified to state that evolution and everything else that he disagrees with is a made up fantasty? This is further complicated by the fact he has not yet given any convincing evidence to back his claim up.
Upvote
0
Ooooohh...
Sounds like a gunfighter's challenge in those old Grade B westerns....
Please, Doug, don't shoot Nick. He often displays a wit and humor that is sorely needed on these boards.
or is that needed like sores.....
or needed when sore????
Anyway, please don't kill 'em.....
Upvote
0
Huh? Since when do I need to meet your qualifications for anything?
Besides, I'm really crushed now. I figured everyone would just love to have me in their brotherhood of scientists.
Upvote
0
I have no degrees in computer science. You have no idea what my background is, Rufus, so don't bother guessing. But so everyone can be as smug as possible, let's assume all I have is a high school education. If that doesn't work, then assume I never finished high school.
Upvote
0
Your degree is in music theory & composition. Sorry, I thought you switched from music theory to computing in college, when in fact you switched from astrophysics to music theory. You only picked up programming as a occupation after college because music wasn't paying the bills.
So I guess I do know a little something about your background. I'm still wondering when you found time to be scientist.
Upvote
0
Sky said:
Actually, it DOES contradict the Bible. Besides, the Big Bang's a dud, they've known it for years, but they don't have a replacement theory.
The Bible says God cannot lie.
Upvote
0
Novaknight1 said:Actually, it DOES contradict the Bible. Besides, the Big Bang's a dud, they've known it for years, but they don't have a replacement theory.
That is basically the only evidense against the big bang in this thread. So I guess it is up to me.
1.The big bang states that first there was nothing and then nothing exploded. That makes a lot of sense. Even if there was nothing, where did that material come from?
2.Since when has an explosion created something good and useful. Did the atomic bomb at Hiroshima create life of destroy it? Explosions create chaos.
3.If this galaxy was formed by the same materials, then why is the sun made mostly of hydrogen and helium, while the inner planets contain less than 1% of hydrogen and helium?
4.If the planets were created through the same explosion, then why don't they spin in the same direction? Pluto and Venus spin backwards, and Uranus is tilted on its side.
5.Planets couldn't have been formed through several collisions, because the impacts would be self cancelling. Yet all planets spin.
6.The moon couldn't have been formed by a collision of a meteor and the earth, because the soil of each is not similar.
7.The earth in its position couldn't have happened by chance. If the earth were 5% closer to the sun, the oceans would boil and turn to gas. If it were 1% further away from the sun, the oceans would freeze. If the earth were less dense, it wouldn't be able to hold an atmosphere. If it turns at a different speed, it wouldn't be able to have life on it. If the earth were a little bit more dense, the air pressure would be too great for life. All this is why scientists created the Anthropic principle. Which states that it is as if the earth were created for life.
It is absurd to think that all of that happened by chance.
Upvote
0
The big bang theory is the best scientific theory we currently have regarding the origin of our universe, though some folks are hesitant to embrace it--perhaps because of its strong similarity to the opening verses of Genesis. Those of us who are Christian or Jewish don't seem to mind that so much, though.....Sky said:
Upvote
0
Wonderfulcross said:Novaknight1 said:Actually, it DOES contradict the Bible. Besides, the Big Bang's a dud, they've known it for years, but they don't have a replacement theory.
That is basically the only evidense against the big bang in this thread. So I guess it is up to me.
1.The big bang states that first there was nothing and then nothing exploded. That makes a lot of sense. Even if there was nothing, where did that material come from?
2.Since when has an explosion created something good and useful. Did the atomic bomb at Hiroshima create life of destroy it? Explosions create chaos.
3.If this galaxy was formed by the same materials, then why is the sun made mostly of hydrogen and helium, while the inner planets contain less than 1% of hydrogen and helium?
4.If the planets were created through the same explosion, then why don't they spin in the same direction? Pluto and Venus spin backwards, and Uranus is tilted on its side.
5.Planets couldn't have been formed through several collisions, because the impacts would be self cancelling. Yet all planets spin.
6.The moon couldn't have been formed by a collision of a meteor and the earth, because the soil of each is not similar.
7.The earth in its position couldn't have happened by chance. If the earth were 5% closer to the sun, the oceans would boil and turn to gas. If it were 1% further away from the sun, the oceans would freeze. If the earth were less dense, it wouldn't be able to hold an atmosphere. If it turns at a different speed, it wouldn't be able to have life on it. If the earth were a little bit more dense, the air pressure would be too great for life. All this is why scientists created the Anthropic principle. Which states that it is as if the earth were created for life.
It is absurd to think that all of that happened by chance.
Hey, when you post these things, do you cut and paste from some webpage? Do you ever check to see what you posted is right? Do you ever feel bad that you post false information?
I don't have anything in front of me, but I have taken some physics, and I know that 4 is false. To show that Venus and Pluto violate the conservation of angular momentum, you need to find the sum of the angular momentum of every object in the universe and compare it with the sum of the angular momentum of the big bang. You can't just take a small subset and say why aren't they all going in the same direction.
If I butched this, I'm sorry, because I did really bad in physics.
Upvote
0
Wonderfulcross said:
no, it doesn't state that. therefore the rest of 1 and 2 are moot.
i don't know, but why do you assume scientists don't have an answer to this? do you realize that many people have devoted their careers to studying solar system formation? have you ever tried to find out if they have an answer to this question? perhaps it has something to do with the way the accretion process works.
the big bang was not an explosion, and the planets weren't created in the big bang anyways. the earth was created around 10 billion years after the big bang.
what does that mean? that doesn't make sense to me. what do you mean by "self cancelling"?
well i don't think it was a meteor, but... don't you think the earth's soil would change after billions of years of life?
nonsense. there is no reason it could not have happened on it's own.
this is absolute nonsense, because the earth's distance from the sun is not even constant. earth's orbit is elliptical, so sometimes it is closer to the sun, and sometimes it is farther. in fact the distance differs by about 3 million miles between perihelion and aphelion. that's about 4% of the earth-sun distance, and this make almost no difference at all to the earth's temperature.
why would it be less dense? and what the heck does this have to do with the big bang anyways? nothing, as far as i can see.
why not?
life evolves to suit it's surroundings. if air pressure were greater, animals would evolve to that environment.
It is absurd to think that all of that happened by chance.
no one thinks any of this happened just by "chance" because natural processes are not random.
Upvote
0
Someone else who hasn't studied what they are trying to refute and ends up attacking straw men.
a) Big Bang theory (BBT) does not state that first there was nothing.
b) BBT does not state that there was an explosion. The correct term is expansion.
c) Does matter need to come from something?
See above
The "material" present at the big bang was a sort of quark soup. Elements like hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, iron, etc. came later. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe with helium a distant second. So it is not surprising to find stars, including the sun, made of these elements, especially when it is hydrogen fusion that makes up a star's "fire". As for the relative lack of these elements in inner core planets, I expect the answer is to be found in the process of solar system formation. Look it up.
The most interesting question about rocky planets is why and how they contain heavy elements, especially those heavier than iron. Look that up too.
a) They were not created through the same "explosion" (which wasn't an explosion anyway.) They came into existence about 10 billion years later. (Hence all subsequent questions about the solar system are not about BBT.)
b) There are many possible sources of different orientations and axial spins. These pose no problem for standard cosmology. If you really want to find something that would pose a problem, find a planet with a reverse orbital direction.
As noted above, none of these reference the big bang, so none of them refute BBT.
btw it is not true that if the earth turns at a different speed that it wouldn't be able to have life on it. We know this because the speed of the earth's rotation is not constant. It has been slowing down. It used to spin faster. Yet there was life when it was spinning faster. Some corals register diurnal rotation in their shells and there are ancient corals which register a day length of 20 hours.
Agreed. Who would believe something as silly as that?
Wonderfulcross said:
a) Big Bang theory (BBT) does not state that first there was nothing.
b) BBT does not state that there was an explosion. The correct term is expansion.
c) Does matter need to come from something?
See above
The "material" present at the big bang was a sort of quark soup. Elements like hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, iron, etc. came later. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe with helium a distant second. So it is not surprising to find stars, including the sun, made of these elements, especially when it is hydrogen fusion that makes up a star's "fire". As for the relative lack of these elements in inner core planets, I expect the answer is to be found in the process of solar system formation. Look it up.
The most interesting question about rocky planets is why and how they contain heavy elements, especially those heavier than iron. Look that up too.
a) They were not created through the same "explosion" (which wasn't an explosion anyway.) They came into existence about 10 billion years later. (Hence all subsequent questions about the solar system are not about BBT.)
b) There are many possible sources of different orientations and axial spins. These pose no problem for standard cosmology. If you really want to find something that would pose a problem, find a planet with a reverse orbital direction.
As noted above, none of these reference the big bang, so none of them refute BBT.
btw it is not true that if the earth turns at a different speed that it wouldn't be able to have life on it. We know this because the speed of the earth's rotation is not constant. It has been slowing down. It used to spin faster. Yet there was life when it was spinning faster. Some corals register diurnal rotation in their shells and there are ancient corals which register a day length of 20 hours.
It is absurd to think that all of that happened by chance.
Agreed. Who would believe something as silly as that?
Upvote
0
Hey, when you post these things, do you cut and paste from some webpage? Do you ever check to see what you posted is right? Do you ever feel bad that you post false information?
What I wrote is exactly what I heard come out of 15 different scientists' mouths. They were in a video called A Question of Origins. I didn't even go on to websites for this information. Where and when did you get you information.
What I wrote is exactly what I heard come out of 15 different scientists' mouths. They were in a video called A Question of Origins. I didn't even go on to websites for this information. Where and when did you get you information.
Upvote
0
Since A Question of Origins has links to ICR I would be very, very skeptical of the claims it makes.
You wouldn't happen to know what fields the scienticians specialized in, would you?
You wouldn't happen to know what fields the scienticians specialized in, would you?
Upvote
0
Wonderfulcross said:Hey, when you post these things, do you cut and paste from some webpage? Do you ever check to see what you posted is right? Do you ever feel bad that you post false information?
What I wrote is exactly what I heard come out of 15 different scientists' mouths. They were in a video called A Question of Origins. I didn't even go on to websites for this information. Where and when did you get you information.
Well, I took a physics class which explains why #4 is wrong. Personally, I hate to post false information. That's why I'm very careful to look at the sources of what I post. If I don't understand a source, I don't post it. That's why I didn't write anything about the other problems you listed. I don't know enough about it.
Do you agree with my statement about why #4 is wrong?
Upvote
0
One does not understand the Big Bang if they think it was "nothing and then an explosion." First of all, there is no "nothing" in the quantum level. The Big Bang involved a vacuum of negative energy density, meaning it was less dense than matterless space (matter did not exist yet, because nothing had mass). What was present was what is always present in such vacuums; virtual particle pairs. We know these particles exist because their effects are noticeable, and are observable in Casimir Vacuums.
Virtual particle pairs break the First Law of Thermodynamics within Planck Time. Two conjugate particles (by this I mean one is matter and the other is antimatter), are created and then mutually annihilate one another within short order.
At the Big Bang, extremely hot temperatures caused a rapid inflation to occur in spacetime. The virtual particle pairs created within this vacuum underwent such strong gravitational pull outwards, that these particles/anti-particles got seperated before they could annihilate one another, making them real now.
Thus we can have "creation out of nothing" because it never really was "nothing". It also wasn't an "explosion", it was an expansion. Of course, if you ask where the vacuum came from, that answer cannot be given scientifically, though mathematically, the notion of change without the dimension of time is very plausible. Coordinates on a graph differ from each other, but time is not needed to know this. They are on the same coordinate plane, and thus are simultaneous things occuring within a phase space. So, before the vacuum space existed eternally, and the first-motion of an otherwise static universe caused time.
The Big Bang will even work for an atheist, go figure!
Virtual particle pairs break the First Law of Thermodynamics within Planck Time. Two conjugate particles (by this I mean one is matter and the other is antimatter), are created and then mutually annihilate one another within short order.
At the Big Bang, extremely hot temperatures caused a rapid inflation to occur in spacetime. The virtual particle pairs created within this vacuum underwent such strong gravitational pull outwards, that these particles/anti-particles got seperated before they could annihilate one another, making them real now.
Thus we can have "creation out of nothing" because it never really was "nothing". It also wasn't an "explosion", it was an expansion. Of course, if you ask where the vacuum came from, that answer cannot be given scientifically, though mathematically, the notion of change without the dimension of time is very plausible. Coordinates on a graph differ from each other, but time is not needed to know this. They are on the same coordinate plane, and thus are simultaneous things occuring within a phase space. So, before the vacuum space existed eternally, and the first-motion of an otherwise static universe caused time.
The Big Bang will even work for an atheist, go figure!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
