Big Bang?
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#284 Jul 27, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the universe so uniform on a large scale? Why does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions? In particular, why is the temperature of the microwave back-ground radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions? It is a bit like asking a number of students an exam question. If they all give exactly the same answer, you can be pretty sure they have communicated with each other. Yet, in that analogy above, there would not have been time since the big bang for light to get from one distant region to another, even though the regions were close together in the early universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information can. So there would be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have come to have the same temperature as each other, unless for some unexplained reason they happened to start out with the same temperature.
Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that re-collapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Despite the fact that the universe is so uniform and homogeneous on a large scale, it contains local irregularities, such as stars and galaxies. These are thought to have developed from small differences in the density of the early universe from one region to another. What was the origin of these density fluctuations?
The general theory of relativity, on its own, cannot explain these features or answer these questions because of its prediction that the universe started off with infinite density at the big bang singularity. At the singularity, general relativity and all other physical laws would break down: one couldn’t predict what would come out of the singularity. This means that one might as well cut the big bang, and any events before it, out of the theory, because they can have no effect on what we observe. Space-time would have a boundary – a beginning at the big bang. Science seems to have uncovered a set of laws that, within the limits set by the uncertainty principle, tell us how the universe will develop with time, if we know its state at any one time.
This is a fairly good description of the so-called Horizon Problem in cosmology. The solution, as supported by a variety of lines of evidence is the notion that there was a period of very rapid expansion early on. This would have been mediated by a massive scalar particle similar in some ways to the Higgs Boson. We have evidence of this expansion in the variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. While there was a suggestion of a 'smoking gun' in the form of B-mode vibrations in that background, the evidence seems to be controversial because of issues related to near source 'static'.

In any case, no invocation of a deity is required. And your sources are about 40 years out of date.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#285 Jul 27, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a list of cretards who have said that Miller used the wrong atmosphere
1. Stanley Miller
2. Sidney Fox
3. Klaus Dose
4. Marcel Florkin
This is old news but the fanatic adherents to a soup that never existed & cooked in conditions that also never existed do not want to know it. It shatters their dreams. Sorry, you've sold a bill of goods, there's no Santa Claus coming down the chimney.
As ignorant as you are, I shall have to correct you once more on it.

First of all, you declared before several times that we just can't look into the past, how the earth was before. So, tell us, how then do you know that Miller's assumptions about the early atmosphere of the earth were to be wrong? according to your own saying, you can't tell. You are contradicting yourself. Tattle contradicting another tattle. how charming.

First of all, Miller did not only experiment on life emerging from an early atmosphere, but also ones including conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions.

Second, Miller accomplished his atmosphere experiments in 1953. That's 60 year ago.
In 2008 Johnson et. al. picked up these non-atmospheric experiments and even yielded better results than Urey and Miller: 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules. As volcanism without any doubt was very abundant in an early earth, volcanic systems inevitably became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulphide there could have helped these molecules form peptides. Since then scientists also discovered undersea fumaroles, you know the ones that you assumed not to exist, and we know that these molecules should also have been very abundant in the early ocean.

Third, Miller and others also have experimenting on other atmospheric conditions (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger & Miller 1983; Stribling & Miller 1987). Because from the very beginning in 1953, Miller already acknowledged the atmospheric conditions he assumed were uncertain. Hence he threw more irons into the fire, as a good scientist befits. These studies yielded the same results - and some even better.

Fourth, as mentioned before, Miller's experiments are 60 years old. Since then we saw many other experiments showing producing even rather complex molecules in different conditions. with each other option, the likelihood of abiogenesis grows.

Fifth, if you were not to piddle in 60 years old research but in 21st research on abiogenesis, you would be baffled with sheer perplexity. I advice you NOT to read it. It will be painful for you pertaining your bronze age mythology.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#286 Jul 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
replaytime, you should have made it clear that you were quoting from Hawkins book and provided the link earlier.
As usual when you provide a link it shows that you were wrong all along. Hawkins never supported the idea of fine tuning and the article that TurkanaBoy clarified the matter. As I pointed out earlier that what you posted was a quote mine. It quoted the words of Hawkins but seemed to indicate something that was exactly the opposite of what he believed. That is from the first chapter of his book and it has been years since I last read it so I was no longer aware of the point that Hawkins was trying to get across. That first chapter was setting up the history of physics. What he was pointing out was what it looked like to some observers. For example he pointed out earlier in that same chapter how it was thought at one time that the Earth was fixed in place. No one seems to have taken that seriously. That is because we all know that it is wrong. Even though he continued to use phrases like " One could still imagine that God " where he clearly was using the word "imagine" people like replaytime read into it what they wanted to and saw it as a confirmation of fine tuning.
What he conveniently forgot was that this was the first chapter where he set up what was going to be covered in the rest of the book. This particular part of his book has been quote mined so often and so severely that he saw the need to write another article saying that he never supported fine tuning. It was the misinterpretation of his work that led to these fine tuning claims.
So even though replaytime does not like it this was a clear case of quote mining. The phrase was taken out of context. The phrase implied exactly the opposite of the point that Hawkins was trying to get across.
See post #269 were I stated -
"That was from Hawking's book "A Brief History In Time" (which I had to dig out to show subzone is an idiot-as always lol). I have seen you discuss some of these things. Thought you might give a little more insight to what he says.""

Then in your idiocy you came back with post #271:
"Hey look, replaytime is a plagiarist too. Of course dishonesty has always been his forte. Here is the source of his recent long post:

http://jolulipa.blogspot.com/2010/06/agnostic ...

I don';t know what point he thought he was making by copying and pasting another person's work. But then idiots do what idiots do and sane people are hard pressed to explain it".

Then in more of your idiocy you came back with post #274;
"You utter tard. You cannot judge yourself here. I don't have sock puppets. You have a whole fleet of them.

Plus I found and linked the source of your post.

Why did you plagiarize someone's blog? Is it your own blog? It is still plagiarism if you copy yourself. It is very easy to catch fools like you. All you have to do is to copy and search. It was that easy."

Both of your posts were AFTER I said I got the comments in my post from Hawking's book "A Brief History In Time".

SO if you were to ever pay attention, stop being so stupid and stop acting as an idiot for a just little bit you could have seen that those quotes came from Hawking's book.

Then you came and say in this post "Hawkins never supported the idea of fine tuning and the article that TurkanaBoy clarified the matter"
Now he did some what support the idea of fine tuning in his book "A Brief History In Time" written in 1988 but in his newer book "The Grand Design". written 22 years later in 2010 he seemed to retreat a way from that position.

Again if you were to ever pay attention, stop being so stupid and stop acting as an idiot for a just little bit you would see things a little clearer and understand them more.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#287 Jul 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a fairly good description of the so-called Horizon Problem in cosmology. The solution, as supported by a variety of lines of evidence is the notion that there was a period of very rapid expansion early on. This would have been mediated by a massive scalar particle similar in some ways to the Higgs Boson. We have evidence of this expansion in the variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation. While there was a suggestion of a 'smoking gun' in the form of B-mode vibrations in that background, the evidence seems to be controversial because of issues related to near source 'static'.
In any case, no invocation of a deity is required. And your sources are about 40 years out of date.
26 years to be correct.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#288 Jul 27, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
See post #269 were I stated -
"That was from Hawking's book "A Brief History In Time" (which I had to dig out to show subzone is an idiot-as always lol). I have seen you discuss some of these things. Thought you might give a little more insight to what he says.""
Then in your idiocy you came back with post #271:
"Hey look, replaytime is a plagiarist too. Of course dishonesty has always been his forte. Here is the source of his recent long post:
http://jolulipa.blogspot.com/2010/06/agnostic ...
I don';t know what point he thought he was making by copying and pasting another person's work. But then idiots do what idiots do and sane people are hard pressed to explain it".
Then in more of your idiocy you came back with post #274;
"You utter tard. You cannot judge yourself here. I don't have sock puppets. You have a whole fleet of them.
Plus I found and linked the source of your post.
Why did you plagiarize someone's blog? Is it your own blog? It is still plagiarism if you copy yourself. It is very easy to catch fools like you. All you have to do is to copy and search. It was that easy."
Both of your posts were AFTER I said I got the comments in my post from Hawking's book "A Brief History In Time".
SO if you were to ever pay attention, stop being so stupid and stop acting as an idiot for a just little bit you could have seen that those quotes came from Hawking's book.
Then you came and say in this post "Hawkins never supported the idea of fine tuning and the article that TurkanaBoy clarified the matter"
Now he did some what support the idea of fine tuning in his book "A Brief History In Time" written in 1988 but in his newer book "The Grand Design". written 22 years later in 2010 he seemed to retreat a way from that position.
Again if you were to ever pay attention, stop being so stupid and stop acting as an idiot for a just little bit you would see things a little clearer and understand them more.
You did not make it clear where you were quoting from in that post. I did a search on part of it and found a blog that had the same line and I made an error.

But my error still pales in comparison to yours. You did not understand how your attempt to use this was a quote mine.

What is sad is that you still do not understand how you were quote mining Hawking.
wondering

Morris, OK

#289 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
go lick your wounds and let them heal. the creatard got the best of you this time. sharpen your game and don't fall into their trap and BS next time. it happens to us all sometimes.
wondering

Morris, OK

#290 Jul 28, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
.
you never did give me an answer of why you still believe in god but not the easter bunny, tooth fairy or santa claus. are you ashamed or just afraid to admit you believe still believe in myths?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#291 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
go lick your wounds and let them heal. the creatard got the best of you this time. sharpen your game and don't fall into their trap and BS next time. it happens to us all sometimes.
What wounds? I made a small mistake with a liar. Overall he was still shown to be a liar.
wondering

Morris, OK

#292 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What wounds? I made a small mistake with a liar. Overall he was still shown to be a liar.
call it what you want. not my dog in this fight so i just call it as i see it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#293 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
call it what you want. not my dog in this fight so i just call it as i see it.
But you keep showing yourself to be a fool so your opinion is not all that important.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#294 Jul 28, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
26 years to be correct.
Anything more than about 10 years old in cosmology is out of date. We have had a flood of data from COBE and WMAP that has answered many of the questions that had been around previously.

For example, when I was young, the age of the universe was stated as somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. Many of the other relevant factors were similarly uncertain; like the expansion rate, the curvature, amount of dark matter, existence of a cosmological constant.

The data we have now has answered these questions to high accuracy: the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The curvature is very close to 0, etc.

We are now in the era of precision cosmology. That simply wasn't the case when your references were written.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#295 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
go lick your wounds and let them heal. the creatard got the best of you this time. sharpen your game and don't fall into their trap and BS next time. it happens to us all sometimes.
The MAIN problem here is that the "evolutionists" here are making the mistake to swim into the creationist's basket trap. That trap goes like: we, creationists, pose the questions, you, evolutionists, answer. This never ends. With all respect but sometimes the "evolutionists" are just acting like lapdogs, complying to every whim of the creationists. There is ALWAYS yet another question possible on the every next answer on the previous question. without any exception, the point made by the "evolutionists" are NEVER addressed - only next questions follow.

I have a quite another strategy.
I only answer the crap and caboodle, I like revealing crap and caboodle. I only act like a boomerang hitting back right into their own face.
But, above all, I WILL start questions too.
That INEVITABLE will end up in:
- being ignored
- desperate attempts to regain the questioning position again
- answering questions not posed
- endless word weasels
- and other forms of dodging and ducking to an embarrassing and baffling degree
- starting to shout and ad homs
- just leaving the forum.

I like it.
I am very persistent in again and again repeating the questions.
It drives them mad.
They NEVER provide ANY sensible or even substantial answer.
And I mean NEVER.
wondering

Morris, OK

#296 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But you keep showing yourself to be a fool so your opinion is not all that important.
the only fool i see is the one that keeps calling others a fool. that would be you
wondering

Morris, OK

#297 Jul 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The MAIN problem here is that the "evolutionists" here are making the mistake to swim into the creationist's basket trap. That trap goes like: we, creationists, pose the questions, you, evolutionists, answer. This never ends. With all respect but sometimes the "evolutionists" are just acting like lapdogs, complying to every whim of the creationists. There is ALWAYS yet another question possible on the every next answer on the previous question. without any exception, the point made by the "evolutionists" are NEVER addressed - only next questions follow.
I have a quite another strategy.
I only answer the crap and caboodle, I like revealing crap and caboodle. I only act like a boomerang hitting back right into their own face.
But, above all, I WILL start questions too.
That INEVITABLE will end up in:
- being ignored
- desperate attempts to regain the questioning position again
- answering questions not posed
- endless word weasels
- and other forms of dodging and ducking to an embarrassing and baffling degree
- starting to shout and ad homs
- just leaving the forum.
I like it.
I am very persistent in again and again repeating the questions.
It drives them mad.
They NEVER provide ANY sensible or even substantial answer.
And I mean NEVER.
both sides like to dance around. i have seen that. just because one side dances around more than the other they does not make them worse than the other. if a thief steals once a month and another steal once a year, they are both still thieves.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#298 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
both sides like to dance around. i have seen that. just because one side dances around more than the other they does not make them worse than the other. if a thief steals once a month and another steal once a year, they are both still thieves.
Not fitting MY observations.
wondering

Morris, OK

#299 Jul 29, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not fitting MY observations.
better get you eyes checked or sharpen up your reading comprehension. but then again i say with you, you should do both.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#300 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
better get you eyes checked or sharpen up your reading comprehension. but then again i say with you, you should do both.
I have seen YOUR observations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 31 min 15th Dalai Lama 436
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 42 min 15th Dalai Lama 161,077
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 44 min Honest 67,777
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr Honest 928
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Dogen 448
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr River Tam 28,721
What does the theory of evolution state? 7 hr River Tam 186
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 hr Regolith Based Li... 221,400
More from around the web