291 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

preacherman76, on 10 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about?

Intelligent design is based on belief... There is no evidence for  intelligent design... It is creationism in disguise..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 10 April 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[Abramelin]

Ben Masada, on 07 April 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Nevertheless, it was a famous astrophysicist who referred to the big bang as "our modern myth." You should have told him before he died that there
is a big difference between theory and myth.

I will bet others scientists already did tell him.

That's the difference between science and religion: you can criticize/question a hypothesis or a theory or a scientist, but religion is absolute and cannot be questioned.

The main difference between science and religion is this: science tries to explain how we got here, religion tries to explain why we got here. You can find out about the 'how', but never about the 'why'.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 10 April 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Ben Masada, on 06 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG


Before you jump into the conclusion that I am about to bash the believers of this myth, I need to bring to your attention that the title of this thread, I have borrowed it from the great Astrophysicist Carl Sagan in his book "Cosmos," page 258.

After going through some quotations about the myths of creation, Carl Sagan refers to them as tributes to human audacity, being the chief difference between them and "our modern scientific myth of the big bang, that science is self-questioning through the performance of experiments and observations to test our ideas." Never mind how a myth can be tested or experimented upon.

The bottom line is that it was rather magnanimous of Carl Sagan to admit the big bang as no more, no less, a myth, just like any other mythological account of creation, which, nevertheless, is "equally worthy our deep respect." Here, Carl Sagan implies, IMHO, that the concept of probability is as good as gold in both cases: Creation and the big bang.

There are two modalities of beliefs: To believe by faith, when we don't know much about what we believe in, and to believe on the basis of probability, when even imaginable things move from zero to some possibility. To believe by faith, which leads to a claim or denial of anything as a fact, Carl Sagan calls it audacity, while king David calls it foolishness. (Psalm 14:1)

No wonder some theists charge atheists with equal need of faith to believe or to deny as both do each other. So, the only solution to this predicament is to believe on the basis of the concept of probability. Thus, audacity and foolishness are replaced by wisdom.

Ben

I too believe the Big Bang is a myth.

If one was to research into how scientists tell how far away stars are they would discover its done using trigonometry. One telescope aligns itself with a star from one side of the planet and another telescope from the opposite side. Angles of the telescopes are calculated, the distance between the telescopes is know and this allows them to come up with a value.

The problem is how do you calculate the distance of a star with any accuracy when your angle is 0000000.1 degrees. The scientists opening admit triginometry can only be used to calcuate the distance of a star out to 100 light years with any accuracy.

Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is.

[Abramelin]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I too believe the Big Bang is a myth.

If one was to research into how scientists tell how far away stars are they would discover its done using trigonometry. One telescope aligns itself with a star from one side of the planet and another telescope from the opposite side. Angles of the telescopes are calculated, the distance between the telescopes is know and this allows them to come up with a value.

The problem is how do you calculate the distance of a star with any accuracy when your angle is 0000000.1 degrees. The scientists opening admit triginometry can only be used to calcuate the distance of a star out to 100 light years with any accuracy.

Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is.

Trigonometric parallax is used to measure the distances of the nearby stars. The stars are so far away that observing a star from opposite sides of the Earth would produce a parallax angle much, much too small to detect. As large a baseline as possible must be used. The largest one that can be easily used is the orbit of the Earth. In this case the baseline is the distance between the Earth and the Sun---an astronomical unit (AU) or 149.6 million kilometers!

http://www.astronomy...starprop/s2.htm

And when you use a baseline connecting opposite points in the Earth's orbit, you get double that number.

[Mr Walker]

Abramelin, on 10 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Trigonometric parallax is used to measure the distances of the nearby stars. The stars are so far away that observing a star from opposite sides of the Earth would produce a parallax angle much, much too small to detect. As large a baseline as possible must be used. The largest one that can be easily used is the orbit of the Earth. In this case the baseline is the distance between the Earth and the Sun---an astronomical unit (AU) or 149.6 million kilometers!

http://www.astronomy...starprop/s2.htm

And when you use a baseline connecting opposite points in the Earth's orbit, you get double that number.

In simple terms, take one measurement at one extreme of the earths orbit and another at the other extreme, and you have baseline approx 180 million miles long.   I guess, as long as the star is about at right angles to the plane of the earths orbit. It wouldnt work if the star was on the same( but extended) ellipse as the earth's orbit.(or close to it) Hope i got my terms right

[Abramelin]

Mr Walker, on 10 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

In simple terms, take one measurement at one extreme of the earths orbit and another at the other extreme, and you have baseline approx 180 million miles long.   I guess, as long as the star is about at right angles to the plane of the earths orbit. It wouldnt work if the star was on the same( but extended) ellipse as the earth's orbit.(or close to it) Hope i got my terms right

Yes, I think that's about it.

And the opposite points of the earth's orbit would only form the largest baseline possible. I think points on the orbit that are at a right angle (3 months difference) would work too, but less accurate.

Maybe I don't get it, but what would it matter if a star is on the same plane as the earth's orbit?

[FurthurBB]

preacherman76, on 10 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Its no more of a belief then believing a fork is a intelligent design. What details are you talking about? Its admited by honest scientist they have no idea, say for instance, how the first living cell formed. Some people look at it, with all its amazing complexity and say it must be designed. Others look at it and assume conditions must have been perfect for it to create its self. Seems to me, though both take a leap of faith, believing it could create its self takes at least as much faith then thinking it was designed.

A fork is obviously created and in no way compares to anything natural.  I never said I knew how the first cell came about, but you do not have to know to look at 1000s of molecular aspects of those cells that all lead you back to same answer and that answer is not design, it is chemistry.  When you can also see those same chemical reactions happen everyday without any intelligence to guide them, why would you assume there was a designer?  It takes no faith to believe it when you can witness it every single day.  Oh, what people believe that anything can create itself?  I think you forgot the large group of people that believe natural, chemical processes are responsible for life on earth.

[Arbenol68]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Now how on Earth can a scientist tell us we have galaxies millions of light years away and trace them back to a central location from which they emerged 14.5 billions years ago? Its a wild guess with an error rate of 99.99999%. I may as well go to a psychic and have them predict how far away a galaxy is.

I don't think this is the whole story. Trigonometry is useful to a point but will be less accurate for much further objects. I believe they can also use a spectrum analysis to estimate distance.

[Arbenol68]

This whole thread seems to be the result of a bit of quote mining. I think it's fair to assume that Sagan used a fair bit of poetic licence in his writing.

As an example, I was recently watching a BBC documentary about the great seasonal floods in Botswana that turn desert into a network of lagoons. I lost count of the number of times the narrator (David Attenborough) used terms like "magic" and "miracle" to describe the events.

Now, it's possible that he thinks there is a supernatural cause to the events - but I doubt it.

[vitruvian12]

Abramelin, on 10 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yes, I think that's about it.

And the opposite points of the earth's orbit would only form the largest baseline possible. I think points on the orbit that are at a right angle (3 months difference) would work too, but less accurate.

Maybe I don't get it, but what would it matter if a star is on the same plane as the earth's orbit?

I dont understand why he thinks it wouldnt work in that situation either.

[Mr Walker]

vitruvian12, on 10 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I dont understand why he thinks it wouldnt work in that situation either.

Probably a fault in my visualisation. You could still get measurements at either side of the ellipse. I saw it as a dinner plate on a table. If the star was a pea off to  the top or bottom of the table, you could get a triangulation. But at first it seemed to me that  if the pea was on the table with the plate you wouldnt get a base line. However  you could, by going across the plate on the same plane. I can't visualise things in my head, so unless i use a real life scenario, it makes stuff like this more tricky.  

Edited by Mr Walker, 11 April 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[preacherman76]

FurthurBB, on 10 April 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

A fork is obviously created and in no way compares to anything natural.  I never said I knew how the first cell came about, but you do not have to know to look at 1000s of molecular aspects of those cells that all lead you back to same answer and that answer is not design, it is chemistry.  When you can also see those same chemical reactions happen everyday without any intelligence to guide them, why would you assume there was a designer?  It takes no faith to believe it when you can witness it every single day.  Oh, what people believe that anything can create itself?  I think you forgot the large group of people that believe natural, chemical processes are responsible for life on earth.

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

[vitruvian12]

preacherman76, on 11 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

Just because a cause of something is unknown at this time doesnt mean it needs to have a designer or that its proof that there is one.  If we dont know the answer we cant just assume that implies that the answer is whatever we would like to believe it is.

[FurthurBB]

preacherman76, on 11 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

A fork is a obvious creation, yet a cell which is infinitly more complex is just a chemical reaction? A chemical reaction that you have never seen. Never been able to replicate. If you dont know how the first cell came about, how can you possibly say it wasnt designed? What natural chemical process created life? You have no idea.

What you do not understand is knowing how life came about exactly, doesn't need  to be known.  There is nothing going on in a cell that is not a natural chemical reaction.  My fork might be rusting, but that is about the only natural chemical reaction going on with a fork.  You look from the big picture and it seems impossible.  I look at the details and anything else seems improbable.

[preacherman76]

vitruvian12, on 11 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Just because a cause of something is unknown at this time doesnt mean it needs to have a designer or that its proof that there is one.  If we dont know the answer we cant just assume that implies that the answer is whatever we would like to believe it is.

That logic is flawed, in my opinion. We could stumble on something far less complicated and know without a doubt it was designed. I look at a cell, and all its amazing wonder, it screams as loud as any created object (even more so in most cases) that it was designed. Was created, for a purpose.

Now who or what created that cell is a entirely different subject.