Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by hackenslash »

Not noticably, no. rickstones, please keep your prayers to yourself. I have no use for them, and I find your statement offensive.

I'll respond tomorrow when I have a little more strength. For the moment, it is sufficient to say that the reference frame for the CMB is universal. In other words, the CMB isn't travelling toward us from anywhere, it sits still in space that is expanding, so we share its reference frame. In that light, the reference frame of the CMB is 15 billion years (give or take), and there is no support there for a young universe, or a 6 day creation. Not to mention the fact that this particular cretinous deity cannot exist, owing to logically absurd and contradictory attributes, as stated in the turgid book of wibble written by illiterate bronze-age goatherders.

Oh, and the other thing that Einstein taught us is that coincidence is an illusion, resting as it does on the principle of simultaneity, which relativity shows us is completely invalid.
rickstones
Posts: 34
Joined: Jul 31, 2010 1:17 pm
Name: Rick Stones
Country: USA

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by rickstones »

Not noticably, no. rickstones, please keep your prayers to yourself. I have no use for them, and I find your statement offensive.


How tempting it is to respond by saying,"Awww, is diddums offended by the nasty man's praying? Tell somebody who doesn't love his neighbor as himself." (Lev. 19:18)
rickstones
Posts: 34
Joined: Jul 31, 2010 1:17 pm
Name: Rick Stones
Country: USA

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by rickstones »

hackenslash";p="381375 wrote:For the moment, it is sufficient to say that the reference frame for the CMB is universal. In other words, the CMB isn't travelling toward us from anywhere, it sits still in space that is expanding, so we share its reference frame.


OK... Wait...WHAT?

Electro-magnetic radiation that is sitting still in space? Even I know better than that! ALL electromagnetic radiation is traveling at the same speed - the speed of light, the speed at which time ceases to have any meaning; the eternal "now". This CBR certainly does NOT share our reference frame. It originated from "somewhere"... (just as our universe did). And where ever that somewhere was, it enjoyed conditions of gravity and velocity that created a frame of reference in which time passed at a unique rate. It just so happens that that unique rate is 1 to a million-million when you compare it to EMR produced in our earthly frame.

Scientists have learned that if you incubate the egg of a songbird until it hatches, and play a continuous recording of "Mony, Mony", the little bird will never sing the unique song of its ancestors. It will spend the rest of its life as though descended from Tommy James and the Shondells, trying with all his little heart to tweet out:, "Shoot em down, turn around: Come on Mony." The song a bird learns during infancy becomes its song for life. I have to be honest with you when I read most of the silly nonsense on high-minded message boards such as this one, the only thing I can think to say is, "Wake me, Shake me, Mony, Mony." (!)

Don't spend a lot of time preparing a response tomorrow hack. Just rest and try to regain your strength. I'll probably never be back here to read it. I'd prefer to find a place where people actually desire meaningful discourse.
User avatar
Rumraket
Posts: 13264
Joined: Mar 09, 2010 1:40 pm
Location: On the shore of the cosmic ocean.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Rumraket »

I can say this much about the CMB, it originated from litterally everywhere within spacetime. It is everywhere, flying in all directions, from all directions. Everywhere you go in the cosmos and the CMB would look more or less the same. It would come at you from all directions at the same intensity. Before the universe became transparent to electromagnetic radiation, it was filled with it. At some point, it became transparent and the radiation, being everywhere, was now free to travel across the void in all directions.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
Posts: 13264
Joined: Mar 09, 2010 1:40 pm
Location: On the shore of the cosmic ocean.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Rumraket »

Don't spend a lot of time preparing a response tomorrow hack. Just rest and try to regain your strength. I'll probably never be back here to read it. I'd prefer to find a place where people actually desire meaningful discourse.

Image
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by hackenslash »

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:Electro-magnetic radiation that is sitting still in space? Even I know better than that!


'Sits still' was a poor choice. It is travelling 'to' everywhere 'from' everywhere, so it has no point of origin. If it did, the CMB wouldn't be isotropic, now would it? The expansion of the cosmos is happening at every point. There is and was no 'where' for it to come from.

ALL electromagnetic radiation is traveling at the same speed - the speed of light, the speed at which time ceases to have any meaning; the eternal "now". This CBR certainly does NOT share our reference frame. It originated from "somewhere"... (just as our universe did).


Bzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. 'Somewhere' is referential to a spatial location. Since there was no space before the Planck epoch, there was no 'somewhere' for it to have originated. I also advise caution about using the word 'universe', because it doesn't mean what you clearly think it does.

And where ever that somewhere was, it enjoyed conditions of gravity and velocity that created a frame of reference in which time passed at a unique rate.


There was no bloody somewhere, because there was no space.

It just so happens that that unique rate is 1 to a million-million when you compare it to EMR produced in our earthly frame.


Citation for this vapid assertion? That sounds a great deal like cretinist mathematics to me, and we all know how that works.

Scientists have learned that if you incubate the egg of a songbird until it hatches, and play a continuous recording of "Mony, Mony", the little bird will never sing the unique song of its ancestors. It will spend the rest of its life as though descended from Tommy James and the Shondells, trying with all his little heart to tweet out:, "Shoot em down, turn around: Come on Mony." The song a bird learns during infancy becomes its song for life. I have to be honest with you when I read most of the silly nonsense on high-minded message boards such as this one, the only thing I can think to say is, "Wake me, Shake me, Mony, Mony." (!)


And this has what, precisely, to do with the CMB or the expansion of the cosmos?

Don't spend a lot of time preparing a response tomorrow hack. Just rest and try to regain your strength. I'll probably never be back here to read it. I'd prefer to find a place where people actually desire meaningful discourse.


Ah, the run away tactic again, is it? How did that work out for you last time you tried it? When was that, by the way? Oh, yes. It was earlier today.

Image
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
Posts: 22676
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 3:48 pm
Country: England
Location: Near Liverpool, UK

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Calilasseia »

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Yikes! Calilasseia's exhaustive "C" list is very frightening (and revealing). Nevertheless, I offer myself as a punching bag for the "all-discussion-must-end" crew, and ask for some opinion/feedback:


You rang?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:In his book, The Science of God,


There is no such thing. Science deals with evidentially supported postulates that are verified via empirical means. Supernaturalists have never provided empirical verification for any of the numerous species of invented invisible magic man. When they do, we'll sit up and take notice.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Dr. Gerald Schroeder offers a possible reconciliation between the biblical revelation of a universe created in 6 days, and evidence of modern cosmology and paleontology which bear witness to a 15 billion year old universe.


And what convoluted apologetic gymnastics will be erected here I wonder?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed.


That was because scientists took time alighting upon evidence for something other. How does this validate 3,000 year old mythology?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote: It took an Einstein to do it, but the view of science was finally harmonized with the first word of the Bible, "B'raisheet" (In the beginning).


Lame apologetics and nothing else. The simple fact of the matter is that 3,000 year old mythology merely asserts that there was a beginning. Moreover, it erects other assertions that are known to be wrong. Such as having plants purportedly "created" before the purported "creation" of the sun that is needed to provide the light for their photosynthesis. A rather embarrassing oversight, that one. And please, spare us the apologetics that have been erected about this, because we've been there and done that before.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:With this massive barrier hoisted out of the way, it is now simply a matter of reconciling the difference in the timeframes.


Oh this I have got to see. You are aware that creationists have resorted to multiple devices to try and fit 13.6 billion years of the history of the universe into the ridiculous 6,000 year timescale that they think applied? And on each occasion, they have had to resort to manifest physical unreality to achieve this?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Was the universe created in six days, or is it 15 billion years old?


Try 13.6 billion years old. This is the current scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It would be helpful if you could manage to state scientific postulates correctly.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:The truly amazing achievement of Einstein was to teach us that both these timeframes can be true.


Poppycock. How much general relativity have you studied, may I ask?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote: If, as Schroeder postulates, the cosmic background radiation is a remnant echo of energy released during the big bang creation


Actually, real scientists, as opposed to practitioners of apologetics, postulated that the cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the earliest moments of the history of the universe something like 50 years ago. Schroeder's apologetics was published in 1997.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:when this radiation is examined, it reveals a spectacular redshift on the order of a a million-million, and a temperature of the photons, cooled through the expansion of the universe from an unimaginably hot 10E32 degrees K, to a chilly 3.5 degrees K.


Actually, it's 2.725 K at present. Once again, do try and master the elementary facts. Also, my understanding from the relevant literature is that the CMBR originates from the moment that the universe became transparent to photons across long distances, which did not take place until neutral hydrogen atoms could form, which was 380,000 years after the Big bang itself, and the temperature at that time was of the order of 450,000 K. As for the temperature at the earliest moments, my understanding that at the first Planck Second, that temperature was actually 1035 K.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:If these measurements reveal the amount of time dilation between our reference frame, and the reference frame of the initial beginning of the universe


Way to go for launching one huge assumption. One that none of the actual physicists in the field agree with. Not least because our reference frame is simply a part of the reference frame of the universe. The two are not distinct.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Schroeder points out that when the current age estimate of the universe is divided by the million-million redshift factor, a timeframe of 15 billion years in our reference frame, is equal to 6 days in..........uhhh, someone else's.


Well since he's basing his apologetics on a gigantic assumption that actual physicists don't accept, and attempting to force-fit facts to mythology, is anyone surprised that he's conveniently arrived at the pre-conceived result?

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:It all sounds very intriguing. I just wondered if anyone better trained had reviewed Schroeder's books, and could offer an opinion.


I've done something better. I've learned the actual physics. I suggest that you do too.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:I really do like Dr. Schroeder's approach however. He is attempting to reconcile views that need not be hostile to one another.


Excuse me, but when REALITY says that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, and provides hard physical evidence supporting this, then this is by definition "hostile" to any text that erects assertions denying this.

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:Here's the way he puts it in “The Science of God", p.40:


* Twiddles thumbs *

rickstones";p="380759 wrote:“Interpretation is as essential for understanding Genesis as it is for understanding nature. It is time for both sides to stop the war. Render unto science that which is science’s: a proven method for investigating our universe. But render unto the Bible the search for purpose and the poetry that describes the purpose.”


So why is he trying to force-fit science to mythology if he wrote the above? Hardly a model of consistency there. But then we're used to inconsistency amongst supernaturalists, it's a part of the aetiology.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
rickstones
Posts: 34
Joined: Jul 31, 2010 1:17 pm
Name: Rick Stones
Country: USA

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by rickstones »

hackenslash";p="381516 wrote:'Sits still' was a poor choice. It is travelling 'to' everywhere 'from' everywhere, so it has no point of origin. If it did, the CMB wouldn't be isotropic, now would it? The expansion of the cosmos is happening at every point. There is and was no 'where' for it to come from.


There was indeed a point of origin - a very literal "point", that came into existence "In the beginning", when God told it to exist, began as very small, exquisitely hot location of pure energy, and rapidly reached a state of quark confinement where the energy could be converted into matter; at which time it underwent an initial, spectacularly rapid period of expansion, and continues expanding, although at a much slower rate than the initial period of super-expansion. As we observe our universe from earth, as best we can figure we are in fact expanding at all points simultaneously. A decent analogy is a lump of raisin bread, where our Milky Way galaxy is one of the raisins within the lump. The dough rises at all locations at the same time. With each raisin-galaxy moving away from every other raisin-galaxy - but not in a simple geo-spatial pattern.

So, I'm not really understanding what you mean when you say things like, "There was no bloody somewhere, because there was no space." Of course there was "somewhere", and of course there was "space". It just started out small, expanded initially at a rate we can barely fathom, and continues to expand now. But unlike our raisin bread, God's universe did in fact begin "somewhere". And this "somewhere" is the best explanation anyone has yet developed for the origin of the CBR.


rickstones wrote:
It just so happens that that unique rate is 1 to a million-million when you compare it to EMR produced in our earthly frame.

about which hackenslash wrote:
Citation for this vapid assertion? That sounds a great deal like cretinist mathematics to me, and we all know how that works.


I'm sorry I don't have a citation, but are you really picking this point to argue about? The wavelength of the CBR is not in dispute. I think Penzias and Wilson actually measured it in when they first discovered it in 1965 for crying out loud...

rickstones wrote:
Scientists have learned that if you incubate the egg of a songbird until it hatches, and play a continuous recording of "Mony, Mony", the little bird will never sing the unique song of its ancestors. It will spend the rest of its life as though descended from Tommy James and the Shondells, trying with all his little heart to tweet out:, "Shoot em down, turn around: Come on Mony." The song a bird learns during infancy becomes its song for life. I have to be honest with you when I read most of the silly nonsense on high-minded message boards such as this one, the only thing I can think to say is, "Wake me, Shake me, Mony, Mony." (!)


about which hackenslash wrote:
And this has what, precisely, to do with the CMB or the expansion of the cosmos?


I just thought it was a clever way to try to hold the mirror up for you, and demonstrate that you are trapped in an extreme state of cognitive dissonance, no doubt ingrained in your psyche during your impressionable years sitting in a classroom, listening to some smarmy, undistinguished, and unfulfilled college physics professor, who memorized a few really great-sounding crack-pot barbs that made everyone chuckle, but whose true intent was to discourage any real discourse or discovery. How'd it work?

Image[/quote]
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
Posts: 22676
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 3:48 pm
Country: England
Location: Near Liverpool, UK

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Calilasseia »

rickstones";p="381097 wrote:Thank you. You have taught me that it is entirely possible to learn a great deal and yet learn nothing at all.


We see this happening amongst supernaturalists all the time.

rickstones";p="381097 wrote:Aside from a couple new vocabulary items that my word processor wouldn't recognize, I'm afraid your post was a bit less than spectacular.


Actually, Hack's post, whilst acerbic, because he happens to possess a particularly strong disdain for miasmatic nonsense, was largely spot on.

rickstones";p="381097 wrote:I have heard that the only sure barrier to knowledge is the assumption you already have it.


An assumption that is a well-documented part of the supernaturalist aetiology. We're used to supernaturalists coming here and telling us that we're wrong, because we don't genuflect before 3,000 year old mythology and its assertions. Tell me, what should I pay attention to with respect to questions involving physics? The diseased ramblings of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who thought that you could change the genetic constitution of livestock by having them shag alongside different coloured sticks, and who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses? Or actual research physicists who have spent decades labouring intensely with respect both to theory and experiment?

rickstones";p="381097 wrote:I hope I never lose the ability to learn...


The fun part is, the critical thinkers here accept that they are still learning. Indeed, in the three years I've been participating on rationalist forums dealing with duplicitous supernaturalist polemics, I've learned much about a range of topics that I didn't know before I embarked upon this. And in the process, have come to despise supernaturalism for its hubris, its wilful ignorance and its dishonesty. I've encountered multiple instances of all three emanating from supernaturalists as they try to tell me that I'm wrong because I prefer hard empirical science to mythology.

rickstones";p="381097 wrote:Goodbye and good luck.


Why do I suspect that this is actually au revoir ... ?

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:OK, I am interested in understanding better. First, I am sorry to hear your not feeling well. I hope it isn't serious. I'll pray for you.


Actually, I suspect that the individual in question would prefer something more constructive. Such as medical intervention that enjoys evidential support that it works.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:You can obviously tell that I am not a trained scientist.


Several posters here, on the other hand, are. Which is why I don't pretend to know better than them.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:I hold a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and a B.S. in Computer Information Science - so I have been exposed to some level of physics, but it was a long time ago, and I'm afraid I have misplaced most of the tools that I once enjoyed using so much... But, from an interested layman's perspective, here is how this all appears to me:


Do continue ...

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:I understand that one of the most convincing experiments used to validate the time dialation aspect of relativity, is the to compare the wavelength of radiation produced on the sun, with radiation originating in our earthly reference frame.


Actually, that's the product of the light emerging from a gravity well. Plus, the effect is small for bodies that aren't neutron stars or black holes. However, the problem you face here is that in the early history of the universe, structured matter bound by gravity had not yet formed. It took 380,000 years for the universe to cool sufficiently for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. Only then could gravity start binding matter into larger structures. So already, we have 380,000 years of elapsed time that do not lend themselves to the sort of apologetic force-fitting Schroeder is attempting. Then of course, you have the problem that, as I have already mentioned above, our time-frame is NOT distinct from that of the universe, it is A PART of that time-frame. Additionally, the considerations of special relativity only come into play when one has large scale intrinsic relative motion in terms of comoving coordinates. If this had been the case, much larger inhomogeneities would have appeared in the CMBR than have been observed.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:The wave properties of light create the cool situation in which light carries within itself the ability to measure the rate at which time passes in the frame from which it originated. So, because of the gravitational difference between the sun and earth, Einstein's law predicts we should witness a difference in the rate at which time passes to the tune of 2.12 parts per million; roughly 67 seconds per year (obviously slower on the sun). And this is exactly what we witness when we compare sun radiation to earth radiation - a redshift of exactly 2.12 ticks per million. I understand this experiment has been performed thousands of times at hundreds of universities around the world, and is one of the most popular demonstrations of relativity because it seems to facinate goofy laymen such as myself.


And, as I have already stated, this is because the light from the Sun is emerging from a gravity well. Gravity wells did not exist when the CMBR radiation was first emitted, because neutral hydrogen atoms had only just formed, and it took time for gravity to assemble matter into ordered structures after those hydrogen atoms were formed.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:So if the CBR, this ubiquitous radiation that literally fills the universe and has no apparent source, is truly a radiation remnant from the big bang creation (I like to think of it as nature's response to the first recorded words of yod-heh-vav-heh, i.e., "Let there be light."), then why wouldn't we have confidence that it also carries within itself the inherent record of the rate at which time passes in the frame from which it originated?


And as I have just stated, no gravity wells existed at that time. Likewise, there was no large scale relative motion with respect to comoving coordinate frames. Therefore, the idea that the CMBR encodes some mythical "time dilation" allowing reality to be force-fitted to mythology is absurd.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:Whatever the local gravitational or velocity conditions that caused the clock to tick at a certain rate, the wavelength of the cosmic background radiation captures and records the result of these conditions.


Which I've just described. There were no gravity wells, because ordered structures of matter had not yet formed. There was no large scale relative motion with respect to comoving coordinates either.

rickstones";p="381244 wrote:It seems amazingly coincidental to me (a word which the rabbi's tell us is not Kosher by the way) that the ratio of the wavelength's (CBR vs earth radiation) causes 15 billion years in one frame to equal 6 days in the other.


Except that these mythical "separate time frames" do not exist. See above.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:
hackenslash";p="381375 wrote:For the moment, it is sufficient to say that the reference frame for the CMB is universal. In other words, the CMB isn't travelling toward us from anywhere, it sits still in space that is expanding, so we share its reference frame.


OK... Wait...WHAT?

Electro-magnetic radiation that is sitting still in space? Even I know better than that!


Hack's words were somewhat less than rigorous here, but I understand what he is trying to say here. Namely, that the reason for the redshift is NOT because the radiation has been red-shifted by intrinsic motion relative to us in terms of comoving coordinates, but because the radiation has been red-shifted by the expansion of space-time. The metrical frame of space-time itself has stretched, and as a consequence, the wavelength that we observe has also been stretched, coutesy of the coupling of photons to that metrical frame. A coupling which differs in important details from the coupling that applies to us and other objects possessing mass, not least because we, and other objects possessing mass, impose curvature upon the space-time around us, whilst photons do not.

You can visualise this as follows. Take a balloon, and attach it to an air pump in such a way as to allow you to inflate it in stages without it deflating. Inflate the balloon to, say, 20% of its maximum rated inflation diameter, so that if your balloon can be inflated to 50 cm across, inflate it so that it is only 10 cm across. Whilst the balloon is thus inflated, draw a series of dots on that balloon representing galaxies. Now, when you draw those dots, those dots are stationary. Now, once you have drawn those dots, slowly inflate the balloon. What happens is that those dots start to move further apart from each other, as measured in terms of arc length across the surface of the balloon. But those dots do not possess any intrinsic motion with respect to that surface. Instead, the "motion" is entirely due to the fact that the metrical frame within which you have embedded those dots is expanding. With respect to their local metrical environment, the dots are stationary. What happens in real space-time is the same, only it takes place in more dimensions.

What Hack should have said in his post, was that the original sources of the photons we now observe were not moving with respect to their local part of the metric of space-time. Or, more correctly, that any such motion that they did possess, was far too small in magnitude to make a significant contribution to the inhomogeneities we observe in the CMBR today. This is why the redshift observed in the CMBR is referred to as a cosmological redshift, because it arises from the fact that space-time is expanding, and not from any intrinsic motion of the sources of the light with respect to that space-time, which would result in a Doppler shift.

Indeed, scientists can tell the difference between a Doppler shift and a cosmological shift in galaxies - because galaxies possess rotational motion, one side of the galaxy has an additional component of velocity, due to its local rotational motion, that results in stars on that side of the galaxy moving away from us. On the other side, the reverse is true. The difference can be detected with sensitive enough instruments. The galaxy has a gross cosmological redshift courtesy of the fact that space-time is expanding, but different parts will have additional Doppler shifts (redshift on one side, blueshift on the other) that can be detected. The simple fact of the matter is that all galaxies possess a cosmological redshift, and that redshift increases with distance in a manner consistent with space-time expansion. The point being, of course, that we're not special in this regard - if you could be magically transported to a galaxy a billion light years away in an instant, along with a telescope, you would observe exactly the same pattern of cosmological redshifts from your new vantage point. Just as an "observer" sitting on any one of the dots on the balloon I described above would see all the other dots moving uniformly away, regardless of which dot that observer was sitting on.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:ALL electromagnetic radiation is traveling at the same speed - the speed of light, the speed at which time ceases to have any meaning; the eternal "now".


The invariance of c being, indeed, one of the landmark discoveries of modern physics. That fact allowed us to detect the cosmological redshift with relatively simple tools in the first place. :)

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:This CBR certainly does NOT share our reference frame.


Wrong. It manifestly does, because if it didn't, we wouldn't be observing it. Where it does differ from our viewpoint is that its sources, courtesy of their positions in the early history of the universe, are now far removed from us as a courtesy of the stretching of the space-time metric.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:It originated from "somewhere"...


And I've just provided you with a detailed means of visualising those sources and their relation to us in the past and now. Which is probably the best visualisation you will receive allowing you to understand the physics without an understanding of the intricacies of tensor analysis.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:(just as our universe did).


This assertion itself opens up some deep questions. Stay tuned for relevant developments.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:And where ever that somewhere was, it enjoyed conditions of gravity and velocity that created a frame of reference in which time passed at a unique rate.


And I've just told you that those conditions in no way support Schroeder's apologetics. Because there were no large gravity wells present when the initial photons were emitted, because they were emitted when the universe was filled with nothing but a plasma of hydrogen gas. Gravity had yet to assemble that material into structures with concentrated masses. Likewise, any high-velocity (i.e., close to c) movement on the part of any of the sources of that light would show up as much larger inhomogeneities in the CMBR than have been measured, because they would introduce large Doppler shifts that would themselves become magnified by the expansion of space-time.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:It just so happens that that unique rate is 1 to a million-million when you compare it to EMR produced in our earthly frame.


And once again, there is NO DIFFERENCE in the reference frames, other than the fact that they were separated by a given distance early in the history of the universe, and are now separated by a much larger distance courtesy of space-time expansion. This is why scientists use comoving coordinates to establish in a rigorous manner what is actually happening, because without the use of comoving coordinates that take account of metrical expansion, making sense of events separated by large distances on the cosmic scale is extremely difficult.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:Scientists have learned that if you incubate the egg of a songbird until it hatches, and play a continuous recording of "Mony, Mony", the little bird will never sing the unique song of its ancestors. It will spend the rest of its life as though descended from Tommy James and the Shondells, trying with all his little heart to tweet out:, "Shoot em down, turn around: Come on Mony." The song a bird learns during infancy becomes its song for life.


Do you have a citation to support this? Only given what I've learned about the relationship of the FOXP2 gene to bird song (and for that matter, bat echolocation and human speech), I find this rather difficult to believe.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:I have to be honest with you when I read most of the silly nonsense on high-minded message boards such as this one, the only thing I can think to say is, "Wake me, Shake me, Mony, Mony." (!)


Read the above, and learn something that will enlighten you considerably.

rickstones";p="381449 wrote:Don't spend a lot of time preparing a response tomorrow hack. Just rest and try to regain your strength. I'll probably never be back here to read it. I'd prefer to find a place where people actually desire meaningful discourse.


How much more meaningful discourse do you want? I've just provided a detailed explanation of space-time expansion that you would pay good money for if you enrolled at a university on a physics course. I gave it to you free and gratis.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
rickstones
Posts: 34
Joined: Jul 31, 2010 1:17 pm
Name: Rick Stones
Country: USA

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by rickstones »

Calilasseia";p="381928 wrote:How much more meaningful discourse do you want? I've just provided a detailed explanation of space-time expansion that you would pay good money for if you enrolled at a university on a physics course. I gave it to you free and gratis.

Thank you. That certainly felt a lot closer to what I was hoping for when I stumbled onto this board. Indeed, quite a bit more than I had imagined. I'm off now to see what else I can learn regarding gravity wells, and photon transparency...

I really don't understand why a unique reference frame, and therefore rate of time dilation, does not exist in the location at which energy first transformed into matter (the moment of initial quark confinement?). I am having trouble imagining any other possibility. If indeed the essential ingredients are gravity and velocity, how radically different must these have been there and then versus the here and now!

I need time to think it over...
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by hackenslash »

Thus, Shaker's Law is once again demonstrated to be in accord with the experimental evidence.
User avatar
natselrox
Posts: 10037
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: India

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by natselrox »

Calilasseia";p="381928 wrote:I've just provided a detailed explanation of space-time expansion that you would pay good money for if you enrolled at a university on a physics course. I gave it to you free and gratis.


Is it morally wrong to pretend to be a creationist just to get free lessons from Cali? :mrgreen:
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
DanDare
RS Donator
Posts: 1900
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 7:13 am
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by DanDare »

rickstones";p="381999 wrote:I really don't understand why a unique reference frame, and therefore rate of time dilation, does not exist in the location at which energy first transformed into matter (the moment of initial quark confinement?). I am having trouble imagining any other possibility. If indeed the essential ingredients are gravity and velocity, how radically different must these have been there and then versus the here and now!

I need time to think it over...

It is because you are thinking that space was there, but empty, and that the big bang happened at a point and expanded outward into the pre existing empty space.

What happened was that space was dense. Its metric expanded making more "room" for everything in it. The starting point and all of time-space today are the same thing. the starting point is all around us, not "over there" somewhere.
Atheist. Ozzie.
Strange Flight
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
Posts: 392
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 1:30 am
Name: Roy
Country: Amerika
Location: Maine

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Blitzkrebs »

Calilasseia";p="381928 wrote:
rickstones";p="381097 wrote:Thank you. You have taught me that it is entirely possible to learn a great deal and yet learn nothing at all.


We see this happening amongst supernaturalists all the time.


This deserves a repeat. :mrgreen:
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Dries van Tonder
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mar 07, 2010 5:13 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Kimberley, South Africa

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Dries van Tonder »

natselrox";p="382398 wrote:
Calilasseia";p="381928 wrote:I've just provided a detailed explanation of space-time expansion that you would pay good money for if you enrolled at a university on a physics course. I gave it to you free and gratis.


Is it morally wrong to pretend to be a creationist just to get free lessons from Cali? :mrgreen:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Nice one Nats! :thumbup: :thumbup:
Reality is an illusion that occurs due to a lack of alcohol
rickstones
Posts: 34
Joined: Jul 31, 2010 1:17 pm
Name: Rick Stones
Country: USA

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by rickstones »

I do want to thank you for taking time to provide feedback and information. I don’t know if you were doing it because you really cared that I receive it, or because you feel a compelling need to nip supernaturalists in the bud as quickly as possible. Either way, I feel like I did in fact benefit from the effort. The most valuable post was from DanDare, when he said,

“It is because you are thinking that space was there, but empty, and that the big bang happened at a point and expanded outward into the pre existing empty space.
What happened was that space was dense. Its metric expanded making more "room" for everything in it. The starting point and all of time-space today are the same thing. the starting point is all around us, not "over there" somewhere.”


I actually was not thinking of the universe expanding into empty space available to receive it. I do “get” the idea that there is nothing (except God) beyond the boundaries of the universe, at all its various stages and sizes. But I guess I had never considered the implication that everything, including this cubic centimeter of space before my nose, is part of the “starting point” itself. I think Calilasseia was also saying this to me as he described the metrical expansion of space-time, but it didn’t sink in until DanDare said “the starting point is all around us”. So thanks for that.

As cool as this idea is, I still don’t understand how it limits the possibility of a unique frame of reference existing at the point of origin of the expansion, when compared to our current location of expansion (and I see Calilassea performing a perfectly executed “face-palm” right now). Our circumstances now, are unique to us. The angular momentum caused by the unique gravitational forces under which we are influenced causes us to spin in circles, within circles, within circles, etc. I marvel at how we don’t spend our lives on our hands and knees retching our guts up.

So when we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and we notice it has one big honk’n wavelength, we know that it represents a very slow ticking clock at its origin compared to our clock. That’s what it must represent. Since the relative velocity of EMR is identical in all reference frames (this fact alone is enough to make me give up), when photon A, (from reference frame “earth”) takes a look at photon B (from reference frame “CMBR”), no relative difference in velocity is observed; the variable that changed is “time”, as manifested in the redshift.

I think Dr. Schroeder attributes the time dilation to the expansion of the universe alone, but I’m not sure. I am not capable of representing his views. I’m only trying to provide a “book report” from my layman’s perspective. I will only say that Schroeder is certainly more than qualified to theorize about this possibility. He received his PhD from M.I.T. in physics and oceanography, worked in the MIT physics department for several years before performing research for the US government developing methods for detecting underground nuclear explosions. He has worked at the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute in Jerusalem, and performs research at the Hebrew University. He likely understands the issues involved, and he still believes there is a possibility of time dilation at the location of original expansion verses this current location of expansion which we call “home”.

As regards the tenor and focus of this message board, even though I did receive some really interesting information to think about, I gotta tell y’all – you didn’t make it pleasant. So here is just a little personal observation, a gift of feedback from me to you…

Hypocrisy
I don’t know off the top of my head the definition of hypocrisy, but whatever it is, one of the observable manifestations must surely be the criticizing of someone for activity or behavior in which you, yourself, engage frequently – perhaps even instinctively. As an example, several people here seem to consider “apologetics” to be a negative term. As if it implies “covering up error”. It actually means nothing of the sort. It refers to the discipline of defending one’s position through logic and systematic reason. Nevertheless, it seems to be one of the “trigger” words that is used to toss in the faces of religious people, in an attempt embarrass them. As an example, Calilessia wrote this:

“Lame apologetics and nothing else… And please, spare us the apologetics that have been erected about this, because we've been there and done that before.”


And yet, when I wrote “The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed.”

Calilessia also wrote this:

“That was because scientists took time alighting upon evidence for something other. How does this validate 3,000 year old mythology?”


It would appear that Apologetics is not reserved exclusively for the defense of religious subjects only, eh? (!)

Superficiality
Some here appear to take offense when they detect someone may be treating their favorite subject areas in a superficial manner. For example, Calilessia wrote these things:

“Try 13.6 billion years old. This is the current scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It would be helpful if you could manage to state scientific postulates correctly.”

And

“Actually, it's 2.725 K at present. Once again, do try and master the elementary facts.”


Yet, while railing against superficial treatment of science, you embarrass yourself by locating a list of superficial inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible on some silly website, and then using these things to lob as though they are debate-ending hand-grenades. I was not being critical of science when I said it took an Einstein to to harmonize with the first word of Scripture. The nature of science is that it must learn. That is its virtue. If you want to understand the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe would you select a text written in 1950 or one written in 2010? Science must learn. The Bible, on the other hand, is fixed. Thirty-One verses, five minutes of superficial reading, to describe subjects that could fill entire science libraries and occupy many people's lifetimes. Do you really think a superficial reading of these 31 verses will yield anything of value? Superficiality is a loser in every endeavor my friends. You really should avoid it.

Condescension
Finally, I find it interesting that Calilessa would write, and apparently believe, this:

“Tell me, what should I pay attention to with respect to questions involving physics? The diseased ramblings of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who thought that you could change the genetic constitution of livestock by having them shag alongside different coloured sticks, and who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses? Oractual research physicists who have spent decades labouring intensely with respect both to theory and experiment?”


So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural. This theme, from beginning to end, free of any contradiction (beyond the superficial), is the unthinkable and relentlessly loving plan of your maker to save you from yourself.

The Bible has been preserved through the tenacious dedication of the Hebrew people throughout these many centuries through a commitment and process that is barely conceivable. When the great Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran, an extant document a full 1,000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts, there was understandable fear at the implications. A thousand year gap! What would this discovery reveal about our Bible? Would errors or inconsistencies be discovered that would invalidate significant doctrine? But, as a testimony to the generations of lives of a dedicated people, who really did know what it was to labor over a life-work, we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts. Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.

The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission. People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand, and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons. Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.

So, let’s not hear any insulting and condescending nonsense about research physicists who spend decades laboring intensely. If they are successful in their labor, and they finally reach the summit of the scientific mountain they have been climbing these decades, what they will undoubtedly find is that summit of their mountain is filled with theologians who love them, and have been waiting patiently for them to arrive. PARTY TIME!!!

And, even though I know it’s difficult to envision, I pray that God’s prevenient grace will find you all. With God, all things are possible. And at the very least, I have given hackenslash the satisfaction of being able to post another message crowing about his shaker prophecy has been fulfilled.

God’s peace and hope to you all my brothers and sisters. Agape!
User avatar
Lizard_King
Posts: 1091
Joined: Apr 19, 2010 8:56 pm
Country: Austria

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Lizard_King »

I'll leave the destruction of this nonsense up to Cali, but I do have one question before the bombs start falling:

rickstones wrote:
The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission. People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand, and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons. Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.



How exactly does that make the fairy tales of the holy babble true? Since when does the fact that people are willing to die for something change anything about the validity of whatever it is they are dying for? It's tragic that people had to die because of religious quarrels and wars, but that does not in any way count as evidence for the stories of the bible.
"Yet again it is demonstrated that monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents."
- Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Rumraket
Posts: 13264
Joined: Mar 09, 2010 1:40 pm
Location: On the shore of the cosmic ocean.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Rumraket »

rickstones wrote:Hypocrisy
I don’t know off the top of my head the definition of hypocrisy, but whatever it is, one of the observable manifestations must surely be the criticizing of someone for activity or behavior in which you, yourself, engage frequently – perhaps even instinctively. As an example, several people here seem to consider “apologetics” to be a negative term. As if it implies “covering up error”. It actually means nothing of the sort. It refers to the discipline of defending one’s position through logic and systematic reason. Nevertheless, it seems to be one of the “trigger” words that is used to toss in the faces of religious people, in an attempt embarrass them. As an example, Calilessia wrote this:

The problem here is that apologetics, despite the words original meaning, is now pretty much synonymous with attempting to shovel theology into reality, where it doesn't fit, and then to proceed to have it taught as if it was scientific fact. A borderline criminal offence, to be honest.

The product is usually to draw vast conclusions from insignificant data, or entire gaps of knowledge. Good examples thereof are :
A gap in the fossol record = entirety of evolution is false.
Or
Extrapolating back in time, the universe was very small and very hot = The universe had an ultimate beginning and was created by god from litterally nothing at all, instantaneously.

And then there's the attempt to simply change the facts, to support mythology:
The universe is 13,7 billion years old, but the bible says 6000 years : The universe is wrong, light was slower in the past, etc. etc. etc.
Or
The universe is 13,7 billion years old, but the bible says 6000 years : The bible actually says 13,7 billion years, because the days counted in genesis aren't really days at all but can be interpreted to mean "random invention of unfathomable timespan".

Needless to say, noone is impressed by these methods. The simple fact is that the claims found in the various holy books are horseshite and don't fit with the observed facts. The results aren't pretty.
Image

rickstones wrote:And yet, when I wrote “The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed.”

Calilessia also wrote this:
Calilasseia wrote:“That was because scientists took time alighting upon evidence for something other. How does this validate 3,000 year old mythology?”

It would appear that Apologetics is not reserved exclusively for the defense of religious subjects only, eh? (!)

It seems you misunderstood. Scientists aren't in the business of inventing facts to fit their conclusions, this is almost exclusively the doctrine of theologians. When scientists were postulating an eternal and unchanging universe, it was because the accuracy and capability of technology of the time was telling them it was so. Science is in the business of building testable theories on observed facts, which is why the eternal universe hypothesis was falsified and forgotten when new evidence contradicted it.
Tell me, how many mythological predictions have we had to throw away in light of observed fact? All of them, and none at all. This is because the facts are contradictory to mythological claims, but the apologists keep inventing excuses for their favorite fantasy in order to make it square with observed facts. It's pathetic.

rickstones wrote:Yet, while railing against superficial treatment of science, you embarrass yourself by locating a list of superficial inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible on some silly website, and then using these things to lob as though they are debate-ending hand-grenades. I was not being critical of science when I said it took an Einstein to to harmonize with the first word of Scripture. The nature of science is that it must learn. That is its virtue. If you want to understand the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe would you select a text written in 1950 or one written in 2010? Science must learn. The Bible, on the other hand, is fixed. Thirty-One verses, five minutes of superficial reading, to describe subjects that could fill entire science libraries and occupy many people's lifetimes. Do you really think a superficial reading of these 31 verses will yield anything of value? Superficiality is a loser in every endeavor my friends. You really should avoid it.

I don't think reading as much as one second of the Bible will leave you with any worthy knowledge about the real world, whatsoever. It's invented horseshit by bronze-age goat-herders, plain and simple. It's peddled by charlatans and pedophiles, to the credulous, the uneducated and the weak. What honest, good people there exist who are religious, are good, honest people in spite of their religion, not because of it. It seems the more enlightened and moral a person is, the less they adhere to litteralist, camel-rapist scripture.

Isn't it funny how people who are the most religious and convinced about the word of scripture, are also the most intolerable, racist bigots? There is not a variation of the human condition they don't hate, all with scriptural support in some way or form. They hate gays, blacks, women... you name it, they hate it. But conveniently forget to hate shellfish. Go figure...

Religion has given us NOTHING in light of fact, in this world. It has been the basis for absolutely zero scientific insights, in it's entire history. Despite having had 5000 years to come up with something useful, the simple fact is that the more someone has invested their time and effort in finding "truth" in those ignorant, ancient screeds, the more nuts and out of sync with reality one was expected to get. There have been no insights into medicine, astronomy, geology, biology or any other field, from what is claimed to be the infallible words of the omniscient Creator of the Universe- That should tell you something.

rickstone wrote:So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural.

L O L. Are you fucking kidding me? Miraculous and supernatural?
Here's a slightly less parsimonous explanation : The guy who wrote the last chapter, read the one before it.
Wait, let me rephrase it even simpler : Plagiarism.


rickstone wrote:This theme, from beginning to end, free of any contradiction (beyond the superficial), is the unthinkable and relentlessly loving plan of your maker to save you from yourself.

The Bible has been preserved through the tenacious dedication of the Hebrew people throughout these many centuries through a commitment and process that is barely conceivable. When the great Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran, an extant document a full 1,000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts, there was understandable fear at the implications. A thousand year gap! What would this discovery reveal about our Bible? Would errors or inconsistencies be discovered that would invalidate significant doctrine? But, as a testimony to the generations of lives of a dedicated people, who really did know what it was to labor over a life-work, we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts. Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.

The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission. People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand, and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons. Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.

First of all, there is no fucking evidence what so ever, that any maker even exists.
Secondly, I don't need saving because there is nothing wrong with me that cannot be superiorly explained by evolutionary biology. How could we forget the central tenet of monotheism? : There is something inherently wrong with being human.

Well, no, there isn't. I find the very idea revolting.

People have been using this manifestly grotesque and insane doctrine as an excuse for the most bigoted and sexually depraved undertakings in human history. All derived from the basis that being human and following ones, completely normal and expected, evolved animalistic needs, is something to be worthy of self-loathing, followed by punishment and finally purification.

There is nothing healthy about running around thinking you are a sinner and denying what is manifestly part of the human condition. A condition that did not arise from some fantasy fall, because, apparently god throught knowledge was a bad thing, and tha twe have subsequently all been deemed worthy of punishment from, despite never having been involved in. You evolved. Get over it. Stop hating yourself for it.

rickstone wrote:we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts. Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.

I had to respond to this part specifically. We owe these ancient idiots absolutely nothing at all. Thanks to their "hard work", paedophiles and charlatans have been terrorizing the general populace everwhere in the world, for thousands of years, retarding scientific advancements where at all possible, all on the basis of the insane, epileptic ramblings of illiterate, bronze-age simpletons.
Thanks but no thanks.

rickstone wrote:So, let’s not hear any insulting and condescending nonsense about research physicists who spend decades laboring intensely. If they are successful in their labor, and they finally reach the summit of the scientific mountain they have been climbing these decades, what they will undoubtedly find is that summit of their mountain is filled with theologians who love them, and have been waiting patiently for them to arrive. PARTY TIME!!!

From fantasy comes more fantasy. And noone is surprised.
What is quite the more evidentially manifest in the educated, civilized world, is the fact that litteralist religious interpretations are becoming ever more insignificant and ignored, in order to be replaced by still more vague and marginalized forms of "spirituality". Simply as a product of the fact that most scripture cannot be squared with reality. The result is that any self-honest and intelligent person will be forced to keep re-interpreting the words until they no longer really mean anything at all. This wishful dream vision you have where science will one day prove the existence of god is precisely that, a dream. In 200 years people will be waking up to a world where being religious or spiritual will simply mean something like feeling an emotional attachment to nature, or the awe one experiences when looking at vast cosmic phenomenon through yet to be build, incredible telescopes.

rickstone wrote:And, even though I know it’s difficult to envision, I pray that God’s prevenient grace will find you all. With God, all things are possible. And at the very least, I have given hackenslash the satisfaction of being able to post another message crowing about his shaker prophecy has been fulfilled.

God’s peace and hope to you all my brothers and sisters. Agape!
rickstones

The involvement by god has yet to manifest peace anywhere in the world. But thx anyway.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
Posts: 13264
Joined: Mar 09, 2010 1:40 pm
Location: On the shore of the cosmic ocean.

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by Rumraket »

Lizard_King";p="385008 wrote:I'll leave the destruction of this nonsense up to Cali, but I do have one question before the bombs start falling:

rickstones";p="385008 wrote:
The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission. People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand, and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons. Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.



How exactly does that make the fairy tales of the holy babble true? Since when does the fact that people are willing to die for something change anything about the validity of whatever it is they are dying for? It's tragic that people had to die because of religious quarrels and wars, but that does not in any way count as evidence for the stories of the bible.

Haha, good question.

At least 20 million russians and 5 million germans died on the eastern front during WWII, does that mean both were "true" and that Communist Soviet Russia was even more "true" than Nazi Germany ?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

Post by hackenslash »

rickstones";p="384970 wrote:As cool as this idea is, I still don’t understand how it limits the possibility of a unique frame of reference existing at the point of origin of the expansion, when compared to our current location of expansion (and I see Calilassea performing a perfectly executed “face-palm” right now).


Because the point of origin was everywhere! How could there be a comparison between the reference frame of the point of origin and the reference frame of our current expansion, when they are one and the same, and this being true for literally every point in space?

Our circumstances now, are unique to us. The angular momentum caused by the unique gravitational forces under which we are influenced causes us to spin in circles, within circles, within circles, etc. I marvel at how we don’t spend our lives on our hands and knees retching our guts up.


That's because you don't understand enough about one force overcoming another. Gravity is an incredibly weak force. This is trivial to demonstrate, because you overcome it every time you pick something up of the floor, and that's bearing in mind that you are fighting the entire mass of a planet when you do so. As a corrollary to this simple principle, the mass of the planet compared with the orbital and rotational velocities is huge, and fixes our frame of reference with regard to those competing forces. This does not, however, negate the fact that the CMB is a universal frame of reference, and is therefore identical regardless of individual inertial frames.

So when we observe the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and we notice it has one big honk’n wavelength, we know that it represents a very slow ticking clock at its origin compared to our clock. That’s what it must represent. Since the relative velocity of EMR is identical in all reference frames (this fact alone is enough to make me give up), when photon A, (from reference frame “earth”) takes a look at photon B (from reference frame “CMBR”), no relative difference in velocity is observed; the variable that changed is “time”, as manifested in the redshift.


No, the variable is the expansion of space.

I think Dr. Schroeder attributes the time dilation to the expansion of the universe alone, but I’m not sure. I am not capable of representing his views. I’m only trying to provide a “book report” from my layman’s perspective. I will only say that Schroeder is certainly more than qualified to theorize about this possibility. He received his PhD from M.I.T. in physics and oceanography, worked in the MIT physics department for several years before performing research for the US government developing methods for detecting underground nuclear explosions. He has worked at the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute in Jerusalem, and performs research at the Hebrew University. He likely understands the issues involved, and he still believes there is a possibility of time dilation at the location of original expansion verses this current location of expansion which we call “home”.


All well and good, but when he injects a celestial peeping-tom into the model, science has been left behind, and all we're left with is rectally extracted blind assertions.

As regards the tenor and focus of this message board, even though I did receive some really interesting information to think about, I gotta tell y’all – you didn’t make it pleasant.


Diddums.

So here is just a little personal observation, a gift of feedback from me to you…


Oh, goody. Can't wait.

Hypocrisy
I don’t know off the top of my head the definition of hypocrisy, but whatever it is, one of the observable manifestations must surely be the criticizing of someone for activity or behavior in which you, yourself, engage frequently – perhaps even instinctively. As an example, several people here seem to consider “apologetics” to be a negative term. As if it implies “covering up error”. It actually means nothing of the sort. It refers to the discipline of defending one’s position through logic and systematic reason. Nevertheless, it seems to be one of the “trigger” words that is used to toss in the faces of religious people, in an attempt embarrass them.


Well, the problem there is that no conception of a magic man is rooted in logic or reason, because logic and reason require that your premises are to be axiomatic in nature. In other words, they actually have to be true. Since the core premise of theological apologetics is not something that can be taken as true, and since most conceptions of deity are logically absurd to the point of being impossible, all premises thus rooted can be summarily dismissed as readily as they are erected. In short, rectal vindaloo has no value.

Christian apologetics, on the other hand, is a branch of theology, which has fuck all to do with reason or logic, and amounts to no more than semantic pretzels in order to support ridiculous ideas that, if they had any value, would not need defending.

And you're absolutely correct, you don't know what hypocrisy is.

As an example, Calilessia wrote this:

“Lame apologetics and nothing else… And please, spare us the apologetics that have been erected about this, because we've been there and done that before.”


And yet, when I wrote “The dominant view before Einstein, was of an eternal universe, one that had always existed.”

Calilessia also wrote this:

“That was because scientists took time alighting upon evidence for something other. How does this validate 3,000 year old mythology?”


It would appear that Apologetics is not reserved exclusively for the defense of religious subjects only, eh? (!)


Oh, dear. You really think those two are remotely equivalent? In what respect is Calilasseia (note the spelling) engaging in apologetics here? He is stating a simple fact, where your apologetics consists of nothing more than fabrication.

Superficiality
Some here appear to take offense when they detect someone may be treating their favorite subject areas in a superficial manner. For example, Calilessia wrote these things:

“Try 13.6 billion years old. This is the current scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It would be helpful if you could manage to state scientific postulates correctly.”

And

“Actually, it's 2.725 K at present. Once again, do try and master the elementary facts.”


No, he was correcting your poor understanding. I thought you said you wanted to learn?

Yet, while railing against superficial treatment of science, you embarrass yourself by locating a list of superficial inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible on some silly website, and then using these things to lob as though they are debate-ending hand-grenades. I was not being critical of science when I said it took an Einstein to to harmonize with the first word of Scripture. The nature of science is that it must learn. That is its virtue. If you want to understand the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe would you select a text written in 1950 or one written in 2010? Science must learn. The Bible, on the other hand, is fixed. Thirty-One verses, five minutes of superficial reading, to describe subjects that could fill entire science libraries and occupy many people's lifetimes. Do you really think a superficial reading of these 31 verses will yield anything of value? Superficiality is a loser in every endeavor my friends. You really should avoid it.


Has any sort of reading of this fuckwittery ever yielded anything of value? of course not, demonstrating the disconnect between your vision and reality.What Calilasseia was actually doing was correcting your misunderstanding of hard, empirical fact, while what you propose to compare it to is interpretation of made-up fucking bollocks of such a nature as to make everybody's personal interpretation equally valid. Your book of ridiculous fucking wibble cannot be compared in this manner.

Condescension
Finally, I find it interesting that Calilessa would write, and apparently believe, this:

“Tell me, what should I pay attention to with respect to questions involving physics? The diseased ramblings of retarded Bronze Age nomads, who thought that you could change the genetic constitution of livestock by having them shag alongside different coloured sticks, and who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses? Oractual research physicists who have spent decades labouring intensely with respect both to theory and experiment?”


What the fuck do you expect when you erect your vacuous, made-up arse-gravy as if it constituted wisdom? Have you not learned the distinction between fiction and reality yet?

So, when I consider the Bible, I see a collection of 66 books, written by at least 40 different people, with widely varying backgrounds and educations (kings, philosophers, poets, scholars, physicians, fishermen, shepherds…) over a period of at least 1,500 years, in three different continents, in three different languages, to address a wide variety of different and unique circumstances – and yet, when viewed together, there is a consistency of theme that is… well, miraculous and supernatural.


Of course there's a consistency of theme, since the vast majority of this book of cretinous fucking nonsense is ripped wholesale from earlier religions, and since the second half of this turgid little tome of immoral fuckwittery was written specifically to fulfil prophecy it must be treated with the contempt it deserves. Finally, since it contains obvious and glaring falsehoods, it is, overall only miraculous that anyone can fucking think that it has any evidential value beyond providing evidence that fuckwits will believe the most ludicrous wingnuttery.

This theme, from beginning to end, free of any contradiction (beyond the superficial),


1 John 4:8 (NLT) - "God is love." 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NLT) - "Love is not jealous." Exodus 20:5 (NLT) - "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God

Since this goes directly to the attributes of your cosmic curtain-twitcher, demonstrating him to be logically absurd, and therefore non-existent, I'd call that rather more than a superficial contradiction.

is the unthinkable and relentlessly loving plan of your maker to save you from yourself.


Have a care. This is preaching, and is a violation of the forum users' agreement that you agreed to abide by.

The Bible has been preserved through the tenacious dedication of the Hebrew people throughout these many centuries through a commitment and process that is barely conceivable. When the great Isaiah scroll was discovered in Qumran, an extant document a full 1,000 years older than the oldest known Masoretic texts, there was understandable fear at the implications. A thousand year gap! What would this discovery reveal about our Bible? Would errors or inconsistencies be discovered that would invalidate significant doctrine? But, as a testimony to the generations of lives of a dedicated people, who really did know what it was to labor over a life-work, we found virtually no difference between the Qumran documents versus the Masoretic texts.


I'll send a PM to our biblical historian, and we'll see just what veracity there is in this claim. Of course, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the simple fact that this book describes a logically absurd entity, violations of the principles upon which the universe operates, characters that did not exist (and I'm not even referring to the deity this time) and events which did not and could not have happened, rendering it beyond the capacity of anybody with a full complement of functioning neurons to take remotely seriously.

Whether you know it or not, you owe these people a massive debt of gratitude.


I owe them absolutely fuck all.

The Bible has been handed down through the extreme dedication of thousands of people, fighting and dying against their own brethren to accomplish this mission. People have willingly gone to the stake to be burned in order that the Bible could be preserved and translated into languages that we can read and understand, and from which we can "quote-mine" superficial and meaningless inconsistencies - so that we can use them to gaze at our belly-buttons. Thousands more have willingly given their lives in defense of their belief. Now that's what I call “Apologetics”.


I couldn't give a flying fuck! It's an interesting bit of literature, although pretty poorly written, and anything but consistent, as demonstrated above. That's not the issue, however. It's when fuckwits insist that it's treated as factual, or somehow above criticism, that I object. Frankly, it's not even that remarkable as literature, and there are older texts that have a good deal more to offer in aesthetic terms.

So, let’s not hear any insulting and condescending nonsense about research physicists who spend decades laboring intensely.


Bollocks. You erect fatuous drivel that somehow attempts to paint some sort of symmetry between your deranged book of immoral wingnuttery and valid science, and you will get exactly the fucking response you deserve. If you don't like it, you could always live up to your promissory contained in your previous two posts and simply go somewhere where other people treat your peurile little beliefs in the manner you think they should be treated. Here, they will be subjected to exactly the sort of rigorous scrutiny with which we treat all fucking drivel.

If they are successful in their labor, and they finally reach the summit of the scientific mountain they have been climbing these decades, what they will undoubtedly find is that summit of their mountain is filled with theologians who love them, and have been waiting patiently for them to arrive. PARTY TIME!!!


Somehow, I fucking doubt that. The last 300 years of scientific endeavour have revealed characteristics of the universe that the semi-literate goat-shaggers that wrote your beloved book of nonsense couldn't even dream about. That you think that this torrid little tome has anything to contribute in this regard demonstrates your ignorance of the gulf between this stupid guff and real knowledge about the universe.

And, even though I know it’s difficult to envision, I pray that God’s prevenient grace will find you all. With God, all things are possible.


Keep your fucking prayers to yourself. We have no want or need of your entirely synthetic drivel here. Preaching noted again.

And at the very least, I have given hackenslash the satisfaction of being able to post another message crowing about his shaker prophecy has been fulfilled.


That wasn't a prophecy, it was an empirical prediction. Isn't it interesting that science makes predictions, and they reflect observation time and again, while the alleged foresight of your fucking nonsense is shown to be just that.

God’s peace and hope to you all my brothers and sisters. Agape!


Just kick me in the nuts and call me a cunt. It would be less fucking offensive than this.
Post Reply