Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang

[6days]

golly, sorry. I was just trying to get to the heart of your quote mining brand of "science". You seem to believe that both Collins ad Hawking believe the universe is "fine tuned" I was just trying to understand how the opinions of two world class scientists could fit into the box required by your interpretation of your Holy Book.

The fine tuned universe is just one of many evidences against the Big Bang. It is not even one of the first four evidences that Bob kindly asked you to consider.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Collins says to imagine a measuring tape divided into one inch increments stretched a cross the entire visible university. There would be billions upon billions upon billions of increments representing the range of possible gravitation

This doesn't really answer my question, unless you're asserting that the total range is whatever Collins can imagine.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Collins says to imagine a measuring tape divided into one inch increments stretched a cross the entire visible university. There would be billions upon billions upon billions of increments representing the range of possible gravitation

This doesn't really answer my question, unless you're asserting that the total range is whatever Collins can imagine.

?

 

[Jukia]

The fine tuned universe is just one of many evidences against the Big Bang. It is not even one of the first four evidences that Bob kindly asked you to consider.

But to give any credibility to Pastor Bob's list I have to ignore the science and place my belief on oral myth several 1000 years old. No thanks.

 

[6days]

But to give any credibility to Pastor Bob's list I have to ignore the science and place my belief on oral myth several 1000 years old. No thanks.

On the contrary... You should embrace science. Science is about knowledge and following the evidence no matter where it leads. True science is an enemy of atheists as they reject any interpretation of evidence that counters their belief system.

From God's Word
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Perhaps that Bible verse is saying that some people will go so far in attempts to reject God, that they believe in ape men...they believe life came from non life...they believe that things which appear intelligently designed, aren't...they believe that 'in the beginning' there was nothing, then there was everything....they believe there are billions of other universes.... There is no limit to unscientific explanations as atheists deny the evidence.

 

[gcthomas]

Either you are getting your info from a dishonest source, or you are being dishonest yourself. Collins is writing about a fine tuned universe. You or your source are dishonestly ignoring the measuring stick he uses, and the intent of his argument. He says " Although individual calculations of fine-tuning are only approximate and could be in error, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is almost beyond question because of the large number of independent instances of apparent fine-tuning"

My source is Robin Collins himself. YOUR source. Do you consider him dishonest?

Here is what he wrote. Did you get confused by the long words? I have saved you the effort of reading properly, by making the key passages bold for you ...

To illustrate this fine-tuning, consider gravity. Using a standard measure of force strengths--which turns out to be roughly the relative strength of the various forces between two protons in a nucleus--gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040--or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion--times stronger than gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity on a planet with the mass and size of the earth would be so great that organisms anywhere near the size of human beings, whether land-based or aquatic, would be crushed. ... As astrophysicist Martin Rees notes, "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger" (2000, p. 30). Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of the strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), it is very small, being one part in ten thousand, billion, billion, billion. Indeed, other calculations show that stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years, as compared to our sun's lifetime of ten billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3000. This would have significant intelligent-life-inhibiting consequences (see Collins, 2003).​

Do you still claim that I was being dishonest criticising the 'knife edge' claim as actually a 'billion-fold increase'?

Waiting for the apology ...
:e4e:

 

[Jukia]

On the contrary... You should embrace science. Science is about knowledge and following the evidence no matter where it leads. True science is an enemy of atheists as they reject any interpretation of evidence that counters their belief system.

.

And I'll bet you fail to see the irony in what you wrote.

You want me to follow the evidence where it leads as long as I begin with several 1000 year old oral myth. No thanks, that is simply ignorant.

 

[6days]

My source is Robin Collins himself. YOUR source. Do you consider him dishonest?

To illustrate this fine-tuning, consider gravity. Using a standard measure of force strengths--which turns out to be roughly the relative strength of the various forces between two protons in a nucleus--gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040--or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion--times stronger than gravity. If we increased the strength of gravity a billion-fold, for instance, the force of gravity on a planet with the mass and size of the earth would be so great that organisms anywhere near the size of human beings, whether land-based or aquatic, would be crushed. ... As astrophysicist Martin Rees notes, "In an imaginary strong gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger" (2000, p. 30). Of course, a billion-fold increase in the strength of gravity is a lot, but compared to the total range of the strengths of the forces in nature (which span a range of 1040 as we saw above), it is very small, being one part in ten thousand, billion, billion, billion. Indeed, other calculations show that stars with lifetimes of more than a billion years, as compared to our sun's lifetime of ten billion years, could not exist if gravity were increased by more than a factor of 3000. This would have significant intelligent-life-inhibiting consequences (see Collins, 2003).​

Do you still claim that I was being dishonest criticising the 'knife edge' claim as actually a 'billion-fold increase'?

Yes.
I think you are dishonest.
This is what I had said "Either you are getting your info from a dishonest source, or you are being dishonest yourself. Collins is writing about a fine tuned universe. You or your source are dishonestly ignoring the measuring stick he uses, and the intent of his argument. He says " Although individual calculations of fine-tuning are only approximate and could be in error, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is almost beyond question because of the large number of independent instances of apparent fine-tuning"

 

[gcthomas]

Yes.

So you have called your own source dishonest, you said that my claim of a 'billion fold increase' was what your source said was untrue. Now you have been shown to be wrong and your accusations of dishonesty shown to be mistaken, you are just goint to carty on regardless?

Never mind. At least I know where you stand on the honesty-sneakyliar line. :up:

 

[6days]

So you have called your own source dishonest, you said that my claim of a 'billion fold increase' was what your source said was untrue. Now you have been shown to be wrong and your accusations of dishonesty shown to be mistaken, you are just goint to carty on regardless?

I called YOU dishonest for misrepresenting both what I said, and what Collins said.
Since your source WAS Collins, that leaves no one but yourself for misrepresenting him.

What I had said was.....
"Either you are getting your info from a dishonest source, or you are being dishonest yourself. Collins is writing about a fine tuned universe. You or your source are dishonestly ignoring the measuring stick he uses, and the intent of his argument. He says " Although individual calculations of fine-tuning are only approximate and could be in error, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is almost beyond question because of the large number of independent instances of apparent fine-tuning"

 

[gcthomas]

I called YOU dishonest for misrepresenting both what I said, and what Collins said.
Since your source WAS Collins, that leaves no one but yourself for misrepresenting him.

What I had said was.....
"Either you are getting your info from a dishonest source, or you are being dishonest yourself. Collins is writing about a fine tuned universe. You or your source are dishonestly ignoring the measuring stick he uses, and the intent of his argument. He says " Although individual calculations of fine-tuning are only approximate and could be in error, the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life is almost beyond question because of the large number of independent instances of apparent fine-tuning"

So stars could still exist if gravity was a thousand times stronger, but not if a billion times stronger. And since you can imagine gravity that is ten to the fortieth power times as strong, a factor of a billion is a lot less than you can imagine.

Does that sum up the 'razor's edge' argument of gravity accurately enough for you?

You're funny, 6days, very funny. :rotfl:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

On the contrary... You should embrace science. Science is about knowledge and following the evidence no matter where it leads. True science is an enemy of atheists as they reject any interpretation of evidence that counters their belief system.

Clearly you're not particularly interested in science, just the misrepresented "discoveries" reported by creationist apologetic websites that have bastardized the data and the conclusions of the discoverers themselves through egregious omission to fit a preordained conclusion. That's not science. Your interest is in reaffirmation of your particular theology, and rebuke of it's antithesis. If by some fortuitous accident you found yourself reviewing published works for a scientific journal you'd run out of black markers before lunch. For you this is not about science it's about theism vs atheism.

 

[Stripe]

Can someone wake me up when Sunny is done ranting?

 

[gcthomas]

Can someone wake me up when Sunny is done ranting?

If you think 6Days is making good points, then perhaps you should stay asleep!

 

[6days]

… this is not about science it's about theism vs atheism.

Ahhhh....Very good DS! You are correct. That is what the 'fine tuned' debate is all about.
That explains why when a scientist such as Collins writes about the fine tuned universe, atheists argue against it.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Ahhhh....Very good DS! You are correct. That is what the 'fine tuned' debate is all about.
That explains why when a scientist such as Collins writes about the fine tuned universe, atheists argue against it.

Strange then that the Big Bang was first proposed by a theist, isn't it?

 

[gcthomas]

Ahhhh....Very good DS! You are correct. That is what the 'fine tuned' debate is all about.
That explains why when a scientist such as Collins writes about the fine tuned universe, atheists argue against it.

Funnily enough, I think that the universe is reasonably fine-tuned. It is just Collins's silly 10^40 figure and the hyperbole of his assessment over the 'razor blade' assumption that I don't think is justified by the evidence. Nor do I think that the non-goddidit rationales can be rejected quite so flippantly.

Also funnily enough, when I first though to criticise the statements, I thought he was a proper scientist. I should have guessed though ...

 

[Stripe]

Strange then that the Big Bang was first proposed by a theist, isn't it?

Evolutionists love the genetic fallacy.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists love the genetic fallacy.

Stripe loves, stating what evolutionists love despite it having nothing to do with either evolution nor what anyone ubiquitously loves. These insipid quips of yours demonstrate that you have only the faintest grasp of the vagueries of the subject matter.

The fact that Big Bang was and still is supported and accepted by theists does in fact refute his insistence that the Big Bang is a uniquely atheist position. It has nothing whatsoever to do with theism or atheism. It may even be the case that the big bang happened and the universe is finely tuned. Fine tuning is not a refutation of the big Bang. You seem to reject well established science for no better reason than it appears to be a boon to atheism, whether or not that is uniquely the case or if it is good science accepted by scientists of theistic convictions as well.

 

[6days]

Funnily enough, I think that the universe is reasonably fine-tuned. It is just Collins's silly 10^40 figure and the hyperbole of his assessment over the 'razor blade' assumption that I don't think is justified by the evidence.

Sadly enough this shows your dishonesty. You didn't criticize 10^40 until now when you realize Collins is a theist.
In fact...
gcthomas: "My source is Robin Collins himself. YOUR source. Do you consider him dishonest? Here is what he wrote. Did you get confused by the long words?"

Also funnily enough, when I first though to criticise the statements, I thought he was a proper scientist. I should have guessed though

Haaaa. Is that your apology?
First you thought he was an atheist so you claimed my interpretation was wrong; now you realize he is a theist (not a proper scientist ) so you claim his interpretation is wrong. Giggles.