PDA

View Full Version : Astronomical Atheism Inexcusable



Prince
2002-Apr-25, 08:58 AM
http://www.rense.com/general24/god.htm

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-25, 09:40 AM
From that link: "Have you ever been gambling with a friend and felt miserably certain that your friend would win and you would lose?"

He just doesn't know how to play poker!

Russ
2002-Apr-25, 03:12 PM
These guys are so out of touch with science they don't even know how things work. Assuming they read anything at all, they REALLY misunderstood what they read. I quote:


"Life on earth needs certain amounts of heavy elements such as iron to exist. Scientists are agreed that the explosion of a supernova creates heavy elements, but if the supernova were too close when it exploded it would have damaged the earth too badly for it to support life. On the other hand if it were too far away there would not have been enough of the required heavy elements on earth to support life."



They don't realize that the supernova that created the material of which the Earth is made happened some 100's of millions of years before the Earth condensed. Our mineralogical resourses were not blasted here by a nearby supernoa. It was part of the gunk that condensed to create the Solar System.

Later on they try to make you believe that the minerology of the Earth is they way it is because we exist the way we are rather than us being the way we are because the Earth's minerology is the way it is. AAAAHHHHH the old "chicken & the egg" ploy.

That's sort of like saying there is a pond there because of the fish. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Apr-25, 03:34 PM
The heavy elements in the solar system were not created in "a" supernova. The Sun is approx. 5 billion years old. The galaxy is on the order of 15 billion years old. Giant and supergiant stars (the kind that end their lives in supernovae) live from a million to a few hundred million years. Hundreds (or even thousands) of supernovae contributed material that went into the nebula that gave birth to Sol and its retinue.

Russ
2002-Apr-25, 07:11 PM
On 2002-04-25 11:34, Kaptain K wrote:
The heavy elements in the solar system were not created in "a" supernova. The Sun is approx. 5 billion years old. The galaxy is on the order of 15 billion years old. Giant and supergiant stars (the kind that end their lives in supernovae) live from a million to a few hundred million years. Hundreds (or even thousands) of supernovae contributed material that went into the nebula that gave birth to Sol and its retinue.

This is all true. My point is that all of the Earth's minerals didn't arrive as a meteor shower from a local SN some time in the astronomically recent past. (last 2-3 billion years)

My response to KK's signature:

When all is said and done, more is said than done. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

2002-Apr-26, 09:34 AM
there once was a electron name "CHIN"
who had devised a faster spin
Chin said to himself
theres enough iron
to win, a war on sin
from the hair's i lost
4 2 spin.

Kaptain K
2002-Apr-26, 10:53 AM
When all is said and done, more is said than done.
True
I need to come up with another sig. I've used this one long enough.

ljbrs
2002-Apr-29, 01:06 AM
There is an interesting series of articles in the 4-26-02 SCIENCE (COSMOLOGY: *Eternal-Universe Idea Comes Full Circle,* by Charles Seife) and in its companion ScienceNow for 4-25-02 (*Bouncing Branes* by Charles Seife), eventually leading to an online Research Article in the 4-26-02 SCIENCE (*A Cyclic Model of the Universe* by Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University, UK).

Last year, this had previously been introduced in an early form of the theory in the 13 April 2001 SCIENCE (COSMOLOGY: *Big Bang's New Rival Debuts With a Splash*).

If your library subscribes to SCIENCE or if you are near a university science library which ought to subscribe to SCIENCE, I would suggest you check these articles out.

They are an attempt to rid the Big Bang theory of the Big Bang and put an oscillating universe in its place. I have to finish reading everything more carefully before I attempt to understand it at all, and the Research Article uses a lot of fancy calculus (necessary, of course).

Imagine a universe with no beginning and no end, and you have a steady-state universe of a different kind. I just accessed these articles online this afternoon and have printed them out so that I can study them more carefully. They postulate that the accelerating universe will eventually decelerate (although there are no observations of such deceleration). Most of their theory seems to rely on computer simulations. I do not know how the theorists are going to explain away the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). It seems to be another steady-state theory but using (Superstring) Brane theory this time around.

Right or wrong, it ought to be an interesting idea to study. I looked it up in SCIENCE, mostly as a curiosity, when somebody else told me to check it out.

Even though it dismisses the Big Bang and does away with the Inflationary Theory of Alan Guth, it does not explain the existence of the remnant CMBR. And it postulates a deceleration which is not seen by cosmologists at present. While it does away with the need for the explaining how the Big Bang could have arisen from a cosmic fluctuation, it seems to leave the observed CMBR and its accompanying inflationary period in limbo.

Check it out. I need to study it more, myself. Therefore, I am only speaking generally and probably from ignorance. In addition, I am not a scientist and do not speak for science in any way.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif