Jump to content


Photo

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 September 2007 - 03:43 AM

by using Planck's Law of Black Body Radiation. look it up. and yes, I do have faith in the laws of physics.

View Post


I wonder..... The laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but if you don't believe in a supernatural creation, then you must not believe that the laws of physics have always applied to the universe since its inception.

Terry

#22 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:04 AM

I wonder.....  The laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but if you don't believe in a supernatural creation, then you must not believe that the laws of physics have always applied to the universe since its inception.

Terry

View Post


Specificly, matter and energy Terry. Energy can be used to create matter and vice versa. The laws of physics don't need to be suspended in order for the Big Bang theory to work and a supernatural agent does not need to be invoked.

And on a side note, it doesn't matter if pwnagepanda has faith in the laws of physics or not. Repeated experiments will always show the same results.

#23 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:44 AM

I wonder.....  The laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but if you don't believe in a supernatural creation, then you must not believe that the laws of physics have always applied to the universe since its inception.

Terry

View Post



Actually the laws of physics that says matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes actually says that the universe always existed.

If something that can't be created...is...then it has always been.

or

has been created by a supernatural being which is unexceptable in the evo camp.

#24 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 15 September 2007 - 10:39 AM

Actually the laws of  physics that says  matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes actually says that the universe always existed.

If something that can't be created...is...then it has always  been.

or

has been created by a supernatural being which is unexceptable in the  evo camp.

View Post

Something I have always found interesting about the Big bang theory is that a crerator would actually fit in with the theory. there fore, I dont really understand why Creationists constantly attack it. the fact is, we dont really know how the Big Bang happened (we are pretty sure that it did though...), but there are numerous hypotheses in theoretical physics, as well as a creator hypothesis. However, Until new evidence comes to light (don't hold your breath), they will remain just that: hypostheses.

#25 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 15 September 2007 - 11:15 AM

I believe the creationist have a hard time fitting it into a six day period.

The interesting thing is that the bible tells us that the heavens were spread out by God....so it looks like you can almost believe the bible.

ISA 51:13 that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor?

JER 10:12 But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

JER 51:15 "He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.

ZEC 12:1 This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares:

#26 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 15 September 2007 - 01:43 PM

I am just curious, but how do YEC's explain the microwave background? It seems to me to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the big bang theory.

btw, saying that god put it there and made it appear that way is not a valid answer

View Post


I am new to the debate forum so I am sorry that this is out of sequence since it took a little time to formulate my response. First I would like to respond to:

Quote from pwnagepanda posted Sept, 10, 2007:

I am curious, but how do YEC’s explain the microwave background? It seems to me to be one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the big bang theory.

The microwave background or cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is not necessarily evidence of the Big Bang Theory it can and has been used as evidence for other Theories as well even creationism. Also remember not all evolutionists believe in the Big Bang. The thought behind that CMB being a residue of the Big Bang would be that as the explosion passed through space it would leave small clumps of gas that would eventually form stars, planets, etc. The clumps would leave pockets of temperature change (hot to cold - the temperature is measured in wavelengths) and the pockets would be seen like hills and valleys. At first there were no pockets detected then the COBE team found very small hills and valleys in fact the temperature difference was only one hundred thousandth of a degree. This was finally detected by the COBE team.

The CMB has a number of problems and explanations that do not make it very compelling evidence. Even the COBE team leader George Smoot had doubts about the findings but backers of the Big Bang ran with it. First there is the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich theory developed by two Soviet astrophysicists. The theory claims that as the CMB passes through intergalactic gas clouds with the radiation colliding with the electrons in the clouds making a small change in the temperature. This change could very well be the change the COBE team detected.

Then there is the explanation of the CMB by Sir Author Eddington. Eddington suggests that CMB is simply radiation that comes from the heat sources that reside in the universe. His calculations gave a value of 2.8 K and this is what the known CMB recorded to date. It should be noted that CMB should be at 50K by R.A. Alpher, R. Herman, and G. Gamow just a few years before CMB was discovered.

Tom Van Flandern believes the pockets of CMB stem from materials between galaxies or intergalactic medium absorbing radiation of distant galaxies not from the Big Bang. He also states that the temperature distance from 50 K to 2.8 K eliminates CMB as compelling evidence of the Big Bang. Tim Folger claims the CMB is to uniform or to smooth the temperature should be more seriously effected than it displays. There should be more of a disruption with such an immense explosion.

Lastly these are evolutionists that are having problems with the CMB because they do not agree with the Big Bang Theory. As much as they believe CMB supports the Big Bang evolutionists have had to admit it is not as compelling evidence as they would like. Sir Fred Holye and others area little more forthright about it they believe that CMB has nothing to do with the Big Bang at all.

My next post will be on the flaws of the theory of common ancestry between humans and chimps.

Bob Barclay

#27 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 16 September 2007 - 05:59 PM

Haldane's dilemma has 242 mentions on Google Scholar - many in high profile journals. So it appears that many scientists have confidence that they have a solution - although you are always welcome to argue with their solutions (I am sure there is a thread on this site somewhere).
But even if you are correct, and Haldane's dilemma is a problem for current evolutionary theory, your options are
A. Modify evolutionary theory to allow the theory to explain the data - and show that the new theory still fits with the other evidence already published.
B. Come up with a completely new theory (creation theory, aliens, whatever) that can explain Haldane's dilemma and can also account for all the other lines of evidence.

There are probably 50 different lines of evidence supporting the argument that chimps and humans are related (gene similarities, non-coding genetic material, brain structures, locations of fossils, similarities in early human fossils, similarity in immune response, etc). If you want to argue that humans and chimps are not related, then you need to explain all these different lines of evidence (i.e., show how your theory accounts for these other converent findings). Do you want to start a thread on that?

Even if you were to find a weakness in evolutionary theory (find a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit), you can not effectively argue for any alternative theory until you can show that the alternative theory does a better job at predicting the available evidence (can put the puzzle together in a completely different way with the available pieces).

Hope that helps,
  James

p.s. I am confident that the majority of Christian biologists accept evolutionary theory - but I think can find a link, if you would like to see the survey data.

View Post



I will explain these different lines of evidence from my YEC point of view. You only list 6 so I will start with the 6 you listed.

Gene similarities & non-coding genetic material – The project Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) has recently published their findings of their analysis of 1% or 30 million bases of the human genome. They found that what they considered “junk” DNA is not “junk” after all it is transcribed into RNA and it is functional. It can no longer be considered non-coding as it was before. So with only 1% of the human genome for comparison the gene similarity went from 98.5% to 95% and estimations from researchers say it could reach as much as 80%. At 95% common ancestry is waning fast and should the percentage increase you can kiss common ancestry good-bye. In 2002 a study compared 77,461 chimp bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to that of the human sequences and found that only 48.6% of the human sequences matched the chimp sequences. In 1998 a study of structural differences between cell surfaces of chimps and humans it was discovered that a form of sialic acid (a kind of sugar) was not present in humans but was present on the chimps.


Brain structures – When comparing human and chimp expression of proteins of the brain and liver cells there was 31% difference in the levels of expression. When comparing human and chimp protein expressions there was above a 10-fold difference. Similarities seem to be diminishing.

Location of fossils & similarities in early human fossils – This is a good point if you map out where so called fossils are you will find that they are in locations were primates have and are living in abundance. As of now of the 12 so called hominid fossils 9 have been ruled as extinct primates. So they are just proving that there are a number of primate fossils found in an area that had and still does have primates living in that area. I have not heard about the other three as of yet I believe they are still investigating them. I would like to add a little more about Australopithecus Afarensis known as Lucy. This fossil received wide publicity as early hominid. Yet they never talked about the fact that Lucy was found in two separate digs over a mile apart and at different depths. However, that did not stop Johanson from putting the two together and saying they are from the same individual. There is somthing wrong when this kind of practise is done.

Similarity in the immune response – Medical News Today claims there is a significant difference between chimp and human immune cells yet they believe this difference will help in some way; however, I am not sure of that idea because of the following article. In a PCRM Research article Wendy Thacher, DVM, writes “There are many physiologic and anatomical differences between chimpanzees and humans. These differences make them a poor “model” for humans. Data obtained on chimpanzees cannot be extrapolated safely to the human situation.” The article goes on to explain the difference specifically. Aids is the first on the list stating that the antibodies T8 lymphocytes in a chimp respond more powerfully in chimps than humans. Next on the list is hepatitis B stating chimps become good hepatitis B carriers and do not display the suffering of the illness. There are several areas of difference listed and at the end of the article Thacher writes that chimps have too much difference to be used in human medical research.

The above information can be found at:
http://answersingene...junk-dna-part-1
http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2070
http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2718
http://www.icr.org/article/110/
http://www.icr.org/articles/2324/
http://www.scienceag...n.org/v4i5f.htm
http://emporium.turn.../C/cs/evid5.htm
http://www.pcrm.org/anexp/chimps.html.

I would like you to understand that I am just explaining this evidence not to win you over to creationism. Also I am not trying to disprove your evolutionistic views. I am explaining why I hold to my YEC beliefs. As far as the similarities that are there evolutionists look at the evidence and say common ancestor and YECers look at the evidence and say common design from the creator. It is your right and purgative to believe and preach without retaliation what ever you chose if it is evolution so be it and I will not tell you can not do this. I and my fellow YECists are asking for the same privilege from evolutionists. This is one of the reasons I like this form of debate those who want to talk about their differences in a peaceful manner can.

Bob Barclay

#28 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 19 September 2007 - 06:36 PM

You do have an interesting form of logic which I am trying to understand. My original comments were that I have yet to see any kind of creationist theory that really tries to account for the array of data out there. Mostly, creationists appear to point at a few pieces of the evolutionary puzzle and say what they don't like about it. But the real job of science is to create a theory that has better explanatory power than the current theory. I would be happy to take any topic you would like and discusss how the creationist theory accounts for the available evidence. My favorite is geology and the fossil record, but if you would like to go with genetics and hominid evolution, I would be happy to go that way too.

In this thread, the original discussion was on cosmic background radiation. To keep on subject, we could discuss the data that need to be explained to compete with a current theory of the universe, galaxy formation, or other astronomical observations.


However, if you want to go to onto hominid evolution that is fine. We should do that on a seperate thread. However, you will see that I will argue with some of your facts.

Location of fossils & similarities in early human fossils – This is a good point if you map out where so called fossils are you will find that they are in locations were primates have and are living in abundance.  As of now of the 12 so called hominid fossils 9 have been ruled as extinct primates.

View Post


Here is a pretty good list of homind fossils organized by age and location.
http://www.msu.edu/~...ontents/ANP440/

Not sure what you mean by the phrase "9 have been ruled as extinct primates". All of these are extinct primates. No one in the scientific community is claiming that any primates before homo sapiens is alive today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

New fossils are found all the time. Here is today's news from the BBC from this week's Nature.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7003502.stm

A team of scientists working in Georgia has unearthed the remains of four human-like creatures dating to 1.8 million years ago.

In the journal Nature, the researchers outline details of the partial skeletons uncovered in a Medieval town.

The bones reveal a mixture of primitive and advanced features, team leader David Lordkipanidze explained.

These early hominids may have been among the first to leave Africa to colonise the rest of the world.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users