Jump to content


Photo

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation


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

#1 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 September 2007 - 04:06 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

#2 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2007 - 01:47 AM

i dont see what microwaves have to do with creation. the big bang is a damp squib nothing can come from an explosion in space

#3 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 11 September 2007 - 08:49 AM

The Big Bang is an interesting story but it assumes nothing existed and boom. The reason for the microwave radiation is speculative also. There are objects in the universe that are giving off radiation in all bands of the electromagnetic spectrum (microwaves are at 1 - 100 GHz). Pulsars, Quasars, Dark Matter or Dark Energy - a lot is not fully understood.





God bless,
Al

#4 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:41 PM

No, The Big Bang Theory assumes that the universe as it is was smaller at some point in the past. This stems from the fact that every distant body from the earth is travelling away from us, and therefore must have been closer together in the past.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was a prediction of the Big Bang, and was discovered after the theory had been published.

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:55 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.


Help me out a little.... Why is it so compelling? I don't know why anyone would believe in a theory that had to make up 75% of the mass of the universe by something that is not measurable. Tlak about fantasy...:)

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


What if he did put it there?

Terry

#6 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 September 2007 - 06:31 PM

Help me out a little....  Why is it so compelling?  I don't know why anyone would believe in a theory that had to make up 75% of the mass of the universe by something that is not measurable.    Tlak about fantasy...:)
What if he did put it there?

Terry

View Post

it is very compelling because it is exactly what we would expect to see according to the Big Bang theory.
as for dark matter, we can detect it because we can see the effects of its gravity through things like gravitational lensing.
what if he did put it there? well, then you descend to Last Thursdayism, the theory that states that the universe was created last Thursday, but doesnt appear that way. They have the same basis in logic.
btw, I believe more in Next Tuesdayism, which is when I will pay you for my hamburger.

#7 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2007 - 07:36 PM

it is very compelling because it is exactly what we would expect to see according to the Big Bang theory.


So are things that contradict the Big Bang theory equally uncompelling?

as for dark matter, we can detect it because we can see the effects of its gravity through things like gravitational lensing.


Well, I'm not expert on the subject, but I don't think anyone has detected it. They are assuming its there because they need an explanation to make the math work. That's far from detecting it....

what if he did put it there? well, then you descend to Last Thursdayism, the theory that states that the universe was created last Thursday, but doesnt appear that way. They have the same basis in logic.
btw, I believe more in Next Tuesdayism, which is when I will pay you for my hamburger.


Appearance is in the eye of the beholder... If the universe was created, then its logical that it came in some initial state, and did not progress from a quantum fluctuation, whatever that is, to what we see today. Whether you approve of the initial state or not is besides the point. Its possible God did create things the way we see them, I don't believe so myself, but its still a possibility. To simply rule it out because it doesn't suit your taste is a philosophical mistake.

Terry

#8 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 September 2007 - 10:40 PM

So are things that contradict the Big Bang theory equally uncompelling?
Well, I'm not expert on the subject, but I don't think anyone has detected it.  They are assuming its there because they need an explanation to make the math work.  That's far from detecting it....
Appearance is in the eye of the beholder...  If the universe was created, then its logical that it came in some initial state, and did not progress from a quantum fluctuation, whatever that is, to what we see today.  Whether you approve of the initial state or not is besides the point.  Its possible God did create things the way we see them, I don't believe so myself, but its still a possibility.  To simply rule it out because it doesn't suit your taste is a philosophical mistake.

Terry

View Post

my point with lst thursdayism was not that it is necessarily false, but it is in clear violation of Ockhams rasor, and you cant logically say that without any evidence. Therefore, you can entirely discount if it is brought up as explanation for observations.

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 September 2007 - 10:21 AM

Help me out a little....  Why is it so compelling?  I don't know why anyone would believe in a theory that had to make up 75% of the mass of the universe by something that is not measurable.    Tlak about fantasy...:)

View Post


It is and has been measured

What if he did put it there?

Terry

View Post

Then how did he put it there.

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2007 - 12:50 PM

Then how did he put it there.

View Post


He spoke it into existance.

Terry

#11 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 12 September 2007 - 01:24 PM

He spoke it into existance.

Terry

View Post

any evidence for that hypothesis?

#12 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 12 September 2007 - 02:33 PM

any evidence for that hypothesis?

View Post


Alright. That's enough. How about reading up on the "Evolution of Angels" thread and the "Evidence for Evolutionism" thread to see how far you are going to get demanding evidence (your euphemism for proof) of supernatural creation -- unless, that is, you really want to start going around in circles with me like Faunswater and Epp did.

The evidence of God's creation is all around us. It's the same evidence that you have for believing in your evolutionism. The truth of our interpretation of that evidence is in the rock-solid foundation of God's word in the Bible, which is light-years more solid than the fairytale of evolution.

Furthermore, do a study on the difference between operational science and historical science. Or ask Faunswater or Epp. That will save everybody a whole lot of time and effort.

If you are planning to come back with a rejoinder about how "Creationists can't do science" because we can't provide "evidence" (proof) for supernatural creation, then you can preface it by providing "evidence" (proof) for evolution that is based on more than guesses, suppositions, and subjunctive qualifiers -- in other words, more than just your faith that it is true.

Sound like a deal?

Dave

#13 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 12 September 2007 - 08:32 PM

If you are planning to come back with a rejoinder about how "Creationists can't do science" because we can't provide "evidence" (proof) for supernatural creation, then you can preface it by providing "evidence" (proof) for evolution that is based on more than guesses, suppositions, and subjunctive qualifiers -- in other words, more than just your faith that it is true.

View Post



The danger with the word "proof" is that it implies that that some piece of evidence is absolutely and without question conclusive. I don't know of a single theory in all of science that relies on a single piece of evidence. Any theory to be accepted by the scientific community requires many lines of convergent evidence. One should think of science as a huge jigsaw puzzle. The 'theory' is the best attempt to put all the pieces (evidence) together into a single whole. You can't look at how just two or three of the pieces fit together and conclude what the whole picture looks like. But after several thousand pieces you might get pretty confident.

Most all of those that have spent their lives studying biology see how the thousands upon thousands of pieces fit together if evolution is accepted. You may not feel that way, but most all biologists - and most other scientists that see the evidence daily do feel that way.

Suppose after putting together a 10,000 piece puzzle and getting 9,000 pieces into place, someone leaned over your shoulder and told you it was all wrong. You would probably scoff and say .. "Ok, you put it together then. " Even if they pointed out that one or two pieces of evidence were put together incorrectly, you would probably not seriously consider that there was a completely different way to put the pieces together. But still the challenge is there. If creationists feel there is another way to put all the known lines of evidence together, then go for it. Demonstrate that flood theory or whatever theory really does predict the known data.

I gave three lines of evidence in the "evidence for evolution", but no one even attempted to show how a creation theory might explain the facts I gave (e.g., no evidence of complex life below the Cambrian layers - not even pollen). Evolution theory states that complex life had not evolved yet, and how does creation theory explain this? I really do want to hear. If you say for example God created life after laying down the Cambrian layers, then this will result in a number of new questions whose answers must continue to fit the evidence for the argument to 'hold water'

James.

p.s. The "Big Bang" phrase was coined by Hoyle to mock the theory proposed by the priest and mathematician Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966). Hoyle thought the theory smelled religious and refused to accept it (believing in the Steady State Theory). But faced with mounting evidence Einstein and the scientific establishment eventually accepted it despite its religious overtones. I see this as science working.

http://www.catholice...nce/sc0022.html

#14 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 September 2007 - 04:01 AM

Most all of those that have spent their lives studying biology see how the thousands upon thousands of pieces fit together if evolution is accepted. You may not feel that way, but most all biologists - and most other scientists that see the evidence daily do feel that way.


It´s not true, there are many scientists that dont believe in evolution.The thousands upon thousands of pieces dont fit together, But evos keep believing it only for two reasons.Ones because of their commitment with Atheism, others because they are afraid of not being accepted by the scientific community.For example, Haldene´s dillema is already 40 years old, Nobody has a solution for it.Tell me why evos keep believing that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor ?

#15 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 13 September 2007 - 06:43 PM

It´s not true, there are many scientists that dont believe in evolution.The thousands upon thousands of pieces dont fit together, But evos keep believing it only for two reasons.Ones because of their commitment with Atheism, others because they are afraid of not being accepted by the scientific community.For example, Haldene´s dillema is already 40 years old, Nobody has a solution for it.Tell me why evos keep believing that Humans and Chimps share a common ancestor ?

View Post


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.

#16 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 13 September 2007 - 08:03 PM

yes, whatever the numbers may be among phds for supporting evolution, the number among people in the relevant fields (biology, genetics, etc) is much larger. something interesting that i thought was amusing when some major creationist group made a list of 500 or so PhD's who did no0t accept evolution, the NCSE began project steve, which made a list of PhD's named Steve, Stephen, Steven, or Stephanie who accepted evolution. as of 9/5/07, theree were 827 steves on the list.

#17 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2007 - 03:44 AM

yes, whatever the numbers may be among phds for supporting evolution, the number among people in the relevant fields (biology, genetics, etc) is much larger. something interesting that i thought was amusing when some major creationist group made a list of 500 or so PhD's who did no0t accept evolution, the NCSE began project steve, which made a list of PhD's named Steve, Stephen, Steven, or Stephanie who accepted evolution. as of 9/5/07, theree were 827 steves on the list.

View Post


An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

#18 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 September 2007 - 04:01 AM

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).


If you think they have a solution then post it.

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?


Gene similarities can be explained by common design.
Non-coding genetic material is already proved to have many functions so it can be explained by common design.
Brain structures also.
Location of fossils ???????? I dont know what you are talking about
What early human fossils ?
Similarity in immune response - Common Design.

Your 50 different lines of evidence are one indeed: Homology. Your reasoning is that all that are similar have a common ancestor.It´s not true, if it was true then it would not exist convergent evolution.


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).


It makes no sense, I dont need to create another theory to say that evolution is false.So, in your opinion it´s better to have a false theory than no theory.

#19 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

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

Posted 14 September 2007 - 04:06 PM

pwnagepanda,
How did they measure the temperatures?

(if you can't answer that question, then you must admitt your belief in it is based upon faith)

#20 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

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

Posted 14 September 2007 - 05:04 PM

pwnagepanda,
How did they measure the temperatures?

(if you can't answer that question, then you must admitt your belief in it is based upon faith)

View Post

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users