Evidence for an ancient earth

[Guy Threepwood]

I take no stance either way--

___

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

which is it?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And that was certainly the belief of most atheists 100 years ago.

What on earth are you saying here? Atheists, by definition, do not believe.

They didn't believe 100 years ago, and they do not believe today.

The principle difference, here?

An atheist or scientist **must** follow the facts and evidence. They cannot simply dismiss evidence because it is inconvenient.

Any Cosmological Model (i.e. the Big Bang model) must take into account all the available facts and evidence-- or it is null.

At the very least, if there are facts the model cannot explain? It is recognized as a "hole" or weakness in the model-- and the model is recognized as not accurate in that area.

This doesn't mean the whole thing is tossed out, and instantly, "Oh Gawd, 'Ee did it" happens. That would be insane.

Look at the Laws of Newton-- we know there are holes it that model. We know where the holes are, and what sort of holes they are-- so anytime scientists use the Model that Newton came up with? He or she must take those holes into account-- and avoid them. For example: you could use Newton's equations to calculate a transfer orbit between Earth and the Moon-- indeed, why would you not? Or you could use Enstein's. But why bother? Either works quite well enough, in the time-frame given, at the speeds a human is likely to utilize. And consider the mass of the object being transferred: it's not going to be a Black Hole, is it?

But. If one believes that Newton was The Law? Then that someone would get into trouble, if he or she failed to recognize it's limitations!

Belief is dangerous, and irrational. That's why we don't do it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

which is it?

I do not know-- to claim to know? WOULD REQUIRE VERY STUPID BELIEF or FAITH.

"I do not do that, because I'm not an idiot. " ~ Kate Smurthwaite.

Kate is right; and I'm also not an idiot.

 

[ChristineM]

wiki
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[46]



and all devoid of evidence, hence I lack your belief in any of them.



(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


He coined the term 'Big Bang' in mockery of Lemaitre's primeval atom- atheists overwhelmingly preferred various static/eternal/steady state models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

And your evidence that all cosmologists in the 20s and 30s were atheist? Which in your previous post you were adamant. I don't see it in the wiki passage you posted for some reason.

Also note that wiki's are by definition invalid, i.e, they can be anonymously edited by anyone, qualified or not.

Yes Hoyle was a proponent of the steady state theory. Hubble noticed a different scenario which has been validated in several different and independent ways, including the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey satellite which has measured the expansion with unprecedented precision. What was that about devoid of evidence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What on earth are you saying here? Atheists, by definition, do not believe.

They didn't believe 100 years ago, and they do not believe today.

The principle difference, here?

An atheist or scientist **must** follow the facts and evidence. They cannot simply dismiss evidence because it is inconvenient.

once again form wiki
several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

Any Cosmological Model (i.e. the Big Bang model) must take into account all the available facts and evidence-- or it is null.

At the very least, if there are facts the model cannot explain? It is recognized as a "hole" or weakness in the model-- and the model is recognized as not accurate in that area.

This doesn't mean the whole thing is tossed out, and instantly, "Oh Gawd, 'Ee did it" happens. That would be insane.

Look at the Laws of Newton-- we know there are holes it that model. We know where the holes are, and what sort of holes they are-- so anytime scientists use the Model that Newton came up with? He or she must take those holes into account-- and avoid them. For example: you could use Newton's equations to calculate a transfer orbit between Earth and the Moon-- indeed, why would you not? Or you could use Enstein's. But why bother? Either works quite well enough, in the time-frame given, at the speeds a human is likely to utilize. And consider the mass of the object being transferred: it's not going to be a Black Hole, is it?

But. If one believes that Newton was The Law? Then that someone would get into trouble, if he or she failed to recognize it's limitations!

Belief is dangerous, and irrational. That's why we don't do it.

Blind faith is dangerous, and irrational. That's why we must acknowledge our beliefs as such

Atheists like Hoyle are a perfect example, THEY were the ones who explicitly, openly rejected and mocked the primeval atom as 'Big Bang' because they didn't like what THEY saw as the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event.

Lemaitre in stark contrast, went out of his way to disassociate his personal beliefs with his work, even telling the Pope to quit gloating when the BB was established beyond most reasonable doubt.

That's how science should work, but how does a person disassociate a belief, they refuse to even acknowledge having?!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool"

Indeed. I quite imagine religion was invented by a coward-- back when humans lived on the Savannah, and made nightly camp fires-- huddling around them for protection, warmth and the dubious belief they were safe from the Outer Darkness.

But religion was invented by someone with a glib tounge, too much imagination and a cowardly disposition. And lazy-- lazy is very important component.

That someone was hearing the nightly Sounds From The Outer Darkness, and imagined all sorts of monsters that they could be-- and was literally frightened out of his wits. (what little he had). In a show of desperation, he shouts, "Those Sounds are the God JuJu! And I am his Messenger!"

Lucky for the human race? Most of the times that sad event happened, the others made the coward go out and prove it-- and he was thereby eaten by lions or tigers or hyenas, and the overall intelligence of the species was improved.

But sometimes? The wasteral had a glib tongue-- and was convincing. And the tribe followed the Great God JuJu for a time...

And the overall intelligence of the species was diminished.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And your evidence that all cosmologists in the 20s and 30s were atheist? Which in your previous post you were adamant. I don't see it in the wiki passage you posted for some reason.

Also note that wiki's are by definition invalid, i.e, they can be anonymously edited by anyone, qualified or not.

Yes Hoyle was a proponent of the steady state theory. Hubble noticed a different scenario which has been validated in several different and independent ways, including the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey satellite which has measured the expansion with unprecedented precision. What was that about devoid of evidence?

Hoyle's position was firmly based in his dislike for the theistic implications of the primeval atom, by his own arguments, he was an outspoken atheist, if you disagree you would have to have argued your assertion with him, this is hardly controversial

(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


No not all cosmologists were atheists, as above, it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed science to progress to arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

There are many such examples of science v athesim

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

once again form wiki

Sorry. I do not use Wiki in debates. It is a useful shortcut or dodge, when you want a quick-and-dirty "answer" when the results don't actually matter.

You are going to have to do better than Wiki to be credible.

Here's a $25 hint for free: Wiki sometimes has links at the bottom-- use those instead, next time.

Whats that? No links?

Hmmmmmmm....

 

[ChristineM]

and all devoid of evidence, hence I lack your belief in any of them.

I think this deserves a post on its own. You who claim God while devoid of evidence gave the gaul to mock scientific theories by misrepresenting them when you are clueless to those theories you mock.

Actually all the theories have basis in evidence of current conditions, i personally favour that of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton because not only is her theory based on quantum evidence (which you deny) it also accounts for the three unusual phenomena obseved in his universe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Blind faith is dangerous, and irrational. That's why we must acknowledge our beliefs as such

I have a 50 amp fuse in my Irony Meter.

And you just blew it-- the noise was so loud, my neighbor came over to see if I was alright...

I was fine, of course-- but now I think I'll put in a 100 amp fuse for next time...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do not know-- to claim to know? WOULD REQUIRE VERY STUPID BELIEF or FAITH.

"I do not do that, because I'm not an idiot. " ~ Kate Smurthwaite.

Kate is right; and I'm also not an idiot.

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

Okay, and that's pretty much what I guessed already

Obviously none of us are 100% on such speculative questions, but you sound pretty confident here- how sure would you say you are? 75%? 90%?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's how science should work, but how does a person disassociate a belief, they refuse to even acknowledge having?!

Dammit! You just blew my 100 amp fuse.... and it looks like I'm going to need a new Irony Meter.

Fortunately? I buy them at Amazon, by the case...

 

[ChristineM]

Hoyle's position was firmly based in his dislike for the theistic implications of the primeval atom, by his own arguments, he was an outspoken atheist, if you disagree you would have to have argued your assertion with him, this is hardly controversial

(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


No not all cosmologists were atheists, as above, it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed science to progress to arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

There are many such examples of science v athesim

Hoyle's position was firmly based in his dislike for the theistic implications of the primeval atom, by his own arguments, he was an outspoken atheist, if you disagree you would have to have argued your assertion with him, this is hardly controversial

(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


No not all cosmologists were atheists, as above, it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed science to progress to arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

There are many such examples of science v athesim

So why did you make a false claim

Who argues? Non scientist of course

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

Okay, and that's pretty much what I guessed already

Obviously none of us are 100% on such speculative questions, but you sound pretty confident here- how sure would you say you are? 75%? 90%?

I would say I have not made up my mind yet.

A state of being you appear to be 100% unacquainted with, what with your 100% certitude that the god you were born with, just happens to be the Ultimate God Of The Universe.

Ain't THAT convenient for YOU?

You have GOT to be the luckiest human alive! IN ALL HISTORY! To be the SOLE holder of the Ultimate Truth.

/end sarcasm

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My coffee is done. And I am done for now. Tootles.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry. I do not use Wiki in debates. It is a useful shortcut or dodge, when you want a quick-and-dirty "answer" when the results don't actually matter.

You are going to have to do better than Wiki to be credible.

Here's a $25 hint for free: Wiki sometimes has links at the bottom-- use those instead, next time.

Whats that? No links?

Hmmmmmmm....

Here's a hint Bob- , the links for the quote are included int he paragraph I already posted- the little numbers in brackets, feel free to check them out yourself, but this is hardly controversial stuff, Hoyle didn't like the theistic implications and preferred to come up with a theory with opposite implications

wiki
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[46]

.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would say I have not made up my mind yet.

A state of being you appear to be 100% unacquainted with, what with your 100% certitude that the god you were born with, just happens to be the Ultimate God Of The Universe.

Ain't THAT convenient for YOU?

You have GOT to be the luckiest human alive! IN ALL HISTORY! To be the SOLE holder of the Ultimate Truth.

/end sarcasm

the universe is *likely* causeless, and there is a good case for saying so.

^

But you somehow reached a conclusion of what you believe is most likely, and feel there is a good case for it. That's fine, again we all believe in something, we are curious individuals, we form beliefs we know we can't prove. there is nothing wrong with that- as long as we recognize those beliefs for what they are.

In reality you may well be far more confident in your belief than I am. After all I was once a staunch atheist also, so all I can prove is that my opinion is entirely unrealiable!

Once again,
I acknowledge my beliefs, my faith as such, I have no problem doing so, neither did Lemaitre. Hoyle and most atheists like yourself do, and often get very defensive and emotional bout it, and this has put up barriers to scientific progress.

 

[Polymath257]

Hoyle's position was firmly based in his dislike for the theistic implications of the primeval atom, by his own arguments, he was an outspoken atheist, if you disagree you would have to have argued your assertion with him, this is hardly controversial

(wiki)
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"


No not all cosmologists were atheists, as above, it was Lemaitre's skepticism of atheism that allowed science to progress to arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

There are many such examples of science v athesim

Alexander Friedman, who was also involved in describing the Big Bang scenario independently of LeMaitre, was not religious. I wasn't able to find any information about the religious views of either Howard Robertson or Arthur Walker (two other foundational investigators into an expanding universe).

Do you have any information about their religious views?

So, yes, Hoyle was someone who was strongly against the BB cosmology for his personal philosophical reasons. The data shows he was wrong.

Are you claiming that no religious person stood in the way of scientific progress in a similar way?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Alexander Friedman, who was also involved in describing the Big Bang scenario independently of LeMaitre, was not religious. I wasn't able to find any information about the religious views of either Howard Robertson or Arthur Walker (two other foundational investigators into an expanding universe).

Do you have any information about their religious views?

So, yes, Hoyle was someone who was strongly against the BB cosmology for his personal philosophical reasons. The data shows he was wrong.

Are you claiming that no religious person stood in the way of scientific progress in a similar way?

Well thanks!, that may be the first time any atheist has acknowledged this!

And sure, I'm not saying this is a black and white issue, but it's part of the equation, we all have our beliefs, our world views, and it is easier said than done to put them aside.

But there is a trait inherent in atheism , by definition, to refuse to acknowledge itself as a belief at all- rather to frame itself as merely a disbelief of the alternative, which contributes to problems like this to this day.
Hoyle never accepted the evidence for the BB till his dying day. And that's the problem with mocking other's beliefs- it only betrays the fact that a person is unwilling to change their mind no matter the evidence, or they become all the things they accused others of.

The fact that Hoyle's pejorative term 'Big Bang' replaced the actual founder's far better and more descriptive name 'Primeval Atom' tells you something about the general preference and consensus of academia and media at the time

Lemaitre never received any Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and in fact remains largely unknown

 

[Polymath257]

Well thanks!, that may be the first time any atheist has acknowledged this!

And sure, I'm not saying this is a black and white issue, but it's part of the equation, we all have our beliefs, our world views, and it is easier said than done to put them aside.

But there is a trait inherent in atheism , by definition, to refuse to acknowledge itself as a belief at all- rather to frame itself as merely a disbelief of the alternative, which contributes to problems like this to this day.
Hoyle never accepted the evidence for the BB till his dying day. And that's the problem with mocking other's beliefs- it only betrays the fact that a person is unwilling to change their mind no matter the evidence, or they become all the things they accused others of.

The fact that Hoyle's pejorative term 'Big Bang' replaced the actual founder's far better and more descriptive name 'Primeval Atom' tells you something about the general preference and consensus of academia and media at the time

Lemaitre never received any Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and in fact remains largely unknown

Well, I disagree that 'Primeval Atom' is more descriptive of what happens than 'Big Bang'. No, it is not an explosion, so 'Big Bang' is, in that sense, a misnomer. But there was no 'Primeval Atom' in most descriptions. And the use of 'Primeval Atom' carries its own collection of images and inaccuracies. Both terminologies have their issues.

Now, to be fair, LeMaitre mainly solved Einstein's equations for the universe as a whole. He did NOT give evidence that these solutions described the real world. It took Hubble to do that. Furthermore, the co-discoverers of the expanding universe solutions also did not get a Nobel Prize. This happens. I tis MUCH harder to get a Nobel prize for theoretical work that has not been demonstrated to be true.

It is also interesting, for example, that Einstein did NOT get a Nobel prize for either Special or General relativity. He got his Nobel Prize for the explanation of the photo-electric effect. It is arguable, but it is generally agreed that Relativity is deeper and more fundamental than the photo-electric effect.