h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Probably a silly way to pass time, however, I've got into a conversation with one guy who has demonstrated a basic ignorance of science all the way through our discussions, but has now gone and clearly looked something up (probably from a debunking science website) and produced a list of specific science "problems" which has passed beyond my knowledge to properly refute or reply to. A few I recognise but the specificity defeats me as I am an interested and avid reader but not a scientist myself. I suspect that is the point behind the tactic: trying to trip me up on details.

This is the list, I was wondering if anyone can explain to me the science behind each of these claims so I'm prepared to stand ground on what science can reasonably tell us.

Thanks.

Clive.


--------------------------

1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

3) Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Well, for starters. Just because science has 'problems' and cannot explain everything* it does not logically follow that therefore it's all bunk and there must be a spiritual creator. It just means we need to keep thinking, looking and experimenting to get closer to the truth.


1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

Maybe he could expand upon exactly what data he is referring to and a little bit more on the models that he is referring to?
Why come from a defensive position? Expose his ignorance, not yours


2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Does it really? Again why not ask him to explain this.
What does he think is being 'heated'? Space is virtually empty so temperature is a rather difficult concept in a near absolute vacuum.


3) Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

Er. The big bang theory *explains* elemental abundances, it doesn't predict them.
That's how science works. We have so much hydrogen and so much heavy hydrogen in the universe - any theory on the big bang must be good enough to explain the observed abundances - if it doesn't it's wrong.

Did you notice that I didn't mention any other elements than hydrogen and it's heavy isotope - heavy hydrogen (deuterium)?

That's because the big bang did not make any other elements** Stars create heavier elements by nuclear fusion in their cores - mostly helium but up to iron is supergiant stars. Heavier elements are made in supernovae.
Again, the theory must explain observed abundances as these are measurable and known - giving a quick debunk of any theory that doesn't do this.


4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

Why? What does he know of the rates of formation of such things?

5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

As exceedingly unlikely as the giant spaggetti noodle monster?
Again, maybe he should enlighten you on quasars and what gives him the right to speak with authority about them?

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

First I've heard of it - ask for sources of information and justifications of such assertions.


7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

Where does theory state that the universe is 'everywhere uniform'? Quite the opposite to my knowledge.

8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

Say what? 'Must?' I feel he must enlighten us further on this assertion.

9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

Yes, this is interesting isn't it. Certainly a challenge for the theoreticians. That's what scientists like. It would be boring if we knew it all already.

10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

So?







*Who claimed that it could?
**According to current theory

I did ask for his source for these observations. As yet no answer on that has been forthcoming. if it turns out to be anwsersingeneis.com or something similar then the game is up!

I'm reading your post in detail now. Thanks.

Small point re 2): the CMB would not be so ubiquitous to the point of omnipresence as it is, with that explanation. Happy to help.

I wouldn't go into too much detail - I think I only answered one of the points - mostly.

A second-hand source like that is no source at all. If I relied on the press for scientific knowledge I'd be as up on it as this guy...

Thanks guys. You've give me some really beneficial help and that is much appreciated. Keep the suggestions coming!

Sorry, Orcus, I can't help you other than to observe that if the current theories don't fully explain the universe, then other theories must be devised which do.

No creationist has ever come up with a coherent explanation of why the universe is the way it is.

Oops, that should be Sorry Clive!

Just to give you a flavour of this guys "logic" and why this sits so at odds with what has hithertoo passed for 'debate'

Here is a sample of their criticism, which appears to hold a view of science that was grounded in the 18th century.

"Also, it is extremely questionable whether inductivism (i.e. proof by empirical evidence) is a valid method of proof. Whilst it undoubtedly provides supporting evidence for a theory, it is not foolproof - and nor should it be treated as such. The problem is that physics, chemistry etc. are all subjected to the limitations of this method, particularly as they make extensive use of it! Unfortunately, this means that the meaning of 'proof' - at least in the mathematical sense - becomes somewhat obfuscated, frequently leading to misuse. Given this methodological weakness, all of your previous expositions are no more than theories, with some, albeit frequently disputed, empirical evidence. That is why all scientific laws and popular theories never lose their 'theory' tag."

They've actually just replied again and have rowed back slightly from this - admitting that some explanations exist but still clutching to the assertion that anything less than a full scientific explanation justifies a belief in God. However they still haven't said what their sources are just "numerous websites"

What you really need is SoRB - but he seems to be on an extended lunch break at the minute...

Why is "belief in God" an explanation? It doesn't actually explain anything.

Light up the signal!

Proof by empirical evidence is actually the only way we know to arrive at the truth.

Aristotle tried to work out the way the world must be by pure reason, with spectacularly bad results. Others claimed to have been divinely inspired, but since their answers contradict one another, they can't all be right, so who do you believe. Even the Bible is a mass of contradictions, so the only way to know which bits to accept as truth is to have some way of investigating the truth and corroborating them. This is known as proof by empirical evidence.

All human knowledge falls into an epistemological black hole. A world-view is either able to prove itself (in which case it is circular) or unable to prove itself (in which case it is incomplete).

That is why science works by disproof, and doesn't speak of proof.

Science, however, can make testable predictions and is actually useful. Faith avoids predictions when it can, and is often (but not always) wrong when it makes them. We may not be able to prove that science (or any human knowledge) is perfect - but we can sure as prove that Biblical literalism is wrong.

Gif

>>>>However they still haven't said what their sources are just "numerous websites"

Numerous websites don't count. Don't accept anything less than a study published in a peer-reviewed journal. That ought to keep him busy for awhile, and who knows, he might actually learn something.

Science is more than just using long words . Does he understand what those things mean? I don't.

>>"1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models."<<

There are two significant and relevant chunks of data I know of. One: red shifts. Star spectra show a Doppler shift depending on whether they're moving toward or away from us (the waves get squashed together or stretched out). Most stars are moving away from us, the further away they are the faster they are moving. I don't see how a static universe model could possibly explain this.

Second are the supernova measurements which show the universe is accelerating. I can't see how that could support a static universe model either.

There is probably a lot more evidence on this, these are just what I know of. The red shift thing is the standard piece of evidence for the Big Bang.

>>"2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball."<<

I don't see how this would work. So something throughout space is supposed to be radiating microwaves? Given also that the recent observations of microwave background across the whole sky match excellently with theoretical predictions, this is a very weak accusation.

>>"5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all red shifts, which is exceedingly unlikely."<<

He's talking about 'standard candles'. I don't have time to look this up right now I'm afraid.

I want to say that there's no point in debating with creationists because the fact that they rely on faith for their beliefs and opinions about the universe rather than evidence and enquiry means that they have no use for the evidence you provide for your side of the debate. How could they? Their religion tells them how things are and were and ever shall be so it's a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise. Evidence is simply not a part of their mindset and they'll always find a way to refute whatever you come up with, or just flat out tell you that you're mistaken without any argument or reason whatsoever (ie, faith), so why bother?

But there's always the possibility of turning one of them around, so we should probably keep on trying.

>But there's always the possibility of turning one of them around, so we should probably keep on trying.<

Yeah, just like them... it'll probably even out again at the last trump.

Threads without end prove that to be very unlikely. If only it were possible to correlate ulcers and conversions to science. It seems to me the best you can do is teach science to the best of your ability to any who'll listen, with humour and wit and enthusiasm, and lots of lights, bells and whistles, and trust the burgeoning tentacles of secularism to generate your audience. Speaking as a Meeja Student

Build it, and they will come. Oh, you have.

This should be interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml