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

Speaking of the last trump, did you know that in German, it is the "last trombone" rather than the "last trumpet"? I also liked the idea of the angel playing some Dixieland jazz on his trombone.

I'd never thought of that, Gnomon - just 'trump' and if anything, bugle as in the last post, er, this post.

Incidentally, this is the thread I'm debating in so you can follow how I do, if you are interested.

http://www.dyspraxicadults.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=708

I post as Lithium Joe.

Here's my take. I've spent rather too much time on this as I'm supposed to be working, but I've now got the impression that he (or his sources) are just making some fundamental errors because they misunderstand the issues.

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

Umm, I would suggest that's bollocks, otherwise our standard model wouldn't involve an expanding universe. Assuming he means *all* data, and not just the little bits that hint at a static universe.

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

That's missing the point spectacularly. The background '"temperature" is the equivalent energy of the radiation that appears (to us) to be coming from everywhere, hence *background*. If it were generated by stars, it would appear to be coming from stars. So bollocks.

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

Perhaps he is cackhandedly referring to the apparent abundance of matter over antimatter, rather than "elements"? But anyway, just how many adjustable parameters are "too many"?

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.

Bollocks, it's the other way round. The universe is far too uniform, hence they had to invent inflation.

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.

I've never once heard anyone claim that quasars all have the same apparent brightness. I think he's confusing them with Type II(?) supernovae, which all happen in the same way therefore all have roughly the intrinsic brightness. But even then, they don't all have the same apparent brightness on earth.

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

No - the upper limit of calculation error for studies of the age of globular clusters is a bigger number than the age of the universe. Not the same thing. The lower limit is significantly less than the age of the universe, unsurprisingly.

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

Think he might be confusing the observation that the motion of galaxies is too fast for visible matter alone to hold them together, hence the need for dark matter.

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

This could be right. So?

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.

Lo and behold, a picture intended to show more distant objects than any picture taken before reveals that those objects have higher red shifts . More evidence in favour of the expanding universe I would say. But not sure what is meant by "evolution" in this context, or at what stage of evolution a galaxy that old is supposed to be. Maybe they haven't developed arms yet

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.

I think he's demonstrating a simple misunderstanding of Einstein's cosmological constant here. Einstein rigged this number for a static universe, as opposed to one that will (at some point) collapse back in on itself, or one that will expand for ever. I can understand a figure that would've caused the universe to collapse before now, but what does "already dissipated" mean? It *has* dissipated, surely.

Two thing to say here.

1. The elements formed in the Big Bang - Hydrogen (inc. deuterium), Helium 3 and 4 and Lithium 7. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Abundance_of_primordial_elements and http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html .

2. Suggest that he reads some of the work of Professor Sir Martin Rees, The Astronomer Royal. A good start is 'Just Six Numbers -...'.

t.

Before you read any further, be warned that this post does not attempt to help at all, it's just a way for me to express my exasperation with the idea of arguing with a creationist...

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

Scientists didn't invent the idea of an expanding universe because they wanted to annoy theists, it was a very counter intuitive suggestion that took a considerable amount of time and strong evidence before it was accepted. If a static universe model fitted the data better, scientists would most likely believe it because it's the default intuitive presumption. The idea that scientists are out there wilfully biasing the evidence in an attempt to annoy theists is just an egocentric paranoid fantasy. Annoying theists is a hobby for some scientists, but it's really not the main part of their job.

Maybe in Dawkins case...

I'm ploughing through a muddy field of nonsensical blather, trying to answer each mistaken point as I go.

However, having just finsihed typing out and submitting my last invective for the evening I had this message waiting for me. It is hystericaly inept. I clearly must be getting to them if this drivel is the best argument a theist (and a qualified scientist no less!) can provide.


The point I've made repeatedly is that there is no evidence of supernatural creation....
>>Theists would disagree with you.

....No credible scientist would dispute that.
>>Theistic scientists would disagree with you.


I had to surpress giggles, mixed with a slight dose of aggravation when I relied to that.

Turvey, I just had a chance to read that page you liked to at Berkley. Very, very interesting thank you.

Yes it was, my post earlier regarding on hydrogen and deuterium being formed in the Big Bang was based on a lecture course I attended when I was an undergrad on the abundances of the elements. Clearly the details of this course have not been remembered entirely accurately by me Well, it was nearly 20 years ago so I have some excuse

This is the age old fall back position of 'The God Of Gaps'.

There have been gaps in human knowledge since we knew how to think...the noises at night, the eye's in the forests, where the sun and the moon go...these were explained by spirits or gods. We now understand how these things happen and there is no need for a god to explain the gap.

Creationists love to throw up these so called unexplained issues to try and convince people that there has to be a god as these things aren't right based on the laws of physics(which is basically what they are saying) and hence god must have something to do with it.

Creationists love to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and that it's wrong. i.e. that it states that everything tends to disorder which is 'against' what evolution is...it does not say this at all...somewhere on this site there's a fuller explanation of this.

Your friend obviously has an hidden agenda.

There are lots of great little sites on the interweb that give you enough ammunition to refute these oft quoted piles of tosh but the stuff posted on here will give you a good head start.

'god of gaps' is something that is worth getting some ammunition on as that hits them where it hurts.

turn the tables on this gob-shite....

agree with him that a god is reponsable for the universe....

just pick any other god, then reduce the argument to my god is better than your god, and i have faith so i dont need proof that my god is real and yours is imaginary

I put a link to the conversation above somewhere, you should really check it out now because I'm being attacked by a theistic scientist who is coming out with gems like:

Theists do have evidence [of god], but it is not empirical - unless you experience it personally nothing we say or do will convince you of the evidence.

I say: "Proof by empirical evidence is actually the only way we know to arrive at the truth."
They say simply: Not so.

These people are not my friends, but it is disturbing the sheer level of drivel that's being talked about by apparently educated people.

I have always wanted to ask people about empirical evidence etc not being the only way.

Would they stand on the side of a road blind folded, ears plugged up and use their faith to decide when to walk across it?

No, of course not. One needs evidence that a car isn't there that would knock them down.

Faith is fine when it has no real consequence apart believing in a being that cannot be proven. Faith is a bit different when the outcome of that faith being wrong is something bad happening..or something bad that can;t be explained away by god or satan etc.

I think I've met the kind of 'does not submit to logic' theistic apologist in this person.

I'm just wondering what you all make of this exchange. (I'll summarise)




There is no evidence of supernatural creation. No credible scientist would dispute that. [LJ]

Theistic scientists would disagree with you. [L]

Yes; hence the operative adjective "credible".[LJ]

You can get a few theistic scientists who are not credible you can also get a few atheistic scientists who are not credible.[L]

Certainly - there are frauds in every profession, sad but true. Any examples? I've given you one. (Michael Behe) [LJ]

I am not talking about Theists vs Scientists, I am talking about Theistic Scientists of which there are many, and I don't just mean the famous ones, but the "run of the mill" ones (for want of a better word). I actually know more scientists who are Theists than are Atheists.[L]


So I attempted to make a distinction:


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


Anybody can believe in one god, many gods or no gods. That is their right and privilege. Those self same people may also be scientists. I would think of those people as scientists-who-believe-in-god. Nothing controversial about that and I would never seek to deny them that right or freedom.

To my mind a theistic scientist, however, is someone who tries to justify pseudo-scientific conclusions from faith derived premises.

For example, If as you say theistic scientists accept the theory of evolution as I do but think there "more to it", this serves as an example, because faith as you confirm is a subjective experience and not subject to empirical observation. It therefore cannot be falsified, hence it is not part of science.

So you can't proceed from non-scientific premises (like god guides evolution which proceeds by natural selection and random mutation of the genetic code) and arrive at scientific conclusion; not when you define faith (and entities established by faith, like gods) as being outside of empiricism. In short theistic scientists can think there is more to evolution than what the evidence shows but such opinions will not submit for testing so cannot be falsified or be considered sound science. [LJ]


And I've just got this reply which seems to just muddy the distinction I was trying to draw and to no point.

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

What I meant by a theistic scientist is a scientist who believed in God and one who believes that God has a 'role' in what we observe empirically of the evolutionary processes, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not your Wacko Jacko stuff. [L]




A person who believes God had a role in evolution however subjective that role is - a theistic evolutionist - does believe there is more to biological evolution than just the empirical evidence, that is where faith enters the equation. [L]




I just don't understand what point they are making. I was trying to devise a space whereby someone could be employed as a scientist and hold a private belief in god and not encounter a problem except that we'd disagree about ecumenical matters.

But I was also trying to define, in order to attack, the kind of ID proponents and creationist nut jobs that try to justify faith based conclusions with pseudo-scientific endeavours, like Intelligent Design.

And it seems they are trying to deny such a separation exists.

and I was *trying* to be kind!


I should point out, this is a different person than who I was talking to before at the start of this thread. That person said they questioned religion but weren't convinced by science and believed in Intelligent Design, showed a basic lack of knowledge about Science, suddenly produced this hit list of top -ten scientific problems and I've not heard from them since.

This person [L] is new, is much more vigourous (and insensible) in defending faith, and even claims to have studied science at degree level. Which, if true, is tragic.



However, I did raise a smile with this exchange:

The made-up superstitions of religion [...] [LJ]
They are not made up superstitions! [L]

I say: "Proof by empirical evidence is actually the only way we know to arrive at the truth."
They say simply: Not so.


I refer the honourable Ostrich to my earlier post, re: trying to debate evidence against faith is about as easy as trying to nail soot to a wall.

I regrettably agree. against my prior opponent I think I stood a chance. Against this lunacy of [L] not so much.

I did though by the way get an answer to what other methods, other than empirical evidence arrive at truth. It's a kicker and makes the point perfectly.



Proof by empirical evidence is actually the only way we know to arrive at the truth. [LJ]
Not so. [L]
Oh really? What are the others? [LJ]
Subjective truth as in faith, and it applies just as much to you as an atheist as it does to any theist. [L]


I do so love being told what to think. Makes one yearn for the reformation.

I've watched several of Dawkins' recent documentaries and they show it in spades. Apart from the fact that he's hopeless at it and looks like a rabbit in headlights once the religionists turn on him, his constant bleating about science and Darwin and evolution and natural selection are water off a duck's back to his opponents. It matters not a jot to them and they tear him apart.

DNA was much better at this sort of thing.

<>

so the sun does go round the earth every 24 hours

(I quite like being called 'honourable' )

I think I've done some of my best work in this debate, but this as you rightly point out, is no longer a debate about issues, which can be argued over, it's assertion contrary to and perpetual in denial of evidence.

I know where I want to go with this subjective truth thing - but really there's no arguing with it because as you said they'll 'refute whatever I come up with, or just flat out tell me that I'm mistaken without any argument or reason'

We have arrived at that point.