[Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Dennis Avery & S. Fred Singer: Climate Science Frauds

[Paul Rumelhart]

It appears that everything in the Universe is moving away from 
everything else.  Everything that is not local is red-shifted.  That's 
easily verifiable and observable.  There are only two basic reasons 
everything would be moving away from us.  Either we are at the exact 
center of the universe and everything is actually (for whatever reason) 
moving away from us, or the entire thing is expanding and everything is 
moving away from everything else like raisins in bread as it expands in 
the oven move away from each other.  Since it's doubtful that we are 
that special here on the outskirts of a forgotten arm of an average 
galaxy among billions to be the Center of the Universe, then the 
universe must be expanding.  Something that is expanding will shrink 
when you go back in time. 

The name "Big Bang" was given to this theory from an opponent of it, who 
thought it absurd if you take it too far.  The funny thing is, if you 
assume that the Big Bang really did happen, it explains the ratio of 
certain elements (which I link to below).  As weird as it sounds, it 
explains the observations the best.

The theory itself cannot say anything meaningful about what happened 
before time t=0, if that's even a valid question.  It also doesn't state 
that there was nothing at the beginning.  It all had to be there at the 
beginning for it to expand to where it is now.

So, you are asked to compare the evidence against the framework of the 
theory, not to simply believe that something came from nothing.  Those 
are completely different.  It also doesn't say anything about whether 
there was a "reason" it happened.  Unless you believe that God set 
everything up and kicked off the Big Bang (which does not conflict with 
the theory), then the "certain observations" would presumably be 
different.  Why would God create an expanding Universe that appears to 
have expanded from a single point?

Do you think that astronomers have made incorrect observations?  Can you 
come up with a better theory that explains the evidence?

Paul

g. crabtree wrote:
> This hardly seems to be a false dilemma at all. One side insists that 
> out of nothing, an explosion occurred for no apparent reason at all 
> and the universe was created. The other side professes that God said 
> "bang" and the universe was created. The "certain observations" after 
> the fact could/would remain the same.  
>  
> The big bang requires the suspension of disbelief adequate to buy into 
> the notion of from nothing, everything.
>  
> Creation requires the faith to believe in an all powerful deity that 
> wanted the universe to exist for a reason.
>  
> They both require a single belief for which there is no evidence.
>  
> I know which way I'm betting.
>  
> g
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Nick Gier <mailto:ngier at uidaho.edu>
>     *To:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>     *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:09 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] [Bulk] Re: Dennis Avery & S. Fred
>     Singer: Climate Science Frauds
>
>     Hi Paul,
>
>     Great answer to Kai's false dilemma.
>
>     Nick
>
>     At 06:01 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:
>>     Kai Eiselein, Editor wrote:
>>     > Actually both sides of this debate require suspension of belief.
>>     >  
>>
>>     Not really.  The Big Bang theory doesn't try to answer the
>>     question of
>>     what happened before the singularity or what caused it to
>>     explode.  It's
>>     just there to explain certain observations, such as why the
>>     farther away
>>     something is the greater it's redshift is, which it appears to do
>>     really
>>     well.  For example, the theory predicts certain ratios for the
>>     abundance
>>     of certain elements as a by-product of the known state of the
>>     universe
>>     within the first twenty minutes of it's starting point, which
>>     seems to
>>     fit really closely with what we've observed.
>>
>>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
>>
>>     So there's little suspension of disbelief required.  You just
>>     follow the
>>     evidence, and don't worry about those kinds of questions (what
>>     happened
>>     before the Big Bang?) until you have some kind of framework you
>>     can use
>>     to address them.
>>
>>     A deity, on the other hand, requires a whole bunch of different
>>     beliefs
>>     for which there is no evidence, nor is it predictive in any way. 
>>     Fortunately, belief in that system requires belief with a
>>     complete lack
>>     of evidence (faith) and the assumption that no meaningful
>>     predictions
>>     can occur (God works in mysterious ways), so it all works out in
>>     the end.
>>
>>     Paul
>>
>>
>>     =======================================================
>>      List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  
>>                    http://www.fsr.net                     
>>     <http://www.fsr.net%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/>
>>               mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>     =======================================================
>
>     "Truth is the summit of being; justice is the application of it to
>     human affairs."
>     --Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
>     "Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings
>     who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it."
>      --Mohandas Gandhi
>
>     "Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot
>     be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying
>     each part by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the
>     whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is
>     true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear
>     cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal
>     simply to the sum of its various parts." --Max Planck
>
>     Nicholas F. Gier
>     Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
>     1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
>     http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/home.htm
>     <http://www.home.roadrunner.com/%7Enickgier/home.htm>208-882-9212/FAX
>     885-8950
>     President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
>     http://www.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ift.htm
>
>     <http://www.roadrunner.com/%7Enickgier/ift.htm>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     =======================================================
>      List services made available by First Step Internet,
>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  
>                    http://www.fsr.net                      
>               mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     =======================================================
>