Evolution is Just Junk Science

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 5:31 am, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > Do you believe that time did not exist prior to the big bang?

>

> As required by general relativity (a theory you do obviously not

> understand) you go back in time until there is no time.

>

> The word "before" becomes meaningless.

When I studied General Relativity at university, the course was heavy

on mathematics and light on theory so you'll have to bear with me.

When people say "General Relativity predicted the big bang" they are

usually refering to the fact that Einstein recognized that every

object in the universe would be attracted to every other object in the

universe and that the universe would collapse if it weren't either

already expanding or if some fifth force weren't keeping it stable.

Einstein suggested a fifth force that kept the universe stable and he

called it the "cosmological constant". Later it was discovered that

the universe was actually expanding.

General Relativity itself does not tell us HOW the big bang happened.

An actual theory of HOW the big bang happened is inflationary theory.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_theory ). Inflationary

theory is NOT something I formally studied at university so I have to

go by what the website tells me. It says the inflation was driven by

a "negative-pressure vacuum energy". Hmm. As I suspect, no god was

involved. Astronomers are now claiming that the same phenomenon is

now causing the universe to expand further: they are calling this

"dark energy".

Anyway, what I think you are refering to is the "metric expansion of

space".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

"The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of

expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding

of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see

normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are

determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of

space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into

"emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself

changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is

somehow "growing" in between them."

So if we trace back the metric expansion of space to the beginning

then we should have a singularity. This would be the beginning of

time. Indeed, at the beginning there would be no space and no time,

space and time being fundamentally intertwined in realtivity theory.

For that matter, with the entire universe contained in a singularity,

nothing could happen and no events could take place so time wouldn't

have any meaning anyway.

However, we haven't proven anything. If the universe is closed then

the big bang is the first cause. However, there could, conceivably,

be something else beyond the universe and perhaps if we had knowledge

of what lies beyond the universe then we could be able to explain the

big bang in terms of whatever physics would exist beyond our

universe. With the universe closed, what lies beyond, for all intents

and purposes, doesn't exist to us. Unfortunately, it may not be

possible to describe the physics of the big bang in terms of the

physics of the known universe alone.

Martin

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 6:44 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <jnugj4-b76....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>

> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > [snips]

>

> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:54:52 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > > You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other

> > > books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same related to

> > > the books that I have read related to creation science.

>

> > I let them "influence" me because they provide actual sound reasoning and

> > actual evidence. Yours don't.

>

> > Again, that's the problem; you let them do your thinking for you,

> > instead of doing it yourself. I don't. If a scientist I'm reading makes

> > a claim which seems outlandish, I'll reject it until it is supported by

> > evidence . You, by contrast, simply note that someone with a degree wrote

> > it down, therefore it must be right. It has never, apparently, occurred

> > to you that others can be just as dishonest and deceitful as you yourself

> > are, so you swallow crap hook, line and sinker.

>

> > By contrast, we know people can be dishonest; we even know they can be

> > simply mistaken. This is why we demand evidence of the claim. The fact

> > they have a degree, or that there are lots of them, means fuck all .

> > Either they provide the evidence supporting their claims, or their claims

> > are rejected, out of hand.

>

> > As far as Gish is concerned, we have seen, repeatedly, his lies, his

> > frauds, his deceptions, his foundation of dishonesty upon which he bases

> > virtually everything he does, so we do not trust him at all, but we have

> > also noticed that, when it comes to his debates, his publications and

> > the rest, he fails, miserably, to substantiate his claims except, perhaps

> > on occasion, some trivial side point here and there.

>

> > Since he does not support his claims with evidence - or even sound

> > reasoning - his claims are rightly discarded. Problem is, when you do

> > that, he's left with nothing. For some reason, you seem to think that

> > this nothingness is a winning point for him, that his dishonesty is worthy

> > of respect.

>

> > Why you would respect a known liar who, even when faced with the proof he

> > is lying continues to lie about the exact same point, isn't clear.

>

> > Oh, actually, it is - because you haven't got a shred of honesty yourself,

> > as you persist in demonstrating.

>

> Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to the Big

> Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

> It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe

> almost anything that scientists tell them to believe.

And yet you still have no evidence to back up this assertion.

Martin

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 6:45 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <cuvgj4-b76....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:57:20 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > > In article <oppej4-agk....@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> > > <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > >> [snips]

>

> > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote:

>

> > >> > I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect for that

> > >> > professor. I do respect Dr. Gish.

>

> > >> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history of lies,

> > >> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?

>

> > > It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed

> > > several other Christians and myself.

>

> > Gish is not a "she", he's a "he". Again, on what basis do you find Gish

> > worthy of respect? Is it his lies, his deceptions or his fundamental

> > dishonesty you find so worthy of respect?

>

> I respect him for his accomplishments.

You respect the fact that he has fooled a lot of people?

I don't.

Martin

June 6, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <fqrb6319gmon3uuupb9cgivpkqjifodb47@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:30:21 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0506071530220001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <f44fi1$iso$02$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris

>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <012b63tujucr4kb7leki9b6pspv2djo9ek@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

>>>>> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> In alt.atheism On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:08:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

>>>>>> (Jason) let us all know that:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In article <2ra963tlfdpeerookdfam9m6d3hpmv30oi@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:55 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>>>>>> <Jason-0406071611550001@66-52-22-21.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>>>>>> In article <o009631ka9guj2ruo1ipj7kance10h90ao@4ax.com>, Jim07D7

>>>>>>>>> <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) said:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>>> know how the advocates of creation science explain how life came

>>> to be

>>>>>>>>>> Could you summarize their explanation?

>>>>>>>>> God created the solar system. God created mankind; some plants; some

>>>>>>>>> animals. After the creation process was finished, evolution

> took over. I

>>>>>>>>> am not an expert on Darwin but have been told that his theory

> was mainly

>>>>>>>>> related to how plants and animals are able to change (mainly as

> a result

>>>>>>>>> of mutations). I accept those aspects of evolution theory. I don't

>>> accept

>>>>>>>>> the aspects of evolution theory related to common descent and

>>> abiogenesis.

>>>>>>>>> See my detailed post to Jim for a more detailed response.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yet you have not a shred of evidence to support your supposition.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Learn.

>>>>>>> Fossil evidence and evidence from various legends that have been passed

>>>>>>> down from generation to generation. I provided Jim with a long list of

>>>>>>> written evidence that has been passed down from ancient civilizations.

>>>>>>> Those records mention God or Gods. Even some American Indian tribes had

>>>>>>> legends that were passed down from generation to generation about

> God or

>>>>>>> Gods.

>>>>>> That's still not evidence. I don't think you understand the

>>>>>> concept of "evidence".

>>>>> Written evidence (contracts, wills) are used in courts on a daily basis.

>>>>> Historians and Archeologists use written evidence such as infomation that

>>>>> was written on cave walls.

>>>>>

>>>> Written evidence such as contracts and wills are useless if not signed.

>>>> The the translation of copy of a copy of a copy of a translation would

>>>> hardly stand up in court.

>>>>

>>>> Historians hardly ever use one source.

>>>>

>>>> And what do the archaeologists prove by their writings on cave walls?

>>>> Correct. Someone painted nice little pictures on walls.

>>>>

>>>> Ok, you can have that. Someone wrote your book. What else do you want to

>>>> prove with it? What that book says? From one source? Are you nuts?

>>>>

>>>> Tokay

>>> This is the sort of written evidence that I had in mind:

>>>

>>> The law code of Hammurabi

>>> the Genzer calendar

>>> the elephantine papyri

>>> the hittite monuments

>>> religious texts from Ras Shamra--ancient Ugarit

>>> Ugaritic Inscriptions

>>> Nuzi Tablets

>>> The Mari Letters

>>>

>> None are related to any physical science.

>

> The point was related to evidence related to God. If there is evidence

> from many different ancient civilizations that those people believed in

> God or Gods--that is evidence that God created life on this planet and the

> information was passed from generation to generation. Bible scholars are

> experts related to that evidence.

No. It would be evidence that those people believed in god/gods.

It would say nothing about the existence of said gods.

By the way, they differ quite profoundly.

Tokay

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 6, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <l67c63p9endm4gd56li71t0ckkurrpuouj@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:13:09 -0700, in alt.atheism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0506071913090001@66-52-22-51.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <ssub635vimbr8j7fv42mn8c519oun1s1t3@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:44:19 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>>>> <Jason-0506071544200001@66-52-22-97.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>>>> In article <jnugj4-b76.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> [snips]

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:54:52 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You let your professors and the people that wrote text books and other

>>>>>>> books influence your thinking processes. I have done the same

> related to

>>>>>>> the books that I have read related to creation science.

>>>>>> I let them "influence" me because they provide actual sound

> reasoning and

>>>>>> actual evidence. Yours don't.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Again, that's the problem; you let them do your thinking for you,

>>>>>> instead of doing it yourself. I don't. If a scientist I'm

> reading makes

>>>>>> a claim which seems outlandish, I'll reject it until it is supported by

>>>>>> evidence . You, by contrast, simply note that someone with a

> degree wrote

>>>>>> it down, therefore it must be right. It has never, apparently, occurred

>>>>>> to you that others can be just as dishonest and deceitful as you

> yourself

>>>>>> are, so you swallow crap hook, line and sinker.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> By contrast, we know people can be dishonest; we even know they can be

>>>>>> simply mistaken. This is why we demand evidence of the claim. The fact

>>>>>> they have a degree, or that there are lots of them, means fuck all .

>>>>>> Either they provide the evidence supporting their claims, or their

> claims

>>>>>> are rejected, out of hand.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As far as Gish is concerned, we have seen, repeatedly, his lies, his

>>>>>> frauds, his deceptions, his foundation of dishonesty upon which he bases

>>>>>> virtually everything he does, so we do not trust him at all, but we have

>>>>>> also noticed that, when it comes to his debates, his publications and

>>>>>> the rest, he fails, miserably, to substantiate his claims except,

> perhaps

>>>>>> on occasion, some trivial side point here and there.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Since he does not support his claims with evidence - or even sound

>>>>>> reasoning - his claims are rightly discarded. Problem is, when you do

>>>>>> that, he's left with nothing. For some reason, you seem to think that

>>>>>> this nothingness is a winning point for him, that his dishonesty

> is worthy

>>>>>> of respect.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why you would respect a known liar who, even when faced with the

> proof he

>>>>>> is lying continues to lie about the exact same point, isn't clear.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh, actually, it is - because you haven't got a shred of honesty

> yourself,

>>>>>> as you persist in demonstrating.

>>>>> Someone just tried to convince me that time did not exist prior to the Big

>>>>> Bang. Do you believe there is EVIDENCE for that?

>>>> There is evidence that physics as we know it did not exist prior to

>>>> Planck time.

>>>>

>>>>> It appears to me that the advocates of evolutionist are willing to believe

>>>>> almost anything that scientists tell them to believe.

>>>>>

>>>> Nope, they are willing to accept evidence.

>>>>

>>>> You, on the other hand, reject evidence to worship lies.

>>> I doubt that there is evidence that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

>>>

>> So what? You have already demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge

>> about science. You should be ashamed to offer an opinion about anything

>> that you are ignorant of. You should be doubly ashamed to keep repeating

>> your opinion when half a dozen people have repeatedly explained to you

>> why your opinion is wrong.

>>

>> I already said that there is evidence that _physics as we know it_ did

>> not exist prior to Planck Time. Time is an integral part of physics as

>> we know it.

>>

>> You are free to do your job and offer evidence that time did exist prior

>> to Planck Time. If you manage to, you would be on the short list for the

>> Nobel Prize in Physics.

>>

>> Remember, in science no one cares about anyone's ignorant opinion. They

>> care about evidence. It's pretty much backward from your approach to the

>> world.

>

> So if scientists arrive at a consensus that time did not exist prior to

> the Big Bang than people like yourself just accept it without question.

> When someone says, "the emperor has no clothing"--everyone is shocked.

> They may even say, "that's an ignorant opinion".

>

You still do not get it, do you.

General relativity is actually not so much about maths. The theory

itself can be explained quite easily without using higher maths. It can

be understood without the equations (some parts are complicated and

require maths, but for a general idea you don't actually need the math).

So, as followed by special relativity (C is absolute so time is

relative) and general relativity, you end up in a singularity (if you

reverse timeflow). Since gravitation within said singularity is so big

it doesn't even allow light to escape (that is what "singularity"

means), i.e. excedes the speed of light, time does effectively stop

within the event horizon.

So, it is not "without question". And you can stuff your analogy where

the sun does not shine.

It is lame and has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Tokay

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 6, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <lkub639s9o4sq1h4n626gtsm5qasut32su@4ax.com>, Free Lunch

> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:00:56 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism

>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> <Jason-0506071300570001@66-52-22-62.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>:

>>> In article <f441ch$9ch$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <oppej4-agk.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> [snips]

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0700, Jason wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I had one professor that had a Ph.D degree and I had no respect

> for that

>>>>>>> professor. I do respect Dr. Gish.

>>>>>> On what basis? What part of his long and well-documented history

> of lies,

>>>>>> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?

>>>>> It's a long story so I won't bore you. The bottom line that she rediculed

>>>>> several other Christians and myself.

>>>> What part of "What part of his long and well-documented history of lies,

>>>> deception and dishonesty do you find worthy of respect?" did you seem to

>>>> not comprehend?

>>>>

>>>> I.e. Kelsey wasn't asking why you didn't respect your professor but was,

>>>> instead, asking why DO you respect Dr. Gish?

>>>>

>>>> (And you claim to have a masters degree? In what? Illiteracy?)

>>> I respect Dr. Gish because of his accomplishments.

>> Claims like this cause me not to respect you because you are so easily

>> gulled, but refuse to admit it.

>>

>>> I was present when he

>>> debated a science professor from the local state college. In my opinion,

>>> he won that debate.

>> You are wrong. Gish may have conned you, but he didn't win a debate.

>

> Unless you attended that same debate that I attended, how would you know.

I just saw an interview with him. This guy is bona fide nuts.

Tokay

P.S.: Was this part about the Grand Canyon. In a few days. Hell, what a

bullshitter.

--

Hear the meaning within the word.

William Shakespeare

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 6:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I don't believe that time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If someone

> invented a time machine, it would be easy to disprove that theory. They

> could travel back into the time period prior to the Big Bang and film the

> mass of energy before it expanded. Of course,I guess you believe the time

> machine would not be able to do that since you appear to believe

> everything that scientists tell you to believe.

The basic problem we have to consider is whether or not space-time

itself existed before the big bang. If not then where exactly would

you be observing the big bang FROM?

Another problem is this: how do you observe a singularity? Does it

even emit light? The forces that govern the universe may themselves

have come to be when the big bang occured so there wouldn't even have

been light back then.

This is not speculation, by the way. Check the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Field_Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

As far as I can tell, your religion presents the same problem.

Genesis 1 begins with

1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

1:2 The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of

the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface.

1:3 God said, 'There shall be light,' and light came into existence.

(Notice that the Earth was "without form and empty" and yet there was

water. Whatever.)

Was Genesis 1 really the beginning of everything, including time and

space? Then where did God come from? Where did God live if neither

Heaven nor Earth existed?

Science and religion are agreed on one point: either a) the beginning

(either the Big Bang or Genesis) was the beginning of time and NOTHING

existed before then (in which case the question "before then" wouldn't

even make sense) or b) the beginning (either the Big Bang or Genesis)

was NOT the beginning in the sense that some sort of preconditions

existed (either some kind of Unified Field physics or God) such that

the beginning was able to occur. Why should you expect science to

resolve this issue when your religion doesn't resolve this issue

either?

Of course, Diests (like Hawking and Einstein) would simplify

everything by simply saying God = the Unified Field and then there's

no argument. Of course, they would think it was rather silly for you

to pray to it though.

Martin

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 7:05 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I have a copy of the book and have read most of it. I will not try to

> explain his interesting theory.

If his theory is so interesting then you should be able to find it on

the ICR website.

Martin

June 6, 2007

On Jun 6, 7:28 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> Thanks for your post. I typed "Big Bang Problems" and was shocked at the

> number of sites related to that subject. I found this information at one

> of sites--I welcome your comments:

Jason,

My Ottawa University Astrophysics professor did not believe in the Big

Bang. Of course, that was almost twenty years ago. (He did have

evidence supporting his argument though: most objects that had been

identified as quasars had been found in the direction of the milky

way: if they were truly objects outside our galaxy then they should be

evenly distributed over the sky. Thus, he argued that quasars didn't

exist.) He wasn't a theist, by the way: he believed the universe had

NO beginning. People who argue against the big bang are generally

arguing that there was no beginning and no need for a creator.

> Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang

>

> Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research

>

> A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle

> for viability as a theory:

>

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

Astronomers find an excess of galaxies that are moving away from us

over those moving towards us. In a non-expanding universe, you would

expect galaxies to be either moving randomly or collapsing under the

force of gravity: this is not the case. A static universe model would

also still require a force preventing the universe's collapse so we

would still need a negative-pressure vacuum energy or "cosmological

constant" or "dark energy".

> 2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting

> temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a

> fireball.

No, sorry, but that's not right. Space is empty: it doesn't have an

atmosphere so you can't talk about the "temperature of space". As for

the microwave background radiation coming from stars, I'm sorry but if

if the radiation is coming from distant stars then it wouldn't all be

microwave radiation but it would also be heat and light and we would

see it coming from all over the sky. The radiation from the big bang

appears as microwave radiation as a result of the Doppler Effect and

you would have no Doppler Effect in a static universe.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift )

> 3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many

> adjustable parameters to make them work.

That's not true because you only need hydrogen to make first

generation stars: the hydrogen fuses to become helium and then the

helium fuses to make the heavier elements. (See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution )

> 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.

Again, this is not true as computer models can reproduce galactic

evolution with very few parameters. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation

,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution )

> 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 quasars appear as dots in the sky, it is easy to misidentify a star

as a quasar and this is going to skew one's data enormously. Also, to

complain about the apparent luminosity of quasars is a bit petty

because a quasar that doesn't emit light in the visable spectrum isn't

going to be seen with ordinary telescopes and would have to be picked

up with radio or x-ray telescopes.

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

Now that the age of the universe has been found to be 13.7

June 6, 2007