Positive Atheism

[Tiberius]

So from your point of view, the science behind the Big Bang is useless, because we can't observe the Big Bang at all. Forget the effects, the evidence of universal expansion, blue and red shift, the spinning of the galaxies, etc, etc. We can't observe the Big Bang, therefore we can't say anything about it.

Evidence is what we need, and evidence is what we have. In the same way we can conclude that Pluto is in orbit (even though we've yet to see it complete one), we can conclude that solar systems form in a certain way, because we have seen them form at different stages, and we can make predictions from this data.

[rjh4 is back]

So from your point of view, the science behind the Big Bang is useless, because we can't observe the Big Bang at all. Forget the effects, the evidence of universal expansion, blue and red shift, the spinning of the galaxies, etc, etc. We can't observe the Big Bang, therefore we can't say anything about it.

Evidence is what we need, and evidence is what we have. In the same way we can conclude that Pluto is in orbit (even though we've yet to see it complete one), we can conclude that solar systems form in a certain way, because we have seen them form at different stages, and we can make predictions from this data.

You also failed to answer any of my questions. You say that we have seen solar systems form at different stages by looking at the millions of solar systems out there which are at different stages of formation. I question how you know that the millions of solar systems out there are at different stages of the same kind of formation. You counter with a restatement of what you said in the first place like that should settle the issue or answer the question and bring up a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the questions I asked relative to the formation of our solar system. Why not just answer the questions or reasonably explain how or why my questions are unreasonable to begin with?

[Eilonnwy]

Bam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-womb.html

Baby solar systems being born.

[rjh4 is back]

Bam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-womb.html

Baby solar systems being born.

Ok. Some nice pictures and an explanation of what scientists "think" is ocurring. And this is supposed to be something to answer my questions a few posts back, particularly the one as to how you know that the millions of solar systems out there are at different stages of the same kind of formation? You can't be serious.

[theVOID]

Bam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-womb.html

Baby solar systems being born.

Ok. Some nice pictures and an explanation of what scientists "think" is ocurring. And this is supposed to be something to answer my questions a few posts back, particularly the one as to how you know that the millions of solar systems out there are at different stages of the same kind of formation? You can't be serious.

The most simple of the many many reasons why is to do with predictions made by relativity about the formation of solar systems and other galactic bodies that have been found in space over 50 years after the initial predictions were made- what was expected mathematically based on what we knew at the time turned out to be extremely accurate - but then what more do you expect from Einstein?

If General Relativity's predictions of the formation of solar systems is correct then we should be able to observe in space the following things:

Following the destruction of a star you would expect a reasonably uniform sea of particles containing Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, Carbon, Oxygen etc.

You would expect to see over time in these clouds the formations of gravitational clusters in or near the center.

You would expect this gravitational cluster to begin to become very hot and very violent as it absorbs more and more matter.

You would expect that as the gravitational cluster obtained more mass and therefore asserted more influence on it's surrounding that the cloud of matter would start to rotate and become disk like.

You would expect that the irregularities in the cloud combined with the rotation of the disk of the cloud would lead to collisions of small objects in orbit.

You would expect that these collisions would continue as the disk continued to rotate, leading to small gravitational clusters similar to the one in the center.

You would expect that the heavier elements in would fall to the inside of the cloud over time because of gravity, leading to objects that are more metallic the closer you get to the central gravitational cluster.

You would expect over time that the cluster in the middle, being the largest and in the best position for absorption of materials would grow to a far more massive size, several degrees magnitude greater compared to the clusters in the cloud, becoming a star.

You would expect that because their are less heavy elements in the solar system than gases that the planets closer to the star will be significantly smaller because the is less matter to work with, and it is also too hot for large scale gaseous structures to form too close to the star.

You would expect the outer planets to be gaseous and much larger than the planets closer to the star.

You would expect debris in the solar system such as rings around planets, asteroids on the outer edge of the solar system (the kupier belt around our solar system was predicted decades before it was seen) and small clouds of matter would be more prevalent the further out you go because of less gravitational pull from the center during formation.

These are but a few of the many many predictions we can make with relativity that we see time and time again in different solar systems throughout the galaxy, this is because of the fundamental constants of the universe that lead to certain type of allowed behavior and predictable chains of events. This has only ever been confirmed by observation - the only discrepancies to arise are very minor and inevitably lead to a better understanding and more comprehensive framework with which to make predictions.

As for my credentials, i have none in physics yet, though i plan to pursue a degree in particle physics wheni have completed my MSITP Server certification. I'm just an enthusiast (understatement ) at this stage who has spent hundreds of hours reading and researching the observable universe.

If you still have a problem with any of these ideas feel free to ask more.

[Eilonnwy]

Rjh4, you're moving the goalpost. I have provided sources, I'm not your science teacher. Since theVoid is better equipped to argue the points, I will defer to his response.

Honestly, it's not like this is a big secret. The information is out there if you bother to even look.

If you want to refuse the science behind the explanation of our solar systems, then stop using your GPS, cell phone, satellite TV, etc... Obviously, they don't work.

[rjh4 is back]

Rjh4, you're moving the goalpost.

I don't think I did any such thing.

I have provided sources...

Yes...to something that wasn't even close to answering the questions I asked. Anyone can do that.

If you want to refuse the science behind the explanation of our solar systems, then stop using your GPS, cell phone, satellite TV, etc... Obviously, they don't work.

Do you even read my posts? Or do you just assume that anyone who questions scientists' conclusions regarding origins must hate all science? I guess your world view does not allow for someone to have no problem with operational science and still disagree with the extrapolations to historical science as it relates to origins. Oh well...continue to spout such ridiculous statements if you wish.



Void,

Thanks for you post. I think I understand your answer to my question but I do not think everything is as well settled as people portray it here. Furthermore, it all still does seem to require the materialistic and uniformitarian presuppositions I mentioned before which are unproveable (which you did not appear to deny but instead appeared to justify....I am not complaining/arguing here just noting. I still think everyone has presuppositions that they use to interpret the world and that is where the differences in thinking come in. Once we recognize these, it makes it easier to understand another's point of view.). So while it has certainly not changed my view of things I do appreciate the exchange and I may have more questions for you in the future.

[Eilonnwy]

Rjh4, you're skeptical of science which provides the most reliable results to it's claims and yet accept the claims of an ancient book uncritically. I have given up trying to reason with you, your cognitive dissonance is so vast that I chose not to waste my time any further.

[rjh4 is back]

I have given up trying to reason with you, your cognitive dissonance is so vast that I chose not to waste my time any further.

Good. Now I won't have to waste my time responding to some of your ridiculous statements.

[littlegrimlin1]

Obviously I'm not reading this right now, science isn't reliable... sarcasm

How about the theists write a new book that doesn't contradict logic and science... oh wait, that's a tuffy!