Humility

[IronWing]

I have welcomed rationale debate. Unfortunately, the only thing I've gotten in return from you and a few others is name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

The rabbi's letter is well thought out and tightly reasoned. Where do you find fault with it?

The rabbi's letter is as tightly reasoned as an appeal from a Nigerian prince.

 

[Jeff7]

I like this rabbi's letter better. :awe:


I don't like the existing explanations, or I don't understand it. Therefore a god did it. Or a wizard. Or a unicorn. Or a dolphin. All make just as much sense.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I like this rabbi's letter better. :awe:


I don't like the existing explanations, or I don't understand it. Therefore a god did it. Or a wizard. Or a unicorn. Or a dolphin. All make just as much sense.

This article is apparently the atheist's bible.

The idea of a "rational discussion" to a few here is to call names, hurl insults, and add this link. I'll bet I've seen it in about 100 posts.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I like this rabbi's letter better. :awe:


I don't like the existing explanations, or I don't understand it. Therefore a god did it. Or a wizard. Or a unicorn. Or a dolphin. All make just as much sense.

Too you.

 

[DrPizza]

I have welcomed rationale debate. Unfortunately, the only thing I've gotten in return from you and a few others is name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

The rabbi's letter is well thought out and tightly reasoned. Where do you find fault with it?

The rabbi is an idiot because he's making things up that aren't true of what scientists believe. i.e. The most obvious one: 4. No. The universe didn't start with radioactive elements. Not even close. Most of the not quite so early universe - at a time when elements finally existed, were Hydrogen, with some Helium, Lithium, and perhaps a bit of Beryllium. That's it. Things like carbon, oxygen, radioactive elements - those are the "dust of stars." The remnants of supernovas.

c) All these early conditions ignored? Says who? The evidence points to these early conditions. These conditions are not ignored. I'd love for you to find a single example.

re: e
Uhhhh, we can actually see regions of the universe where stars are being born. The process that resulted in our sun is still occurring! Granted, we can't see it in high resolution, but we are certain that the process is ongoing (not getting into arguments over how many years ago the processes we're not observing actually occurred due to the speed of light.)

b) I'll bring up the speed of light. Extrapolations to billions of years ago? We are currently seeing things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED billions of years ago.

Again, the Rabbi is an idiot.

 

[IronWing]

This article is apparently the atheist's bible.

The idea of a "ratioanale discussion" to a few here is to call names, hurl insults, and add this link. I'll bet I've seen it in about 100 posts.

I've done my time on talk.origins. I realized that the willfully ignorant and pridefully stupid will always be with us. Rather than waste ink on explaining to them the facts they have prejudiced themselves against, it is a much better use of time to marginalize their idiocy and insult the dull eyed mouth breathers.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The rabbi is an idiot because he's making things up that aren't true of what scientists believe. i.e. The most obvious one: 4. No. The universe didn't start with radioactive elements. Not even close. Most of the not quite so early universe - at a time when elements finally existed, were Hydrogen, with some Helium, Lithium, and perhaps a bit of Beryllium. That's it. Things like carbon, oxygen, radioactive elements - those are the "dust of stars." The remnants of supernovas.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Rabbi says this:


(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.

A quick search shows this:

How many naturally occuring radioactive elements exist and what are they?
A
Natural radioactivity originates from extraterrestrial sources as well as from radioactive elements in the earth's crust. About 340 nuclides have been found in nature, and more than 60 of these are radioactive. All elements having an atomic number greater than 80 possess radioactive isotopes, and all isotopes of elements heavier than number 83 are radioactive. The natural radioactivity of the earth includes three major categories. Primordial radionuclides have half-lives sufficiently long that they have survived since their creation. Secondary radionuclides are derived from radioactive decay of the primordials. Cosmogenic radionuclides are continuously produced by bombardment of stable nuclides by cosmic rays, primarily in the atmosphere. Some human-made radionuclides persist in the environment, but these are not "natural." A much larger number of radioactive isotopes than now exist were produced when the matter of which the universe is formed first came into being several billion years ago, but most of them have decayed out of existence. The primordial radionuclides which now exist are those that have half-lives at least comparable to the age of the universe. Radioisotopes with half-lives of less than about 108 years have become undetectable in the 30 or so half-lives since their creation, whereas radionuclides with half-lives greater than 1010 years have decayed very little up to the present time. More detailed information on natural radionuclides, including lists of individual radionuclides, can be found in the book Environmental Radioactivity, Merril Eisenbud and Tom Gesell, Academic Press, San Diego, 1997, and on the Idaho State University sponsored Web site: Radioactivity in Nature. Tom Gesell

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q661.html

This scientific account is consistent with what the Rabbi says.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I've done my time on talk.origins.

If that's true, and you understand what you read, you should be able to explain it. That doesn't seem to be the case though. You only seem capable of repeatedly forwarding me the link.

 

[IronWing]

If that's true, and you understand what you read, you should be able to explain. That doesn't seem to be the case though. You only seem capable of repeatedly forwarding me the link.

I have never once forwarded you the link. As I said, it is a better use of my time to let creationists know that they are pathetic fools and prideful twits, their stupidity is a foul puss polluting public discourse.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I have never once forwarded you the link.

Then I apologize. I few of the posters that post on the topic of origins/evolution run together for me as they are slight variants of each other.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I've done my time on talk.origins.

What else have your read on the topic?

 

[IronWing]

What else have your read on the topic?

You do know that talk origins is crammed to the gills with creationists as well as evilutionists?

 

[Tweak155]

I have never once forwarded you the link. As I said, it is a better use of my time to let creationists know that they are pathetic fools and prideful twits, their stupidity is a foul puss polluting public discourse.

How is that a better use of your time? It seems the non-wasted effort of not replying it all is more productive than both.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You do know that talk origins is crammed to the gills with creationists as well as evilutionists?

Have you read this?

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Another thread derailed.

 

[Jeff7]

Another thread derailed.

We can always discuss pie.

"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."


Wouldn't that suck. "Man I'm really hungry. An apple pie would be just great right now."

The Universe is the leftover mess in the kitchen.

 

[DrPizza]

There weren't a "much larger number" of radioactive isotopes produced during the early moments of the universe. Sorry, PhD or not, your author is wrong to have made such an ambiguous statement that would be interpretted by morons like the rabbi in the manner that he did. And, his "several billion" years ago is 13.75 billion years +/- .17 billion years (according to wikipedia. I could swear that I had seen a 13.72 billion figure floating around within the past year.)

The CORRECT interpretation of what he's referring to would be that he's talking about the matter which we see today. i.e. carbon, oxygen, etc. Those elements around us were indeed formed several billion years ago.

<side note: learn to cut and paste>
"radioisotopes with half-lives of less than about 108 years have become undectable in the 30 or so half-lives since their creation..."
Uhhh, is he saying they were created 3240 years ago? wtf? "whereas radionuclides with half-lives greater than 1010 years have decaded very little up to the present time" HUH?! There's only about 12&#37; left of an element with a half live of 1010 years since 3240 years ago.

So, just what is this professor talking about? Seems you're having a little trouble with proof reading what you've cut and pasted. That would be 10^10 years, and 10^8 years. And, yes, I actually went to your link.

And, ohhhhhh, I see the problem. When he's talking about primordial nucleides, he is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BIG BANG. He's talking about nucleides that are leftovers from supernovas. These are the things that make up most of the matter (anything beyond Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, and Beryllium.)


So, it seems that I've taken the time to figure out what your source is referring to. Yet, you consider it a scientific consensus of something completely different. Why don't you take a look at nucleosynthesis during the early formation of the universe (first 15 or 20 minutes, after which, it was too cool for nucleosynthesis.)
THIS is the scientific consensus, which is contrary to what your rabbi idiot is saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis, abbreviated BBN) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1 (i.e. the normal, light isotope of hydrogen, whose nuclei consist of a single proton each) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced during primordial nucleosynthesis: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other nuclei to make one of the stable isotopes.

There are two important characteristics of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN):

• It lasted for only about seventeen minutes (during the period from 3 to about 20 minutes from the beginning of space expansion); after that, the temperature and density of the universe fell below that which is required for nuclear fusion. The brevity of BBN is important because it prevented elements heavier than beryllium from forming while at the same time allowing unburned light elements, such as deuterium, to exist.

Note bolded in the final paragraph. (Not that there aren't radioactive isotopes of these 4 elements.)


Sorry about getting off topic. Back on topic: AWESOME videos! Particularly the sizes of the stars one. I've seen several charts before that makes it obvious how tiny the Earth is. As it's the beginning of the year in my physics class, and I talk about scales, it'll be perfect for class discussion tomorrow. Thanks!

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Another thread derailed.

The OP says that they sun is 4.5 billion years old. That's far from certain. How is it derailing the thread to question his contention since it is fundamental to his point?

"The known Universe has a radius of ~47 billion light years. Within it are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Within those are hundreds of billions of stars. One of those stars is our Sun. Our Sun is about 4.5 billions years old, as is our planet. Recognizable human life has been on Earth for ~200,000 years. That's approximately 0.000015&#37; of the age of the Universe.

Most religions preach humility. Assuming that "The Creator" of this near-incomprehensibly vast Universe has nothing better to do than wait around for 99.999985% of the Universe's age just to monitor your each and every action - from going to church on Sunday mornings to what you eat on Fridays - so as to judge you is *not* my idea of being humble. It may very well be the most extreme example of narcissism imaginable.

You are not important."

Smile! :awe:

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

There weren't a "much larger number" of radioactive isotopes produced during the early moments of the universe. Sorry, PhD or not, your author is wrong to have made such an ambiguous statement that would be interpretted by morons like the rabbi in the manner that he did. And, his "several billion" years ago is 13.75 billion years +/- .17 billion years (according to wikipedia. I could swear that I had seen a 13.72 billion figure floating around within the past year.)

The CORRECT interpretation of what he's referring to would be that he's talking about the matter which we see today. i.e. carbon, oxygen, etc. Those elements around us were indeed formed several billion years ago.

<side note: learn to cut and paste>
"radioisotopes with half-lives of less than about 108 years have become undectable in the 30 or so half-lives since their creation..."
Uhhh, is he saying they were created 3240 years ago? wtf? "whereas radionuclides with half-lives greater than 1010 years have decaded very little up to the present time" HUH?! There's only about 12% left of an element with a half live of 1010 years since 3240 years ago.

So, just what is this professor talking about? Seems you're having a little trouble with proof reading what you've cut and pasted. That would be 10^10 years, and 10^8 years. And, yes, I actually went to your link.

And, ohhhhhh, I see the problem. When he's talking about primordial nucleides, he is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BIG BANG. He's talking about nucleides that are leftovers from supernovas. These are the things that make up most of the matter (anything beyond Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, and Beryllium.)

So, it seems that I've taken the time to figure out what your source is referring to. Yet, you consider it a scientific consensus of something completely different. Why don't you take a look at nucleosynthesis during the early formation of the universe (first 15 or 20 minutes, after which, it was too cool for nucleosynthesis.)
THIS is the scientific consensus, which is contrary to what your rabbi idiot is saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

[/LIST]Note bolded.

When you start calling people "morons" and "idiots" I start tuning out. It shows to me your lack of credibility, integrity, and intellectual honesty.

 

[DrPizza]

When you start calling people "morons" and "idiots" I start tuning out. It shows to me your lack of credibility, integrity, and intellectual honesty.

So, now you're using the "he said 'moron'" excuse to completely ignore a post that shoots a major hole in your argument? You've ignored the "moron" comment until finally you realize your argument has been lost?

It'd be nice if you could respond to the facts in that post, and while you're at it, respond to the other three facts that the rabbi also got wrong, that you selectively chose not to argue against.

That is, if you've got anything left. I think I've demonstrated sufficiently how your interpretation and the rabbi's interpretation of "scientific consensus" is WRONG.
You simply lack an education in the field, so you're excused. The rabbi is attempting to make statements as an authority on the subject. In my book, that makes him a... Nawww, I won't say it this time.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

So, now you're using the "he said 'moron'" excuse to completely ignore a post that shoots a major hole in your argument? You've ignored the "moron" comment until finally you realize your argument has been lost?

It'd be nice if you could respond to the facts in that post, and while you're at it, respond to the other three facts that the rabbi also got wrong, that you selectively chose not to argue against.

That is, if you've got anything left. I think I've demonstrated sufficiently how your interpretation and the rabbi's interpretation of "scientific consensus" is WRONG.
You simply lack an education in the field, so you're excused. The rabbi is attempting to make statements as an authority on the subject. In my book, that makes him a... Nawww, I won't say it this time.

I never claimed to be an astrophysicist and in fact, I've never been particularly fascinated by the subject.

I don't know if you shot any major holes in the Rabbi's thesis or not since I couldn't get past your offensive comments.

Make a cogent rebutal to his points without the invectives and I'll be happy to have a look.

 

[destrekor]

According to some Muslim theologians the universe is held in its present form by God's will and if God's attention is distracted for even a moment will dissolve back to the primal ooze.

To be fair, Allah, the god of Islam, is technically not translated as a deity... iirc.
Correctly translated, I do believe Allah is more or less just "it", it is everything, not a god. If worshiped in that form, it is akin to a Pantheism approach, in that it is not a creature or architect, but merely it is everything and everywhere - aka Nature. Pantheism is an approach that treats Nature as divine, but does not apply personality or other properties of a deity to it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

And Yaweh doesn't equal Allah.

 

[DangerAardvark]

The creationist wins every time he gets you to take him seriously.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The creationist wins every time he gets you to take him seriously.

Good point, let's just live in our own little cloistered world surrounded by those in our little amen corner. God forbid we're ever exposed to someone different than us who has a contrary point of view.