Dude, it is trivial to show that the dating (using different isotopes) would result in different results of the sample was contaminated. Very trivial actually. I can show you if you want. I'll draw two decaying exponential curves on a piece on paper, take a picture, post it here, and show you they won't "intercept" the correct time point if there are mistaken starting points to the curves.

In any case, I think you should re-evaluate if you want to continue this conversation. It appears that you have made up your mind that you will not accept any findings that contradict your 6000-year old universe hypothesis. And this is fine. But if that's what you are going to do, don't pretend that you want to have a conversation, because it is a waste of both of our time if this what you will continue to do. You are inventing arbitrary reasons to not accept scientific findings.

You are welcome to play a game of musical chairs, but I'm sorry I can't join you in that because the reason why I decided to oblige you in this conversation was because I thought you cared about evaluating what is true and what is not. But it appears that you don't care.

DoctorAlien:
"Scientists" and Big-Bangists can publish any lie they want just to support their claims. We know that there have been many cases where recent materials were given astronomical ages by the "reliable" radiometric dating method.

I simply will not accept a method fraught with assumptions and prone to much errors as reliable.

I have debunked your key assumption of sample contamination, and you resorted to the statement that the scientists are lying. How else do you want me to engage you if when you run out of rebuttals, you say that the scientists are lying? Look at things from my perspective. I really can't continue if your last resort argument will always be that the scientists are lying.

It shows that you are not debating in good faith.

DoctorAlien:
I simply will not accept a method fraught with assumptions and prone to much errors as reliable.

Another thing you did, which I ignored, was your assertion that the NIV version of the Bible should not be considered to be the Bible. You did this because I showed you that the Book of Mark in NIV acknowledged problems with forgery. This, once again, is not debating in good faith.

Antiparticle:
I have debunked your key assumption of sample contamination, and you resorted to the statement that the scientists are lying. How else do you want me to engage you if when you run out of rebuttals, you say that the scientists are lying? Look at things from my perspective. I really can't continue if your last resort argument will always be that the scientists are lying.

It shows that you are not debating in good faith.

How did you debunk the fact that materials under examination could have been contaminated by either the parent isotope, or the daughter isotope, or even both in varying quantities, thus, significantly influencing the dating process?

Edited.

Antiparticle:
Another thing you did, which I ignored, was your assertion that the NIV version of the Bible should not be considered to be the Bible. You did this because I showed you that the Book of Mark in NIV acknowledged problems with forgery. This, once again, is not debating in good faith.

But you never provided a reason why many, many verses are missing in the NIV, while this isn't the case with other versions.

Please read my posts again. This is the second time that you are asking questions I already addressed.

You did this same thing with blueshifts. I explained that blueshifts as a localized cosmological effect do not contradict the notion of an expanding universe. Localized effects are different from "far field" effects. How many times can I say this? You will successfully challenge the Big Bang if you show that blueshifts occur for galaxies extremely far away from us (tens of millions of light years away or more).

On the contamination topic, I have made it clear that contaminations are easy to detect because the dating results would be different if different isotope dating methods are used.

I assert that you are not debating in good faith.

DoctorAlien:
How did you debunk the fact that materials under examination could have been contaminated by either the parent isotope, or the daughter isotope, or even both in varying quantities?

Antiparticle:
Please read my posts again. This is the second time that you are asking questions I already addressed.

You did this same thing with blueshifts. I explained that blueshifts as a localized cosmological effect do not contradict the notion of an expanding universe. Localized effects are different from "far field" effects. How many times can I say this? You will successfully challenge the Big Bang if you show that blueshifts occur for galaxies extremely far away from us (tens of millions of light years away or more).

On the contamination topic, I have made it clear that contaminations are easy to detect because the dating results would be different if different isotope dating methods are used.

I assert that you are not debating in good faith.

1. Dating outcomes vary with different pairs of isotopes.

2. How are you sure that the second pair of parent-daughter didn't contaminate the material too?

This is for you to answer, not me. And actually, this fact works against you because it shows that the Bible is unreliable. KJV is even worse, because it was written off newer manuscripts with more forgeries and errors.

I can't believe I'm typing paragraphs upon paragraphs painstakingly answering your questions, yet you are closing your ears claiming "lying scientists" or "NIV is not the Bible" or "ice cores must have contaminated" etc. It really is a shame because I was hoping for a robust conversation but I am disappointed. I have a whole lot more topics that crater the credibility of the Bible but I don't need to go there because you have refused to engage in an intellectually honest conversation.

DoctorAlien:
But you never provided a reason why many, many verses are missing in the NIV, while this isn't the case with other versions.

Pardon me if I have wronged you, but I'm just trying to point out some of the flaws in radiometric dating.

If it's for me to answer, I put it to you then that the NIV is too adulterated to be considered a version of the Bible, and consequently a reference for arguments involving the Bible, since it omits a very large number of verses mysteriously.

DoctorAlien:
1. Dating outcomes vary with different pairs of isotopes.

They only vary if the sample was contaminated. They don't if the sample wasn't contaminated (almost 100% chance). Rocks used to reliably date the earth don't have this problem.

DoctorAlien:
2. How are you sure that the second pair of parent-daughter didn't contaminate the material too?

Even if the second pair was contaminated, the isotope1-isotope2 contamination ratio has to be exactly proportional to the isotope1-isotope2 instantaneous decay rate ratio (now keep in mind that the decay rate is not linear) for the dating outcomes to still come out the same for both parent-daughter isotopes, so this is extraordinarily unlikely (literally almost zero!). And even if it happened for one sample, it wouldn't happen for a massive majority of samples.

I have addressed all your problems with radiometric dating. I am ready to move on from it.

I have also addressed the cosmological issues. I am ready to move on as well. I should add though that your approach to summarily dismissing any information that doesn't fit your 6000-year old universe hypothesis is disappointing and make me less enthusiastic about this conversation.

We can move to ice cores if you want. Or we can terminate.

DoctorAlien:
Pardon me if I have wronged you, but I'm just trying to point out some of the flaws in radiometric dating.

Antiparticle:
They only vary if the sample was contaminated. They don't if the sample wasn't contaminated (almost 100% chance). Rocks used to reliably date the earth don't have this problem.

Even if the second pair was contaminated, the isotope1-isotope2 contamination ratio has to be exactly proportional to the isotope1-isotope2 instantaneous decay rate ratio (now keep in mind that the decay rate is not linear) for the dating outcomes to still come out the same for both parent-daughter isotopes, so this is extraordinarily unlikely (literally almost zero!). And even if it happened for one sample, it wouldn't happen for a massive majority of samples.

Who was there when the rock was formed to determine whether they were contaminated(and in what quantity) or not?

Antiparticle:
I have addressed all your problems with radiometric dating. I am ready to move on from it.

I have also addressed the cosmological issues. I am ready to move on as well. I should add though that your approach to summarily dismissing any information that doesn't fit your 6000-year old universe hypothesis is disappointing and make me less enthusiastic about this conversation.

We can move to ice cores if you want. Or we can terminate.

Okay. I made a post on the ice cores.

I saw it. But I think you, too, should do some reading before you respond. Read up about ice cores first, then ask your questions. We should both be committed to this conversation. I have done a ton of research on the Bible, and I happen to be deeply conversant with a lot in physical science (although I am still very much a learner and will always be). You should at least do a minimal amount of research for the conversation to be fair. Please at least read the content of the "ice core" link in my post and then you can ask your follow-up question based on that. I make sure that most, if not all, of the links I provide here are from some of the most credible sources.

DoctorAlien:
Okay. I made a post on the ice cores.

Antiparticle,

On the ice cores, what do you think about this article?

I have 5 minutes before I leave to catch my train, so I will respond quickly.
Tell me your explanation that rebuts the ice core argument. I won't rebut the whole article you posted as this is unfair to me to have to read and rebut the whole thing. Whenever I post an article, I provide most or all the relevant detailed information in my post so you don't even need to read the article unless it is to get more detail. This is a conversation between two of us, so I'd suggest you do some reading too (as I do and have done). My posts to you are detailed because of readings I have done in the past, and in some cases recent readings. I however understand that it can be daunting to do a lot of reading on these topics, but trust me bro you will come out really knowledgeable.

There is the issue of WW II planes trapped in ice for almost 50 years. If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form.

Also, the estimation of the age of the ice in Antarctica is critically based on the assumption that accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past.

What do you say?

Hi Antiparticle,
I've been following this thread with keen interest, and I think you've provided robust answers to many of your fellow discussant's objections to scientific methods. In particular, your defense of radiometric dating methods has been most compelling, in spite of this individual's inexplicable obstinacy in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Allow me though, to render my unsolicited contributions to some of the issues raised, because it is difficult to be universally robust in all your attempts, when you're inundated with so many topics deserving of their own special attention. I will quote some of your co-discussant's remarks that I feel can be conclusively addressed with a little more detail. I do this especially in the interest of other followers who may not fully understand the implications of some of the answers you've given. But I'll try to be as brief as possible:

A. On Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)

DoctorAlien:
On the Cosmic Microwave Background:
Because the universe itself has been found to be extremely clumpy (with great walls of galaxies, and great voids in between) then, if the cosmic microwave radiation came about as a result of the ‘big bang’, this background radiation should also be clumpy. In other words, the temperature of this radiation should be uneven—there should be hot spots and cold spots. However, this radiation has been found to be extremely uniform--the same everywhere.
How do you explain this?

The wavelength vs intensity profile of the CMB is consistent with that of a black body, and this is how the temperature is derived (Wien's displacement law). Everywhere you point your microwave antenna to, the CMB temperature is astoundingly uniform; and this uniformity is congruent with the big bang theory. To illustrate this, if you were to put a metallic ball in an oven set to 600^OC, you'd expect the ball's temperature to be isotropically 600^OC after some time. Now, supposing you immediately put the ball in vacuum and then by some mechanism, you are able to cause it to expand to be say 100 times bigger than it was. When you measure the temperature of any part of the ball's surface, it will be thermally isotropic no matter how big it gets. This is what explains the astounding uniformity of the CMB phenomenon. However, no physical entity is a perfect black body, so there will in fact be tiny quantum effects (like scattering) that will upset the full black body expectation. These fluctuations should lead to tiny localised anisotropies in the temperature of the CMB. In fact, if you have seen images of baby universe produced by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), you'll readily observe that these local anisotropies are accounted for in the CMB, in spite of its stunning uniformity. Hurrah for science! [img]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/96115main_Full_m.jpg[/img]
Baby universe

B. On Blueshift vs Big bang

DoctorAlien:
Also, how do you explain blueshift?

Antiparticle explained blueshifts in terms of localised cosmological effects vs universal cosmological redshift, and further asserted that this does not contradict the big band theory. This is very true, however, it is possible people don't understand what is meant by "localised effects". To be clear, galaxies aren't independent entities. Most of them are gravitationally bound to other galaxies in formations we now know as clusters. since gravity is one of those 'inverse square law' phenomena, there will come a distance close enough, where its effect will counteract the universal redshift, this, along with the peculiar orbit paths of galaxies can cancel out the redshift effect. Obviously, the closer the object, the more pronounced its peculiar velocity is. Furthermore, even without gravitational attraction and peculiar motion, the effects of redshift is more pronounced for far away galaxies than it is for nearby ones. This fact is easily demonstrated when you draw dots on a balloon and inflate it. You will find that the greater the distance between any two dots, the greater the change in distance between them becomes during inflation. There are many elegant demonstrations of this on YouTube, if it interests you. Now, we know that:

1) Near galaxies don't appear to move as fast as distant ones.
2) Near galaxies are gravitationally bound in galactic clusters.
3) Local (peculiar) motions of galaxies are more apparent when they are closer together than when they are far away.
Combine all these three effects and you'll see that blueshift is not a dent on the big bang theory.

Georges Lamaitre and Edwin Hubble discovered that not only are all distant galaxies moving away from us, they are moving away at exactly the same rate. This is known as the Hubble law, there is a constant value for the rate of expansion of the universe based on calculations derived from observing Cepheid variables in many different galaxy systems. This value can never be exact due to the difficulties involved in calculating the age of very distant bodies. Nevertheless, this value is estimated to be between 67 to 70 KM S^-1 MPersec^-1. This brings me to the next point:

C. On the age of the Universe

DoctorAlien:
LOL. How did they arrive at the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 billion years old?

.
Hubble's constant (H_o) gives us a constant value for rate of expansion of the universe. It is derived by measuring the redshift of distant galaxies, which gives us information about the rate of expansion. The most refined value of Hubble's constant is acquired from Planck space mission, and it puts this value at ~67.8 KM S^-1 Mpc^-1. What this tells us is that for every 1Mpc ('pc' is simply a unit for astronomical distances. 1 pc = 3.1 X 10¹³ KM), the universe expands at a rate of 67 KM/s. So for a distance of 2 Mpc, the universe should be expanding at at rate of 135.6 KM/s and so on. But have another look at the unit of Hubble's constant. It's essentially in /sec (KM and Mpc cancel out with the right conversions). What else do we know has this unit? Inverse time!!! This means if we are to linearly extrapolate the Hubble's constant to its intersection on the time axis by inverting it (i.e. 1/H_o), we should have an approximation for the age of the universe. Lets do this together:

H_o = 67.8 KM S^-1 Mpc^-1. But 1 Mpc = 1,000,000 X 3.9 X 10¹³ KM = 3.1 X 10¹⁹ KM

Therefore, H_o = 2.19 X 10^-18 S^-1.

1/H_o = 4.57 X 10¹⁷ S [Convert to years: 4.57 X 10¹⁷ / (60 X 60 X 24 X 365)] = 14.4 billion years.
This crudely estimates the age of the universe to 14.45 billion years. This estimate can be made more accurate by factoring in density parameters of the universe. By so doing, this age will be revised to ~13.8 billion years. This is how the age of the universe is estimated. (Not guess work!)

D. On Big band negating the 2nd law of thermodynamics

DoctorAlien:
Suffice it to say that the Big Bang theory disregards the second law of thermodynamics which states that the Universe tends to disorder rather than order. If indeed the Big Bang occurred, there should be just particles of matter distributed in the Universe, and not highly ordered structures like galaxies and the solar system(with intelligent life.).

This statement stems from a flawed interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. For clarity, the second law states that: In a closed system, entropy can only increase or remain constant, but can never be negative. Entropy is defined as the degree of disorder in a system.

This law does not in anyway, preclude localised negative entropy in any system, it just asserts that the net entropy must always be zero or positive. So pockets of order like stars and galaxies can come about, but the universal entropy is ever so diligently committed to its non-negative vow. That said, there are many localised phenomena that can bring about negative local entropy. I touched upon one before. Gravity: If all particles in the universe are not evenly spaced out, there will be a potential gradient where some particles will tend to attract each other due to the inverse square law of gravity. Another phenomenon that exhibits the inverse square law is electromagnetism. Again, ionic particles within proximity of each other can exert an attractive or repulsive force on one another and thus create negative local entropy. In fact, it is believed that electromagnetism and gravity acted in a complementary way to form planets. Many rocks are patently salts with not-exactly-zero electric fields. This means that even in vacuum, they will tend to attract/repel each other. This simple electromagnetic rule may lead to spontaneous accretion of rocky particles. When this accretion becomes massive enough, gravity will do the remaining work; thus a planet is born. NASA scientists have demonstrated this phenomenon in space before, using common salt. You will find the video illuminating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YuivnCXhM

In summary, I have addressed four issues

1) Uniformity of the cosmic microwave background
2) Blueshift vs Big bang
3) How the age of the universe was arrived at.
4) Big bang vs 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I hope my little contribution has cleared some ambiguities in the conversation. Over to you

AgentOfAllah,

It's either you're not thoroughly informed with the provisions of the Big Bang in relation to the structure of the Universe right now, or you chose to ignore that. For you to assert that the uniformity of the cosmic microwave radiation throughout the universe is in harmony with the Big Bang, I think the former is the case. The universe is very very clumpy, and the microwave radiation should not be uniform! Why is it so? Your analogy of the ball-in-oven doesn't add up here. I must laugh at the picture you tagged "baby universe." First, how did space expand?

Explain exhaustively the state of things before the Big Bang.

Moreover, we've been able to see beyond 13.2 billion years ago. Explain why the pictures we see are not those of a pre-formed, disorderly universe, or even the Big Bang itself, but of stars and planets and ordered structures like our own.

AgentOfAllah,

It has been observed that the Universe tends to disorder rather than order! Books strewn around the whole place can never arrange themselves into a pile. Instead, the tendency is for a pile of books to scatter all over. There is more possibility for a sand structure to disintegrate into grains of sand than for sand grains to come together and form a sand structure.

How did particles strewn around the whole place after the Big Bang organize themselves to form the solar system, including earth that contains life with its complexity and highly ordered nature?

Edited.

@AgentOfAllah:
Thanks for your explanations. I agree that it is difficult to be exhaustive on each of these scientific findings given that I have to address several of them. Plus, my time is finite so I have to choose what to focus the explanations on.

I particularly appreciate your treatment of the cosmic microwave background and its relation to the radiation of a black body. I contemplated discussing this but I didn't want to get into a long rat-hole so I just focused on redshifts. The way you clarified my use of the term "localized cosmological effects" is also appreciated, I concur that the phrasing might appear a bit technical to precisely understand. I also think some of my writing on radiometric dating can be more accurately refined (specifically my explanation of how using two isotopes considerably minimizes any dating errors), but this will take time and pages so I decided to not write epistles about that.

Anyways, @DoctorAlien has additional questions for you. While I would like to keep this conversation strictly between @DoctorAlien and I, you are welcome to address @DoctorAlien's response(s) to your post. As you and him discuss, I will temporarily just observe in order to be fair to @DoctorAlien because a two-on-one debate will not be fair to him. My only request is that you continue to follow the guideline of civility that @DoctorAlien and I agreed to on the first page.

I will jump in (to discuss "ice cores" ) whenever you both are done with addressing this topic. @DoctorAlien, is this ok by you? Thx.

AgentOfAllah:
Hi Antiparticle,
I've been following this thread with keen interest, and I think you've provided robust answers to many of your fellow discussant's objections to scientific methods. In particular, your defense of radiometric dating methods has been most compelling, in spite of this individual's inexplicable obstinacy in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Allow me though, to render my unsolicited contributions to some of the issues raised, because it is difficult to be universally robust in all your attempts, when you're inundated with so many topics deserving of their own special attention. I will quote some of your co-discussant's remarks that I feel can be conclusively addressed with a little more detail. I do this especially in the interest of other followers who may not fully understand the implications of some of the answers you've given. But I'll try to be as brief as possible:

A. On Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)


The wavelength vs intensity profile of the CMB is consistent with that of a black body, and this is how the temperature is derived (Wien's displacement law). Everywhere you point your microwave antenna to, the CMB temperature is astoundingly uniform; and this uniformity is congruent with the big bang theory. To illustrate this, if you were to put a metallic ball in an oven set to 600^OC, you'd expect the ball's temperature to be isotropically 600^OC after some time. Now, supposing you immediately put the ball in vacuum and then by some mechanism, you are able to cause it to expand to be say 100 times bigger than it was. When you measure the temperature of any part of the ball's surface, it will be thermally isotropic no matter how big it gets. This is what explains the astounding uniformity of the CMB phenomenon. However, no physical entity is a perfect black body, so there will in fact be tiny quantum effects (like scattering) that will upset the full black body expectation. These fluctuations should lead to tiny localised anisotropies in the temperature of the CMB. In fact, if you have seen images of baby universe produced by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), you'll readily observe that these local anisotropies are accounted for in the CMB, in spite of its stunning uniformity. Hurrah for science! [img]http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/96115main_Full_m.jpg[/img]
Baby universe

B. On Blueshift vs Big bang
Antiparticle explained blueshifts in terms of localised cosmological effects vs universal cosmological redshift, and further asserted that this does not contradict the big band theory. This is very true, however, it is possible people don't understand what is meant by "localised effects". To be clear, galaxies aren't independent entities. Most of them are gravitationally bound to other galaxies in formations we now know as clusters. since gravity is one of those 'inverse square law' phenomena, there will come a distance close enough, where its effect will counteract the universal redshift, this, along with the peculiar orbit paths of galaxies can cancel out the redshift effect. Obviously, the closer the object, the more pronounced its peculiar velocity is. Furthermore, even without gravitational attraction and peculiar motion, the effects of redshift is more pronounced for far away galaxies than it is for nearby ones. This fact is easily demonstrated when you draw dots on a balloon and inflate it. You will find that the greater the distance between any two dots, the greater the change in distance between them becomes during inflation. There are many elegant demonstrations of this on YouTube, if it interests you. Now, we know that:

1) Near galaxies don't appear to move as fast as distant ones.
2) Near galaxies are gravitationally bound in galactic clusters.
3) Local (peculiar) motions of galaxies are more apparent when they are closer together than when they are far away.
Combine all these three effects and you'll see that blueshift is not a dent on the big bang theory.

Georges Lamaitre and Edwin Hubble discovered that not only are all distant galaxies moving away from us, they are moving away at exactly the same rate. This is known as the Hubble law, there is a constant value for the rate of expansion of the universe based on calculations derived from observing Cepheid variables in many different galaxy systems. This value can never be exact due to the difficulties involved in calculating the age of very distant bodies. Nevertheless, this value is estimated to be between 67 to 70 KM S^-1 MPersec^-1. This brings me to the next point:

C. On the age of the Universe
.
Hubble's constant (H_o) gives us a constant value for rate of expansion of the universe. It is derived by measuring the redshift of distant galaxies, which gives us information about the rate of expansion. The most refined value of Hubble's constant is acquired from Planck space mission, and it puts this value at ~67.8 KM S^-1 Mpc^-1. What this tells us is that for every 1Mpc ('pc' is simply a unit for astronomical distances. 1 pc = 3.1 X 10¹³ KM), the universe expands at a rate of 67 KM/s. So for a distance of 2 Mpc, the universe should be expanding at at rate of 135.6 KM/s and so on. But have another look at the unit of Hubble's constant. It's essentially in /sec (KM and Mpc cancel out with the right conversions). What else do we know has this unit? Inverse time!!! This means if we are to linearly extrapolate the Hubble's constant to its intersection on the time axis by inverting it (i.e. 1/H_o), we should have an approximation for the age of the universe. Lets do this together:

H_o = 67.8 KM S^-1 Mpc^-1. But 1 Mpc = 1,000,000 X 3.9 X 10¹³ KM = 3.1 X 10¹⁹ KM

Therefore, H_o = 2.19 X 10^-18 S^-1.

1/H_o = 4.57 X 10¹⁷ S [Convert to years: 4.57 X 10¹⁷ / (60 X 60 X 24 X 365)] = 14.4 billion years.
This crudely estimates the age of the universe to 14.45 billion years. This estimate can be made more accurate by factoring in density parameters of the universe. By so doing, this age will be revised to ~13.8 billion years. This is how the age of the universe is estimated. (Not guess work!)

D. On Big band negating the 2nd law of thermodynamics
This statement stems from a flawed interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. For clarity, the second law states that: In a closed system, entropy can only increase or remain constant, but can never be negative. Entropy is defined as the degree of disorder in a system.

This law does not in anyway, preclude localised negative entropy in any system, it just asserts that the net entropy must always be zero or positive. So pockets of order like stars and galaxies can come about, but the universal entropy is ever so diligently committed to its non-negative vow. That said, there are many localised phenomena that can bring about negative local entropy. I touched upon one before. Gravity: If all particles in the universe are not evenly spaced out, there will be a potential gradient where some particles will tend to attract each other due to the inverse square law of gravity. Another phenomenon that exhibits the inverse square law is electromagnetism. Again, ionic particles within proximity of each other can exert an attractive or repulsive force on one another and thus create negative local entropy. In fact, it is believed that electromagnetism and gravity acted in a complementary way to form planets. Many rocks are patently salts with not-exactly-zero electric fields. This means that even in vacuum, they will tend to attract/repel each other. This simple electromagnetic rule may lead to spontaneous accretion of rocky particles. When this accretion becomes massive enough, gravity will do the remaining work; thus a planet is born. NASA scientists have demonstrated this phenomenon in space before, using common salt. You will find the video illuminating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0YuivnCXhM

In summary, I have addressed four issues

1) Uniformity of the cosmic microwave background
2) Blueshift vs Big bang
3) How the age of the universe was arrived at.
4) Big bang vs 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I hope my little contribution has cleared some ambiguities in the conversation. Over to you

As a member of audience of this debate, i found your contribution of immense genius.

To other members of the audience that are not oriented in physical science, your contribution makes comprehension easy.

However, i have observed dismissal of scientific facts on the part of doctoralien on the basis of unpublished science works rather than on genuine rebuttal.

Antiparticle, Aye sir! We good.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

It's either you're not thoroughly informed with the provisions of the Big Bang in relation to the structure of the Universe right now, or you chose to ignore that.

This is an unfortunate remark!

For you to assert that the uniformity of the cosmic microwave radiation throughout the universe is in harmony with the Big Bang, I think the former is the case. The universe is very very clumpy, and the microwave radiation should not be uniform! Why is it so? Your analogy of the ball-in-oven doesn't add up here.

It is actually misleading to claim that the universe is "very very clumpy". The density of the universe is less than 1 atom/m³ using Friedmann formulations, so much of the universe is actually vacuum space. This doesn't fit a very very clumpy description at all! The contribution of matter is almost inconsequential, thus a thermally isotropic universe is eminently reasonable, especially considering that singularity means the universe was in thermodynamic equilibrium.

I must laugh at the picture you tagged "baby universe." First, how did space expand?

It is not clear to me why the picture tickles you. Share the joke, maybe? On your question about how space expanded, I am not sure what you seek to know exactly, but if you mean to ask what caused expansion, then the answer is yet undetermined. General relativity cannot predict what triggered the expansion of the singularity. There are however hypotheses within the frameworks of quantum mechanics and string-theory that I will not address here because I don't know them very well; and until they can be tested, they are only speculations.

Explain exhaustively the state of things before the Big Bang.

I can't do this.

Moreover, we've been able to see beyond 13.2 billion years ago. Explain why the pictures we see are not those of a pre-formed, disorderly universe, or even the Big Bang itself, but of stars and planets and ordered structures like our own.

The pictures you see depend on the equipment you use. You cannot expect to see deep-UV/infrared light with your phone camera because it simply isn't equipped to detect light at such wavelengths. Likewise, when you peer into space with an optical microscope, you will only see images that optical microscopes can resolve. Since stars are products of an epoch that succeeded the big bang by several millions of years, the images you see when these pictures are taken with optical microscopes (which, by the way, can only resolve light in the visible spectrum) will be that of clusters, galaxies, stars and planets that emit/absorb light in the visible spectrum. The image I shared before was that of the CMB, which was taken with WMAP, a Microwave antenna. This image is made possible because the wavelength of light from the CMB is in the microwave region (due to continual redshifting). That image shows a very young universe that was in near thermodynamic equilibrium with the exception of a few local anisotropies. The temperature of the universe, using Wien's displacement law is about 2.7 +/- 0.00000018 K. The anisotropies you can see on the image are within this +/- 0.00000018 K range. A new antenna called CHIME is being constructed in Canada. This antenna is being constructed with the specific goal of probing the dark ages (the period between WMAP-CMB and the formation of the first stars). When this antenna is ready, we will be able to see more images of a disorderly universe. For now, we will just have to make do with the images from WMAP and other existing antenna probes to make inferences. Space probe antenna projects are labour, resource and time intensive. Groundbreaking for CHIME was in 2015, and it might be another few years before it is complete and ready to start taking Microwave pictures of the 'adolescent' universe.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,
It has been observed that the Universe tends to disorder rather than order! Books strewn around the whole place can never arrange themselves into a pile. Instead, the tendency is for a pile of books to scatter all over. There is more possibility for a sand structure to disintegrate into grains of sand than for sand grains to come together and form a sand structure.

This is not a very informed rebuttal. Books are electrically neutral hydro-carbons, so it would be ludicrous to expect them to spontaneously form an ordered pile. Same applies to sand (SiO₂) which is also electrically neutral. As such, the only force acting on books and sand on earth will be gravity, and in space will be well, nothing! Now try throwing separate magnets in the air, within close proximity of each other and see if they will not spontaneously form an ordered pile. The clue is in multi-body interaction forces.

How did particles strewn around the whole place after the Big Bang organize themselves to form the solar system, including earth that contains life with its complexity and highly ordered nature?

On the other hand, soil contains other things like salt, clay and organic compounds that have net charges (positive/negative). If clumps of soil are scattered in space (vacuum), but are within proximity of each other, there is a net force of attraction/repulsion that will act on them, according to the inverse square law (F=kq₁q₂/r²). At close enough distances, this force will be strong enough to counteract any other tendency (including positive entropy). Order can therefore spontaneously emerge from simple laws (Take time to watch the NASA experiment I shared). This same law can cause charged (ionised) particles such as are found in intersteller medium to become electrically bound to each other. And this is how planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and super-clusters are manufactured!

As for the complexity of life on earth, I am unable to explain how life came about on earth, this is an extremely difficult task which I don't think science is mature enough to answer, but it should come as no surprise that the chemical nature of life consists of basically the most common element in the universe, Hydrogen, and the most reactive, Carbon (due to its quadrivalent nature).

Finally, I would advise that you read beyond the claims promulgated by sites like answersingenesis.org and creation.org. From experience, the editors get a lot of their science wrong, so it is difficult to extract good arguments from dodgy premises such as the "very very clumpy" claim!

Antiparticle:
@AgentOfAllah:
Thanks for your explanations. I agree that it is difficult to be exhaustive on each of these scientific findings given that I have to address several of them. Plus, my time is finite so I have to choose what to focus the explanations on.

I particularly appreciate your treatment of the cosmic microwave background and its relation to the radiation of a black body. I contemplated discussing this but I didn't want to get into a long rat-hole so I just focused on redshifts. The way you clarified my use of the term "localized cosmological effects" is also appreciated, I concur that the phrasing might appear a bit technical to precisely understand. I also think some of my writing on radiometric dating can be more accurately refined (specifically my explanation of how using two isotopes considerably minimizes any dating errors), but this will take time and pages so I decided to not write epistles about that.

Anyways, @DoctorAlien has additional questions for you. While I would like to keep this conversation strictly between @DoctorAlien and I, you are welcome to address @DoctorAlien's response(s) to your post. As you and him discuss, I will temporarily just observe in order to be fair to @DoctorAlien because a two-on-one debate will not be fair to him. My only request is that you continue to follow the guideline of civility that @DoctorAlien and I agreed to on the first page.

I will jump in (to discuss "ice cores" ) whenever you both are done with addressing this topic. @DoctorAlien, is this ok by you? Thx.

Thanks for the permission. I believe I am done with my contributions, except your co-discussant has specific questions for me. I too would love for the conversation to be kept coherent between only you two. I just thought some of the things that were addressed could be broken down further for the sake of other followers. Also, I think your take on radiometric dating was very robust and clear. In spite of my physics background, I can still appreciate simple clarity. Feel free to carry on as you please. I am happy to just continue reading!

AgentOfAllah,

You may need to revise your Big Bang theory textbook again. The Universe is clumpy in the sense that there are great walls of galaxy and great voids in between them. Thus, background radiation should be clumpy and not uniform. In other words, the temperature of this radiation should be uneven--there should be hot spots and cold spots. But why is the radiation even?

I guess you're in for more shock because the theory of relativity is false and contains self-destructing error.

If you cannot tell me exactly how the Universe came to be, and what processes occurred before the Big Bang, then I guess I don't have much to learn from you on this topic.

Scientists supposedly saw as far back as 13.2 billion years ago. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old. Why did they not see pictures of a pre-formed Universe? Why did they see stars and planets just like we have now? I don't need much words from you. Stop blaming the camera that caught the images.

When did physical laws start to function?

AgentOfAllah,

When the first elementary particles managed to form the first few electrically stable molecules of the rocks which make up the earth now, what forces brought and kept them together to form the earth?

Edited.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

You may need to revise your Big Bang theory textbook again. The Universe is clumpy in the sense that there are great walls of galaxy and great voids in between them. Thus, background radiation should be clumpy and not uniform. In other words, the temperature of this radiation should be uneven--there should be hot spots and cold spots. But why is the radiation even?

Okay, I have to call you out on this! You keep repeating this same weak claim, which you copied verbatim from Answersingenesis (or a similar site) without rebutting the explanations I have offered. What you should bear in mind is that this claim is 24 years old, and WMAP is 15 years old, which means the claim is not just wrong, it is terribly outdated. I will be brief in my response because I have answered this robustly before.

1) Matter can spontaneously start forming into clumps even when they are initially disordered (The NASA salt video I shared in my first post demonstrates this conclusively). So even if space is "very clumpy" as you claim, this doesn't mean it was always so! The CMB is light from a time that precedes the formation of matter, so there is no need for it to be as clumpy as you desperately assert.
2) The CMB image taken by WMAP (This is a real satellite) shows thermal anisotropies in the the CMB. These anisotropies are thought to be signatures of quantum fluctuations that occurred during and immediately after singularity. So stop repeating the claim that the CMB is exactly uniform, because it isn't!

I guess you're in for more shock because the theory of relativity is false and contains self-destructing error.

Interesting assertion, not a discussion for this thread, but know that GPS works because of general relativity calculations. Astounding that a false theory can give us such a useful tool.

If you cannot tell me exactly how the Universe came to be, and what processes occurred before the Big Bang, then I guess I don't have much to learn from you on this topic.

Very well then!

Scientists supposedly saw as far back as 13.2 billion years ago. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old. Why did they not see pictures of a pre-formed Universe? Why did they see stars and planets just like we have now? I don't need much words from you. Stop blaming the camera that caught the images.

It's difficult to have this conversation with you since you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of electromagnetic waves. Any way, there is a difference between pre-formed universe and post expansion (pre-stellar) universe. Images of a pre-formed universe is a senseless concept, literally...think about it! On pre-stellar universe though, I insist that an optical telescope (usually used to detect galaxies and stars) cannot detect low frequency EM waves, which would be the characteristic waves of the period in question. The microwave antenna to detect that period is presently being constructed. I am patient enough to await its completion. I hope you are too!

When did physical laws start to function?

The answer to this question is not very obvious. In fact, the only answer I can offer at this point is I don't know.