₦airaland Forum

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is that this claim is 24 years old, and WMAP is 15 years old, which means the claim is not just wrong, it is terribly outdated.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.

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!

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!

RabbaRabbi:
Christians and muslims believe there is a God that created heaven, earth and man...

But for the atheist, there is no God, and he didn't create man.

Now here is my question to the atheists. How did man came into existence, if there is no God in existence??

Let's hear from you guys...

hopefulLandlord, hahn, Seun, KingEbukasBlog, winner01, felixomor, OLAADEGBU, sonoflucifer, thesixthsense, EyeHateGod, AgentOfAllah, cloudgoddess, CAPSLOCKED, Scholar8200

Dear RabbaRabbi, the way your question is framed suggests one either ought to know the origins of man; or, otherwise believe that god did it. There couldn't be a more flawed attempt at seeking answers. In seeking answers, you must also be open to the many other possibilities that abound. For example, man may have emerged from the failed experiment of advanced alien species, man may be the descendants of old world apes, man may have been involved in a teleportation experiment from another universe, man may be the highly intelligent project of the devil that god has decided to colonise out of spite and jealousy. Also, the answer could just simply be "I don't know!". So why compel people to pick sides in a false dichotomy?

At any rate, to me, the most compelling theory on the origins of man is as outlined by the theory of evolution. This theory has made use of a panoply of mutually exclusive bodies of facts; including genetics, anatomy and physiology, fossil records, behavioral biology and lab experiments to come up with a coherent and compelling narrative about our origins. In the circumstances, I have no reason to reject the proposition that we come from an old world ape that is a common ancestor to other existing apes too. If a definitive proof against evolution surfaces, I will very promptly discard it, and maybe adopt a more compelling answer, supposing one were to come along. But I don't feel compelled to know the origin of man as you do OP.

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

KissChris:
I've been pondering this for a time and I decided to seek the opinions of nairalanders.


What is considered unethical and how can it be decided if humans themselves are inherently flawed and unethical?

My take on ethics is guided by utilitarianism. A system whose basic premise is guided by two rules:

1) Maximise benefit for myself and as many as possible; and
2) Minimise discomfort for myself and as many as possible.

This leads to minimal interference in the transactions of others, as long as such dealings don't cause harm to other people in any perceptible way.

There are however, desperate situations that can force one to deviate from this system; especially in cases where emotional response is inevitable. A famous example is the many expressions of the Trolley thought experiment, in which I have to choose between the death of a close person and that of several distant (unknown) people. Here, I have no problem discarding utilitarianism for a more beneficial, albeit selfish, outcome. However, for mundane transactions, utilitarianism suffices for me.

To answer your question, I don't think anybody defines ethics, but I believe that most people share many common goals, which makes it easy to define a few universal rules like right to life (presently limited only to humans).

raphieMontella:
the person below you answered you perfectly bruh..

Well, then you should tag people who believe they can't accomplish things without god, not preach to the choir.

EyeHateGod:
1) It's just To Illustrate That You Don't Need "God" or an Imaginary Friend To Accomplish anything In Life!

2)Prayer is Just Waste of Time

Then why are atheists being tagged? Do we really need such "illustrations"

johnydon22:
This is true, there is a pattern that can be devised from every occurence no matter how random - take for instance you fill a cup with tiny balls, place a lid over the cup and shake the cup vigourosly, the balls will randomly be fully shaken inside the cup, hitting the edges of the cup bouncing back and hitting the other.

With the behavourial tendency of the balls and cup material, if the motion of these balls are slowed down you can accurately predict the precise movement of a particular ball inside the cup, from it's direction you can predict which part of the cup it will hit next and which direction it will bounce back towards and ultimately the next impact point.

There is a predictable tendency in even the most random systems, the only factor required is the consistency of the values.

This is NOT true at all. A truly random event is by definition, one without pattern, so I fail to see how patterns can be devised from "every occurrence". In fact, the uncertainty principle imposes a fundamental limit to how much information can be extracted from any quantum particle; and as far as I know, this amounts to half of the total possible information in the particle. Away from the quantum; even in classical mechanics, 'chaos', which is the cumulative effect of small deviations in an otherwise ordered system, can easily result in some really weird (fundamentally inexplicable) phenomena taking place. It is precisely things like this that breakdown the accuracy of weather predictions within very short periods.
Another well known random phenomenon is the spontaneous radioactive decay of nucleons. There is literally no way to predict which nucleon will decay at any given time, in a radioactive element. This means there are fundamental phenomena that cannot be predicted; thus negating the idea that any meaningful prediction can be made about everything. It is just fundamentally impossible!

raphieMontella:
Other wonderful atheists can be found here...Lists_of_atheists

famous irreligious thinkers

famous skeptics

CC: Seun , Plaetton , Johnydon22 ilovetheline,JackBizzle, Kay17, AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 ,
hahn , sonOfLucifer , frank317 muskeeto , Decker ,PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , lepasharon ,
cloudgoddess , ifenes , Hopefullandlord , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer , dalaman , Ranchhoddas,CAPSLOCKED , lilbrown007 , Elohim1,RaphieMontella , Weah96 , SirWere , sonofluc1fer lennycool desepiero onetrack coolusername Antiparticle Accidentalgenius
4kings


#THEPOWEROFATHEISTS

OP, am I supposed to feel accomplished and revel in the achievements of these people because they are atheists? How is this different from what religious people do?

butterfly88:
I really don't understand what you mean by a "misunderstood reading" of the anthropic principle, for most of the proponents of the principle support the view that the universe is fined tuned

taking the bolded a step further it simply means that our seemingly fortuitous, suspiciously specific locale, temperature range, chemical and physical milieus are just what’s needed to produce life.

Well, duh! Do you think life would exist in a place that does not have "what's needed to produce life"? I don't understand what kind of argument you're trying to make. If life were to exist, as it does, it will exist in a place that is conducive to its existence (not any other place). This means it is not extraordinary that life just happens to exist in this part of the universe.
However, the universe isn't exactly teeming with life, is it? Mercury and Venus aren't conducive to life, yet they are part of this universe. Where is the fine-tuning there? The density of the universe is less than 1 atom per cubic meter. This means for the most part, the universe not in any way conducive for life. I am therefore befuddled by how you've come to the conclusion that the universe is life friendly.

butterfly88:
other fundamental constants asides Planck's lengths include, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, speed of light in a vacuum, harthee constant,stefan boltzmann constant, josephen constants et cetera...

Let's call the others "finely tuned constants or better still parameters"

these physical constants are also life friendly so to say...take for instance the velocity of light..i gave john.ydon n22 an example on how it will affect the luminosity of stars and render the universe adverse to life

Most of the universe is still adverse to life. You cannot - because you exist on a tiny speckle of dust that is conducive to life - extrapolate that the universe is conducive to life.

all the gravitation constants,if weaker or stronger it will affect the temperature of stars..and if the stars were too hot it will burn out too quickly and to cool it will render fusion impossible hence making life impossible.

This doesn't seem to be the doing of an all powerful god. Surely, the creative force of an all powerful god cannot be constrained by the effects of gravity. It rather seems to me that god was bound by these laws, thus, constructing the universe using the right constant values, otherwise its work would have been DOA. This means that the laws and constants you talk about preponderate god.

now a quick look at antrophic principle

Robert dicke laid down his argument in this manner - assuming gravity was a hair stronger or the Big Bang a sliver weaker, and therefore the universe’s lifespan significantly shorter, we couldn’t be here to think about it. Because we’re here, the universe has to be the way it is and therefore isn’t unlikely at all.

this to clearly supports "fine tuning" and most likely a conscious designer.

This is a misunderstood reading of the anthropic principle. It states simply, that we observe the universe because (local) conditions are conducive for an observer to exist within the same universe. In other words, we wouldn't exist to question how well-tuned the constants of the universe are were it to be any other way, so there is nothing remarkable that we just so happen to exist here.

butterfly88:
ok then

1) we have the force of gravity,electromagnetism,weak and the strong nuclear force and many many more like the nuclear efficiency,the cosmological constant,the plank's length....

What do you understand by the term "physical constant"? Because you've mentioned a mighty lot of things, and of all these, only Planck length is veritably a "physical constant".

all these forces maintains a short range of values which if exceeded in the slightest will cause the universe to operate in a strange way and even render it hostile to life

Again, do you know what a constant is? And, in the scale of the universe, you live on an inconsequential accretion of matter not even worthy of being called a blemish, yet you seem to think the universe is not hostile to life. How have you arrived at your conclusion?

take for example the strong nuclear force, if it was say 1.99% stronger it will greatly affect the fusion of stars, i bet you know what this means.if not it simply means there will be no hydrogen in the universe,
you should know what this means

also if the force of electromagnetism was a bit weaker or stronger the universe will die out in no time(short lived)

You assume all the other fundamental forces shouldn't scale with a change in the value of the strong nuclear interaction. If these forces are multiple expressions of a grand unified model, there is no reason why one should be independent of the other.

as for your 2nd question...I think the above explains them too..to further clarify take the quote below

You have not shown that the universe is conducive for life. Let's put things in perspective: The density of the universe is 10^-27 kg/m³. This implies that for every cubic meter of space in the universe, there is on average, roughly only one hydrogen atom. Try to process that thought, and you will come to appreciate that much of the observable universe is vacuum; and vacuum, sir, is not conducive for life at all.

The laws of science, as we presently know, contain many fundamental numbers(constants), e.g the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, .. The fascinating thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life--stephen hawking

It is true that the fundamental constants seem finely adjusted to allow for the development of life, but this is not the same as the claim the the universe is conducive for life. Be careful about making exorbitant claims like that! Finally, that the fundamental constants seem "finely tuned" does not mean they are in fact, "finely tuned". You should read a little on the anthropic principles. The fact is that we don't have a clue why these things appear to be so fine-tuned in this manner, but I encourage you to think about the implication that emerges from your "intelligent design" claim.

To state that the universal constants are so finely tuned that they suggest the input of some purposeful designer invariably suggests that this designer must force their designs to conform to certain constraining rules, outside of which, they are unable to be creative. For example, if god used 0.1C instead of C as the speed of light in its attempt to convert energy into mass, matter would not exist. This means god itself is subject to some objective physical laws. While succumbing to the inexorability of these physical laws may suggest an intelligent designer, it tells an unflattering account of your "all powerful" intelligent designer.

butterfly88:
you'll get the info if you go through the op bro

I read your post, and then asked 2 specific questions resulting from my reading. I wouldn't ask those questions if I felt your post answered them. For the sake of clarity, here they are again:

1) Give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant.

2) Explain how this constant makes the universe conducive for life.

butterfly88:
oh...probability when used to explain why all physical constants in the universe are so fine tuned to support life is very wacky sorry to say....isnt it more logical to say that these values were carefully chosen...and not the result of merely tossing millions of dices and still ending up with the correct result all the time

I don't get it when you say the values of physical constants are "carefully chosen", nor am I sure you know what you mean when you say "the universe". Can you give an example of a "carefully chosen" physical constant, and how this constant makes the universe conducive for life?

DoctorAlien:
It's either you didn't read through this thread or you just want me to notice you.

Either way, go back and thoroughly read all my posts on this thread.

Thank you.

Lol...You do have a bloated sense of your self-importance. Please, don't notice me!

DoctorAlien:
Before I answer your question, you'll answer this:

1. Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250 000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever. In the light of this, explain the popular notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Radiometric dating isn't limited to carbon dating only. Carbon dating can be accurate up to around 50,000 years, whereas, other methods like Argon-Argon can be dated up to 4 billion years. In the case of Dinosaur fossils, it's usually easier to date volcanic rocks around them, which should have abundance of radioactive Potassium/Argon to date them.

2. If dinosaurs are really tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them, including what may have been blood vessels and cells? Confirm this here: www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/scientists-recover-t-rex-tissue/#.Us3cl7SmbF0

Tissues that are isolated from air and bacteria can easily last millions of years. This is not at all spectacular.

4everGod:
Are you from the 18th century?

The onset of the 21st century predates Whatsapp by over a decade...yet, here we are, still!!

Do you even know how whatsapp works? In whatsapp you can belong to groups depending on what you do as a profession. And I had my whatsapp real estate groups open even as I was chatting with the ldy in question.

Okay, that's a fair explanation.

When you are chatting with anyone on whatsapp and they send you a post their number does not show on the top of the screen . the only number that would show would be from another chat entirely and not the one you are currently on.

This one too! Okay, this addresses my first point.

So let me ask, is Idowu Olorunkoya a familiar person to you? If no, I concede defeat, if yes, why did you feign ignorance when the name was mentioned?

Why am I even responding to you. Simply because your Allah did not do this you want to now claim intelligence. You better go to the thread about somebodys hand being stuck in the quran and shout Allahu akbar there.

I'm amused...lol

Dear 4everGod, otemanuduno might be unto something here.

otemanuduno:
...That lady, Idowu Olorunkoya was probably living all her lives in fear...

From the time stamps of the Whatsapp snapshots you shared in the earlier pages, it is obvious they were uploaded in chronological order. This fact raises a few questions about the authenticity of your claim. Specifically, the following observations call to question, your honesty, if not the existence of your "Mrs Emelia".

1) Twice, in the chronology of your snapshots, we see "Emelia" typing.

2) Immediately following these two events, that is, the subsequent point "Emelia's" status reads "Online", we note you receive a message from the following number +234 803 346 5783.

3)That this number appears immediately after "Emelia" stops typing seems beyond coincidental to me, and might indicate that it is Emelia's number. Of course, there is still a chance that you coincidentally received two messages from the same number at the same point Emelia stops typing. Some people tend to send messages in morsels after all, which could increase the probability of coincidence significantly.

Even if this were the case, there is something perplexing about your impulsive denial of acquaintance with one Idowu Olorunkoya, as in your response below:

4everGod:
What is this one saying? Pls who is Idowu Olorunkoya? Seems eartum just goofed. Somebody who is from Imo state you tagged as Idowu Olorunkoya...lwtmb.

You see, the thing is, if you check that number (+234 803 346 5783) on whatsapp, it leads directly to the account of one Idowu Olorunkoya, whose whatsapp profile picture is consistent with another online profile picture (on Facebook) with the same name. This means even if the referenced number is not "Mrs Emelia's", you should still know who Idowu is, since you've been receiving messages from him. This fact is inconsistent with your reaction of obliviousness when the name was mentioned.

Could you provide clarifications on the persons of Idowu and Emelia, because as it is, your carefully orchestrated story has some careless blemishes that sully its consistency.

Or shall we assume, borrowing from PastorAIO's lexicon, that you are a duplicitous onijibiti?

Thanks!

pr0blem:
And you don't know French doesn't mean French doesn't exist, have you thought about this too?

You're most certainly correct! As such, the most natural response to anyone who denies the existence of French will be to:

1) Define French
2) Falsifiably demonstrate the existence of French.

Once these two conditions are satisfied, the denier loses all intellectual support for their denial. On the other hand, asserting a claim about French when you are, yourself, ignorant of its existence makes you intellectually dishonest.

KingEbukasBlog:
No no no . Babies are not atheists by definition , its a wrong definition - that's what I tried saying .

Atheists say "there is no god" and babies do not agree/disagree to that . Atheism is simply the belief there are no deities .

Dude, Google the definition of "atheism" and stop making silly arguments...shuo! The belief that there are no deities is a special case of atheism. The broader definition of atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities.

KingEbukasBlog:
"A person without belief in god" - so babies are atheists

The point of this question isn't clear to me. I am no expert on the belief system of babies, but yes, if you think babies don't have belief in god, then they are atheists by definition.

Now do you see why that definition does not make sense ?

No, I don't

winner01:
Naah.

You and your people call it different things.

HcPaul calls it sanity, AgentofAllah calls it an admission of apathy towards God, others call it science, reasoning, logic, rationality, rejection of dogma etc

Just to delude yourselves.

You seem to experience great difficulty in deducing definitions. This is perhaps why your arguments are usually so terrible. It is not possible to build a sound argument on shaky definitions. By your own admission, you don't know the meaning of atheist, yet you vehemently argue against it. Don't you think there's something wrong with that?

Let me help you: "a-" is an affix with Greek origins. It means "without". "Theist" is a Greek word for a person with belief in god. It therefore follows that "atheist" means a person without belief in god. That definition is self-consistent, and independent of external factors such as sanity, science, logicality, reasonability, rationality or even ones disposition to the general idea of dogma.

Further, I can see why many mistake not believing in god as the belief that there is no god, but on reflection, it should become apparent that confusing the former for the latter is no different than supposing that the absence of evidence is evidence for absence. A little reading on the subject of survivors' bias should elucidate why that's a fatal mistake.

Only a buffoon thinks a search engine is a 24-7 window into the preoccupation of everyone. To elucidate my point, I image searched Omokri reading a book, and guess what I didn't find?...

Clearly, Omokri doesn't read books, which would explain the sorry state of his brain.

oyinkinola:
...do you think I will write without a solid evidence? never!

You obviously just did! Clearly, you don't know what "solid evidence" means.

oyinkinola:
In fcfa zone countries surrounding us things not worst as Nigeria, whereas, their economy depend on our's, they import from our imported goods, pay double tax and still live in decent life why?
1fcfa=50kobo!
Lowest denomination:
1fcfa
₦5
Highest denomination:
10,000fcfa
₦1,000
Denomination in circulation:
1fcfa,5fcfa,10fcfa,25fcfa,50fcfa,100fcfa,200fcfa,250fcfa,500fcfa....Coins,1000fcfa,2000fcfa,5000fcfa,10000fcfa..Notes
₦5,₦10,₦20,₦50,₦100,₦200,₦500,₦1000
Now look: ₦1000 highest denomination=2000fcfa!
10000fcfa highest denomination=₦5000!
fcfa Coins=9 denominations!
Nigeria Coin=Non!
Another important interesting thing in fcfa currency is 500fcfa is in Coin and Note and all in circulation!

You made an accusation and then started listing exchange rate and other currency trivia without making any connection whatsoever to your claim. Apparently, smearing people's names with imaginary claims is a joke to you!

odimbannamdi:
Wonderful advice! I have followed you already. Looking forward to more of your posts as insightful as this

Cheers! After reading the post, I was sure many people would have said what I had on my mind...I mean, it was the obvious thing! I became heart broken when I started reading things like "do it", or "beg to pay back in installments" or "hausa people are honest, so they'll not cheat you". Some also gave good advice, like "run away", but didn't clearly articulate why. I thought someone who understands the struggles a little had to clarify the options before op clearly. I wish many had done it before me though. That only a hand full of the initial comments reflected my feeling makes me very worried about the terribly battered psyche of my beloved country men and women. I'm a little sad!

A guy who offers you a job on condition that you pay him a huge amount of money is a corrupt criminal who is taking advantage of your desperation. If you pay that money to him, you are an enabler of the crime, and this kind of system never ends well.

Supposing you get the job, you will probably then have to borrow a lot of money to pay this corrupt fellow. You will be 500,000 Naira short, and then might be forced to start engaging in corrupt activities at customs in order to settle your debt; because when you start as a junior cadre staff, there is no way you'll legally make that kind of money anytime soon. You may even lose your job and end up in jail if you crossed the wrong person...especially nowadays that people have easy access to cameras and other electronic media that can help expose corruption. I think I have counted around 10 police(wo)men who have lost their jobs in the last year alone, because somebody recorded them trying to extort civilians.

Also, such appointments are always in danger of being revoked. Supposing a new person is posted to head your department, and they find the circumstances under which you were employed objectionable, they may revoke that appointment, then you'll be in big debt and jobless. Basically, a lot of things can go wrong when you corruptly acquire employment.

OP, from your story, you've already set out on the path of an entrepreneur. I understand things are hard, but I like to think you're managing and surviving. My candid advise is that you continue on the difficult but honest path you've started as there is no shortcut to success. You just need determination and persistence, and eventually there will be a breakthrough. Very few successful business people started out on an easy path. I appeal to you to return your friend's money and thank him. Next, avoid like a plague, this insensitive, wicked, greedy, manipulative leech of a man who is only interested in your money, not your success.

Please OP, don't go that dark path. It may seem as attractive as chocolate, but with the right decorations, shit can also look like chocolate. A word is enough for the wise, but I've given you many because I hate to leave things to chances, but I hope you're wise!

Dejideji1:
You deserve some sticks for this thrash you just spewd!

What's wrong with you?

Why do you like concluding haphazardly? Who is making unscientific claims? Are you challenging me or Dr. Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson?

I usually don't establish my arguments on logical fallacies (for instance, appeal to authority), so who I am challenging is irrelevant to the idea under scrutiny. It just so happens that YOU presented the argument as something YOU agree with, so it is eminently natural that I should address YOU, as the proponent of the argument on this forum.

Do you even have a master's degree yet in your area of study before you start challenging those seasoned PhD holders?

I normally prefer not to brag about my academic achievements/titles because I prefer my arguments to be challenged on the basis of their contents and quality, not on how authoritative my achievements make me sound. Since you asked, however, I have a PhD, and in one of the fundamental sciences too!

I gave the abstract of the book both of them wrote and you are telling me to be careful as if i conjured the whole thing.

For someone so quick and keen to challenge the academic credentials of others, you are astoundingly ignorant of citation methodologies. Ever tried removing the log in your eyes? Learn from DeepSight; the guy you've been gleefully quoting with reckless abandon.

Please check the link i gave to the full article.
You read only the abstract and made a catastrophic conclusion.

I've read it, and I stand by what I wrote. You should never invoke "intelligent design" as the elixir of unanswered questions. No amount of intellectual gymnastics will make a lazy explanation like "intelligent design" scientifically tenable. It's the same as the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Please go and read the full article before spamming my thread with thrash.

Need I remind you that you mentioned me. Mentioning people on one's thread is typically considered an invitation to contribute to the topic in question. I responded under the assumption that you were seeking my contribution, an action which I now regret in retrospect. Please refrain from mentioning me again if your preferred method of making arguments is bullying with insolent remarks, thank you!

Dejideji1:
The origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and
inefficient sexual reproduction.

Be careful about making sensational unscientific claims. Asexual reproduction does not offer the kind of genetic diversity that sexual reproduction does. As such, sexual reproduction is actually more advantageous in species that are threatened by genetic diseases/viruses. Read HERE on worms that started favouring sexual reproduction over asexualism due to radiation in Chernobyl.

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology? If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered: Why sex? Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator?

Read on sexual dimorphism HERE. You may be surprised by how much science has actually uncovered so far. Many questions still exist of course...but that's why science exists. It literally thrives on questions. That a questioned has not been answered does not mean it'll never be answered. Allow me to caution you against using unanswered questions as proof of your intelligent creator. That's a slippery place you don't want to be in, whereby, as was succinctly put By Niel DeGrasse Tyson, your creator becomes "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on".

Some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today, Do not explain the origin of sex. We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

(Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D)

Again, be careful here!

I see this as one of the flaws in the evolution theory. Now to some intriguing questions

1. How did the first life forms evolve? (I know you will say by chance)

No one knows for certain. Maybe we will find out someday. Some very interesting works are being done on abiogenesis. Please read on them.

2. Why is it that it’s life that begets life? Even in cloning, a living cell is required.
Scientists claim to know all the building blocks of life but why have they not been able to create life in the lab if it happened by chance as they believe.?

What 'scientists' have you been talking to, who claim to know "all the building blocks of life" (what does that even mean?)?

You're essentially asking why we have not been able to create 'living' things from 'non-living' things. Maybe because we don't yet know where life comes from?!

3. For the issue of the sexes, how did male and female species evolve independently?

Read on sexual dimorphism. Check the link I provided.

Questions 5 to 12 are very similar to what I had in mind before I stumbled on his post. All those questions strongly point to a purposeful design rather than chance through occurrence of some random events.

Let me reiterate for the avoidance of doubt: Questions don't point to anything at all, be they purposeful design, chance or holographs from an extinct alien civilisation. Questions ask for answers and science is the most proven method to seek answers.

Awww, that's just the sweetest thing ever.

Sammiejokes:
is national assembly that has the right to allocate made up of ghosts, and for your information, the executive was not sleeping when the president use several months reviewing before signing.

I mentioned that there are standard procedures to be followed. Being a ranking officer in the national assembly does not confer the right of budget manipulation on you. If you don't understand that there are procedures to be followed, you may as well argue that the police have the right to shoot whoever they please because they have a gun.

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that the budget was padded by individual members, without the approval of the national assembly according to established procedures. This is where the criminality is, not in the right of the national assembly to manipulate the budget.