• I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 38 other followers

  • Truth Saves
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Atheist Quotes

    I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil--you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself.
    Dan Barker

    He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.
    William Drummond

    The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
    Richard Dawkins

  • Blog Visitors

    • 232,755 hits

More Fine Tuning Foolishness


Today I want to write about the ratio of electrons to protons in the universe and the expansion rate of the universe. The ratio of protons to electrons is a value that creationist/apologist (oddly an actual PhD in astronomy) Hugh Ross says that if it were smaller there would be to little chemical binding and if it were larger, electromagnetism would dominate gravity preventing star and galaxy formation (which he claims is impossible since electromagnetism is stronger than gravity by a factor of 1037 which I showed to be false in  my last article which you can read here). The expansion rate of the universe is a favorite of both William Lane Craig and Dinesh D’Souza. Hugh Ross claims there could be no galaxy formation if this value were larger and if it were smaller the universe would collapse. Craig and D’Souza both used a quote from Stephen Hawking out of context and then they intentionally ignored his own explanation which appeared a mere seven pages later. The misused quote from A Brief History Of Time was

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.

and the explanation they ignored that was written in the same book a mere seven pages later

The rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is so very close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion was very carefully chosen.

It is clear neither value was fine tuned and I will attempt to explain after a little digression. Continue reading

Hypothesis Of The Primeval Atom


Shows slices of expansion of universe without ...

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat Universe.

Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître a Roman Catholic priest and professor of astronomy and physics published a paper in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels with the title A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae. His paper described an expanding universe, beating Edwin Hubble by 2 years, and provided the first observational estimation of what became known as the Hubble constant. Lemaître didn’t realize what would happen if you ran is theory of an expanding universe backwards but 4 years later he introduced his Hypothesis Of The Primeval Atom which later became known as the Big Bang Theory due to a sarcastic comment by Fred Hoyle since this directly contradicted his pet steady state theory. Hoyle’s main objection was that the Big Bang Theory implied a creator, as in the Kalam cosmological argument, while the steady state theory didn’t. Continue reading