In Reply to Mohamed Alsous (@meta4malsous) on Twitter

by idebunkforme

This is a reply to this tweet:, and the TwitLonger:

His post remains in gray. My replies are in red.

You claim, and whine, and beg for the evidence to be presented to you, yet any time your theories come under scrutiny such as, Umm idk?

When someone makes a claim against our collective knowledge, then yes, evidence is required for anyone to accept such a claim. Science is well-established. All one has to do is pick up the appropriate journals, do the experiments yourself, and discover that yes, those theories and facts and laws are valid.

1. You have no understanding nor even guess as to how the universe was started, your own natural laws work against every single theory you try to come up with

This is false. We have a pretty good understanding of how the universe began, if one defines the universe as the visible spacetime we currently reside in. The big bang theory best explains, based on all available evidence, the origins of spacetime. We have the background radiation, the redshift of galaxies moving apart, and the mathematics that, when we reverse this movement, shows a singularity when everything once occupied an infinitely hot, infinitely dense point before time and space. The natural laws we observe only work in the universe we can observe. We can’t observe spacetime before it began to exist.

2. The first law of thermodynamics, states that if things are left un attended to, they resort to becoming chaos. Let’s apply that law, the universe, THE BIGGEST open system known to us, is completely ordained, maintained, and and perfectly suited for what it does. So why doesn’t the universe go into chaos? Who’s maintaining it because the universe is indifferent to what happens in it, killing all life forms, blowing up planets, nothing has significance to it as it has no mind. So then why does it stay orderly?

Um, no. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only that they change forms and can flow into other systems; any closed system’s total energy will remain the same. What you’re thinking of is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in any closed system, entropy tends toward equilibrium. The universe itself is not an open system, unless you’re aware of another universe that actively trades energy with our own? The universe is tending toward chaos, a heat death, that will take many billions of years to achieve. There is no one needed to “maintain it,” since your arguments thus far show ignorance of the basic physics of the universe.

3. The big bang theory the most popular theory to the beginning of the universe, factors in an energy or infinitely dense matter that somehow for some reason exploded, yet never (and cannot) explains How energy entered into this equation? What caused the explosion..? Such questions that when thinking about point to an intelligent designer. And we know this from edward hubbles experiment which later concluded to the big bang that the universe had a beginning, now where does the beginning come from..? How could it even come in to play without any matter/energy present? Well my friends that leaves you utterly quiet because God, a source ABOVE the natural laws not bound by them is the only answer.

It didn’t explode. It expanded. While matter and antimatter annihilated each other. This does not require an intelligent designer, merely a considerable understanding of the models put forward to explain all available evidence. You can’t put a placeholder into the mix, stating it’s your god, and it becomes valid until there’s a better explanation, when that god does not explain anything at all. How did your god do this? Where did that god come from? Without these, the premise of this god adds complexity and more unknowns to explaining the universe, which would be the opposite direction the scientific method leads our understanding.

4. The fine tuning of the universe is the clearest most explicit proof to the being of a creator, you’re celebrity stephen hawking notes in his book, had the big bang lasted more than one quintillionth of a second longer, there would be no life as we see today. That’s point a.
b. Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant 1:10^120

Try better grammar, please. It’s “your celebrity,” not “you’re celebrity.” And Stephen Hawking would be capitalized. His argument is that the rate of expansion was due to the density of the very early universe. Thus, it wasn’t fine-tuning, but the natural result of physical properties of the universe. These numbers are irrelevant to any fine-tuning argument, because there is nothing for anyone to compare these against. What if the universe had slightly different values? What would it look like? How would we know? Thus, an argument of fine-tuning is based on faulty logic and unfalsifiable arguments.

The value on the right indicated the MAXIMUM deviation allowed for the constant on the right, these are values learned in physics. Please tell me how all 6 of the previously stated values are at basically perfectly suited for us to be living in, anyone of these values if corrupted immediately would destroy life as we know it.

As stated above, there is nothing to compare these to, so there’s no way to determine that they’re perfectly suited for us to be living in. Perhaps there’s another set even more ideal for life to originate. From our understanding, it took about ten billion years for the only lifeforms we’ve ever known to arise in this universe. Is that really the most perfectly suited universe for life to originate? How can we tell?

Let’s take a look at the sun, the source of warmth for us, is approximately 150 x 10^6 km from us, had it been at most 5,00 miles closer or further we would have either burned or froze, What keeps the sun from moving YET at the same time keeps the earth rotating around it so it fully covers all parts of the globe by it?

Is that 5 miles or 5,000 miles? If so, then we’d have burned or froze already if your argument is valid. The earth’s distance from the sun changes 3.1 million miles over the course of the year. Yet, we’re still here year after year. In fact, the earth could be tens of millions of miles closer or farther away from the sun, on average, and still be comfortable for life to arise.

The sun is moving. It’s spiraling around the outskirts of the Milky Way, which itself is moving through space.The earth doesn’t rotate around the sun, but it does revolve around it. Rotate is a spin around an object’s axis.

5. The presence of gravity, the gravitation pull on earth as i’m sure you’ve noticed is perfectly suited for us, not pushing us so hard we can’t move, and not so light that we are flying, Yet in space there is no gravity as you already knew. The gravitational pull is also RIGHT at the core of the earth meaning it pulls all in every direction so that everyone on earth is influenced by it. Now wait, in the presence of the big bang, how could an explosion create an on going permanent force? Ok you may argue matter can be clung together threw particles but where is your argument for a force coming into being that perfectly suits us in our living environment.

Gravity on earth could have been the same as on the moon and still life would have arisen. Gravity is not an essential factor in life. Experiments have been happening on the International Space Station and the Mir before that to germinate plants in microgravity. Thus, gravitational pull is nonessential to life existing.

The big bang is the expansion of the singularity into what is now spacetime. It is an event, not a sentient force. The properties of the physical universe existed when spacetime existed. And since it’s already been shown that gravity is not necessary for life to arise, gravity is not a force that “perfectly suits us in our living environment.”

That my friends is a handpicked few points that i have put together to illustrate my point in a few minutes, i have not even gotten started on the consistency of nature/ genetics/ statistics against evolution, etc.
Get Up.

Then you’ve failed on every single one. I assumed, as your tweet stated, that this would have dismantled us. There wasn’t even a single valid argument. You may want to get up yourself, and try to get an education in the subjects you argue are wrong. That may help you have a more comprehensive discussion.