Which is why, Adelady, I said compared to geological time. The anaerobic world had lasted for more than 2 billion years, and the change to an aerobic world with aerobic organisms was 'sudden' by comparison. Which is why evolutionary radiation was an "explosion".
Exactly.
Now we're both clear, what are our chances of getting a couple of other folks clear on this stuff.
(Or does a 'pile' of just two of us stifle others' comprehension.)
I have to confess to a bit of an obsession about large numbers, as well as lots of zeroes following a decimal point. When I hear people complain about proper science education, my instant reaction is to say (or fume silently) that people who can't comprehend a billion of something, or 0.1% of something else, are not in much of a position to understand science. It's also entirely possible that I've spent too many hours in the company of yr 10 students who seem resolutely determined never to acquire any facility with place value.
None of what you say is daming in the least.
If you've got a sampling of a genus every million years or even less regular than everything appears to be abrupt. Much like taking a picture of you at home and another of you at work and assuming you got there by magic. (which ironically is at its basic level what your counterclaim is). If a lizard can develop completely new organs in 30 years---well its rather foolish to deny evolution can't happen between the exceeding rare fossilization events.1. The first is that the fossil record shows species originating abruptly.
Large, well mingled populations, with no environmental pressure to change maintain relative similar phenotypes. This is what the fossil record tells us, it's what even a high school biology simulation with colored beans and peas shows. The most rapid changes happen during extreme changes and selective pressure, or during colonizations.2. Secondly, the geologic record shows that species do not change
shows as well. For millions of years they remain constant
Change over a 80 million year period contradicts nothing. And trust me, biologist wish they know more about the period and what preceded it, but the fossil record is particularly sparse mostly because the surface of the planet has been repaved so many times. It's more like taking that picture of a New York city street in 1900 and than in 1930 and wondering where all the automobiles came from. Well you'd know perhaps if you'd got a picture the day the horseless carraige was riding down the street, or that day an group gathered around the electric car as a man changed the front tire...but we don't have those pictures (and might never have them). No reason to invoke magic "god of gaps." here.3. The "Cambrian explosion" represents a period in which most of the current phyla [broad groups of life forms] all appeared in a very short geological span
of time. This also seriously contradicts the hypothesis of Darwin.
It seems you want to pin your entire argument on the particulars of what Darwin thought--I honestly think that's a strawman that deliberately ignores the century+ of scientific refinement of the hypothesis. Of course Darwin got details wrong--EVERY 19th century science got details wrong...(hell a good part of our current text books are riddled with detail problems because they are at least 10-20 years old) but Darwin and Wilson nailed the broad concept of natural selection at the core.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 6th, 2012 at 05:04 PM.
I know what you mean. Personally, I cannot understand what "one billion" means. Not on a gut level, anyway. The closest I can come to understanding is simply to say it is a very, very, very, very, very large number.Originally Posted by adelady
However, mathematics allows us to manipulate that number. For example, if I assume that actively evolving vertebrates (excluding non typical species like Latimeria) take 10,000 years on average to form new species, then a billion years is enough for a continuously changing line of 100,000 new species, one after another. 100,000 clear cut, and different steps in an evolutionary process means the total difference from beginning to end is massively profound.
It is this time period, and the profound results of small scale changes per generation over that many generations that the anti-evolutionists do not seem able to comprehend.
skeptic, lynx and adelady:
A brief summation of the 150 or so years of discussion on evolution:
1. Darwin sums up a lot of previous discussion on evoltion with "On the Survival of the Species" using fossil records to suggest that evolution has taken place through small changes over long periods of time.
2. Skeptics of this explanation finally get through to reasoning people that Darwinism, the existing fossils and time problems and other things just don't add up to this actually being a viable explanation for the biodiversity that we have observed exists and has existed.
3. Evolutionists reevaluate the very same existing evidence and reformulate it into new explanations such as punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism in an effort to re-explain biodiversity in terms of random, naturalistic causes. Same old evidence, new interpretations.
4. Skeptics continue to point out flaws and problems in those re-formulations which are greeted by evolutionists who attempt to pooh-pooh them away as irrelevant or just choose to ignore the objections.
Evolutionists refuse to accept the cold hard fact that the current evidence does not and cannot, no matter how many ways it is sliced or diced, show anything more than the effects of evolution. The causes of evolution continue to be an overall mystery, particularly when they are expressed in terms of being the result of randomness. Randomness does not beget order or definable patterns which is what we do actually see in lifeforms.
Science does not rely on randomness, but rather, rigid laws which can be relied upon to produce a predictable result. Evolution is the only place in science that I am aware of that is willing to accept an inexplicable explanation of the inexplicable.
You accept the current version of random, senseless, meaningless evolution only because it better serves your view of a Godless world. Evolution cannot disprove the existence of God anymore than the existence of God disproves evolution.
2.
Dayton
Natural selection is not random. Mutations are random, but the selection is not. Heard of 'survival of the fittest'? Allowing the fittest to survive, and eliminating from the gene pool those that are unfit, is not a random process.
Survival of the fittest can involve many different circumstances a few of which might be:
1. A lifeform moves into the territory of another life form and out competes the original resident for survival, thus eliminating it.
2. The environment in which some life forms reside is in some way changed and some life form are able to adapt to the new environment but others are not.
3. The environment in which a particular life form lives is in some way changed and characteristics of that life form which are more suitable for the new environment become the dominant characteristics of that life form.
Life forms do not just sit around changing for change sake. In a static world, life forms would not change because there would be no need for change. Life forms change, mostly in response to changes of circumstances in an effort to out compete other life forms for food and territory. The changes effected by these kinds circumstances do not change antelopes into lions; they insure the fastest antelopes survive to avoid lions.
I am not sure what you think you mean by, "eliminating from the gene pool those that are unfit[.]"
If you are thinking that characteristics are eliminated from a specific life form's gene pool, you are mistaken. Former characteristics of a given life form are retained even when that life develops new characteristics for whatever reason. The millions of possibilities within a genome are always retained, no matter which possibilities are currently manifest. The only way anything is eliminated from a gene pool is by eliminating the life form which has that gene pool.
Natural selection is, in a sense, random in that life forms are at the mercy of random changing conditions. Selection is, in another sense, not random in that selection must take place within the parameters of the limits of that particular life form's genome.
My point was not that there is no randomness involved in life form changes. My point is that randomness cannot produce pattern while pattern can produce such variety that it appears random.
Individual genes can be, and are continuously eliminated from various gene pools. An example is the hemophilia gene in the gene pool of the European royal families - which intermarry. This gene appeared among Queen Victoria's children and other descendants. However, those who became hemophiliac tended to die before reproducing, and today, that gene is gone from that gene pool. The royal families and descendants thereof continue, but the hemophilia gene is gone.
This is a non random development, and is a serious part of evolution. New genes via mutations appear often, but those that are harmful disappear, like that hemophilia gene, while those that are beneficial increase in quantity. An example of that is the gene for blue eyes, which appeared only a couple thousand years back, but made females more sexually attractive, and increased in the gene pool to the point where, today, it is very common.
You are correct, Dayton, in saying that life forms do not change for change's sake. There has to be a selective pressure. If all the old genes work perfectly well, and provide for a body that survives and reproduces, then there will be no selection for new genes. That is why some organisms like Lingula and Latimeria stay unchanged for long periods in the fossil record. However, such examples are unusual. Normally there are changes in the environment that drive genetic changes also. Over a long period, as shown clearly in the fossil record, substantial and permanent changes are instigated.
That is the reason why early bird/dinosaurs had teeth, but later forms all lost teeth, and replaced them with a beak. Teeth are heavy and maladapted for a flying life form. Archaeopteryx had teeth. Modern birds do not.
Skeptic:
I am not up on the gene pool of the British royal family. However, I would question whether the gene for hemophilia is completely gone from their line. Since hemophilia is a recessive gene and the royal family no longer marries close cousins, it is highly possible (probably likely) that the gene is still carried by some royals even today only five generations later. Plus, the hemophilia gene is still present in the human race, so it has not been "eliminated" from the gene pool at all.
When you say, "New genes via mutations appear often," it is something of a misleading claim if not just a flippant meaningless comment. Mutations are, in fact, very rare when compared to the number of cell divisions that take place. Furthermore, mutations have been shown to be about 70 percent lethal. And of the 30 percent that are not outright lethal, a huge percentager prove to be more detrimental to the survival of the mutated life form than to be beneficial while the rest have no impact at all.
When you say new genes appear often, the implication is that mutations are a major change mechanism, but that is just foolish. This is similar to the comments of Adelady earlier. I don't know if you are fooling yourself, have been fooled yourself, or attempting to fool the unaware. Mutations are not, I repeat NOT, a significant factor in bioevolution. It is really silly to say there are lots of mutations, therefore, fish became human beings. It is a lot more complex than THAT.
Cell mutation most often comes from dropped DNA strands or overduplication of strands. I am also oversimplying here but let me provide an example.
Let's say you have an isolated section of a gene which includes 20 DNA strands which we will number 1 thru 20. It is possible that some of these strands may be dropped such that there are now fewer than 20 strands in that section of the gene. This may or may not be detrimental to the cell, depending on the function of those strands or if they have drifted in the cell to some other place where they can function normally.
It is also possible that some of those strands could overduplicate such that this section of the gene has two copies of, say, strands 15 and 16 for a total of 22 strands rather than the normal 20. Again, it is difficult to predict the affect this will have and it would depend on the function and importance of those strands within the cell. However, this still is not "added" information any any more more than my redundancies in this sentence change the integrity of the thought. It is possible that you may have read through them without actually noticing them.
Now, then you have to determine if you are talking about life forms that reproduce asexually or sexually. In the case of asexual reproduction, there is a greater chance that the anomoly (if not detrimental) will show up in one or both of the two new cells. In sexual reproduction, the only time this would affect an embryo or seed is if that specific alteration was passed on via the division of a cell into a reproductive half cell. The possibilities at this level are quite numerous and far too complex to expand upon here.
As an individual within a particular life form ages, the integrity of cell division diminishes, however, this more likely takes place at a time when the particular individual is beyond reproductive capacity. This is more true in animals who have longer life spans and less likely among life forms with placental births.
By the way YOU talk about mutations, skeptic, I am somewhat skeptical as to your understanding of the whole picture of how mutations take place and how they actually impact the individuals involved.
But this seems to me to be an inadequacy of many, many evolutionists. The just to not take into account how difficult it is for life forms to change even minutely let alone on a grand scale that takes fish and turns them into humans.
Skeptic:
I forgot to mention you eye-color comment:
All I can say here is, "OMG, another classic example of evolutionist BS!!"An example of that is the gene for blue eyes, which appeared only a couple thousand years back, but made females more sexually attractive, and increased in the gene pool to the point where, today, it is very common.
There are 16 genes which are known to impact eye coloring. And the idea of blue color proliferating because of a reproductive preference for blue eyed individuals is just so rediculous that I do not know how anyone with any knowledge could make such a claim. Blue eyed people are indigious to certain areas of the planet and, as we become more intermixed as a race, the incidence of blue eyes will decrease. If you are from the Baltic area, where blue eyes are far more predominant, it is highly likely that the difference of brown eyed people would be more attractive.
Perhaps you would be interested in the wikepedia article which explains the causes of different iris coloration: Eye color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really think it would behoove you to actually look up some of the crap you are spewing out before you make such wild a$$ claims, especially when you are discussing with someone who is, at least, as knowledgeable as you on the topic and can immediately see a red herring when it surfaces.
Dayton
Mutation rate is much, much higher than you think. Here is an article on the subject. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Mutations are very common and are very significant. Most are not lethal. Most mutations have little effect, and many mutated genes enter the human gene pool and remain for long periods.
There was an article on the speed of removal of harmful mutations this a few years back in New Scientist magazine. I remember they used the examples of progeria, hemophilia and Huntingtons Chorea. All three genetic diseases are the result of mutations. Progeria dies out in one generation, since the people with that disease do not live long enough to reproduce. Hemophilia is removed from the population within 10 generations or less, due to the fact that the males with that gene usually die before reproducing. Females are carriers, explaining why the disease lasts as long as it does. Huntingtons, though, may last 50 to 60 generations. That is because it does not take effect till middle age, meaning that most carriers reproduce before the gene kills them.
Hemophilia in the European royal family. You can get the details in Haemophilia in European royalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Queen Victoria appears to be the source, and it is a mutation that appeared in her descendants, and did not exist before. The disease is now gone. The last to be born with it was 1914. The removal of this gene was by natural selection, in that those who were male with the gene died before reproducing.
Blue eyes.
My information here was from another New Scientist article.
On life forms changing.
Dayton. We see it! This is not speculation. We see it happening. It happens with life forms around us. it happens in laboratory experiments. It is shown in the fossil record. To deny it happens is simply willful blindness.
Those kinds of statement betray your own ignorance about the subject. Whether it was one gene or a hundred doesn't matter: they in some way conveyed an advantage, or was part of a set of genetic change associated with some advantage--possibly not even having anything do with with eye sight but of less disadvantage...such as huge advantage of light skin in low winter light regions.There are 16 genes which...
Lynx: Well, you can argue with wiki on this one, I merely repeated what their article on eye color said.
Skeptic: The rate and incidents of mutation is a highly unsettled area of study. Here is an article which says mutations are not nearly as often or numerous: What is the human mutation rate? | john hawks weblog
Your John Hawks presents the same basic fact as my reference, the journal "Genetics". That is : a number of mutations representing 175 per diploid genome per generation. That is not insignificant. In fact, it is enough to drive substantial genetic change over evolutionary time.
He is not MY John Hawkes. Never heard of him before. But it appears we have a different interpretation of his interpretation. His bottom line, to me, is that we just don't know as much as we think we know.
However, you will note, that the major research on evolution is now being done on the microbiological genetic level which is what I was pointing out some time back. Microbiology is showing a lot more information than fossils.
Dayton
It is true that a great deal of genetic research is being done, focused on evolution. Not just microbiology, but the genetics of all branches of life. A lot of this is human studies.
In addition to studying the genetic make-up of living organisms, the ability now, to generate a genome analysis from fossil teeth, is very valuable. Of course, DNA gets degraded over time, and such analyses cannot be carried out on older fossils. However, as an example, a substantial part of the genome of both Neanderthals and Denisovans is now available.
For studies of evolutionary change further back in time, fossil evidence is still the best.
Not quite. We have no less evidence than before and we get more as time goes on. We certainly have the capacity to make good predictions about how to apply evolutionary principles and analysis - and we have no less than we had before.His bottom line, to me, is that we just don't know as much as we think we know.
What we have is the ongoing project of science. If we knew all there was to know. If we needed no more analysis, no more evidence, no more skills ...... we'd get to the immortal words of Dara O'Briain .....
The fact that we don't know everything, maybe we can't know everything, it doesn't follow that we know nothing. It certainly doesn't mean that we don't know enough to predict things accurately. The theory is used to predict where useful or interesting fossil evidence would enhance the paleo record - even by opponents of evolution theory themselves.Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop!
Dara O'Briain with home truths about quackery - YouTube
I'm not arguing with wiki. I'm merely informing you that natural selection works just as well for 16 genes (or a 160) as it does a single gene--it's just more difficult to sort out because in many cases each gene effects more than one characteristic.
Yes. Genes become recessive for a long time before they vanish. That is how the process works.
You might as well argue that no rich person ever becomes poor by pointing out that some rich people become middle class on their way down to poverty.
If you can understand this process, you should be able to understand that the lizards which adapted to their new environment still retained all the same genes and DNA strands they had when they were moved -- the same exact genome. I can't tell you exactly what would happen if they were reintroduced to their old habitat. It would probably be different if the old native lizards were still in that habitat or if there we no lizards in that habitat.
If the new characteristics were not beneficial to survival in the old environment and there were none of the old lizards, it likely that they would try to readapt to the old enviroment and end up very similar to the original lizards or, perhaps, with the new characteristic not be able to survive. Obviously, the smaller lizards were better adapted to the original habitat -- otherwise they would have been larger with larger heads. But they always had the genetic capacity to be larger with larger heads, otherwise they would not have developed those characteristics in the new habitat. It is not like some zoologist came in and did a bunch of DNA splicing.
Do you understand that no evolutionist anywhere believes that evolution is directed from "less advanced" to "more advanced"? It is only directed from "less adapted to the environment a creature lives in" to "more adapted to the environment a creature lives in".
In order to get a new species, you must put an old species in a new environment. Leave them in the old environment and they will only progress until they are perfectly adapted, and then they will stop.
Remove them and put them back, and yes..... they will probably assume most of the same traits which were perfect before. ..... since those traits will still be the perfect traits to have now.
After reading about blue (or light colored) eyes v. brown eyes, I am ready to retract an earlier statement that animals do not make changes for change sake.
I am willing to accept, because I have no controverting information, that blue eyes first appeared in the human race approximately 10,000 years ago in an area near the Black Sea. The questions which arise with me is how and why?
The how can be sort of figured out, but the why is a much larger question. Blue eyes do not come about due to the "activity" of a gene, but rather due to the "inactivity" of a gene. The gene which adds melanin to the iris area is turned off. This more often occurs in people who generally have less melanin in their skin and hair. This would suggest that there is a connection among these characteristics.
One article I read stated that blue eyes were the result of a mutation to the OCA2 gene. It is possible that recent revelations in studies of the human genome may have made that article somewhat inaccurate in that it is not the gene itself which has changed, but rather, either/and/or the "initiator and arrestor" strands which effect the functioning of that gene. (I do not know if initiator and arrestor are the correct terms for these strands which direct the activity of a gene, but they are a little more impressive sounding than starter and stopper strands!!)
No matter what you call these strands, they still serve their purpose in directing when the activity of a gene commences, how long it is active and when it stops being active. It is actually difficult to show that only one gene is involved, but it does appear that the cited gene is one which adds melanin into the iris area. In the case of blue eyed people it is likely that the gene in question is being turned on much later or it is being turned off much sooner than in darker eyed people. It is also possible that there are other overall controls on the addition of melanin relating to the absorbtion of melanin into the skin which also affects the melanin triggers for the OCA2 gene.
But the why of this event is far more difficult. Changes usually take place in an effort to provide a better chance of survival. I am unable to find any article claiming a visual benefit for people with light colored eyes. There is some speculation that light eyes could play a role in slowing the developments of cataracts, but that could be coincidental with some other genetic proclivity for light skinned people. I have not found an article which expresses a definite actual visual benefit for those with blue eyes.
Skeptic points out that blue eyes tend to give the owner a slight preference in mating selection. However, this is an incidental benefit of the condition. I am not aware of any mating problems that humans had 10,000 years ago so there would have been no need for a mating enhancing change. Also, in the time period since, it might be noted that the highest birthrates in the world have almost always been in the Orient and India where blue eyes are virtually nonexistent.
We must also realize that the blending of the races brings with it the prediction that blue eyes will become more and more rare as time goes on as this appears to be a recessive trait.
kojax said:
I have no idea what brought up the idea of "advanced" nor am I sure what you are implying here. One could take it to mean that the human is not more advanced than the single cell from which he reputedly evolved. I assume, however, you are suggesting that advancement is a by-product of changes which enhance survival. That is, the "more advanced" product is more likely to survive because of the change(s) it has undergone.Do you understand that no evolutionist anywhere believes that evolution is directed from "less advanced" to "more advanced"?
kojax also said:
With the newer findings on how genes work, this may not be exactly what happens. The gene, itself, may not vanish at all but merely lay dormant for centuries as a non activated gene, waiting to be reactivated.Genes become recessive for a long time before they vanish. That is how the process works.
On blue eyes.
This characteristic appears to be passed on by simple Mendelian mechanisms, which suggests a single gene.
I have spent a lot of time in Fiji, and a man I knew there was a fascinating case. He was half Fijian and half European, and had the most startling pair of blue eyes, in spite of being darker of skin than most Americans of African origin. You can work out, if you like, how this happened in terms of inheritance.
As far as sexual preferences go, it appears that any trait that makes a person more attractive to the opposite gender is more likely to be passed on to the next generation. The characteristic normally mentioned in relation to this is protuberant breasts in women. These are totally unrequired for breast feeding, since most of that protuberance is non lactating tissue. Yet human females have evolved these sizable breasts, with no more lactating power than the flat breasts of female chimps. It appears that, if a person is more attractive, they are more likely to be reproductively successful.
skeptic, I am certainly not going to disagree that sexual preference characteristics are more likely to be passed on vis a vis non preferred characteristics. In some animals where there are some visual preferences, that characteristic is very likely to be enhanced over a long period of time. Sometimes, as you point out, these characteristics have nothing to do with better survival on a physical level other than potentially enhancing the actual breeding process.
My point was that in such cases, the breeding preferred characteristics may not be necessary to actual breeding. In which case, they are probably not necessary for the survival of the given population of breeders. But, in some cases they might be. The characteristic may also be connected to an essential characteristic. I do not have an actual example, but I do know that female red-wing black birds would mate with a male red-wing blackbird which did not have the red epaulet. It could be that the lack of a red epaulet is indicative of some other genetic inadequacy that would eventually be detrimental to the red-wing black bird's ability to compete for food and territory.
However, on the other, you do not seem to be up with current genetic thinking. Wikipedia says: "There is evidence that as much (sic) as 16 different genes could be responsible for eye color in humans[.]" And, "Eye color is an inherited trait influenced by more than one gene." Eye color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It does remain that the OCA2 gene is the most important gene in the determination of eye color but there are several other genes which may or may not play a role in that determination depending on many other factors.
Dayton
There are subtleties in eye colour which may well require 16 genes. However, inheritance of blue versus brown eyes, ignoring subtle variations, is via a pair of alleles, by simple Mendelian inheritance.
I may be a couple years late to reply to all these replies.... LOL! Man.
xl. Hop in even at this late date. A lot has been learned in 5 years.
Over the past years after this post, I have learned plenty. You definitely cannot argue logically with religious people, they are stubborn and will not change their thinking patterns and that is fine until it becomes radical.
It makes me wonder if their heads are wired up differently, so much so that I have been trying to define the properties of faith.You definitely cannot argue logically with religious people, they are stubborn and will not change their thinking patterns and that is fine until it becomes radical.
While it's true that faith can soften and even disappear, it seems more likely that it strengthens in adversity. Any challenge to faith, whatever it is, makes the person believe even more in the supernatural.
There is cognitive dissonance, but I'd appreciate any additional help with this.
Yes, they are wired VERY differently. You are also correct with saying they strengthen their faith in the supernatural when there is a challenge to it. Which I find odd. When I'm challenged on anything, I re-evaluate my stance and try to logically understand their point of view. But there is no logic in religion, and I'm not even saying that to be rude. I was born, raised and baptized as a 7th Day Adventist, now atheist. I know illogical ideologies and logical ones when I see them.It makes me wonder if their heads are wired up differently, so much so that I have been trying to define the properties of faith.You definitely cannot argue logically with religious people, they are stubborn and will not change their thinking patterns and that is fine until it becomes radical.
While it's true that faith can soften and even disappear, it seems more likely that it strengthens in adversity. Any challenge to faith, whatever it is, makes the person believe even more in the supernatural.
There is cognitive dissonance, but I'd appreciate any additional help with this.
What's funny when talking to religious people they always say to me, "You just need to read the bible and then you'll understand. Atheists don't know anything about religion because if they did, they wouldn't be atheists". It's so funny to me to hear that as I am an ex Christian. And what's even FUNNIER is that it's because I READ the bible front to back and that is what aided in me becoming an atheist. So, really my question to them is have THEY read their own bible? Or are they just pretending to have read their book because they know if they actually do, they'll see how illogical, barbaric and out of date it is?
Ox: Not sure if you are seeking "additional help" from someone of faith or someone else who enjoys bashing people of faith. For those of faith, there is more to it than what some people like to call "blind, baseless" faith. Faith also involves belief and trust. When you see a chair, you believe and trust it will hold you if you sit in it, unless you have some reason to believe that it won't. So based on your faith in what you believe and trust, you will decide whether to sit down on the chair. The reasons people may believe and trust in Jesus and His claims may be almost as numerous as the people who believe. But we all believe something whether it is considered natural or supernatural. And we all think we are correct in our beliefs -- otherwise we would change our beliefs. In our efforts to confirm whatever it is we believe, we seek out likeminded people with similar beliefs and jointly attempt to shore up our own beliefs while telling those of other beliefs that they are incorrect.
I'm not sure what you mean by "cognitive dissonance," But I would interpret that to mean someone who does not actually understand what he thinks he believes.
For example, there are some regular posters on forums such as this who say they believe and rely only on those things which can be proved by natural processes such as the scientific method while actually believing and relying on many things which have never been and cannot ever be proved by the scientific formula. For example, we all rely on mathematics. Yet there is no scientific method to prove math; you can only use math to prove math. You can show examples of correct math or incorrect math. Math, in essence, supersedes science in that you can use it to prove things in science, but you cannot use science to prove math. Still, we all rely on mathematical axioms for which there is no proof other than the axiom itself.
Now then, should you counter that they cannot be proved incorrect, I can only point out that the non-religious community cannot prove the religious community wrong. Not being able to prove something wrong is not proof that it is right whether you are talking axioms or deities. There are numerous sites on the internet which address the concept of things we rely on that cannot be proved by science.
So if your concept of faith somehow boils down to someone believing and relying on something that cannot be proved, it would not seem to me that this would be a legitimate objection. But back to the original OP -- We all believe what we believe because that is what makes the most sense to us. That is what we will believe until someone comes along to dissuade us of that belief.
Faith != "simple/ mere" belief.
And you've managed to muddle up quite a few other other things, e.g. those who claim "they believe and rely only on those things which can be proved by natural processes such as the scientific method" very probably do so with regard to things which are testable by the scientific method.
Just so we're clear, I'm not bashing anyone's faith. Maybe when I first posted this 5yrs ago it could be seen as bashing, I'm unsure. But currently this is just a discussion which picked back up after I curious to see what I posted 5yrs ago. I think I've changed alot on my view points, a lot less emotion and more facts. I apologize if it is coming across as bashing still.
As an ex believer in God and religion, I do know more than your typical atheist when it comes to the subject. In my years as a believer, I never saw proof of God's existence. I was always just told he existed and that was that. Looking back at those years OBJECTIVELY, I absolutely cannot see any proof in which God existed to me. Not a single prayer of mine was answered and still is not answered, not that I expect anything as I am now an atheist and don't believe in prayer. Not a single miracle happened in my life to show there was a God and by looking at my surroundings I did not and do not assume it is proof of God.
The 'Big Bang' is much like the theory of a God, a mystery and unknown. It IS in fact a THEORY while God is mere fairytale. Why isn't the big bang a fairytale to me? It has more scientific backing than any God does. Now, the big bang set aside, nothing else "just happened". The process of evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest all played part in the billions of years that led up to this exact moment. I look around and see a once beautiful world with some awesome people but do not think it was hand crafted by a supernatural being. I always am baffled that nature evolved the way that it did to bring us to this point, it's a grand and wonderful thought. Believing in a God is the easy way out of the hard questions this world provides you. The religious can't understand the world around them so them substitute its facts for fiction because the facts are just too hard.
In my opinion I think that a world without God is a wonderful world. Can you imagine the peace if all religion was gone? No more fighting over which God is the most powerful one. No more bombings, no more ISIS, no more cults raping children in the name of a God. "Being an atheist and not believing in God takes a lot of faith", not believing in God or the lack of belief that this world was created by a god does not take any faith at all. The science is there, I see facts, faith is not required. Faith keeps you ignorant to the truth. So, now my question to is, other than earth's surroundings and the bible... what proof is there of God?
There is no "proof" of "god's" existence - otherwise it wouldn't be a matter of faith.
Prayer has been tested scientifically: and been shown to not do anything.Not a single prayer of mine was answered and still is not answered, not that I expect anything as I am now an atheist and don't believe in prayer.
It's essentially an end of/ to all questions.Believing in a God is the easy way out of the hard questions this world provides you.
And that is why I cannot have a logical discussion with any religious person. There is no argument for them, only their faith. You cannot argue with faith. I'm fine with people having religion up until the point it infringes on basic human rights, which is happening right now. Ergo, religion needs to get gone lol. Or at least it needs to stay in their homes and churches, their business should not be a part of a religion and neither should the government.
December 5th, 2017, 06:14 PM
Wow! So much to day while feeling some time and space limitations.
XL: I was not pointing directly at you as a faith basher, merely pointing out that there are people on these forums whose sold objective in responding to people of faith is to bash faith. Seldom do I resort to faith-based arguments in these discussions but readily admit that my reliance on Jesus Christ for salvation does affect my world view.
You say:
With the exception of the part about now being an atheist, I would say that pretty much sums up my experience also. But still I believe. My experience has never been about having some expectation that God is there to fulfill my desires in direct response to my request. Rather I have always thought prayer was for the purpose of me aligning my desires to fit His. I realize I am not the boss in this relationship. I just trust that He knows best.
Not a single prayer of mine was answered and still is not answered, not that I expect anything as I am now an atheist and don't believe in prayer. Not a single miracle happened in my life to show there was [is] a God.
And then eL said:
Big Bang' is much like the theory of a God, a mystery and unknown. It IS in fact a THEORY while God is mere fairytale.
Well, Big Bang is not exactly a theory. It is a concept of cosmogony, the study of the beginning, which is a separate subject of study from cosmology which is the study of what occurred after the big bang. The Big Bang pretty much says the same thing that Genesis 1 says: "Nothingness was followed by everythingness" or "Nothing then everything." The main difference between "Big Bang" and Genesis 1 is causation.
Wikipedia article on cosmogony says in part:
A couple of things here. There is sometimes a failure to separate theory from hypothesis. An hypothesis is an attempt to offer a plausible explanation for an unresolved issue which is then tested. When enough testing has occurred to reasonably believe the hypothesis can be reasonably relied upon to provide the basis of prediction, it becomes a theory.“The most commonly held view is that the universe was once a gravitational singularity, which expanded extremely rapidly from its hot and dense state. However, while this expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, the origins of the singularity remain as one of the unsolved problems in physics.
“Cosmogonists have only tentative theories for the early stages of the universe and its beginning. As of 2011 no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed shortly after the Big Bang. Furthermore, since astronomical observations imply a singularity at the origin of the universe, experiments at any given high energy level will always be dwarfed by the infinite energy level predicted by Big Bang Theory. Therefore, significant technological and conceptual advances would be needed to propose a scientific test for cosmogonical theories. [My emphasis]
“Proposed theoretical scenarios differ radically, and include string theory and M-theory, the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, the Big Bang, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these models are mutually compatible, whereas others are not.”
It is difficult to argue against hypotheses and I will leave that to the proponents of the different ones. What I do want to note is the highlighted sentence. What this sentence says is that none of these hypotheses is testable via any know natural process which puts them beyond the realm of the natural -- supernatural, so to speak. So whether you are talking big bang or intellectual beginning, they are both supernatural -- beyond the ability of nature to explain.
So, if you now suggest, Well, yah but we will someday have that ability," I can only suggest back that you express no less of a faith-belief statement that one who believes God did it. All suggested hypotheses of cosmogony, whether founded in science or religion, are supernatural.
I think what I have said here also indirectly addresses d.. . . .r's posts.
I really like what you had to say, very well put. And for someone with faith, I'm actually impressed that I'm having a reasonable conversation with you. May I ask, why you have faith? I just don't come across anyone who is reasonable when faith is involved, so I'm curious.
I'm much too tired today to break down your post into tiny bits and discuss each point. But this one struck me especially. While in general people think they are correct in their beliefs, you will find that more non-religious people are willing to admit that they may be wrong, while the religious rarely ever leave room for that possibility. I'm a Catholic turned atheist, and I will gladly admit that I could be wrong and that there could be a god or gods. I do not know that I am right in there being no god(s), yet every religious person I know personally will tell you that they absolutely fucking know that they are right and that their religion is the correct one. So stop trying to paint believers and nonbelievers with the same brush (at least that's what your post sounds like).
What bothers me the most is when a "Christian" tells you that you're going to hell, says they will pray for harm to come to you, or repeatedly exclaims that you need Jesus. lol. They have no real argument against me or other atheists, so they just repeat those statements.
Answering both xl and Fal360:
I do not know that I have a reasonable explanation as to why I have faith. Originally, it was the result of an experience in which there was a period in time when I did not believe and in a small fragment of time, I did believe. As time went on and I studied the Bible and extra-Biblical writings and compared them to things I had accepted when I did not believe, I decided that the Bible made more sense than the stuff I had previously believed. I hesitate on a science forum to delve deeply into religion, per se, but I will note that while I have a doctorate degree, I have never found anything more intellectually stimulating or rewarding that studying Bible concepts and science concepts to see where they intersect and support each other. I believe that God told us our story in two different ways -- one in the Bible and one in nature -- and the two stories have to agree because God is not a God of confusion and He cannot lie. Where the Bible and science seem to diverge, it is the divergence that is incorrect -- not the Bible and not science. We have either misunderstood the Bible or we have misunderstood science or we have misunderstood both or perhaps we have only partially understood each. One of our jobs on Earth is to bring these two stories into a state of congruity. This will be a problem for both the religious and the non-religious.
I do not KNOW that God exists anymore than non-believers can KNOW God does not exist. I do not KNOW that there is something after physical life. But if the Bible is correct, there is an existence after physical life which is separated by existence in the presence of God or existence in a presence without God. So, maybe we all get our wish when we die. Although I'm not sure, if that is the case, that we will all be please with our choice.
I don't know how painting believers and non-believers with the same brush is wrong when we are talking human behaviors. Falconer decided he did not believe what he believed any more and change his mind. I also decided I did not believe what I believed any more and changed my mind. We merely passed each other heading in different directions. We all believe what we believe until something comes along to alter our belief.
The bible made more sense to you? Hm. That's interesting, the bible makes no sense to me. The Old Testament is pretty evil in my opinion of morality, the New Testament is more tame but still not convincing. When I was a Christian, I never read the bible. I was only a child back then and obeyed what I was told instead of reading the bible. Once I read the bible, I fully understood that religion was asinine. I now study the bible quite frequently, I have a binder FULL of notes and verses. I know more than I ever did when I was religious, I know more than my VERY religious family and I know more than my family's own preacher. Not boasting, just stating that I am an atheist that knows things... Lol. Know that line turned meme from Game of Thrones, "I drink and I know things"? Well, I study the bible and know things. Sorry, that was lame.
Anyways, I see that we both read the bible but we both have different interpretations of the scripture. You feel it makes more sense, I feel it's arcaic and confusing. There are so many contradictions, don't get me started lol. I will admit that unfortunately a lot of atheist have no clue what they're talking about, they don't even know why they do not believe. They just jumped on the band wagon and spew hate. I like to at least know what I despise. I treat the bible like a history book in regards to how people lived back then but also treat it like a fairytale book in regards to the supernatural events that occur within. However, on the crazy conspiracy scale, I have many theories about things from the bible and aliens.... But that is another topic. lol
There is a Christian ex-engineer, ex=pilot now preacher who has a number of talks about aliens, where they come from (not our dimension) and who they are in which discussions he covers a lot of science and Bible references. He is vastly long winded as he covers a lot of stuff from basic science to Newtonian physics to relativity to quantum mechanics. But when I have had time to wade through it, I have always found his stuff extremely interesting and educational and in that realm of aligning science and the Bible which troubles both Christians and non-Christians. I think there is a series of five lectures on alien encounters.
OOOppps, his name is Chuck Missler and here is a site with a ton of his lectures: https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...7f&action=view
States quite clearly that
Perhaps you're not aware that the Big Bang (yes it is a theory) is about what happened AFTER the "start" of the universe.So whether you are talking big bang or intellectual beginning, they are both supernatural -- beyond the ability of nature to explain.
Your linked Wiki article says that BBT is a cosmological (not cosmogenic) theory and the relevant Wiki page on BBT says that it applies "from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution".
IOW you're essentially "dismissing the theory of evolution for not addressing biogenesis" here.
BTW I'm not at all sure how you justify using the term "intellectual beginning".
Apart from the scientific hypotheses of cosmogony.All suggested hypotheses of cosmogony, whether founded in science or religion, are supernatural.
Not. Even. Close.I think what I have said here also indirectly addresses d.. . . .r's posts.
I won't point out that this (especially the elided "We have either misunderstood the Bible or we have misunderstood science..." part) is a stunning example of cognitive dissonance, but I will mention that it's not a problem for the non-religious since we have neither the desire nor the requirement to reconcile the Bible (or any other "holy book") with science. For most it's fairly clear-cut: science is "right" and the Bible isn't worth the paper it's written on.Where the Bible and science seem to diverge, it is the divergence that is incorrect ... This will be a problem for both the religious and the non-religious.
Thank you so much for sharing that with me! I am absolutely interested in things such as that. The only time I can say the bible makes sense is when we apply the alien theory to it. But that is usually scoffed at as wayyyy out there and just as supernatural as basic religion.
[/QUOTE]I won't point out that this (especially the elided "We have either misunderstood the Bible or we have misunderstood science..." part) is a stunning example of cognitive dissonance, but I will mention that it's not a problem for the non-religious since we have neither the desire nor the requirement to reconcile the Bible (or any other "holy book") with science. For most it's fairly clear-cut: science is "right" and the Bible isn't worth the paper it's written on.Where the Bible and science seem to diverge, it is the divergence that is incorrect ... This will be a problem for both the religious and the non-religious.
I do like to believe science is right, there is clear evidence time after time that science is always right. May have the wrong results on some things but over time they do redo studies and experiments and eventually do get the correct results/evidence. The bible on the other hand (to religious) ALWAYS right and set in stone. Nothing can change from the bible with time. They like to claim that times have changed so we need to obey the bible the best we can with the current century, yet they do not. So much hate towards a wide variety of people by the religious groups. They are stuck in the time of their Lord and refuse to update. How can their God be of love when he condems so many different people?
Sorry for my incorrect cropping of your quote lol.
xL said:And this is why it has been so successful in proving itself wrong over and over again.
For most it's fairly clear-cut: science is "right"
And also, apparently, manages to ignore/ dismiss science if he does in fact claim "they come from (not our dimension)".
Oh good.
I assume you have a (suitably long) list of examples?
Or are you merely selecting a small sample and claiming it as representative of the whole?
An acute observation.
This is in fact one of the reasons for the success of science. When observations are shown to be inconsistent with a theory, the theory is changed to fit the observations. Science thereby learns from the physical evidence and its models get better and better.
Thank you exchemist for understanding what I was getting at.
Dywyddyr:
I don't mind that Big Bang is called a theory in spite if the inability to actually test it. It has been accepted as a theory in the vernacular of modern speak which now seems to accept almost any idea tossed out on the table to be a theory. Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 pretty much say the same thing -- nothing, then everything even though neither side like to admit the congruity.
The melding of cosmogony and cosmology, however, is a different matter. The relationship of cosmogony to cosmology could be likened to the relationship of conception to gestation in bisexual life forms. Conception can take place in different ways -- normal copulation, artificial insemination, in vitro, to name a few. Conception (or fertilization) takes place at a specific moment in time and is virtually instantaneous once the gamete has penetrated the ovular shell and the two half cells join to form a complete cell and a new living thing. Gestation follows conception, and while it cannot take place without conception, it is a vastly different process.
Big Bang is about that instantaneous conception of the Universe, not the development of the Universe and generally describes the idea that the Universe was conceived at a specific moment in time that was instantaneous. It does not, within itself, suggest the method by which the Universe was conceived but provides an umbrella which covers a number of suggested methods of conception -- and that was the main point of the quote from Wikipedia. Cosmology, like gestation, is the study of what happened after that instantaneous point of beginning.
As to the concept of dimensions, I am surprised that this seems to be a foreign subject to someone so learned and astute as you. While we consider ourselves part of a three dimensional world, we have determined that length, width and depth do not completely define our realty. We also live in fourth dimension -- time. Science has been exploring the concept of other dimensions which may help us more completely understand our reality. Dark energy and matter are possibly other dimensional, having an impact in our dimension that we cannot quite define or explain but that we can observe the presence. If we, as three-dimensional figures, sent a ball into a two-dimensional world, it would appear only as a circle in the fabric of two dimensions. And if there were sentient beings in that world, they would not understand volume of the ball even if they weighed it and found that it was heavier than it should be. And if one of those beings suggested that it was from a third dimension, he would probably be labelled a crackpot by his unbending peers.
People discussing this topic have suggested there are 10 dimensions in our universe of which only four are recognizable. This is not to be confused with Hugh Everett III's concept of parallel universes. I mention this because Everett was originally ridiculed out of the world of quantum physics only to be later recognized as having introduced an viable concept. In much the same way, Einstein was subjected to considerable ridicule by his contemporaries but persevered until the scientific community recognize the potential of his hypothesis and, as they say, the rest is history. Dimensional investigation is not considered crackpot by the people in the field.
The worst enemy of science is science itself when people think we already know everything there is to know. Clinging to old science does not advance science. Using old science to prove new science does. I do not understand much about this topic other than that it is becoming a popular concept for discussion, especially in quantum circles.
It's called a theopry because it fits the data.
Still wrong. One more time - the BB is about what happened AFTER the start.Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 pretty much say the same thing -- nothing, then everything even though neither side like to admit the congruity.
How many more times do you need to be told - it is NOT about the conception of the universe.Big Bang is about that instantaneous conception of the Universe
Uh huh. And BB is a cosmological theory, not a cosmogenic one.and that was the main point of the quote from Wikipedia. Cosmology, like gestation, is the study of what happened after that instantaneous point of beginning.
Ah, assumptions...As to the concept of dimensions, I am surprised that this seems to be a foreign subject to someone so learned and astute as you.
You see, this is the nonsense part. You can't "send a 3D object into a 2D world".If we, as three-dimensional figures, sent a ball into a two-dimensional world, it would appear only as a circle in the fabric of two dimensions.
By dint of a 3d existence the ball MUST already exist "in" that 2D world and simply extend "beyond it".
Thus the claim of UFO fans that UFOs somehow "arrive" out of a "higher dimension" is ridiculous.
And those that do subscribe to that also state - quite categorically - that the "extra" dimensions are wrapped up so small as to be inaccessible.People discussing this topic have suggested there are 10 dimensions in our universe of which only four are recognizable.
Not really.In much the same way, Einstein was subjected to considerable ridicule by his contemporaries
Quite, nor by me. But the misapplication (i.e. as promulgated by UFO believers) is considered crackpot.Dimensional investigation is not considered crackpot by the people in the field.
Or, possibly, the people who don't listen to what science (or even Wikipedia) actually says and persist in misapplying it?The worst enemy of science is science itself when people think we already know everything there is to know.
This is abundantly evident.I do not understand much about this topic
Exactly - if you only get your "information" from pop-sci sources then you end up with a badly-distorted view of what the actuality is.other than that it is becoming a popular concept for discussion, especially in quantum circles.
As for the Big Bang theory, it wasn't big and it didn't go bang. It is the best explanation we have for the beginning of the universe, which itself is not a very good word to explain an expanding mass of mostly space with holes and clumps of matter.
Nothing suggests that the Bible got it right with any statement on creation. In fact there are two conflicting creation myths in Genesis. There is next to nothing in the Bible which was not already a myth from earlier civilisations. In fact the Bible is nothing but a redacted mess which had been given a Jewish then a Christian interpretation. Of all the interpretations allowed for by the Bible there have resulted thousands of different churches each claiming to be the one true church. Be careful to pick the right one, because if you don't you will be burning in Hell with the atheists. God would never allow segregation in Heaven.
I don't think it tries to explain the conditions occurring at the very beginning. It just goes back a long way* but what "happened" before that is not known.
*T+10^-43 seconds. That seems like a short period of time ,but to my "mind" ** it could be an eternity as well as it could be "hardly anything" at all.
** ie ,what do I know?
What happened before the BB was a singularity. Before that it was just 'God', all alone in the void.
Bored one day He created our universe. He must have been a good physicist and geneticist.
So why the confusion? In the Bible I am told to Love my neighbour (Mark), then I'm told to heap burning coals on his head (Romans).
God loves me, but if I don't love back I'll be burning in Hell. God is everywhere, but nowhere. He is both the first and the last. He loved the world so much He drowned every man, woman and child, apart from one family, in a great flood.
While today..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42279427
What happened before the BBwas a singularity.remains unknown</yawn>
Tongue-in-cheek remark, singularly misunderstood.What happened before the BBwas a singularity.remains unknown</yawn>
So what do we know about anything? The universe could be upside down for all I care.
But, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
[QUOTE=ox;610696]From your link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity
"The initial singularity was a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[2] The initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe"
Who thinks this ?(if you care)
It has been tested. And passed all the tests. That is why it is a theory.
I know there are ignorant people who like to claim that if you can't make one in a lab then it isn't science.
I assume, as you are very religious, you are not dishonest like that and are keen to do as your god wishes and learn about the world. So, there you go, you have learnt something new: the Big Bang is a scientific theory and ...
Big Bang and Genesis 1:1 pretty much say the same thing -- nothing, then everything even though neither side like to admit the congruity.... the big bang model doesn't say that but it doesn't rule it out, either.Big Bang is about that instantaneous conception of the Universe, not the development of the Universe and generally describes the idea that the Universe was conceived at a specific moment in time that was instantaneous.
So, you have learnt two things. Yay!
Love this post. lol
Do you have a better explanation? If so, let's hear it.
Just think, 13.8 billion years ago (or whatever) we were all part of the infinite density. Could be one explanation why we still feel crushed in a large crowd.
Here's a good one from a creationist website.Doesn't that make you just a bit suspicious of the numbers and events represented there? In terms of longevity we can all claim to be as old as the Big Bang and one with universe. Biblical characters were nothing. Our atoms get recycled after death so our constituent parts still go on existing.One of the favorite characters in the Old Testament is Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27), longer than anyone else recorded. His father was Enoch, of whom it is said he "walked with God" (5:24) but who was taken to heaven without dying at 365 years. Methuselah's son Lamech died a few years before the Flood at 777 years (5:31) after bearing Noah.
The Chinese were especially gifted with longevity. Guan Chen Czi lived for 1,400 years, others over 14,000 years before their ascensions.
Again it proves the Bible is nothing. I'm told it's the power of Tai Chi.
No.And if I did it wouldn't rely on conditions described by infinite quantities which is what a "singularity" is ,so far as I know.Do you have a better explanation? If so, let's hear it.
You didn't answer my question,did you?
For someone who seems violently anti religion, you do seem to believe some monumentally stupid shit.
For someone who is a declared antitheist, I'm surprised you don't understand scepticism.
My only religion is reason. Some guy recommended this Chinese fellow to me recently, so I decided to investigate further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen
Do I believe that? Non!
I am not an antitheist. I could start whinging about how offensive it is for someone to claim that but I am not that immature.
A few weeks ago I was unceremoniously banned from this forum by Dywyddyr over our disagreement over the Big Bang, its implications and meanings before I could actually post my reply which follows:
I cannot say that your are dead wrong in your understanding of Big Bang theory or even your acceptance of it as a theory rather than an hypothesis. But I also think Big Bang is one of the greatest examples of irony of modern times.
It seems to me that science is beginning to emulate that aspect of religion in which if you have some axe to grind, you can find someone someplace that will support it and agree with it and somebody else who will vehemently disagree.
An example of what I was saying (from space.com):
( https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html )The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.
And an example of what you are saying (from Wikipedia):[footnote references removed]The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
Also related to the conversation is the difference between cosmogony and cosmology:
. ( https://wikidiff.com/cosmology/cosmogony )Cosmogony is a related term of cosmology. Cosmology is a synonym of cosmogony.
As nouns the difference between cosmology and cosmogony is that cosmology is the study of the physical universe, its structure, dynamics, origin and evolution, and fate while cosmogony is the study of the origin, and sometimes the development, of the universe or the solar system, in astrophysics, religion, and other fields
Now then, it is my understanding that it is your position that Big Bang includes the entirety of the field of cosmology – that the two are, in essence, synonymous. If that is not your position, it would be helpful to me for you to explain your understanding of the difference between Big Bang and cosmology.
If my understanding of your position is correct, it causes me to wonder why, in a very exacting world of science, we should have two terms that mean exactly the same thing when it only leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
But what did the coiner of the pharase Big Bang, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, really think?
(https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Fred...ig-bang-theory )Fred Hoyle found it a preposterous idea, that the universe can come out of nothing. His was the steady state theory, so he had his belief and emotions invested in that. A big bang indicates creation out of vacuum, so he disliked the idea as he felt that it was similar to religious theists arguing about the creation of the world from nothing, by a supreme creator.
Hoyle intended the term to be a pejorative reflection on the everything-out-of-nothing concept of the beginning of the Universe because it so closely resembled the Biblical concept of the beginning of the Universe. So, Hoyle’s original use of the term seemed to refer directly to the beginning.
Sadly for Hoyle, his tongue-in-cheek pejorative has become the widely accepted term standing for the very thing he was ridiculing. Irony at its highest.
This exemplifies one of the problems we have today in communicating ideas. Terms which have one meaning to some have a different meaning to others. Terms which at one time meant one thing, now mean something else.
I cannot help but be reminded of the picture of two people arguing religion and each of them saying to the other, “My religion is better than your’s because my religion includes and supersedes your religion.” I think what you are saying here is that your cosmogony is better than my cosmogony because it includes and supersedes my cosmogony.
All I can say is that I think my understanding of Big Bang more closely conforms to the understanding of the guy who coined the term.
Subequently Strange said:
Uh, was this a secret test that has remained unpublished? Has this test been reported in some scientific publication? What instruments and calculations were used to conduct this test? How did it pass the test? What were the criteria of this test?It has been tested. And passed all the tests. That is why it is a theory.
Big Bang is a theory only because it is called a theory and because people accept it as the most plausible of several hypothetical responses to the question of how did the universe begin. You could call the Big Bang a giraffe but that would not make it a giraffe. I should think, in a science forum, people would understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. Yet, it seems anymore, that anyone can throw out the term theory and think it gives more credibility to something that is nothing more than an hypothesis. I don't know how many times I have read here and in other discussions, "I have this theory. . . " No you don't. You have an untested hypothesis Big Bang is an untestable hypothesis because it cannot be tested with any mechanisms or processes which we currently have at our disposal.
It was quite ceremonious in that anyone who knows how science worked joined in rejoicing that a numbskull was gone for a while... Arguing for God on a science forum is a waste of time... The big bang theory has evidence supporting it, your bullshit doesn't. Give it up, those of us who don't ignore you laugh at you...
To answer your questions serially:
No; they are, of course, published (all of them, not just one.)
Yes, one such test was reported in the Astrophysical Journal back in 1994.
They used the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite.
The test confirmed that 99.97% of the radiant energy in the universe was released in a one-year period right after the Big Bang.
Correct. No other hypothesis has withstood as many tests as the Big Bang theory has.Big Bang is a theory only because it is called a theory and because people accept it as the most plausible of several hypothetical responses to the question of how did the universe begin.
It was untested when it was first proposed. It has since passed several tests as to its validity.You have an untested hypothesis Big Bang is an untestable hypothesis because it cannot be tested with any mechanisms or processes which we currently have at our disposal.
PhDemon said:
Hmmm. Can you quote me arguing for God? Other than in response to a question?Arguing for God on a science forum is a waste of time..
billivon said:
Well, to the extent that there have been many attempts to explain The Big Bang using scientific terms which may or may not actually apply. The Big Problem for the Big Bang is that it has been subject to so much postmodernism that the term has actually lost any concrete meaning. It means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean without regard to the history and original studies which promulgated the term.[There have been tests.]
What are you talking about?. Perhaps stop reading pop science, scifi and anti-science sites and actually get to the science. Its basic concept has hardly changed for 90 years and mathematical and observational underpinnings for more than half that.
Linx Fox:
May I adjure you to read the article I linked to in post No. 267 and copy here:(https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Fred...ig-bang-theory)
If gives a pretty good perspective of the thinking in the 1920s and 1930swhen some favored the idea of a static Universe and this was a hot topic that inspired Fred Hoyle to coin the phrase. It seems clear to me that it was not the entirety of cosmology that led to the coining of the phrase Big Bang, but the application of a idea that everything started from nothing. As I think I said above someplace, it does not particularly concern me, anymore, that some in science want to glom on to a popular term and try to expand it beyond its original meaning. And as I also said above, if Big Bang is just a more colorful term for cosmology, there is not much need for it in the English language or conversation. That is why I lean toward Big Bang having a more specialized meaning such as a reference to the beginning of the Universe rather than the entire study of cosmology.
You feel that is an acceptable and viable source WHY?
He feels that way because it expresses a view that's nearly 100 years out of date from someone who turned out to be largely wrong. But it does agree with his own take on things.
Well that is typical. When unable to respond to the information, Paleoichneum challenges the source. And Dywyddyr avoids the issue of why the term Big Bang was coined by pointing out that science has adopted and championed a term coined by a scientist who was basically wrong. My bet remains that if you walked down the street and asked random people what the Big Bang is about, a large majority percentage of them would say it is about the beginning of the Universe. It does appear. however, that in some circles Big Bang has come to stand for the entire panoply of cosmology.
You yourself have posted that Hoyle didn't accept the idea and that he intended it as a (tongue-in-cheek) pejorative term. Did your sources also not point out that he was in a very small minority in his view?
And if you ask a lot of people you'll also get told that inoculation is bad, GMO foods are really and that aliens abduct people.My bet remains that if you walked down the street and asked random people what the Big Bang is about, a large majority percentage of them would say it is about the beginning of the Universe.
Science, however, doesn't operate on what "a large majority" of "random people in the street" believe.
But not in science. The BB is about what happened (just) after the start.It does appear. however, that in some circles Big Bang has come to stand for the entire panoply of cosmology.
Every single post you make:
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
Welcome to science, when poor sourcing is used, its pointed out.
You have a link to a random discussion board and acted as if it was a credible authority, rather then invited opinion.
You asked for an example of a test that was run to see if the Big Bang was a valid theory. (You didn't believe any existed as your "secret unpublished" comments implied.) I supplied one, along with a description of the equipment used and the journal it was published in.
Now you have backpedaled and are now saying "well, OK, there have been some of those, they may not apply." However, since they were specifically to test claims that the Big Bang theory makes, they do indeed apply. I am 100% certain that if this test had returned results that were incompatible with the Big Bang theory you would be posting them over and over and describing how applicable they were.
Nope. It has a very specific meaning - it describes the very early history of the universe, where it expanded from a small, very hot, very dense state to the universe we see today.The Big Problem for the Big Bang is that it has been subject to so much postmodernism that the term has actually lost any concrete meaning.
This sounds like the classic argument from ignorance - "I'm not sure what the Big Bang means, so therefore it means whatever people want it to mean, and is therefore invalid."It means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean without regard to the history and original studies which promulgated the term.
Huh? How a non-scientific argument from incredulity from one scientist in a different field support your claim about postmodernism and changing definitions ( a crap word in its own right--but one more correctly associated with conservative anti-science types than as its commonly applied). Hoyle's early support for Steady State is thoroughly debunked--regardless of how obstinate and irrational Hoyle continued to cling to the idea.
Religion may be the more obvious place to study belief, but it seems there are easier places to study the same phenomena, all just as hard to reason with.
Try reasoning with Pedigree dog breeders, that a pedigree is a useful tool in dog breeding, but has no inherent value to breeding dogs, if only the breed standard is recognized.
And many of those same people claim to want science based solutions.
What exactly are you trying to say?
That some people seem to think belief in common with an identity, (or environment) gives them superior response-ability, and to challenge those beliefs on a personal level would be to challenge their very identity. That their abilities to respond (more) effectively and with (greater) integrity 'belong to' the environment they identify with.
That some people believe or are taught, their value lies in how they identify themselves, rather than in their own responses to the limitations of the environment we all have in common.
That personal ability to respond is fixed, not responsive, and is 'owned' by the environment they choose to identify with. There are lines to be drawn, or they risk their identity.
What ever that subjective identity might be.
Scientists don't seem to immune either.
Identity defines its 'self' by what it excludes. By its boundaries. In accepting an external identity as personally defining, you are bound to uphold those divisions.
Last edited by naitche; February 2nd, 2018 at 06:06 PM.
Naitche: I doubt the scientificos here will agree with you because they will inherently recognize that the boundaries of the naturalistic identity are far more confining than those whose identity also includes a supernatural identity The first identity seeks to exclude the other while the other seeks to include the first.
Yes. Imagining pink unicorns, orbiting teapots and sky gods to explain everything might seem less limiting-- in reality, it's simply less rational.
Well, if you are aware of them, perhaps you are among those who is imagining them. I never think of those things unless someone else mentions them. It is probably far better for your mental health for you to remain in your confining identity box.
How does pretending that God exists help anything in the natural sciences?
Why does pretending God does not exist help people feel responsible for any of their own malevolent actions?
Probably for the same reason that people who pretend God exists claim that the malevolent action was done at God's behest, or that God will forgive them so it's OK.
Irrelevant to the Question, as there is no pretend involved in that. (PS malevolent implies that good/bad is defined universally)
Now answer:
How does pretending that God exists help anything in the natural sciences?
Then you have misinterpreted my meaning.
I am referring to the 'body' of the human environment. Is god human? If so, I am sure he would be accepted as part of the scientific community, provided he can meet the requirements of submission, scrutiny,peer review etc. that are are the conditions of the scientific environment.
Science does not exclude people of religion. So long as they are able to respond to the conditions of science. Actually, he might not even have to be human, as long as he can respond to those conditions.
Each identity/environment has its limitations without question. The responses brought to that environment help to over come them. Diversity of membership ensures the widest range of response is available. But we are still talking about beings recognisable as valid parts of the human environment. I think science for the most part is very inclusive on that score.
Individual scientists, being a diverse lot, might be less accepting of a persons contributions based on their personal perspective. In general science could likely support the work of any being who meets its criteria and conditions. Other human conditions are rarely a barrier to meeting scientific conditions.
Many Religions on the other hand, do not seek to include any human identity or condition as you state. But rather remake those conditions in their own image, before they can achieve recognition of contribution to that state.
Last edited by naitche; February 4th, 2018 at 09:32 PM.
So when you do that (whatever it was) and don't attribute it to God, it is then OK?Probably for the same reason that people who pretend God exists claim that the malevolent action was done at God's behest, or that God will forgive them so it's OK.
Don't be obtuse, if it breaks the law, then it shall be dealt with as such. "God"/"no god" has nothing to do with itSo when you do that (whatever it was) and don't attribute it to God, it is then OK?Probably for the same reason that people who pretend God exists claim that the malevolent action was done at God's behest, or that God will forgive them so it's OK.
We are still waiting:
Now answer:
How does pretending that God exists help anything in the natural sciences?
Nope. Non-religious types tend to have an internal morality, not imposed by a church or holy book or anything. They judge whether something is OK by that morality.
Non religious people have just as much responsibility as religious.So when you do that (whatever it was) and don't attribute it to God, it is then OK?Probably for the same reason that people who pretend God exists claim that the malevolent action was done at God's behest, or that God will forgive them so it's OK.
They are responsible to Humanity, not to God or church.
Which is my point re; identity- If you accept an identity/condition as what definines your self, that is what you are responsible to . usually, that will only affect a small proportion of that subjective identity, harmless over all.
Worst case is if that is a requirement of that adopted identity.To accept that condition as defining... Upholding the beliefs that identity is founded on, rather than allowing a continuing evolution. It brings entropy. A turning inward. It does not recognise its environment.
If religion is to serve Humanity, It must recognise all conditions of humanity equally. Or there is no responsibility to man, just to a definition of Godliness. Which must then be defined. Against Humanity. Godlineness can only be achieved in the end, by rejecting what is human. Discrediting what is human, devaluing it.
Just like if the kennel clubs are to serve Dogs, they must recognise all dogs equally. Or there is no responsibility to dogs, just to a standard. Which is nothing more than an environmental 'condition'. A limitation. The K.C member becomes responsible for upholding the limitations of their own environment. Now their identity. By discrediting breeding practices and devaluing them in their attempts to define the Pedigree standards . Possibilities and potential dwindles in the quest for predictability and definition. 'Fixed' response.
A religion, (or any other 'organisation') that suggests it defines its members apart, can't serve another purpose. Only its 'self' image. Its beliefs about its 'self'. Its purpose is to its 'self'. Given time, it looses any other.
The only way it can serve all humanity is to impose its own conditions on all humanity. But then its not serving humanity, humanity is serving it. Serving limitations, instead of responding to them.
For a condition to be static and predictable, all others must be eliminated or will intrude in a shared environment.
Last edited by naitche; February 5th, 2018 at 04:57 AM.
Yes but the selves of others are reflections of the self which by definition means that the self is responsible not only for itself, but the other selves. Self interests then means: Interests of others. Despite this self evident selflessness: no two selves are alike; which leaves us with paradox of the homogeneity of selves. She sells sea-selves by the sea shore.
Doesn't make much sense.
The belief that identity is founded on is homogeneous to it. Opposing beliefs are rejected as foreign, other direction blocked.
Expression may differ, dependent on diversity contained in that condition, but direction all comes from the same belief.
If identity is the environment for all it contains, are your cells reflections of you, or parts of you?
Expression of your cells vary. They still serve a common purpose to your body. If they 'decide' otherwise, you are in trouble.
While the identity stuff is interesting and perhaps does to a large degree explain folk like dayturner, who'll toss away any resemblance to objectivity and reason to fit his particular sky-god views, I think it's far too dichotomous. Surely religions, religious folks and secular folks often find ways to either compartmentalize their worldviews or even adopt them. I've known dozens of atheist scientist that still go through the motions of being religious to connect to their family, the sense of community, or give their children an "easier" moral grounding. Christianity is full of customs from other religious cultures that were integrated into their own...it's also adapted dramatically since the enlightenment the result being a much more subtle and peaceful form than it was most of its history.
I should hope it doesn't. I "had precious few intentions....like [a] charlatan...to filch whatever was loose on the table....while having the sharp nose of a scavenger, not the keen mind of a thinker".1
1 Borrowed snippets stitched together from an essay entitled: The Lax Habits of The Free Imagination.
| « Combatting Creationists | Mormons = Satanic Cult? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
24Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
