 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] u washingtonedu> wrote:
> It's also worth noting that in this particular case there isn't an
> accepted scientific (as in real scientific, not creation-scientific)
> explanation as to why trilobites went extinct either, so it's probably
> not the best example of a question to stump creationists on.
Science doesn't really need an explanation of why they went extint.
(It would, of course, be very *interesting* to know the exact reason,
but it's not really a *necessity* to know it to support any scientific
theory.) Apparently 250 million years ago something happened that killed
tons of species, including all species of trilobites. During millions of
years extintion events happen. It is a known fact, however, that they did.
Creationists, on the other hand, do have a stronger need to explain what
killed them because they claim that it happened just some thousands of years
ago. From the tens of thousands of different species of trilobites not even
one survived to this day. What exactly killed them?
Creationists also claim that dating methods are unreliable and give random
results. They would have to, however, explain why all dating methods give
*consistently* the same result: Trilobites went extint significantly earlier
than dinosaurs (250 vs. 65 million years). Even if we accepted that the dating
methods are unreliable in determining the exact age of the fossils, the fact
that they *consistently* give the result that trilobite fossils are older than
dinosaur fossils is a strong indicative that trilobites died way before
dinosaurs did.
So at which point did they go extint, and why?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/07/2010 7:24 PM, Warp wrote:
> So at which point did they go extint, and why?
>
You are on a looser. Faith needs no rational.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
>> created.
>
> Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
>
> There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
> happened before that.
I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/07/2010 8:19 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
>>> created.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
>> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
>> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
>> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no
>> physical
>> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
>> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum
>> gravity."
>>
>> There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
>> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
>> happened before that.
>
> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
>
It is not so do not worry. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
> >> created.
> >
> > Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
> > initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
> > be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
> > certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
> > model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
> > (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
> >
> > There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
> > because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
> > happened before that.
> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
If there's no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the
universe, how can you say that "at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
created"? Exactly on which physical model is this claim based on? Or is it
simply a conjecture?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-7-2010 21:38, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
>>>> created.
>>> Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
>>> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
>>> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
>>> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
>>> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
>>> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
>>>
>>> There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
>>> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
>>> happened before that.
>
>> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
>
> If there's no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the
> universe, how can you say that "at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
> created"? Exactly on which physical model is this claim based on? Or is it
> simply a conjecture?
No time without space, before the big bang no space -> no time.
That we have currently no theory that describes what happen at
ridiculous energy levels does in no way imply that there is no
description possible. Or in other words, we don't know what happened,
only that something happened at those early times just after the big
bang. As such it has no implications on what happened before t=0.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That we have currently no theory that describes what happen at
> ridiculous energy levels does in no way imply that there is no
> description possible.
But since you can't base it on any physical model, it would simply be a
conjecture, nothing more.
> Or in other words, we don't know what happened,
> only that something happened at those early times just after the big
> bang. As such it has no implications on what happened before t=0.
If we don't know what happened, then we can't say "this happened" (ie.
"time was created at the moment of the Big Bang"). That would be a
contradiction.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2010-07-20 06:52, Warp wrote:
> If we don't know what happened, then we can't say "this happened" (ie.
> "time was created at the moment of the Big Bang"). That would be a
> contradiction.
Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't
cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).
It seems to me there's a short story by Clarke or Asimov or one of those...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2010-07-20 06:52, Warp wrote:
> > If we don't know what happened, then we can't say "this happened" (ie.
> > "time was created at the moment of the Big Bang"). That would be a
> > contradiction.
> Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't
> cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).
Would that be the infamous "god of the gaps"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't
>> cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).
>
> Would that be the infamous "god of the gaps"?
I think he was referring to this.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
