 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> On 20-7-2010 12:52, Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> If you think that the concept that space and time are connected and you
> can not have one without the other is a conjecture, be my guest.
You talk as if I have said something like "yeah, I don't have any problem
accepting that space got created in the Big Bang, but I don't swallow that
time was too".
Why are you talking about space here? I'm not. I'm saying that *nothing*
can be said about *anything* when we go sufficiently back.
You claim that time and space was created at the moment of the Big Bang.
I asked which physical model you are basing that claim on. If you are not
basing it on any known physical model, it's just a conjecture.
> >> 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.
> You refer to not having a model for what happened *after* the big bang
> whereas I am referring to 'before' the big bang. We are not talking
> about the same thing and there is no contradiction.
So you are talking about cosmogony, while I am talking about the Big Bang
theory?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> 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.
>
> 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?
>
The Great Flood killed the trilobites, clearly. And under this view
they'd be far from the only species that the flood killed, so it's not
any less far fetched than anything else about that account of things.
By the way, these questions are getting beyond the point where I feel
comfortable speculating how an actual young-earth creationist would
respond, so if you're actually interested in knowing the answers you'll
probably have to actually find a young-earth creationist who is also
scientifically minded and ask them.
That said, I think for the vast majority of such creationists the
primary support for their world-view is biblical rather than scientific.
Thus they would view the burden of proof as being on traditional
science, since they already have a good account of how things went in
the Bible. If the scientists think they have evidence that the earth is
old, then so much the worse for them -- the only answer must be that
they've made some sort of judgmental or experimental error.
In this view traditional science is just suffering from a massive case
of confirmation bias since it expects the earth to be old, for evolution
to work etc. And if you buy this, it shouldn't be any surprise that
creation science has some rather large unanswered questions, since
vastly fewer resources have been devoted to it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-7-2010 21:05, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 20-7-2010 12:52, Warp wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> If you think that the concept that space and time are connected and you
>> can not have one without the other is a conjecture, be my guest.
>
> You talk as if I have said something like "yeah, I don't have any problem
> accepting that space got created in the Big Bang, but I don't swallow that
> time was too".
>
> Why are you talking about space here?
I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional thing.
> I'm not. I'm saying that *nothing*
> can be said about *anything* when we go sufficiently back.
Sure, just as some strange things happen when temperature goes to very
close to 0 Kelvin. That in no way gives room for any claim that
temperatures below 0 Kelvin are possible. For a physicist temperatures
below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical
and for exactly the same reason. Of course I understand it if a
non-physicist extrapolates from his own lifelong experience that time is
a linear phenomenon and that you should be able to go infinitely
backwards. Trust me on this one: that interpretation is incompatible
with current physics. Sure, there might be some new insight next year or
next century that invalidates that view, but your question was about Big
Bang theory, that is nowadays physics and my answer is too.
> You claim that time and space was created at the moment of the Big Bang.
> I asked which physical model you are basing that claim on. If you are not
> basing it on any known physical model, it's just a conjecture.
Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the big
Bang, so time did. End of story.
Sorry if this answer annoys you because it sounds pedantic, but I seem
not to be able to get the message across. I won't answer next time when
you pose the exact same faulty concept again, because I know I will be
even more unpleasant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional thing.
I think the point that Warp is making (and I agree with) is that space and
time is only a four-dimensional thing in our current universe with our
current physical laws. If those laws didn't hold before the big bang,
there's no reason to believe there couldn't be space without time or time
without space or that the speed of light has anything to do with anything in
whatever universe was around before the big bang.
> below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical
> and for exactly the same reason.
So you know about the physics of the universe before the big bang, enough to
know that there couldn't be time of any sort before the big bang? How about
light? How about gravity? Are those incompatible with "before the big bang"?
> Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the big
> Bang, so time did. End of story.
The theory says *this* universe started with the big bang. But that doesn't
mean there was neither time nor space before the big bang, right? Or has
science actually changed "we can't tell what happened before the big bang"
to "we have actual scientific evidence that there was no existence of
anything before the big bang"?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/20/2010 2:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional
>> thing.
>
> I think the point that Warp is making (and I agree with) is that space
> and time is only a four-dimensional thing in our current universe with
> our current physical laws. If those laws didn't hold before the big
> bang, there's no reason to believe there couldn't be space without time
> or time without space or that the speed of light has anything to do with
> anything in whatever universe was around before the big bang.
>
>> below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical
>> and for exactly the same reason.
>
> So you know about the physics of the universe before the big bang,
> enough to know that there couldn't be time of any sort before the big
> bang? How about light? How about gravity? Are those incompatible with
> "before the big bang"?
>
>> Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the
>> big Bang, so time did. End of story.
>
> The theory says *this* universe started with the big bang. But that
> doesn't mean there was neither time nor space before the big bang,
> right? Or has science actually changed "we can't tell what happened
> before the big bang" to "we have actual scientific evidence that there
> was no existence of anything before the big bang"?
>
In fact, this may be more correct than one might think. There is at
least one alternative theory about "black holes", which Hawkings is the
one suggesting, which suggests that the concept of singularity is itself
flawed. Basically, you can't form one, you can only get increasingly
larger, hotter, objects, which, due to their gravitation, merely "look
like" a singularity. I.e., since you can't reflect light of them, to see
what is there, the physics, from the outside, still looks like a
singularity. If true, the big bang *also* isn't likely have come from
such an event, so the closest you could get to, "time started with the
big bang", would be the fact that, under such gravitational conditions,
time would be passing so, apparently, slow, that it would nearly halt,
from the view of anything outside of it.
And, in the case of the later, since we can't see past the point where
the speed of light, and the speed of accelerating objects from this big
bang, become equal to each other, we *literally* can never know if there
was something there before. The pressure wave, if you will, from the big
bang *may have* allowed anything already there to see the event, and the
first few billion years of acceleration, but after that, they where also
accelerating away from us too fast to see what happened after, just as
we can't see what happened *before*.
Worst thing about this problem is that, even the fact that it took us
until now to see that far means that things that are beyond a certain
distance are not lost in the wash of the speed barrier, which would have
been visible a few thousand years ago, and more lost to it from tens of
thousands, and more from millions, etc. We can never, from our position,
short of finding a way past the limit of the speed of light, ever *see*
any of those things, and given long enough, assuming the sun somehow
survived that long, or our species did, by moving around elsewhere,
those descendants would look up and go, "Obviously all that stuff about
constellations they once wrote is nonsense, nothing is visible past this
single galaxy."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/19/2010 11:04 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> the dinosaurs "must" have all drowned in a giant flood
>>
>> Not if you believe Kent Hovind, who claims that dinosarus didn't go
>> extint
>> at all, but there are specimens alive even today (and no, he's not
>> talking
>> about birds, but actual cretaceous period dinosaurs). His arguments are,
>> basically a combination of cryptozoology, taking known hoaxes at face
>> value,
>> as well as an outright conspiracy theory (about scientists ignoring and
>> destroying evidence because dinosaurs being alive would, according to
>> Hovind,
>> somehow discredit evolution, even though he doesn't explain why).
>
> To be fair, AFAIK even most young-earth creationists think that Kent
> Hovind is a bit of a nut and people shouldn't pay much attention to him.
>
>
>> Btw, does someone know how Young Earth creationists explain what killed
>> all the trilobites?
>>
>
> I don't think there's really a standard and excepted explanation for
> this, but the most common seems to be that the flood resulted not just
> in water, but also in a great deal of ocean volcanic activity, as
> perhaps hinted to in the line:
>
> "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth"
>
> Thus the extinction is attributed to massive water turbulence, changes
> in temperature, change in water salinity, etc. I believe the thought is
> that some sea creatures (like fish and whales) were able to survive
> through this while others weren't.
>
> 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.
Well, other than that there are "some" very similar species, Limpets,
around that are descendants, and it doesn't explain why far more
fragile, and less armored snails, sponges, and sea slugs survived
instead. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/20/2010 12:47 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> By the way, these questions are getting beyond the point where I feel
> comfortable speculating how an actual young-earth creationist would
> respond, so if you're actually interested in knowing the answers you'll
> probably have to actually find a young-earth creationist who is also
> scientifically minded and ask them.
Actually, its real easy to work out how they might answer. Its called
Poe. Nothing you can possible think of would *ever* prove to be crazier,
less rational, or inconsistent with reality, than what some creationist,
someplace, somewhere, just posted to a blog (or Conservapedia).
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/19/2010 5:10 AM, Warp wrote:
> somebody<x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>> "Warp"<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>> news:4c41fc71@news.povray.org...
>
>>> The so-called Big Bang Theory is part of the field of science called
>>> astronomy. The Theory of Evolution is part of the field called biology.
>>> Astronomy and biology are both natural sciences, but that's approximately
>>> where their commonalities end. Otherwise they don't have about anything
>>> in common. They are completely different fields of science.
>
>> To be the devil's (or god's) advocate, why should a christian accept that as
>> a fundamental demarcation? Science may say they are completely different
>> fields, but religion definitely does not say so. For those accepting
>> creation as written in their books, it's all a single intervowen creation
>> event with god at the helm, and it's the scientists that are on the wrong by
>> compatmentalizing their explanations and pretending that they can make the
>> questions go away by designating it as some other scientist's problem.
>
> If they try to discredit evolution in rational and scientific terms (as
> many Young Earth creationists try to do), then at least they should get
> their terminology right.
>
Impossible. Getting it right would require accepting the definitions of
the terms. The whole point is to distort, misunderstand, and/or redefine
those terms, to their own favor.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/20/2010 12:47 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> By the way, these questions are getting beyond the point where I feel
>> comfortable speculating how an actual young-earth creationist would
>> respond, so if you're actually interested in knowing the answers you'll
>> probably have to actually find a young-earth creationist who is also
>> scientifically minded and ask them.
>
> Actually, its real easy to work out how they might answer. Its called
> Poe. Nothing you can possible think of would *ever* prove to be crazier,
> less rational, or inconsistent with reality, than what some creationist,
> someplace, somewhere, just posted to a blog (or Conservapedia).
>
That's why I used the phrase "a young-earth creationist who is also
scientifically minded", indicating that he should try to find a someone
who has thought and read a fair bit about how to best fit science into
that sort of world view. Such people do actually exist, and I imagine
will have a much less varied set of responses than the set of all
young-earth creationists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional thing.
No, your claim was, exactly, "time was created in the Big Bang".
There is a significant difference between "time-space (along with all the
energy in the universe) was compressed in a singularity, which expanded" and
"time was *created* in the Big Bang".
That's exactly like saying that "matter was *created* in the Big Bang".
The Big Bang theory says no such thing.
> > I'm not. I'm saying that *nothing*
> > can be said about *anything* when we go sufficiently back.
> Sure, just as some strange things happen when temperature goes to very
> close to 0 Kelvin. That in no way gives room for any claim that
> temperatures below 0 Kelvin are possible. For a physicist temperatures
> below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical
> and for exactly the same reason. Of course I understand it if a
> non-physicist extrapolates from his own lifelong experience that time is
> a linear phenomenon and that you should be able to go infinitely
> backwards. Trust me on this one: that interpretation is incompatible
> with current physics. Sure, there might be some new insight next year or
> next century that invalidates that view, but your question was about Big
> Bang theory, that is nowadays physics and my answer is too.
You are still missing my point entirely.
You talk like I am saying that there was a time before the Big Bang,
that time is something detached from the universe and that it just goes
on independently of what the universe happens to be doing, and that at
some point in time this universe just popped into existence.
I am *not* saying that, even though you seemingly think so. Please read
what I *am* saying. What I am saying is that "claiming that the Big Bang
theory says that time was created at the moment of the Big Bang is wrong;
the theory says no such thing".
The Big Bang theory says nothing about how anything was "created" or
where the initial singularity might have come from or what might have
happened "before" it (whatever the definition of "before" might be, if
it's even possible to define it). What the Big Bang theory *does* say is
that the entire universe was compressed in a singularity, which expanded.
That's it.
The field of science which speculates on where that came from is called
cosmogony. There are many conjectures (one example being that the universe
is actually cyclic, expanding and then collapsing back to a singularity,
from which it expands again, and so on, although the relatively recent
discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe has discredited
that conjecture a bit).
> > You claim that time and space was created at the moment of the Big Bang.
> > I asked which physical model you are basing that claim on. If you are not
> > basing it on any known physical model, it's just a conjecture.
> Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the big
> Bang, so time did. End of story.
No. It says that universe was compressed in a singularity from which it
expanded. Different thing.
> Sorry if this answer annoys you because it sounds pedantic, but I seem
> not to be able to get the message across. I won't answer next time when
> you pose the exact same faulty concept again, because I know I will be
> even more unpleasant.
That's fine by me. I asked you which physical model you base your
"creation" claims on, and you refused to answer. Clearly you *don't*
have an answer (because there isn't currently one). The Big Bang theory
isn't trying to answer that either, unlike what you seem to think.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
