 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> (At 1:25): "And yet many evolutionists would have us believe that in the
> name of science: There was no creator, no space, no energy, no matter, there
> was nothing, and then there was this big bang and out came the sea and the
> land..."
>
I'm not sure I see anything in this quote which implies that the big
bang is part of evolution. The most natural interpretation seems to be
that "evolutionist" is used as a blanket term which can be used as a
label for one who holds a set of related viewpoints of which evolution
need only be a part.
But don't take my word for it. About 10 seconds of Google leads to the
Conservapedia article on Evolutionism, which seems like a pretty
reasonable place to learn what the people who actually use the term
"Evolutionist" seriously think it means. Here's one quote:
---
"Biblical Young Earth Creationists hold both terms in philosophically
equal light, up to a certain point. They would say that the term
"Evolutionism" has the same or very similar meaning to "Creationism" as
it relates to a supposed philosophical/foundational starting point or
question (does God exist?). They say the term "Evolutionism" refers to a
subset of a combination of world views, while the scientific theory of
evolution is the result of the Evolutionist presupposition. In other
words, they say that Evolutionism is the collective world view behind
the scientific theory of evolution. However, that's where the
similarities end with Creationism."
and another:
"Some Creationists point out that they see various religious aspects,
not in the theory of evolution itself (although they don't exclude that
necessarily), but in the Evolutionists themselves"
And another:
"Evolutionism is a world-view, which seeks to explain every aspect of
this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics,
from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that
there were different stages in the evolution of our universe."
---
Now, I'm sure not every bozo who owns a blog or who can post a youtube
video has bothered even considering these points, or learning what
evolution actually is, but I don't think that sort of ignorance is
limited just to Creationists, but rather it's just the sort of thing
that you now expect in any argument on the internet.
Also, this marks the first time I have ever seriously linked to
Conservapedia as a reference, and it is feels sort of strange.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/17/2010 11:54 AM, Warp wrote:
> Why do creationists (with which I'm referring to certain specific dogmas
> rather than "christians" or "believers" in general) continuously confuse
> two completely different and separate fields of science, namely astronomy
> and biology?
>
> You constantly hear claims like "evolutionists claim that the universe
> began with a 'big bang' from nothing" and such.
>
> 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.
>
> It seems that there's a misconception among creationists that "the theory
> of evolution" is a catch-all term which encompasses, among many other things,
> the Big Bang theory, stellar evolution, abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> All kinds of claims are made about the "theory of evolution" which have
> nothing to do with it and belong to completely unrelated fields of science
> such as astronomy and astrophysics.
>
> Of course "evolution" is a relatively narrow field of science (compared
> to the whole) which encompasses a lot less than creationists seem to think.
>
> Another (perhaps "lesser", but definitely more common) misconception seems
> to be that the theory of evolution claims that life formed from non-organic
> elements. Of course the theory of evolution says no such thing. They are
> confusing it with abiogenesis, which is the theory of how and why life could
> have formed from non-life. The theory of evolution only encompasses *already
> living* groups of organisms, not how they became into existence in the first
> place.
>
> But that confusion can be forgiven, as the subject matters are quite
> related (namely, how modern life came into existence). What is less
> forgivable is confusing two completely different branches of science
> which have nothing in common (ie. biology and astronomy).
>
> Do they do that on purpose or something?
>
First, for the wackos actually making this argument, Evolution was seen
as the "weak link" in science. The point wasn't to just overturn
evolution, but every science *including* astronomy, where it conflicted
with a literal interpretation of the Bible. This can be seen pretty
clearly in the recent gibberish out of the Disco Institute:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/physicists_brace_yourselves_fo.php
The whole point is that **all of science**, from astronomy, to physics,
to chemistry, and especially evolution, is **universally** wrong, if it
contradicts their crazy assed idea that everything in the Bible is
absolutely 100% true, and actually all happened 6,000-10,000 years ago.
Second, Abiogenesis is only not part of the concept because its a) not
well understood, and b) not fully replicable, never mind observable.
However, as I pointed out at least once, we have things like Prions,
which, if malformed, quite happily turn damn near anything they touch
into more prions, so its hardly impossible for simpler-than-life
chemicals to propogate, on a massive scale, and be damn close to the
base amino acids and other chemicals that *do* happen without biology,
have been created, in incomplete, but numerous forms, in lab conditions,
without existing biological organisms involved, etc. The only question
is, when, how, and what?
Finally, its also fairly clear from some recent experiments that not
even the DNA we have is *necessary*, it just happens to be the DNA we
ended up with. There are dozens of other chemical forms that could have
done the same job, and some early experiments with those have shown that
a) they can be replicated by cellular mechanisms, b) they can code for
the same processes, and c) something could end up having the same double
helix, yet share not one *single* protein that we have to code for
features *in* that helix. And, that is presuming that something other
than a helix isn't possible too.
In short, the gaps they whine about keep closing, but the strategy goes
forward. For them, distance galaxies "must" have all formed at the same
time, they "must" only appear to be billions of years old, the dinosaurs
"must" have all drowned in a giant flood, people "must have" lived side
beside with them, all the evidence for an ancient earth "must" be a
misinterpretation of the facts, and it doesn't matter if the science
contradicting these things it the science behind biology, or astronomy,
or even fracking origami. If it says something that contradicts their
religion, its *wrong*, and must therefor be part of the vast Darwinian
conspiracy, because "evolution" is the "weak point" in the whole mess,
according to them.
Mind, this is a bit like trying to defeat a porcupine, or a skunk, by
attacking its ass, instead of its underbelly, but no one said these
people have a damn clue what they are doing. To them, since evolution,
or their badly stupid understanding of it, undermines the most
*important* idea of their faith, i.e., special creation of man, separate
from all other creatures, the idea that it may not be the weak point at
all probably offends them 100 times more than the theory itself. Thus,
there is no other possible conclusion for them, other than, "Either
Darwinism falls, and with it all the other lies of science, that we
imagine are based on it, or we do, and we can't since God is real and
everything in the Bible is true."
--
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 18-7-2010 8:13, Warp wrote:
>
> (And, in fact, the big bang theory doesn't actually say that there was
> nothing and then suddenly something appeared. It just says that everything
> was initially compressed in a singularity. AFAIK there's currently no
> widely accepted theory about what happened *before* that.)
Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
created. Asking what was before is nonsensical. On par with 'what is
outside the universe', 'how cold is -280C' and the one Hawkins uses that
temporary escaped me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> To be the devil's (or god's) advocate, why should a christian accept that as
> a fundamental demarcation?
For the same reason the Christians don't like getting lumped in with
Hinduism, Norse mythology, and voodoo.
> Science may say they are completely different
> fields, but religion definitely does not say so.
Because if you're talking about "evolution", you should use the term the
scientists mean by it, not the term the christians mean by it, because the
scientists invented the term.
--
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 7/18/2010 4:17 PM, Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> To be the devil's (or god's) advocate, why should a christian accept
>> that as
>> a fundamental demarcation?
>
> For the same reason the Christians don't like getting lumped in with
> Hinduism, Norse mythology, and voodoo.
>
> > Science may say they are completely different
>> fields, but religion definitely does not say so.
>
> Because if you're talking about "evolution", you should use the term the
> scientists mean by it, not the term the christians mean by it, because
> the scientists invented the term.
>
Ah, well. That's simple. They generally use "Darwinism", which, with
very rare exceptions, some of which are also borderline ID people
themselves, ***isn't even the scientific term***. Problem solved. lol
Well, except of the unfortunate fact that they still insist on claiming
Evolution "is" Darwinism, but that is a bit like a Conservative,
demanding everyone obey their mythology based edicts, (whose principle
ideals tend to be, according to studies of how differently people
actually do think, purity, authority and loyalty), calling a Liberal
(primary focus being fairness and harm, with authority and loyalty being
like "bottom of the list"), who advocates for careful consideration of
consequences, the "fascist", because, well.. they *demand* that everyone
ignore the mythology. Where, maybe suggest it is harmful, or imply there
might be a problem with it, or imply people don't have to all follow
it.. You know, fascist, gun toting, 'forceful', stuff like that. lol
But, yeah. In general, it would certainly be nice if they didn't try to
borrow everyone else's words, mangle them beyond all recognition, then
insist that *they* are the ones being oppressed by the people protesting it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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).
Btw, does someone know how Young Earth creationists explain what killed
all the trilobites?
(Trilobites were probably as numerous as cocroaches today, and claiming
that they were killed in the flood would be a somewhat hilarious claim
taking into account that trilobites were *marine* arthropods.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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'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 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 7/20/2010 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 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 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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> 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.
I assume that the opposition some astrophysicist have against singularities
stems from the fact that the equations of relativity fail there (in simple
terms, you get a division by zero, which thus tells you nothing). In other
words, the theory of relativity predicts the existence of a phenomenon which
it cannot formulate. Something else would then be needed to formulate the
physics of a singularity.
That something might not even exist. Some physicists hence conjecture
that perhaps it's the singularities which do not exist, even though the
relativistic equations predict them. Maybe the known laws of physics change
somehow when space bends enough.
> Basically, you can't form one, you can only get increasingly
> larger, hotter, objects, which, due to their gravitation, merely "look
> like" a singularity.
There would have to be an unknown phenomenon of physics which would stop
matter and energy from collapsing into a singularity. No such phenomenon
has been observed nor probably even plausibly conjectured.
> 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."
Constellations have nothing to do with other galaxies.
And my guess is that the Sun will explode way before the universe has
expanded so much that we can't see any other galaxies anymore.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> cosmogony. There are many conjectures (one example being that the universe
> is actually cyclic, expanding and then collapsing back to a singularity,
Yep. Another is the whole "two branes slapping together" kind of thing.
Presumedly if the branes are doing something, there's some equivalent of
time and space and causality in which to do them. Maybe not exactly like the
sort of run-down left over time we get in these parts, but still...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the big
> Bang, so time did. End of story.
From Wikipedia:
"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion,
the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an
initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution
of the Universe since that instant."
Do you have some cite that would contradict this? I haven't heard of any
such thing.
--
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 7/21/2010 5:33 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I assume that the opposition some astrophysicist have against singularities
> stems from the fact that the equations of relativity fail there (in simple
> terms, you get a division by zero, which thus tells you nothing). In other
> words, the theory of relativity predicts the existence of a phenomenon which
> it cannot formulate. Something else would then be needed to formulate the
> physics of a singularity.
>
> That something might not even exist. Some physicists hence conjecture
> that perhaps it's the singularities which do not exist, even though the
> relativistic equations predict them. Maybe the known laws of physics change
> somehow when space bends enough.
>
>> Basically, you can't form one, you can only get increasingly
>> larger, hotter, objects, which, due to their gravitation, merely "look
>> like" a singularity.
>
> There would have to be an unknown phenomenon of physics which would stop
> matter and energy from collapsing into a singularity. No such phenomenon
> has been observed nor probably even plausibly conjectured.
>
It might be noted that singularities where hypothesized "before" we knew
some things in QM that we do now, and other things as well. Not sure
what the specifics are, but I would seem to think that the guy that
concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
proven right, also saying that singularities may be wrong, has at least
*some* odds of having a reason to say so. lol
But, seems to me to be reasonable anyway. The closest you can get in a
Bouse Einstein Condensate, by cooling things down, and that is about as
close as particles can get to each other, since at that point they "stop
moving", there being no space left for them to do so, presumably. How do
you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
sub-particles, like quarks and muons? In some ways, singularity is a bit
like the Zeno's Paradox concept. The math may say that it is possible,
but no one knows *if* that is possible, they just assume so, because the
math says so. Well. Zeno has a similar problem, and if taken to its
logical conclusion, Zeno would be right. Since he isn't, we take the
opposite view from singularity, and assume there *must be* some finite
"size" for an event, such that you can stack events together, thereby
actually reaching a destination. In point of fact, one of the recent
experiments has shown that time, at least as far as QM is concerned,
*does* have a finite "slice" size, and seemingly instant events actually
take that tiny, minuscule, time to happen, such that you can interrupt
the result, and get a different one, even when the state "should have"
become fixed, and thus irrecoverable.
But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed. Observation says so,
even though the math says Zeno should have been right. That the math for
singularity is the same. Its "assumed" that singularities happen,
because the math says they are the logical conclusion. But, we can't
observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
"density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
much gravity you throw at it.
We will have to see what Hawkings eventually publishes on the subject
though, and he has only put out some preliminary things about the
subject, so far.
--
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 7/21/2010 5:33 AM, Warp wrote:
>
> Constellations have nothing to do with other galaxies.
>
> And my guess is that the Sun will explode way before the universe has
> expanded so much that we can't see any other galaxies anymore.
>
Probably true, but irrelevant, the point isn't if "we" will be around to
see it, but that if anyone/thing *is* they won't see anything when they
look.
--
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 7/20/2010 8:07 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 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.
Don't know.. Maybe, but as near as I can see, their responses tend to
contain *way* more cognitive dissonance, and severe confusion over what
their actual position on things are. I.e., X is true for A, because that
doesn't contradict my position, but its wrong for B, C, D, and J->Q,
because it does, even though there is no logical reason why it shouldn't
apply there as well.
--
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 20-7-2010 23:41, 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.
yikes, my mind boggles again as it does everytime when someone uses the
phrase "before the big bang". I know it is counter intuitive* for many
people that time does not run infinitely backwards**, (and if I didn't
know it, this thread would have been proof) but that phrase does not
make sense. Really, it doesn't. I can not remember if I had the same
problem when I first encountered it, that is quite possible, in which
case it is a classical example of "trivial" ;)
>> 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"?
There is no before, because there was neither space nor time for
anything to happen.
>> 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?
no it does.
> 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"?
see above. I am sorry, but I can not explain it any other way. Perhaps
somebody else may help.
*) in modern physics things being counter intuitive seems to be quite
common.
**) my own model to cope with this concept is assuming that time is not
linear but slows down if you come closer to the origin. That way there
would be an infinite time going backwards, yet that would asymptotically
approach t=0 in the now fashionable linear time. But that is just for me
to cope with it, not an accepted theory. BTW There is also a problem
that you don't have anything to measure time with if you get too close
to the BB. If that is only a practical problem or something more
fundamental I don't know either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> yikes, my mind boggles again as it does everytime when someone uses the
> phrase "before the big bang".
I know that *our* time started with the big bang. But you're giving no
indication that there wasn't something out there for the "big bang" to have
come from.
> There is no before, because there was neither space nor time for
> anything to happen.
How do you know, if your physics doesn't cover or explain the event?
*That* is what we're asking. You have a singularity. You're assuming
there's nothing on the other side of the singularity. Why is that?
In other words, why are you so convinced that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
is actually necessarily incorrect?
I'm sure this guy publishing letters in Nature's Physics journal is simply
confused by the counter-intuitive nature of physics, right?
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n8/abs/nphys654.html
I'm quite comfortable with the concept that time started with the big bang.
I just don't know that there's actually *evidence* for that beyond the fact
that the math we use *breaks down* at the big bang. In order for you to
definitely assert that there was no time or space before then, you actually
have to explain how you know, instead of just handwaving that because you're
right, I'm mistaken to ask how you know you're right.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Why do creationists (with which I'm referring to certain specific dogmas
>> rather than "christians" or "believers" in general) continuously confuse
>> two completely different and separate fields of science, namely astronomy
>> and biology?
>
> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that they
> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
theological topics than believers do.
It is certainly true that there are lots of people in both camps who
believe and know only what their accepted authorities have told them
about either topic.
> A very typical argument between a (young-earth) creationist and an
> evolutionist goes like: "Can you give me even one single example of
> evolution having been observed?" "Yes, there's for example xyz."
> "That's not evolution."
>
> Wait, now creationists define what "evolution" means and are, basically,
> claiming that evolutionists don't even know what it really means?
Differing definitions of evolution at work. In the broadest sense, it
refers to any change over time in the variety of life, which is
observable. Creationists use the term to refer to something more
specific, such as the gradual change of one form of life into a
significantly different form (such as the transition from insectivores
into carnivores).
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
>> they
>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>
> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> theological topics than believers do.
Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
principles. Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those
kinds of questions!"
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> guy that
> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
> proven right
I don't think that's correct.
"However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
"Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
this effect is too small to be observed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
> How do
> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?
Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
anymore.
Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
observed or even plausibly conjectured.
> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.
What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?
> But, we can't
> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
> much gravity you throw at it.
You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> >> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
> >> they
> >> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
> >
> > Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> > theological topics than believers do.
> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
> principles. Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those
> kinds of questions!"
There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible and
the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and which,
basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions as many
creationists with their misconceptions about science.
On the other hand, there *are* many atheists who do know the Bible better
than most christians do, who do know which arguments against the Bible are
invalid (because they stem from prejudice and misinterpretation of the text
by ignoring its context), and they also know which parts of the Bible (which
many creationists interpret literally) truly don't stand too much scrutiny
in the face of scientific evidence. Of course these are the minority, in
my experience.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:18:05 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> guy that
>> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
>> proven right
>
> I don't think that's correct.
>
> "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
>
> "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
> this effect is too small to be observed."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
http://arxivblog.com/?p=300
Essentially, this is a simulated observation that demonstrates the theory
of Hawking radiation is sound.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2010 9:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> guy that
>> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
>> proven right
>
> I don't think that's correct.
>
> "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
>
> "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
> this effect is too small to be observed."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
>
Actually, this is only partly correct. There has been no "direct"
observation of it, but there has been indirect. But, technically, since
its so damn small, this would be correct. Mind, if you don't have it,
then you have to come up with something else to explain radiation from a
block hole, where there shouldn't be any, and that *has* been seen.
>> How do
>> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
>> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?
>
> Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
> anymore.
>
> Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
>
>> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
>> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
>> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.
>
> What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?
>
>> But, we can't
>> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
>> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
>> much gravity you throw at it.
>
> You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
>
If its not particles, then what? Energy? Oh, wait, energy is still some
sort of particle, as near as we can come up with. Mind, it might not be,
if you go all the way down to String Theory, but that is just pure math,
it has yet to come up with math that correctly matches the observed
universe, and at best, *may* describe a near infinite list of "possible"
universes, of which ours is just one in gazzillions (which makes finding
the right math to match it, never mind verify that String Theory is
right, worse odds than winning the lotto).
In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a
plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that
even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles.
Again, its presupposing what is there, based on what needs to be, for
the math to come out right. It doesn't prove that the math *is* right,
in those conditions, or there is some basic limit, just like with
distance and travel, over time. There is simply the assumption that
there isn't one.
But, like I said, until he publishes, all we have is the assertion that
its not happening, combined with the embarrassing fact that certain
observations are not explained, by other means, without the prior
Hawking's Radition.
--
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 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:32:50 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> >> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think
>> >> that they
>> >> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>> >
>> > Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
>> > theological topics than believers do.
>
>> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
>> principles. Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
>> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
>> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
>> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask
>> those kinds of questions!"
>
> There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible
> and the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and
> which, basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions
> as many creationists with their misconceptions about science.
Oh, sure - those who are *active* atheists, though (as compared to those
who just "don't care" - which is more agnosticism than atheism IIRC) do
tend to have studied a lot more than the average practitioner of a
theistic religion.
> On the other hand, there *are* many atheists who do know the Bible
> better
> than most christians do, who do know which arguments against the Bible
> are invalid (because they stem from prejudice and misinterpretation of
> the text by ignoring its context), and they also know which parts of the
> Bible (which many creationists interpret literally) truly don't stand
> too much scrutiny in the face of scientific evidence. Of course these
> are the minority, in my experience.
If you count everyone who's just inactive in a religion as an atheist,
then you're correct. When I talk about atheists in this context, though,
I'm talking about those who are *actively* atheistic - and not the people
who just haven't been to church in a while or who perhaps have doubts.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
> anymore.
Err, what are they, then?
> Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
I would think Pauli exclusion would be a possibility. Or something like the
quantumness of spacetime. Can you actually fit multiple particles into one
plank-length of space?
> You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
I think first you have to define what you mean by a "singularity", then by a
"force", given that gravity isn't a force per se.
I think once you wander outside the area where the math actually is known to
work, you need some actual experimental evidence to base conclusions on. I
don't know that it's valid to say "that must behave *this* way, because
otherwise we'd divide by zero" (or "because we divide by zero"). The math
only summarizes what we know of physics. It doesn't define how physics works.
--
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 7/21/2010 6:10 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>> Why do creationists (with which I'm referring to certain specific dogmas
>>> rather than "christians" or "believers" in general) continuously confuse
>>> two completely different and separate fields of science, namely
>>> astronomy
>>> and biology?
>>
>> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that they
>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>
> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> theological topics than believers do.
>
> It is certainly true that there are lots of people in both camps who
> believe and know only what their accepted authorities have told them
> about either topic.
>
The funny thing on that is, the average "believer" I know has maybe read
20% of the Bible, almost **nothing** on the history tied to the time
periods described in it (with possible exception of texts designed to
ignore things that don't fit in with the "official" dogma), where as
most atheists have read more than half of it, or the entire thing, more
than once, and at least 1-2 books on the history of some of the periods,
*and* more than a few books on other religions. The other thing is, like
95% of atheists used to be believers, probably 20% of them where
Evangelical, before concluding it was all gibberish, and another 2% or
so where ***actually priests*** at one point in time.
By contrast, with the exception of a few that, when you examine their
claims, are obviously lying, or didn't understand what they read in the
first place, or where **already** looking for a different answer, so
didn't *ever* accept the scientific evidence, there is maybe 1 biologist
*ever* that has converted from atheist to some form of deism, that I
know of, and he was medically ill, being pestered by "helpful"
Evangelicals at the time, and suffering mid-stage dementia.
Hell yes, a lot of atheists have a better idea than the believers what
their "theology" says...
>> A very typical argument between a (young-earth) creationist and an
>> evolutionist goes like: "Can you give me even one single example of
>> evolution having been observed?" "Yes, there's for example xyz."
>> "That's not evolution."
>>
>> Wait, now creationists define what "evolution" means and are, basically,
>> claiming that evolutionists don't even know what it really means?
>
> Differing definitions of evolution at work. In the broadest sense, it
> refers to any change over time in the variety of life, which is
> observable. Creationists use the term to refer to something more
> specific, such as the gradual change of one form of life into a
> significantly different form (such as the transition from insectivores
> into carnivores).
>
> Regards,
> John
Or, they completely jump the shark, and start babbling about dogs giving
birth to cats, in one single generation. I.e., miracles being a
necessity for evolution to work... lol
--
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 7/22/2010 9:32 AM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>>>> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
>>>> they
>>>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>>>
>>> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
>>> theological topics than believers do.
>
>> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
>> principles. Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
>> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
>> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
>> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those
>> kinds of questions!"
>
> There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible and
> the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and which,
> basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions as many
> creationists with their misconceptions about science.
>
Willing to bet that most of those "misconceptions" are nothing of the
sort, but rather preconceptions, arising out of their own experience
with believers, including those they grew up with, who actually
***did*** think those things where in the Bible. Oh, and then there is
all the stuff that is correct vis a vie the Bible, if you read it "in
context", or "literally", or "in terms of the time period and beliefs
common then", but bare no resemblance **at all** to the cherry picked,
ultra-liberal (but don't dare say that in some circles), white washed
version that many modern Christians "think" their Bible has in it, on
the basis of sermons that, if they are lucky, contain less than 10% of
the total contents, while the other 90% is quietly classed as, "Not
relevant to anything I ever preach about", and swept under the nearest
alter cloth.
--
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 7/22/2010 10:07 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
>> anymore.
>
> Err, what are they, then?
>
>> Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
>> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
>> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a
>> singularity
>> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
>> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
>
> I would think Pauli exclusion would be a possibility. Or something like
> the quantumness of spacetime. Can you actually fit multiple particles
> into one plank-length of space?
>
>> You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
>> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
>
> I think first you have to define what you mean by a "singularity", then
> by a "force", given that gravity isn't a force per se.
>
> I think once you wander outside the area where the math actually is
> known to work, you need some actual experimental evidence to base
> conclusions on. I don't know that it's valid to say "that must behave
> *this* way, because otherwise we'd divide by zero" (or "because we
> divide by zero"). The math only summarizes what we know of physics. It
> doesn't define how physics works.
>
This is one reason why singularity is a problem. You throw out every
equation you "do" have about how things work, because, "They don't work
there.", only.. then you have to ask why, given things like the
"multiple particles in a Plank Length" issue, which the same math says
shouldn't happen, even *in* a black hole. If you conclude that, like a
lot of math, there is a point where it just won't apply, then you only
have to deal with "one" equation being wrong at that level of mass, not
***every*** equation in physics, except the one telling you a
singularity formed. Which seems more absurd, or just less complicated?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
