• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I won´t give you the name, but I have discussed this with a regular poster who is very articulate and very intelligent. We usually tangle over social issues, and he is a hand full, yet we were in a discussion three or four months ago regarding creation.

In that discussion he flat out stated that abiogenesis had been proven. Taken aback by his ignorance I asked him about his assertion, again he stated it. Further than that he would not go.

I would expect that from some knot head, but not this guy.

I am curious to see who this guy is. Since you have not been exactly on the up and up, your use of Koonin for example, If it was me I may have claimed that an abiogenesis event has been proven, and again if it was me you misunderstood that. That we know that there was no life and then there was life proves an abiogenesis event. It does not prove naturalistic abiogenesis. A god magically poofing life into existence would still be an abiogenesis event. Since historically appealing to magic has never been justified, instead we see more and more concepts explained by the sciences, then saying that natural abiogenesis is the likely answer is not "faith" it is reasoning. You on the other hand are left with a God of the Gaps argument with what your God supposedly does constantly shrinking.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
We have several versions of quantum gravity now. We don't have the evidence to distinguish which, if any, is correct.



The most common versions of quantum gravity are string theory and quantum loop gravity. Those are not the only ones, just the most popular. As I said, we cannot distinguish which, if any, is correct because of lack of relevant evidence.



Yes, singularities appear in general relativity. But singularities are not 'things'. They represent the inability to extend coordinates past a certain point. This is a commonly misunderstood aspect of GR, even by those who know the basics (unfortunately).

In particular, in the classical BB theory, it only makes sense to talk about times t>0, NOT t=0 or t<0. There was not a *thing* that exploded.

And in the 1960's there *weren't* any versions of quantum gravity.



The problem isn't having a singularity (which are almost guaranteed to exist in general relativity under very general conditions -- a result due to Hawking ), but what it *means* to be a singularity. To have a singularity mean some aspect (usually time, but not always) cannot be even defined under some circumstances.

A singularity is NOT a 'thing'. There is no mass at the singularity and a singularity doesn't 'explode'. In the case of the BB model, the universe is expanding and time cannot even be defined for t<=0. There was no 'before the Big Bang' in the standard model.
Wow ! The singularity was considered a point of infinite density, infinite energy/mass, resembling the center of a black hole, a thing.

I am familiar with string theory, the other, not so much.

Before the expansion there was absolutely nothing from the perspective inside the universe, there was no universe.

I have heard the singularity defined as everything there is, on an ultra microscopic scale.

Is there an ¨outside the universe " perspective ? There is presently no way to know. By faith, I believe there is.

So the quantum world and the world of relativity don´t mix, or if they do, I simply can´t grasp it yet.

It appears that there are a variety of stand alone hypotheses, very, very interesting.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Why does that one person's assertions carry more weight and significance than the more common viewpoint that OOL remains an unsolved mystery?
It doesn't. I am simply pointing out what some people believe because they are ignorant of the research, or they have made a conclusion based on faith, that they try and pass off as scientific fact.

It is like a religious person, I believe it, nothing will change my view. An admirable faith position, yet physical evidence is hard to find.

A fifth grade teacher teaches abiogenesis as a fact, he cites Miller Urey in such a way it becomes proof and the kid who doesn´t accept it becomes an outsider.

This is the danger of accepting faith as fact. I know for a fact that some ( a relatively small number) teach this way.

Once again, this is my only complaint about abiogenesis , and those who believe it.

Otherwise, let the research continue, and let the chips fall wherever they fall.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It doesn't. I am simply pointing out what some people believe because they are ignorant of the research, or they have made a conclusion based on faith, that they try and pass off as scientific fact.

It is like a religious person, I believe it, nothing will change my view. An admirable faith position, yet physical evidence is hard to find.

A fifth grade teacher teaches abiogenesis as a fact, he cites Miller Urey in such a way it becomes proof and the kid who doesn´t accept it becomes an outsider.

This is the danger of accepting faith as fact. I know for a fact that some ( a relatively small number) teach this way.

Once again, this is my only complaint about abiogenesis , and those who believe it.

Otherwise, let the research continue, and let the chips fall wherever they fall.


So what if one teacher messes up. The Miler Urey experiment was only the first successful experiment in the science. Of course it did not "prove abiogenesis". But your complete denial of not only the success of that experiment or of the countless developments since then only tells us that you cannot approach this problem rationally.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow ! The singularity was considered a point of infinite density, infinite energy/mass, resembling the center of a black hole, a thing.

Again, like I said, a common misunderstanding, even among those who are fairly well educated. But, for example, the type of singularity as t->0 in the Big bang is *very* different than what happens in a black hole.

I am familiar with string theory, the other, not so much.

Before the expansion there was absolutely nothing from the perspective inside the universe, there was no universe.

The problem is worse than that. Time is *part* of the universe. In the BB model, time *began* with the BB. That means there is no 'before the expansion' in that model.

I have heard the singularity defined as everything there is, on an ultra microscopic scale.

And that would be wrong. At least, it is for any version of the Big bang model.

Is there an ¨outside the universe " perspective ? There is presently no way to know. By faith, I believe there is.

Well, the versions of quantum gravity that have multiple 'universes' (which I think is a rather incorrect way to say it since the whole multiverse takes the place of the universe) would have an 'outside' of the universe.

So the quantum world and the world of relativity don´t mix, or if they do, I simply can´t grasp it yet.

Well, the only reason anyone takes string theory seriously is that it was the first quantum thoery to 'naturally' have gravity and so to generalize general relativity.

It appears that there are a variety of stand alone hypotheses, very, very interesting.

That is what tends to happen at the edge of knowledge, especially when there isn't much relevant data. In this case, we know that both quantum mechanics and general relativity work very well within their own range of phenomena. But merging the two into a larger description has been a long term issue. When I was young, there were NO known theories that succeeded in merging these two. Now there are several possibilities. That is how science progresses.

What we desperately need now is *data* relevant to quantum gravity. There are many phenomena that are the same in all the quantum gravity models (Hawking radiation, for example), but they do differ in aspects of the early universe.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Don't worry about the recorded truth of God regarding creation and the past here. Worry about trying to elevate your defeated evo fables you falsely tried to call science! Trying to use other, what you call fables does not help yours!

Nope! I'll not play your silly game. You have proven, repeatedly, that you do not and will not accept any science that conflicts with your belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, you CAN NOT accept any science that conflicts with Genesis.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It doesn't.
It seems like it does, especially given 1) how you've made it the primary focus of your comments on this thread (as opposed to focusing on the much, much more prevalent viewpoint), and 2) what you state below....

I am simply pointing out what some people believe because they are ignorant of the research, or they have made a conclusion based on faith, that they try and pass off as scientific fact.

It is like a religious person, I believe it, nothing will change my view. An admirable faith position, yet physical evidence is hard to find.
So you've taken something one person posted and parlayed that into what "some people" and "they" believe, while effectively ignoring the more commonly expressed viewpoint.

I've seen a Christian poster here express some extremely disturbing viewpoints. How would you feel if I used that as a jumping off point to talk about "what Christians believe"?

A fifth grade teacher teaches abiogenesis as a fact, he cites Miller Urey in such a way it becomes proof and the kid who doesn´t accept it becomes an outsider.
Who?

This is the danger of accepting faith as fact. I know for a fact that some ( a relatively small number) teach this way.
How do you know that?

Once again, this is my only complaint about abiogenesis , and those who believe it.

Otherwise, let the research continue, and let the chips fall wherever they fall.
So your only complaint is that one person at RF has asserted that natural abiogenesis is a fact and "a relatively small number" of teachers teach it as such? IMO, it seems your attention and response to that is a bit out of proportion to the actual issue.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
There are many Christians who believe the Theory of Evolution is fact.
There are many Christians scientists who believe the Theory of Evolution is fact.
There are many Christians clergy who believe the Theory of Evolution is fact.

Those folks are members of your religion.

And then there is this...My emphasis
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator…. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
"The Clergy Letter Project" signed by more than 10,000 Christian clergy members.

Why do you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance"?

Sorry I do not know them.

It doesn't matter whether or not you know them. You don't know the people who wrote Genesis and you don't know any of the scienetists whose findings you reject.

However, what is important is: Why do you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance"?
 

dad

Undefeated
Nope! I'll not play your silly game. You have proven, repeatedly, that you do not and will not accept any science that conflicts with your belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, you CAN NOT accept any science that conflicts with Genesis.
The conflicts are in your head, and you have no science that conflicts with a true belief interpretation of God's word. Not sure what game you are playing, or think you are playing. Carry on..
 

dad

Undefeated
It doesn't matter whether or not you know them. You don't know the people who wrote Genesis and you don't know any of the scienetists whose findings you reject.
I know what they believe. That'll do er.

However, what is important is: Why do you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance"?
It is not I that believe the whacked out evo fairy tales about origins. That would be you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
A fifth grade teacher teaches abiogenesis as a fact, he cites Miller Urey in such a way it becomes proof and the kid who doesn´t accept it becomes an outsider.
Which teacher and from which school?

Because I am finally it difficult in believing you, because Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis still undergoing research or investigation, where they haven’t settled on which model being accepted. (There are several different models of Abiogenesis, so there are more than one hypothesis.)

The researches are also very highly specialized in biochemistry, so I highly doubt they would be teaching Abiogenesis in high school.

Most high school textbooks in biology would only covered generalized modern biology, focusing on human, zoology and botany biology, on anatomy and physiology, introduction on genetics and evolution, on organic matters, particularly on proteins, nucleic acids.

No high school textbooks would focused on investigating first life, which I have said, is really a specialized field of biochemistry, that may not even be covered in university biology, let alone high school.

High school biology don’t do specialized study.

I find your claim that one teacher teaching a specialized field in high school, basically false.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This is all part of the classic BB theory, as is the singularity.
The BB theory describing the singularity as being infinitely hot and dense, are not detailed explanation.

Scientific theory needs to offered more details in explanation, but BB is rather lacking in this area.

Most of the the details about the Big Bang, is from t > 0 seconds.

And universe - the very young universe - began with the Planck Epoch, a very tiny fraction of a second, as are the other periods - Grand Unification Epoch, Inflationary Epoch, Electroweak Epoch, Quark Epoch - all occurring when the universe was less than 1 second old. And despite the rapid exponential expansion of the Inflationary Epoch, where the universe cool rapidly, the universe was still too to form hadron particles (eg protons and neutrons).

Note: Hadron particles are comprised of 3 quarks.

The BB theory offered explanation how energy form subatomic particles, which in turn formed into large particles (hadrons, the abundance of lighter elements such hydrogen, deuterium, helium) before the earliest stars formed. Hence, much of BB concern with the formation of the observable universe.

There might be singularity, but the Big Bang don’t say much about it.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How life began on Earth is yet to be determined. It is a work in progress.

I simply don’t understand shmogie’s complaints about Abiogenesis. Calling it a religion or faith, is just stupid.

It is misuse of word religion, since there are no god, no prayer and no worshiping involved.

Why must thing he don’t understand be call a religion?

They never called Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity ”religion”.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The BB theory describing the singularity as being infinitely hot and dense, are not detailed explanation.

Scientific theory needs to offered more details in explanation, but BB is rather lacking in this area.

Most of the the details about the Big Bang, is from t > 0 seconds.

Actually *all* of the classical BB model is for t>0.

And universe - the very young universe - began with the Planck Epoch, a very tiny fraction of a second, as are the other periods - Grand Unification Epoch, Inflationary Epoch, Electroweak Epoch, Quark Epoch - all occurring when the universe was less than 1 second old. And despite the rapid exponential expansion of the Inflationary Epoch, where the universe cool rapidly, the universe was still too to form hadron particles (eg protons and neutrons).

Be careful. Once you mention the Planck Epoch, you are automatically doing quantum gravity and are not in the classical model. Also, the Inflationary epcoh is not part of the classical model (although it is not strictly speaking a quantum theory).

Note: Hadron particles are comprised of 3 quarks.

The BB theory offered explanation how energy form subatomic particles, which in turn formed into large particles (hadrons, the abundance of lighter elements such hydrogen, deuterium, helium) before the earliest stars formed. Hence, much of BB concern with the formation of the observable universe.

There might be singularity, but the Big Bang don’t say much about it.

Once again, to be a singularity means that some variables go to infinity or cannot be defined as you *approach* that condition. The singularity itself is NOT a thing in the theory.
 

dad

Undefeated
How life began on Earth is yet to be determined. It is a work in progress.

I simply don’t understand shmogie’s complaints about Abiogenesis. Calling it a religion or faith, is just stupid.

It is misuse of word religion, since there are no god, no prayer and no worshiping involved.

Why must thing he don’t understand be call a religion?

They never called Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity ”religion”.
They believe life did come about by 'natural' processes. They only seek explanations that fit that belief. They only interpret things with their 'religion' in mind. A belief system that competes with Scripture and opposes it can be called a religion.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
It seems like it does, especially given 1) how you've made it the primary focus of your comments on this thread (as opposed to focusing on the much, much more prevalent viewpoint), and 2) what you state below....


So you've taken something one person posted and parlayed that into what "some people" and "they" believe, while effectively ignoring the more commonly expressed viewpoint.

I've seen a Christian poster here express some extremely disturbing viewpoints. How would you feel if I used that as a jumping off point to talk about "what Christians believe"?


Who?


How do you know that?


So your only complaint is that one person at RF has asserted that natural abiogenesis is a fact and "a relatively small number" of teachers teach it as such? IMO, it seems your attention and response to that is a bit out of proportion to the actual issue.
Nice try. I have been cross examined by the best, you aren´ t that good.

My daughters teacher. What my daughter said. School board meetings.

No, that is not my only complaint. My complaint is ignorant people who view the research for abiogenesis as being far more conclusive than it is, a chimera
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Which teacher and from which school?

Because I am finally it difficult in believing you, because Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis still undergoing research or investigation, where they haven’t settled on which model being accepted. (There are several different models of Abiogenesis, so there are more than one hypothesis.)

The researches are also very highly specialized in biochemistry, so I highly doubt they would be teaching Abiogenesis in high school.

Most high school textbooks in biology would only covered generalized modern biology, focusing on human, zoology and botany biology, on anatomy and physiology, introduction on genetics and evolution, on organic matters, particularly on proteins, nucleic acids.

No high school textbooks would focused on investigating first life, which I have said, is really a specialized field of biochemistry, that may not even be covered in university biology, let alone high school.

High school biology don’t do specialized study.

I find your claim that one teacher teaching a specialized field in high school, basically false.
Ever seen the evolution charts used in schools ? They imply stronngly abiogenesis.

Saying life began in a primitive atmosphere on a relatively new planet by natural combinations of matter isn´t research.

High school textbooks certainly do mention abiogenesis, again, as a starting point for evolution, It isn ´t described as an unknown mystery,which it is, it is described as being likely, and the old canard Miller Urey is trotted out.

Amazing that now you concede from initial defense of abiogenesis, that it is in fact an unknown, so you move to other criticisms.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Nope! I'll not play your silly game. You have proven, repeatedly, that you do not and will not accept any science that conflicts with your belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Actually, you CAN NOT accept any science that conflicts with Genesis.

The conflicts are in your head, and you have no science that conflicts with a true belief interpretation of God's word. Not sure what game you are playing, or think you are playing. Carry on..

What conflicts? What do you imagine I am conflicted about?

God's word?

17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
No matter how much you and the Ken Ham's wish and pray, the earth was not covered by a flood within the past 10,000 years.
As I said...
You CAN NOT accept any science that conflicts with Genesis.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
However, what is important is: Why do you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance"?
It is not I that believe the whacked out evo fairy tales about origins. That would be you.

It's hypocritically funny that you have now been reduced to referring to science as whacked out evo fairy tales. Ten thousand of your fellow Christian Clergymen disagree with you. Ten thousand of your fellow Christian Clergymen state you "deliberately embrace scientific ignorance".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I simply don’t understand shmogie’s complaints about Abiogenesis. Calling it a religion or faith, is just stupid.

It is misuse of word religion, since there are no god, no prayer and no worshiping involved.

Why must thing he don’t understand be call a religion?


He must try to drag science down to the level of religion wherein blind faith is all that is needed. If he were to admit, even to himself, that science is based on research and facts, it would destroy his psyche.
 
Top