Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[Subduction Zone]

Y.e.s.s.s. and NO. It's more than argument from ignorance - it goes to the whole
philosophy of science. Science is about the natural world, about causes and
effects, things which bump and grind, probabilities of things happening etc..
But something from deep utter NOTHING is no longer science. Out of that
"impossible" void the universe expands into what became the universe in the first
place.
People who think they know science, or boast of its achievements (I was a
science teacher myself) avoid this like creationists avoid the concepts of
natural selection.

No, sorry, still just a failed argument from ignorance that ends up in infinite regress. The proper action to take when one does not know is to say "I don't know". It is never correct to say "I don't know therefor God">

 

[gnostic]

But something from deep utter NOTHING is no longer science. Out of that
"impossible" void the universe expands into what became the universe in the first
place.

Except that the Big Bang doesn’t say the universe came from “nothing” or “nothingness”.

You continue to misrepresent what the theory is saying.

All explanation of the universe occurred when the universe started expanding, with time t > 0 second. There is no explanation of BEFORE t = 0 second.

And the explanation of the forces, elementary particles, matters and stars and galaxies formed, does say anything about all of these coming from “nothing”.

Clearly you haven’t read the explanation to the Big Bang theory.

For once, can you be honest with yourself, and try to understand what the theory is actually saying, and not imagine what you want to say or make up what you believe it saying or not rely on dubious or questionable sources?

 

[PruePhillip]

No, that was you again. I do not believe in a god.
And your second question is improper. It assumes the need of a god. Why think that one is needed at all?

Thanks but you didn't answer the question, "What does this mean? 'And God
commanded the seas to bring forth life.' " Genesis 1.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, sorry, still just a failed argument from ignorance that ends up in infinite regress. The proper action to take when one does not know is to say "I don't know". It is never correct to say "I don't know therefor God">

It's better to declare:
I don't know what brought the entire physical world into existence.
But it wasn't through physics because there was no physics.
It is therefor:
1 - a miracle
2 - or created by an external entity.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that the Big Bang doesn’t say the universe came from “nothing” or “nothingness”.

You continue to misrepresent what the theory is saying.

All explanation of the universe occurred when the universe started expanding, with time t > 0 second. There is no explanation of BEFORE t = 0 second.

And the explanation of the forces, elementary particles, matters and stars and galaxies formed, does say anything about all of these coming from “nothing”.

Clearly you haven’t read the explanation to the Big Bang theory.

For once, can you be honest with yourself, and try to understand what the theory is actually saying, and not imagine what you want to say or make up what you believe it saying or not rely on dubious or questionable sources?

What went before t = 0 ?
Maybe t = -1 ?
One theory posits that hyperspace membranes caused the Big Bang.
Whatever, I don't refer to the Big Bang, I prefer Event 1, whatever it
was, which started the whole show rolling. Once you have something
you can create the universe - but it must include time, space, energy,
matter, maths, physics etc.. By definition these did not begin before
Event 1.

 

[PruePhillip]

Too bad that there is no evidence for that belief. Actually you do not know of any other way besides a god. That is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

Also, there is no evidence that physical events can do things without
external agents (ie energy, space etc..)
The evidence for a universe creating itself is as scarce as the
evidence for God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks but you didn't answer the question, "What does this mean? 'And God
commanded the seas to bring forth life.' " Genesis 1.

I really do not care what you think it means. In Genesis you make the error of ignoring the errors and counting anything even slightly close to a hit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, there is no evidence that physical events can do things without
external agents (ie energy, space etc..)
The evidence for a universe creating itself is as scarce as the
evidence for God.

i would suggest that you study quantum mechanics.

Why would the universe need to create itself? It would help if you dropped loaded terminology.

 

[PruePhillip]

I really do not care what you think it means. In Genesis you make the error of ignoring the errors and counting anything even slightly close to a hit.

That's true, you are
1 - teasing out clues
2 - acknowledging the statements which are scientifically accurate.

Wandering Sumerians/Hebrews ought not to have know any of
this stuff. Getting one or two right could be coincidence, getting
them all fairly accurate is uncanny.
And then, having this account survive for four or five thousand
years, despite being ridiculous to its readers, is something to
marvel at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's better to declare:
I don't know what brought the entire physical world into existence.
But it wasn't through physics because there was no physics.
It is therefor:
1 - a miracle
2 - or created by an external entity.

Nope, both your conclusions are unjustified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's true, you are
1 - teasing out clues
2 - acknowledging the statements which are scientifically accurate.

Wandering Sumerians/Hebrews ought not to have know any of
this stuff. Getting one or two right could be coincidence, getting
them all fairly accurate is uncanny.
And then, having this account survive for four or five thousand
years, despite being ridiculous to its readers, is something to
marvel at.

We have very limited knowledge of who lived then. And you once again count the near or possible hits and ignore the misses.

 

[PruePhillip]

i would suggest that you study quantum mechanics.

Why would the universe need to create itself? It would help if you dropped loaded terminology.

Quantum mechanics is a component of the universe.
It is thought that new universes can spring out of nowhere due to instabilities in
quantum pairing. This is all freakishly complex stuff - but again, you need a
universe for there to be a quantum (an electron is a zero radius "particle" which
in reality is just a fluctuation in space.)

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope, both your conclusions are unjustified.

Oh yes, there are two more:

It is therefor:
1 - a miracle
2 - created by an external entity.
3 - something which science will explain in due time
4 - something not to think about

 

[shunyadragon]

That's true, you are
1 - teasing out clues
2 - acknowledging the statements which are scientifically accurate.

Wandering Sumerians/Hebrews ought not to have know any of
this stuff. Getting one or two right could be coincidence, getting
them all fairly accurate is uncanny.
And then, having this account survive for four or five thousand
years, despite being ridiculous to its readers, is something to
marvel at.

You have to be very selective in quotes to claim these citations support the history of our physical existence, universe and life, and stretch the citations to fit. Many scriptures of ancient cultures may be selectively cited and interpreted to fit some aspects of science, but in reality like the Bible they reflect an ancient worldview perspective of the history of our physical existence, life and humanity.

No, in reality they did not know much 'stuff' about science outside the practical aspects of their ancient worldview like in the engineering of massive buildings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes, there are two more:

It is therefor:
1 - a miracle
2 - created by an external entity.
3 - something which science will explain in due time
4 - something not to think about

Still incomplete. We may never know, no m how much studying we do. There is no evidence of a god. So why believe in one?

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh yes, there are two more:

It is therefor:
1 - a miracle
2 - created by an external entity.
3 - something which science will explain in due time
4 - something not to think about

1 and 2 are theological beliefs not remotely related to science, 3 is wishful thinking based on a religious agenda and not science. 4 has no meaning, please explain.

 

[PruePhillip]

You have to be very selective in quotes to claim these citations support the history of our physical existence, universe and life, and stretch the citations to fit. Many scriptures of ancient cultures may be selectively cited and interpreted to fit some aspects of science, but in reality like the Bible they reflect an ancient worldview perspective of the history of our physical existence, life and humanity.

No, in reality they did not know much 'stuff' about science outside the practical aspects of their ancient worldview like in the engineering of massive buildings.

yeah, the engineering is Super Cool, like the Roman temple in Syria with a 2,000 ton
stone plinth raised about a hundred feet.
But from time to time I do read "creation myths." I cannot help but feel a respect for
Genesis account (not the second one, the talking snake)
In 1980 I wouldn't believe any of it. The earth was molten and the sun shone brightly
And then some areas filled with water, and from the water came life. But by 2019 it
was obvious this picture was all Dead Wrong. There really WAS a stage when the
earth was dark and covered in sterile water. A good guess? What's the chances?

Let's check:

1 - earth is wholly ocean
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

2 - earth is dark
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

3 - earth is sterile
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

4 - earth's atmosphere became transparent
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

5 - continents rose
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

6 - life appeared on land
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

7 - life appeared in the oceans
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

8 - man was the last
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

Do the math
10x5x10x10x20x5x10x10
= one chance in 900,000,000

ONE CHANCE IN NEARLY A BILLION

 

[PruePhillip]

1 and 2 are theological beliefs not remotely related to science, 3 is wishful thinking based on a religious agenda and not science. 4 has no meaning, please explain.

There's a lot of this "let's not think about it" in science, particularly physics.
I just can't think of any at the moment - I must think about it.


ps 1 - a miracle
Any phenomena which doesn't come from physics, but created its own
physics, has to be a miracle.

 

[shunyadragon]

yeah, the engineering is Super Cool, like the Roman temple in Syria with a 2,000 ton
stone plinth raised about a hundred feet.
But from time to time I do read "creation myths." I cannot help but feel a respect for
Genesis account (not the second one, the talking snake)
In 1980 I wouldn't believe any of it. The earth was molten and the sun shone brightly
And then some areas filled with water, and from the water came life. But by 2019 it
was obvious this picture was all Dead Wrong. There really WAS a stage when the
earth was dark and covered in sterile water. A good guess? What's the chances?

Let's check:

1 - earth is wholly ocean
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

2 - earth is dark
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

3 - earth is sterile
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

4 - earth's atmosphere became transparent
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

5 - continents rose
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

6 - life appeared on land
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 5

7 - life appeared in the oceans
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 10

8 - man was the last
chances of getting this right, say, 1 in 20

Do the math
10x5x10x10x20x5x10x10
= one chance in 900,000,000

ONE CHANCE IN NEARLY A BILLION

Actually in context it all reflects an ancient world view and does not remotely reflect the contemporary science of billions of years of history, and, of course, evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's a lot of this "let's not think about it" in science, particularly physics.
I just can't think of any at the moment - I must think about it.

No, 'let's not think about it' has nothing to do with science.