rrobs
Well-Known Member
Settled? And it will stand for the next 2,000 years?
-
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!
Aristotle on the Origin of Life
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In no way is science anti-God and, at least two me, the two must mesh because the Truth cannot be relative even though they approach the Truth from different perspectives.
As Einstein said, to study the universe and all that's in it is to study God.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I forgot Einstein said that. Brilliant man, that Einstein.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Aristotle actually laid the groundwork the scientific method. Do you not think that Aristotle was as sure of his science as we are or ours? Probably, and yet we now know he wasn't close to the actual nature of things.
But that aside, the point of the OP was to muse on where science will be 2,000 years from now. Might we be proven to have as incomplete knowledge of nature as Aristotle? Isn't an open mind fundamental to science? Seems like a lot of "scientist" here do not exercise such and open mind. To many, we have arrived and that is the end of story.
Heyo
Veteran Member
We have known that the square root of 2 is not a rational number for about 2300 years and I know that that won't change within the next 2300 years. Am I closed minded?
If I understand you correctly, you advocate the position that knowledge about anything is impossible, a much more radical position than even my radical Agnosticism. It borders on solipsism.
Am I right?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, you didn't understand me correctly. Probably from my lack of clarity. In any case, pi is pi, and evolution is evolution. Pure mathematics is not at all like evolution. Pi is a mathematical constant whereas evolution is a theory.
So we both agree on pi. Do you see the possibility that evolution will be turned on it's head in 2,000 years? Personally, I think that is a distinct possibility, perhaps even a probability.
Heyo
Veteran Member
And all scientific theories are subject to change or replacement. What are not subject to change or replacement are the facts, fossil record, DNA, evo-devo. Every new theory has to explain all of these facts and make predictions other than the ToE and be found more correct than the ToE.
That makes it impossible that the ToE is turned by 180 degrees. Evolution is a fact, the ToE is backed by so much evidence like few other theories and the principle of evolution is a mathematical certainty.
The knowledge about evolution makes those who know the details as sure as a mathematician is sure that pi is irrational.
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, the modern cosmology started shortly after Edwin Hubble discovered there are more galaxies in the universe than just the Milky Way.
His discovery came from his observation in 1919, that the Andromeda and Triangulum were separate galaxies, not nebulae as everyone thought prior to 1919’s discovery.
Shortly after his discovery, 3 astrophysicists independently came up with the expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang theory in 1949):
- Alexander Friedmann, 1922
- Howard Percy Robertson, 1924-25
- Georges Lemaître, 1927
Competing against this hypothesis at that time, was Einstein’s own Static Universe theory, where the universe was eternally unchanging.
Hubble’s own contributions to the expanding universe model, was the discovery of redshift in 1929, in which both Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaître (1927) have both independently proposed how to observe EM spectrum for astronomical bodies (eg stars, galaxies, etc) moving away from each others, as indications of universe expanding.
The discovery of redshift was the first evidence for the Big Bang theory.
The next major contribution to the expanding universe model were made by papers co-written by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, all in 1948. Gamow had proposed the early Universe was hot, hence later known as the Hot Big Bang theory.
Gamow-Alpher proposed the Primordial Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) were responsible for atomic nuclei bonding lightest elements, creating ionised hydrogen, deuterium and helium atoms in the early universe.
The papers of Alpher and Herman proposed how electrons bonded with the nuclei of ionised atoms to form first electrical-neutral and stable hydrogen and helium atoms in the earlier universe, which resulted in universe becoming transparent and and release energies and radiation, decoupling photons. This radiation was known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
CMBR wasn’t discovered, accidentally, until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who were setting up their radio dish of their radio telescope. They accidentally detected CMBR, and were awarded Nobel prize for their discovery.
The 3rd major contribution to occur with the Big Bang theory was in the 1990s, to discover how and why the universe was continuing to expand, with the proposal of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. This became the standard model for the Big Bang theory - ΛCDM or Lambda Cold Dark Matter.
NASA, ESA (European Space Agency) and other Observatories around the world, have been actively working on the Big Bang theory in 2000s and 2010s.
So for cladking to make baseless claim that modern cosmology is stuck, just show how ignorant he really is with the history of physical cosmology.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Oh, I forgot to add, about Einstein’s Static Universe Cosmology model, which he developed in 1917.
Einstein used a different metric to get a solution to use with his Field Equations for General Relativity, known as the Cosmological Constant.
Well, in 1929, after Hubble had discovered the redshift, Einstein abandoned his cosmology hypothesis, and admitted that the Cosmological Constant and the Static Universe model were his greatest blunder.
But as it turned out, while his Static Universe model was still debunked, but his Cosmological Constant wasn’t a blunder after all.
In the 1990s, theoretical astrophysicists have found application for the Cosmological Constant in the ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), the current standard model of the Big Bang theory.
The Lambda Λ signifies or represents the Dark Energy.
From the Redshift Surveys and from surveys of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of both WMAP and the Planck missions, it indicate total mass and energy of the universe is made from the following figures:
ordinary matter 4.82%
dark matter 25.8%
dark energy 69%
And that the universe is about 13.798 billion years old.
Einstein used a different metric to get a solution to use with his Field Equations for General Relativity, known as the Cosmological Constant.
Well, in 1929, after Hubble had discovered the redshift, Einstein abandoned his cosmology hypothesis, and admitted that the Cosmological Constant and the Static Universe model were his greatest blunder.
But as it turned out, while his Static Universe model was still debunked, but his Cosmological Constant wasn’t a blunder after all.
In the 1990s, theoretical astrophysicists have found application for the Cosmological Constant in the ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), the current standard model of the Big Bang theory.
The Lambda Λ signifies or represents the Dark Energy.
From the Redshift Surveys and from surveys of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of both WMAP and the Planck missions, it indicate total mass and energy of the universe is made from the following figures:
ordinary matter 4.82%
dark matter 25.8%
dark energy 69%
And that the universe is about 13.798 billion years old.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
cladking said: ↑
Cosmology has been mostly stuck for a hundred years.
When do we admit the problems might be fundamental?
-------------------
Most of the modern cosmology is de facto based on ideas from about 1650 with Newtons speculations about gravity, "laws of celestial motions" and the later gravitational ideas of cosmic collisions, explosions and accretion of the explosed stars.
I´ll say cosmology already became stuck with Newton - but Cladking is right on the spot claiming cosmology to be (even more) stuck for about hundred years when cosmologists left the studies of the three significantly stronger electromagnetic fundamental forces and took the weakest and one-directional assumed "fundamental force" of all to count for everything in the Universe.
Cosmology has been mostly stuck for a hundred years.
When do we admit the problems might be fundamental?
-------------------
Or maybe you take modern cosmology for granted without questioning anything?
Natural Cosmology and Cosmogony have really existed for thousands of years in several cultures with their descriptions of Creation Stories. If you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all over the World, you´ll find very similar tellings how the creation/formation came to be.
Most of the modern cosmology is de facto based on ideas from about 1650 with Newtons speculations about gravity, "laws of celestial motions" and the later gravitational ideas of cosmic collisions, explosions and accretion of the explosed stars.
Every single one of these issues can be and are been questioned because they all are based on just ONE single (speculated) fundamental force and even the weakest of them all.
I´ll say cosmology already became stuck with Newton - but Cladking is right on the spot claiming cosmology to be (even more) stuck for about hundred years when cosmologists left the studies of the three significantly stronger electromagnetic fundamental forces and took the weakest and one-directional assumed "fundamental force" of all to count for everything in the Universe.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
We've certainly learned a lot in the last century but theory has not advanced a lot.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I rather would say we´ve learned of lots of cosmological theories and learned almost nothing regarding real cosmological advances and unified knowledge.
In fact, modern cosmology has gone completely into "dark mode" all over the places because "gravity" cannot explain several observations and cosmological motions and provide logical explanations. When being contradicted, dark matter, dark energy and dark holes or objects are all just speculative and inserted Newtonian ghosts.
A theoretical unification in cosmology will not happen before modern cosmologists drop the Newtonian speculative idea of "gravity" and include the EM forces, qualities and motion of formation.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Outside of experiment there is no "theory". Cosmologists now try to model reality through mathematics but this will prove to be impossible at least in the short term because there is far too little known. No tool can do more than its design and I fear the tool we call "science" has reached the end of its usefulness. This is hardly to say we must abandon it but I believe we must modify its metaphysics to get over the impossibility of designing experiment to advance theory. We need to attack these things from a new direction.
We have one strange new hypothesis after another each of which is unfalsifiable. This is a product of math and not experiment. We then make observation which seems to support these hypotheses but this occurs only because mathematics is logical and is explaining some of the logic underlying reality. Since we believe in "laws of nature" these observations seem to reflect the "laws" rather than the logic of math corresponding to the logic of reality. There are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Obviously this is a product of math since there's not even a single one in reality.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't think even the "big bang" is really theory. It is a mathematically consistent way to explain a wide array of observation. That the universe appears to have originated from a point is quite interesting but hardly very likely in reality. There is some reason math and observation support this but it seems that at this point it is simply unknown.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Nobody likes any of my "theories" but I believe this is caused by the fact that ancient people used a different kind of science that proceeded differently and arriving at the same points because just as 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 any logical science corresponds to any other. The stories and myths are merely attempts at preserving ancient theory.
This is very true. We essentially have a single math and single metaphysics. We share definitions and axioms so everything must be explicable in these terms. Yet chaos theory tends to be held aside as an interesting dog and pony show with limited application to real science.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I can hear Aristotle saying all of that about his ideas. That doesn't mean what you say is wrong, but it is food for thought. I'm talking about 2,000 years of using at least as good of scientific methods we currently use (probably much better methods will arise, but we'll discount that probability for now) just may prove our current theory of evolution is completely wrong.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Maybe our misunderstanding is in the term "completely wrong". What do you mean by that?
Do you think it is possible that we find that DNA is not the carrier of the building plan of the phenotype?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Good question. I guess "completely wrong" is too much. Maybe "a lot wrong?"
As far phenotype go, they do carry the building plan. That is precisely what makes a dog a dog, and why a dog will always make a dog. They can undergo mutations, but it will be a mutated dog, perhaps over time a new species of dog, but a dog nonetheless. I don't think in and of themselves they either prove or disprove evolution.
Having said that, I would consider it highly possible that in 2,000 years science will see something more fundamental than phenotypes that make us what we are. But maybe not.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nobody educated in science thinks that, though. It's just another of these silly straw men erected by creationists in order to ridicule science. No doubt it is rhetorically useful, when ridiculing science to a select audience of ignorant creationists, though. I'm sure it gets a lot of laughs in such company.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Well, then we mostly agree. Evolution will still be "the change of allele frequencies n a population over time", we will still have descent with modification and we will still have (natural) selection. Only that you call that "totally different" and I call it "basically the same".