• 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

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
2Ti 4:4 - And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
The word translated from Greek means this

"a speech, word, saying
  1. a narrative, story
    1. a true narrative
    2. a fiction, a fable
      1. an invention, a falsehood"
Fair enough. I was just thinking of how the word is mostly used and defined in modern times.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What point are you actually trying to make here? You keep on attacking the state of research on the process of abiogenesis but why is that at all significant?

We have plentiful evidence of how things came about up to the point about 4.4 billion years ago when life started (somehow or other) and plenty of evidence of how it evolved subsequently. Given that all of that was the result of natural processes, are you actually suggesting that it would be a sensible approach to abandon the working assumption that the start of life, that one part of the whole picture, was also natural?

Are you actually trying to compare that with religious faith?
Anyone can believe whatever they choose. Whatever working assumption that is chosen is fine, no problem.

My education and training is in the law. I spent my working life identifying and evaluating evidence.

One cannot assume evidence exists based upon the fact that other evidence allegedly exists. Because someone robbed a bank, it is not to be assumed as fact that he had been a juvenile delinquent.

My concern is not that people spend their entire life in OOL research or that all kinds of experiments are going on related to abiogenesis. I certainly have no objection to the results of these experiments being made known or written about.

My sole objection is that intelligent people buy into the imaginary process as if it was established scientific fact. It must be is not it is.

Faith is faith. The Bible defines faith as ¨ the evidence of things hoped for, the reality of things not seen¨.

It is a perfect definition of religious faith, and it is a perfect definition of what abiogenesis believers have.

There have been some very interesting discoveries, however, they are not evidence of abiogenesis, they are evidence of the results.

Since Miller Urey has been kicked around, I will use it as an example. It produced 9 amino acids and some proteins. The experiment was carefully designed and was continually adjusted. A point was reached where oxygen, a strong oxidizer, was added in extremely precise limited amounts. All chemicals and gasses were carefully purified. Oxygen is a strong oxidizer, too much and it can be destructive to the organics.

So, Miller Urey proved that 9 amino acids and proteins can be produced in a laboratory. An accomplishment, but evidence for abiogenesis ? Only in the most extremely tenuous way. Yet it is considered and taught as proof of abiogenesis,

This is what I object to, the packaging of one thing, so that it appears as another.

The pretense that a washer proves a Lamborghini.

Faith is faith, to pretend a belief is established without evidence is disingenuous.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No, the Big Bang is about the development of the observable universe, and all the development of forces (gravity, EM, weak and strong nuclear), subatomic and atomic particles and large structures (eg stars, galaxies) formed within that universe, all due to the EXPANSION.

The BB also covered how stars formed elements heavier than hydrogen and helium atoms from death of stars (eg red giant stars, supernovas, etc).

The theory really begins with the Planck Epoch (from 0 to 10^−43 seconds). It doesn’t really say much (never explain) about BEFORE the BB (before the Planck Epoch), leaving it as open question.

Even the Planck Epoch is little understood, and still hypothetical and theoretical.
This is all part of the classic BB theory, as is the singularity.

It is revisionism to say that what was being ( is being?) taught in Astronomy classes was a big bang without the bang.

A reversal of the expansion results in the singularity.

Singularity can many times be interpreted as "we on know¨, nevertheless, regardless of that, something banged. To pretend that whatever banged didn´t exist is disingenuous.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It is a perfect definition of religious faith, and it is a perfect definition of what abiogenesis believers have.

Except that it (quite obviously) isn't. I don't need to believe anything at all about how life began on Earth. For the reasons I outlined (and you ignored), a good working assumption is that it was some sort of natural process (as yet unknown). For the same reasons an intervention by a creator god seems unlikely, even if there were some reason to think one exists.

Having said that, it could be that it is some process that is entirely outside of anything known by current science (which would include "divine intervention", despite the bizarre narrative that would involve). I don't rule anything out unless it has actually been falsified - so where is this faith?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Except that it (quite obviously) isn't. I don't need to believe anything at all about how life began on Earth. For the reasons I outlined (and you ignored), a good working assumption is that it was some sort of natural process (as yet unknown). For the same reasons an intervention by a creator god seems unlikely, even if there were some reason to think one exists.

Having said that, it could be that it is some process that is entirely outside of anything known by current science (which would include "divine intervention", despite the bizarre narrative that would involve). I don't rule anything out unless it has actually been falsified - so where is this faith?
I did address the reasons you outlined when I discussed assumptions as evidence.

You don´t have the faith, good for you. I assure you that millions do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I did address the reasons you outlined when I discussed assumptions as evidence.

You don´t have the faith, good for you. I assure you that millions do.
Someone should ask shmogie what assumptions. And one needs to remind him that faith is his weakness. Accusing others of his own downfalls is not very Christian.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This is all part of the classic BB theory, as is the singularity.

It is revisionism to say that what was being ( is being?) taught in Astronomy classes was a big bang without the bang.

That depends on whether you consider the 'bang' to be an explosion or an expansion. It was NOT an explosion (expansion into something external). It *is* an expansion of space.

A reversal of the expansion results in the singularity.

Only if you use general relativity and no quantum mechanics. Most versions of quantum gravity do NOT have a singularity.

Singularity can many times be interpreted as "we on know¨, nevertheless, regardless of that, something banged. To pretend that whatever banged didn´t exist is disingenuous.

I assume you mean 'we don't know', which is correct.

But you are wrong to say something existed before the universe that 'banged' in the classic model. That is simply false (although it can be true in certain versions of quantum gravity). In classical GR, only t>0 is allowed. It doesn't even make sense to talk about t<=0. The time coordinate simply cannot be extended to t=0 or before. That is part of what is means to be a singularity in this case.

In the classical Big bang model, there is literally nothing before the Big Bang since there is no 'before' at all.

Now, in quantum gravity, it is quite possible to NOT have a singularity (although the density and temperatures do get very, very high, they do NOT go infinite). In those models, it *is* possible to extend the time coordinate further backwards. In fact, it is possible to extend it infinitely far back. Furthermore, matter and energy exist for all time: there is no 'creation' event, per se, only a change in state at the (classical) Big Bang.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
What does "middle ground" mean? It means there exists an area between "we know absolutely nothing" and "it's been proven".

Specific to origins, we do know more than absolutely nothing. We know the earth at one point in time didn't have life on it, and then it did. We know life first appeared on earth sometime between 4.5 and 3.7 billion years ago. We know the first life forms were single-celled, relatively simple organisms (i.e., life on earth didn't begin with mammals). We know the first life forms had a set of essential, now ubiquitous genes that are shared by all life on earth today. We know many of the basic building blocks of life can be made by plausible chemical pathways that occur in early planetary systems (e.g., amino acids have been found in space).

Beyond that, there are other things that while we may not "know" them, we can still be fairly confident about them. For example, being in the life sciences myself, I've spent the better part of my life studying life in various forms. I've seen how it replicates itself, how it adapts and evolves to changing conditions, and how it generally goes about its business. In all of these observations, there's one consistent underlying theme that never changes: It does it all by itself. IOW, everything life on earth does, it does by natural means. We can explain the most amazing processes without any need to throw our hands up in the air and say, "Huh! I think some god just did that!"

When we look at cells operating today all we ever see are natural processes, and we never see anything magical or supernatural going on. Thus, from a purely logical and consistency standpoint, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the first life on earth arose via equally natural mechanisms, even if we don't know what they are.

From an even broader perspective, we look around the universe and see other non-biological processes in chemistry, geology, climatology, cosmology, physics, etc. and all of them operate via completely natural means.

So yeah, we do know more than nothing.


Not sure why you felt the need to throw that accusation at me, but I guess that's your MO.


Weird. What I consistently see from science advocates are acknowledgements that the OOL are an unknown and research is being done, both of which are true. The only folks I've ever seen claim any sort of certainty on this issue are the creationists.


Perhaps so. Having been involved with research programs most of my professional life I can say that's not at all unusual. In fact, it's pretty much the nature of scientific research. It's all about trying to solve puzzles, which obviously can be very frustrating at times.


I've never seen anyone express that here.
I am speaking of non scientists when it comes to the faith. You can see them here.

Sensational media reports, personal needs and beliefs equate to faith,

Faith is a fine thing, I have no objection to it.

When it is substituted for established fact, then it becomes an untruth.

I made no accusation of you, I was simply stating what is common.

Those precursor single celled organisms, are they reflected in the fossil record ? I did some research on this a number of years ago, and at that time they were not. Things change.

Yes, DNA in conjunction with RNA are powerhouses within the cell, and they compel it to survive and operate, reproduce, and do the things you noted,

How they came into being is a separate discussion, but your observations re life are spot on.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I am speaking of non scientists when it comes to the faith. You can see them here.

Sensational media reports, personal needs and beliefs equate to faith,

Faith is a fine thing, I have no objection to it.

When it is substituted for established fact, then it becomes an untruth.

I made no accusation of you, I was simply stating what is common.
Again, I've not seen anyone here say that the origins of the first life on earth has been proven.

Those precursor single celled organisms, are they reflected in the fossil record ? I did some research on this a number of years ago, and at that time they were not. Things change.
I'm not clear on what you're referring to.

Yes, DNA in conjunction with RNA are powerhouses within the cell, and they compel it to survive and operate, reproduce, and do the things you noted,

How they came into being is a separate discussion, but your observations re life are spot on.
Okay, thanks. My hope is that you now appreciate that there is indeed middle ground between "it's all just blind faith" and "it's been 100% proven".
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
That depends on whether you consider the 'bang' to be an explosion or an expansion. It was NOT an explosion (expansion into something external). It *is* an expansion of space.



Only if you use general relativity and no quantum mechanics. Most versions of quantum gravity do NOT have a singularity.



I assume you mean 'we don't know', which is correct.

But you are wrong to say something existed before the universe that 'banged' in the classic model. That is simply false (although it can be true in certain versions of quantum gravity). In classical GR, only t>0 is allowed. It doesn't even make sense to talk about t<=0. The time coordinate simply cannot be extended to t=0 or before. That is part of what is means to be a singularity in this case.

In the classical Big bang model, there is literally nothing before the Big Bang since there is no 'before' at all.

Now, in quantum gravity, it is quite possible to NOT have a singularity (although the density and temperatures do get very, very high, they do NOT go infinite). In those models, it *is* possible to extend the time coordinate further backwards. In fact, it is possible to extend it infinitely far back. Furthermore, matter and energy exist for all time: there is no 'creation' event, per se, only a change in state at the (classical) Big Bang.
Goodness, my Astronomy professor was wrong ?

You imply that quantum mechanics and relativity have been successfully melded in the current understanding of the BB. Is this true ?

If so, in laymans terms, please explain this integrated theory. I have never come across it.

I first learned of the BB in the late 1960ś, and I assure you that it was taught with the singularity as part of the entire theory, All of the reading I have done on the theory has included the singularity.

I am sure you have Curiosity Stream. There was a documentary on that channel with Michio Akaku (sp?) that included the singularity in itś discussion of the BB.

I certainly don´t doubt your post, you seem to know what you are talking about. Nevertheless, the model of the BB with the singularity has been around for a long time, and still is.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Goodness, my Astronomy professor was wrong ?

You imply that quantum mechanics and relativity have been successfully melded in the current understanding of the BB. Is this true ?

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

If so, in laymans terms, please explain this integrated theory. I have never come across it.

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.

I first learned of the BB in the late 1960ś, and I assure you that it was taught with the singularity as part of the entire theory, All of the reading I have done on the theory has included the singularity.

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.

I am sure you have Curiosity Stream. There was a documentary on that channel with Michio Akaku (sp?) that included the singularity in itś discussion of the BB.

I certainly don´t doubt your post, you seem to know what you are talking about. Nevertheless, the model of the BB with the singularity has been around for a long time, and still is.

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.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Again, I've not seen anyone here say that the origins of the first life on earth has been proven.


I'm not clear on what you're referring to.


Okay, thanks. My hope is that you now appreciate that there is indeed middle ground between "it's all just blind faith" and "it's been 100% proven".
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.
 

dad

Undefeated
Since I have no religious beliefs,..
If you believe in origin science accounts you sure do. No need to admit it, as I understand the common trait of your religion is denial that you even have one!
.
 

dad

Undefeated
Do try to keep up with the conversation. You are the one who made the comment about origin fables and knowledge. Are you really going to try to imply that your 6000 year old creation fable is not an origin creation fable?..
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!
 

dad

Undefeated
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..
Sorry I do not know them.
 

dad

Undefeated
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..
Sorry I do not know them.
 

dad

Undefeated
Humans are animals, dad. It is not fable.

We are also mammals.

You have no problem with humans been classified as mammals, do you?
In your religion, yes. In mine, NO way. The sweeping classifications of so called science that include man with beasts is just a beastly little part of your religion!
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
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.
Why does that one person's assertions carry more weight and significance than the more common viewpoint that OOL remains an unsolved mystery?
 
Top