1. 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!

Featured Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Wandering Monk, Jul 4, 2019.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,097
    Ratings:
    +14,416
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,714
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  3. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,714
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26,097
    Ratings:
    +14,416
    Religion:
    Atheist

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,699
    Ratings:
    +11,226
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    #505 Polymath257, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:42 PM
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,699
    Ratings:
    +3,726
    Religion:
    atheist
    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.
     
  7. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,936
    Ratings:
    +3,402
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,699
    Ratings:
    +3,726
    Religion:
    atheist

    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"?
     
  9. dad

    dad Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    956
    Ratings:
    +93
    Religion:
    christian
    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..
     
  10. dad

    dad Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    956
    Ratings:
    +93
    Religion:
    christian
    I know what they believe. That'll do er.

    It is not I that believe the whacked out evo fairy tales about origins. That would be you.
     
  11. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,807
    Ratings:
    +3,849
    Religion:
    Pi π
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,807
    Ratings:
    +3,849
    Religion:
    Pi π
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,807
    Ratings:
    +3,849
    Religion:
    Pi π
    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”.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,699
    Ratings:
    +11,226
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Actually *all* of the classical BB model is for t>0.

    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).

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. dad

    dad Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    956
    Ratings:
    +93
    Religion:
    christian
    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.
     
  16. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,714
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    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
     
  17. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,714
    Ratings:
    +1,268
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  18. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,699
    Ratings:
    +3,726
    Religion:
    atheist
    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.
     
    #518 ecco, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:40 AM
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,699
    Ratings:
    +3,726
    Religion:
    atheist
    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".
     
  20. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,699
    Ratings:
    +3,726
    Religion:
    atheist

    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.
     
Loading...