The Big Bang and Evolution

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually discovery can start with a guess. If one dismisses possibilities, is one really searching for the Real Truth?

No such thing as Real Truth™. Sorry about that. Humans are hampered by the limitations of only having 5 major senses (and several more obscure ones that are too specific).

This is why all scientific theories are called theories: it is a recognition that they are all, at best, a model, a representation that lets us (scientists, specifically) make useful predictions about the Universe.

For example, the theory of Newton's gravity model? Was used to navigate space craft from Earth to Mars-- successfully. That is a prediction of monumental proportions: It would have been akin to shooting a rifle from Los Angles, and trying to hit Big Ben in London, using Morse Code to communicate course corrections.

But, using the predictive power of Newton's equations, the engineers could calculate the projected path of the spacecraft.

Yes-- I said Newton, not Einstein. Both are models of the Universe. Both work very well, within their limitations.

For example Newton's works extremely well, if you limit time to less than 100 years, and you limit speed to less than a fraction of light-speed, and you limit mass to less than Stellar proportions. Within all of that? Newton is quite effective.

Is Newton wrong? Yes-- and no. It is just a model.

Einstein is wrong too-- if you go beyond its limits. Say... Quantum Mechanics.

Ironically, Einstein--one of the most brilliant humans in the 20th century-- wasted the last of his life in an effort to prove Quantum Mechanics wrong in some way.

He failed. But even Quantum Mechanics is not the Real Truth™

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Right I don't want it to be a Bible study, just a simple acknowledgement that some, including some scientist believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and of life. Of course it would be more than "God did it," It would include the impossibility of matter, energy and life creating itself out of nothing, that "after its kind, is what we see and can prove, and a scientific explanation of genetics, and why the laws of genetics refute evolution. Something you evos were never taught.

You see, creationism is lot more that 3 words.

I think we can all grant you that there are scientists who believe in God.

But teaching what you propose would be teaching faith based ideas derived from creationist apologetics. You have not established the impossibility of matter existing without a god, that evolution is false, or that whatever you mean by the laws of genetics (Mendel's three laws of inheritance?) refute evolution. They're all just unsupported claims.

Have you ever defined what a "kind" is or described the mechanism that you claim exists to prevent one "kind" from evolving into two over large periods of time?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It might be interesting to you that ~15% of the members of the American Academy of Science believe in a personal god. But even that doesn't mean they all believe in your interpretation.

I'm sure that you've seen Tyson's reaction to that:

"An article on those data recently in Nature, it said: "85% of the National Academy reject a personal god." .... You know, that's not the story there! They missed the story! What that article should have said is: "How come this number isn't zero!?" THAT's the story! Ok? So, my esteemed colleague ... Professor Krauss here says: "All we have to do is make a scientifically literate public." Well, when you do, how can they do better than the scientists themselves, in their percentages of who's religious and who isn't? That's kind of unrealistic, I think ... So it's not 85% reject, it's that 15% of the most brilliant minds the nation has accepts it. And that's something that we can't just sweep under the rug. Otherwise were being disingenuous to our... to the efforts here. And that's something that we can't just sweep under the rug. "

 

[Thumper]

I'm sure that you've seen Tyson's reaction to that:

"An article on those data recently in Nature, it said: "85% of the National Academy reject a personal god." .... You know, that's not the story there! They missed the story! What that article should have said is: "How come this number isn't zero!?" THAT's the story! Ok? So, my esteemed colleague ... Professor Krauss here says: "All we have to do is make a scientifically literate public." Well, when you do, how can they do better than the scientists themselves, in their percentages of who's religious and who isn't? That's kind of unrealistic, I think ... So it's not 85% reject, it's that 15% of the most brilliant minds the nation has accepts it. And that's something that we can't just sweep under the rug. Otherwise were being disingenuous to our... to the efforts here. And that's something that we can't just sweep under the rug. Otherwise were being disingenuous to our... to the efforts here."

And, if anyone hasn't seen Neil deGrasse Tyson making this point painfully clear --

 

[ArtieE]

No such thing as Real Truth™. Sorry about that. Humans are hampered by the limitations of only having 5 major senses (and several more obscure ones that are too specific).

How do you know there's no such thing as Real Truth™?

 

[Thumper]

How do you know there's no such thing as Real Truth™?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How do you know there's no such thing as Real Truth™?

Because that would require Real Perception™.

It would also require Real, No-Biased Observers™.

Neither of those things exist.... we are mere humans, organic brains who are fundamentally grounded on older, more primitive brains which operate on emotional cues.

None of us are Vulcans, and indeed, even Vulcans suffered from an emotional under-current, and spent a great deal of energy trying to overcome such limitations.

We are never informed if they were ever successful.

But back to the statement: Due to emotional bias, humans are not really ever able to be purely objective-- and even if they could think in such a way?

Humans also suffer from limited senses: Sight, sound, touch, etc-- and even those are filtered a great deal. Do we see all possible frequencies? No. Do we hear all possible sounds? Not even with instruments.

Oh, sure-- we are getting better and better-- but.

What if there are things that sight, sound and touch cannot perceive? How would we even know?

It's pretty safe to assume that us wee, limited little ugly bags of mostly water, are limited in what we are even able to conceive of, with respect to the Greater Universe.

There are even examples in the Real World of this: the two most infamous are Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

In truth? These things are neither "matter" nor "energy" in the sense that we understand those things-- the terms are place holders for phenomena of who's effects we can observe. But we are utterly clueless why, what these things are, and if they are even in this Universe at all-- some guesses that both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are "leaking" in from outside our Universe... not so much the materials themselves, but rather their effects are leaking in..

 

[ArtieE]

Because that would require Real Perception™.

It would also require Real, No-Biased Observers™.

Neither of those things exist....

But so what? The existence of Real Truth™ doesn't depend on whether we can find out what it is or not...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But so what? The existence of Real Truth™ doesn't depend on whether we can find out what it is or not...

Are you so certain? What makes you so certain?

For all we know, we are existing in a giant Simulation (aka Matrix--only even more virtual). And the Real Truth™ is that we are a collection of bytes running on a Jupiter-sized quantum computer, for whatever purpose we cannot know.

Perhaps the White Mice are going for a Third Try?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But so what? The existence of Real Truth™ doesn't depend on whether we can find out what it is or not...

On the Third Paw, I do agree with the following:

Reality is whatever is left over, after you lose all faith.

Faith, we must remember, is belief in things for which there is zero evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Nobody's afraid.

I've given up trying to share information with you, and I explained why. The necessary spirit of cooperation is lacking with you. Nobody can teach you anything with you in that state of mind.

Earlier, I wrote, "Bring us the fruits of creationism and we can begin to talk."

Just now, you wrote, "If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately." Only if by responding immediately you mean refusing.

You lamented that others wouldn't "do such a simple thing" as bring data to you, but you won't do something even simpler: Click on a link to get that same data.

Given your demeanor, you should not expect others to cooperate with you. Your purpose is to depict yourself as an open-minded seeker of truth, but your behavior belies that. You won't make a minimal effort. Your description of yourself contradicts your behavior.

I am unwilling to cut-and-paste any evidence of evolution for you. What would be the point? I already know what your response will be, and that the effort will have been wasted.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that evolution is a false theory. What would the world look like if it were true? In other words, what evidence could possibly convince you that the theory is correct if it were? When you understand that there is no evidence that could convince you of evolution whether it is a correct theory or not, then you will understand that your mind is closed to such evidence. Others know that about you, and you should recognize that in yourself.

Those of us that are here to share, to teach, and to learn will do that with one another. You are welcome to join us if you ever re-open your mind and adopt an attitude conducive to exploration.

Anyone not willing to accept a simple challenge is either afraid or what the thought was evidence they discoverd it was not.

I will accept your challenge only if you accept mine, which you wont.

 

[ArtieE]

For all we know, we are existing in a giant Simulation (aka Matrix--only even more virtual). And the Real Truth™ is that we are a collection of bytes running on a Jupiter-sized quantum computer, for whatever purpose we cannot know

Exactly my point. That would be the Real Truth™.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Man's religious phase will ultimately be the period connecting the time when he first became intelligent enough to ask why, and the time when he found the answers." - anon

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Anyone not willing to accept a simple challenge is either afraid or what the thought was evidence they discoverd it was not.

No, there is at least one other possibility - the one I described. Why would I be afraid to post the evidence that convinces me of the validity of evolutionary science to you? What's the worst that could happen to me? I've seen how you respond to evidence. I understand the futility of the exercise.

I understand that you are unwilling (dare I say "afraid") to click on a link, but here's one of another creationist on RF that is also closed-minded, but doesn't pretend to be interested in evidence. In it, I define closed-mindedness and provide supporting examples from prominent theologians.

I have no reason to cut-and-paste these words here: Just Accidental?

You are in the same boat. There is no value in trying to convince a person with such a mind set.

I will accept your challenge only if you accept mine, which you wont.

Fair enough. We will never be able to exchange information.

But I do appreciate your civility. And I also believe that you are sincere - just wrong - and laboring under a cognitive bias variously called a faith based confirmation bias, antiprocessing, and Morton's demon, which I tried to share with you, but you weren't interested in clicking on the link.

 

[omega2xx]

No, there is at least one other possibility - the one I described. Why would I be afraid to post the evidence that convinces me of the validity of evolutionary science to you? What's the worst that could happen to me? I've seen how you respond to evidence. I understand the futility of the exercise.

I understand that you are unwilling (dare I say "afraid") to click on a link, but here's one of another creationist on RF that is also closed-minded, but doesn't pretend to be interested in evidence. In it, I define closed-mindedness and provide supporting examples from prominent theologians.

I have no reason to cut-and-paste these words here: Just Accidental?

You are in the same boat. There is no value in trying to convince a person with such a mind set.



Fair enough. We will never be able to exchange information.

But I do appreciate your civility. And I also believe that you are sincere - just wrong - and laboring under a cognitive bias variously called a faith based confirmation bias, antiprocessing, and Morton's demon, which I tried to share with you, but you weren't interested in clicking on the link.

You are welcome and you have been civil as well.

Keep this in mind. I have been on both sides of the fence and know personally the views of each side. Before I was converted I did not accept evolution, but since it was always presented as science, I thought it might be true. When I was converted, I spent a lot of time reading what creation scientists said. Mainly the ICR. I found they presented a much more scientific view than what you find in evolution links.

I will give you one more challenge and you don't have to answer it.

So some study on whale evolution and answer 2 questions.

First, how is it genetically possible for a nose to become blowhole? The will tell you, a mutation. Then go to Icr and google mutation and evaluate what they say. Then go to a science sight and google mutation and see what they say.

Second, and this is the one they will never answer, Why would a land animal surviving very well on land have a need to enter an environment that at least at first would be far more hostile to its survival. That is the opposite of natural selection. Keep this in mind, pakicetus could not become the creature they say it did in one generation and as soon as it was in the water with only legs, they only thing it would evolve into would be lunch for say a shark.

 

[Bird123]

No such thing as Real Truth™. Sorry about that. Humans are hampered by the limitations of only having 5 major senses (and several more obscure ones that are too specific).

This is why all scientific theories are called theories: it is a recognition that they are all, at best, a model, a representation that lets us (scientists, specifically) make useful predictions about the Universe.

For example, the theory of Newton's gravity model? Was used to navigate space craft from Earth to Mars-- successfully. That is a prediction of monumental proportions: It would have been akin to shooting a rifle from Los Angles, and trying to hit Big Ben in London, using Morse Code to communicate course corrections.

But, using the predictive power of Newton's equations, the engineers could calculate the projected path of the spacecraft.

Yes-- I said Newton, not Einstein. Both are models of the Universe. Both work very well, within their limitations.

For example Newton's works extremely well, if you limit time to less than 100 years, and you limit speed to less than a fraction of light-speed, and you limit mass to less than Stellar proportions. Within all of that? Newton is quite effective.

Is Newton wrong? Yes-- and no. It is just a model.

Einstein is wrong too-- if you go beyond its limits. Say... Quantum Mechanics.

Ironically, Einstein--one of the most brilliant humans in the 20th century-- wasted the last of his life in an effort to prove Quantum Mechanics wrong in some way.

He failed. But even Quantum Mechanics is not the Real Truth™

Perhaps, the Real Truth won't be completely known until everything is discovered. On the other hand, I would say mankind is closer to the Truth as a result of people like Newton, Einstein and many many others. These people were willing to work at discovery. I think it's a much better solution than those who simply argue over beliefs.

 

[Bird123]

Of course not... however if your dealing with something as complex as calculating how long it would take for the universe to form naturally, you need to have a pretty complete idea of HOW it formed. For instance, about 27% of the universe is made of of something we are calling Dark Matter, because we really have no clue what it is. We don't even know if Dark Matter is a single force we've yet to identify or if it's comprised of numerous different forces that we have yet to identify. How did this guy calculate for the formation of Dark Matter? Science doesn't yet know what dark matter IS, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to calculate how long it would take to form something that we cannot yet even classify. I can claim to calculate how long it would take to build a certain model car, but if I'm ignorant about how numerous systems in the car are actually built, my calculations will be absolutely worthless.

His goal of attempting to make such a calculation is laudable, but he's being dishonest if he claims that he has enough information to make such complex calculations at this point in time. I hope you're successful, because I'd really like to know the book's name and author.

Oh yes, everything about the universe is not known yet. This book I talk about was probably published before dark matter theory. Time calculations were figured back to the Big Bang since the measure of time was based on the expansion of the universe. You can speculate dark matter makes a difference but it might not. Random chance that everything turned into what it is today since the start of the expansion of the universe is highly unlikely in spite of and desires or beliefs that you want to be true.

While you wait for me to figure out about that book, read Seth Lloyd. It might have been some of his early stuff.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Oh yes, everything about the universe is not known yet. This book I talk about was probably published before dark matter theory. Time calculations were figured back to the Big Bang since the measure of time was based on the expansion of the universe. You can speculate dark matter makes a difference but it might not. Random chance that everything turned into what it is today since the start of the expansion of the universe is highly unlikely in spite of and desires or beliefs that you want to be true.

While you wait for me to figure out about that book, read Seth Lloyd. It might have been some of his early stuff.

I suppose that it is somehow POSSIBLE that you could calculate how long the universe took to form without even being aware of about 23% of the universe, but it would be highly IMPROBABLE. That's like me claiming I can calculate how long it will take to erect a skyscraper, even though I don't actually know how many stories it will have. If I claim that I can you'd be wise to be very skeptical.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Perhaps, the Real Truth won't be completely known until everything is discovered. On the other hand, I would say mankind is closer to the Truth as a result of people like Newton, Einstein and many many others. These people were willing to work at discovery. I think it's a much better solution than those who simply argue over beliefs.

Agreed.

At some point, a person has to say, "Fish, or Cut Bait". :

At some point, we have to assume that our eyeballs report more or less what is Real. Or in some cases, our ears.

Many have postulated that we may be stuck in some incredibly realistic simulation-- but there is no real way to determine if we are (or not), so we may as well behave as if we are not, and that reality is real.

Finally? The Scientific Method has a very long, and successful track record.

In all the history of the planet, nobody has ever said, "Oh! We were Wrong! The scientific method did not work-- and it was this <insert religious book here> book that had it right-- it was magic after all!"

Not once.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are welcome and you have been civil as well.

Keep this in mind. I have been on both sides of the fence and know personally the views of each side. Before I was converted I did not accept evolution, but since it was always presented as science, I thought it might be true. When I was converted, I spent a lot of time reading what creation scientists said. Mainly the ICR. I found they presented a much more scientific view than what you find in evolution links.

I will give you one more challenge and you don't have to answer it.

So some study on whale evolution and answer 2 questions.

First, how is it genetically possible for a nose to become blowhole? The will tell you, a mutation. Then go to Icr and google mutation and evaluate what they say. Then go to a science sight and google mutation and see what they say.

Second, and this is the one they will never answer, Why would a land animal surviving very well on land have a need to enter an environment that at least at first would be far more hostile to its survival. That is the opposite of natural selection. Keep this in mind, pakicetus could not become the creature they say it did in one generation and as soon as it was in the water with only legs, they only thing it would evolve into would be lunch for say a shark.

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to research whale evolution. I'll just say that it's not unusual for creatures to transform, nor to exploit new habitats and niches.