[quote]rainjack wrote:
See - you don’t need a doctorate to get under a smart guy’s skin - and that’s kinda cool with me.[/quote]
A doctorate is too light and pliable. I personally recommend a good, sharp scalpel.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What causes the transition from non-life to life?
IMO, since life cannot come from non-life, there must be some thing that has always been alive. Could this be God? Yes.[/quote]
Quick question: Believers are always looking for causes. What caused the Big Bang? What caused life to appear? etc. And always the answer is: God.
My question is, why aren’t you asking for what caused God? What’s the reasoning here? For everything scientific, you ask for the cause (and that’s a good thing) but when you get to God, suddenly all that causal curiosity dries up? Why?
And if God is eternal, uncaused, etc. then it follows that the concept of eternity or uncausality is acceptable to you. Why then not simply apply this concept to the universe or “Nature” or “Reality” or whatever you want to call it?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Soooooo, moving on, you and that other guy who’s pseudonym I don’t recall (smoking bald cartoon guy) changed the question from whether there’s any evidence for macro-evolution to a discussion about abiogenesis and cosmology.
[/quote]
Nice work really - but just to bring you back to earth - it’s “were” not “where”. Look it up - but I’m sure you’ll find a nice article to refute me. Or as it were a string of other peoples work you will cite to prove that it is indeed “where”
But I digress.
Honestly - I didn’t change any subject. I agreed with a poster. Were I to have attempted to change the subject, It would have been my avatar at the left of the post that changed the subject, not someone else’s. Me agreeing with him is quite different than your version of me cowering in lazy ignorant fear.
But this is way off topic. Please return to making fun of, and questioning the intelligence of those that dare disagree with you. it makes you look so much taller.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
See - you don’t need a doctorate to get under a smart guy’s skin - and that’s kinda cool with me.
A doctorate is too light and pliable. I personally recommend a good, sharp scalpel.
[/quote]
Canadians don’t count. I have it on good authority that you only recognize 17 letters in your alphabet. Just ask Dave.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Canadians don’t count. I have it on good authority that you only recognize 17 letters in your alphabet. Just ask Dave. [/quote]
You watch Letterman? I’m flabbergasted. Amazed. In awe. Of all people, you’d be the last one I would expect to watch Letterman.
You are right – I really don’t get you. Seriously. I know that brings you great pleasure, and so be it – I’m not going to lie to you and tell I do, because that would be intellectually dishonest of me… and I hate intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I will not convince you. You will not convince me. Faith v. Science is apples and oranges in this environment - there are too many extremists on both sides that make a mockery of such debates, that it is not worth the time.
[/quote]
Really? What does a “science fanatic” look like? Star trek-convention?
I can show you religious fanatics though.
I know it is tempting to go the “there are extremists on both sides, let us meet in the middle, singin kumba-ya”- route, but that would require that there are extremists on BOTH sides.
The very nature of the scientific progress strongly discourages fanaticism or dogmatism, the very nature of religion encourages it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
JPBear wrote:
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so. There are many scientists out there who believe in the theory, but are honest enough to admit the many places where the theory is lacking.
This works well like this too…
Creation is a theory. It is not proven and it is not provable. Screaming at the world that it is a fact does not make it so.
[/quote]
Well, at least it can be proven the world is created, it’s a start, LOL!
I think it’s interesting that the article seems to use something like evolution to bash religion over the head with, as though proving evolution will subsequently disprove that God exists.
It may come as a bit of a shock to some people here that how the world was created is not really important to most “fundies”, it’s WHO did the creating that’s the main thing. God could have created the world in any way He wanted to for all I care, the main thing is that He did the creating…
[quote]orion wrote:
Really? What does a “science fanatic” look like? Star trek-convention?
I can show you religious fanatics though.
I know it is tempting to go the “there are extremists on both sides, let us meet in the middle, singin kumba-ya”- route, but that would require that there are extremists on BOTH sides.
The very nature of the scientific progress strongly discourages fanaticism or dogmatism, the very nature of religion encourages it.[/quote]
Did you read hspder’s original post in this thread? Evidently not. He is an example of a science fanatic.
I love the way you just assume that there can be no fanatics on your side of the fence. That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Even hspder, of all people, sees this. He refers to them as athiestic fanatics, but they are firmly entrenched in the “science is all we need” camp.
FYI - you will never EVER EVER see me or hear me singing kumaya.
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Canadians don’t count. I have it on good authority that you only recognize 17 letters in your alphabet. Just ask Dave.
You watch Letterman? I’m flabbergasted. Amazed. In awe. Of all people, you’d be the last one I would expect to watch Letterman.
You are right – I really don’t get you. Seriously. I know that brings you great pleasure, and so be it – I’m not going to lie to you and tell I do, because that would be intellectually dishonest of me… and I hate intellectual dishonesty.
[/quote]
If we were to sit at a bar and have a few drinks - not a foo foo, pinkies in the air bar, but a real bar - you’d get me.
I am insulted that you think I am not Letterman fan. I don’t watch him every night, but back in the day I watched him every night. Larry “Bud” Melman was my hero.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I hate intellectual dishonesty.
[/quote]
Like wrapping anti-American, anti-Bush, and petty insults up in an ID/Evolution debate?
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I guess if you’d show me where I grow tired of evidence and change the argument, you could include me in this group. However - say what you will about me - that is a mischaracterization of the highest order.
Too bad this isn’t scrabble, you’d score big with that miscartezitoining thing.
Let see, we were discussing evolution, macro-evolution specifically, as apparently the word out on creationist websites is that micro-evolution is cool. After being asked for evidence, I posted a URL detailing current scientific support for macro-E.
Still with me? Too bad.
Now, apparently apart from requiring “a lot of time” to read and being “difficult for the layman” not many people have pertinent arguments to refute it’s content. I guess the creationists websites haven’t yet posted instructions on how to respond to that URL for their drones to parrot. I’m sure the situation will be corrected shortly, as soon as a creationist who can handle a high school level science text is found. Then again, it might take a while…
Soooooo, moving on, you and that other guy who’s pseudonym I don’t recall (smoking bald cartoon guy) changed the question from whether there’s any evidence for macro-evolution to a discussion about abiogenesis and cosmology.
[/quote]
Actually I’m BTM62 and I’m right here. I am in the process of reading hspder’s response to my question. Something which you still fail to give. Although I don’t really think I’m interested in anything you might have to say on the topic anymore. Too bad you can’t use that massive intellect you credit yourself with to bring forth any salient points without coming across as a complete douchebag.
If you’d like to check your ego and have a discussion, I’m available. If not, #$%^ off.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I will not convince you. You will not convince me. Faith v. Science is apples and oranges in this environment - there are too many extremists on both sides that make a mockery of such debates, that it is not worth the time.
Really? What does a “science fanatic” look like? Star trek-convention?
I can show you religious fanatics though.
I know it is tempting to go the “there are extremists on both sides, let us meet in the middle, singin kumba-ya”- route, but that would require that there are extremists on BOTH sides.
The very nature of the scientific progress strongly discourages fanaticism or dogmatism, the very nature of religion encourages it.[/quote]
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit. (Kind of what your blaming the other side of doing.) All these supposedly great minds on these internet forums and not one of you realizes that the truth PROBABLY encompasses elements from both.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
See - you don’t need a doctorate to get under a smart guy’s skin - and that’s kinda cool with me.
A doctorate is too light and pliable. I personally recommend a good, sharp scalpel.
Canadians don’t count. I have it on good authority that you only recognize 17 letters in your alphabet. Just ask Dave. [/quote]
I don’t know, I’ve seen Vroom use all of em.
[quote]hspder wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I’m more interested in the absolute origin. You know the ONE thing that all things can ultimately trace back to. And then…tell me where that one thing came from. Surely all you abiogenesis panspermic knowers of all things can answer this simple question.
Of course we can. Let’s start with Dawkins in the interview (that’s the Original Post):
You can’t statistically explain improbable things like living creatures [or the Big Bang] by saying that they must have been designed because you’re still left to explain the designer, who must be, if anything, an even more statistically improbable and elegant thing. Design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything. It can only be a proximate explanation. A plane or a car is explained by a designer but that’s because the designer himself, the engineer, is explained by natural selection.
Bear with me here. I have questions and they are merely that. So please take them in that context.
Why do things need to happen in a statistical manner? I think that “way” of thinking certainly cuts into any refutations I may have due to a different way of thinking. In the context you are talking about though I agree with you. Moving on.
So that explains why the Creationist theory does not hold ground – but it doesn’t necessarily answer your question, I know.
It certainly does not hold ground givne the parameters and context set forth in the argument.
Now, do you see where I am coming from at all? I see your side of things, but I don’t think that it is the only way of looking at things. Different schools of thought. I brought up earlier that I think both sides would benefit by trying to somehow find some common ground and start the hypothesis over again. Hope that makes any sense at all.
Actually, ironically, the answer (in my opinion) was spotted a long time ago, by one Augustine of Hippo, a Christian “saint” who lived in the fifth century. In those days before science, cosmology was a branch of theology, and the taunt came not from journalists, but from pagans: “What was God doing before he made the universe?” they asked. “Busy creating Hell for the likes of you!” was the standard reply.
But Augustine was more subtle. The world, he claimed, was made “not in time, but simultaneously with time.” In other words, the origin of the universe-what we now call the big bang-was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no “before,” no endless ocean of time for a god, or a physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation.
Good stuff. In my thought of God, however, he does not exist in time or is not constrained by time, but the above could be construed as man trying to make God fit in a nice neat little box, so we can explain him. At least that would be my counter. Mortal fool that I am. Again, I am merely throwing things out, not trying to stir any shit. However the above seemingly does try to use both religion and science to explain. Interesting.
Remarkably, modern science has arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Augustine, based on what we now know about the nature of space, time, and gravitation. It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space are not merely an immutable arena in which the great cosmic drama is acted out, but are part of the cast-part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change- suffer distortions-as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or “singularity,” at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity.
Could be. I’m not much of a math guy, I’m more literature, but I find that all very fascinating. I can’t argue against any of it, but to say those things are still only mathematical theories, which are still being revised to this day. I read somewhere about more than one type of geometry.
If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.
Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly “switch on”? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial “singularity” that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by “explanation.” As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.
Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don’t experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event “just happened” at that moment, that’s all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that “just happens” need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
That was great stuff. I will grant you, sure its possible. However, you don’t know, so to claim this IS what happened is faith on your part. ( I am speaking figuratively.)
Perhaps all this just brings us a tiny bit closer to how God works? Perhaps.
Inevitably, scientists will not be content to leave it at that. We would like to flesh out the details of this profound concept. There is even a subject devoted to it, called quantum cosmology. Two famous quantum cosmologists, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, came up with a clever idea that goes back to Einstein. Einstein not only found that space and time are part of the physical universe; he also found that they are linked in a very intimate way. In fact, space on its own and time on its own are no longer properly valid concepts. Instead, we must deal with a unified “space-time” continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.
I thought Neils Bohr and his group kind of put a damper on the unification theory. I watched a special late at night on the public access channel that was talking about this. I wish I could get a copy as i need several more reads. As I said, I’m not a math guy.
In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important intrinsic uncertainty that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.
I cannot wrap my mind around this at all. If you could explain this further?
The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalization of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process. (By continuous, I mean that the timelike quality of a dimension, as opposed to its spacelike quality, is not an all-or-nothing affair; there are shades in between. This vague statement can be made quite precise mathematically.)
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.
How much more then the workings of God.
Even with these further details thrown in, many people feel cheated. They want to ask why these weird things happened, why there is a universe, and why this universe. Perhaps science cannot answer such questions. Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn’t a why. To wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of existence. Or perhaps there is, but we are looking at the problem in the wrong way.
I think this paragraph sums things up nicely.
Well, I didn’t promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and everything, but I have at least given a non-recursive answer to the question you posed. The answer is: Nothing. [/quote]
Good response!!! Thank you.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit. (Kind of what your blaming the other side of doing.) All these supposedly great minds on these internet forums and not one of you realizes that the truth PROBABLY encompasses elements from both. [/quote]
well if that is what science means to you, you are just playing with words.
Science is by definition intolerant for you have defined it so.
why not, have fun…
[quote]orion wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit. (Kind of what your blaming the other side of doing.) All these supposedly great minds on these internet forums and not one of you realizes that the truth PROBABLY encompasses elements from both.
well if that is what science means to you, you are just playing with words.
Science is by definition intolerant for you have defined it so.
why not, have fun…
[/quote]
Sucks when the tables get turned like that huh?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Really? What does a “science fanatic” look like? Star trek-convention?
I can show you religious fanatics though.
I know it is tempting to go the “there are extremists on both sides, let us meet in the middle, singin kumba-ya”- route, but that would require that there are extremists on BOTH sides.
The very nature of the scientific progress strongly discourages fanaticism or dogmatism, the very nature of religion encourages it.
Did you read hspder’s original post in this thread? Evidently not. He is an example of a science fanatic.
I love the way you just assume that there can be no fanatics on your side of the fence. That is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
Even hspder, of all people, sees this. He refers to them as athiestic fanatics, but they are firmly entrenched in the “science is all we need” camp.
FYI - you will never EVER EVER see me or hear me singing kumaya.
[/quote]
Dawkins is aggressively anti-religious; even he would probably not fight the label “fanatical” that hard when it came to anti-religion.
So he is on my side of the fence, he may be a fanatic, but it is still not the same, because his fanaticism has nothing to do with him being a scientist.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
orion wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit. (Kind of what your blaming the other side of doing.) All these supposedly great minds on these internet forums and not one of you realizes that the truth PROBABLY encompasses elements from both.
well if that is what science means to you, you are just playing with words.
Science is by definition intolerant for you have defined it so.
why not, have fun…
Sucks when the tables get turned like that huh?[/quote]
To turn that table you have to do better .
Like singlehandedly undo the Enlightenment.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Actually I’m BTM62 and I’m right here. [/quote]
Good for you.
Go back and read again, I answered your question.
[quote] Although I don’t really think I’m interested in anything you might have to say on the topic anymore. Too bad you can’t use that massive intellect you credit yourself with to bring forth any salient points without coming across as a complete douchebag.
If you’d like to check your ego and have a discussion, I’m available. If not, #$%^ off.[/quote]
My answer is there, you do what you want with it.
You seem angry.
Why can’t you spell out “fuck”?
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Seems the nature of science is to put forth a hypothesis and then find facts to prove the hypothesis while ignoring those that don’t fit.[/quote]
Normally, you examine the facts and evidence you have and then try to come up with an hypothesis that best explains those facts and evidence.
Different theories can explain the same facts. In that case, the “simpler” theory is generally considered the best.
As new facts and evidence come to light, some old theories are replaced by new ones; for example, Newton’s Law of Gravity being superseded by Einstein’s relativity. And while Relativity covers all the flaws that had been found with Newton’s Law; Newton’s theory is still used today to calculate orbits and such because it is easier to use.
Some people would like for a theory to explain everything perfectly before they accept it. Unfortunately, science has very little (none?) of that kind of theory. Absolutes and certitudes are the goal towards which science strives; currently accepted theories can and will fall by the wayside when better theories are conceived.
The truth is the truth. Science is a process for finding that truth. Religion starts off with a supposedly God-given Truth and then must work to preserve it intact. Science is built on change and progress and replacing knowledge with better knowledge. Religion is built on defending dogma against any change.