Jackass Penguin
Come now, I know you are well versed on the expansion of the Universe. If it is expanding, it started somewhere.Originally Posted by Evans
Thanks, I was waiting for that one.
If the Big Bang isn't explained or explainable, then might it not have ever taken place?
EDIT: I began talking religion, and now I am on Universal Expansion?
I'm going to bed
~
Now now, it's just a random example, it means nothing.I have absolutely no knowledge of wave-particle physics.I really can't draw a comparison on that point, and it is my own fault.
GET TO BED!!!
Jackass Penguin
YessirNow now, it's just a random example, it means nothing.
Hope and Fate
CB940: Complex structures could not have arisen by chance
This adequately covers "chance" in evolution.
No, but one right can be an extension of the other. I will not say whether or not God exists, but here are two theories on God and evolution that neatly join the two together. Oddly enough, they're the two I alluded to earlier in discussion of ID's theological and scientific basis, when you disagreed on the interpretation used of ID.
Evolutionary Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.
...
Theistic Evolution
Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.Ah, the three-word bane of any random arguer shall strike again. Cite your sources.
I fail to see a problem in points 1 and 2 (especially in 2, for a scientist's enquiries are only supported through skepticisim rather than blind acceptance of theory). In point 3, perhaps, but it seems all the worse, for many creationists aren't theologians, yet they speak of God as though they know all.
I cited the eye case in my next post, but you were probably writing this at the same time I wrote that. I'll hold off until you can reply to the cases I gave.
Yes, but a scientist also has to answer for being wrong and hiding it. It is far better (if you ever hope to get another grant) to own up and switch sides, and perfectly acceptable, whereas falsifying results is a sure way to get ostracized from the scientific community.
How so? CA602 mentions religious support for evolution, and that evolution says nothing about God. CA320 merely comments on methodology of the scientist and creationist.
Yes, but it not being immoral means that it doesn't actively work against morals. It is neutral, not good or evil. That's not an argument against it for you, either.
Again, yes, it was another mention of immorality. But again, evolution is neither good nor evil, but only what people make of it.
OK, then. I won't comment, either, if there is no debate on this point's end conclusion, even if I disagree on the rationale.
Not really. Each follows reasonably from the other, or in inverse, requires the others to function. I still love the quote they give, that "science isn't something you can pick through like a buffet," since it's true. Everything works on everything else to create a cohesive whole, everything including what we haven't learned enough to understand and formulate yet.
That uses a different definition than any other religion possible in Intelligent Design. There is no God of Stamp Collecting (not even on Discworld) that created life to further the cause of collecting and categorizing stamps, and not even the most ardent collecter will tell you otherwise.
I know the debate started like that, but I'm not sure if we're still really debating only that anymore. Even so, the use of different definitions for the cult of science (see, I even know the catchy slogan others have used...blasted Stats teacher should never have gotten tenure) and religions like Christianity means in fact that these are different. Do you understand this linguistic principle, or have you gotten too caught up with Bacon's Idol of the Marketplace?
Evolution is not supposed to have an answer on where the ball started rolling. It doesn't seek to answer the creation of life, but the development of life and the process of speciation. Life does have an ultimate beginning, but that is for other theories, like abiogenesis.
Last edited by Mistral; 1st-November-2005 at 06:12.
~
Let's say I put you in a closed box. You are pushed back on one side. What's happening?
1-I'm pushing or pulling you in the opposite direction you're facing, this is given your back is against the side.
2-You falling on a celestial body because of gravity.
What's the point? Same effect, different causes. Now, inside the box, you feel, "see", the effects. Only from the outside can you know what's happening.
Same goes for the expansion, we see movement, but of what nature?
The legend of
Indeed. A bible that detail's everything would be something like 440,000 volume's long. Bearing in mind, people didn't know "how" many thing's happend up until the last say, 500 years. It would have made little sense.
Say the big bang was fact, mabye "The big bang" was god creating the universe?
Think about it, every morning is a miracle. Deep inside the morning sun, hydrogen is being fused into helium at temperatures of millions of degrees. X rays and gamma rays of incredible violence are pouring out of the core into the surrounding layers of the sun. If the sun were transparent, these rays would blast their way to the surface in a few searing seconds. Instead, they begin to bounce from tightly packed atom to atom of solar �insulation,� gradually losing energy. Days, weeks, centuries, pass. Thousands of years later, that once deadly radiation finally emerges from the sun�s surface as a gentle shower of yellow light�no longer a menace but just right for bathing earth with its warmth.
If you wish to reply to this, please don't just use dismissive reply's. Agree or find a good counter agrument.
Every night is a miracle too. Other suns twinkle at us across the vast expanse of our galaxy. They are a riot of colors, sizes, temperatures, and densities. Some are supergiants so large that if one were centered in the position of our sun, what remained of our planet would be inside the surface of that superstar. Other suns are tiny, white dwarfs�smaller than our earth, yet as heavy as our sun. Some will peacefully drone along for billions of years. Others are poised on the brink of supernova explosions that will obliterate them, briefly outshining entire galaxies.
Primitive peoples spoke of sea monsters and battling gods, of dragons and turtles and elephants, of lotus flowers and dreaming gods. Later, during the so-called Age of Reason, the gods were swept aside by the newfound �magic� of calculus and Newton�s laws. Now we live in an age bereft of the old poetry and legend. The children of today�s atomic age have chosen as their paradigm for creation, not the ancient sea monster, not Newton�s �machine,� but that overarching symbol of the 20th century�the bomb. Their �creator� is an explosion. They call their cosmic fireball the big bang.
The most popular version of this generation�s view of creation states that some 15 to 20 billion years ago, the universe did not exist, nor did empty space. There was no time, no matter�nothing except an infinitely dense, infinitely small point called a singularity, which exploded into the present universe. That explosion included a brief period during the first tiny fraction of a second when the infant universe inflated, or expanded, much faster than the speed of light.
During the first few minutes of the big bang, nuclear fusion took place on a universal scale, giving rise to the currently measured concentrations of hydrogen and helium and at least part of the lithium in interstellar space. After perhaps 300,000 years, the universewide fireball dropped to a little below the temperature of the surface of the sun, allowing electrons to settle into orbits around atoms and releasing a flash of photons, or light. That primordial flash can be measured today, although greatly cooled off, as universal background radiation at microwave frequencies corresponding to a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin. In fact, it was the discovery of this background radiation in 1964-65 that convinced most scientists that there was something to the big bang theory. The theory also claims to explain why the universe appears to be expanding in all directions, with distant galaxies apparently racing away from us and from each other at high speed.
Since the big bang theory appears to explain so much, why doubt it? Because there is also much that it does not explain. To illustrate: The ancient astronomer Ptolemy had a theory that the sun and planets went around the earth in large circles, making small circles, called epicycles, at the same time. The theory appeared to explain the motion of the planets. For centuries as astronomers gathered more data, the Ptolemaic cosmologists could always add extra epicycles onto their other epicycles and �explain� the new data. But that did not mean the theory was correct. Ultimately there was just too much data to account for, and other theories, such as Copernicus� idea that the earth went around the sun, explained things better and more simply. Today it is hard to find a Ptolemaic astronomer!
Professor Fred Hoyle likened the efforts of the Ptolemaic cosmologists at patching up their failing theory in the face of new discoveries to the endeavors of big bang believers today to keep their theory afloat. He wrote in his book The Intelligent Universe: �The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over contradictions in the big bang theory, to build up an idea which has become ever more complex and cumbersome.� After referring to Ptolemy�s futile use of epicycles to rescue his theory, Hoyle continued: �I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers.�
The New Scientist magazine echoed similar thoughts: �The Ptolemaic method has been lavishly applied to the big bang cosmological model.� It then asks: �How can we achieve real progress in particle physics and cosmology? We must be more honest and forthright about the purely speculative nature of some of our most cherished assumptions.� New observations are now pouring in.
There have been descovery's that do not support the big bang though, astronomer Wendy Freedman and others recently used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance to a galaxy in the constellation of Virgo, and her measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster, and therefore is younger, than previously thought. In fact, it �implies a cosmic age as little as eight billion years,� reported Scientific American magazine just last June. While eight billion years sounds like a very long time, it is only about half the currently estimated age of the universe. This creates a special problem, since, as the report goes on to note, �other data indicate that certain stars are at least 14 billion years old.� If Freedman�s numbers hold up, those elderly stars would turn out to be older than the big bang itself!
Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of �bubbles� in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside. Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus. Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of �river in space.�
All this structure is baffling. Cosmologists say the blast from the big bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it allegedly left behind. How could such a smooth start have led to such massive and complex structures? �The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe,� admits Scientific American�a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.
Raaagghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... hh..
Cookie Thief
If we were to take Evolution out of schools, we would have to replace it with something, it seems. I suggest Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
i AM the Pumpkin King!
Wow. Who knew this thred would go this way? from kkk to evolution? thats a big leap
The legend of
I'm as suprised as you are. Though I'm not even going to post in the new aithists have moral's too ... thread.Wow. Who knew this thred would go this way? from kkk to evolution? thats a big leap
I'm in enough trouble as it is
Raaagghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... hh..
Banned
Call me daft, but how again did two teeny boppy nazi girls turn this into a Religion-Evolution thread?
The legend of
Happend on about 6 or 7th page.
Somehoe Nazi's and bimbo's turned to school's and god and now evolution.
Raaagghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... hh..
Hope and Fate
Teenyboppers -> Nazism -> Tailbone (passing comment by another) -> Evolution as a Religion -> Evolution against Religion -> Big Bang and Creation of the Universe
I think that's about how it went...
The funny part about the epicycle theory is that it's almost right, if you take everything orbiting the sun instead of the moon. The Earth, for instance, does not perfectly orbit the sun, but instead orbits the center of gravity for the combined Earth-Moon system (the barycenter), which is around only 60 km or so beneath its surface. Saying the Moon orbits the Earth is mostly correct, but since the lunar gravity is significant enough to affect the Earth, the Earth also orbits the Moon to some degree. Basically, the moon and Earth individiually orbit in epicycles, but the combined system follows a Keplerian ellipse. The Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon systems are the most noteworthy, since their moons are very large in comparison to the planet (5:1 and 2:1, respectively), and solitary systems like Mercury or Venus are balanced perfectly on their barycenter, but the epicycles haven't gone away.
Xena. The one question I have in response is where the proof that God did it is. After all, if we can and do hold the Big Bang to rigorous scientific analysis, as with any other theory, how can we hold up God as a scientific idea (as opposed to a theological idea) and not do the same? Is that not setting an arbitrary double-standard?
The legend of
That would only apply to one sentance of my post, and I did state IF as a suggestion. I don't believe that the big bang happend. I was not setting up dictator standards at all.
Raaagghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... hh..
Hope and Fate
...
Wow, I think I should watch myself a bit more. Too much time in this thread, possibly? Sorry.
The legend of
Uuummm.. don't worry about it.
Raaagghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... hh..
Posting Permissions
