How big are the stars?

[quote]The difficulty for you is that when science explores the formation of stars, and elements, and galaxies, and so on; you see this as atheistic[/qiote]
If a mother has a baby, or a galaxy pops out a star, I see no problem. It is a question of degree. If you take it to an extreme Goless degree, one might say the child gets old, then climbs back in the womb, and starts again. Isn't this what some big bangers say about the whole universe going back to the speck hole? It's one thing for a galaxy, or a woman to have a baby, it's another to say the woman came from nowhere. Yes I know they try to say she was related to cockcroaches, and bacteria. Really, that's just putting it out of sight out of mind, and in effect saying she materialized out of nowhere, and nothing.
So, natural processes, yes, Godless self creating glory holes, and bacteria grandmothers, no.
So where is it you think I don't like volcanoes?

What if we put it like this:God said "Let there be light" and created, with the knowledge and power that only God can have, the big bang.What's the problem with this?

Not really, no. Some cosmologists used to speculate about a cyclic universe thirty years ago or so, but it has effectively no support in modern cosmology. No; it isn't. It really is working through a series of changes from prior conditions to a subsequent new set of conditions. Describing evolutionary biological origins of the woman is not saying that she materialized out of nowhere, and nothing.Trying to pretend it is something out of nothing is refusal to look at the scientific models. Not that I find that surprising; the failure to engage the models actually used in science is a common aspect of creationism, which is one of the reasons this is such an important educational issue. Many creationist criticisms presume a completely erroneous understanding of what scientific models propose.Even Big Bang cosmology does not say something out of nothing. Conventional physics has problems back at Planck time, but that is where scientists say "don't know". The guts of cosmology is things forming from other things, and tracking the stages through which the universe proceeds. The issue of a final closing off of origins physics is not resolved; but even the most speculative proposals, like Hawking's no boundary ideas, are not well described as "something out of nothing".And in any case, trying to put God's creative action back in some initial instant where there is a transition from nothing to something is the heresy of deism, as discussed last time. As I explained before. You are fine with volcanoes. You can recognize them as forming by natural processes.That makes volcanos a useful contrast to illustrate a fundamental inconsistency which is common in many creationists.It means that the theological depiction of natural formation models as atheistic is incorrect. You may describe natural formation models of other things as being a rejection of God, but consistency has never been a feature of creationism.Creationists have no problem with volcanos, in which a mountain forms by itself. I'm contrasting a more or less reasonable approach to volcanoes with the studied head-in-the-sand ignorance with respect to other processes.Volcanos, babies, stars, galaxies, species, all form with no special input from God as a part of the process. Conventional Christianity is consistent with this, because they see God as crator and author and maintainer of all natural processes, behind and before all things. Not so much a manipulator or a divine engineer who tweaks here and there for a designed result; but as the final source of every natural process that exists.Cheers -- Sykas

The danger with this, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that science may yet make the gaps even smaller. In another thread there is a very interesting proposal being considered, involving colliding branes. I know very little about this, but it does seem to be a reasonable speculation, with some hope of eventually finding empirical tests for the idea.The danger is also of reducing Christian theism to a kind of deism.I think Christians need to work out a theological perspective which has God involved at all times, in volcanos no less than in the big bang.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

No; it isn't. It really is working through a series of changes from prior conditions to a subsequent new set of conditions.

---

Theoretical changes, to be more precise. We haven't seen animals changing from one kind into another. Only theory says that, it's not happening.

quote:

---

Trying to pretend it is something out of nothing is refusal to look at the scientific models.

---

Sounds like you think you may know something a lot of evos do not. Anyhow, if you got this little zero, less than a speck, I'm calling it nothing. If I looked in your eyes, I would not expect a universe to pop out of some little molecule or whatever in your eyes. No more than I expect God is lying and the so called scientific glory hole brought us forth.

quote:

---

trying to put God's creative action back in some initial instant where there is a transition from nothing to something is the heresy of deism

---

Does this mean you think it is "heresy" to question the speck?

quote:

---

It means that the theological depiction of natural formation models as atheistic is incorrect.

---

All depends if we are talking about what 'processed' after it was created. To credit creation itself to some theoretical backtracking processes is unsound.

quote:

---

Volcanos, babies, stars, galaxies, species, all form with no special input from God as a part of the process.

---

Completely untrue! God sends every baby! And the whole universe operates under His controls.

quote:

---

Conventional Christianity is consistent with this

---

Conventional christianity that, unlike Jesus Himself, does not believe in the bible, or flood, or garden. Unbelief in a holy robe.

I'm sorry, one what to another? Kind? I don't know what that is. Can you tell me?

Whoops. Does that mean you now recognize the error in previous statements that scientific models for the origins of a woman are effectively "something from nothing"?That was what I was addressing, after all. Regardless of confusions or disputes over theory and observation, it is fundamental to figure out that evolutionary biology proposes change, not something from nothing.But since you bring this up, we can again use the volcano example to show a fundamental inconsistency of the creationist argument. We have not seen volcanos form from start to finish. We simply see the processes occurring in the present, and the plain traces of a long history of those processes having occurred in the past. It is exactly the same for evolution.Evolution is no more "just theory" than vulcanology. Both are based on observation. We do see living things changing in the present, and we see rates of change consistent with observed evidence of substantial change over long periods of time. We don't see a cat give birth to a dog, of course; but that was never a part of evolutionary biology. Evolution has always involved the accumulation of change in smaller steps; very much like vulcanology involves the accumulation of lava and magma to build up shield and cone volcanos in smaller steps. No evolutionist anywhere considers the origins of a woman or any other living thing to be something from nothing; and that was the example you raised.When it comes to the big bang, there is indeed a lot of confusion and error even by people who think that they accept the theory and debate it with creationists, without actually understanding the model they use. I engage confusions and misunderstanding no matter where they come from, to the limits of my own amateur knowledge.You can call the putative "speck" nothing if you like. You'd be wrong; but that is nothing unusual. Furthermore, it is your own private confusion; not a description of the scientific models. Even the word "speck" is dreadful as a description of the models. I have no idea how you get such a ridiculous idea from anything I have written. It's just weird. No, of course I don't think questioning of scientific models is heresy.What I think is that many people don't actually know about the scientific models they discuss. The term "speck" suggests that you don't have any real understanding of big bang cosmology, and having seen other posts it is quite definite that you don't understand big bang cosmology.Note the difference between making a proposal of your own (such as, perhaps, a six day creation six thousand years ago or so, or maybe some old earth scenario) and making a criticism of someone else's model. If you are going to make comments about the models which are used in science, you're wasting your time if all you engage are miscomprehensions. Is it really unsound? I guess that is up to theologians to debate. But at least figure out this much... there is no well defined scientific model which backtracks the origins of the universe indefinitely, or which goes back to an origin from nothing. There are a few speculations in the air which might be summarized informally in such terms (with the usual proviso that simple summaries are usually misleading in some aspects). But these remain speculative and not essential aspects of big bang cosmology.I also continue to point out that it is an essentially deistic theology to suggest that natural formation not involving God is okay as long as there is an initial point in time for God's involvement. I think perhaps my point did not come across there. The term "special input" is the key to what I am saying.Of course, for a Christian, the whole universe operates under God's control. For a Christian, study of natural processes is the study of God's creation at work. There is more to God than just natural processes, of course; Christians are not pantheists. But they are not deists either, and just as you say here, Christians traditionally see all the operation of the universe as being under God's control.That means no special distinguished input. You can't separate out God's responsibility as a part of the whole; God in orthodox theology is in charge of it all.That includes the formation of volcanos. Orthodox Christianity, as I understand it, does not limit the idea of God's involvement to "special inputs". It is wrong to say that this bit is natural, and that bit (by contrast) is God. Volcanos form naturally, and by orthodox Christian theology, that does not refute God's involvement.That is... it is wrong to regard "natural processes" as essentially atheistic. What is atheistic is the belief that God is not involved in natural processes. That is a metaphysical position, and ironically is it commonly repeated by creationists, who claim that scientists invoking natural processes are "leaving God out". Nope; you miss the point being made again. Conventional orthodox Christian theological beliefs allow for a range of opinion on such things as interpretation of the bible and models of creation. Even most creationists understand this much.I am not claiming that orthodox belief implies an old earth.What I am saying is that orthodox Christian theology involves a notion of God's engagement with the natural world which is not deist, or pantheistic, or animistic.The deistic view puts God at the start of time, and lets the rest occur naturally.
The pantheistic view identifies God with the natural processes.
The animistic view places God (and gods) as fellow players with humans in the natural world, who might make this thing or that thing, and are often in conflict with each other and with humans.The orthodox Christian view has one God who is supreme over everything. God is more than natural processes, but He is responsible and revealed in all processes. Learning the natural processes by which a thing forms does not remove God, and proposing natural processes is not atheistic rejection of God; because God is the source also of the natural processes themselves. This conception can (and does) encompass young earth views, and old earth views, and also completely conventional scientific models like big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology. What the Christian does not properly allow is the heretical notion that natural processes are a denial of God's involvement.Cheers -- SylasPS. I'm not a believer. But I do recognize in Christian theology the possibility for a meaningful metaphysics. On the other hand, I do not find persuasive the claim that science is a disproof of God, whether the claim comes from atheists, or from creationists who reject conventional science because they think it is trying to disprove God.[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-21-2004]

quote:

---

I'm sorry, one what to another? Kind? I don't know what that is. Can you tell me?

---

From an elephant to a cat. From a frog to a prince, from a pig to a poodle. From an eel, to a gray whale. 'Kind' seems a kind of general term, I would take it to mean sort of 'type'. So we're not going to see say a tiger have little dog babies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arkathon:
'Kind' seems a kind of general term, I would take it to mean sort of 'type'. So we're not going to see say a tiger have little dog babies.

---

Damn... my previous post included just this illustration as an example of a failure to comprehend the model one seeks to criticize. But I deleted it when editing to maintain focus.Of course a tiger will not have little dog babies. That would be a refutation of evolution; not confirmation. It would require a radical re-evaluation of the fundamentals of biology and evolution.

quote:

---

I think Christians need to work out a theological perspective which has God involved at all times, in volcanos no less than in the big bang.

---

Why need He get too involved in volcanoes? He does have a life, you know!

quote:

---

evolutionary biology proposes change, not something from nothing.

---

Of course that's what they say. The nothing I meant was including the big bang zero speck. The change evos propose is from bacteria to marilyn monroe. That is very speckish as well. The bacteria being your speck in this case. The specking order.

quote:

---

We have not seen volcanos form from start to finish. We simply see the processes occurring in the present, and the plain traces of a long history of those processes

---

Yes, and some people have the uncany knack for thinking the plain traces took a long time.

quote:

---

Evolution is no more "just theory" than vulcanology.

---

You didn't get a mind melt from dr Spock did you?

quote:

---

Both are based on observation.

---

Yes, observation is in the eye of the beholder, when we add the old age dreaming.

quote:

---

Evolution has always involved the accumulation of change in smaller steps;

---

It has no choice, since it is just a concept man has been foisted with to try and squeeze God out. So it has to try and ride on the tail of some actual small changes, and expand that to say things created themselves.

quote:

---

it is quite definite that you don't understand big bang cosmology.

---

It's amazing how many people who preach it, don't seem to know much about it, so why would I worry? I've had cosies confirm that what they think the universe blew out of (or glided out of, depending who you talk to)was zero, nothing, or some who thought it was a speck. It used to be they argued how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Now some people actually believe you could fit many universes on the head of a pin!

quote:

---

But if you are going to make comments about the models which are used in science, you're wasting your time if all you engage are miscomprehensions.

---

Go ahead, correct my 'miscomprehensions' about the zero speck. How big do you say it was?

quote:

---

There are a few speculations in the air which might be summarized informally in such terms

---

A few? You could almost fill up one of your specks with them!

quote:

---

suggest that natural formation not involving God is okay as long as there is an initial point in time for God's involvement.

---

In a way, it all involves Him. But He didn't step in and stop Hitler, and his formations. He leaves a lot up to us. Perhaps if the people of Pompeii prayed more, or maybe listened to a prophet warning them or something, the volcanoe wouldn't have got them. So He's never far removed.

quote:

---

You can't separate out God's responsibility as a part of the whole;

---

Well. thank goodness I don't have to! He wrote a book, where He explains how it was done. All we have to do is believe it. As far as these fancy concepts of Him sitting on every volcano, or not, we don't need to melt our mind with it too much.

quote:

---

I am not claiming that orthodox belief implies an old earth.

---

Jesus talked of Noah, and Adam. Doesn't matter much what orthos think.

quote:

---

Learning the natural processes by which a thing forms does not remove God

---

This is where I like natural processes. If one did try to remove the 6 day creation, or flood, or cross, this would be where they would leave nature.

quote:

---

I do not find persuasive the claim that science is a disproof of God

---

On this we can agree.

What's a type? You've just replaced one word with another without actually telling me anything.Let me rephrase my question: I have two animals here. How do I tell if they're in the same "kind" or not?

quote:

---

Let me rephrase my question: I have two animals here. How do I tell if they're in the same "kind" or not?

---

What kind of animals are they-do you know that much?

No, because you haven't told me what a "kind" is!(I've seen a lot of answers to that question, but honestly, that must be the worst...)What I'm looking for is a functional definition of "kind" that's going to allow me to determine if any two given animals are in the same "kind" or not. Much as I'm able to do with the term "species".

What I said is that the word "speck" is misleading. I also say that the word "zero" is flat out wrong, and misrepresents what it is that big bang cosmology proposes.You will find many popular accounts which speak of how small the universe used to be. This is an unfortunate phrase that contributes to misunderstanding of the model.What used to be small is the visible universe. At present, we can see out to a distance of perhaps 11 billion light years. The background radiation probably comes from a bit over 13 billion light years. There is (in the big bang cosmological model) a hard limit of how far we could see even in principle; a limit currently estimated at about 13.7 billion years. This defines the size of the visible universe.However, this does not mark a boundary of the universe itself, but a limit on how far we can see. It is roughly analogous to the horizon we see from a ship. The horizon is defined by how far we can see. It expresses the size of the "visible ocean"; but has nothing at all do to with the size of the ocean itself. It is not any kind of physical limit or line. If we could see water from a point at the limits of vision, we'd see the same kind of expanse of water extending out from that point also. So also, according to big bang cosmology, if we were able to place ourselves at the furthest reaches of current vision then we would see more of an essentially similar universe continuing to extend even further into an immense distance.It is an unfortunate aspect of popular terminology used to discuss of cosmology that the term "visible universe" has been adopted in this way.It is pretty much impossible to give a size to the whole universe. Some physicists have a philosophical preference for the idea that the universe is infinite. Others have a philosophical preference for a finite universe (which would be analogous to the finite ocean on a water covered planet), but still unimaginably bigger than the 13 billion or so light years we see from here and now. (Aside: I have a personal philosophical preference for finite; but there is no empirical basis for that. Recent observations of the rate of expansion of the universe has been a powerful boost to the infinite universe idea, since the simplest topologies consistent with the current best estimates for expansion rates do indeed imply an infinite universe, contrary to my personal inclinations. Personal inclinations are trumped by evidence; although the evidence is inconclusive since infinite models presume tend to presume a simple topology. This paragraph has been a little side track from the central issues.)But what of the big bang? The big bang is an expression of the expansion of space, which is a natural outcome of relativistic physics and which fits available observational evidence. Extrapolated backwards, the simplest empirical consequence is that matter in the universe used to be all closer together. This holds true, whether we consider the universe to be finite or infinite.The density of matter and energy increases without bound as we extrapolate back in time. This is not merely a speculation or assumption. It has empirical consequences for the formation of light elements in the universe and for the background radiation. Both of these stand as important successful empirical predictions of the model.There is a sense in which we can speak of the same bits of space at different times. If we plot the expansion of space by tracing world lines which remain roughly at rest with respect to such things as cosmic background, we find world lines which converge together as time is extrapolated backwards. But even the world lines of photons, which move at the universal speed limit, still manage to converge in the past.This allows us to speak sensibly of the size of the visible universe as we extrapolate back. When it is said that the visible universe was once the size of an orange, or a pea, or an atom, what this means is that if you go back in time far enough, all world lines which intersect with any event we can see at present, originally came from within a small region.However, that small region was not a "speck" or a "particle"; it is simply a region defined by another abstract line, like the horizon. If, as many cosmologists apparently think plausible, the universe is infinite, then it was always infinite. However, if you go back to within a tiny fraction of a second of the initial singularity, then there was a very small region, the size of an orange, or pea, or atom (depending on how far back you go) which contained every particle or graviton or photon or physical influence which could possibly have had any interaction or engagement with any of the particles of which we are made.There is no physical edge to this small region; it is a kind or arbitrary line drawn around a portion of a possibly unbounded universe.Many people never get this. The big bang does not propose a particle or speck which exploded. It proposes a space which was expanding; a space which might be finite or infinite but in any case does not have boundaries like particles or specks. Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space, in conditions of unimaginable heat and density.Reject it as nonsense if you like. Many people just can't accept that this is the conclusion reached on the basis of many observations and the applications of very well tested physics of space and gravity.But to describe it as proposing a speck of a given size is misleading, and to describe it as something from nothing is wrong.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

What I'm looking for is a functional definition of "kind" that's going to allow me to determine if any two given animals are in the same "kind" or not.

---

I get a feeling you are trying to set me up here? I am so far just looking at a general term, 'kind', which would not be really tricky stuff. Perhaps we could look at the offspring. Do you know of any kind of parents that have children so different, that you would call them another kind?
Why are you so desperate for a precise hairsplit definition? What if 'kind' in Genesis was more of a reference to what man would generally perceive as a kind?