Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity
ShannonMay
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 59 (434)
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


I urge any one who thinks that there is no force or power, or in my opinion God who created the universe to consider the following.
1)The scientific comunity would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting.
b)This is not the case. The universe is expanding at a very fast rate and not contracting.
2)To believe in most evolunist concepts you must look at it one of two ways to make it work as I can tell.
b)either you believe in jump theory(which would mean that we just suddenly went from the closest ancestor to what we are).
or you would have to believe that it took extended time.
c)However you still run into one problem called irreducable complexity. For example the extreame complexity of some parts of the human body require real attention that just is not really possible through a random series of changes and selection. FOr instance the eye, the mind, and the blood cloting system.
3)Also consider that even while you claim that fosils and such support your claim virtually every culture has a story of a great flood. The fosils and soild layers currently there would be moved around as would many other things. Also time itself would shift such things around, in other ways as well. The flood and things that would have happened during the flood would cause a level of complexity in determining an accurate date.
4)Also consider the earth according to the BIBLE would have been created with an apparent age(ie Adam and Eve were not ever babies).
-ShannonMay

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 10-13-2001 9:26 AM ShannonMay has not replied
 Message 18 by Nefernefruaten, posted 12-03-2001 9:35 AM ShannonMay has not replied
 Message 21 by chewrock, posted 12-18-2002 1:42 PM ShannonMay has not replied
 Message 22 by chewrock, posted 12-18-2002 1:54 PM ShannonMay has not replied
 Message 23 by chewrock, posted 12-18-2002 2:07 PM ShannonMay has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 59 (437)
10-13-2001 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ShannonMay
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


While I'm sure some here do not believe in a divine being, the key point is that many who do believe in God accept evolution and an ancient universe.
1)The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting.
I think what you're referring to here is that we're not sure whether the universe is open or closed. If the universe possesses sufficient mass then the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract, and the universe that began with the Big Bang will end in the Big Crunch. But if the universe has insufficient mass to halt the expansion, then the universe might go on expanding forever, finally experiencing heat death some 1000 billion years from now.
We've recently uncovered evidence, not yet fully conclusive but still fairly persuasive, that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.
b) This is not the case. The universe is expanding at a very fast rate and not contracting.
Science does not believe the universe is contracting. Science simply goes by the evidence, and the evidence is for an expanding universe.
2) To believe in most evolutionist concepts you must look at it one of two ways to make it work as I can tell.
b) Either you believe in jump theory (which would mean that we just suddenly went from the closest ancestor to what we are).
Or you would have to believe that it took extended time.
Science does not propose any jump theory associated with evolution. Evolution is believed to operate through gradual change over long periods of time, at least thousands of years.
c) However you still run into one problem called irreducable complexity. For example the extreme complexity of some parts of the human body require real attention that just is not really possible through a random series of changes and selection. FOr instance the eye, the mind, and the blood clotting system.
The primary advocate of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe, accepts an ancient earth and universe (the Big Bang and all that), and he believes in evolution. What he's saying is that some biological structures could not possibly have evolved because no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned, and that they are therefore evidence of the divine at work.
At one time we believed the motion of the planets around the sun was evidence of the divine, simply because we had no scientific explanation for what could possibly keep all the planets neatly in their orbits. Then Newton came along and revealed it was just the same force of gravity we're already familiar with.
In other words, inability to formulate a scientific explanation for something could stem from more than one cause. It could be because we don't know enough yet. Or we might know enough, but no one with sufficient insight and genius has yet come along to provide a theory. Or it might be evidence of the divine. The problem for intelligent design advocates (irreducible complexity is a sub-topic of intelligent design) is that there's no way to tell the difference between a yet unsolved scientific mystery and the fingerprints of God. Merely yelling "God" every time you come upon a problem for which you have no answer is not only unjustified, but also has a very long history of being wrong.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-25-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:28 PM ShannonMay has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 59 (453)
11-01-2001 2:12 PM


quote:
While I'm sure some here do not believe in a divine being, the key point is that many who do believe in God accept evolution and an ancient universe. {--Percipient answering Shannon}
quote:
1)The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting.{--Shannon}
quote:
I think what you're referring to here is that we're not sure whether the universe is open or closed. If the universe possesses sufficient mass then the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract, and the universe that began with the Big Bang will end in the Big Crunch. But if the universe has insufficient mass to halt the expansion, then the universe might go on expanding forever, finally experiencing heat death some 1000 billion years from now.
We've recently uncovered evidence, not yet fully conclusive but still fairly persuasive, that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.{Percy}
quote:
b) This is not the case. The universe is expanding at a very fast rate and not contracting.{-Shannon}
quote:
Science does not believe the universe is contracting. Science simply goes by the evidence, and the evidence is for an expanding universe.{--Percy}
The fair thing to do would be to help your scientifically less-knowledgeable opponent formulate her argument, and I believe she must have come across scientific statements that the universe is expanding and contracting to have posted what she did. Your flatly saying that science does not say that is not helpful and not fair to Shannon.
quote:
2) To believe in most evolutionist concepts you must look at it one of two ways to make it work as I can tell.
b) Either you believe in jump theory (which would mean that we just suddenly went from the closest ancestor to what we are).
Or you would have to believe that it took extended time.{--Shannon}
quote:
Science does not propose any jump theory associated with evolution. Evolution is believed to operate through gradual change over long periods of time, at least thousands of years.{--Percy}
Again, you are not being fair. I've certainly heard of something along the lines of "jump" theory and I'm very surprised if you haven't. Also I defined evolution on another website in an argument with a biologist as operating "through gradual change over long periods of time" and got told that is not the case scientifically. If you only want to argue with people at your own level of scientific knowledge you should make that clear up front. Otherwise you should expect to be more helpful than this.
quote:
c) However you still run into one problem called irreducable complexity. For example the extreme complexity of some parts of the human body require real attention that just is not really possible through a random series of changes and selection. FOr instance the eye, the mind, and the blood clotting system.
quote:
The primary advocate of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe, accepts an ancient earth and universe (the Big Bang and all that), and he believes in evolution. What he's saying is that some biological structures could not possibly have evolved because no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned, and that they are therefore evidence of the divine at work.
If no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned this should be a point for creationism. Sure, evolutionists may come up with a plausible scenario -- they're good at that -- but as it stands this is a decent argument against and should be tallied for the creationists. [I wish she would answer you, but since she hasn't I'm taking the liberty simply because your answers to her leave me frustrated.]
quote:
At one time we believed the motion of the planets around the sun was evidence of the divine, simply because we had no scientific explanation for what could possibly keep all the planets neatly in their orbits. Then Newton came along and revealed it was just the same force of gravity we're already familiar with.
In other words, inability to formulate a scientific explanation for something could stem from more than one cause.
That was not the point. The point was that irreducible complexity argues against evolution. Nobody said there's an inability to formulate a scientific explanation here, but only that you do not have a case. You beg the question by assuming you will someday have one. Meanwhile give that point to the creationists.
Also, just because "the divine" has been used to explain the unexplained doesn't mean that once you have a scientific explanation for how something works that God is expendable. In fact the more lawful the universe turns out to be, the more God can be seen behind it.
quote:
It could be because we don't know enough yet. Or we might know enough, but no one with sufficient insight and genius has yet come along to provide a theory. Or it might be evidence of the divine. The problem for intelligent design advocates (irreducible complexity is a sub-topic of intelligent design) is that there's no way to tell the difference between a yet unsolved scientific mystery and the fingerprints of God.
There is no necessary either/or here, nor is it implied by Shannon's statement. All she said was that irredicible complexity argues against evolution, and that is a fact. Anybody can win an argument by saying oh well someday we'll see how it fits in and justifies our theory.
quote:
Merely yelling "God" every time you come upon a problem for which you have no answer is not only unjustified, but also has a very long history of being wrong.
Again, the argument is that irreducible complexity/intelligent design undermines the theory of evolution, and it has far more to it than just "yelling 'God,'" which is not how I read Shannon's post in any case.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 11-01-2001 8:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 59 (455)
11-01-2001 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-01-2001 2:12 PM


Shannon's post was very strangely organized, and I think you've confused what she was saying. Point 1 was an assertion of what she thinks science says, while point b was her assertion of what is really the case. So point 1 said that "The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting," then point b said "That is not the case. The universe is expanding at a very fast rate and not contracting."
All I did was point out that point 1 must have been a misunderstanding on her part, even explaining where I thought the misunderstanding might stem from, and that point b was correct.
Faith wrote:
Again, you are not being fair. I've certainly heard of something along the lines of "jump" theory and I'm very surprised if you haven't.
Since you've heard of "jump theory", why don't you fill me in? None of my books on evolution mentions it, and I've never heard of it. A search of the web finds Creation vs. Evolution, which purports to be partly based upon the Hovind and ICR websites, and it says, "Because of this, evolutionists have postulated a jump theory, that each species was birthed suddenly." Evolutionary theory certainly postulates nothing of the kind.

If no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned this should be a point for creationism.
The entire history of science is of exploring the unknown and making it known. The goal is explanatory power and building theoretical frameworks around bodies of knowledge. It would be a kind of silly exercise to credit Creationism for whatever science doesn't understand yet. Most of the time when science solves something it opens up new unanswered questions. Many of the problems science is working on today weren't even known to exist 20 years ago.

Sure, evolutionists may come up with a plausible scenario -- they're good at that -- but as it stands this is a decent argument against and should be tallied for the creationists.
The ability to develop plausible scenarios is an example of evolution's explanatory power and is measured in its favor.

[I wish she would answer you, but since she hasn't I'm taking the liberty simply because your answers to her leave me frustrated.]
They're not my answers. The information I've provided so far can be found in any science book on the appropriate topic.

Also, just because "the divine" has been used to explain the unexplained doesn't mean that once you have a scientific explanation for how something works that God is expendable. In fact the more lawful the universe turns out to be, the more God can be seen behind it.
Sounds fine to me.

Again, the argument is that irreducible complexity/intelligent design undermines the theory of evolution...
ID, the claim that what we do not know is evidence for the divine, has a long history of failure. It began its retreat with the discovery that the sun is not pulled across the sky by a god in his chariot, continued with the discovery that the planets orbit the sun because of gravity and not because they're propelled by the wings of angels, and continues today with the rapidly accelerating progress in the sciences.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-25-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 2:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 11-02-2001 2:19 PM Percy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 59 (457)
11-02-2001 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
11-01-2001 8:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Shannon's post was very strangely organized, and I think you've confused what she was saying. Point 1 was an assertion of what she thinks science says, while point b was her assertion of what is really the case. So point 1 said that "The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting," then point b said "That is not the case. The universe is expanding at a very fast rate and not contracting."
All I did was point out that point 1 must have been a misunderstanding on her part, even explaining where I thought the misunderstanding might stem from, and that point b was correct.
OK, I see what you intended, but I believe you misunderstood her. Point 1 WAS an assertion of what she had apparently understood to be the scientific position, that the universe is expanding AND contracting, which she went on to correct with the statement that it is accelerating and expanding only, which she took to be a contradiction to the scientific point of view.
You may be right that the official point of view is the second, but it seemed to me that if Shannon has the idea that the first point comes from the scientific community that that ought to be respected and not just dismissed as an error. Maybe she can find a source for it to help sort this out.
Thanks for your response. I'll try to get back to this later.
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-25-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 11-01-2001 8:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-02-2001 3:31 PM Faith has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 59 (458)
11-02-2001 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
11-02-2001 2:19 PM


Faith wrote:
You may be right that the official point of view is the second [an expanding universe]..."
I may be right? You mean you're unaware that science believes the universe is expanding? No wonder you didn't like any of my answers to Shannon - you had no idea whether I was describing current views within science or was just blowing hot air.
All science is tentative, and so we may one day discover that we've misinterpreted the evidence, or new evidence may surface that forces a different interpretation, but Hubble's discovery of the red shift back in 1927 immediately convinced astronomers and cosmologists of the expanding universe. This view has held sway right through the present day, unless something really big has come down in the last hour or so.
Evidence gathered since the 1920's has only reinforced the view of an expanding universe. Backward extrapolation of the expanding universe bred suspicions of a distant Big Bang, eventually confirmed when Wilson and Penzias detected the cosmic background radiation in 1965, receiving the Nobel Prize in physics in 1978. We're exploring the cosmic background radiation in great detail today, hoping to uncover the origins of the structure of today's universe.
Expressing the current views of science on things like the expanding universe is a pretty simple exercise. Save your "you may be rights" for more ambiguous topics.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 11-23-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 11-02-2001 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Redwing, posted 11-23-2001 10:01 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-24-2001 1:04 PM Percy has not replied

Redwing
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 59 (475)
11-23-2001 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-02-2001 3:31 PM


Hi, All
I think Percy has a good point here. To really have a productive debate about Creation and Evolution, all parties must first understand a few things. For those people who wish to understand what the theory of evolution is (and is not) I would recommend that they refer to a text written by a Biologist, not to sources such as Kent Hovind or the ICR. A Biologist (for reasons which I hope are obvious) has the best chance of fairly, thorougly, and accurately representing the Theory of Evolution and its evidence and implications.
On a more basic level, I think it would be of great benefit if those who have a healthy curiosity and want to learn about scientific ideas (whether they think they will agree or disagree with these ideas) to take some time at the beginning of their exploration to understand some of the "basics" of science--ie, what it is and how it works. What, for example, does a scientist actually mean by "theory"? What is a "good" theory and what is a poor theory? What is the scientific method and what are its steps? Those are important questions, and understanding these questions and their answers will help a person understand what is "scientific," what scientists are trying to do, and how they do it.
Sadly, the average American does not seem to have learned about these issues--and that is where we end up with scientific theories being misrepresented, scientific language being misunderstood, and any "unusual" idea being branded "unscientific". This is also where we see people who automatically believe that because science does not know the answer *yet* that science cannot answer the question. If people truly understood that science is an ongoing, progressive enterprise, people probably wouldn't make that mistaken assumption.
--Redwing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-02-2001 3:31 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 11-24-2001 1:15 PM Redwing has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 59 (477)
11-24-2001 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-02-2001 3:31 PM


quote:
Faith wrote:
You may be right that the official point of view is the second [an expanding universe]..."
quote:
I may be right? You mean you're unaware that science believes the universe is expanding? No wonder you didn't like any of my answers to Shannon - you had no idea whether I was describing current views within science or was just blowing hot air....
Expressing the current views of science on things like the expanding universe is a pretty simple exercise. Save your "you may be rights" for more ambiguous topics.
--Percy
In its context what I was saying was that Shannon seems to have heard the theory that the universe cyclically expands and contracts. That it is now expanding is agreed upon from observation; the other is theory. It appears that according to you cyclical expansion and contraction is not accepted theory; however, do you speak for all science? Are you saying there are no disagreements or differing theories among scientists?
I was merely objecting to the way Shannon was being dealt with, trying to give hypotheticals to answer your rather dogmatic answer to her, not myself joining in the argument otherwise, not having an opinion on it.
It is, however, odd that she would ascribe the one idea to "the scientific community" and treat the other as creationism's answer to it.
[This message has been edited by Faith (edited 11-24-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-02-2001 3:31 PM Percy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 59 (478)
11-24-2001 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Redwing
11-23-2001 10:01 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redwing:
I think Percy has a good point here. To really have a productive debate about Creation and Evolution, all parties must first understand a few things. For those people who wish to understand what the theory of evolution is (and is not) I would recommend that they refer to a text written by a Biologist, not to sources such as Kent Hovind or the ICR. A Biologist (for reasons which I hope are obvious) has the best chance of fairly, thorougly, and accurately representing the Theory of Evolution and its evidence and implications.
--Redwing[/b][/QUOTE]
Having become involved in a discussion of these subjects on another web site I did go and get a basic book on biology. I also printed out the "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" by Chris Colby on the Talkorigins website.
Nevertheless, although I agree that we should all learn some science, I don't think it is right that the evolutionists completely set the conditions for creationists' participation. If asked for a biblical creationist theory to answer evolutionism's theory, I try to argue that what is observed fits what the Bible describes or predicts. It is quite a comprehensive picture after all, though it may not meet some formal criteria for science according to evolutionism. Or it may, though I may not be able to make the construction myself.
[This message has been edited by Faith (edited 11-24-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Redwing, posted 11-23-2001 10:01 AM Redwing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 11-24-2001 3:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by Redwing, posted 11-25-2001 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 59 (481)
11-24-2001 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
11-24-2001 1:15 PM


Hi Faith,
I apologize if I came across as heavy handed. Being right is no excuse for rudeness and pomposity, especially since most of us aren't lucky or smart enough to always be right. Even worse, you can't be sanctimonious about ill-treatment if guilty of it yourself.
Faith wrote:
I agree that we should all learn some science...
The average level of scientific sophistication in this country is lamentable, but I believe people should follow their own interests and desires. If that doesn't include science, so be it. But I think by "we" you probably meant people who participate in this debate, in which case I couldn't agree more.
Faith wrote:
...I don't think it is right that the evolutionists completely set the conditions for creationists' participation.
This is a tough one. I'm getting accused of setting the stage in favor of evolution a lot these days. I argue that that's not the case, that Creationists set the stage when they claimed Creationism is legitimate science.
Religious beliefs are not a factor where science is involved. Evolutionists could care less what evangelical Christians choose to believe about evolution and creation. But they take great interest when the Genesis account of creation is presented to school boards of education and state legislatures with claims that it is legitimate science that should be given equal time with evolution in public school science classrooms.
And that's all this debate comes down to. If you are claiming Creationism is science, then we have a lot to talk about. If you believe it is something else then we agree with you and there's nothing to debate.
The recent challenge, and this may be where you're heading, comes from Creationists who concede Creationism isn't science, but assert it warrants attention by science none the less. I've read the justifications for this view, but to me they all boil down to treating revelation as evidence.
God placed his Word not just in the Bible, but in the whole universe. The universe gives us the facts, the Bible the poetry of life itself.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-25-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 11-24-2001 1:15 PM Faith has not replied

Redwing
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 59 (484)
11-25-2001 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
11-24-2001 1:15 PM


Hi, Faith
I am glad that you are doing some research/reading.
It's always nice to see some curiosity--all too often, people "don't care". Kudos to you for your effort.
I was reading (I think this was in another message thread) that you were feeling a little "bashed over the head" by "scientific"-type folk defiding you for believing in God. I can sympathize with the "bashed" sensation--although for me, it was religion which did the bashing and my scientific leanings I was deridied for. *sigh* Perhaps the two of us can help each other out.
I think I understand Percy's suspicion that it is the Creationists rather than the Evolutionists who have tried to "take over the field" in an agressive manner. In reality, they do nothing less than try and rewrite the entire philosophy of sicence. The "philosophy of science" deals with such questions as: what is science? What kinds of questions does science try to answer? How should it try to answer those questions and why? What things are *not* a part of science and why? What are the sources of scientific knowledge and how does one define a "good" source?
The right to define the philosophy of science is (rightly) awarded to the scientists, because they are the ones *doing* science. Over the years, by the consensus of the scientific community, it has been basically agreed that scientific data, theories, and ideas deal with solely "naturalistic" phenomena. ("Naturalistic" phenomena are those thigns which occur in the physical world--things we can ultimately percieve with our five senses.) Therefore, no scientific theory or idea can invoke God as a cause. Also (you can tell this to the next scientist who says "there is no God because science proves it") science actually cannot say anything about whether or not God exists. Science must remain silent on that issue.
Bacause scientists deal with strictly "naturalistic" phenomena, some of them develop what we call a "naturalistic" philosophy--they believe that *all* of true "reality" is "matter in motion" (purely physical things moving and interacting with one-another). Sadly, many scientists, science teachers and also many "laymen" (people with little or no formal trianing in science) think that this purely philosophical position *is* science and cannot be separated from it. That is not correct--remember, science can only really *deal* with purely naturalistic things, so it can neither absolutely deny nor confirm any purely philosophical position. Scientific data and theories may *suggest* certain ways of thinking about the world, but that is as far as it can go.
Creationism tries to force science to use God as a total explanation--and this is contrary to the accepted philosophy of science (which is necessary to help us distinguish what is science, and what is philosophy or religion). Scientific Materialism (the philsophy of materialism which scientists frequently believe in) is, however, equally at fault for using science to deny God. What we really and truly need is a proper education about the nature and philosophy of science in our schools.
Regretfully, there is no specific book I could point you to right now which discusses the philosophy of science. (I wish I knew one off of the top of my head, but the only book I've recently read which discusses that topic is "Creationism on Trial"--I think it is an excellent book, but it has a definite "evolutionist" slant to it which you might find uncomfortable at this time). Some science textbooks *briefly* discuss the scientific method in the first chapter or so, but that only vaguely and implicitly toutches on a lot of the important issues. (If nothing else is forthcoming, then at least that is a start.)
Well, good luck in your reading (and in any future science classes). Have a nice day,
--Redwing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 11-24-2001 1:15 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-19-2001 1:40 PM Redwing has not replied

Lew Alton
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 59 (485)
11-25-2001 8:34 PM


Also (you can tell this to the next scientist who says "there is no God because science proves it") science actually cannot say anything about whether or not God exists. Science must remain silent on that issue.
Actually, this is erroneous. Science can and does say something about whether god(s) exist. It has said so, overwhelmingly, for the last 500 years, that there is no evidence for gods.
First, methodological naturalism, or the idea that science should not invoke god as an explanatory mechanism, is an assumption first made, in a primitive way, by 16th century thinkers, at least in the modern age (although it can be traced back to the "prince of philosophers," Democritus). Since that time, nothing has been found to violate the assumption that gods do not exist. This assumption has held up in scientific tests for the last five centuries. Do you know of any violations?
Secondly, most gods, such as the one under discussion here, the Canaanite sky/weather/war god Ya/Yao/YHWH, are said to interact with the world in ways perceivable to us. These interactions are often subject to testing by empirical means. And always disproved.
So there are really at least two ways that science disproves gods.
There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity"; it is simply an argument from ignorance, usually on the asserter's part: "I don't know how this could have happened, so it must be Krishna/YHWH/N'gai/Galacticus." Michael Behe's examples have one-by-one been shot down; embarassingly, the evolutionary pathways of some were shown even before Behe published, but he did not do his homework.
Perhaps Shannon could give us a clear definition of IrrCom and some examples.
Lew Alton
"Those who would give up a little freedom to gain a little order will lose both and deserve neither." Thomas Jefferso

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM Lew Alton has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 59 (486)
11-26-2001 9:26 AM


It seems that some reading is in order this site is quite a good discussion of what the currently accepted theories are and the data that imply their veracity...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
Note that it says in part 2:
"For rho less than or equal to the critical density rho(crit), the Universe expands forever, while for rho greater than rho(crit), the Universe will eventually stop expanding and collapse. The value of rho(crit) for Ho = 65 km/sec/Mpc is 8E-30 = 8*10-30 gm/cc or 5 protons per cubic meter or 1.2E11 = 1.2E11 solar masses per cubic Megaparsec. The latter can be compared to the observed 1.75E8 = 1.75E8 solar luminosities per Mpc3, requiring a mass-to-light ratio of 700 in solar units to close the Universe. If the density is anywhere close to critical most of the matter must be too dark to be observed. Current density estimates suggest that the density is between 0.3 to 1 times the critical density, and this does require that most of the matter in the Universe is dark."
Which is probably where Shannons "1)The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting." statement came from.
Then in part 4:
"The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 1E-30 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles:
The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2E91 gm/cc. Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 121 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze between the Omega(0)=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 10 Gyr, and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 16+/-4 Gyr. The vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.
The inflationary scenario proposes that the vacuum energy was very large during a brief period early in the history of the Universe. When the Universe is dominated by a vacuum energy density the scale factor grows exponentially, a(t) = exp(H(to-t)). The Hubble constant really is constant during this epoch so it doesn't need the "naught". If the inflationary epoch lasts long enough the exponential function gets very large. This makes a(t) very large, and thus makes the radius of curvature of the Universe very large. The diagram below shows our horizon superimposed on a very large radius sphere on top, or a smaller sphere on the bottom. Since we can only see as far as our horizon, for the inflationary case on top the large radius sphere looks almost flat to us.
This solves the flatness-oldness problem as long as the exponential growth during the inflationary epoch continues for at least 100 doublings. Inflation also solves the horizon problem, because the future lightcone of an event that happens before inflation is expanded to a huge region by the growth during inflation."
Which is why currently it is believed that not only is the universe expanding but its rate of expansion is increasing (hopefully) precluding a big crunch....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-27-2001]

joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 59 (490)
11-27-2001 9:52 AM


Hmmm...this site is complete and utter crud....
http://www.basham5.org/creation.htm
1)"The 2 worldviews:
a)Humanist, who says Man is God
b)Creationist, who says God is God."
umm.... shouldnt that be there is no God for humanist?
2)"First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy
c)No matter is created; all is conserved. You can neither create nor destroy matter.
d)Evolutionists say that 18-20 billions of years ago, all matter was condensed into a area no smaller than a period on this page (from Scientific American). It began to spin faster and faster, until it exploded, spewing out all matter into what has become our Universe. In fact, some speculate it came from nothing. Nothing produced something."
So matter cant be produced or destroyed huh? Thats not the case the energy generated by nuclear reactions can be calculated using the mass defect (starting mass - end mass) and the equation E = mc^2....
3)"Conservation of Angular Momentum
a)If an object is spinning, anything part of that object which leaves it will continue spinning in the same direction as the object.
b)If the Universe was created from the big bang, all objects resulting from that should be spinning in the same direction.
i)Venus and Uranus are spinning in the opposite direction as the other planets."
umm again no... the total angular momentum must remain constant UNLESS some work is done on the system (contraction under gravity for example)....
4)"The moon is moving away from the earth at a known rate. This means the moon used to be closer. The moon causes the tides on the earth, by its gravitational pull. The closer the moon is to the earth, the higher the tides. If you go back a million years, the moon would have been flooding the earth every day"
Oh so the moon is moving into a higher orbit over time is it one word.... BOLLOCKS.... Gravity exerts a pull as the equation F = GmM/R^2 not a push for the moon to move away from the earth something would need to exert a force on it, that is unless he believes Newton got it wrong.....
Another thing that is lacking in his account is the fact that the gravitational pull of the sun is also a cause of the tides, does he believe that we were that much closer to the sun?
I could continue but I think that its obvious that this fella doesnt know his arse from his elbow.....
so if this is the only reference to Jump theory I think we can safely forget it....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-27-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by God is Love, posted 11-28-2001 11:05 PM joz has not replied

God is Love
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 59 (493)
11-28-2001 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joz
11-27-2001 9:52 AM


Here's my whole view on this:
God created the Earth...reason? simply that if the big bang really happened, somebody/thing had to create the atoms in the first place...i mean, the atoms the created the whole big bang thing didn't just appear by nothing.
The whole evolving thing is crud. If we did evolve, why aren't we evolving now? we've been on this earth for millions, billions of years, yet we really haven't change. we haven't grown tails, we havn't grown wings or anything like that. sure, some people are born deformed but that means nothing. it just means that the mom used drugs, smoked or something happened between the becoming pregnant to concieving, but thats beyond the point.
the point here is that the earth and universe was CREATED. nothing as complex as the human body could have been suddenly formed merely by chance. and if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, thats wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms.
THERES NO WAY THAT THE BIG BANG/EVOLUTION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T FIT. WE DID NOT EVOLVE. I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO THINK THAT I WAS FORMED BY FIRST EVOLVING FROM AN AMEOBA (pardon my spelling) I AM MUCH MORE PLEASED THE THINK THAT I WAS CREATED BY A LOVING, CARING, MERCIFULL GOD. THERE IS PROOF AS WELL THAT THE SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE ARE TRUE.
thats the main idea of my argument.
------------------
God's child
Elaine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 11-27-2001 9:52 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 12-01-2001 10:19 AM God is Love has not replied
 Message 20 by nator, posted 12-19-2001 2:05 PM God is Love has not replied
 Message 44 by HellboundGreaser, posted 10-04-2006 5:36 PM God is Love has not replied
 Message 48 by gaznewt, posted 11-28-2006 6:05 PM God is Love has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024