Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 3:43 PM
45 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, Meddle, ringo (6 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,497 Year: 3,534/19,786 Month: 529/1,087 Week: 119/212 Day: 35/14 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9495969798
99
Author Topic:   Creation
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6668
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 1471 of 1482 (846086)
12-28-2018 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1470 by ICANT
12-28-2018 10:00 AM


Re: Ancient Wisdom & Common Sense
ICANT writes:

There is a big difference in the two statements. One has been proven to be a scientific fact. The other is a lie perpetrated by Tangle.

Moses did say: "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

The very best way I can interpret this post is to think that youre a blithering idiot, so Ill just have to work with that fact in mind.

There is no science in what Moses is supposed to have said. Its also a statement of the bleeding obvious. (Pun intended).

Its so obvious that every person over the age of 10 would have known it even then.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1470 by ICANT, posted 12-28-2018 10:00 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3798
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 1472 of 1482 (846124)
12-29-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by ICANT
12-26-2018 3:34 PM


Re: Creation
Now as far as subjective, everything is subjective.

No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts. Reality as perceived by our senses assuming properly calibrated senses, calibrated by like observations by other sets of senses. I reject the brain-in-a-box solipsist bull.

There is an objective reality and we can perceive it.

Everything you have ever been taught about creation is subject to the original assumptions being fact.

The only "creation" anything I have ever heard are the various religious creation myths none of which are consistent and many of which defy what we know of the universe not just defying logic and ethics.

Despite what religious people like to expound there is no scientific creation theory ... yet.

No, not the big bang. No, not abiogenesis. No, not evolution.

The big bang gets us close to the birth of the universe but stops us just short of the event itself, abiogenesis is still fragmented among several viable hypothesis and evolution does not address creation at all.

What else is an experiment supposed to produce. It either proves or disproves the premise.

We're having a discussion in a science forum, reverend. You gotta get your science hat on.

What experiments produce is evidence, not proof. They certainly can disprove a specific premise but they can never prove one. They can only increase our level of confidence in a premise being true/real/actual. They can never actually show a premise to be true/real/actual.

It's a philosophy thing.

AZPaul writes:

The power, Reverend, is once you have a theory that models past observations accurately their predictive powers become more accurate as well.

What theory does that?

General relativity, QED, QCD, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, Plate Tectonics ...

Lots of them.

None of them tell me where the universe came from.

... yet.

Nor will they ever.

You might be right, just like they can't tell us how stars work and where all the elements come from or how time slows at really fast speeds and ...

Oh! Wait! They do tell us these things.

Well, they didn't use to, so what are they going to tell us next?

We're going to have to wait and find out what any new theories have to tell us.

The universe can not have existed eternally in the past due to entropy.

We don't know that ... yet. We have no idea what attributes, physics, laws operate(d) prior to, before, outside of, right next to, or anything beyond this present universe we inhabit.

I think we may have finally overcome this "there is no before or outside or other then this universe" bs. I think we have finally accepted that we are totally ignorant of any such things and cannot truthfully say anything about such matters existing or not. There are no stops. All is open to our inquiry.

Since nothing exists outside the universe according to the standard theory that requires the universe having a beginning to exist from non-existence.

That is sooo last season, ICANT. You need to update.

We cannot say if there is or is not anything prior/outside this universe because we have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.

It's a pleasant dream right now but maybe, someday in the next 500 years +- we may have a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity that may, fingers crossed, allow us to pierce those non-existent singularities everyone is so upset over.

Therefore a "WHY" is necessary.

No, as a matter of fact, it isn't.

The "why" you are asking is just a human construct subject to the same subjective emotional baggage as all such constructs in this kind of discussion, i.e. useless.

You left out the most important one "BIOGENESIS".

That's "abiogenesis", with the "a", but I understand what you are getting at.

No, I didn't leave it out. I totally forgot about it. There is a difference.

Humans did not exist. Now humans exist. My question is why do they exist which requires a purpose.

No, it doesn't. We exist because we evolved. There is no purpose to evolution. It didn't require one before the sun turned on and it doesn't require one now.

And they will never tell me where life came from.

You may be right about that. I don't think an acceptable theory of abiogenesis will come about in our lifetimes. Like fusion power and peace in the middle east we'll be long gone before that happens.

The standard theory is the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category.

I have been trying to get supporting evidence for that conclusion since the 1st post in this thread and in other threads.

I am confused. There are a lot of scientific theories out there, not just the Standard Model. The standard model deals with particles and forces. The "stuff and glue" that make up the universe. There are also Special Relativity, General Relativity, the Quantum Field Theories QED and QCD, that have more to do with how all this stuff and glue operate.

Why would you say the Standard Model was the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category? All above are actual, bona fide, accepted theories in the true science meaning of that word.

Supporting evidence for what conclusions? That our theories actually work?

Would you care to present any evidence or just continue to tell me the "theories do that exceptionally well". That statement is an assertion not evidence.

I told you before I would present you one piece of evidence, only one, and that I wasn't about to try to give you a semester's worth of college physics through this forum. I did that.

So, no, I would not care to present any more evidence. You're on your own.

If it is not complete it should not be classified as a theory but as a hypothesis.

I guess ignorance of science tails with ignorance of scientific terminology.

I think I'll just let that one stand there and simmer a bit.

When did it reach a consensus?
One of our most outstanding cosmologist of the present Sir Roger Penrose calls "cosmic inflation a fantasy.

Do you know something that he does not? If you do present it.

Dr. Penrose does not a consensus break.

Remember Dr. Fred Hoyle? He didn't brake a consensus either.

At least you said string theory, and bounce theory were just a hypothetical model.

Which means it is something that is based on a guess.

It doesn't mean that at all, Reverend.

It means the model is not yet complete enough to be testable with our present technology. It is still hypothesis, not just a guess. If you cannot discern a difference I cannot help you there.

Dark matter and Dark energy are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. That assumption is all the evidence you have for their existence.

Not quite right.

We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe. They just don't rotate right. There appears to be more gravity (mass) than we can see. We know it's there because of the gravitational effect but, unlike other matter showing gravitational effects we cannot see the stuff and don't know what it is. So, for right now, we call it "dark".

Good name for something you know is there but can't see.

Same with dark energy. We see its effects all across the visible universe but we don't yet know what it is.

And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.

You say gravity holds the universe together and since there is not enough matter and energy in the universe to accomplish that feat science invented dark matter, and dark energy.

Where do you get all this wrong stuff?

The Bible says God holds, or binds it together. There is just as much evidence to support this hypothesis as for dark matter and dark energy.

Laugh.

Why do you say "no he didn't". I have photo copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which is 2200 hundred years old and they used the same two Hebrew words I explained above. According to science those original scrolls are a little over 2200 years old.

The people who lived 400 years after Moses lived had scrolls with the same text written on them.

And you know these fragments are right how?

Or did everyone at the time have specialty degrees in hematology?

No, ICANT, Moses, if he even existed at all, may have said some words, maybe even those very words you used (though given the state of the sources I would doubt that) but that does not in any way translate into Moses demonstrating some deep knowledge of hematology in the way you suggest.

All he knew was if you bleed too hard you get dead. Show me where he acknowledged anything more than that. So far, the quote you are using does not realistically indicate that.

Everything I would tell you, you would probably classify as coincidence. But with such a preponderance of coincidences in my life the evidence is overwhelming to me that God does exist.

Well, I can't argue that. You're probably right, again.

People all over this world find all manner of gods in the coincidences of their little lives. I cannot remember how many times I've heard that the coincidence of finding ones car keys in a dark field was proof of some god or other involved in our little lives trying to help.

Leave the damn keys in the damn field. Get rid of cancer instead.

When you die and you will, you will stand before God and be judged by what you have done with the opportunities you had on earth to trust Him for eternal life. You will not have an excuse when you stand before Him.

When you and I both die, and we will, our energies will be diffused back into the global environment and our bodies will break down into their constituent molecules and atoms to be used in other systems living and otherwise. Nothing will remain of us here or anywhere except in memories and after a few hundred years not even there.

God Bless,
And I continue to pray for you and yours, and everyone else.

Well, thank you, ICANT. I'll think kindly on you, too.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 3:34 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1474 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2019 8:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3392
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1473 of 1482 (846138)
12-30-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1438 by ICANT
12-21-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

Maybe God exists and judges everyone on how naive they were.

If that was the case He would have told us.

This cannot be true.

If we were told, it would defeat the purpose of finding out how naive people were.
In being told, it would only find out how good people are at following directions.

Those are two different things.

One is a God searching for intelligent companions.
The other is a God searching for robots.

ICANT writes:

Stile writes:

Maybe God doesn't exist, but something else does and they put believers in the Pit of Fools too.


If that was the case that something else would have told us.

I don't see any reason to agree with your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1438 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2018 3:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1474 of 1482 (847781)
01-26-2019 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1472 by AZPaul3
12-29-2018 5:51 PM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul

AZPaul writes:

No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts.

Could you give me just one objective fact?

AZPaul writes:

Despite what religious people like to expound there is no scientific creation theory ... yet.

The standard theory requires that the universe had an absolute beginning to exist. That would require that it did not exist in any form but began to exist.

Since that is an impossibility without a creator of some sort many have tried to come up with a way the universe could begin to exist without a creator of any sort.

Everything that has been proposed would require a prior existence, for them to be able to take place. Which would require the laws of thermodynamics to have to make exceptions to the law. Which is an impossibility.

But then maybe you are smart enough to explain to me how the impossible can occur.

AZPaul writes:

They certainly can disprove a specific premise but they can never prove one.

If I put forth the premise that water will begin to boil at 212° at sea level that premise can be proven true by causing the temperature of the water to reach 212° at sea level.

If I put forth the premise that water will boil at 211° that premise can be proved to be true also. All you have to do is move to 560 feet above sea level.

Likewise water will not begin to boil until it reaches 213° at 560 feet below sea level.

So you have absolute truth of water beginning to boil at 212° at sea level.

But the premise of what temperature water begins to boil is subject to altitude.

So how can you prove that water does not begin to boil at 212° at sea level?

AZPaul writes:

You might be right, just like they can't tell us how stars work and where all the elements come from or how time slows at really fast speeds and …

You tell me "What experiments produce is evidence, not proof." then you tell me "time slows at really fast speeds". What facts support that assertion?

AZPaul writes:

We don't know that ... yet. We have no idea what attributes, physics, laws operate(d) prior to, before, outside of, right next to, or anything beyond this present universe we inhabit.

But according to actual scientific knowledge there is non existence outside of this present universe. In fact most of the posters on this site that have answered posts of mine have tried to make sure I have heard that nothing exists outside of the universe.

AZPaul writes:

We cannot say if there is or is not anything prior/outside this universe because we have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.

Actually the math breaks down at what is called a singularity which is a point at which a function takes an infinite value, that produces no information. AT this point the temperature of whatever existed at 1 trillionth of a second after T=0 was 180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit.

That temperature would have to be penetrated to get any information from outside of the universe. What could produce such results?

So the only thing that produces anything one trillionth of a second after T=0 has to be produced by the imagination of mankind.

AZPaul writes:

No, it doesn't. We exist because we evolved.


What facts support evolution? Especially since you don't know how life began to exist.

If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.

AZPaul writes:

You may be right about that.

Science can not tell us how life began to exist.

But you should be able to tell me where life came from.
It is a fact that life produces life.

If you disagree give me one instance of non-life producing life.

AZPaul writes:

I guess ignorance of science tails with ignorance of scientific terminology.
I think I'll just let that one stand there and simmer a bit.

A hypothesis is an educated guess about the answer to a problem or question that is testable using the scientific method.

A theory has received a great deal of scientific support and is generally accepted as true.

True or not it is accepted as true.

That is equal to my faith in God.

AZPaul writes:

It means the model is not yet complete enough to be testable with our present technology. It is still hypothesis, not just a guess. If you cannot discern a difference I cannot help you there.

But a hypothesis is an educated guess.

AZPaul writes:

We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe.

You see the effect of something. Whether it is an invisible made up something or the power of God is not discernible.

AZPaul writes:

Good name for something you know is there but can't see.

You could call it the power of God that holds the universe together.

AZPaul writes:

And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.

I thought both were required. One to prevent the big rip and the other to prevent the deep freeze. Putting the critical mass density at exactly what is necessary for the universe to exist.

The word translated consist that Paul used means to place together, or to band together. I thought that described what was necessary.

AZPaul writes:

Where do you get all this wrong stuff?

Are you trying to tell me the critical mass density of the universe which is maintained by this imaginary dark matter and dark energy is not what causes the universe to stay together rather than end by flying apart or in a big crunch?

AZPaul writes:

No, ICANT, Moses, if he even existed at all, may have said some words, maybe even those very words you used (though given the state of the sources I would doubt that) but that does not in any way translate into Moses demonstrating some deep knowledge of hematology in the way you suggest.

According to historians who lived 2800 years ago Moses did exist.

But whether Moses or somebody else made the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" that statement was recorded in a book that is called the Bible.

Something that was said that 2300 years later is proven to be a scientific fact would be classified as a prediction or a prophecy. And it would not make any difference whether they knew what they said meant or not. It still was a true statement.

AZPaul writes:

When you and I both die, and we will, our energies will be diffused back into the global environment and our bodies will break down into their constituent molecules and atoms to be used in other systems living and otherwise. Nothing will remain of us here or anywhere except in memories and after a few hundred years not even there.

About 60% of your body will evaporate, as it is water. The flesh will return to dust. The spirit will return to face its maker.
But if you are correct nothing will make any difference.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1472 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2018 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1475 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2019 12:04 AM ICANT has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3798
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 1475 of 1482 (847788)
01-27-2019 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1474 by ICANT
01-26-2019 8:11 PM


Re: Creation
AZPaul writes:

No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts.


Could you give me just one objective fact?

Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.

This is an objective fact.

The standard theory requires that the universe had an absolute beginning to exist. That would require that it did not exist in any form but began to exist.

Not quite. Present theory posits that this universe may have had a beginning. We do not know what that beginning looked like or what may have, if anything, preceded it.

Since that is an impossibility without a creator of some sort many have tried to come up with a way the universe could begin to exist without a creator of any sort.

Impossibility? How so? You don't know such "was an impossibility" because you don't know what, if anything, came before. No one does.

Everything that has been proposed would require a prior existence, for them to be able to take place. Which would require the laws of thermodynamics to have to make exceptions to the law. Which is an impossibility.

Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.

But then maybe you are smart enough to explain to me how the impossible can occur.

Again, you cannot say that creation of this universe without a creator is impossible since you, me, no one knows squat how this creation took place.

Likewise water will not begin to boil until it reaches 213° at 560 feet below sea level.

You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes. Not proof. Evidence.

Even scientists miss-speak on this issue using the popular vernacular.

There is only evidence with greater or lesser confidence. More evidence ... more different lines of evidence ... the greater confidence in the conclusion.

Water tends to boil at 212°F when at sea level. But that also depends on ambient air temperature and the barometric pressure at the time. We are pretty confident, however, that this happens pretty much as expected around that temperature.

It's a philosophy thing. Science, despite loose talk on the part of some scientists, doesn't do "proof." We do "confidence" from the evidence.

You tell me "What experiments produce is evidence, not proof." then you tell me "time slows at really fast speeds". What facts support that assertion?

Look up "time dilation". We have a great deal of confidence in the efficacy of this well demonstrated phenomenon.

But according to actual scientific knowledge there is non existence outside of this present universe.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff, Reverend, but this piece of tripe is not from the scientific community. First, we can't even say there is such a thing as outside this present universe let alone what properties may or may not exist in it if there is.

From a knowledge perspective we can only say this universe is all that there is. But there are lots of speculations on what may be "out there" for the very reasons we are alluding to: that this universe may have had a beginning which may mean some prior conditions existed. We just do not know ... yet.

Actually the math breaks down at what is called a singularity ...

That's what I said, ICANT. We have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.

What facts support evolution?

Don't go there Reverend. That is a stupid man's rabbit hole. The evidence is there and is overwhelming. Might as well continue to insist the earth is still flat.

If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.

Sure we can. We do this all day long and twice on Sundays.

Evolution does not (yet) involve abiogenic origins. They are still two separate disciplines.

You do not get to force combine them for your own religious purposes. Each remains separate until the scientific consensus says otherwise.

Science can not tell us how life began to exist.

But you should be able to tell me where life came from.

Oh, BS. There is no "should" to it. Right now "we don't know" because we don't know.

If you want "should" then you should be able to bring your god in the flesh to my place for tea.

AZPaul writes:
We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe.

You see the effect of something. Whether it is an invisible made up something or the power of God is not discernible.

That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects, we don't know what it is, it's not discernible to us, it is dark to our sensors, we have to call it something so we call it "dark matter."

What part of "dark" do you not understand?

You could call it the power of God that holds the universe together.

You certainly could.

I wouldn't since I would rather wait and see what the science produces on the issue rather than jump at some "majik sky daddy" explanation in our present state of ignorance.

But a hypothesis is an educated guess.

You keep saying that. It's not right.

Hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon that needs testing. It is incumbent on the hypothesis to propose not just an explanation but what can be tested how, as well as what would falsify the hypothesis.

There is a whole lot more to this science stuff than you are aware.

AZPaul writes:
And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.

I thought both were required.

They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.

Are you trying to tell me the critical mass density of the universe which is maintained by this imaginary dark matter and dark energy is not what causes the universe to stay together rather than end by flying apart or in a big crunch?

That is correct.

But whether Moses or somebody else made the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" that statement was recorded in a book that is called the Bible.

Something that was said that 2300 years later is proven to be a scientific fact would be classified as a prediction or a prophecy

No, it wouldn't. It would be called wishful thinking on the part of the preacher trying to push it as some deep understanding of physiology when in fact it was only the well known fact that if you bleed too much you die. Period.

The spirit will return to face its maker.

The water we know about. The flesh we know about. The spirit thing is fantasy.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1474 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2019 8:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1476 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2019 5:59 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1476 of 1482 (847871)
01-28-2019 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1475 by AZPaul3
01-27-2019 12:04 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul

AZPaul writes:

Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.
This is an objective fact.

Which is subject to your personal biases.

AZPaul writes:

Not quite. Present theory posits that this universe may have had a beginning. We do not know what that beginning looked like or what may have, if anything, preceded it.

What hypothesis has become a consensus that replaces the Standard Theory?

I will agree there are several different things that have been mentioned to do away with the requirement of there being a beginning to exist of the universe. Hawking's instanton, string (theory) hypothesis, bounce (theory) hypothesis to mention a few. But none of those have reached any where near a consensus to be called a theory.

The thought is Science can't agree with the Bible so the universe couldn't have a beginning to exist. That is what the Bible says.

The laws of thermodynamics has to be suspended in the past in order for the universe not requiring an absolute beginning to exist, due to entropy.

So how is any other way other than a beginning to exist possible?

AZPaul writes:

Impossibility? How so? You don't know such "was an impossibility" because you don't know what, if anything, came before. No one does.

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe had to have a beginning to exist, in order to support life today. It could not have existed eternally in the past.

Everything mentioned by scientist to produce our universe require something to exist in order for the universe to begin to exist.

With that something producing the universe.

It is a fact non existence can not produce existence.

I have said on this web site many times that whatever produced the universe would be God. God is said to be all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere. That is what it would take to produce the energy that produced the mass of matter that is found in the universe.

AZPaul writes:

Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.

If my memory serves me, Sir Arthur Eddington said "if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble."

Everything Scientist have put forth as a possible producer of the universe requires a vacuum for them to appear in and do their thing. A vacuum is part of this universe of which the laws of thermodynamics is also a part of. If they existed outside the universe then thermodynamics would also exist outside the universe.

AZPaul writes:

Again, you cannot say that creation of this universe without a creator is impossible since you, me, no one knows squat how this creation took place.

I agree we are limited as is science in what we know about the universe and how or when it began to exist.

There are two possibilities:
1. The universe has existed eternally in the past.
That can only happen if entropy does not exist outside of the universe we know.

2. The universe had a beginning to exist.
Science says the universe is all there is and nothing is outside of it. Therefore the universe would have to begin to exist from non existence. Which is impossible.

There would have to be something outside of the present universe that could provide everything to form the universe for it to exist.

AZPaul writes:

You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes.

You can do the experiments for yourself.
But I am a steam engineer and had to study water and its relationship to heat quite a bit.

AZPaul writes:

Look up "time dilation". We have a great deal of confidence in the efficacy of this well demonstrated phenomenon.

Time dilation is a fairy tale.

AZPaul writes:

I don't know where you're getting this stuff, Reverend, but this piece of tripe is not from the scientific community. First, we can't even say there is such a thing as outside this present universe let alone what properties may or may not exist in it if there is.

So you disagree with cavediver and Son Goku. They both assured me and made a lot of fun about my making a statement about standing on the outside fabric of the universe. They assured me there was non existence (nothing) outside this universe. As I understand it they both were practicing and teaching cosmologist.

AZPaul writes:

That's what I said, ICANT. We have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.

And I am saying anything beyond that break down has to come from the imagination of mankind. That includes string theory, bounce theory or anything else. To talk about it is dabbling in faith.

AZPaul writes:

If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.

Sure we can. We do this all day long and twice on Sundays.

I know you do. But if God created life as put forth in the Bible it would evolve a lot different that it would if it began to exist any other way. Especially since that way has not been discovered.

AZPaul writes:

Oh, BS. There is no "should" to it. Right now "we don't know" because we don't know.

I thought it was a scientific fact that life produces life. Due to all the experiments trying to create life.

I do know if I breed a male and a female cat they will produce kittens provided both of them are alive. If they are lifeless it is a no go, unless I got the sperm of the dead one in storage.

AZPaul writes:

That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects,

No that is not what you said.

You said: "We see the effects of dark matter ". You were identifying and unidentified substance which has not been discovered yet.

AZPaul writes:

I wouldn't since I would rather wait and see what the science produces on the issue rather than jump at some "majik sky daddy" explanation in our present state of ignorance.

Then tell me why dark energy and dark matter was proposed to fix the problem? They could have waited until they had the answer.

AZPaul writes:

There is a whole lot more to this science stuff than you are aware.

Why can't I get by with that when I say "faith and belief is a lot more than you are aware of." But I don't remember saying that to you in those exact words until now.

But I like to keep all things simple. Einstein said "if you can't explain your theory well enough to be understood, you don't know your theory well enough".

AZPaul writes:

They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.

They are touted to be the be all end all of the problem that is observed.

AZPaul writes:

No, it wouldn't. It would be called wishful thinking on the part of the preacher trying to push it as some deep understanding of physiology when in fact it was only the well known fact that if you bleed too much you die. Period.

So Moses realized the life of the flesh was in the blood. The KJV translators did not even know that the life of the flesh was in the blood.

But that does not make it any less a scientific fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

AZPaul writes:

The water we know about. The flesh we know about. The spirit thing is fantasy.

Only if life came into existence from not existence, as there was no life form to produce life.

I wonder what the odds of that are.

No known extant life which involves three distinct types of interdependent macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and protein), could have arisen in current form. This led researchers to hypothesize mechanisms whereby the current system might have arisen from a simpler precursor system.

No experiment has produced any results yet.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1475 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2019 12:04 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1477 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2019 12:25 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 1478 by Pressie, posted 01-29-2019 4:53 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3798
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 1477 of 1482 (847887)
01-29-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1476 by ICANT
01-28-2019 5:59 PM


Re: Creation
Mighty fine day, Reverend.

AZPaul writes:
Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.
This is an objective fact.

Which is subject to your personal biases.

Yes. Mine, my family’s, my society’s. Lots of personal bias everywhere.

What hypothesis has become a consensus that replaces the Standard Theory?

Be careful, here, Reverend. The “Standard Model” is in fact an accepted and strong scientific theory of particles/forces. It operates in a somewhat different part of the physics family of disciplines. Don’t confuse things in discussions by using the words “standard theory” when for a cosmology discussion what is meant is The Lambda-CDM model.

The thought is Science can't agree with the Bible so the universe couldn't have a beginning to exist.

Science don’t give a flip about your bible and, yes, despite this world wide conspiracy to eat your gods, it appears this universe may indeed have had a beginning. How? We don’t know.

And neither do you.

The laws of thermodynamics has to be suspended in the past in order for the universe not requiring an absolute beginning to exist, due to entropy.

Excellent. We pretty much know that didn’t happen any time back to about 10-36 seconds after whatever happened, happened. Before that, however, we know nothing. Not even if entropy played any role at all. Probably did, but we don’t know what majik may have happened back then.

But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."

According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe had to have a beginning to exist, in order to support life today. It could not have existed eternally in the past.

Everything mentioned by scientist to produce our universe require something to exist in order for the universe to begin to exist.

With that something producing the universe.

It is a fact non existence can not produce existence.

I have said on this web site many times that whateve …

I could quibble with that first sentence a bit but you were doing so well until that fourth one.

AZPaul writes:
Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.

If my memory serves me, Sir Arthur Eddington said "if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble."

So very true … inside this universe. That’s the way our physics works. It may work in other universes or brane-worlds or whatever, the same way. But, maybe not.

I agree we are limited as is science/religion in what we know about the universe and how or when it began to exist.

There. Fixed it for you.

AZPaul writes:
You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes.

You can do the experiments for yourself.

humm … ICANT … that wasn’t a challenge. Yes, you have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes. So do I. So does everybody. That wasn’t the point of the paragraph.

Time dilation is a fairy tale.

In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.

So you disagree with cavediver and Son Goku. They both assured me and made a lot of fun about my making a statement about standing on the outside fabric of the universe. They assured me there was non existence (nothing) outside this universe. As I understand it they both were practicing and teaching cosmologist.

Ohh, yes, I saw how you misunderstood what was said. And I am always open to any corrections they may have, especial from those two.

And I am saying anything beyond that break down has to come from the imagination of mankind. That includes string theory, bounce theory or anything else.

Just like all our other theories. Most proud of those big ones like SR, GR, QED, QCD, Lambda-CDM, the list goes on.

Really wish I could live to see the next big one. It’ll be a doozy.

To talk about it is dabbling in faith.

For you, I’m sure that’s true

I don’t have that handicap.

I know you do. But if God created life as put forth in the Bible it would evolve a lot different that it would if it began to exist any other way. Especially since that way has not been discovered.

Your considerable expertise in abiogenesis and evolution, no doubt.

If life came to be here on Earth the way we think it may have then the processes of evolution as we know them could very easily have produced exactly, or close to, what we see in this world today. No other alternative or speculated process put forward can do that.

The reason for the bit of softness in this is because I was reminded a few days ago about Stephen Jay Gould and his statement that if you could turn back the clock to when all life here was microbial and let the process of evolution work its magic anew humans would not be here.

I thought it was a scientific fact that life produces life.

Yeah, I hear that happens quite a bit around these parts.

And, to do you one better, right now it appears that ONLY life can put the chemistry together to produce other life.

We keep trying, though. Heck, we’ve been at this for less than a century while Mother Nature had millions of years to get it going. We’ll get there. We just need a few more decades … or more.

That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects,

No that is not what you said.
You said: "We see the effects of dark matter ". You were identifying and unidentified substance which has not been discovered yet.

Are you really that obtuse?

We call it that so we know what part of the human experience we’re talking about. Couldn’t have called it Häagen-Dazs Chocolate. Not that I would have minded but, hey, the confusion - and the lawsuits.

Then tell me why dark energy and dark matter was proposed to fix the problem? They could have waited until they had the answer.

You really have no idea how dark matter and dark energy were discovered.

Each was individually discovered by happenstance, not by design, and each, discovered several years apart, were jaw dropping head-scratchers.

Or are you trying to imply the Illuminati made them up in their on-going lust to control the rest of the universe just like we … they did with time dilation?

But I like to keep all things simple. Einstein said "if you can't explain your theory well enough to be understood, you don't know your theory well enough".

When talking with other learned adults, that’s one thing. When talking with children, that’s another.

AZPaul writes:
They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.

They are touted to be the be all end all of the problem that is observed.

Right. OK. Touted by who(m)? What problem?

I’ll try to be gentle.

Galaxies are a wonder to behold. We like to study them. In detail. In extreme detail.

One day some bright people noticed that the spin of some of the arms in some observed galaxies was not right. The speed of the arms is dependent on the gravity present which is dependent on the amount of matter present. The outer stars were way too fast for the amount of gravity we could calculate from the galaxy’s observed matter. There had to be way more matter producing way more gravity causing the spin. Except no one could see any extra matter and certainly not 6 to 10 times more which would be required to see the observed spin. “Dark” matter came into the human lexicon.

They weren’t out to destroy the bible or out looking for ways to advance an atheist agenda or hold the universe together or or or. They certainly did not set out to bang Science’s head up against a wall and give everybody headaches, but that is exactly what happened. Now we know there is this stuff out there making up most of the matter in the universe, it’s apparently everywhere, and we have absolutely no friggin idea what this stuff is. It may even be, though not very likely, that this “dark matter” stuff is a math problem with General Relativity. Maybe our understanding of gravity needs to change. We just DO NOT KNOW. That is what dark matter is … a great big honking piece of our ignorance.

That is a most excellent problem to have, btw. A real mystery to be solved. The kind of thing humans love about studying physics. And it has nothing to do with your religion or any conspiracy to deny your specific flavor of deity.

So Moses realized the life of the flesh was in the blood. The KJV translators did not even know that the life of the flesh was in the blood.

Oh, I’m pretty sure if we could ask those folks, “What happens when you bleed too much?” they would answer, “You be dead!” Yeah, they knew.

But that does not make it any less a scientific fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood.

For your purposes of stretching some goofy scientific umbrella over your bible in a vain attempt to shoehorn into it some sorely lacking efficacy, it fails. It doesn’t even approach anything of scientific value. Not for that time. Not for today.

No known extant life which involves three distinct types of interdependent macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and protein), could have arisen in current form. This led researchers to hypothesize mechanisms whereby the current system might have arisen from a simpler precursor system.

No experiment has produced any results yet.

Au contraire. Lots of results. We know a whole lot about how it didn’t happen, how it might have happened, we just don’t have the exact recipe.

Again, give us time. We’ll find it. But don’t wait up. It’ll be a bit, yet.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1476 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2019 5:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1479 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2019 2:17 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 1478 of 1482 (847893)
01-29-2019 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1476 by ICANT
01-28-2019 5:59 PM


I'm really, really not too sure why you think that what happened around 13.8 billion years ago can provide any evidence for your favourite Gods existing today. Could you elaborate on the evidence for your favourite Spooks still existing?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1476 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2019 5:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1479 of 1482 (848608)
02-12-2019 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1477 by AZPaul3
01-29-2019 12:25 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Paul

AZPaul writes:

Lambda-CDM model

Which requires cold dark matter, and dark energy. Which may or may not exist as no one has found any nor do they know what it is.

Because certain things take place that can not be accounted for the phrase dark energy and dark matter was proposed to solve the problem.

Just like inflation was proposed to solve a lot of problems with the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy. He is one of the most noted cosmologist of my lifetime.

AZPaul writes:

How? We don’t know.
And neither do you.

The universe having a beginning to exist requires a cause for that beginning.

We have scientist who have been devising all kinds of thing to produce the universe and everything in it all of my life and they are no closer to an answer today than on the day I enter this world, from my mothers womb.

Bounce theory has been proposed, string theory has been proposed the BBT has been proposed and many proposals to be added to the front end of the BBT has been proposed. Everyone of them require existence in order for them to begin to exist. Branes require a vacuum as does Hawking's instanton in which to pop into existence.

The others require the universe to be eternal in existence which the second law of thermodynamics says can not be, as the universe is expanding.

So my argument is just as valid as any other. You have a great opportunity in this thread to prove me wrong.

AZPaul writes:

But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."

But you do have an idea and you are very vocal about it.

On the other hand I have an idea and am very vocal about it.

In the long run it does not matter what you or I think. The universe could prove both of us to be wrong. We just have to keep reading the pages as we find them and reach our own decisions.

If you are right neither of us will ever know the correct answer. But if I am right I will know the correct answer.

AZPaul writes:

In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.

Do you mean because the element of the atom called cesium vibrates faster the further it is away from sea level? That is not proof of time dilation, only that gravity affects things which we know.

AZPaul writes:

Ohh, yes, I saw how you misunderstood what was said.

What is there to understand about there being no outside of the universe?

Do you mean it is expanding into something? If so what?

AZPaul writes:

Just like all our other theories. Most proud of those big ones like SR, GR, QED, QCD, Lambda-CDM, the list goes on.

Would you care to try and explain how any information can be discovered that is beyond the point that the temperature was trillions of degrees K?

Or is that a misrepresentation of 1 billionth of a second after T=0?

AZPaul writes:

I don’t have that handicap.

Then present the evidence to support your assertions.

AZPaul writes:

We just need a few more decades … or more.

A few billions years will not produce life from non life.

AZPaul writes:

Or are you trying to imply the Illuminati made them up in their on-going lust to control the rest of the universe just like we … they did with time dilation?

Oh no I believe there is a power that holds the universe and everything in it in place. In fact certain laws control the orbits of everything in the universe. Colossians. 1:17

Gravity affects clocks at elevation above sea level. Time does not speed up, clocks just run faster with less gravity.

AZPaul writes:

When talking with other learned adults, that’s one thing. When talking with children, that’s another.

If you can't tell it to where the children can understand it how do you expect adults to understand it. The children have no preconceived ideas the adults have already made up their mind what they believe. And they don't want you to bother them with the facts. I learned that from preaching.

AZPaul writes:

We just DO NOT KNOW.

Are you sure it is not just some form of energy?

AZPaul writes:

Oh, I’m pretty sure if we could ask those folks, “What happens when you bleed too much?” they would answer, “You be dead!” Yeah, they knew.

What does bleeding have to do with the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood"? That does not say the blood is the life of the flesh.

AZPaul writes:

Again, give us time. We’ll find it. But don’t wait up. It’ll be a bit, yet.

I don't have much time left at my age.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1477 by AZPaul3, posted 01-29-2019 12:25 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1480 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2019 5:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3798
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1480 of 1482 (848663)
02-12-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1479 by ICANT
02-12-2019 2:17 AM


Re: Creation
Hello again, Reverend. Hope you had a good week.

Which requires cold dark matter, and dark energy. Which may or may not exist as no one has found any nor do they know what it is.

Because certain things take place that can not be accounted for the phrase dark energy and dark matter was proposed to solve the problem.

Well things are a bit stronger than this statement portrays.

For dark matter, we know with certainty that something is exerting copious amounts of gravitational effect on galactic spin and this something is not the normal baryonic matter we all know and love which is the only thing out there that we can see.

Same with dark energy. In order to propel the accelerating expansion of space there has to be a source of energy which, at present, we cannot identify. There can be no doubt that something is exerting this push, something is causing space to expand, we just have no confirmed mechanism to blame.

It's kind of like finding a puddle of water in your living room. It had to come from someplace but all the pipes and the slab are fine so we need to look further for this mysterious "dark water" source.

Before we noticed these anomalies it is not like there were problems with cosmology that needed these things to fix. We noticed these anomalies and are now seeking answers for why. If these two wondrous things hadn't shown themselves we would have gone on fat, dumb, and happy continuing to study the other wondrous things we seek to answer in cosmology. Both galactic spin and accelerated spacial expansion were complete surprises. They were not made up answers to pending problems but totally new problems on their own. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are not answers to these problems but grammatical place holders until we figure out what the hell is going on.

Just like inflation was proposed to solve a lot of problems with the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy. He is one of the most noted cosmologist of my lifetime.

With all due respect to Dr. Penrose he doesn't make a consensus. While he is very smart indeed, and may be right, there are thousands of equally smart others who disagree.

The others require the universe to be eternal in existence which the second law of thermodynamics says can not be, as the universe is expanding.

Your understanding of entropy is somewhat stilted. A "creation" event may not be limited by anything of the sort. We don't know.

So my argument is just as valid as any other.

Religious majik? Uhhh...no. Well, probably not. To a vanishingly small degree of "not".

You have a great opportunity in this thread to prove me wrong.

I think we're both too far gone to do this in either direction, Reverend.

AZPaul writes:

But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."


But you do have an idea and you are very vocal about it.

I have my favorite proposals, a lot of them actually, but the religious majik you propose is not one of them.

AZPaul writes:

In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.

Do you mean because the element of the atom called cesium vibrates faster the further it is away from sea level? That is not proof of time dilation, only that gravity affects things which we know.

Gravity's effect on cesium atoms at altitude is to speed up (better yet, not slow down) its internal operations. The same for any atom and any operation including your own metabolism, thought processes, and the durations between distinct events.

That is what we call time, ICANT.

What is there to understand about there being no outside of the universe?

The fact that we don't know if this is accurate or not.

The math, the theories, the philosophy we have do not operate in other than what we can presently detect or reasonably extrapolate.

We do not know, so cannot say, whether there is something more.

We do not know. And I submit it is not unreasonable to inquire.

Would you care to try and explain how any information can be discovered that is beyond the point that the temperature was trillions of degrees K?

Can't say we will but give us a few more decades/centuries and we may come up with something reasonable.

My kingdom for Quantum Gravity!

A few billions years will not produce life from non life.

Too late. That already happened. And apparently quite early in this planet's history.

Gravity affects clocks at elevation above sea level. Time does not speed up, clocks just run faster with less gravity.

Everything appears to run faster in less gravity - which has a limit. More to the point, everything appears to run slower in greater gravity - which has no limit. Everything. Atoms, clocks, chemical reactions, causality. Everything. That IS our understanding of time.

If you can't tell it to where the children can understand it how do you expect adults to understand it. The children have no preconceived ideas the adults have already made up their mind what they believe. And they don't want you to bother them with the facts. I learned that from preaching.

Yeah. We noticed that. Facts don't seem to play much of a role in a lot of what humans think and do. Especially in preaching. Pitty.

I don't have much time left at my age.

But you have all of eternity, Reverend, right?

I'm the one stuck in reality.

Have a good rest of the week, ICANT.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1479 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2019 2:17 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1481 by caffeine, posted 02-15-2019 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1481 of 1482 (848810)
02-15-2019 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1480 by AZPaul3
02-12-2019 5:02 PM


Re: Creation
[qs]
Just like inflation was proposed to solve a lot of problems with the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy. He is one of the most noted cosmologist of my lifetime.

With all due respect to Dr. Penrose he doesn't make a consensus. While he is very smart indeed, and may be right, there are thousands of equally smart others who disagree.

More's the point, why is this supposed to be relevant? ICANT brings up Penrose and the same four word quote in every post, but I can't figure out why he thinks this is relevant to anything.

Penrose's most recent hypothesis of the history of the universe/multiverse, if I understand it right, is a cyclic one; in which the universe was formed from an ancient and dead universe. He had some mathematical argument which I didn't understand to show that the state of the universe after heat death was essentially the same thing that inflation was hypothesised to explain for the isotropy and flatness of the early universe. And thus when out own universe suffers its own inevitable heat death it will spawn a new one.

All totally beyond me, but I don't see what the relevance is.

Significantly, I also saw an interview with Penrose where he was talking about all the people who write to him with their own pet whackjob theories on the basis that he's a man who challenges the status quo and thus would understand. He explained, far more politely than I do, that not every controversial hypothesis is created equal, and if your pet theory contradicts General Relativity (as ICANT does for reasons that I don't understand and which don't seem to be relevant to his theology) then it's obvious nonsense contradicted by all experimental evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1480 by AZPaul3, posted 02-12-2019 5:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1482 by AZPaul3, posted 02-15-2019 5:35 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3798
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1482 of 1482 (848813)
02-15-2019 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1481 by caffeine
02-15-2019 4:45 PM


Re: Creation
Good questions. Maybe ICANT will respond.

All totally beyond me, but I don't see what the relevance is.

Are you looking for some kind of logic? With a religious person? Shame on you.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1481 by caffeine, posted 02-15-2019 4:45 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9495969798
99
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019