Theist and Atheist disputes about science

[shadowofman]

I can see that this thread has quickly boiled down to a debate between atheism vs theism, as I knew it would. Stick to the science people! I repeat again, theism/atheism are opinions. Guesses in probability! Not science. Theists have every right to believe in a god and express belief, but if they are going to debate evolution or any other science here, they have to provide an alternative scientific evidence.

 

Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that a lot of scripture is quite compatible with scientific theory. Life being sparked from clay, for example. According to some evolutionary theories, it was a combination of water, earth and electricity (a well placed lightning strike, perhaps, on some patch of mud?) that sparked life in the first place. Maybe our ancestors were more intuitive that some of us, using poetic language to describe what might one day be a scientific truth.

 

My point exactly annieo. Though the "earth" you suggest was most likely hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. Whether or not god did it or not is irrelevant to science. The argument here is with the literalist that disputes tested theories on the grounds that it threatens their faith. A resonable person should know that it doesn't threaten faith in a supreme being, but only faith in religious dogma.

 

Mountains of evidence. I guess evolution is also responsibe for the formation of mountains, and other geological phenominon. Evolution is responsible for planetary orbits. Evolution gives us light. Evolution explains the expansion of the universe.

 

Wow, fleshnbones, you are catching on. Substitute the word evolution for it's definition in your sentence. It doesn't sound as good but it may clarify a bit. "Mountains of evidence. I guess change is also responsible for the formation of mountains, and other geological phenomenon. Change is responsible for planetary orbits. Change gives us light. Change explains the expansion of the universe."

 

Evolution is cool isn't it. Imagine how boring if nothing ever evolved.

 

I think what irks me most about people who are confirmed atheists (and I am married to one) is their belief in the absolute infallibility of science. II, you do not to seem to be one of those people, but the fanaticism of many pro-science, anti-religion types reminds me a LOT of the bible thumpers who always go running back to their literal interpretations of scripture to justify their closed-mindedness. Anyone who does not allow for the possibility that they are wrong is laughably smug, and kind of dumb, IMO.

 

Sorry annieo, but I don't know any atheists that act as you describe. No one would ever claim total infallibility of science. First of all, science is a method of observation and not the conclusions arrived by using it. It is the best method of observation possible for our human observational abilities. In that respect science is amazing. But secondly, the conclusions of our method are arrived,updated, or scraped on a literally constant basis. It is a living understanding of the universe. Even a deeply held conclusion can be completely upset in an instant, and anyone that wants to contest this new conclusion is actually encouraged to do so (provided they can produce evidence). So science is nearly infallible as a method. Claiming that any conclusion is infallible is unscientific.

 

There is no controversy about any of this. Virtually nobody working in the biological sciences disputes evolution--it is an observable fact, after all. The theory itself is hotly debated--and that is a great thing--but the fact is not. ID and Creationism lost 150 years ago. You'd think that they would have heard of that by now.

 

As Moai points out about evolution of life, it is an observable fact. It doesn't matter what anyone "believes". The case is closed. ID and creationism are fighting a battle to make you think that it's "just a theory", but they are just hurting theism. There could be a god, and if there is, he definitely used a process to create. And that process we call evolution. Until any other scientific process is offered as an alternative, the creationist/IDers are only offering us magic.

 

So only an ignorant person would reject evolution. The only thing rejected was abiogenesis unless I missed something. It was in one of the earlier posts.

 

An insignificant number of educated biologists would reject the evolution of life. They are out there. The thing is that there are a great number of theist biologists out there that also think they are ignorant. The abiogenesis debate is a semantic one. Everyone believes in abiogenesis. The process is being understood. Whether or not there is a creator is an opinion.

 

I do reject evolution as an alternative explanation for chemical and nuclear reactions among other things. Chemists of the world lament.

 

Hoe about from now on, Evolution with a capital E refers to the evolution of life. Tons of other things evolve including other matter/energies, technology, languages, cultures, religions, atmospheres, etc, etc. maybe that is where you are confused.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with chemical or nuclear reactions. Evolution is what happens to life forms over time as DNA replicates. It is a biological principle, not a principle of chemistry or nuclear physics. Simply put, it is, "the change in allele frequency over time."

 

Yes Maoi, Evolution of life is a process that is completely different that other forms of change, but I think Flesh was talking about a previous statement about evolution of matter.

 

Not with the Big Bang theory. A universe with a begining is a serious threat to Atheism.

 

Well, Flesh. The big bang theory does not say that this was the beginning. It only claims that all the matter/energy in the universe was at one time condensed in a single point. The obvious question is what happened before that, and the answer is that we have no evidence. No current method of observation.

 

If space-time did not exist, how did it come into existence?

 

I am no physicist, but what I do know is this. We live in a three dimensional world. We include time as a fourth dimension. In addition to this, there are size POVs. There is the quantum level. The particle and sub-particle level on up to the cosmic level. This is the known universe.

 

There are theoretical alternate dimensions, yes. But still no proof beyond extremely complex mathematical equations. You may have an opinion that a creator lives there. You may also have an opinion that it is all known matter/energy and we are all just a piece of god, but this is not science. It's an opinion.

 

Time and space do exist. At this point in time, with no possible way to experiment with additional dimensions, outside of time and space is an opinion, and in all probability, is defined as non-existent.

[Moai]

If space-time did not exist, how did it come into existence? Stephen Hawking called it a singularity.

 

Nobody knows. Actually, nobody can know, as it is impossible to gather data on what the Universe was like nanoseconds before the Big Bang.

 

Did they provide an alternative theory (hypothesis) to the Big Bang?

Why would they? They accept it. They are also atheists. I use them to demonstrate that your claim that the Big Bang Theory is a problem for atheists is wrong.

 

Steven Weinberg seems to specialize in particle physics.

And he has a Nobel Prize, don't forget.

Victor Stenger appears to be another specialist in particle physics.

There seems to be a pattern, but I need more names to confirm.

A pattern, huh? I can't wait.

 

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. A better source on this subject in my opinion.

Victor Stenger is a professor of physics and astronomy. As mentioned above, Steven Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winner. All three of them work in the field of physics/cosmology (particle physics is part of that, BTW), and all accept the Big Bang.

 

I'm not sure if Hawking is an atheist or not, but here's a quote for you: "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]{bold mine}

 

So much for the Big Bang making things uncomfortable for atheists.

 

Oh, and just for the heck of it (since you are such a fan of his) another Hawking quote about how god cannot exist outside of space-time: "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics."[stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes]{bold mine}

[shadowofman]

He would have to act through the laws of physics.

 

This is the crux of the magic debate. It is entirely possible for "It" to operate and create through the laws of physics, but if it deviates, then that is magic.

 

Not magic like when we just can't understand the physics. Commonly humans will attribute advanced technologies to "magic", like when stone-aged people observe airplanes take off and land. But a suspension of the laws of physics is a true magic, and almost certainly impossible.

[Moai]

This is the crux of the magic debate. It is entirely possible for "It" to operate and create through the laws of physics, but if it deviates, then that is magic.

 

Not magic like when we just can't understand the physics. Commonly humans will attribute advanced technologies to "magic", like when stone-aged people observe airplanes take off and land. But a suspension of the laws of physics is a true magic, and almost certainly impossible.

 

Yes, and this would seem to be self-evident.

 

David Hume reasoned that miracles are impossible simply because were they to exist, we could not make sense of anything in the natural world. Gravity may or may not work all the time, fresh water might get you drunk sometimes, and time might move forward and backward without warning. As this is clearly not the case, we can rightly surmise that miracles do not happen, and they never have happened.

 

Consider if the Wiccan idea of magic were true. You would be standing inline for donuts and watch a fellow patron turn into a bunny, and then perhaps a tree, and then back again--all at the whim of some unknown (to you) enemy of his. You might suddenly fall in love with your secretary, then the grocery clerk, and then a waitress in the span of a minute. Rivers would turn to wine, then bourbon, and then possibly Spaghetti-O's. You would get taller, shorter, fatter, and thinner as the day went on--all of this at the will of some witch somewhere. With all the time spent on spells and counter-spells, one wonders when to find time to eat.

[JamesM]

I am not going to have time to participate in these discussions much this week it seems, and since my last post, things have gone quickly. I don't have the time to go back and do my homework. So, I just want to comment on a couple of points here, shadowofman.

 

I can see that this thread has quickly boiled down to a debate between atheism vs theism, as I knew it would. Stick to the science people! I repeat again, theism/atheism are opinions. Guesses in probability! Not science. Theists have every right to believe in a god and express belief, but if they are going to debate evolution or any other science here, they have to provide an alternative scientific evidence.

 

I admire and respect that you want to keep religion out of this discussion, but as you have quickly noticed, this is not really possible. The ones who believe in a God seem to put Him in their responses, while the ones who are convinced there is not God point out how science "proves" this.

 

A popular view of science would separate it entirely from the world of ideas and belief in God or non-belief in God. In the minds of many people science deals with facts only, never with faith or beliefs. Mixing science and "world views" (assumptions, beliefs, etc.) is like mixing facts and fiction. For many it is not only unwise but impossible. This exaggerated view is not reality, because it makes science a less-than-human career. Every person has a world view that influences everything he does. Scientists are not exceptions to this "rule."

 

Supposedly, a natural consequence of the modern exaggerated view of science implies that Christianity is its enemy, that experiments and the results of science exclude the God of the Bible. However, in reality, Christianity and science are tied together, both historically and philosophically. This cannot be ignored. It can be fought against but not ignored. The foundation and basis of our sciences originated with people who believed that God is the creator of the world. They may not have all agreed on how He did it, but He did it.

 

So, to ask every poster here to ignore their view of the world is pretty near impossible. While many like to say that "I viewed the evidence presented by science and it showed that there is (or is not) a God," very , very few actually decide based on that evidence. Usually most have made assumptions prior to viewing the evidences. And I am not saying that this is bad or good. Science is not the final word....it is simply a piece of the puzzle. Simply making decisions and conclusion about how the world began or how life developed cannot be done without some sort of philosophical world view.

 

Hey I could be wrong, but it is how I see it based on reading...and seeing what is posted here.

 

As Moai points out about evolution of life, it is an observable fact. It doesn't matter what anyone "believes". The case is closed. ID and creationism are fighting a battle to make you think that it's "just a theory", but they are just hurting theism. There could be a god, and if there is, he definitely used a process to create.

 

Whether macroevolution has been physically observed or not is debatable. If watching guppies and fruit flies change counts as evidence or studying elephant seals can be shown to indicate that these changes can be extrapolated to mean that a single cell organism ended up millions of years later as a man...well, if this is evidence, then we have it. But who am I but some uneducated person who simply says, "Does the emperor REALLY have clothes on?"

 

Observing fossils and placing them in a sequence that we expect to see because we have determined that macroevolution is true...well, I guess then we have evidence there, too.

 

Considering the changing or adapting of finch beaks as evidence due to drought on an island but ignoring that they change back when the wet season comes back...and then counting it as evolution....well, then I guess this would be evidence, too.

 

Ignoring the strong possibility that, say, the interpretation of the small pieces of fossils may not only be wrong, they may simply be separate creatures who had nothing to do with the ones on either side of it in the sequence. And just possibly the artist rendition of the fossils may be so nicely fit into the sequence because the artist believes that this how it would look...if evolution were the fact he believes it to be. The educated rendition may be strongly influenced by the scientific world view that evolution happened. Eventually with so many renditions, no one can honestly believe that the truth is any different...evolution is now a fact.

 

And please don't bring up the tired old comparison of "the apple will never go up" and say that evolution is the same as gravity. It is not. We can see the apple fall. We cannot see an ape ancestor turn into a man. We can play detective and interpret fossils to make that conclusion, but we cannot physically see it occur.

 

IMO as an uneducated "boy" who is watching the emperor walk by, I guess I need to realize the facts are there, I just don't truly understand them. However, it would seem to me that it is easy to say that we observe evolution in action because we extrapolate these small changes to mean that piles of small ones will eventually turn into big changes. When it is very possible that they ebb and flow. And while a "new" species of frog develops, no frog eventually evolves into something that is not actually a frog.

 

But I admit....I have been told over and over...."James, you show your lack of education in this thing called evolution. If you would simply read some basic textbooks, you would know."

 

Sorry for the cynicism...I really am trying to understand this "case closed" version of how life developed.

 

And does the "fact" that evolution is now declared a "fact" make it any more certain?

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.

or

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact

 

I thought a theory is considered quite valid by itself. At least that it what has been argued over and over in the past. Now the case is stronger by saying..."IT IS A FACT!" I don't think anyone is saying that evolution is "just a theory" as a way to make it more or less certain, but calling it a fact makes it the generally accepted belief of the day. "Theoretically," a theory should be as accepted, right? Or are facts more certain? If they are, can we go back through history and see that the facts of yesterday are still the facts of today, or perhaps are many of the facts of the past simply that...of the past?

 

Did you know that in the first few centuries after Christ the flat earth was a fact...generally accepted by all? And up until recently, another fact was that there is nine planets? And did you know that the fact is that clouds do NOT form because of the air's temperature? Or perhaps we now know that electricity does not travel at the speed of light? And seasons are not all the same length? And Saturn is not the only planet with rings?

 

And we haven't even touched the "facts" of medicine that have changed over the years...and have been completely reversed.

 

Facts change...truth does not. However, what WE believe to be the truth may change, but in reality, there IS truth...even if we have not discovered what it is yet, or we ignore it when it is staring us in the face.

 

Just my two cents which may or may not count for much. And hey, disagree as you want. My facts may be different tomorrow...as may anyone's. But the question is...what is truth?

[FleshNBones]

Nobody knows. Actually, nobody can know, as it is impossible to gather data on what the Universe was like nanoseconds before the Big Bang.

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang so any time reference before the event doesn't make sense.

Victor Stenger is a professor of physics and astronomy. As mentioned above, Steven Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winner. All three of them work in the field of physics/cosmology (particle physics is part of that, BTW), and all accept the Big Bang.

There is something about what you've been saying about those two that just doesn't sound kosher. I don't have time to research them.

 

I don't care if he has 10 academy awards to go with his Nobel Prize.

I'm not sure if Hawking is an atheist or not, but here's a quote for you: "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." [stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]{bold mine}

In other words, you haven't read his book.

I have a copy, and I remember reading that yesterday.

Oh, and just for the heck of it (since you are such a fan of his) another Hawking quote about how god cannot exist outside of space-time: "One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics."[stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes]{bold mine}

I haven't read this book, but I know his writing style pretty well.

[Moai]

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang so any time reference before the event doesn't make sense.

 

Yep. That's because we cannot know what the Universe was like before the singularity event. And we never can know. That is what makes god "existing forever outside of time" a ludicrous idea.

 

There is something about what you've been saying about those two that just doesn't sound kosher. I don't have time to research them.

Ok, let's examine that. The only thing that I have said about them is listing their credentials and the fact that they are atheists. So, you either think that 1) I am making their existence up, 2) I am making their credentials up, 3) I am making up the fact that they are atheists, or that 4) I am making up the fact that they support the Big Bang Theory. Which is it?

 

Here is a list of work from Dr. Weinberg:

 

• Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (1972)
  
• The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (1977, updated with new afterword in 1993, ISBN 0-465-02437-8)
  
• The Discovery of Subatomic Particles (1983)
  
• Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures (1987; with Richard Feynman)
  
• Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (1993), ISBN 0-09-922391-0
  
• The Quantum Theory of Fields (three volumes: 1995, 1996, 2003)
  
• Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries (2001, 2003, HUP)
  
• Glory and Terror: The Coming Nuclear Danger (2004, NYRB)
  
• Cosmology (2008, OUP)
  

Here is a collection of videos featuring Dr. Weinberg discussing the origin of the Universe as well as atheism. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steven+weinberg&search_type=

 

Here is a link to an essay about Weinberg:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/weinberg.html

 

Here is an exerpt: "As for the Big Bang itself, Weinberg expresses little doubt that it occurred. He calls it “almost certain to endure.” The event is consistent with our understanding of the laws of physics, he notes, and has been “confirmed by the discovery of relics of the early universe.” The most significant confirming evidence came from the 1965 discovery of microwave radiation and, later, the spectrocscopic measurement of various isotopes of the lightest elements in interstellar matter. In ten years time, the Big Bang evolved from a controversial theory to one generally accepted by astrophysisists."

 

 

And from the first paragraph of that essay: "Teachers at the Bronx High School in New York encouraged young Steven Weinberg’s interest in science and, by 1949, the sixteen-year-old decided he would like to make a career out of theoretical physics. Weinberg would eventually win the Nobel Prize in physics for developing a theory that unified electromagnetic force and the so-called weak interaction, two of the four fundamental forces. He is celebrated as the “the world’s most authoritative proponent of the idea that physics is hurtling toward ‘a final theory,’ a complete explanation of nature’s particles and forces that will endure as the bedrock of all science forevermore.” Among scientists, if not the general public, Weinberg ranks as an intellectual icon even above British physicist, Stephen Hawking."

 

Victor Stenger has a Phd in physics, and is a professor at the Uinversity of Hawaii. From Wikipedia: "Stenger's research career has spanned the period of great progress in elementary particle physics that has ultimately led to the current standard model. He participated in experiments that helped establish the properties of strange particles, quarks, gluons, and neutrinos, and also helped pioneer the emerging fields of very high-energy gamma ray and neutrino astronomy. In his last project before retiring, Stenger collaborated on the Super-Kamiokande underground experiment in Japan that showed for the first time that the neutrino has mass."

 

Here is a quote from Stenger regarding the Big Bang: "The big-bang theory is the standard framework within which most cosmologists operate, having assumed the same position held by evolution for biologists and quantum mechanics for physicists."

 

Here is a list of his books: Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe (1988); Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses (1990); The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology (1995); Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes (2000); Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe (2003); and The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come from?. His most recent book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

 

I don't care if he has 10 academy awards to go with his Nobel Prize.

Of course not. You only care about what your pastor tells you is true.

 

In other words, you haven't read his book.

I have a copy, and I remember reading that yesterday.

You have a copy of that Der Speigel issue? What does Der Speigel have to do with reading "his book"? Hawking has written more than one, you know. I assume you mean "A Brief History of Time".

 

I haven't read this book, but I know his writing style pretty well.

Do you mean to imply that these quotes are fallacious? I would also like to know where you get the idea that atheists have trouble with the Big Bang. Di Your pastor tell you that? Or is it your misunderstanding of most physicists position that leads you to that conclusion?

 

Ahhhh, wait! Here is a quote I found at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html

 

"Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator." I would have figured that was the reason anyway (it isn't true), but is this the site where you got this idea?

 

I am not aware of ONE atheist who rejects the Big Bang. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Please provide evidence of ONE atheist who has a problem with the Big Bang on philosophical grounds (or any grounds at all, really). That, or admit that by stating atheists have a problem with the theory you were lied to, made it up, or just guessing.

 

I can give you literally hundreds of links that show Christians to have a problem with the Big Bang, of course. Or do you deny that?

[Moai]

I'd also like to know how a man with a Phd in physics and accepts the Big Bang would write a book called, "God: The Failed Hypothesis".

 

Here is an essay that Weinberg wrote called, "A Designer Universe?" http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

 

Here is an exerpt: "[on whether the Universe is fine-tuned for life]Thus the crucial thing that affects the production of carbon in stars is not the 7.65 MeV energy of the radioactive state of carbon above its normal state, but the 0.25 MeV energy of the radioactive state, an unstable composite of a beryllium 8 nucleus and a helium nucleus, above the energy of those nuclei at rest. This energy misses being too high for the production of carbon by a fractional amount of 0.05 MeV/0.25 MeV, or 20 percent, which is not such a close call after all."

 

Please describe where his math is wrong, or that he misunderstands radioactive constants.

 

Here is another quote from the same essay: "I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."

[shadowofman]

I admire and respect that you want to keep religion out of this discussion, but as you have quickly noticed, this is not really possible. The ones who believe in a God seem to put Him in their responses, while the ones who are convinced there is not God point out how science "proves" this.

 

I don't mind people expressing there beliefs on a creator in this thread. But, there should not be any claim that science points one way or another. As I have said, scientific conclusions can at the same time show that there is no need for a god in the atheists mind, and show the methods of creation in a theists mind. The debate over atheism vs theism is tired, and unwinnable.

 

To James

However, it would seem to me that it is easy to say that we observe evolution in action because we extrapolate these small changes to mean that piles of small ones will eventually turn into big changes. When it is very possible that they ebb and flow. And while a "new" species of frog develops, no frog eventually evolves into something that is not actually a frog.

 

This is exactly it, but it seems you are still confused, and using incorrect examples. As I have said, erase any concept of "micro" vs. "macro" Evolution. These are not actual scientific terms. Evolution in biological terms is simply change in gene pools over time. What you refer to as "macroEvolution" is actually called Speciation. This is the arrival of a new species, separate from an existing population. As you have agreed, a frog population may become separated from a larger population and adapt into a new species. There are four specific types of natural speciation. Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric, and Sympatric. In addition there is artificial speciation.

 

Speciation is contingent upon the inability of the separated populations to produce viable offspring. So if a population of frogs, split into two can change genetically enough so that they are unable to breed, then a new species has been created. And if these separate populations are further and further pressured by the environment, then it is entirely obvious one population of frogs could turn to toads. It is hard to speculate what further changes frogs and toads are capable of, but it is easy to look back at past branches and splits.

 

If frogs can evolve into toads, then newts can evolve into frogs. And salamanders into newts. And caecilians into salamanders. But all this probably didn't happen. Frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, and caecilians all evolved from a common ancestor. Cousins don't evolve into each other, they evolve from their grandfather.

 

Sorry for the cynicism...I really am trying to understand this "case closed" version of how life developed.

And does the "fact" that evolution is now declared a "fact" make it any more certain?

 

"Fact" is an ambiguous term. I would define "fact" scientifically as any observation that is confirmed over and over again by many trained scientists. Genetic change is fact. Speciation is fact. Evolution is a unifying theory that includes billions of little facts all working to uphold the theory.

 

I understand where the skepticism stems. No one will ever be able to view a chimp evolve into a human, or a reptile evolve into a bird. That is in the past and the process took millions and millions of years. But mountains of individual facts collectively paint the picture of the Evolution of life. It is THE unifying theory of all biology. The biology community overwhelmingly accepts this picture, theist and atheist alike.

 

To Moai

 

Flesh said

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang so any time reference before the event doesn't make sense.

You replied

Yep. That's because we cannot know what the Universe was like before the singularity event. And we never can know. That is what makes god "existing forever outside of time" a ludicrous idea.

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, (as I have said I am not physicist), but I was under the impression that the Big Bang describes the dispersal of matter/energy throughout space and time, not the creation of space/time. Meaning, that the three dimensions + time most likely already existed before the Big Bang. Length, width and depth (x, y, and z axis) of space consisted of a vacuum with all mater/energy concentrated into one small point.

 

It is true that we can never know history before this event, but I am comfortable with assuming that time/space always existed. At least until evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Flesh's asked about time before the Big Bang. I don't think we have any reason to believe that the BIG Bang effected time at all. From that point on time eclipses at a rate of one second per second. I don't think there is any reason to believe that time has ever moved at a different rate, or even the possibility of time not existing before or after this event. Time is a concept. A label that we have give to describe an abstract.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[shadowofman]

Enema posted this link in another thread and it is great.

It relates to a previous discussion on ape and human chromosomes and the differences. The biologist in clip is one of the overwhelming majority of biologists that recognize the validity of Evolution, and is showing just one more fact that contributes to the unifying theory. And he is a theist.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7fX1Usz75Ks

[FleshNBones]

Forgive me if I am wrong, (as I have said I am not physicist), but I was under the impression that the Big Bang describes the dispersal of matter/energy throughout space and time, not the creation of space/time. Meaning, that the three dimensions + time most likely already existed before the Big Bang. Length, width and depth (x, y, and z axis) of space consisted of a vacuum with all mater/energy concentrated into one small point.

 

It is true that we can never know history before this event, but I am comfortable with assuming that time/space always existed. At least until evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Flesh's asked about time before the Big Bang. I don't think we have any reason to believe that the BIG Bang effected time at all. From that point on time eclipses at a rate of one second per second. I don't think there is any reason to believe that time has ever moved at a different rate, or even the possibility of time not existing before or after this event. Time is a concept. A label that we have give to describe an abstract.

They physicists say space and time began with the Big Bang. Since then, the universe has been expanding faster than the speed of light pushing the solar systems, galaxies, etc appart. Eventually all of the stars will fade away because they are too far away, or moving away faster than the speed of light.

 

I believe Stephen Hawking said that if you traveled faster than the speed of light (faster than the expansion of the universe) in one direction long enough, you will eventually reach your starting point.

 

Mass warps space/time. The Earth moves in a perfect line through a curved space around the Sun. Time moves more slowly the closer you are to a large mass. Someone on the first floor of building will experience slower progression of time compared to someone on the top floor. Speed, especially near the speed of light, also slows down time.

What happens to time when all matter is compressed into an infinitesimally small point? There is no space because there is no volume. If it is that dense, then time is at a standstill. There is a lot more to it. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[annieo]

They physicists say space and time began with the Big Bang. Since then, the universe has been expanding faster than the speed of light pushing the solar systems, galaxies, etc appart. Eventually all of the stars will fade away because they are too far away, or moving away faster than the speed of light.

 

I believe Stephen Hawking said that if you traveled faster than the speed of light (faster than the expansion of the universe) in one direction long enough, you will eventually reach your starting point.

 

Mass warps space/time. The Earth moves in a perfect line through a curved space around the Sun. Time moves more slowly the closer you are to a large mass. Someone on the first floor of building will experience slower progression of time compared to someone on the top floor. Speed, especially near the speed of light, also slows down time.

What happens to time when all matter is compressed into an infinitesimally small point? There is no space because there is no volume. If it is that dense, then time is at a standstill. There is a lot more to it. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

I just finished reading a book called, 'Soul of the World - The Nature of Time" by Christopher Dewdney (natural scientist, poet, writer), and he cites many scientists, from the ancients to the moderns, in all disciplines, in this treatise on time. And what you just wrote, flesh and bones, is born out by his research, of other people's research. Time/space/movement are all mutually dependent, and the current belief expressed in his recently published book is that time started with the big bang. Before there was a tiny spot of everything, all matter, all potentialities, surrounded by a timeless nothingness. Boggles the mind in a most delightful way!

[shadowofman]

Boggles the mind? Makes me want to hit my head against the wall.

[Moai]

To Moai

 

You replied

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, (as I have said I am not physicist), but I was under the impression that the Big Bang describes the dispersal of matter/energy throughout space and time, not the creation of space/time.

 

I'm not a physicist either, but I think that the Big Bang created space-time as we know it.

 

Meaning, that the three dimensions + time most likely already existed before the Big Bang. Length, width and depth (x, y, and z axis) of space consisted of a vacuum with all mater/energy concentrated into one small point.

 

That is as I understand it as well. But as I mentioned, we cannot know what the Universe was like leading up to the state of singularity. We cannot even know what the singularity itself was like, since any evidence has been erased by the Big Bang itself.

 

It is true that we can never know history before this event, but I am comfortable with assuming that time/space always existed. At least until evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Flesh's asked about time before the Big Bang. I don't think we have any reason to believe that the BIG Bang effected time at all. From that point on time eclipses at a rate of one second per second. I don't think there is any reason to believe that time has ever moved at a different rate, or even the possibility of time not existing before or after this event. Time is a concept. A label that we have give to describe an abstract.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think that you are correct. The Universe is more than the matter in it, it is also the infinite vacuum that the matter exists in. There could have been infinitely many Big Bang events in the history of the Universe--we are just learning about the most recent one, which is also the only one we will ever know about. I am sure at some point we will be able to predict when the next singularity event will occur, be it billions upon billions of years from now or whatever.

 

FWIW, most physicists who are theists are closer to deists than anything else, and even the that is something of a misnomer. They don't believe in an intelligence per se, but the underlying governing rules of the Universe itself. "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

Many more strident (re:atheist) scientists suggest that using the term "god" by Einstein, Hawking, etc. is sloppy and should be done with care, because when someone mentions "god" they assume that to mean their own version, when in fact it is not. That is why you have Evangelicals quote Einstein or Hawking or Fermi and claiming they are believers, which they clearly are not. As I wrote before, I don't know if Hawking is an atheist or not (that is for him to suggest) but he certainly isn't a Christian, nor does he espouse belief in a personal god. If he does believe so, he does a good job of hiding it.

[annieo]

Boggles the mind? Makes me want to hit my head against the wall.

Don't you mean BANG your head against a BIG wall? Har de har har, etc, etc. Love a pun, must admit it.

 

Sort of off topic, but I took an astronomy course a few years ago, and heard a theory I can't get out of my head. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

 

Instead of the universe expanding outwardly, increasing in speed, until everything sort of fizzles out, lost in a starless nothingness, that perhaps, eventually all mass will hit some sort of endpoint of velocity (think bungie cord) and then start to collapse back on itself. Time will then start to run backwards, with increasing velocity, to the singularity that initiated the outward expansion.

 

This requires some sort of tethering force, which I haven't read/heard about (gravity doesn't make sense, as the further masses get from each other, the lesser the attraction). I think my prof described it (for us arts majors ) as a balloon that inflates, deflates, repeats, indefinitely.

[shadowofman]

Ok, well I talked to my physics friend and he cleared up a few things for me. Or rather, he has made my head hurt even more.

 

Annieo, you are describing the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory. Apparently, every so many years, evidence suggests this and then suggests that this is not so. It states that matter/energy will slow down as it expands and will eventually stop. Then the gravity will start to pull it all back together. But they are finding that instead of slowing down, matter seems to be speeding up in it's expansion.

 

My buddy tells me that I have had it wrong. That time/space did NOT exist before the Big Bang as Flesh has stated. This has raised a hundred new questions in my mind about the nature of time and space. I think all of this is the difference between general relativity and special relativity, etc.

 

This is why I like biology!

[FleshNBones]

This is why I like biology!

So you chose evolution becuase it provides easy answers.

Life is not that simple.

The universe is a hostile place.

[annieo]

So you chose evolution becuase it provides easy answers.

Life is not that simple.

The universe is a hostile place.

 

This thread (can) be a hostile place, f and b. Unnecessarily. The one-up-man-ship is ridiculous and detracts from your many intelligent contributions.

 

And shadow, as I am driving to work and musing, the expression "big crunch' came to me. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

You know why I really hope there is a benevolent, prescient god? So that someone can FINALLY explain to me how the whole engine works. Even if it's just an epiphany, a flash of insight before I disappear forever. Because sometimes my head hurts too, som, and it would be nice to get some concrete answers. But I am not convinced that this will (or will not) happen. So I sit here on my fence.

[shadowofman]

So you chose evolution becuase it provides easy answers.

Life is not that simple.

The universe is a hostile place.

 

I originally chose biology because it is more personal. And I hate the math of chemistry and physics. So in that sense, biology is the easy answers.

 

I chose atheism over theism (as everyone else does) based on probability. From the evidence I have seen, through my eyes, there is probably no god. There is almost certainly no god of Abraham. That is of course my opinion.

 

I chose scientific method over biblical reference because science a superior method of observation. At least better than relying on ancient anecdotal evidence.

 

I chose evolution over.............what? There is no other scientific method that can compete. Evolution is almost certainly the unifying theory of biology.

 

a flash of insight before I disappear forever.

That would be awesome annieo!

[annieo]

shadow, there are two distinct ways that I can interpret your quote and comment

[annieo]

ok I get it ...poooof! I'm gone.

[Moai]

Whether macroevolution has been physically observed or not is debatable. If watching guppies and fruit flies change counts as evidence or studying elephant seals can be shown to indicate that these changes can be extrapolated to mean that a single cell organism ended up millions of years later as a man...well, if this is evidence, then we have it. But who am I but some uneducated person who simply says, "Does the emperor REALLY have clothes on?"

 

Observing fossils and placing them in a sequence that we expect to see because we have determined that macroevolution is true...well, I guess then we have evidence there, too.

 

I have been re-reading this thread, and this little passage deserves comment.

 

"Macroevolution" is only debatable in the sense that a flat Earth is debatable. In reality, "macroevoltuion" is a fact. It wasn't "declared" a fact and then became so. DNA and the fossil record (to name only two aspects of it) show this to be so. There is no debate about this in biology. None at all. The fact that a few mathematicians and lawyers think that it is doesn't mean anything.

 

Your characterization of how the fossil record is analyzed is fallacious. Either you haven't bothered to look up how it works, or you don't understand it. Fossils are not "placed" where we expect them, they are "placed" by nature. We find them, and the strata in which they are found determines their place. That is why if you found a modern rabbit in the pre-Cambrian it would throw out everything we currently know about biology. That hasn't happened, nor will it happen.

 

We can observe "macroevolution" indirectly. Indirect observation is a valuable tool in all of science. To say it doesn't is to ignore reality.

 

As an example, let's say you come home and there is green paint all over your garage. You see drips on your driveway, and an empty can of green paint. You see green footprints that go across the street and up your neighbor's porch, and a few drops of green paint on his doorknob. A rational person would conclude that your neighbor threw paint all over your garage, right? You didn't see him do it, but the evidence clearly shows that he did.

 

If we follow your line of reasoning, we cannot know that your neighbor did it because we didn't see him do it. In fact, the paint got there by magic, and the drips, the paint can, and the paint on his doorknob aren't really what we see they are--they are all a ruse ad are bring misinterpreted.

 

We can see in the fossil record that life has gone from simple to more complex forms. This is a fact. We have a theory (the Theory of Evolution) that explains this fact. And that's it. It really is just that simple. The theory has aspects that are hotly debated--ad always will be, that is the way science works--but that doesn't mean that the fact is. And it isn't.

 

Also, I anxiously await the Massive List of Atheists That Deny The Big Bang from Flesh and Bones. Perhaps he hasn't posted in a while because he is busy compiling it.