Evidence for an ancient earth

[Polymath257]

And what condition needed to create solid matter?

You realize, don't you, that solid matter didn't form in the early universe until quite late? The temperature didn't decrease below 10,000K for about 300,000 years after the beginning. And it was another few million years before the first stars began forming the heavier elements.

Solids require a high enough density and a low enough temperature so that the atoms (or molecules) involved for strong bonds that keep them in place. The exact conditions differ for different materials. So, for example, water becomes a solid when the temperature gets low enough. We call that solid ice. It becomes a gas if the temperature goes high enough. We call that gas stream. But it is the same basic material in three different states. If you have even higher temperatures, the molecules of water break up into oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Even higher and you get a plasma. Even higher and the atoms start to break apart. The same process happens in reverse under cooling.

 

[metis]

We'll decide the "mature" part, if you don't mind.

 

[FearGod]

You realize, don't you, that solid matter didn't form in the early universe until quite late? The temperature didn't decrease below 10,000K for about 300,000 years after the beginning. And it was another few million years before the first stars began forming the heavier elements.

Solids require a high enough density and a low enough temperature so that the atoms (or molecules) involved for strong bonds that keep them in place. The exact conditions differ for different materials. So, for example, water becomes a solid when the temperature gets low enough. We call that solid ice. It becomes a gas if the temperature goes high enough. We call that gas stream. But it is the same basic material in three different states. If you have even higher temperatures, the molecules of water break up into oxygen and hydrogen atoms. Even higher and you get a plasma. Even higher and the atoms start to break apart. The same process happens in reverse under cooling.

And from where such conditions came from that created the universe?

 

[Polymath257]

And from where such conditions came from that created the universe?

At this point we do not know. We don't even know for sure that it is a meaningful question.

The point is that time itself is part of the universe. That means that causality only makes sense *within* the universe. So, asking about a cause for the universe makes no sense.

There are two main views of this:
1) The universe (or multiverse) is actually infinitely old with the Big Bang one event in a long sequence of such events. In this, time goes infinitely far back.
2) The universe is only finitely old, with time beginning along with the universe. In this, it simply makes no sense to talk about 'before the universe'.

Notice that in both cases, there is no 'before the universe'. In 1), that is because the universe and time go infinitely far back. In 2) it is because the universe and time began at the same point.

 

[FearGod]

It is evolved to do the job, yes. It does, of course, interact with the rest of the body.

And what makes the species to mutate and produce a more advanced species, is it the kind of food,
is it the climate or coincidences?

 

[ratiocinator]

And what makes the species to mutate and produce a more advanced species, is it the kind of food,
is it the climate or coincidences?

You could always find out for yourself - it's not a secret.

Evolution 101

 

[FearGod]

At this point we do not know. We don't even know for sure that it is a meaningful question.

The point is that time itself is part of the universe. That means that causality only makes sense *within* the universe. So, asking about a cause for the universe makes no sense.

There are two main views of this:
1) The universe (or multiverse) is actually infinitely old with the Big Bang one event in a long sequence of such events. In this, time goes infinitely far back.
2) The universe is only finitely old, with time beginning along with the universe. In this, it simply makes no sense to talk about 'before the universe'.

Notice that in both cases, there is no 'before the universe'. In 1), that is because the universe and time go infinitely far back. In 2) it is because the universe and time began at the same point.

Our universe is some billions years old, so it has a beginning, but that doesn't mean there's nothing before it
otherwise how the universe came to existence from nothingness and from no specific conditions.

 

[FearGod]

You could always find out for yourself - it's not a secret.

Evolution 101

My question is specific, we're debating and not here to read books?

 

[Polymath257]

And what makes the species to mutate and produce a more advanced species, is it the kind of food,
is it the climate or coincidences?

Are you getting away from the original discussion?

Mutations tend to happen because of radiation or certain chemicals in the environment. As far as we can determine, they are usually random and not associated with any need of the organism.

Then, among those mutations, the ones that survive will be incorporated into the next generation. This process of natural selection depends on the environment, which includes food sources, other animals and plants, climate, etc.

 

[Polymath257]

Our universe is some billions years old, so it has a beginning, but that doesn't mean there's nothing before it
otherwise how the universe came to existence from nothingness and from no specific conditions.

Would you agree that it makes no sense to ask what was 'before time'? The very notion of 'before' requires time.

Now, time is part of our universe. So the notion of 'before the universe' is like the notion of 'before time', which makes no sense.

 

[FearGod]

Are you getting away from the original discussion?

Mutations tend to happen because of radiation or certain chemicals in the environment. As far as we can determine, they are usually random and not associated with any need of the organism.

Then, among those mutations, the ones that survive will be incorporated into the next generation. This process of natural selection depends on the environment, which includes food sources, other animals and plants, climate, etc.

And how you can confirm it was a random conditions that caused the beneficial mutations and not planned ones.

 

[FearGod]

Would you agree that it makes no sense to ask what was 'before time'? The very notion of 'before' requires time.

Now, time is part of our universe. So the notion of 'before the universe' is like the notion of 'before time', which makes no sense.

Your time started once you born and your time will end once you die, that doesn't mean there was
no time before you existed, the same thing goes with the universe, from the date it started to the
day it'll end.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The question was about the 'apparent' age of the Earth. And I think we agree, that it's not illogical, that the work of a creative intelligence would begin with a back-story, the appearance or illusion of a prior history, necessary to give context to the story.

Well, yes-- that's rather needed. Unfortunately for the "creator" idea, there remains zero reason to presume one happened in the current universe.

And every reason to presume there wasn't one-- I would expect far more evidence, if there were an actual creator.

The fact that there isn't any? Means that if there actually is a creator? It's primary attribute is one of deliberately attempting to mislead us mere humans, into thinking there isn't.

That is rather nefarious, for such a powerful being.... Not Good, for us, if so.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And how you can confirm it was a random conditions that caused the beneficial mutations and not planned ones.

Because of the evidence we do have-- it points to randomness, not deliberate interference.

The classic example, is the human eye. The lowly squid eye is superior in "design" to that of a human.

So much for your hypothesis. ...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What kind of matter that came to existence from vacuum? show me one experiment showing that a solid
matter popping from vacuum, is that difficult request?

Polymath had a very good video, which addressed your request. It is obvious that you did not bother to watch.

So it's pointless to waste any more time with you.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes it depends on the hardware of each but it doesn't mean that the hardware itself does the thinking
and decision making.

Oh, it does. The evidence is plain enough-- without any hardware? There is absolutely zero evidence of thinking. None. Nada. Not Happening.

That has always been the conundrum of those who postulate "Magic" with regards to thinking-- if it was magic? Then we ought to see thinking without the hardware.

Or just as likely, thinking without the usual hardware-- say, from a wooden dummy, or a stone statue. Magic, after all, is not limited to ordinary things-- right?

But that's not the case, is it? Hardware-- functional hardware-- is always required, to demonstrate thinking.

Remove or damage the hardware? Thinking does not happen. Ever.

This isn't a difficult concept, here-- but it does rather ruin the idea of a magical, invisible god-beast...

... it also entirely ruins the idea that there is an invisible, magical soul-thingy...

But we already had ample proof that soul-thingies are mythical constructs.

 

[FearGod]

Because of the evidence we do have-- it points to randomness, not deliberate interference.

You believe that beneficial mutations were due to randomness, accidents but for good.

The classic example, is the human eye. The lowly squid eye is superior in "design" to that of a human.

So much for your hypothesis. ...

I believe my eyes are more than perfect, Praise be to Allah for having such a great thing to see the amazing world with.

 

[FearGod]

Oh, it does. The evidence is plain enough-- without any hardware? There is absolutely zero evidence of thinking. None. Nada. Not Happening.

That has always been the conundrum of those who postulate "Magic" with regards to thinking-- if it was magic? Then we ought to see thinking without the hardware.

Or just as likely, thinking without the usual hardware-- say, from a wooden dummy, or a stone statue. Magic, after all, is not limited to ordinary things-- right?

But that's not the case, is it? Hardware-- functional hardware-- is always required, to demonstrate thinking.

Remove or damage the hardware? Thinking does not happen. Ever.

This isn't a difficult concept, here-- but it does rather ruin the idea of a magical, invisible god-beast...

... it also entirely ruins the idea that there is an invisible, magical soul-thingy...

But we already had ample proof that soul-thingies are mythical constructs.

No magic, the hardware is needed as well as the programs, the data inputs and the person
behind the machine.

The physical brain needs to get orders, if it works by itself then how the inanimate body
of matter of the brain can make any logical decisions, it should moves your hand anytime it wishes, why
this physical body should act wisely, look to your hand and ask it to move, it won't move and
it'll never move by itself either, it takes an order from you, did you know the person inside you
other than your physical body.

 

[FearGod]

Polymath had a very good video, which addressed your request. It is obvious that you did not bother to watch.

So it's pointless to waste any more time with you.

No he didn't post any video.

 

[ratiocinator]

You believe that beneficial mutations were due to randomness, accidents but for good.

Of course they are. Mutations are random and so most of them are not significant (for example, most humans have about 60 or so) many others are harmful and just a few, very rarely, are beneficial. The beneficial ones - those that confer and advantage for survival and reproduction in the environment - survive and reproduce more and hence spread through populations, while the others do not. That's called natural selection.

I believe my eyes are more than perfect, Praise be to Allah for having such a great thing to see the amazing world with.

The light sensitive cells in the retina point backwards (away from the light), the nerves (that point towards the light) then have to trail over the surface of the retina and go though a hole, leading to a blind spot. The eye can only focus properly and see colour in a tiny spot in the centre, so the eye has to continually scan the scene and the brain then has to do lots or 'post processing' in order to give the impression of a good, sharp visual field. If a human engineer had designed it, they would rightly be call incompetent...

The physical brain needs to get orders, if it works by itself then how the inanimate body
of matter of the brain can make any logical decisions, it should moves your hand anytime it wishes, why
this physical body should act wisely, look to your hand and ask it to move, it won't move and
it'll never move by itself either, it takes an order from you, did you know the person inside you
other than your physical body.

Blatant question begging. You have just assumed that the thing that makes logical choices cannot be the brain by itself, in order to argue that it cannot be the brain by itself...