Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[joelr]

One thing at a time.
Actually God is proved by what's around us.

Is Zeus proved by what is around us?
Is Brahman proved by what is around us?
No.
Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, same words, same body, same acts of war, fighting sea monsters, also fiction....

Modern ideas of the Christian God are not Biblical but taken from later theologians like Agustus, Aquinas, and so on. They took Platonic metaphysics and combined it with their theology. It's still fiction.

But ultimately no, what's around us is not proof of a God. It's proof of nature, natural creative forces that are unconscious. We see them creating galaxies, solar systems, physics, we do not know but there may be endless other universes with different laws. There is no evidence of any God or entity behind reality and it makes zero sense that reality started with a conscious being. ALone, atheist (no other Gods), with a mind, not likely.
Even if it were true the idea that it's Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh, not a chance, those are man made stories.

Whats around us shows nature, unconscious forces at work.

I am aware of the ideas of scientists attempting to show that fish became (or evolved to become) land animals. The idea that there are fossils supposedly showing "intermediate" stages of sea to land animals is not only not conclusive to demonstrating that sea animals evolved by natural selection or otherwise causing them to live entirely on the land but it is not proof (which I know you probably don't believe there IS proof of that), but it's not substantiated by anything more than supposition looking at fossils and placing them as the scientist will in the theory.

You are either making this up or misinformed by creationist media and never bothered to put the ideas to the test.
There are thousands of papers on all aspects of sea - land evolution. You could just do an evolutionary biologist career on just that.
Evolution doesn't negate or prove Zeus, Vishnu, Yahweh, Allah or Brahman. Myths are not related to science.

Early bursts of diversification defined the faunal colonization of land​

Abstract​

The colonization of land was one of the major events in Earth history, leading to the expansion of life and laying the foundations for the modern biosphere. We examined trace fossils, the record of the activities of past life, to understand how animals diversify both behaviourally and ecologically when colonizing new habitats. The faunal invasion of land was preceded by excursions of benthic animals into very shallow, marginal marine environments during the latest Ediacaran period and culminated in widespread colonization of non-marine niches by the end of the Carboniferous period. Trace fossil evidence for the colonization of new environments shows repeated early burst patterns of maximal ichnodisparity (the degree of difference among basic trace fossil architectural designs), ecospace occupation and level of ecosystem engineering prior to maximal ichnodiversity. Similarities across different environments in the types of behavioural programme employed (as represented by different trace fossils), modes of life present and the ways in which animals impacted their environments suggest constraints on behavioural and ecological diversification. The early burst patterns have the hallmark of novelty events. The underlying drivers of these events were probably the extrinsic limitation of available ecospace and intrinsic controls of genomic and developmental plasticity that enabled trace-maker morphological and behavioural novelty.

The colonization of land by animals was a fundamental transition in the development of the biosphere1...

Early bursts of diversification defined the faunal colonization of land - Nature Ecology & Evolution

Trace fossil analysis reveals that following initial marginal incursions in the Ediacaran, the marine–terrestrial faunal transition became widespread in the Carboniferous, accompanied by repeated ‘bursts’ of diversification.

www.nature.com

The Lungfish Transcriptome: A Glimpse into Molecular Evolution Events at the Transition from Water to Land​

Abstract​

Lungfish and coelacanths are the only living sarcopterygian fish. The phylogenetic relationship of lungfish to the last common ancestor of tetrapods and their close morphological similarity to their fossil ancestors make this species uniquely interesting. However their genome size, the largest among vertebrates, is hampering the generation of a whole genome sequence. To provide a partial solution to the problem, a high-coverage lungfish reference transcriptome was generated and assembled. The present findings indicate that lungfish, not coelacanths, are the closest relatives to land-adapted vertebrates. Whereas protein-coding genes evolve at a very slow rate, possibly reflecting a “living fossil” status, transposable elements appear to be active and show high diversity, suggesting a role for them in the remarkable expansion of the lungfish genome. Analyses of single genes and gene families documented changes connected to the water to land transition and demonstrated the value of the lungfish reference transcriptome for comparative studies of vertebrate evolution.

The Lungfish Transcriptome: A Glimpse into Molecular Evolution Events at the Transition from Water to Land - Scientific Reports

Lungfish and coelacanths are the only living sarcopterygian fish. The phylogenetic relationship of lungfish to the last common ancestor of tetrapods and their close morphological similarity to their fossil ancestors make this species uniquely interesting. However their genome size, the largest...

www.nature.com

 

[shunyadragon]

First, so what? That doesn't prove or even suggest time isn't exactly the same at the quantum scale.

Second the rules of QM also apply at all scales. You cannot find a dividing line. Superconductivity, Superfluidity, Bose Einstein Condensates, are all examples of quantum behavior at a macro scale.
Generally Quantum waves cancel out and are not noticeable at a macro scale. But time is not fully understood so why you would make a definitive statement like that is bizarre.
Also it's spacetime. Space is continuous at the quantum scale and time is as well. Space and time do not break down until the Planck scale which is much smaller.

You didn't answer any of the questions, why would particles decay in a continuous way or particle collisions behave as if they are in normal time? What phenomenon causes you to believe time is not continuous at a quantum scale?





Well you haven't responded to anything I said? So you first.


So here is the problem with this information above. Yes light at the quantum scale is broken up into discrete values but it's still moving at the same speed and isn't "slower" at the quantum level.
However, that is particles, SPACE is NOT restricted to discrete values until the Planck scale which is far far smaller. Space and time are linked and likely share the same issues with breaking down at the Planck scale.
The information above is for energy/mass. But being quantized doesn't mean a light beam isn't a continuous phenomenon. Or energy isn't the same as it is at the macro scale.

First big outrageous foolish mistake. You apparently do not realize NOTHING IS PROVED IN SCIENCE.

The problem is NOT Quantum behavior on the macro scale. Yes, there are Quantum properties on the macroscale. The problem remains there is no evidence of continuous time at the scale of Quantum particles.

 

[Polymath257]

The demonstrated that the concept of emergent time is accepted by many scientists within Standard Quantum Mechanics. The reference on decoherence demonstrates the difference between the macro scale of Classical Physics and smallest scall of Quantum particles that is the realm of Quantum Mechanics. Of course not everyone accepts the mergence of time/space, but it is supported by experiments and research and as cited supported by many scientists. The biggest problem is you nor anyone else has demonstrated that the continuous time of the macro scale exists at the smallest scale of Quantum particles.

We will have to disagree to disagree, because, again you failed to support your argument. Simple asserting what's 'standard physics' is not a winner.

Your quote said absolutely nothing about emergent space or time. Decoherence is accepted science. Emergent space and time is not yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is Zeus proved by what is around us?
s Brahman proved by what is around us?
No.
Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, same words, same body, same acts of war, fighting sea monsters, also fiction....

I don't know much about Zeus and Brahman. Are they said to have created the heavens and the earth?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yahweh is a typical Near Eastern deity, same words, same body, same acts of war, fighting sea monsters, also fiction....

Here's what I know: the Mosaic writings and those of the Christian followers were primarily about a certain group of people, namely the Israelites. Although other groups are certainly mentioned in the Bible, that is true.
What other historical writings of these near eastern deities are you talking about?

 

[shunyadragon]

Your quote said absolutely nothing about emergent space or time. Decoherence is accepted science. Emergent space and time is not yet.

Again, you repeat yourself too much and live 50 years ago as to what is accepted Quantum science Mechanics. On this issue, of course not all scientist agree, but universal acceptance is not the criteria for being accepted. No reference ever provided it is not accepted science just your opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

What you provided was ongoing research, not currently accepted science.

The mathematics of standard QM is deals exclusively in continuous time. This is not an opinion, you are arguing with three people who have actually studied the subject and done the mathematics. Every time you, or anybody else, references an article on current, accepted QM, it shows the mathematics that we all know and are familiar with. That you couldn't even tackle the simplest problem in calculus explains why you can't see that they all deal, undoubtedly with continuous time.


Not according to anything you've provided. Everything that talks about non-continuous time is speculative and ongoing research. Every reference you made to standard QM contradicts it. For example:

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Every bit of mathematics on the page that involves time or position treats them as continuous.

False, involving time and position of particles is not continuous time in the context of time/3Dspace as in the macro scale universe. It is simply the movement and behavior of particles

 

[gnostic]

One thing at a time.
Actually God is proved by what's around us.

That's just personal belief and personal faith.

You don't have any evidence to support your belief. Nor can you have anyway to prove your belief.

I am aware of the ideas of scientists attempting to show that fish became (or evolved to become) land animals. The idea that there are fossils supposedly showing "intermediate" stages of sea to land animals is not only not conclusive to demonstrating that sea animals evolved by natural selection or otherwise causing them to live entirely on the land but it is not proof (which I know you probably don't believe there IS proof of that), but it's not substantiated by anything more than supposition looking at fossils and placing them as the scientist will in the theory.

The Bible isn't a biology theory.

Science is knowledge that explain. So in the case of fossils, it would require detailed explanation of the fossil evidence - biologically and paleontologically.

Do you think the Bible offer such explanations?

Does the Genesis explain human biology or bird biology or marine biology?

 

[gnostic]

Here's the deal.. if hypotheses aren't accepted science.... Then my example of abiogenesis, which is a hypothesis, makes it not accepted science.

Except that you don’t understanding a working hypothesis is one that are undergoing active testing for the last 70 years - meaning there have been to evidence and numbers of successful experiments to support the different mechanisms. So when you have supporting evidence, such hypothesis cannot be so easily dismissed.

Abiogenesis have greater potential than Intelligent Design like Irreducible Complexity.

The different mechanisms of abiogenesis may not be science yet, it is still falsifiable & testable, which is very important for proposed hypothesis.

Irreducible Complexity, on the other hand, has never been falsifiable, nor testable. And there have never any evidence or experiments to support Irreducible Complexity. This mean that Irreducible Complexity cannot even qualify as being a hypothesis.

That’s the difference between Abiogenesis and Irreducible Complexity. Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, Irreducible Complexity is not.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's just personal belief and personal faith.

You don't have any evidence to support your belief. Nor can you have anyway to prove your belief.




The Bible isn't a biology theory.

Science is knowledge that explain. So in the case of fossils, it would require detailed explanation of the fossil evidence - biologically and paleontologically.

Do you think the Bible offer such explanations?

Does the Genesis explain human biology or bird biology or marine biology?

You got that straight that the Bible is not a biology textbook. Good for you!! The theories change anyway. One textbook couldn't hold it all anyway. Bye for now...

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that you don’t understanding a working hypothesis is one that are undergoing active testing for the last 70 years - meaning there have been to evidence and numbers of successful experiments to support the different mechanisms. So when you have supporting evidence, such hypothesis cannot be so easily dismissed.

Abiogenesis have greater potential than Intelligent Design like Irreducible Complexity.

The different mechanisms of abiogenesis may not be science yet, it is still falsifiable & testable, which is very important for proposed hypothesis.

Irreducible Complexity, on the other hand, has never been falsifiable, nor testable. And there have never any evidence or experiments to support Irreducible Complexity. This mean that Irreducible Complexity cannot even qualify as being a hypothesis.

That’s the difference between Abiogenesis and Irreducible Complexity. Abiogenesis is a working hypothesis, Irreducible Complexity is not.

Nothing can prove irreducible complexity is not true. Not even the theorists proclaiming what they think could have happened at the beginning of the universe. It's all speculation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing can prove irreducible complexity is not true. Not even the theorists proclaiming what they think could have happened at the beginning of the universe. It's all speculation.

Your first sentence in bold is actually true even though you likely did not intend it so. Nothing can prove irreducible complexity is not true.

Science cannot prove anything true or false.

Of course the concept of irreducible complexity is a fundamentalist theological assumption, not a scientific hypothesis that falsify anything based on a subjective theological assertion..

There is no such thing as a Theorist in science.

 

[exchemist]

Your first sentence in bold is actually true even though you likely did not intend it so. Nothing can prove irreducible complexity is not true.
There is no such thing as a Theorist in science.

Really? One of my tutors at Oxford did his research in the Department of Theoretical Chemistry and I attended lectures by the then Professor of Theoretical Chemistry, Charles Coulson.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? One of my tutors at Oxford did his research in the Department of Theoretical Chemistry and I attended lectures by the then Professor of Theoretical Chemistry, Charles Coulson.

So what?!?!?! Still no coherent sources backing up your subjective assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? One of my tutors at Oxford did his research in the Department of Theoretical Chemistry and I attended lectures by the then Professor of Theoretical Chemistry, Charles Coulson.

Careful on the wording here. The use of prove and/or proof is what is what makes the statements false. Science DOES NOT prove anything. A problem you also previously made concerning the use of 'prove'

 

[YoursTrue]

Your first sentence in bold is actually true even though you likely did not intend it so. Nothing can prove irreducible complexity is not true.

Science cannot prove anything true or false.

Of course the concept of irreducible complexity is a fundamentalist theological assumption, not a scientific hypothesis that falsify anything based on a subjective theological assertion..

There is no such thing as a Theorist in science.

Oh, who cares? You do I suppose. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Why is that? Because you agree that my first sentence is true. Since you say science cannot prove anything true or false. Discussion over. Bye.

 

[YoursTrue]

Careful on the wording here. The use of prove and/or proof is what is what makes the statements false. Science DOES NOT prove anything. A problem you also previously made concerning the use of 'prove'

Oh, let me dissect this a little. You, as a scientist(?) maybe -- or maybe not -- say with self-assuming authority that there is no proof in science. I am not saying that is not true. Now let me analyze this a bit. So anything scientists say or detect may or may not be -- true. Since there is no proof of their theories, as to whether any theory is true or false. OK, bye again..

 

[exchemist]

Careful on the wording here. The use of prove and/or proof is what is what makes the statements false. Science DOES NOT prove anything. A problem you also previously made concerning the use of 'prove'

Look, you made a comment that - I quote your words - "There is no such thing as a Theorist in science." It was that which I was reacting to, fairly obviously. Don't pretend you don't realise that.

There quite clearly are theorists in science. Experimenters and theoreticians collaborate. Nothing about science precludes specialising in this way. Einstein is a good example. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental scientist. He took other people's results and pondered their implications.

In my response to you I was simply pointing out that, when I read for my chemistry degree, some of my tutors and lecturers were theoretical chemists. Neither Dr Mallion nor Prof Coulson worked in a lab. They were theoreticians.

OK?

 

[viole]

There is no such thing as a Theorist in science.

Pauli was a theorist. In fact, he was so theoretical that things started breaking on account of him just approaching an apparatus, or a lab.
in fact, science is full of theorists. The only recent one I know who was sort of both was Fermi.

so, you equivocate the activity of doing science with what is eventually accepted as science. The two things are different.

Theorists do science, but that does not entail that their theories become parts of science. Their theory need to be validated by experiment. In fact, they could spend their entire career doing science, without having nothing of what they did to become accepted science. I would say even Einstein spent 9/10 of his career doing science that never became accepted part of science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

Oh, who cares? You do I suppose. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Why is that? Because you agree that my first sentence is true. Since you say science cannot prove anything true or false. Discussion over. Bye.

Spoken by someone who do not understand the differences between science and mathematics.

Mathematicians deal with proofs, eg equations are mathematical proofs. Proof may be logical, but they are abstract, and human construct logic, therefore equations can be wrong, especially if the evidence don’t support the equations or proofs.

What all creationists seem to be incapable of learning is that science required evidence, not proof.

Scientists work with evidence and experiments, which are testable observations. Scientists determine if the hypothesis are science or not, through evidence. Proofs do not prove what is or isn’t science. Evidence are physical, not abstract logic.

Are so stubbornly ignorant that you cannot learn something as basic as that. You keep making the same bloody errors, thinking science prove things. Science is not the business of proving.

Science test, using evidence or experiments, or both, and data, to verify or refute a hypothesis or existing scientific theory.

And btw, YoursTrue. Creationism is religious concept, including YEC & Intelligent Design.

Neither YEC, nor ID, provide falsifiable explanatory & predilection models. Instead they make a lot of ignorant and dishonest claims, and their claims cannot be tested... for example, can you observe or test God or the Designer? No, and no.

YEC & ID cannot even provide theoretical models, because they are just as incompetent in mathematics, as they are Natural Sciences.

To put it very bluntly, Creationism isn’t alternative, because it is no better than fairytale.