On Evolution & Creation

[ratiocinator]

Then please explain what the BBT actually is.
I have always been told it explains everything about the universe from Planck time until now

It becomes highly hypothetical before that, but that's not really the problem. Your problem is that you are assuming that, if time started at the BB (which is what GR alone tells us) then we can ask where it came from. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the GR understanding of space-time.

As I said before, your notion of time seems to be stuck in the 19th century. Space-time is a 4-dimensional manifold. Time is nothing but an observer-dependant direction through it. If time really is finite in the past (and it's an open question) then asking where it came from is nonsensical.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, not at the present I am right, now I may be proven wrong sometime in the future.

No. You said "proven fact". That is false. Nobody has proved that life cannot come from non-life. The falsification was only ever about specific ideas about life appearing all the time in the sense of maggots from rotten meat and similar.

 

[icant]

Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view,

Why did you forget this part of the quote?
If the experiments, overturned the original view, doesn't that mean they proved the idea of life spontaneously arising from non-life did not happen?

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

If the experiments, overturned the original view, doesn't that mean they proved the idea of life spontaneously arising from non-life did not happen?

The "original view" was "life often arose spontaneously from non-life", not the general proposition that life arose from non-life. You only had to read the rest of the section to realise that, FFS!

 

[ratiocinator]

Why did you forget this part of the quote?

I didn't, I quoted the entire passage: #111.

 

[shunyadragon]

Could you please explain to me what my extreme religious agenda is?

In msg 90 I posted an excerpt from an article you suggested I read and it says:


Quote"

4. Origin(s) of Life​

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.
Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"

Over 200 years of experiments proved that non-life did not spontaneously produce life.

Oh I know facts do no matter to you.

Everybody has opinions and two arm pits and both of them usually stink.

You incomplete, selective and dishonest use of science without the knowledge of science represents a religious agenda in rejecting science. 'The fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' of what you believe science does not know is not an adequate argument against any science.

you also apparently reject the sciences of evolution, Only those with a religious agenda reject the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis.

You could not present any other group or organization other than religion, primarily it is Christians and Muslims that have any cause to reject the science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why did you forget this part of the quote?
If the experiments, overturned the original view, doesn't that mean they proved the idea of life spontaneously arising from non-life did not happen?

Enjoy,

Science does not currently propose life spontaneously arose from none life. Sciences rose from non-life by natural laws and the ideal environment.

Science does not prove anything. Your intentional ignorance of science abounds beyond belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then please explain what the BBT actually is.

One theory of the beginning or cyclic origin of our universe,

I have always been told it explains everything about the universe from Planck time until now,

Then you have been terribly mislead by the tooth fairy. Science does not make such claims.

You got something different

Possible a cyclic universe,

I suppose just like everything Hawking his professor said also.

Hawking = Penrose propose the possibility of a cyclic universe.

 

[metis]

I don't think there ever was a BB to begin with. I believe a book that I read in 1949 at 9 years of age, I believed it then and I haven't changed my mind since then.

I'm the opposite as I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up because of this and a couple other factors, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

Quote: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth" That is the proper translation of the Hebrew as the verb is before the subject of the verb.

I don't get my science from the Bible or my theology from science. I taught anthropology for 30 years and taught theology for about 20 years.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why did you forget this part of the quote?
If the experiments, overturned the original view, doesn't that mean they proved the idea of life spontaneously arising from non-life did not happen?

Enjoy,

Your posts reflect a traditional anti-science fundamentalist Christian perspective because . ..

(1) Your terminology is typical of religious motives using words like 'prove/proof' and spontaneously.
(2) You 'argue from ignorance' as to what you believe 'science does not know.' to argue science is wrong.
(3) Your selective incomplete references do not reflect current knowledge of science.
(4) You fail to present complete scientific references that may be cited in current peer reviewed publications.
(5) You apparently do not have an advanced level of education in the sciences of evolution, physics, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology.

 

[icant]

Your posts reflect a traditional anti-science fundamentalist Christian perspective because . ..

If asking for evidence is considered anti-science, then I guess I am anti-science.
On the other hand I thought that was what science was supposed to do.

Give me the evidence you have that there was something that existed at T=0.

There is zero evidence as no one knows what existed at T=0 or even if anything did.

Give me the evidence that something appeared 1 billionth of a second later and began to expand into our universe we see today.

I want evidence not and assumption of some scientist's hypothesis.

Enjoy the BBT

 

[Audie]

I'm the opposite as I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up because of this and a couple other factors, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry.




I don't get my science from the Bible or my theology from science. I taught anthropology for 30 years and taught theology for about 20 years.

I'm lucky! Didn't go to a hillbilly school
or some fundy church.

 

[icant]

(3) Your selective incomplete references do not reflect current knowledge of science.

Then show me the evidence that non-life has produced life because that is what evolution is all about.
I am simplly raising questions about what you say you believe.

Why do you believe non-life produced life?

And just one time at that?
If evolution was true, then there would be all kind of critters that we don't have crawling up out of some kind of soup.

(5) You apparently do not have an advanced level of education in the sciences of evolution, physics, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology.

No I don't. But in the last 20 years talking to people like you and reading everything I can get my hands or eyes on I have gained enough knowledge to know a fact when I see one.

Fact: nothing existed at T=0 and there is no evidence that it did. If so present it.

Fact: An Assumption: was made that at Planck time the universe began its emergence from a state of extremely high temperature and density.
There is no evidence that took place. If you have some present it.

Fact: We do have a faint glow from the past that tells us when the universe began to exist that a all kinds of energy was having a party as it begin to form all the things that fill our universe today.

The CMBR only tell us of this party and nothing else.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

Then show me the evidence that non-life has produced life because that is what evolution is all about.

No, that is not what evolution is all about, it's a totally separate question. Evolution is about how populations evolve once we have life.

Why do you believe non-life produced life?

Of course. What do you think happened about 3.5 billion years ago when the first life appeared on Earth?

And just one time at that?
If evolution was true, then there would be all kind of critters that we don't have crawling up out of some kind of soup.

Again, it's got **** all to do with evolution, and no, there's no reason to think we'd see abiogenesis now because, firstly, conditions on Earth today are totally different, and, secondly, because the first life (or primitive self-replicators, it's difficult to define life) would have had no competition. A primitive proto-life today would most likely get eaten, even if it was produced.

But in the last 20 years talking to people like you and reading everything I can get my hands or eyes on I have gained enough knowledge to know a fact when I see one.

The evidence of your posts suggests otherwise.

Fact: nothing existed at T=0 and there is no evidence that it did. If so present it.

As you have been told several times now, nobody knows what happened at what you're calling "T=0". The BBT is about the development of the universe from a hot dense state about 13.5 billion years ago.

Fact: An Assumption: was made that at Planck time the universe began its emergence from a state of extremely high temperature and density.
There is no evidence that took place. If you have some present it.

Untrue. No assumption goes back to the Planck time. We have tentative hypotheses that would take us quite close, but the further back we go, the less sure we are about what happened. We have both the predictions of a well tested theory, and evidence that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state, and that is what the BBT is.

Fact: We do have a faint glow from the past that tells us when the universe began to exist that a all kinds of energy was having a party as it begin to form all the things that fill our universe today.

The CMBR only tell us of this party and nothing else.

Not sure what this vague hand-waving is supposed to mean. The CMB is one piece of evidence for the BBT.

 

[icant]

I'm the opposite as I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up because of this and a couple other factors, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

You may have missed a wonderful life.

I don't get my science from the Bible or my theology from science. I taught anthropology for 30 years and taught theology for about 20 years.

I thought the Bible was a pretty good science book.
It tells me how I got here.
It tells me why I am here.
It tells me that I am going to live forever somewhere.
It has a lot of information about the universe, and mankind.
It tells me things that science has discovered in the past 100 years.

Our blood system is an amazing thing it transports oxygen, and energy to each cell in our body without which the cell would die.
3500 years ago it was recorded in the Bible...

Lev 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

How about that a scientific fact in the Bible. Notice the exact statement "the life of the flesh".

Our Universe is a marvelous invention.
The earth was said to be flat, by our learned men for many years until Magellan's crew sailed around the world.
The Bible tell us they could do that in Isaiah 40:22.
The same verse tell us the universe is expanding.
So how did these men know these things over 2700 years ago?

Fact #1 The universe had a beginning to exist. Genesis 1:1
Fact #2 The life of the flesh is in the blood.
Fact #3 The earth has a circle at the equator dividing the earth into two equal parts.
Fact #4 The universe is expanding.

Enjoy,

Lev 17:11

For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

 

[ratiocinator]

I thought the Bible was a pretty good science book.

It tells me how I got here.
It tells me why I am here.
It tells me that I am going to live forever somewhere.
It has a lot of information about the universe, and mankind.

If you like fairy tales, rather than reality.

It tells me things that science has discovered in the past 100 years.

Yeah, right, if you try really, really hard to ignore what it clearly says.

The earth was said to be flat, by our learned men for many years until Magellan's crew sailed around the world.
The Bible tell us they could do that in Isaiah 40:22.
The same verse tell us the universe is expanding.
So how did these men know these things over 2700 years ago?

Ballcocks.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,​

and its people are like grasshoppers.​

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,​

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.​

Fact #1 The universe had a beginning to exist. Genesis 1:1

Except we don't know that it did, and everything about the actual description in Genesis 1 is plain wrong.

Fact #2 The life of the flesh is in the blood.

Is nonsense.

Fact #3 The earth has a circle at the equator dividing the earth into two equal parts.
Fact #4 The universe is expanding.

Are not in the Bible.

Still, gave me a laugh.

 

[icant]

No, that is not what evolution is all about, it's a totally separate question. Evolution is about how populations evolve once we have life.

You got to have life before it can evolve.

Of course. What do you think happened about 3.5 billion years ago when the first life appeared on Earth?

Actually I don't know how many trillion or even quintillion years ago.
The Bible only says the universe had a beginning to exist. It says that later whoever or whatever created it formed life from the ground and I don't know how that was accomplished. The book don't give the details. Other than he/she/it breathed life into that form.

Again, it's got **** all to do with evolution, and no, there's no reason to think we'd see abiogenesis now because, firstly, conditions on Earth today are totally different, and, secondly, because the first life (or primitive self-replicators, it's difficult to define life) would have had no competition. A primitive proto-life today would most likely get eaten, even if it was produced.

So when life appeared why didn't

The evidence of your posts suggests otherwise.

Yes that is the typical comments I get. But I got more evidence that my Science Book is correct.

As you have been told several times now, nobody knows what happened at what you're calling "T=0". The BBT is about the development of the universe from a hot dense state about 13.5 billion years ago.

So everything you believe about the universe and its existence is based upon pure speculation, or an ASSUMPTION of some man? But the Universe does exist.
It is either eternal in existence which science says is impossible, or it had a beginning to exist. My question remains if it had a beginning to exist what is the source of all the ENERGY required to expand into the universe we see and don't see now?

Untrue. No assumption goes back to the Planck time. We have tentative hypotheses that would take us quite close, but the further back we go, the less sure we are about what happened. We have both the predictions of a well tested theory, and evidence that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state, and that is what the BBT is.

Well if it is not an assumption that something appeared at Planck time and expanded into the universe it must have been a pipe dream in someone's mind that was flying around in some other dimension.
380,000 years is not very close.

You don't have one prediction. A prediction is about something that is going to happen in the future not about something that has happened Billions of years in the past.

Not sure what this vague hand-waving is supposed to mean. The CMB is one piece of evidence for the BBT.

The only thing the CMB tells you is that at one time the Universe was very hot. Nothing else.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

You got to have life before it can evolve.

You have to have humans before you can have politics. That doesn't mean politics is all about how come we have humans.

Actually I don't know how many trillion or even quintillion years ago.

We have solid evidence about when life happened.

The Bible only says the universe had a beginning to exist. It says that later whoever or whatever created it formed life from the ground and I don't know how that was accomplished. The book don't give the details. Other than he/she/it breathed life into that form.

And I should care about what a book of primitive, pre-science myths says about it, because.....?

So when life appeared why didn't

Try reading what I said.

But I got more evidence that my Science Book is correct.

What "Science Book"? The bible is myth, not science.

So everything you believe about the universe and its existence is based upon pure speculation, or an ASSUMPTION of some man? But the Universe does exist.

Following a discussion doesn't appear to be your strong suit. What I accept is what the evidence can tell us.

It is either eternal in existence which science says is impossible...

Science says no such thing. Do you pay any attention to what people post?

....or it had a beginning to exist. My question remains if it had a beginning to exist what is the source of all the ENERGY required to expand into the universe we see and don't see now?

If it had a beginning, this is a meaningless question. How many times do I have to explain it to you before you take some notice? Quite apart from the total energy quite possibly being zero, you can't have a source if time is finite it that direction. The space-time is self-contained. It's just a 4-dimensional 'object'. Energy is like a "bookkeeping number" that keeps track of the fact that the laws of physics don't change alone the timelike curves within it, just like momentum keeps track of the fact that they don't change along spacelike curves. And, it's far from clear that energy is even conserved in the universe as a whole, anyway.

You don't have one prediction. A prediction is about something that is going to happen in the future not about something that has happened Billions of years in the past.

General Relativity predicted that the universe couldn't be static, as was believed when it was published. There is now plenty of evidence that it is expanding from a hot dense time in the past. That is the BBT. It isn't, and never was about "T=0". At that point it breaks down into a singularity that nobody really takes seriously.

 

[metis]

I thought the Bible was a pretty good science book.
It tells me how I got here.
It tells me why I am here.
It tells me that I am going to live forever somewhere.
It has a lot of information about the universe, and mankind.
It tells me things that science has discovered in the past 100 years.

It tells you what you want to hear because you've chosen to do as such.

I'm not in any way downplaying the Bible as I read it almost every day as a book of faith, not science nor objective history. You seem to look at the Bible as faith, history, and science, whereas I look at it as a faith guide for moral living that over 1 billion people follow worldwide.

BTW, I attend mass every Sunday with my wife and even taught there to adults for years and also taught in a synagogue. Why would I waste my time if it meant nothing to me?

 

[metis]

You may have missed a wonderful life.

I've had one, and I'll be 80 in March.