Space-Time and Theory of Evolution

[leibowde84]

That's fine, but what I stated doesn't change anything. You are getting 'contradict' mixed up with 'irrelevant', 'different thing', apples & oranges', etc. The real question is , what does 'time' have to do with the theory of evolution? Well, nothing. Nothing can be inferred from it, to help the theory. That's the problem, in general, here, you can't infer a lot of of things that are just arbitrarily inferred in the theory, and those inferences also carry the problem of inferring in themselves, false or non-reality based assumptions. /which you stated yourself, the theory doesn't even address/. It's sort of like asking me to prove that pink unicorns don't exist, when there is nothing to indicate that they do exist.

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence supporting the ToE?

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence supporting the ToE?

Doesn't matter, we're off topic/

 

[atanu]

I think that that is for another thread. Generally has to do with things like cause, and probability; ideas that t. of evolution requires to support various ideas it proposes.

I am a geoscientist and a chemist. There are evidences aplenty that living forms have diversified through geological time. I do not have any doubt.

My point is of a different nature.

Materialists on one hand and religious fundamentalists on the other argue endlessly on points on which there is no common ground. For example, someone says "There is no time". But then how that person replies to me? Did he not perceive the passage of time?

If we are in a time frame (in waking state) it's observations and interpretations are likely true for that state.

OTOH, no one can say that the 'Duration of Time' is invariant under different conditions. Science knows this. Furthermore, for a yogi, time has stopped or it does not exist at all.

So, my point is that we must not blindly reject each other's points without understanding. And IMO, this is not so easy, particularly for materialists since a materialist considers his particular dream to be the TRUTH. He has no inclination to even consider what other sciences/experiences have to teach. Most importantly there is also an absolute forgetfulness that we do whatever we do to gain joy.

 

[Thief]

I am a geoscientist and a chemist. There are evidences aplenty that living forms have diversified through geological time. I do not have any doubt.

My point is of a different nature.
.

observation......perceived passing of 'time'....

the dinosaurs were around for a long time.....
none of them had a Timex
and their 'time ran out'

along with NOT being a force or a substance....time....
has many meanings.

we had a very LARGE dictionary back in high school study hall
that volume had dozens of definitions and uses for that one little word

I do not believe space/time equations play any role in the passing of events
evolution has been around for a long 'time'
evolution is the play of chemical life on a planet made of useful chemicals

the movement is real
you can use any scale of 'time' to track the passing events

do we agree?

 

[atanu]

observation......perceived passing of 'time'....

the dinosaurs were around for a long time.....
none of them had a Timex
and their 'time ran out'

along with NOT being a force or a substance....time....
has many meanings.

we had a very LARGE dictionary back in high school study hall
that volume had dozens of definitions and uses for that one little word

I do not believe space/time equations play any role in the passing of events
evolution has been around for a long 'time'
evolution is the play of chemical life on a planet made of useful chemicals

the movement is real
you can use any scale of 'time' to track the passing events

do we agree?

Probably yes. But I will wait for Legion's answer.

 

[gnostic]

Materialists on one hand and religious fundamentalists on the other argue endlessly on points on which there is no common ground.

There are no common ground.

Creationism is not science, not physics, not biology, and yet they insist that they know what they know, because of this ancient book of myths and superstitions, called the bible.

They really should stick with theology, and stop pretending that Genesis explain anything scientifically about biology (including evolution), or earth science (including geology, meteorology), or astronomy.

In Genesis 2, it narrated that first man was made out of dust, and the 1st woman was made out of man's rib. It is ridiculous that they still believe in this myth. There have been many other ancient myths that man was made from the earth, whether it be soil, dust or clay, and the flood myths, and the most obvious ones, predated before Genesis was written, by the Bronze Age Babylonians of the 2nd millennium BCE (eg Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh, Enûma Elish), and earlier by the Sumerians of the 3rd millennium BCE (eg Eridu Genesis, Enki and Ninmah, Death of Gilgames). It is quite obvious that they got the myths from the Babylonians, since they found fragments of the epic of Gilgamesh in the Canaanite city of Megeddo, mid-2nd millennium BCE.

Creationists expect us to accept fairytale and myths as if they were science.

That's the root of this problem with creationism, and those who believe in the bloody myth. Part of their ignorance of science, but parts of it is their lack of honesty and integrity, when they resort to misinformation and propaganda.

My issue with creationists are not that they believe in creationism; my problem is the constant deceptions I see from them, trying to turn creationism into science (eg Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute, are actually bunch of creationists, pretending they are not creationists).

 

[leibowde84]

Doesn't matter, we're off topic/

Fair enough. Seemingly ludicrous claim though.

 

[atanu]

There are no common ground.
They really should stick with theology, ....

Well Gnostic. This thread is not about them and us but is about all of us.

 

[Desert Snake]

Fair enough. Seemingly ludicrous claim though.

You're getting some things jumbled up, really. If you aren't going to 'address' the cause or initial cause, or other factors outside the theory, of something, then you can't expect others to address, argue, /or even take seriously, really/, your theory. That's a 'non-reality' parameter in which the theory is in. That's fine, it does have it's uses, /to do that/. However, those uses, are not for the type of theoretical positions that are espoused.

 

[Tiapan]

math is a cognitive construct made by Man to serve Man

Mathematics is the universal law of the Universe simply rediscovered by man.
Cheers

 

[Thief]

Mathematics is the universal law of the Universe simply rediscovered by man.
Cheers

Spirit first.
and I don't think of God as a mathematician.

 

[Tiapan]

Spirit first.
and I don't think of God as a mathematician.

from http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

Based on the ideas of Lord Kelvin, Joule, Boltzmann, Carnot, and Clausius, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can now be restated in two profound sentences:

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

And these two fundamental principles of nature describe how the universe works.

Why is a Spirit required?

Cheers

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Based on the ideas of Lord Kelvin, Joule, Boltzmann, Carnot, and Clausius, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can now be restated in two profound sentences:

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.


And these two fundamental principles of nature describe how the universe works.

Why is a Spirit required?
Cheers

Both sentences are manifestly wrong, as our the ideas of the classical physicists you refer to. In particular, the two clouds that bothered Kelvin and were deemed to be the last two issues to be solved for physics to be complete ended up overthrowing the whole classical physics enterprise (and proved to be the basis for the "classical" qualification of these physical theories), yielding modern relativity in one case and quantum theory in the other.
And, actually, while the second sentence is more consistent with modern physics than the first, it is a cosmological restatement of what (for Boltzmann et al.) consisted of a statistical description of idealized particles and dynamics in samples of gases and so forth in classical physics, not the universe. It is, in fact, the extension of properties which were or are thought to hold for various systems within the universe to the universe itself that is problematic. Physical "laws", whether modern or classical, are formulated (at least in principle) by abstract generalizations of the observed dynamics of a variety of systems studied in various ways. Newtonian mechanics (and the Lagrangian version in analytical mechanics) was based on the observations of simple mechanical systems (in particular, idealized point-particles of 0-mass representing planets isolated from the solar system in general, let alone the galaxy), and despite the fact that Newtonian mechanics (like dynamics/mechanics more generally) involves (partial) differential equations that cannot generally be solved analytically, it was assumed that these models applied exactly (compare e.g., Laplace's famous declaration in which the entirety of the universe consists of a deterministically evolving system which can be known exactly from its configuration state at any given initial time arbitrarily far into the future with Box's dictum "all models are wrong, but some are useful").
All of this was wrong. We should have known it had to be wrong, because our descriptions of reality first treated systems as isolated from observation and then were held to apply to observers and the universe more generally. Classical physics, including statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, is justified (to the extent that these methods provide "laws" which hold approximately for systems described statistically) because they were empirically founded via the examinations of idealized systems of various sorts examined in various ways and generalizations of results that held true regardless of differences in the methods of observation. The universe, however, cannot be examined by analogous means: we can't study its evolution given different initial states.

 

[Thief]

from http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

Based on the ideas of Lord Kelvin, Joule, Boltzmann, Carnot, and Clausius, the first and second laws of thermodynamics can now be restated in two profound sentences:

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.

And these two fundamental principles of nature describe how the universe works.

Why is a Spirit required?

Cheers

the singularity would not move without something to move it
movement had a beginning

science leans to the 'point' where all things come from

I don't have a problem with it

I don't think God did either