The Big Bang and Evolution

[Bird123]

Sorry, but without complete knowledge of how something was generated, it's impossible to accurately calculate how long it would take to generate. Math can only be as accurate as the variables involved. With so many unknown variables concerning how the universe came about, any mathematical calculations this individual made would be filled with so many unknown variables that it would essentially be worthless. Which would be why he'd have to get his findings published in a book instead of any sort of respected journal. I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the introduction this author even claims that his findings are so Earth shattering that the scientific establishment has refused to take his work seriously. Crackpot scientists who are forced to publish their findings in books because they're methods don't meet the standards of scientific journals usually do.

The fact that he claims to be an atheist doesn't change the picture one iota. The scientific method doesn't care about a person's religious beliefs or lack there of.

One does not have to have every little detail in order to get a general idea of how something works. Do you really think scientists know it all before they discover anything? It's easy is sit in an arm chair hoping someone will deliver all the answers to you but true Discovery does take work. This guy is at least trying to discover something beyond beliefs. The universe is math. Figuring out any part of it can only move one forward.

I've been busy but I will try to find that book.

 

[Bird123]

Not when you start with unsubstantiated assumptions. Without a sample from which to first measure outcomes, any guesstimate about probabilities is a WAG (wild a$$ guess). Or in this case a SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess) - the difference being a decimal point.

You could say the same thing 1000 years ago if I told you the Earth was round. It looked pretty flat back then.

Study statistics and probability. Incorporate that with what you actually see in the universe today. You ought to be able to figure something out. Who knows you might even get an idea by which you might actually discover something.

Actually discovery can start with a guess. If one dismisses possibilities, is one really searching for the Real Truth?

AS I see it religion has corrupted believers and nonbelievers as well. Why is it people want it all served up on a plate so all they have to do is decide whether to believe or not?

If one attempts discovery, one might actually discover something.

 

[QuestioningMind]

One does not have to have every little detail in order to get a general idea of how something works. Do you really think scientists know it all before they discover anything? It's easy is sit in an arm chair hoping someone will deliver all the answers to you but true Discovery does take work. This guy is at least trying to discover something beyond beliefs. The universe is math. Figuring out any part of it can only move one forward.

I've been busy but I will try to find that book.

Of course not... however if your dealing with something as complex as calculating how long it would take for the universe to form naturally, you need to have a pretty complete idea of HOW it formed. For instance, about 27% of the universe is made of of something we are calling Dark Matter, because we really have no clue what it is. We don't even know if Dark Matter is a single force we've yet to identify or if it's comprised of numerous different forces that we have yet to identify. How did this guy calculate for the formation of Dark Matter? Science doesn't yet know what dark matter IS, so it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to calculate how long it would take to form something that we cannot yet even classify. I can claim to calculate how long it would take to build a certain model car, but if I'm ignorant about how numerous systems in the car are actually built, my calculations will be absolutely worthless.

His goal of attempting to make such a calculation is laudable, but he's being dishonest if he claims that he has enough information to make such complex calculations at this point in time. I hope you're successful, because I'd really like to know the book's name and author.

 

[JustWondering]

I don't care where it is taught as long as the students are made aware of its possibility. You want evolution too have a monopoly, yet therfe is nothing in the ToE that can be scientificaly proven. Why is that.

I highly doubt you want every creation myth from EVERY religion taught to your kids. You only want the creation myth from YOUR religion taught. It wouldn't take very long though, since it all boils down to "god did it!". The theistic side would literally only take half a minute tops to cover.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've asked him that [Prove creationism and the existence of the Christian god.] several times, he ignores the question for some reason

What choice does he have? He has no direct constructive argument for a god, so he is constrained to sophistry directed against the only other competing hypothesis.

Have you thought about how you would handle the impossible task of the creationist apologist if you were a creationist trying to defend that position? Demand evidence that the thread sees you don't really want to consider or click a link to look at? Make claims about barriers between so-called micro- and macro-evolution that you have to ignore when challenged to support? Refuse to define what that line is or why it can't be crossed?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Heisenberg and Schrödinger were tooling along the highway when a state trooper pulled them over. He asked the driver, Heisenberg, if he knew how fast he was going, The answer was, "No, but I did know my exact position."

This irritated the trooper, who asked the boys to step out of the car so that he could search it. After opening the trunk, the trooper asked, "Did you know that you have a dead cat back there?"

"I do now," Schrödinger volunteered.

 

[omega2xx]

Tell us how God did it. Saying "Let there be light" isn't very explanatory.

It is for anyone with even a 5th grade reading comprehension level.

 

[omega2xx]

He's telling you [omega] that your objections are irrelevant in the face of the fruits of science and the sterility of religious faith. No number of words that you can muster make that go away.

You simply cannot convince pragmatic rational skeptics to abandon a theory with an explanatory mechanism that is self-evidently in play and unifies a mountain range of data, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been contradicted by any finding, and has practical application that has borne fruit for a faith based idea that can't do any of those things with words.

We know which idea is correct and which is wrong because of that difference.

Bring us the fruits of creationism and we can begin to talk.

The only thing I have ask anyone to do is cut and paste what some link offers as evidence. Why are all of you evos afraid to do such a simple thing? If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately.

Christianity, the Bible and faith are entirely different subjects. If you or any of the others will do the one thing I ask, I will discuss anything about religion you want to, including the fruits or creationism.

 

[ratiocinator]

The only thing I have ask anyone to do is cut and paste what some link offers as evidence. Why are all of you evos afraid to do such a simple thing? If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately.

• You refuse to accept summaries - claiming they are only words.
• Papers that outline the detained evidence cannot be pasted wholesale into a forum post both for practical and copyright reasons.
• Even if I pasted a whole paper into a post, would you be any more likely to read it all than if it was in a link? If so, why?
  
• Even when I have pasted extracts, you've ignored then - see #711 that refutes your assertion that the peppered moth was a fraud and #736 that showed that even ICR admit that natural selection is real, which contradicts your assertion that "nothing in the TOE has ever been proven".

 

[ArtieE]

It is for anyone with even a 5th grade reading comprehension level.

Are you saying you haven't progressed beyond a 5th grade comprehension level? Because I can't imagine a university class settle for a god saying "Let there be light" as an explanation for anything without more details.

 

[Thumper]

The only thing I have ask anyone to do is cut and paste what some link offers as evidence. Why are all of you evos afraid to do such a simple thing? If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately.

Christianity, the Bible and faith are entirely different subjects. If you or any of the others will do the one thing I ask, I will discuss anything about religion you want to, including the fruits or creationism.

This was done at post #740 - The Big Bang and Evolution

 

[ratiocinator]

A favor, please: Translate ∃x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(y ∈ x ⇒ y ∪ {y} ∈ x)) into plain English: "There exists ... "

It's the "axiom of infinity" from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It says: there exists x such that the empty set is an element of x and for all y, if y is an element of x then the union of y and the set containing y is also an element of x. Basically saying that there is an infinite set.

 

[omega2xx]

I highly doubt you want every creation myth from EVERY religion taught to your kids. You only want the creation myth from YOUR religion taught. It wouldn't take very long though, since it all boils down to "god did it!". The theistic side would literally only take half a minute tops to cover.

Right I don't want it to be a Bible study, just a simple acknowledgement that some, including some scientist believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and of life. Of course it would be more than "God did it," It would include the impossibility of matter, energy and life creating itself out of nothing, that "after its kind, is what we see and can prove, and a scientific explanation of genetics, and why the laws of genetics refute evolution. Something you evos were never taught.

You see, creationism is lot more that 3 words.

 

[omega2xx]

This was done at post #740 - The Big Bang and Evolution

What is it about cut and paste the evidence that you can't understand?

 

[Thumper]

Right I don't want it to be a Bible study, just a simple acknowledgement that some, including some scientist believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and of life. Of course it would be more than "God did it," It would include the impossibility of matter, energy and life creating itself out of nothing, that "after its kind, is what we see and can prove, and a scientific explanation of genetics, and why the laws of genetics refute evolution. Something you evos were never taught.

You see, creationism is lot more that 3 words.

Science only deals with trying to understand how nature works . Creationism is not science nor does it have anything to do with teaching biology.

You are still into the realm of teaching ancient mythologies, which might be an interesting elective (I'd sign up), but it is not science.

It might be interesting to you that ~15% of the members of the American Academy of Science believe in a personal god. But even that doesn't mean they all believe in your interpretation.

 

[Thumper]

What is it about cut and paste the evidence that you can't understand?

Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers and you want someone else to make Cliff Notes out of it for you. Poor thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

..."after its kind, is what we see and can prove...

Can you even define 'kind'?

..and a scientific explanation of genetics, and why the laws of genetics refute evolution.

So, are the vast majority of people who study evolution and genetics idiots who don't understand their own subjects or is it a vast international conspiracy?

 

[ArtieE]

Right I don't want it to be a Bible study, just a simple acknowledgement that some, including some scientist believe there is a God responsible for the creation of the universe and of life. Of course it would be more than "God did it," It would include the impossibility of matter, energy and life creating itself out of nothing, that "after its kind, is what we see and can prove, and a scientific explanation of genetics, and why the laws of genetics refute evolution. Something you evos were never taught.

You see, creationism is lot more that 3 words.

You only have 3 words. "God did it". The rest of your words give no explanation for how "God did it" or give any more details about what actually happened. You can't even explain why this God of yours would exist in the first place.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The only thing I have ask anyone to do is cut and paste what some link offers as evidence. Why are all of you evos afraid to do such a simple thing? If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately.

Christianity, the Bible and faith are entirely different subjects. If you or any of the others will do the one thing I ask, I will discuss anything about religion you want to, including the fruits or creationism.

Nobody's afraid.

I've given up trying to share information with you, and I explained why. The necessary spirit of cooperation is lacking with you. Nobody can teach you anything with you in that state of mind.

Earlier, I wrote, "Bring us the fruits of creationism and we can begin to talk."

Just now, you wrote, "If I got a challenge like that I would respond immediately." Only if by responding immediately you mean refusing.

You lamented that others wouldn't "do such a simple thing" as bring data to you, but you won't do something even simpler: Click on a link to get that same data.

Given your demeanor, you should not expect others to cooperate with you. Your purpose is to depict yourself as an open-minded seeker of truth, but your behavior belies that. You won't make a minimal effort. Your description of yourself contradicts your behavior.

I am unwilling to cut-and-paste any evidence of evolution for you. What would be the point? I already know what your response will be, and that the effort will have been wasted.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that evolution is a false theory. What would the world look like if it were true? In other words, what evidence could possibly convince you that the theory is correct if it were? When you understand that there is no evidence that could convince you of evolution whether it is a correct theory or not, then you will understand that your mind is closed to such evidence. Others know that about you, and you should recognize that in yourself.

Those of us that are here to share, to teach, and to learn will do that with one another. You are welcome to join us if you ever re-open your mind and adopt an attitude conducive to exploration.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's the "axiom of infinity" from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. It says: there exists x such that the empty set is an element of x and for all y, if y is an element of x then the union of y and the set containing y is also an element of x. Basically saying that there is an infinite set.

Thanks.