The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[lunakilo]

There are changes within a species, yes. But not a change to a DIFFERENT species. No. A canine will never change to a feline. It is this kind of large scale change that you people on here believe in, that we never observed before. But as I said, start a thread on evolution and lets discuss this lie on there.

Evolution does not claim that cat turns into dog.

It claims that cat turns into cat1, cat2, cat3, ... and dog turns into dog1, dog2, dog3, ...
unless the species becom extinct that is.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Huh?? If a chandelier has been hanging from a ceiling for all eternity, there was no "first" moment before it. It was only after the chandelier began to fall that the first moment occurred. From the moment it began to fall you can count "1,2,3,4". But before it began to fall, from what point would you start the count? So the chandelier went from atemporal to temporal from the moment of motion. The ball on the cushion example is just to show how simultaneous causation could occur. This is relevant because the creation of the universe and the beginning of time was a simulatenous event.

Ahh, I've been rereading the analogy from afar and I think I see what you are trying to say with the timeless chandelier, and think I have spotted what's causing some of the confusion:

In one sense you are referring to the chandelier's universe as Timeless, but then reference that the fixture 'has been hanging', which implies a passage of Time.

I see that you on the one hand wish to express that because the chandelier does not move until the moment it begins to fall, that Time does not actually exist in that universe. But I believe the manner in which you were expressing this idea is a bit confusing. Either the chandelier does not fall because no Time exists yet, or, it actively hangs while Time passes, and THEN at some point, falls [thus hanging eternally, until...].

If you were to specify which of those scenarios you mean to stick with, it may help.

 

[lunakilo]

You are right. If I say "something cannot be the origin of itself" one time and that one time isn't enough, if i say it 20 more times it really wont make a difference.

So how does that fit in with your claim that intelligence comes from intelligence?

 

[lunakilo]

No, i used the background radiation as proof that the universe is EXPANDING, not that it is expanding FOREVER. Geez, you people are doing a good job of misrepresenting what I say. What i did say was the mass density was insuffient enough to STOP THE EXPANSION, so therefore the universe will expand forever.



Never said that it did.

This thread is so long now that I am not going back to read all you posts to prove to ypu that you said that. But that is what I understood from your posts.

I am happy to hear that I must hav misunderstood you and you do infact agree with me that the background radiation says nothing about the future of the universe.

Um, if the mass density of the universe was large enough to stop the expansion, then it wouldn't be expanding as we speak. We know that the current density of the universe, whatever it is, is not sufficient enough to stop it. Whatever number it is, it isn't getting the job done

That is just wrong.

if the density parameter was slightly above 1 the universe would expand for a very long time before collapsing.

We don't know the density is not large enough to stop the expansion, current data may indicate that but since this is work in progress we do not know.

 

[Photonic]

Oh no. not again...

I'm waiting for him to say his source is Expelled.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm waiting for him to say his source is Expelled.

I'm waiting for him to start linking us to aig.com....

 

[YmirGF]

I'm waiting for him to start linking us to aig.com....

Oddly, I lost interest in what he was saying 20 pages back. I guess I am not as patient as I used to be.

 

[terryboy]

haha, enlightenment is not for everyone. Some people will stay in the dark for eternity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is "kind"...? Do you mean "Species"..?

A dog is a different kind of animal than a horse. I understand this "species" business gets pretty iffy when it comes to animal classicfication. But nonetheless, a dog is a different kind of animal than a horse.

Don't tell your doctor that the next time you need that flu shot.

Let me ask you this.....Do you agree with (descent with modification)..?

Yes

Where is "macroevolution" in science text books? Before you answer I want to inform you that I work for a local public school system and have never seen macroevolution in a text book....so I need a reference from you.

Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember, he believes man existed with dinosaurs regardless of the consensus of scientist who disagrees with him or the overwhelming amount of evidences that support an old Earth and the fact that we never walked with dinosaurs....and don't forget....wait for it....wait for it.....we share a common ancestor with other primates.....

And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet.

 

[Koldo]

Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it is.
However, from one of your former posts it seems like you are misusing the term.

Taken from the article [Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]:

"The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#cite_note-talkorigins-4

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A personal explanation is an explanation that belongs to a person.
Your personal explanation for the creation of the universe is a personal entity, but it could very well be an impersonal entity. There is no contradiction.

How can the explanation be impersonal when there was no physical reality prior to the universe??? If there is no nature prior to the universe, and yet something happened, the only explanation is personal.

If God is being represented by the chandelier, what is representing the singularity? If you want to describe the scenario where the time began, then it is important to pinpoint where exactly the singularity would be in this picture, and how the chandelier is interacting with it. If your analogy can't do this, then it is meaningless to our discussion.

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

Actually, everyone is born intelligent ( not to be confused with 'smart' ). And we develop our intelligence as we live. Also, if abiogenesis is accurate, intelligence did come from something that didn't have it ( unless you think inorganic matter possesses intelligence ).

There would be no abiogenesis if the universe didnt begin to exist. If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life. God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.

How is the simultaneous causation happening in the cushion analogy ( considering the change from 'timeless to time' in your answer )?

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In one sense you are referring to the chandelier's universe as Timeless, but then reference that the fixture 'has been hanging', which implies a passage of Time.

I see that you on the one hand wish to express that because the chandelier does not move until the moment it begins to fall, that Time does not actually exist in that universe.

Noooo it is an analogy of how time can begin to exist. In order to do this, you have to start from a timeless state. The chandelier was in a timeless state before it moved, and entered into the temporal realm from that point on. The universe beginning to exist was an event that was simultaneous with the creation of time. Just like the the first moment of motion with the chandelier was simulatenous with it entering the temporal realm.

But I believe the manner in which you were expressing this idea is a bit confusing. Either the chandelier does not fall because no Time exists yet, or, it actively hangs while Time passes, and THEN at some point, falls [thus hanging eternally, until...].

Ahhh but why would it fall??? If it has been hanging for all eternity, and there is no outside interference, why would it all of a sudden fall??? And if it did fall, why didnt it fall sooner?? Why not later, especially if there is no outside interference. But if the chandelier had a brain within it (using our imagination just a little more), it could FREELY choose to fall at any point, or it could FREELY choose to hang there for eternity more. Now of course, by "freely choose", i mean that it would always have had the eternal will of either falling or hanging. Whatever its eternal will was.

Thats the point i was trying to drive home. Our universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. Why didnt it begin sooner, or later? This would only make sense if a transcendent being CHOOSE to create it at that SPECIFIC moment in time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am happy to hear that I must hav misunderstood you and you do infact agree with me that the background radiation says nothing about the future of the universe.

The CBR was a prediction of the standard model. Just more empirical evidence of the big bang.

That is just wrong.
if the density parameter was slightly above 1 the universe would expand for a very long time before collapsing.
We don't know the density is not large enough to stop the expansion, current data may indicate that but since this is work in progress we do not know.

Borde/Guth/Vilenkin

 

[YmirGF]

And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet.

Perhaps "you" have been looking in the wrong places, for the wrong things.

I am, however, sensing a nuanced meaning of transitional, so I doubt this list will impede the headlong charge of your argument, an iota.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koldo]

How can the explanation be impersonal when there was no physical reality prior to the universe??? If there is no nature prior to the universe, and yet something happened, the only explanation is personal.

What?! You are confusing 'personal explanation' ( which is an explanation that belongs to a person ) with an 'explanation that refers to a person', aren't you?

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

This doesn't make sense. The chandelier falling should represent the time. If the singularity was timeless then it had to exist as a physical object in your analogy.

If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life.

Why not?

God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.

Do you mean, prior to abiogenesis?

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

This also doesn't make sense. If the ball dropped from the air then the ball caused the imprint on the cushion. No simultaneous causation happening.

 

[gnostic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
If God is being represented by the chandelier, what is representing the singularity? If you want to describe the scenario where the time began, then it is important to pinpoint where exactly the singularity would be in this picture, and how the chandelier is interacting with it. If your analogy can't do this, then it is meaningless to our discussion.

The singularity is represented by the chandelier falling. Time began when the chandelier fell just like it began when the singularity began to expand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
Actually, everyone is born intelligent ( not to be confused with 'smart' ). And we develop our intelligence as we live. Also, if abiogenesis is accurate, intelligence did come from something that didn't have it ( unless you think inorganic matter possesses intelligence ).

There would be no abiogenesis if the universe didnt begin to exist. If there is a transcendent cause, then abiogenesis cannot be used as an explanation to explain the origin of life. God is the ultimate source of EVERYTHING. To pick one point on the timeline of 13.7 billion years and say "thats how it happened" without providing an explanation to what happened prior to that is how lies are spread and also how scientific religions are made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gnostic
How is the simultaneous causation happening in the cushion analogy ( considering the change from 'timeless to time' in your answer )?

A ball just resting on a cushion is an example of simultaneous causation. A ball that dropped from the air after being motionless for eternity is going from timeless to time.

I'm afraid that you're quoting from the wrong person. I didn't write any of those things.

 

[gnostic]

Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macro-evolution doesn't exist in the science world. It is the word that only Christian creationists would use.

 

[shawn001]

A dog is a different kind of animal than a horse. I understand this "species" business gets pretty iffy when it comes to animal classicfication. But nonetheless, a dog is a different kind of animal than a horse.



Yes



Macroevolution is a well defined concept in biology.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet.

"And Darwin believed that we would find the missing link/transitional fossils. We havent found them yet."

Yes we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This really hurts your credibility on science.

Evolution is a done deal and your comology supports it even. But all the sciences support it and the transional fossils are only part of the science. Chemistry, biology, archeology, modern genetics, geology and a whole lot more support it.

Which is why I guess when you said intelligence can't come from none intelligence you didn't get this from carl sagan, because that is what has happened over the last 4.57 billion years of the earth history.

Tell me how did the earth form and the moon?

 

[Daviso452]

Macro-evolution is defined, as a word is defined, but is not as well supported by evidence as micro-evolution.

As a sidenote, and I don't really care myself, but be careful with wiki articles. You can easily lose credibility, Wild.

p.s. I will admit I do not know too much about macro-evolution so go ahead and critiscize if I confused anything.

 

[terryboy]

This explains why dinosaurs went extinct