Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?

[IDemo]

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 07:36 PM - Edit history (2)

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

Here's how.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4

[jsr]

1. Bollocks.

[randome]

2. Um...okay.

So long as they acknowledge the science, I'm good with it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[CFLDem]

3. It does nothing of the sort.

But I guess anything goes when grasping at straws.

[closeupready]

54. +1.

It offers as much "proof" of pink unicorns as it does of a deity.

[Skraxx]

267. As God, I Have To Say That This Is Actually True, But None Of You Will Be Able to Comprehend Why

So I won't bother explaining it.

[mike_c]

4. oh FFS....

No.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Well, accordding to "Holy Writ"

"God" intends to destroy the planet any day now, so who cares?

[MoonRiver]

50. I wish he'd get on with it then.

Or just wipe out all the humans. Then Earth can get back to normal.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. I REALLY

wish the rapture was real and it would happen NOW!!

This planet would be soooo much nicer.

[MoonRiver]

58. Absolutely!

Get the humans the hell outtahere!

[CBGLuthier]

6. While it may be true that Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" he did so derisively.

He did not believe in it. He was a believer in steady state and later something he called quasi steady state.


As for the BB itself being a proof of god. Maybe. But not anything like the christian one. Somehow christian god separated the light from the darkness well before he ever created the sun. The fact that he also created plants before the sun is also rather odd.

[AgingAmerican]

7. Do they still call themselves 'news'?

nt

[C_U_L8R]

8. Chicken Noodle Network

Did somebody say noodle??

[Whisp]

14. Maybe god wants to bang that?

looks kinda sexy.

[qazplm]

9. I don't have a problem with it

I'm not a believer, but as long as they are agreeing with the science involved, I don't have an issue if they personally see it as proof of their individual religious beliefs.

[bowens43]

10. we are a country of idiots

[stillwaiting]

29. People are scared and overwhelmed so they believe fantastical things.

I have no idea what "reality" is or what, if anything, lies beyond this life. There are so many of life's mysteries that are simply incredible when considered.

But, I sometimes believe that "reality" is probably stranger than most of us have even begun to suspect.

[yuiyoshida]

77. I am truly leaning toward that

As a statement of truth.

[Cirque du So-What]

11. Judeo-Christianity hardly possesses a monopoly on 'big-bang' cosmology-as-theology

According to Hindu Philosophy, the universe (or multiverse) never came to be at some particular point, but always has been, always will be, but is perpetually in flux. Space and time are of cyclical nature. This universe is simply the current one, which is in flux and constantly changing, when it finally ceases to manifest, a new one will arise. An interesting parallel to these ideas can be found in the ekpyrotic model of the universe. This concept is also accepted by Buddhist Dharma.

This is similar to the Cyclical Universe Theory in physical cosmology. The Big Bang is described as the birth of the universe (Brahma), the life of the universe then follows (Vishnu), and the Big Crunch would be described as the destruction of the universe (Shiva).

In a number of stories from the Puranas the continual creation and destruction of the universe is equated to the outwards and inwards breaths of the gigantic cosmic Maha Vishnu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe

and on the subject of Judeo-Christian tradition:

The competing concept is linear time universe (LTU). The universe has indeed a beginning and possibly also an end. Time is a part, or a dimension, of the universe, rather than an illusion. Events never return to the same position again but existence is instead a constant evolution. Zarathushtra actually founded this concept and it has since been applied to the Abrahamic faiths. Therefore, these five alternatives all survive the implications of the big bang theory on their intellectual credibility.

http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/vohuman/Article/Zoroastrianism%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.htm

Looks like the Zoroastrians beat Moses to the punch.

[sufrommich]

12. Has religion always co-opted scientific fact once

it can no longer be denied? Yes,yes it has.

[redqueen]

34. THIS nt

[KansDem]

13. But first! This just in!

The latest report on Justin Bieber's sexy dance reunion with Selena Gomez!!! Is he no longer BFF with Taylor Swift!!!

(But first, a message from our sponsor...)

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. It is a blog

Hosted at CNN, that said, I have heard that argument for years. It's not new. And in their mind it explains science. In my mind it is far more complicated and proves not the existence if god. But I guess next they will argue how many quanta at the tip of a needle.

[IDemo]

24. Yeah, I just prepended the 'breaking news' in keeping with this weeks CNN-ism n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Well CNN news has been running that line of thought

Was it the rapture? They did go there. When the wife of billy Graham does, ok...I can dig it, it's her world view, CNN, not so much. So I am actually surprised they have not done that (proof of existence of god) in the main programming.

[Brother Buzz]

228. But that is Nooz!

Ruth Graham was raptured in 2007

[derby378]

16. Oh-oh, Chongo!!!

(Start at the 0:33 mark, since I've apparently forgotten how to code that)

[chrisa]

17. As a Christian, let me say:

Without fail, every single time these "proof of God" articles are simply arguments from ignorance (Science can't explain it, so God exists!) or the Watchmaker Analogy.

All I see are loosely associated verses to the Bible given false equivalencies to the Big Bang. God, if it does exist, cannot be proven by science. It's a futile endeavor.

[sarisataka]

30. Good reply

Science and religion can easily coexist as long as they remain in their own field.

God may or may not exist. If God exists, by the definition of omnipotence the existence cannot be proven. If there is no God, a negative cannot be proven. Science therefore is rather useless in this regard.

Religion is a guide on how to live with tangential stories of how things began. It doesn't explain thermodynamics nor how something may get around the laws of thermodynamics in a way humans can duplicate. The universe operates by the theories of science which explains almost everything observable. Religion must accept that science explains how things work. When there appears to be conflict between science and religion the onus is on the religious to reevaluate their understanding of that which they acknowledge cannot be fully understood

[catbyte]

18. No. Who made God? Hmmmm?

[backscatter712]

19. This breaking news just in: CNN is completely brain-damaged.

[LittleBlue]

20. CNN published this?

[Blue Owl]

21. Wolf Blitzer reporting live from the Speculation Room

[malaise]

37. DUzy

Perfect

[Iggo]

22. Idiots.

[Vashta Nerada]

23. What?

This is the dumbest piece of crap I have ever read.

[snooper2]

25. oh jesus u. christ on a fucking trolley really CNN?

We are trying to get people to understand religion is a farce, not make up shit and go the OTHER direction...


Fucking CNN...

[NuclearDem]

26. No. The Judeo-Christian concept of Yahweh has been defined as supernatural.

Methodological naturalism only examines the natural world. Supernatural is beyond the natural world. Therefore, no science using methodological naturalism will be able to prove or disprove the concept of Yahweh.

[NoOneMan]

27. Facepalm

Who died and made this idiot the new Thomas Aquinas

[seveneyes]

31. Humans created god

I don't know exactly why our universe was created. If intelligence made it, it can likely make and/or destroy it, and others like it.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. I want to believe that our universe was a being from another universe's equivalent to a...

5th grade science project that got way out of hand. That would be cool.

[yuiyoshida]

83. um...

Not if we get flushed down the toilet after the science fair!!!!

[lordsummerisle]

253. My philosophy professor in college

used to say, "God created Man in his own image and Man returned the compliment..."

[FiveGoodMen]

32. So, is god paying for all this advertising, or is CNN doing it for free?

[MisterP]

33. the inflationary era just proves Satan's real

the Big Bang itself is a mere hint!

[cthulu2016]

35. Nobody is this stupid... okay, yes they are

[Humanist_Activist]

38. How many giraffes does it take to change a light bulb?

Seriously, what the fuck does religion have to do with observations of reality?

[LiberalAndProud]

40. If I'm understanding the argument, if it happened then God did it.

And that's proof. Would that be the correct takeaway?

[Trillo]

105. That's pretty much my understanding of the article.

[Ron Obvious]

41. It's the usual way of these things...

First, strenuously deny the new model as being in conflict with revealed knowledge and persecute those who promote it as heretics.
Then, ignore the new model and hope it will go away.
Next, cautiously accept the new model as not being in conflict with revealed knowledge if read the right way, once the truth of the new model becomes obvious and impossible to ignore.
Finally, claim the revealed knowledge predicted this new model all along and point to some vague passages in the holy book.

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. If by "God" they mean Alan Guth's theory of hyperinflation, and Andrei Linde's theory of chaotic

infinite multiverses, whereby the quantum uncertainty false vacuum itself can decay into a series of universes which occasionally can randomly produce forces and laws which permit matter and life to occur, and whereby the produced universes similarly can contain patches of false vacuum which further decay into additional iterations of universes, in an endlessly self-replicating and expanding fractal of universes, all through a completely natural and scientifically explicable process...



then "yes", CNN, you're absolutely right, herp-derp.

[PCIntern]

43. I wish they would stop lumping "Judeo's" with Christians...

As a "Judeo", I'm really sick of it...these fundies have NO FUCKING IDEA what they're talking about when they talk about Jews. Trust me, I have studied my texts and literature for 61 years and I have yet to meet a Fundie who has the remotest notion of what Judaism means to Jews or to the Jewish people's heritage. Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of this shit.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I agree. Basically it's cover, so they can disguise the fact that it's really a fundy Xtian agenda

they're pushing.

In my experience the folks who go on about the "judeo-christian" this and that vis a vis politics don't actually give much of a shit about the "Judeo" part- witness what happens to Jewish kids in some of these Fundamentalist school districts. It's really about Jesus.

And it's worth noting that many of the most brilliant luminaries in theoretical physics, have been Jews.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

66. I always figured that everyone was geting the Judeo part wrong

It is really meant to be Judo as in martial arts.

Judo-Christian is the art form focused on using oversized Bibles to beat people over the head. They also do unarmed combat.

This can best be illustrated by a scene from Dead Alive

"I kick Ass for the Lord!"

[maxsolomon]

44. What is a "God"?

Did God make the big bang, or is God the big bang itself?

A Pantheist interpretation would assert that everything IS God: the explosion, the stars, the planets, the asteroids, the infinite size of space. To me, that's what this "proves", or perhaps merely doesn't disprove.

But it depends on what you think of as a God - a personified, Abrahamic creator being named Yahweh is most definitely NOT what this evidence proves.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. People more emotionally invested in getting you to affirm or deny a concept, than defining it

...see that shizz, all the time.

Some Korzybski, General Semantics would help. Of course, anyone who has spent any time hanging out with a 12 stepper knows that the word "God" can be contorted into all sorts of stuff, like a doorknob or a tree or the universe.

However, if a word can mean everything and anything, it stops meaning much at all.

IMHO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Did God do it Himself or contract it out? If so, He should fire the contractors.

The Fly

By and by the other creatures would be distributed here and there about the earth—scattered: the tigers to India, the lions and the elephants to the vacant desert and the secret places of the jungle, the birds to the boundless regions of empty space, the insects to one or another climate, according to nature and requirement; but the fly? He is of no nationality; all the climates are his home, all the globe is his province, all creatures that breathe are his prey, and unto them all he is a scourge and a hell.
To man he is a divine ambassador, a minister plenipotentiary, the Creator's special representative. He infests him in his cradle; clings in bunches to his gummy eyelids; buzzes and bites and harries him, robbing him of his sleep and his weary mother of her strength in those long vigils which she devotes to protecting her child from this pest's persecutions. The fly harries the sick man in his home, in the hospital, even on his deathbed at his last gasp. Pesters him at his meals; previously hunts up patients suffering from loathsome and deadly diseases; wades in their sores, gaums its legs with a million death-dealing germs; then comes to that healthy man's table and wipes these things off on the butter and discharges a bowel-load of typhoid germs and excrement on his batter-cakes. The housefly wrecks more human constitutions and destroys more human lives than all God's multitude of misery messengers and death-agents put together.

Mark Twain

[GeorgeGist]

48. There was no 'before'.

Bang On!

[Arugula Latte]

49. "offering strong support for biblical beliefs"

So we are to conclude the world is 4,000 to 6,000 years old, little planet Earth is the center of the universe and the focus of creation of a omnipotent deity who looks like a member of the homo sapiens species on this planet, we are the only life in the universe, and the last 2,000 years have been the most important ever (disregard those previous billions that those pesky scientists talk about) because a dead carpenter from ancient Judea has magical powers.

Got it, CNN.

[Scootaloo]

52. Only if it's turtles all the way down

Or whatever Abrahamists believe. I tend to forget.

[brooklynite]

53. UNREC

I agree that the piece is silly, but CNN has not described this as "BREAKING NEWS". Its a column on religion that shows up regularly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. After the "black hole ate MH370?" fiasco, I really thought this was going to be satire

but CNN has jumped the shark so spectacularly that it's becoming unspoofable.

[politicman]

57. both god and big bang rely on some sort of faith for they can never be proven beyond doubt

Honest question:

Although I love seeing the benefits of science (and science has improved our everyday lives immeasurably), I cannot grasp my head around the fact that everyone thinks that science can or will ever be able to explain how we came to be.

I say this because of the simple fact that everything has a beginning, something just does not come from nothing.

We are told the universe exploded into being from a single particle, but what will never be able to be explained is how the void that contained that particle existed in the first place. And even if they find a way to explain that, then it just brings up the question of how whatever was before that existed.

So whether one wants to believe that a higher being in God created the original 'whatever it is' that existed before the big bang OR whether one wants to believe that the 'whatever it is' that existed before the big bang was just always there with no starting point as to how it came into existence, I see no difference.

We could never ever have absolute proof of how the 'whatever it is' before the big bang came into existence (and what was before that and before that and so on), and we could never ever have absolute proof of a higher being.
Both options rely on some sort of faith in something that can never be proven.

[FiveGoodMen]

61. "something just does not come from nothing"

In your day-to-day experience.

Quantum particles seemingly appear and disappear with no know cause.

[politicman]

65. but didnt there need to be something forthe particles to appear in.

I wasn't talking about quantum particles, I was talking about the 'space' that the universe banged into.

Look if we have an explosion here on earth, the explosion explodes in the air surrounding us.
So if the universe exploded into being and the universe is the be all and end all, then it stands to reason that there had to be something that the universe exploded into.

Even the quantum particle themselves needed something to appear in and out of.
So like I said, something just does not appear from nothing.

Until one day scientists are able to create experiments to prove their theories, then they are just that, theories that require faith.

So believing in god requires faith because he can never be proved, and believing in scientific theories that can never be proved requires faith.

2 sides of the same coin I say.

[politicman]

81. dont natural processes need conditions for them to occur in

I don't mind us trying to explain them, we will get immeasurable advances in science and improvements to our lives from the science that, but the point remains, there will never be any way that we can definitively prove what theories we come up with.

Simply because there will always be the underlying question of what came before the explanation we come up with.

Natural processes may explain some of it, but it can never explain all of it.
Because the natural processes we have in our world came from the natural processes that came before it, namely the universe coming into being.
So it leaves the basic question of 'from where did the natural processes that our universe resulted from, come into being?'

See if we use natural processes as an explanation then there will always have to have been something that proceeded it, something that created the conditions for the natural processes to occur in.

If we say those conditions just always existed, then we are effectively believing in something that can never have an explanation, which is exactly what religions believe in.

[politicman]

147. science has it immeasurable benefits but it is inacapable of answering the question

Neither do I, I think that looking for answers has and will continue to improve our lives immeasurably.

But for those that say that religion is a myth because it has no scientific basis behind it, I say that after exhausting the question 'what came before that' one has to recognise an answer will never ever be evident or provable.

Some might say that's a good thing because it makes science continually strive to get an answer and not stop, and this will bring wonderful advances with it, to that I say full speed ahead.

But don't disparage those that believe in a higher being as the thing that created the materials and conditions for our universe beginning if you cannot and will never be able to provide a complete and tested explanation.

[politicman]

169. thanks for your answer

No problem, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I was talking about those people on here that verbally disparage anyone that believes in religion.

Could I ask you then, to the best of your knowledge, do you think that the big bang occurred as a result of elements that were already present, or do you think that the big explosion just occurred out of nothing?

[politicman]

173. this is fun now

Thanks again for your answers, the shed some light on what you have been saying but I am still not sure they explain the very beginning of the universe, or the very beginning of the process that became what we consider the beginning.

We are all agreed that there are particles in space, right? That those particles were present before the big nag if believe it was only one big bang, or the original explosion that caused the replicating multiverses.

Now if like you say 'nothing' has something in it, then surely it ceases to be nothing?
I mean we look at space itself and it looks like nothing, but we know that it infact is was made from something and still has things in it that make it up.

So logically, if we are going to posit that there was one big bang or a series of never ending bangs, then logical dictates that there has to have been a reason the bang happened. What was that reason?

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. Facepalm

Until one day scientists are able to create experiments to prove their theories, then they are just that, theories that require faith.

Ok, I was going to stop, have you heard of CERN? What do you think they do at CERN? They are creating those experiments to test their theories...so yes, we pretty much know a lot about quantum and even the Higgs Bosom, which was fully theoretical until last year.

And I might add CERN is not the only high energy physics lab either.

How do you think we got the latest announcements referenced in the OP? Thin air? Not quite...deep space observations, direct observations.

As suspected, no idea what you are discussing.

[politicman]

157. you think you so smart huh

That sentence of mine referred to scientists not being able to recreate the big bang because as you can imagine the forces involved would be immense, basically the size of the universe immense

So the find the 'god particle' and they think that that explains the beginning our universe? If anything they have completed one tiny piece of a massive puzzle, they are yet to even attempt to explain from where that 'god particle' came from.

They are yet to attempt to explain how the 'god particle' could be so powerful as to cause an explosion so immense that it create 13.3 billions years of universe.

And if the universe required unhuman amounts of that particle to exist for the big bang, then where did those unhuman amounts come from.
Did they just appear out of nowhere, and even if they did appear out of nowhere, how could they appear into nothing cause as you say there was nothing before the big bang?

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. Actually they have

But you would have to read a lot more than you are.

As to origins, what do you think they do at CERN? I know, play pretend. At least according to you.

Look, you have no idea, you make statements such as they have to make those experiments, which they are. Every year knowledge continues to advance by leaps in fact. Oh and yes, if trends continue, the pews will be pretty empty by 2100 even in the United States. That must be very scary.

[politicman]

161. wow

wow, you still continue to deflect rather than provide an answer for the questions I ask.

Ill try it this way for you:

The Higgs-Boson particle they found, did they not need some space to develop it in? Keep in mind that doesn't matter how infinitesimal the space required for the Higgs-Boson particle they found is, it is still space. Meaning that the particle occupies an infinitesimal amount of space of the earth,

SO

If you can answer how this particle on its own or in the amount of quadrillions could inhabit space that didn't exists before the big bang, I will concede that you are right and I am wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. I know you are having a problem with the concept of nothingness

But that is what existed before the Big Bang. Nothing, nada, zero matter, NYET, emptiness. Yes, it came from nothing. Yup, hard to comprehend. The Higgs is a particle post Bang, post plank, post early stages of space time, before strong and weak and gravity itself. It is part of the glue that holds the Universe together.

I am sorry you are having such a hard time comprehending it. I admit, not an easy concept to wrap your mind around. And at this point, I doubt you will be able to wrap your mind around it. If you wish to try to comprehend it, Hawking's a brief history is a good intro. I highly recommend it.

For the moment, we are far more than just done. I just hope you do the reading for the sake of your children. But what I said about Pews, New Zealand is preceding us by fifty years, so are a few European nations. We will follow, if the species does not commit suicide. It is a natural evolution, as knowledge increases and becomes main stream.

[politicman]

170. thanks for your answer, if you could expand a little more

Believe me I don't refer to the Higgs-Boson as the 'god particle' because I think it has some mystical connotation to it, I refer to as such because a particle that supposedly started everything is the same thing that us believers that the almighty started everything.
But I will refer to it and Higgs-Boson from now on, ok.

With that said, if the Higgs-Boson really was the particle that started us on our journey to life, then where do you think the Higgs Boson came from? Did it just appear from nothing?

Cause if I am reading you right, you are saying that the Higgs-Boson being balanced out with negative gravity was the same as nothing existing? Am I right?

Also, where di the negative energy come from? Did it just also happen to be present?

[politicman]

174. I apologise for my mistake

You are right, I phrased what I was trying to say wrong.

Let me try again:

The Higgs-Boson which as you have pointed out provides mass.
The question I should have asked is: where to the best of your knowledge do you think that the particles that the Higgs-Boson gave mass to came from? Were they just always present, or did they come from something?


Not to mention the Higgs-Boson itself, was it just ever present or did it come from somewhere? Or was there a process that happened earlier that the Higgs-Boson was left over from?

Lastly, to the best of your knowledge, what do you think there was before the big bang or the series of big bangs that make up the multiverse? Was there anything, or was it just simply nothing (keeping in mind that surely particles existed otherwise the Higgs couldn't give them mass)?

[Silent3]

268. Does a prosecutor in a murder case have to kill the victim over again to "prove" murder?

If you think the only thing that counts as proof is exact replication of results -- as if the only thing that would count as "proof" of the Big Bang would be recreating the Big Bang, and nothing less -- you haven't a clue how science works.

And if you were being honest with yourself, not blinded by an emotional need to defend a theological position, you'd probably notice how much you accept many other things without anywhere near so arbitrarily stringent a standard of proof, you'd notice how you were selectively applying a ridiculous standard only where it's convenient for you to do so.

[jpak]

197. Theories are the equivalent of scientific facts.

And Theories are predictive.

The Big Bang Theory has predicted many things.

Like the cosmic abundances of hydrogen, helium and lithium isotopes.

Like Cosmic Backgound Radiation

Like Inflation.

All have been experimentally observed and verified and provide robust support for the Big Bang Theory.

No faith required.

Faith Based Fail.

Yup

[politicman]

201. really?

So you are telling me that no theories that have ever been posited have ultimately proved to be wrong?

Because if just one theory has been proven to be wrong with newer technology, then how can you be so sure that all the theories wont be proved wrong eventually?

So the big bag has been observed and verified? It has solid evidence behind it so that they can reproduce it at will?

[jpak]

209. All theories can be falsified - with verifiable evidence.

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

That is the difference between scientific theories - our best explanation of natural phenomena based on a large body of evidence - and superstition.

The Big Bang Theory has stood the test of time and the cosmic consequences it predicted have been observed and verified.

Just like the Theory of Evolution.

and Cell Theory

and The Theory of Island Biogeography.

etc.

Yup

[cthulu2016]

62. You're thinking in human terms about inhuman topics

There is no obvious state of "before the big bang" since time was created in it, along with space.

As to what was/is outside our universe, it is unknowable.

This does not, however, allow a reasonable person to speculate that "god" created the big bang.

If I state that next weeks super lotto numbers are 32-12-11-04-22 you can not prove me wrong, but that does not make my statement reasonable. I have no basis for it.

The unknowable is not an intellectual free-fire zone where anything can run riot without rules. It is merely the unknowable.

And a person claiming knowledge of the unknowable is, obviously, not correct in doing so.

[politicman]

63. isnt that what religion is, believing in something higher than humans and human topics

'You're thinking in human terms about inhuman topics
There is no obvious state of "before the big bang" since time was created in it, along with space.'

But isn't that what people who believe in a higher being are saying, that they believe in something that is not a human, something that brought time and space and everything we are right now into being.

If you acknowledge that we are talking about inhuman topics, then how can you have a problem with people believing in a higher being that brought all this.

Like I said, as we can never ever have absolute proof as to what there was before the big bang, then one can never ever disprove that a higher being created it.

Science is good, but science has its limitations. We can have scientific theories, but they are just that. If we cannot prove them through experiments, then they remain theories, and as such require faith.
Which is what believers in religion do, they have faith in a higher being, scientists have faith in an unproven theory.

And it will always remain an unproven theory because no matter how much scientists are able to explain, there will always remain the question of 'what was before that?'

Like I said earlier, one cannot get something from nothing.

How can you be so scornful of people who believe in something higher than humans when you yourself said that these are inhuman topics?

[HuckleB]

85. Religion is completely based in human perception.

All the "miracles" are human imagination. What we're finding out about the universe is so far beyond that. Thus, we see no justifiable comparison in religious literature to what we're learning about the universe.

[politicman]

93. Miracles may be human imgaination, but so is belieing that something just always existed.

You are right, science can explain a lot more than religion can.

But the basic fundamental of religion is that it believes in a higher being, a god that created the first conditions for the natural processes that the universe was borne of.
This has its own problems, as someone can just as easily ask, where did god come from, etc.


The way I see it, is if someone wants to believe and have faith in a god that cant be explained, it is no different than someone believing and having faith that the conditions that the universe was borne of just always existed.

See where I am going with this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. 13.3 Billion years is not, in any way, shape or form, always.

On the other end is 20 billion. They might as well be given the average life span is 75 and we might reach 110...

If you chose to believe in alpha and omega as these two numbers that is your choice. But these numbers have nothing to do with faith. Also we are not only getting better in the theoretical physics side of things, but also in the experimental side of it. So yes, CERN is getting pretty damn good at recreating those conditions close to that point in massive accelerators.

Higgs-Bosom was theoretical, now we know we have proof. Hell, the evidence to expansion just shattered the speed limit in the universe (speed of light)

Now I was half joking when I said that soon we would have discussions on how many quarks exist on the head of a pin and that is a theological and philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

The wonder of science is not finding about god, that is entirely a human construct, but finding our place in the universe. You wish to touch upon the philosophy cosmologists do though, in some ways astronomy is humbling, but you have to ask if you and me asking these questions is a way for life to express itself? That to me is philosophy of science in action, but not faith.

[politicman]

107. doesnt matter the age of the universe, where did the original conditions for the universe come from.

You make some good points, but unfortunately those points don't answer the original questions of what was there before the universe came into being.

Now let me explain, 13.3 billions years ago is what we are told is the minimum number of years that the universe hasexisted for. That number could be a zillion years and it would still not explain the above question.

As I said to someone else, everything has a beginning or the conditions for a beginning to eventuate.

So things that have come into being in our world had the conditions to come into being, namely our world.

Our world had the conditions to some into being, namely the universe.

So then we ask what conditions were in place for the universe to come into being and where did those conditions come from?

And so on and so on.
The question is infinite because we know that for something to exist, it needs the conditions to be available for it to start existing.


As no matter what explanation the scientist come up with, the question can still be asked (keeping in mind that this question can be infinite), at some point the answer will have to be that the conditions for the original particle, entity, whatever you want to call just existed.

And so if we are to eventually end up at the 'conditions just existed' theory, that is in essence having faith in something we can never explain, no different from religion really.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. You insist on faith

How many quarks dance on the head of a pin? It used to be how many angels? It's the same question, and outside of the purview of science. You are asking me to say a creator had a hand in this ultimately. I don't believe in god, creator, or whatever other name you desire to use for this supernatural being, so you are not going to get the answer you seek. At least not from me.

We have reached the point where obviously you do, and I don't. Nor do I need that creator to marvel at evolution, and yes, I and you and everything else on this planet, is star dust, not the result of any intelligent designer. So at an impasse we are.

[politicman]

127. please dont think I want you to believe or say what you are against, thats your perogative.

I don't want you say anything, I just put up these arguments as a way to show that those people that think that believing in religion is a bad thing are wrong.

I have always lived thinking that others can think and believe what they want as long as they don't disparage me for my own beliefs and as long as they don't force unproven 'facts and theories' on me.
And obviously I make sure not to do the same to those that don't believe.

But just because I debate a point does not mean that I want to you admit or say something that I want, its just fun to debate and discuss things.

The more debate the better we are for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. The creator is not science

That is theology. The Big Bang, gravity, evolution, those are theories.

You cannot debate theology (which requires blind faith, God gave the tablets to Moses is an article of faith, Christ died and was resurrected is an article of faith). With science. We know how gravity works, we have equations to explain it. It is not faith. We know how electricity works, Maxwell explained that very well using math, it is not faith. It might seem like magic if you do not understand it, but it is fully explained.

Articles of faith just are. There is no explanation to them.

We know how evolution works, perfectly well. We even know why climate change is happening. There are no mysteries.

There is no debate. You want to discuss theology, have at it, but really trying to insert a creator into science is not going to happen. Not even when you bring mathematical paradoxes into the mix, yet it is called the Russian doll paradox, cutesy name.

[politicman]

141. how about his simple question

Do you agree that everything has to have a beginning or at least the conditions for the beginning to come into existence?

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Answered bellow

[cthulu2016]

222. No. That is a human micro-perception

Everything in our lives, on our scale, within our universe, has a beginning. It is almost impossible for a human being to really conceptualize a thing without a beginning. (I know I can't)

It does not follow that everything has a beginning. Everything is not limited to what I can conceptualize.

[politicman]

223. why is your faith in soemthing you cannot conceptaulize more valid than mine

Ok, if you agree that everything is not limited to what we can conceptualize, then why is it so absurd to many progressives that a higher being that we can also not conceptualise actually exists?

I don't claim to have proof of this higher being, I go purely on faith because I believe there are things that we cannot conceptualize, you also believe that the universe contains things that humans cannot conceptualize, so why is a higher being not taken seriously.

Both sets of ideas (mine and yours) require that we have faith in something that we don't understand, something that our human minds are unable to conceptualize, so why is my faith more absurd than yours.

[LostOne4Ever]

64. Something from nothing

I cannot grasp my head around the fact that everyone thinks that science can or will ever be able to explain how we came to be.

Not everyone thinks that. However, that does not mean it won't one day do just that.

I say this because of the simple fact that everything has a beginning, something just does not come from nothing.

How do you know this? X had to come from Y. Y had to come from Z. Z had to come from what? It is endless if EVERYTHING had to have a beginning. IE the turtles all the way down argument.

Either A) Something can come from nothing or B) Not everything has to have a beginning and that the multiverse has ALWAYS been here in one form or another. Neither possibility requires a god.

Expanding on A) Its possible that nothing is unstable and gives birth to something. There is a theory that the net sum of all the energy in the universe is zero supporting this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_Universe

We could never ever have absolute proof of how the 'whatever it is' before the big bang came into existence (and what was before that and before that and so on), and we could never ever have absolute proof of a higher being.
Both options rely on some sort of faith in something that can never be proven.

We can never have ABSOLUTE proof of anything. I can not guarantee that im not dreaming or have a delusion of talking on DU right now. What we can have is reasonable proofs based on evidence and observations of how the world we perceive beyond us operates.

Thus the difference between the two faiths. One is based on evidence and a track record of achievements and the other is not.

[politicman]

69. can you have an explosion into nothing? doesnt there have to be something to have the explosion in?

Sure we can have absolute evidence of things. We have absolute evidence that certain medicines cure disease. W found this out through experiments.
We have absolute evidence that splitting atoms can create huge explosions. etc, etc because we have conducted experiments that prove such.

What we will never be able to conduct an experiment on is how the universe cam into being. We can make theories on things that we think we know, you may think those theories are valid based on what we think we know, but we also know that many theories are proven to be wrong once we are able to conducts experiments on them.

Again having faith in scientific theory with no way to ever prove that theory is the same as having faith in a higher being.
Both require something that can never be proven, both require believing in something outside our human capacity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Multiverse might be the actual explanation

Though I grant you cosmology gets weird.

[politicman]

91. half an explantion I think

Multi-verse might be a partial answer, but still leaves the question of how the multi-verse began.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. In my mind the more we learn

The less god will play a role, a terrifying prospect I grant you for some folks. What will rise is quite possibly a different form of spirituality. One in which we see ourselves as a minor part, a grain of sand maybe, on a spiral arm, of an average galaxy.

Of course, god could be a 15 year old playing Civ (holographic theory of the universe grossly simplified) so hope there is no hard boot of the computer, and would we know?



Personally the Hindus might have been closer (by accident) with their idea that universes come and go ever the aeons.

(I hate auto correct)

[politicman]

101. please keep in mind that religion is in essence a belief in a originator.

However someone wishes to define god, a 15 year old playing Civ or something a lot more advanced, the point remains that there has to be something behind everything.

Religion doesn't define who or what god is, religion is based on faith that there is something that was the originator.

Thus having a belief in religion is not so outrageous after all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. You are inserting, forcing theology, into something where

It has no place.

That is your prerogative, but don't expect others to agree.

[politicman]

110. not inserting, just saying there is no difference in faiths

I am not inserting or forcing anything.

All I am doing is arguing that believing in a higher being is no different than believing that 'what ever the conditions that allowed the universe to come into being, just existed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. You are once again inserting belief

Where none exists.

Belief does not require testing, or for that matter particle accelerators and higher math. You either have it or not. Science has hypothesis that are tested, and when found wanting discarded and replaced or modified.

For example, we just found evidence that Einstein's absolute speed limit...might not be absolute after all. There is no gnashing of garments, or screams of heresy, or anything like that.

[politicman]

119. pleased read carefully.

Again I am not inserting beliefs anywhere.

All I am doing is pointing out that no matter how far back you go, there will always be the questions of what was before that.
And seeing as how everything has a beginning, then that question becomes infinite.


See, unless the answer is that something just always existed, then it has to have a beginning, whether that be the conditions for something to come into existence, or whether that be a particle of some kind that started the original process which also needed the conditions to begin existing.

Now, all I am saying is seeing as how the questions of 'what came before that or how did the conditions come about' is infinite, then no answer can ever be adequate to explain the original, original process that kicked everything off.

That then requires a belief in something that can never be explained, thus acting the same way that rellgion does.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. You are referring to a math paradox

If you want to go that way.

[politicman]

129. do you have a better way

Do you have a better paradox which we can apply this question to?

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. It is called the Russian Doll paradox

It is an advanced mathematical exercise. You want to believe in a creator, that is your prerrogative, that is faith, not science.

[politicman]

142. ok...

Same question to you that I asked another poster:

Do you agree that something has to have a beginning or at least the conditions for the beginning to exist it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. In theology, yes

In physics, not necessary.

I should expand this. Theology presupposes a creator, a force, that intelligently designed the universe.

Physics does not need that requirement. I understand, after reading your statement on both evolution and the Big Bang that you do not believe in them. Not to be too fascitious, how about gravity? I am not even going to ask about tje weak and strong force? Because gravity is a product of expansion and the Big Bang.

[politicman]

149. gravity yes, something appear out of nowhere with no conditions for it to occur, no i dont believe

Oh yes I definitely believe in gravity, as I can see it in action. I throw a ball into the air, it comes back down.
We see pictures or the earth from space, it is round yet we still stand on its surface. Gravity I definitely believe in because we see and experience it.

Please don't think I am a flat earther type, I am not that far gone


Seriously though, I am willing to change my whole beliefs if I see concrete evidence or concrete answers to questions. But when the best answer I get is that God is mythical while at the same time telling me that something can just start from nothing or that no conditions are required for something to start its beginning, I am not exactly ready to leap into those ideas.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. But it arose from the Big Bang

About the first second or so. It is one of the earliest pieces of evidence at the quantum level, together with the weak and strong force of the Big Bang, we are talking 1950s or so.

Before you continue these discussions, and trust me, my knowledge and understanding comes from general readings, nor specialized, you need to do a lot of reading. You really do not understand either religious epistemology, or scientific epistemology. They are close, but not the same thing.

And you are discussing theories, for which we have pretty damn good evidence. The Russian Box paradox, we don't have as much. Neither gravity, evolution, or the Big Bang are up for debate in the scientific community. We understand how evolution works. To the point we can direct it, either by controlled breeding or genetic engineering. We can also take your genome, and pretty much tell you what diseases you have a pretty good chance of getting. We are pretty close to developing medicines targeted to individuals.

Serious, this is not that hard, but requires you do some serious reading.

And one more thing, belief in an intelligent creator will get you laughed out of a scientific convention, but not the creation museum... Think about that one.

I would say we are pretty much done.

[politicman]

154. thanks, leave you to ponder these questions.

OK then, thanks for the debate/discussion.

Can I just say before we finish, that I whether the big bang really was the start of our universe in no way disproves a higher being.

I say this not to be difficult, I say this simply because like I have said many times before, everything has a beginning or at least the conditions for a beginning to come into existence.

If we accept that life began on earth as a result of the conditions of earth, and we accept that the earth formed as a result of the conditions of the universe (after the big bang if you like), then why is it so hard to believe that the universe came into existence as a result of whatever was before that, and whatever was before that came as a result of whatever preceded that, etc.

Which then leaves us with the question being a never ending question as everything needed something for it to come into existence.


Are we really going to argue that all life on earth came about because of conditions on earth, and that earth came about because the conditions of matter in space, but that the big bang didn't need any matter or conditions to occur? Really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Yes really

And panspermia is real too. That back and forth is leaning on life and the elements coming from outside the planet in comets early in the geological history of the planet.

I do not need a god in science, that is theology. Those are two different fields. They went into a magnificent divorce starting with the Earth moves. (Thank you Galileo)

1500 years of arguing about angels. 500 years of vaccines, pasteurization, electricity, internal engine, applied science, I could go on.

Not to insult, but your world view more properly belongs in the years before 1500 or so.

[politicman]

158. If you want to insult go ahead, just makes your inability to provide answers

And that's exactly what I am saying.

If life came and elements came from comets early on, then where did those comets come from.
Oh I bet you will say comets came from matter in the universe, just like the earth formed from matter in the universe.

But you cant explain how the universe formed without its own matter.


And that's your problem, you insult but don't even attempt to answer the question of how you think the universe just came into existence with the big bang if there were no matter or any kind of materials to form the big bang.

ha.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. I know exactly where they came from

Not hard. It is called universe evolution, as well as disk collapse and waves from previous stellar explosions.

And we are not that special either.

Seriously, do some reading. Maybe even watch Cosmos, you might learn something.

[politicman]

162. am i reading you right

So am I reading you right, that you are saying that before the big bang there were disk collapse and waves from stellar explosions that resulted in particle either being left over of formed?

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. Wrong. That is well after

Sol is a third generation star. Supernovae and dust created the conditions for the solar system to acrete...and asteroids, part of the Oort Cloud, go way back to the early solar system. None of this is a mystery. Early in our geological history we had an era called the heavy bombardment. We got both the basics elements of life and water during it. No water, no life.

None of this is a mystery.

And no, we are not that special.

[politicman]

168. great, now we are getting somewhere

In that case, seeing as how learned you are, please enlighten me on how the big bang occurred?

Did it just explode out of nothing? or was there elements that came together to cause the explosion?

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. Yes, it came from nothing

Even the ancients had no problem with that concept, and trust me they stumbled onto it.

Some cosmologists believe that an extra particle of matter in an otherwise perfect balance of matter-antimatter led to it, but that is just a theory.

And it is not me being learned. Genesis one and two, which contradict each other in fundamental ways understood the concept of nothing into something. But Babylonians invented astronomy in some ways and those two are ultimately two different Babylonian myths. So did the Chilam Balam, the Maya Origin myth, and the Indian origin story. There are others. But ancient people were capable of this thought process, like modern scientists are.

It is some modern humans, some, who seem to have a hell of a time with it.

Yup, from nothing into something. What's so hard? And we are not getting anywhere. You are playing cute games.

At this point it's entertaining...

[politicman]

177. this is fun is it not:)

HAHA, no believe me we are getting somewhere.

Ok, so you already know my opinion that a higher power exists, and you think its baloney, which is your prerogative.

But seeing as how you think there are real explanations to things that I think are mystical, then all I can do is challenge you to explain your ideas on these real explanations.

Ok, so according to science, the universe came from nothing.

Actually, no that is wrong, there was energy before the big bang, no? This energy that resulted in the big bang, where did it come from? Did it just exist forever with no beginning?

(please keep in mind, I am asking about the energy that was swirling around before the big bang, not the energy or particles left after the bang)The energy that the Higgs-Boson gave mass to.


Lastly, I understand the science says the big bang was more of an expansion than an explosion. So I wont ask about the entire universe as apparently it expanded the way a balloon does. I want to ask about the particular singularity at which point the expansion started, what space did that singularity occupy? Was there something there for the singularity to occupy?

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. No it is not fun

There are books, crack them open and read them.

Have a good day.

[NuclearDem]

113. Then who created the originator?

Talk about an infinite regress.

[politicman]

122. exactly, bot ideas require faith, so why is anyone calling out the other for being wrong.

Exactly, both ideas require faith.

The originator runs into the obstacle of who created him/it, and the theories of scientists run into the obstacle of what created the conditions their theories rely on.

Both ideas require faith, so neither of the theories can ever be proved right.

To those that want to believe in science, I still respect. But to those that believe in religion I extend the same respect.

To each their own as long as they don't push me to believe whatever they believe without first proving it to be fact

[NuclearDem]

128. The "creator" or "originator" is not a theory.

The Big Bang is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Fine, let science and religion exist. But they have absolutely no business interfering with each other's domains.

[politicman]

132. to each their won I say

You are right, 'creator' or 'originator' is not a theory.
But neither is the inevitable answer we end up with when the 'what was the ultimate beginning?' question is exhausted, because the only answer could eventually be that something always just existed.

I have no problem with both science and religion existing beside each other, I believe in a higher being but I also believe that science improves our lives. Call me a new age religious nut

[NuclearDem]

136. When it comes to matters of science, there is no "to each their own."

And there is an ultimate explanation to the beginning of the universe, and it's not something that "just always existed." It's the Big Bang.

It's extremely difficult to conceptualize absolute nothingness, but as far as we know, the Big Bang started from nothing.

[politicman]

145. so the big bang didnt need any materials to occur.

So what you are saying is that the Big Bang needed no raw materials to occur?

That this metaphorical or actual explosion (which ever you want to believe) just came into existence from nothing, from no materials?


And lets say you believe that, what did this explosion explode into? Was there some sort of void? Was there this tiny tiny dot that just always existed and the big bang expanded it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

241. Not in the conventional sense you are thinking off

sorry if this is so confusing. A few books could help, but I see you are just playing games.

In other words, you are shit stirring the pot.

[Arugula Latte]

116. An "ultimate creator" origin seems unlikely --

It is true that explanations for how it all began are still very hazy to our homo sapien primate minds, which have only existed for a relative blip in the context of life on Earth, let alone life in the universe, but that in no way should lead anyone to conclude that attributing it all to the work of some invisible omnipotent creature makes any sense whatsoever.

[politicman]

125. ....

And attributing the very start of our existence (whether it be a small particle or the conditions for a small particle to come into existence) just always existed makes more sense.

Keep in mind, that something always has a beginning, there is always something that precedes something, always conditions that allow something to come into existence.
And when we figure out one of those, we are left we the next question, 'well what preceded that?', so the question becomes infinite unless you argue that something just always existed with no beginning what so ever.

[Arugula Latte]

130. Adding a creator into the mix just moves it all back a place.

So matter came into being (at least, that is how our human minds are grasping it at this point, but there is probably some other way to think about it), but saying that a god or deity or magical creature of some sort was the originator of the matter is grasping at straws and paints a scenario that is much less likely, to say the least.

[politicman]

140. I can say the same about matter just coming into existence from nothing

It might be grasping at straws as you say, but I can easily say that same thing about how matter can just come into existence from nothing or from no conditions for that matter to come into existence.

See its 2 sides of the same coin.

[NuclearDem]

131. "unless you argue that something just always existed with no beginning what so ever."

That's called special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

[politicman]

139. ok then....

Ok, so that leaves the next question, if everything comes from something, what were the raw materials that eventually made up the universe, and where did they come from?

And when you answer that, you have the same question for your new answer and so on.

[LostOne4Ever]

76. Those absolute are not as absolute as you think

The medicine might not be what is curing you but the beverage you are taking them with. It could be the combination of an inactive ingredient with something you eat.

There are no absolute certainties in science. None. Every experiment has margins of error and uncertainty calculated within.

The fact that we can not even be 100% of our own reality further proves this.

What we will never be able to conduct an experiment on is how the universe cam into being. We can make theories on things that we think we know, you may think those theories are valid based on what we think we know, but we also know that many theories are proven to be wrong once we are able to conducts experiments on them.

You are stating your opinion as fact here. Just because we can't concoct an experiment on how the universe came into being now does not mean we won't be able to do so in the future. At one time the idea of man flying seemed impossible. Now we fly around the world in less than 24 hours and have landed on the moon.

Also, if it is a THEORY it already has evidence and experiments testing them. A theory is more than a guess. It is a tested and verified explanation of a phenomena that has been replicated and peer reviewed extensively.

Further, of those theories that were shown be incorrect, they were proven incorrect by science itself. Thus the greatest part of science, it is self correcting. Just because the first space shuttle crashed, we didn't stop there.

Again having faith in scientific theory with no way to ever prove that theory is the same as having faith in a higher being.
Both require something that can never be proven, both require believing in something outside our human capacity.

Again, you have a faulty understanding of what the word theory means. Theories have been tested. If it was just a guess it would be called a hypothesis. So AGAIN, one is faith in something with no evidence backing it up, and the other (faith in science) is faith based upon evidence and proof.

EDIT:

Also, don't think of the big bang as a literal explosion like you see on TV.

[politicman]

90. heres another way to put it.

Ok, think of it this way:

Things in our world come into being because we have the conditions for the things to become, basically our world.

Our world came into being simply because we had the conditions for our world to become, namely the universe.

So if our universe came into being, then it too must have had conditions for it to become, what ever that was.

And there had to be conditions for that 'what ever it was' to come into being and so on and so on.


Now if we want to say the conditions that allowed our universe to come into being were just always there, then we have stopped using science and are relying on faith.

So basically, as we will never ever be able to figure out the conditions that allowed the natural process to start (because that question is infinite and can never be answered), then at some point we have to believe that something just always existed, thus we then require faith in something that we can never answer.

[LostOne4Ever]

213. I understand your view

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

But its just the turtles all the way down argument rephrased in a new way.

Those conditions would have to have conditions which would have to have conditions and so forth on and on to infinity. Meaning that either there is no beginning (ie the multiverse itself is eternal) or that eventually you have to have something coming from nothing.

In other words one of your premises HAS to be wrong. Either that all things have to have conditions for which it to come from, or that

Again, for the something that comes from nothing works according to your argument. The original condition is that there is nothing. Nothingness is unstable and therefore gives birth to something. The zero-sum energy universe model fits that. Put into mathematicals terms think of zero as being the universe at the very beginning and 1 and -1 being positive and negative energy.

0=1+(-1)

The sum of the energy in the universe is still zero, but zero is unstable and gives birth to something (+1 and -1). The initial conditions are 0. This condition does not need conditions of its own to come into being.

Again, this goes back to the turtles all the way down argument. Which is based on the idea that everything must be supported. The world according to one myth is supported on the back of a giant turtle. But what is supporting that turtle? Another turtle. And that turtle? Another turtles. Its turtles all the way down into infinity.

One way or another the initial premise must be wrong. Either there does not need to be a beginning and those turtles are going on to infinity or something somewhere does not need to be supported. What did we learn thousands upon thousands of years later? The world is not support at all! Its floating is space.

Now if we want to say the conditions that allowed our universe to come into being were just always there, then we have stopped using science and are relying on faith.

No, we are basing it on deductive logic and evidence. In particular the first law of thermodynamics which has a TON of evidence supporting it.

Again, there is a HUGE difference in blind faith, and evidence based faith. One has a foundation of nothing, and the other a foundation of proof.

So basically, as we will never ever be able to figure out the conditions that allowed the natural process to start (because that question is infinite and can never be answered), then at some point we have to believe that something just always existed, thus we then require faith in something that we can never answer.

Again, you don't know if we will or if we wont be able to figure it out. But even if we never do, you do not have to believe that something always existed. Again nothingness could be unstable and the zero sum universe hypothesis (note its not a theory) supports that.

[politicman]

217. theories can apparently explain alot if they never are able to be tested, dont you think

Ok, I read your post where you claimed that something can come from nothing, and you do make some good points that can be supported by math.

BUT unfortunately math alone does not mean it is the explanation.

I am ready right now, right here to renounce my beliefs (seriously) if you or anyone in the scientific community can show me an experiment that produces something from nothing.
(Please keep in mind that I am asking for something from absolutely nothing, not the particles and atoms that currently we are made and are all around us, but something that doesn't exist at the moment that you can conjure up from nothing)

I see people every day that look at magicians that pluck rabbits from empty hats, and those people would swear that it was magic because they could not find an explanation for the trick, that the magician plucked the rabbit from thin air. Now I don't believe that as I know that it is an illusion and the rabbit actually came from some where.
So I ask you, if I were to show you a magician pluck something from thin air, would you believe that he actually produced something that didn't exist, or would you believe that the rabbit always existed but there was an explanation behind the trick.

The same applies to the start of our universe. Am I to believe that something came from nothing just because scientists cannot come up with a credible explanation of where it came from, or do I apply the same logic that I apply to the magician and say there is an explanation as to why the energy that formed the big bang came into existence and didn't just appear out of nothing.

You probably would counter with an explanation that space has its own laws, that something can actually come from nothing with the laws of space which have energy, particles, negative energy and protons and what not, but we are humans, we think in human terms, so unless you can come up with experiment that I can see my own eyes of how particles and energy etc, can create something (an especially something the size of the universe) from nothing, I think I will stick to the higher being theory.

I am not being purposefully dumb, its just that the explanation that scientist have come up with to support their theory relies on something they cannot re-create to prove to us believers that they are right.

I mean surely if the scientists truly understand how the universe was created, then they would know the particles and such that they could manipulate to create water in outer space, after all according to them the elements that create water came from space initially and apparently they know the process.
So could scientists use the elements of water that must still be floating in space and the process they figured out of how water came to be, to make rivers and oceans on mars for instance?
Or were these elements only present on comets that they think transferred them to Earth a long time ago?

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. Jesus age we create water, and break it apart all the fucking time

No you are not being obtuse, you are playing games.

[politicman]

221. honesly my question was a serious one.

No seriously, if scientists can explain everything about the big bang and explain how the water came to be on earth (apparently from comets that held the elements for water), then honestly why can they not manipulate those elements to create water on other planets?

Serious question, we apparently know the elements and the process that brought water to earth, so why can we not create the same process to bring water to Mars for instance?

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. First it is not the elements for water

It is water.

Second we have evidence that Mars had running water

Third, theoretically we can do this now. It is called planetary engineering.

Fourth, you need to read a lot.

[LostOne4Ever]

266. Again, if it is a THEORY it has been tested in some way shape or form

The big bang theory is a theory, it has been tested and retested multiple times. The zero-sum universe hypothesis is a hypothesis. Its is an explanation that has been formulated based on the evidence we have gathered but has yet to be tested or reproduced.

That said I have no interest in deconverting you at all. All I wanted from this discussion I have accomplished:

1) Showed the flaws with the "all things must have a beginning" argument
2) Clear us some statements I felt were made based on unsupported assumptions
3) Show that there is a difference between faith that is supported by evidence and blind faith

Magicians are highly secretive about how they do things. If you ask them how they did something they will USUALLY keep it a secret. Scientists are the opposite. They not only tell you, they will provide details so that others are able to reproduce their work. They provide evidence and review. Magicians only care to entertain.

If I saw a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat, I would want to see his hat, tools, stage, etc and I would probably figure out that he did not materialize the rabbit out of nothing when I find the latch that lets he top of the hat open and that his table had a hole in it to where the rabbit was kept.

This is the difference between evidence based faith, and blind faith. One takes whatever is shown to them without question, the other approaches the subject skeptically and examines all the evidence.

You probably would counter with an explanation that space has its own laws, that something can actually come from nothing with the laws of space which have energy, particles, negative energy and protons and what not, but we are humans, we think in human terms, so unless you can come up with experiment that I can see my own eyes of how particles and energy etc, can create something (an especially something the size of the universe) from nothing, I think I will stick to the higher being theory.

I am not being purposefully dumb, its just that the explanation that scientist have come up with to support their theory relies on something they cannot re-create to prove to us believers that they are right.

Actually, I am going to counter by pointing out the double standard you are giving your higher being hypothesis compared to the zero-sum hypothesis. Neither is tested and proven. Both ultimately end in the same conclusions only one requiring a god and one not.

If you add the god, then where did god come from? You say something can not come from nothing then where did god come forth? Did he just appear out of the nothingness meaning your initial premise is wrong. If he can do that, why can't the universe itself?

Or has he always been here, is he eternal? Then why can't the universe itself be eternal? After all, energy can not be created or destroyed. Why add the middle man? What proof do we have for a middle man? What proof other than a book that when read literally makes numerous statements we know are not true, that are historically incorrect, or that are simply impossible?

No matter how you look at it, throwing a god into the mix does not make you objections go away, it just adds yet another layer of complexity to the issue. This is not to say there could not be a god, just that there is no objective evidence for it.


I don't know if the universe was created by an eternal supernatural being, or if the universe itself is eternal and has always been here, or if it or whatever brought it about spontaneously appeared out of nothing.

IMHO, without any proof one way or the other the logical conclusion would be to with-hold forming any conclusions till you have more evidence. This is why I am an implicit atheist (what commonly and incorrectly referred to as agnosticism). I don't see what is wrong with saying "I don't know."

Nor do I see any reason one has to do the logical thing. If believing makes you feel better then believe. Again, I just ask that you acknowledge the problems in saying something can not come from nothing, and that there is a difference between fact-based faith in science, and religious faith.

I am not accusing you of being dumb. I am not even trying to argue there is no god (I myself take no position). I am just trying to point out that the flaws in your arguments. Also, if we had the particles needed to make water we can and do easily combine them to make water, and there is both ice and water on mars already.

[NuclearDem]

70. And here we go.

We are told the universe exploded into being from a single particle, but what will never be able to be explained is how the void that contained that particle existed in the first place. And even if they find a way to explain that, then it just brings up the question of how whatever was before that existed.

I don't know who told you that it exploded from a single particle, but that's not accurate. "Particles" didn't exist (or just barely existed) during the Planck Epoch (the earliest known period of the universe) because the laws of physics simply did not exist as we know them.

In very, very basic terms, the universe "began" as an immeasurably hot and dense entity where the natural laws we know today didn't exist, due to the nature of the universe. As that state expanded and cooled, the forces of the universe (like gravity) separated from each other.

before the big bang

Not a thing. There was no "before" the Big Bang because space time formed with it (as part of that separation I mentioned earlier).

We could never ever have absolute proof of how the 'whatever it is' before the big bang came into existence (and what was before that and before that and so on), and we could never ever have absolute proof of a higher being.

Three things:

1) There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Proof as a concept only exists in math, law, and philosophy. Proof is an absolute; science doesn't deal in absolutes, but in evidence. Hypotheses and theories with better evidence than others are what science is based on.

2) Just because we can't explain something now, doesn't mean we never will be able to. The conditions around the Planck Epoch are maddeningly difficult to understand because of the dense and hot nature of the universe at the time; the laws of nature didn't behave as they do now. Quantum mechanics as a field is hoping to shed some light on the subject, as it deals with behavior at that small a level.

3) You have to define "higher power." There's no one definition. In some cases, like with Yahweh, it is possible to say with certainty that there will be no evidence for Yahweh, because it is defined as a supernatural being. Science deals only in methodological naturalism--the testing of the natural world. Something being outside the bounds of the natural world--supernatural--cannot be tested with MN. Therefore, the question of Yahweh is utterly irrelevant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Add a dash of multiverse

With a pinch of holographic universe and things get really maddening.

I personally find this, though it cannot do the math, a fascinating prospect.

That said, I can expect to hear discussions on quarks and heads of pins soon if you get my drift.

[NuclearDem]

108. I'm more than willing to say "I just don't know" on a lot of this.

It's a fascinating topic, though it's best left to the experts to figure out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Yup

I love to read into it, and even talk to my cousin (albeit rarely) who actually works in high energy physics. I'd like his take on FTL in very early stages (like a second) and possibility of areas of space where speed of light is faster or slower.

[politicman]

100. a 'hot and dense entity' is still something, an entity is still something that needed a beginning

You say that there was no 'before', but in your same comment you say there was a 'hot and dense entity'.

Now maybe I am mistaken, but 'hot and dense entity' is something.

Now do you believe that that 'hot and dense entity' just always existed or do you think there was something there for that 'hot and dense entity' to form into.

Secondly, we rely on laws of physics for our explanations. So if we take the cop out that our laws of physics were not in existence before the universe came into being, then we are effectively admitting that unless we develop a whole new set of physics, we will never know the real answer as to what was before the universe.

And if we ever develop a new set of the laws of physics, then we will just run up against the same problem we have now, namely that our new set of laws of physics would be inadequate to explain things the further we go back.

It is called 'infinite regression', there is always something that preceded what came into being.
Unless of course we just go on the faith that something just always existed, thus we are believing in something that makes no sense, the same way that people believe in a higher being creating things.

Both rely on faith.

[NuclearDem]

106. There was no "before the Big Bang" as far as space time is concerned.

You say that there was no 'before', but in your same comment you say there was a 'hot and dense entity'.

The Planck Epoch is the period of time up to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. That is the period of time in which it is hypothesized all the forces of the universe were condensed into one unified force. This included space time, though operating by vastly different mechanics than what we know now.

When the expansion and cooling began, space-time became its own entity.

Secondly, we rely on laws of physics for our explanations. So if we take the cop out that our laws of physics were not in existence before the universe came into being, then we are effectively admitting that unless we develop a whole new set of physics, we will never know the real answer as to what was before the universe.

No, we rely on the laws of the natural world for our understanding. This includes not only classical Newtonian physics (which most people call physics) and quantum physics. A major selling point for quantum is the possibility of shedding some light on the behavior of the laws of nature during the Planck Epoch, due to quantum's study of physics on a very small scale.

And if we ever develop a new set of the laws of physics, then we will just run up against the same problem we have now, namely that our new set of laws of physics would be inadequate to explain things the further we go back.

There is no going back beyond the Planck Epoch. Space time not existing and what not.

It is called 'infinite regression', there is always something that preceded what came into being.

You're entirely excluding the possibility that nothing else existed.

Nothing about science demands faith. Faith is irrational belief without evidence. Science is the exact opposite. Your whole argument seems to be based on "you don't have explanations for everything, therefore it's faith", which is utter nonsense. Science demands being willing to say "we don't know", while faith only says "we know, but we don't know why other than we do."

Pick up a copy of A Brief History of Time, any good cosmology textbook, or even just read the Wiki's entry on the Big Bang and follow the sourcing. This isn't the most difficult concept to understand if you truly want to.

[politicman]

118. time and space AS WE KNOW IT started with the universe, are we not to ask what was before that

'The Planck Epoch is the period of time up to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. That is the period of time in which it is hypothesized all the forces of the universe were condensed into one unified force. This included space time, though operating by vastly different mechanics than what we know now.

When the expansion and cooling began, space-time became its own entity. '

This is your problem, you are willing to believe that 'all the forces of the universe condensed into one unified force' but are unwilling to entertain the idea of where the forces came from.

Did this forces that condensed just always exist? Or was there conditions before those forces that allowed those forces to come into being?


'No, we rely on the laws of the natural world for our understanding. This includes not only classical Newtonian physics (which most people call physics) and quantum physics. A major selling point for quantum is the possibility of shedding some light on the behavior of the laws of nature during the Planck Epoch, due to quantum's study of physics on a very small scale.'

Again all we have are Newtonian physics and quantum physics for which to explain the question of how the universe originated. If those laws are inadequate to explain how according to your own words, 'the forces that condensed into one unified force' came into existing, then that not gonna cut it.


'There is no going back beyond the Planck Epoch. Space time not existing and what not.'

Why is there no going back? Seriously, are we to accept that time and space came into being because of forces that unified to create the universe but not also question where those forces came from?

Sure time and space as we know it might have come into being the moment the universe was created, sure we may not be capable of conceptualizing anything beyond that, but just because we cant do it does not dismiss the idea of forces existed before the universe was created.

After all, religion also teaches that humans are not capable of conceptualizing god, thus it relies on faith of something we don't understand. Not explaining the forces that were present to be able to condense and create the universe due to not being able to conceptualize it is also faith in something we don't understand.

Thus no difference in the faith required for both ideas.

[NuclearDem]

126. Oh boy.

time and space AS WE KNOW IT started with the universe, are we not to ask what was before that

You just made a completely nonsensical statement. If there was no time, there was no "before." Simple as that.

This is your problem, you are willing to believe that 'all the forces of the universe condensed into one unified force' but are unwilling to entertain the idea of where the forces came from.

I'm willing to believe the former because that's what people with a lot more experience than me in their respective fields understand about it based on the evidence.

Again all we have are Newtonian physics and quantum physics for which to explain the question of how the universe originated. If those laws are inadequate to explain how according to your own words, 'the forces that condensed into one unified force' came into existing, then that not gonna cut it.

No, that's what we have right now. A century ago quantum mechanics would have been laughed out of the room, but with advances in technology, it's becoming more accepted. Do you have any evidence that Newtonian or quantum mechanics aren't going to be sufficient? If so, you may want to tell the scientific community.

Did this forces that condensed just always exist? Or was there conditions before those forces that allowed those forces to come into being?

The only answer I can give to you is that I don't know. And that you just used that illogical concept of "before the Big Bang" yet again.

After all, religion also teaches that humans are not capable of conceptualizing god, thus it relies on faith of something we don't understand. Not explaining the forces that were present to be able to condense and create the universe due to not being able to conceptualize it is also faith in something we don't understand.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're trying to say that our current lack of understanding about some aspects of the natural world at this point means that it will be forever beyond our comprehension, which is the textbook definition of the argument from incredulity fallacy.

There is evidence to support the Big Bang, gathered by people with far more credentials and experience than you or I over many, many years. That you are unable to understand or unwilling to accept it is not a problem with the theory.

Religion, on the other hand, at least in the case of Yahweh, makes claims that God is forever unknowable by our human minds, and we are required to accept a belief in its existence without evidence. That is the difference.

No rational person would accept explanations for cosmology, the origins of life, or any scientific discipline for that matter without sufficient evidence to explain it. If they did, they would be irrational by definition. Faith is irrational. Science is not. Though our limited technology may not grant us the opportunity to understand some aspects of the natural world, the scientific method is fully capable of explaining it given sufficient time and resources.

You don't seem to understand basic Science 101 concepts or epistemology (the study of how we know things), and I strongly suggest before continuing down this path you do some serious research. There are countless solid resources for explaining the Big Bang as a theory, and plenty of accessible resources for explaining the differences between science and faith. Please read up on them before wasting more of our time.

[politicman]

138. ok ill try this again

'You just made a completely nonsensical statement. If there was no time, there was no "before." Simple as that.'

In your earlier comment you said the words 'This included space time, though operating by vastly different mechanics than what we know now.' So when I say that time and space AS WE KNOW IT started with the beginning of the universe, your very own words in your earlier post agree with me. So I an stunned why you would back off that now.

Whether there was space time operating by vastly different mechanics is not the point, the point is that there was some sort of time before our space and time came into existence.


'I'm willing to believe the former because that's what people with a lot more experience than me in their respective fields understand about it based on the evidence.'

Yes people with a lot more experience than me and you say they understand it, but have any of these people delved into and answered the question of where 'the forces that condensed to create the universe' came from?
Unfortunately if one were to ask that simple question, people like you and those you respect laugh them out of the room without answering attempting to answer a legitimate question.

If something needs a beginning or the conditions for it to start its existence, then where did those conditions come from?


'No, that's what we have right now. A century ago quantum mechanics would have been laughed out of the room, but with advances in technology, it's becoming more accepted. Do you have any evidence that Newtonian or quantum mechanics aren't going to be sufficient? If so, you may want to tell the scientific community.'

Yes we can develop any set of physics that you think we could ever develop, and yet we still wont be able to answer the fundamental question of where the conditions that started of the original process came from.
Why do I say that you ask?
Because no matter how much we explain, there will always be that question of 'where did the conditions before that come from?'. This is an infinite question so it can never be answered, don't you see.


'The only answer I can give to you is that I don't know. And that you just used that illogical concept of "before the Big Bang" yet again. '

Whats so illogical about it? Either there were conditions before the big bang that led to the process of the big bang or there was a big bang before 'our' big bang that led to the process.
Either way, the big bang needed the conditions to be able to happen, those conditions could be forces that we don't understand, but the point is they were present for the big bang to occur.
So where did they come from?


Lastly as to your last points, I don't believe in the big bang, but anyway that asks me to and wants to force my children to learn all about the big bang as a theory of how we came into being, better have all the answer before they try that.
Don't force my children to have an education where the big bang and evolution are the correct answers when you don't yet have the full answers yourself.
Believing in god is the same as believing in something that can never be explained, for the big bang to occur there had to be the raw materials that condensed to create that bang, for those raw materials to exists there had to be something before that and so on.

[NuclearDem]

148. This is the last I'll reply to this.

Whether there was space time operating by vastly different mechanics is not the point, the point is that there was some sort of time before our space and time came into existence.

No, for all we know, there wasn't. There are hypotheses about pretime, notably the multiverse, but there is no conclusive evidence that time existed before space time existed. That's a terrible assumption to make.

Yes people with a lot more experience than me and you say they understand it, but have any of these people delved into and answered the question of where 'the forces that condensed to create the universe' came from?
Unfortunately if one were to ask that simple question, people like you and those you respect laugh them out of the room without answering attempting to answer a legitimate question.

No, you wouldn't get laughed out of the room, because it's a completely reasonable question to ask. The answer you'd likely get is "we don't know." Or possibly "it's likely there wasn't a first cause, based on what we do know."

Lastly as to your last points, I don't believe in the big bang, but anyway that asks me to and wants to force my children to learn all about the big bang as a theory of how we came into being, better have all the answer before they try that.
Don't force my children to have an education where the big bang and evolution are the correct answers when you don't yet have the full answers yourself.
Believing in god is the same as believing in something that can never be explained, for the big bang to occur there had to be the raw materials that condensed to create that bang, for those raw materials to exists there had to be something before that and so on.

So if you demand that we have all the answers before we try to educate, should your neighborhood vet close down because we don't know why or how cats purr? Because you're setting a completely unreasonable standard for knowledge and frankly setting your children up for failure, and what's worse, you're doing it in favor of an unbelievably arrogant position that you just KNOW there are things about the natural world that cannot be explained.

We have the answers about the Big Bang. It's why it's risen to the level of theory in the scientific community; theories are degrees of certainty pretty damn high up the ladder. The Big Bang explains how once the universe came into being, how it has expanded and will continue to expand or contract. It has nothing at all to do with the origins of the universe, and since the only argument you have is the nonsense about infinite regress (which you fallaciously claim doesn't apply to your concept of a higher power), then you have no argument against the Big Bang theory.

And with that, I'm done. My only hope is that some of this got through to some other people reading it, otherwise it was a complete waste of time. Do me a favor and don't continue this with me. All it'll do is piss me off.

[politicman]

151. sorry to have pissed you off

Fine, I appreciate the discussion we have had, sure didn't mean to piss you off.

You made some good points and I will add them to my thinking on this matter, and maybe I am just stubborn, but I cannot bring myself to discard an entire life of beliefs and replace it with what I think are incomplete answers from scientists and people like yourself.

Not because I think I know more than the scientists or even more than you, but because everything I have read and heard does not attempt to, let alone explain how the big bang was able to occur, where the matters for the bang came from or where the conditions for the bang to occur came from.

I have no problem in my children getting an education of things that we know for sure, things that are fact, that have been proven, that we can see with out own eyes and even experience.

Anyway, thanks for the debate.

[RainDog]

184. Evolution is a fact, not theory

Evolution does not attempt to answer "first causes" - it explains life on earth, and, yes, that explanation can go beyond life on earth, but evolution is in no way impacted by changing ideas of the origin, if any, of existence.

I noticed you slipped evolution into your response at the end.

Are you saying you do not understand evolution, and that you do not want your children to learn about the reality of evolution?

[politicman]

185. yes i don't believe in evoulition, its too convienient that nothing has evolved since

I am a modern thinking person who still believes in a higher being, so yes I don't want my children learning about evolution which goes against my religious beliefs.

I should say that I am a Muslim who was born and still lives in Australia.

Anyway, I believe in science for the betterment of society, but I cannot bring myself to believe that evolution is a fact, as I believe what I observe, what I have seen with my own eyes and what I have experienced, call me simple but I cant believe that scientists can map human evolution when they have not observed it with their own eyes or have been able to recreate the process in experiment.


To me saying that evolution occurred due to natural selection over millions of years is an easy cop out to explaining the origin of life as scientists posit something that they cannot possibly prove through experiment

Basically I view science as something that can be theorized and then proved through experimentation, not something that relies on assessing the 'so called' fossils of early primates, after all, if I sent you a video of a exorcism would you automatically believe it is true or would you think that it could be staged?
Today we have the ability to manufacture what ever it is that one requires, a skull that has both human and ape characteristics is extremely simple to manufacture.

Anyway, I probably have pissed you off enough at this point

[RainDog]

186. Evolution has been observed

In species with very short life spans. Over and over again.

If you do not accept that evolution is reality, you do not understand basic biology because evolution is the basis of all modern biology.

You haven't pissed me off at all.

I feel sorry for you, actually.

eta- you are not a modern-thinking person. You cannot make that claim and the others you have made.

[politicman]

189. thanks for the concern, but I am content

Simply because I don't believe that scientist who have never observed the evolution of humans, it does not make me anti-science, or backward thinking.

I am as modern as you, I don't need to believe something that you believe happened millions of years ago. I just have to believe in fairness and empathy for all to be progressive, not sure why you think that believing in ancient history that scientists espouse is some sort of requirement to being modern and especially a progressive.

I believe in everything that this modern world asks us to believe, I just don't believe that humans evolved from apes or pri-mortals.

If someone can someday show me this evolution in process, I would gladly change my beliefs as I would have observed something I think is impossible. Until then, it is nothing but a theory to me, and if I am going to believe in theories, I would rather believe in a theory where I gain something, namely an after life, not a theory that gives me no gain.

Anyway, If I go on, you would feel even sadder for me

[RainDog]

190. I hope you never use antibiotics

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

If you're sick - because the germ theory of medicine also stems from understanding evolution.

So, simply by using modern medicine, you're agreeing that evolution is a fact of life, even tho you insist upon denying this reality.

But religion is a refuge for some who don't want to do the work to understand this world.

I feel sorry for you, but I feel pity for your children because of the lesson you teach them that ignorance is bliss.

[politicman]

193. I lose nothing by believing in god, instead I might gain something if I am right

Please explain to me how I am keeping my kids in ignorance by not teaching them that we somehow evolved from apes millions of years ago.

How could this possibly stunt their intellectual capability? Will they ever need this 'so called' information of evolution in which I don't believe?

They can become doctors and deal with the here and now, they can even become scientist that deal with advancing the quality of human life, BUT IMO opinion they wont ever need the false information of evolution to advance in society.

I have lived my whole life not believing in evolution, yet it has not held me back from accepting the things in modern life that I observe with my own eyes and experience on a daily basis.

I advice you to not alienate us progressives that believe in a higher power because we want to be progressives, but own personal beliefs should never be an obstacle to be taken seriously, we still believe in all progressive ideas expect those which distate that e came from nothing.

[RainDog]

195. You use the same talking points as a christian fundamentalist

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

If you don't understand why refusing to educate your children about the basics of science, about the scientific method, reproducibility, and how that differs from someone making a claim about other things - well, again, I pity your children. I do.

You are denying them the ability to discern truth from bullshit - because you choose to hold on to some beliefs that seem to make you happy, no matter how absurd they may be.

imo, progressives hold to the dictim: you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

You think you should be entitled to your own facts.

I find that's a position with which I have no commonality.

Do you also think global climate change is a hoax?

If progressives who believe in a higher power are alienated by those who want to deal in reality - it seems to me you're the one with a problem, not the people who accept reality.

Religion has been used as a source of oppression since it was invented by humans. As a progressive, my strong belief is that freedom from such thinking is what makes it possible to progress.

The arrow of time leads away from belief in god to an understanding that reality itself is more awe inspiring than any god any human myth ever devised.

[politicman]

198. you may think reality is more inspiring, but I think a higher being is a lot more inspiring

Again I subscribe to the fundamental ideas of being progressive, namely fairness for all and a system that doesn't dictate what one should believe, whether that be religious or athesist.

I respect your view that you think we evolved from nothing, I will never disparage you for those beliefs because it makes no difference to my life as long as you don't force those beliefs on me, and vice versa.

Like I said, I have nothing to gain by believing what I think is false, that we evolved from apes who came from nothing, etc.
You are entitled to believe that when you die you will turn to dust and nothing else.

At least if I am proven right I will have an after life, if I am proven wrong I will have lost nothing, will just be dust like you.

Please explain to me how not believing or teaching my kids about evolution that happened millions of years ago (which I think is false) will impact my life or my kids life?

We can live a life that respects others, that wishes fairness for all, that believes the things that we see with our own eyes and that we experience in our lives, that excepts the science that is proven in front of our vey own eyes.

Not believing in something that apparently happened millions of years ago will not make us less productive members of society.

[RainDog]

199. It's about the way someone checks information

Scientific materialism thinks the world can be studied and understood. Religion offers nothing like this. The scientific method, which forms the basis for all of the modern world, allows that knowledge is never absolute or complete, and any knowledge that is claimed as reality can be tested in this world.

Facts are bits of knowledge that have stood the test of challenges and have evidence to back them up. Evolution has evidence to back it up in so many ways - again, the way you refer to evolution indicates to me you are basically ignorant about the subject, so any attempt to talk about the ways in which evolution is true would need an entire book - luckily, tho, there are plenty of them available. A good one is from Coyne, called Why Evolution is True.

If your belief in god is true, why would a just god disallow anyone an afterlife simply because, according to their best attempts to understand the same, someone could find no proof and, therefore, declined to believe something that appears preposterous in any of the ways it is presented by any religion?

If your only reason to believe in god is an afterlife - that's sort of weak, isn't it, and gives you an out from making any effort to learn how the world really works because you somehow think you have to deny reality in order to believe in god.

Any god that expected that would be a... really sick being, imo. The justifications for belief are grounded in that idea that you must be irrational in order to be somehow in good standing with god. Kierkegaard, tho he claimed faith in god, understood that he was agreeing to be irrational for the purpose of faith. So, if someone refers to religion as irrational - well, that's the reality.

I most certainly believe people are entitled to their own opinions, but if someone posts about them on a board like this, they are going to find such ideas contested.

You don't get a pass for thinking something just because you put the idea within the confines of religion. That's been the problem with religion since it began, this view that faith cannot be challenged. If people had held to that agreement, we would still be burning witches at the stake. no thanks.

Religions are simply manifestations of cultures. We no longer live in an age when people can claim epilepsy is caused by demon possession. Of course, someone may choose to believe that, too, as part of religious belief, and that belief, too, would result in society shunning them - because such beliefs endanger others. Your insistence that your religion takes precedence over science sounds, to people like me, the same as if you said epilepsy was caused by demon possession.

This doesn't mean others cannot have respect for another person. Respect for beliefs, however, is something else entirely.

[politicman]

202. yes we dont live in the dark ages, but we dont have the answers to all the questions either

I agree that science is never absolute and as such will continue for ever, but when scientists and people such as yourself dismiss legitimate questions of 'where did the energy for the big bang come from', then it is you guys that are shutting down discussion simply because you don't have an explanation for it, so you ridicule us believers.

I know that if a answer begs another question, then you continue to look for an answer for that new question, nit just posit the idea that something formed from nothing.

Similarly when we ask the question of why a certain amount of apes (or whatever you want to call them) only evolved, you guys used the answer that they evolved because they inhabited the Sahara where they were forced to end up walking and not climb trees.
But surely over millions of year there would have been batches of different apes that ended up in the Sahara and subsequently evolved, no?
We are told that only a certain batch that was forced into the Sahara because of lack of space in the forest evolved, but we are expected to believe that over millions of years that original batch was the only one that ended up in the Sahara?

I mean if on batch inhabited the Sahara at one point, surely more apes would have migrated to the Sahara in subsequent years, meaning that there should be a batch is a few year behind the original batch that evolved and so on?

[RainDog]

204. wow

demonstrations of ignorance abound.

I'm sort of tired of talking to you about this because, first of all, no one claims humans evolved in the Sahara.

all apes have evolved, not just humans. Humans, however, have engaged in much more artificial selection to create environments that allow them to diversify their habitats and their work - which has led to culture and civilization.

I had nothing to say about the big bang in this thread, but your idea of a question is another demonstration of thinking within a box called religion and, frankly, it is dark inside such a box.

[politicman]

210. mock me if you like, but answer this question if you can

If you think that I live in a dark box that is your opinion.
If you think I deny reality, then that is your opinion.

But I have a question that I suspect you don't have a concrete answer for:

If apes evolved into humans to deal with the environment of the time, then why did other creatures that also inhabited the environment not evolve with advanced functions as we have?

If you say that apes were the closest thing to us eventual humans, then that is a cop out because surely other creatures would have evolved some advanced functions even if they were not human like.

If you say that other creatures may have advanced beyond their initial forms to deal with the environment, then I ask why they don't have advanced functions like us.


In the end, I believe that functions of the human species are so advanced that nature even with random mutations to deal with the environment could never have produced our complicated functions. If we are so advanced as to be able to question where we came from, then I surely do not believe that nature had a hand in this.

Go ahead and mock me if you like, but at least explain why no other creatures evolved advanced functions to deal with the environment of the time.

[VMA131Marine]

244. other intelligent apes evolved

They were called neanderthals and homo sapiens (that's us) wiped them out.

[RainDog]

187. oh wait - you're claiming evolutionary evidence has been faked?

You know there are many people who have contributed to the fossil record and, in order for someone to plant such evidence, there would have to be a massive conspiracy throughout the scientific community, through every branch of physical science, in order for your belief to be true.

But you demonstrate the mindset of the religious very well.

You pretend you understand something but your arguments are based upon ignorance.

[politicman]

192. you think i am nuts for playing the best hand available to me

No I need you to understand (and many people think the way I do) that if I believe in religion I can possibly gain something if I am right, namely an afterlife.

If I believe in evolution then I gain nothing in this life and if evolution turns out to be wrong then I suffer in the afterlife.

So can you blame me for believing something which offers a reward if proved to be right at the end, rather than something that means I will just turn to dust with no reward for living a good life.

You may think I am nuts, I think I am playing the best hand available to me, believe in a god where there could possibly be a reward, or believe in evolution which offers nothing but turning to dust.

I played the best hand available to me, and so do many others.

[RainDog]

196. so the benefit of religion to you

is to play it safe, just in case?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

- Epicitus

I can tell you how your thinking hurts you in one way. After this conversation, I would not tend to believe anything you say. Any statement you make, for me, would be weighed against the knowledge that you choose to deny reality because you want to hold a belief in a certain form of afterlife.

Maybe this has negatively impacted you at other times in your life and you didn't know it because no one would say it to you in order to protect your feelings.

[politicman]

200. again I will believe what you can show me through experiment

I believe in global warming, and yes I am aware that we only know about global warming because of science.

See I don't deny what is happening in our time, what we can experience, what we are told the future might bring if we continue with our disastrous policies.

Yes I am aware of the irony of believing scientists on global warming of which the full effects will not be known for decades, but at the moment, here in Australia we can see some effects of it.
When I was young, I remember summers with the maximum temperature reaching high 30 degree Celsius, these days I am used to days in the low 40's degree Celsius. So I see and experience which makes me tend to believe the scientists.

As for evolution, unless they produce some real time evidence that can change my mind, I am more than happy to go with my original thoughts, that a higher being created us and consequently teach it to my kids.

Like I said, I don't deny what you can show me right now, but I do deny what you think happened in the past that you are unable to show me right now.

[RainDog]

203. Virii evolve

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Viruses which you deal with each and every day of your life evolve. There is a special branch of evolutionary science that just deals with virii. The study of virii involves the study of the basic building blocks of all life.

They follow the same principles of evolution as fruit flies, with very short life spans, that show random mutation and evolution by this mutation in particular environments.

This is the basic idea of evolution - that life evolves because dna replicates. As DNA replicates, there are sometimes changes as the DNA copies itself. If such a change helps an organism to survive, that change is kept. If it harms the chances of survival, that DNA does not get passed on to many future generations.

But sometimes there is a good and bad with such DNA replication - one such incident is the gene that passes on resistance to malaria when only one copy is inherited. When two are inherited - this results in sickle cell anemia. But the benefit of having resistance to malaria was so great, as in, so many were able to survive with this gene, that the possible loss of someone from sickle cell anemia was overcome by that gain.

That's an example of evolution in the human genome that has been positively demonstrated within the world.

So, what I'm getting at is this: you talk about descent from older primate forms, but the reality of such descent is evident within the human and earlier primate genomes. It is possible to extract DNA from fossils and look at mutations over time - both with human precursors and between humans and now living primates, such as chimpanzees.

The DNA record shows what happened in past times and can show that now.

[politicman]

206. sorry if a cannot accept evolutionw without a proper explanation of why other creatures did not also

You are right, virii does evolve, I can accept that.

But please shoe me an instance of virii evolving to the point that it is able to walk, talk and think for itself.

See I don't deny that virii has its own development, what I deny is theory that apes can suddenly develop all the characteristics od humans just to deal with the environment they live in.
evolve with advanced functions.

I just cannot accept that intelligent beings evolved to deal with the climate they lived in. That our brains (with all their complicated functions) evolved simply to deal with the environment they had at the time.

You may think I am sad, you may think I deny fact, you may think that I am being purposely a denier, but the fact remains for me that you or no scientist has ever produce anything like a human brain even though there were many creatures supposedly living at that time.

I mean if we evolved from apes to have brains and functions that we have now, why has no other creature at the time evolved the human capacity that we have? Why have wolves, or lions or what ever creatures that also inhabited the Sahara not evolved with advanced functions that we have?

It seems that you think that apes were some special species that could only evolve into having advanced functions, why not the other creatures at that time? After all other creatures inhabited the Sahara along with apes.

Again, unless a compelling explanation is provided for why only apes developed with advanced functions, then it IMO opinion is just a way to come up with a theory that fits the evolutionary model that people like you want to believe.

Natural selection is totally bogus IMO, as I seriously that the nature made a conscious decision to only evolve apes that lived in the Sahara and not other creatures.

[RainDog]

207. LOL

bye.

enjoy your ignorance.

[politicman]

212. mock all you like, but we will all lose in the end

I will, thanks for the advice though.

I hope you enjoy the inevitable conservative administration as people like you mock and push away religious progressives that wont agree with your version of the world.

Anyway, I haven't yet, but if I comes to a decision between a progressive leader who forces my children to learn an education about a false evolution or a conservative leader that gives me an option to have my kids learn an education based on a higher being if I so choose then I will gladly vote that conservative leader into power, simply to guarantee my kids the after life I believe in.

I hold the ideas that are fundamental to progressives, but ultimately my beliefs will over ride any benefit I can help to bestow on those in this life, if it means I have to choose between progressive ideas and my faith.

You guys would do well to embrace us even though we don't agree in your theories, rather than mock us and leave us no other choice but the other side.

[RainDog]

216. I see nothing progressive about your words

You sound no different than a fundamentalist christian - the only difference is the name of the belief - but the resistance to information that overrides your religious world view is the same.

You claim to be progressive, but nothing I have seen here demonstrates that you are. Progressives do not believe that ignorance based upon religion is a positive attribute.

It is, imo, akin to child abuse to teach children to ignore the basic facts of life as they exist. If you do not know enough to teach these to your children (and you have demonstrated you do not) they would greatly benefit from outside influence that helps them to examine the belief system in which they have been raised.

If that's the sort of person you claim I am not willing to embrace - well, you're right. I'm not willing to align myself with someone whose religious beliefs are so irrational they cannot logically examine evidence at hand and instead make up conspiracy theories about lies in the fossil record.

Again, just like fundamentalist Christians, who, if you know about American politics, are the source of many problems in American society because of their refusal to accept reality and instead are willing to align with politicians who will lie to them just to get a vote.

Your children will not be able to avoid a confrontation with facts in their lives. If your religion insists the state must aide and abet you in keeping your child in ignorance - then, yes, you will end up on the other side by your choice and you will join fundamentalist christians who share your view of the world.

[politicman]

218. progressive does not mean believing in only science to explain everything

You are wrong, I am not fundamentalist, I have my own beliefs that I will teach my own children and I will never attempt to force those beliefs on you if you do not believe in them.

You on the other hand are the fundamentalist that wants to force everyone (including my children) to follow your beliefs that we evolved from apes, and nature.


The fact of the matter is that if you believe something that happened millions of years ago and cannot possibly affect my life or my children's futures, then why do you and other progressives insist on trying to force it into the education my children will have.

What benefit could my children possibly have in believing that we originated from apes millions of years ago?

You say that they will learn not to deny reality, but that's your reality, not mine.
I don't choose my own facts, I deal in facts that I can see and experience, unless you can show me an ape evolving into a human right now, then your 'fact' is nothing more than a theory which you dress up with supporting evidence but are unable to re-create.


Ultimately, if you want to believe we originated from nothing and then humans evolved from apes, that yours prerogative but don't force it on me or my children.

Lastly, I am a progressive, see unlike you I don't think being a progressive relies on the fact that I have to believe we came from apes.
To me being a progressive is accepting fact and evidence that I can see with my own eyes or experience in our time, (not 'facts' that apparently occurred millions of years ago that no one is capable of re-creating now), to me progressive means treating everyone with fairness and having empathy for all, to me progressive means enacting laws that give the freedom to individuals to believe for or against a higher being (if it doesn't hurt anyone in society) instead of trying to ram something down their throat when you admit you are unable to re-create it through science.

[RainDog]

224. you rely on conspiracy theory, denial and bad argument

You have not seen anyone planting fossils to fool the entire world about the validity of evolutionary theory. Yet you are ready and willing to use this lame excuse to deny science. You rely more on lies than anything else to buttress your belief.

That's pitiful.

This is why it's worthless to talk to someone about this if their religious belief is so dogmatic they cannot examine facts and use logic, as they do in every other branch of science. But when it comes to humankind, suddenly facts do not apply. Only to a virus, or a butterfly, or any other kind of animal.

Your retort, that those who challenge religious beliefs grounded in nothing other than the opinion of ignorant people who lived long ago is a form of fundamentalism is, in fact, just one more fundamentalist talking point. You do share more in common with them than you know, obviously.

Again, you will believe what you will, in spite of all evidence that proves you are wrong.

When you are challenged, someone is trying to ram something down your throat. No. Someone is telling you that your religious belief is not as good as the scientific record regarding human origins.

And someone is telling you that passing along such lies to children is doing a disservice to those children because you think your religious ignorance is more important than their well being. I find that disgusting.

[politicman]

225. If life evolves according to habitat, why did Mars not evolve its own life to live in its habitat

You may find it disgusting but we are told that science is the answer to everything, yet no one provides the answers to everything, you all just dismiss religious beliefs as irrational.

Take evolution as an example, according to science life evolved on earth because we have water here.

Ok well, the latest news on Mars is that there is evidence of ancient rivers of water.

If life evolved and adapted to be able to live on the habitat of earth, then why did life not evolve and adapt on Mars which also according to latest developments also had water at some stage.

You will probably counter with the fact that Mars atmosphere is extreme and not conducive to life, but if life evolves to deal with the habitat surrounding it (apparently like it did on Earth), then why did Mars not evolve its own life that can deal with the extreme habitat of Mars?

We are told that an asteroid collided with Earth eons ago which was catastrophic enough to wipe out the dinosaurs, yet life continued to exist and then apparently evolved and we came into being.

So if Mars (even with its extreme atmosphere that is unable to support our the kind of life we have on earth) had rivers of water at one stage (and water is the pre-requisite to life), then why did Mars not evolve its own plants, creatures that could adapt and survive in the extreme atmosphere of Mars?

After all, the argument for evolving is that our nature adapted its life to deal with the habitat of the time, BUT somehow Mars could not create its own life and adapt it to survive in the habitat that Mars is subject to even though it has the pre-requisite for life, namely water.

You probably would think this is a stupid question, but the truth is it a completely valid question when talking about the topic of evolving.

[NuclearDem]

227. Against my better judgment, I'm getting back into this.

Water is not essential for all life to exist or evolve. Water is essential for life that developed on Earth because organisms that mutated to incorporate water as part of their structure were environmentally selected to survive.

You're conflating origins of life with evolution, just like with origins of the universe and the Big Bang. Evolution as a theory is used to explain once life began, how it has changed due to selective environmental pressures.

Any environment can facilitate the development of life if the organism or foundations of a form of life can reproduce given that system's environmental pressures. Searching for evidence of water in the universe makes it easier for us to identify potential life because it's within the framework of what we know about life on Earth that incorporated water.

Mars could very well have had life at some point. It could have had the "seeds" of life planted on it through any number of means, and that life could have reproduced given Mars' environment and then went extinct as the environment changed, or it could have been dead on arrival when it couldn't adapt to the environment from the start.

There are no holes in evolution. The only holes people point out are completely irrelevant to the theory. Evolution sets out to explain something--how life responds to environmental pressures and whether or not it will successfully reproduce--and it does it perfectly.

[politicman]

231. I read what you say but if life began with water, the surely Mars....

couldn't have developed its own form of life with the water it had.

See, through all the things I have read and seen, NASA and others were looking extremely hard to find if there was water on Mars because according to them, if there is water then that indicates that life could be present, meaning water is needed to create life.

So, if there were once rivers of water on Mars then why didn't some sort of life emerge from the water and why didn't it evolve and adapt to the extreme environment or even the changing conditions if they did change.

According to science, Earth was once just a piece of rock with no life until asteroids slammed into it transferring the elements for water, etc. Meaning that all life evolved from what the asteroid/s transferred onto earth. This original life then evolved over millions of years to become plants, animals, creatures, etc.

Apparently through hundreds of millions of years, Earth went through countless periods of time where the habitat changed considerably, one being the asteroid that was catastrophic enough to wipe out the dinosaurs and probably bring on the ice age.
Yet through all these extreme changes life survived and evolved to what is it now.


If Mars had rivers of water, it means that an asteroid also transferred the elements onto Mars. Why did life not start the same way as on Earth?
Please understand that I am not asking why the life that we have on Earth did not eventuate on Mars as I recognize our life is unique to our environment, I am asking why Mars didn't develop life unique to its atmosphere and why that life did not evolve to deal with the habitat the same way Earths did?


We have a chance to see whether evolution is a real theory, Mars is our best example to see its validity.
If evolution means that life adapts to the environment that is constantly changing, then surely life should have developed on Mars and adapted to changing environment?

Again it doesn't have to be earth based life, it could be life that could only survive in Mars atmosphere because it would have adapted to it as Mars nature could have seen to it the way the Earths nature did.


Why was Earth the special planet in our solar system that developed and sustained life if life evolves to live in what ever environment exists at that time.
Evolving from apes to suit the habitat we lived in is just one aspect of evolution, but we evolved from something before that, right?
All the way back to the first life on Earth, so Mars should have done the same thing with its specific forms of life and its specific environment/nature.

[NuclearDem]

235. ...

We have a chance to see whether evolution is a real theory, Mars is our best example to see its validity.

Whether Mars has life or not has absolutely zero bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. It's a "real theory" because it's based on a mountain of evidence that's been tested and retested over nearly a century and a half, and successfully makes predictions.

Is there or was there ever life on Mars? We just do not know for certain. For all we know, there was never a catalyst for life on the planet as there was for Earth. Yes, there is evidence of water on Mars, but that doesn't mean there was ever a catalyst for life. Without one, evolutionary theory is irrelevant; there can't be a discussion on the evolution of life if there was none to begin with.

Why was Earth the special planet in our solar system that developed and sustained life if life evolves to live in what ever environment exists at that time.

Because there an event that planted the earliest forms of life on Earth, and that life was compatible with the Earth's environment sufficiently to reproduce. If neither of those conditions had been met at some point in Earth's history, it would still be a lifeless rock.

Same goes for every other body in the universe. If there currently isn't life on a planet, it either never existed in the first place on that planet, couldn't adapt to environmental pressures and went extinct, or was able to leave that planet.

That dinosaur analogy is a bad one. Life continued on Earth after the K-T extinction event because those organisms had the capacity to endure the changed environment; it didn't so drastically alter their sources of food or energy that they weren't able to reproduce. If Mars suffered a similar ELE and the result ended up being no life on the surface, then there wasn't sufficient diversity in the biosphere to mutate and adapt to the environment.

Extinction events can wipe out all life. The only way life can survive them is if it can adapt.

[RainDog]

229. I'm no astronomer or astrophysicist

But it's my understanding that the reason Mars does not contain complex life forms (maybe there's bacteria there - or unicellular organisms like those that made up the bulk of life during the entire course of life on earth - 4/5ths of the time that life has existed on earth, over billions of years, that life was made up of simple unicellular organisms. It was only about 500 million or so years ago that multicellular organisms appeared on earth.

The reason is that Mars is a lower mass planet than earth. Such planets cannot sustain gravitational pull to maintain an atmosphere. Basic chemicals can be lost because of this insufficient gravity, and thus do not allow the creation of a thick atmosphere with the biochemicals that flourish within such thick atmospheres (The atmosphere of Mars is very thin compared to the earth.) The size of the planet also determines temperature (as well as its location in relation to the sun) and temperature is another feature that works symbiotically with mass and gravitational pull to cook up a carbon-based life stew. Smaller planets also lack the energy from their cores to sustain geologic activity that gives rise to carbon dioxide. Because of this lack of geologic activity, Mars does not generate a magnetic field to help contain an atmosphere conducive to producing life as we understand it from hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.

But some scientists think ammonia, rather than our atmosphere, might be the basis for silicon life forms, so there may be life in other places that we have not yet seen. There are also other possible habitable planets in other galaxies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

233. In our own galaxy

Gliesse 589 is a candidate

In our own solar system, I point at Europa.

But our friend is playing games. It matters little how much evidence is presented. He knows his facts. Electricity might as well be magic. As well as the rest of the modern world. He benefits from it, but he understands none of it.

At this point pointing and laughing is the only answer I have left, with large amounts of pity. But he is a prime example of the daemon hunted world that Carl Sagan warned about.

[RainDog]

237. And humans may just be vehicles to transport bacteria

maybe evolution is driven by bacteria that exist within humans, on our skins, in our soils, in other animals - and more complex life forms are just taxis moving bacteria around the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. Self important taxis at that

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. It did, and then it went away

http://www.space.com/17135-life-on-mars.html

Do not go there, you might find things you might not understand. They do not fit a reductio ad absurdum world view

[TeamPooka]

258. It's why DU is seriously changing, not necessarily for the better...as results show

I was Juror #2 and one of only two to call this out for the trash it is.
The New DU.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Mar 22, 2014, 08:34 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

sorry if a cannot accept evolutionw without a proper explanation of why other creatures did not also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4708476

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

ignorant creationist anti-science troll

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 22, 2014, 08:39 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ignorance, especially when drinking, should be shown. How else would everyone at the DU know about what this person really thinks.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Stupid ignorant post! Hide it!

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well, he/she may be an "ignorant creationist anti-science troll" but it's not a violation of TOS.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As misinformed as the post is I can't find a reason to hide

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[RainDog]

259. I wonder who sent the alert?

I thought about it when he said fossils were planted to deceive people, but thought... why bother. Last time I sent an alert, when someone who identifies as a conservative asked me what I was doing here - it wasn't hidden, so I didn't bother with this person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

264. Me too, since alerting is a worthless exercise

Hey, I am consistent. I do not play juries either

[nadinbrzezinski]

248. First fallacy, humans,

and chimps are cousins, we did not evolve from apes, chimps or other modern day primates. That said, we are primates.

Somewhere around six million years ago the process of speciacion started. The branch our common ancestor was on became branches. Our predecessors evolved into different species, such as Homo Abilis, the first of our ancestors to use tools. The first step actually was standing up, in a savannah, not even a desert. We see similar behavior these days with chimps and bonobos, they are even making tools now, and they are self aware. Evolution, in fact, has not stopped, for either us or them.

Our cousins evolved into chimps and bonobos. We share 99% of the genetic code with our cousins. What makes us different is that 1%, and that is the reason for a larger brain vault, no hair, and a few other elements. Language, they have it too.

But we did not evolve from apes. And if you do not understand how the process works, well, I guess the we evolved from apes makes zero sense. and it should not, because we did not.

You asked about early bacteria evolving into humans, alas they did, over the span of life on Earth, we are talking not in the term of millions of years, but billions. Most of that time, well, it was not multicelular life either. There were even five major catastrophes for life on Earth The last one involves dinosaurs, and if that had not happened. I can tell you, we would not be having this discussion. I guarantee it. There goes that god I guess... but intelligent dinosaurs who developed culture would be interesting to consider.

Why am I bothering with this? I really have no idea. But if you are going to discuss anything, at least bother to learn the basics.

Otherwise, shit stirring comes to mind.

Oh and I am nice, here from the wiki, on speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

And here on human evolution

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution

By the way, I share my home with two conures. Their two species are in the early process of it. and while they could have fertile chicks, and at the borders of their respective habitats they likely do, fertile in fact, they are undergoing the early process. They look different from the outside.





Just by looking at them from the outside you would not be able to tell they are very closely related genetically, now would you?

[phil89]

152. No faith is required for the big bang theory.

No faith is required for atheism. Argument from ignorance and special pleadings are not evidence of a god.

[politicman]

155. and something appearing out of nothing is not special pleading?

You think that God is an argument of special pleading whilst positing that the bag bang didn't need any matter or underlying conditions to occur is not special pleading?

Either the big bang just happened out of nowhere, of there was material for the big explosion to occur, or there were conditions that preceded that big bang and the big bang was just the next step in the process.

Ultimately if you choose the first of those options then you are doing your own special pleading, and if you chose either of the second options then you acknowledge that the big bang was the actual start of the process, that the process began before the big bang and ultimately some process began before that, etc.

[longship]

205. Why is there anything rather than nothing?

Richard Feynman answered that in four words: "Because nothing is unstable."

Your presumption that something just does not come from nothing would be false.

Another weird fact of the universe: The net energy of the universe seems to be precisely zero, as close as anything to nothing as one can get.

[nadinbrzezinski]

239. We have been kind

none of us has really gone into the true weirdness that is quantum mechanics.



Imagine if we all started making allusions to a certain cat...

And in honor of that cat...



(Now in all seriousness, I need a T-Shirt with that graphic)

[FarCenter]

59. No. If god caused the big bang, you are still left with the problem of what caused god.

Besides which, if god caused the universe some 13 billion years ago, this also substantiates that the universe has continued without divine manipulation since then.

So if God does play dice, he runs a fair game that in no way depends on or caters to humans.

[Hissyspit]

176. It's tortoises all the way down!

[FarCenter]

215. Well, not anymore

It used to be, if you believe that reality is in the mind and doesn't exist objectively.

When people used to believe in tortoises, it was tortoises. Then the earth was flat. It became round sometime between Columbus and Magellan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

257. It was round by the time of Greece, latest Rome.

[idendoit]

60. First they need to prove the big bang.

[idendoit]

78. Checkout the data at bicepkrek.org.

This has not been peer reviewed yet. While I'm certainly no mathematician, I have to wonder what exactly the "direct likelihood calculation" is (their quotes). Are they supporting one theory with another? The big bang theory is far from a given: metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

[idendoit]

95. I agree with you on the god parts.

[NuclearDem]

109. Two things:

1) The Big Bang is the leading explanation for the origins of the universe, with the best and most available evidence.

2) There is no such thing as "prove" in science. "Prove" is absolutist and a binary. Science goes on the best and most available evidence, not what can be "proved" as you would in a philosophy class or court of law.

[idendoit]

243. In reply to those two things:

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model.(Metaresearch.org)

(2) The intent of my post was to point out that science can no more be proven than God can.

[NuclearDem]

246. 1) No it doesn't.

It doesn't explain redshift, microwave background radiation, or recreation of hydrogen.

BBT is the most widely accepted because it does explain this and much more.

2) Science can't be "proven" because "proof" is an absolute and a binary that has no place in science. God can't be "proven" because it's not in the bounds of science to evaluate claims of a supernatural deity.

[idendoit]

260. What doesn't what?

The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. (Findlay-Freundlich 1954)

The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. (T. Von Flandren 1992, H.C. Arp 1998)

The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies. (B.R. Bligh, 2000)

There's plenty more where that came from at metaresearch.org. You need to reread my response about the inability to prove science or God.

[NuclearDem]

261. The evidence doesn't fit a static model of the universe.

That's why it fell out of favor in the mid-20th century.

You cite a study about CMB before it was actually discovered (your source is 1954, first paper on CMB was published ten years later).

Arp never updated his anti-BBT quasar hypothesis since the 1960s, back when high powered telescopes were in their early stages. Now his hypotheses are easy to test--and subsequently reject.

The Big Bang doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. All apparent violations are allowed for by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You need to peel yourself away from metaresearch if you want to be taken seriously. You're doing exactly what creationists do to "disprove" evolution--poke holes in it without actually providing a good alternative.

The scientific community is in agreement about the Big Bang. All you need to do is find a source other than ICR or metaresearch.

[idendoit]

262. Your statement provides evidence to support the static model.

The scientific community, especially cosmologists and theoretical physicists, are far from agreeing that the big bang is the foundation of an expanding universe; if such a thing exists. So if those that scientifically disagree with the big bang theory would change the source of their information, they would be in agreement, along with all the adjustable parameters necessary to that belief, with it? That's the type of magical thinking that led to the theory in the first place.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us there are limits to what we can know about the behavior of quantum particles.The uncertainty principle says that we cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision.Your observation of either position or momentum will be inaccurate and, more important, the act of observation affects the particle being observed. This would make it all but an impossible task to state that there even was a beginning to any aspect of what we call the universe. This supports the static model.

[NuclearDem]

263. No. The static model was roundly rejected in the mid-20th century for the reasons I gave you.

The Big Bang model of an expanding universe is widely supported in the community because it's where the evidence currently leads. All of the evidence you cite was rendered insufficient to explain cosmology with the discovery of CMBR and redshift, and the handful of scientists who support static models are just wrong in the light of that evidence.

[idendoit]

265. As I pointed out before.

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

The cosmic background radiation "discovery" data is online at bicepkeck.org. The data has not been peer reviewed yet. It has been submitted to Nature. The first item: Text file containing the tabulated likelihood for the tensor-to-scalar ratio, r, computed using the “direct likelihood calculation” described in Section 9.3.1 of Barkats et al. and Section 11.1 of BICEP2 2014 I. I wondered why they would put quotations around "direct likelihood calculation". The jury is still out.

[SidDithers]

68. I have stronger proof that there is no God....

Sid

[hobbit709]

72. No more than it denies it.

the only god in the universes is Murphy.

[XRubicon]

75. No.

[MattBaggins]

79. Please

[HuckleB]

82. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. .... .... .... No.

[goldent]

84. I always wonder why the anti-theists get so worked up over this

These are religious people who are saying this. Religious people have ALL KINDS of beliefs that are completely unverifiable. This is a very minor one to add the list. Their views are not harming the Big Bang Theory in any way - it will be just fine.

[HuckleB]

86. You like attention, don't you?

Well, I guess I gave it to you.

[goldent]

87. I do write posts for people to read, otherwise I wouldn't write them!

[HuckleB]

88. Coouhl.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

251. Lol. nt

[VScott]

89. Big Bang = God farted.

Simple as that.

See... there's room for agreement amongst the scientists and theologists.

[WinkyDink]

92. Sheldon comes pretty close!

[Liberal Veteran]

94. Of course it does. It also offers the same amount of proof of the non-existence of God. -nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

96. Proof of God...

Every time I hear someone talking about this, I can't help but think of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and the Babel fish, a animal so intricate that it could not have possibly evolved by accident.

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh! That was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Poof!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

97. If so why did he create roaches long before 'humans'

if he (or she) did create the heavens what was there before?

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Cause he knew humans would have free will

A mistake I suppose, and the roaches will survive the nuclear holocaust.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

123. not to mention the archebacteria!

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Well, somebody needs to be around to

Rebuild from that extinction event.



As is, we might not even need nukes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. Maybe and maybe not. It's wonderful no matter what. nt

[Rex]

112. What is God?

nt.

[Walk away]

115. Only for people desperately grasping at straws to prove their "god"...

really exists. For them it is proof positive!

[truebluegreen]

135. Why is it that a religion that is all about 'faith"

--which is by definition belief in something without proof--so fixated on proving the existence of god? Apparently everything from eyeballs to the Shroud of Turin to grilled cheese sandwiches to, now, a Big Bang breakthrough is proof that every word of the Bible is True.

I don't get that.

[nyquil_man]

146. If you have faith, what difference does evidence make?

Besides, how is this necessarily evidence of any particular god?

[cherokeeprogressive]

166. Why wouldn't you ask if it DISPROVED the existence of God?

[RainDog]

183. Because that's an irrational question n/t

[Kablooie]

178. Yes it does.

Because everything is proof of God. Any new discoveries are proof of God and all old discoveries,were proof of God.
All it takes to find proof of God is someone to say its proof of God, then bingo! It's proof of God.

[Iggo]

179. Of course not.

Science is real.

[struggle4progress]

181. It's interesting physics: it has nothing to do with "proof of G-d"

[RainDog]

182. LOL

The person who wrote this is ignorant in more ways than one.

In the 600 c. bce, people in the East developed systems of religious thought that did not rely upon a deity.

In 500 bce, a Greek philosopher, Democritus, postulated the existence of atoms and the chemical structure that makes up everything in the universe.

Archimedes, in 200 bce, laid the foundation for physics through his mathematical investigations and in the 1600s inspired Galileo.

Lucretius, 55 bce, described a world guided by physical principles, with atoms as the foundation of matter, in a world where life is random, not controlled by some sort of god. And of course, at this same time, there were people who chose to believe in the gods of the day - Zeus, et al...and Yaweh and then Jesus, etc.

There is no excuse for the actions of religious believers, who have systematically worked, in the west, to undermine progress across millennia. They have to pretend humans weren't already thinking of complex systems apart from the idea of god, long before their current religion even existed. But this is exactly the case - and this is just the west.

But this person argues that the idea of particles and waves couldn't be understood when the bible was written. This is just a weak argument to excuse the reality that no religion has ever been a good way to explain the world - wasn't and isn't and won't be.

All of religion constitutes appeals to ignorance.

[eridani]

188. The existence or non-existence of God makes not the slightest difference to the practice of science

Science is about the investigation of the operational rules of the universe. Either those rules exist just because, or they had an author.

If they had an author, the result is that the rules are what they are.
If they didn't have an author, the result is that the rules are what they are.

Makes no difference either way.

[NaturalHigh]

191. Very interesting read.

[Motown_Johnny]

194. All based on a false assumption

"If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it."


That simply isn't true.


A self reciprocating universe would simply recreate itself.


The entire point of view is bullshit.

[edhopper]

211. Yes, that flawed logic

"The Universe must have had a cause, because nothing can exist without a cause."
Why can't God be that cause"

"But where did God Come from?"

"God has always been, he is eternal."

"But you just said nothing can exist without a cause."

"God can."

"So something can exist without a cause?"

"Only God."

"So there is no basis for your claim about things needing a cause?"

[JoePhilly]

208. God could easy prove God exists.

[Arugula Latte]

232. Yo, Yahweh --

We could use another burning bush or two around here!

[JoePhilly]

255. God used to be far more extroverted.

Always talking to folks. Sending angels down.

Now, we never hear from him.

[Thor_MN]

214. On a recent expedition to the East Coast, I discovered the ancient seaport of Nantucket

thereby proving that the White Whale, which we call Moby Dick, truly did exist.

[arcane1]

226. Of course not, but it's unsurprising that CNN would think so.

What it does offer is yet another proof that the scientific method actually works.

[we can do it]

234. Make it stop...........

[La Lioness Priyanka]

236. LOL.

i assume one is not serious about this.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

249. science does not fully predict what i do. therefore i am divine. nt

[fascisthunter]

245. Proof, or did the writer mean, "evidence"?

I think not.

[Jgarrick]

252. Oh, for heaven's sake (um, so to speak). Of course not.

It doesn't address the issue in any way.

[Zorra]

256. Last Saturday night was pretty close to proof. nt