YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Forty going on six,

(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  You're claims about antibiotics are old and tired. Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, it's devolution. .......
Hahaha.
(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  As for your comments on the bible, Gilgamesh, mythology - you obviously have done no research on the subject, so I won't bother embarrassing you on this point. As for your comments on psychology and philosophy, you simply make arbitrary claims with no points to back it up. It appears you have about as much education in philosophy as Bucky Ball. It's not something I'd be able to teach you on these boards, but I suggest an introductory course at any university on both philosophy and logic.

You keep saying things like this. By all means feel free to embarrass me. Obviously you never heard anything about this. You keep declining your opportunities to make any points, as obviously you can't. The POINT was, that the flood myth was VERY common in the Ancient Near East. Genesis grabbed one, and they have the source. Obviously, as was stated above, you are deficient in your Babble study. Instead of deflecting attention from you lack of knowledge, ANSWER THE QUESTION !

While you're at it, explain the "plan b/4 time began" statement, and answer his question about free will. Explain how Krauss is wrong, and why Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not 99, or more %) On second though, don't bother. I'll take the advice, and not waste any more time on this old junk.

Saying I have done no research on a subject, is NOT an argument. It's weak, and makes you look stupid. You don't need to teach anyone anything. No one would want to learn from a fool.

I don't need a thesaurus. YOU need to explain how knowing is NOT a process, in physical terms. "Knowing" *happens*. It occurs by the actions of brain chemistry.
(That's one of the sciences BTW). There is NO instance you can name where that is NOT a PROCESS, (as he said). THAT needs time, (as he said). So sad, too bad. You totally missed the point. They are BOTH processes. "Knowing" happens, (in time), because neuro chemistry happens. End of story.

As for the "swatting". You missed. As for the "no sweat"...maybe, but it sure did take a lot of your time to do it. Clearly it rattled you.

(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  as for the rest of your post, I lost track of how many logical fallacies you committed (mere opinions, prejudicial conjectures, false appeal to authorities, false analogy, ad hominem attacks, and I probably missed a couple there) As a result, it's time to let you take a rest.

Typical. No arguments. Just side stepping all the questions. People keep telling us to "take a rest", "give it up". Not to worry. I get lots of rest. Are you sure you're not arguing with yourself/an alter-ego here ? There is help available.

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
21-03-2012, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2012 10:30 AM by robotworld.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
I think I'm starting to like you as an opponent. I love how dedicated you are in proving your cause, for that I really respect you.
Let's have fun with Math Smile I'll start with the data.

2350BC-2250BC ~ 6(1.02)^100 = 43.46787670951409
2250BC-2150BC ~ 43.46787670951409(1.019)^100 = 285.4873223138784
2150BC-2050BC ~ 285.4873223138784(1.018)^100 = 1699.6700716987395
2050BC-1950BC ~ 1699.6700716987395(1.017)^100 = 9171.912851760671
1950BC-1850BC ~ 9171.912851760671(1.016)^100 = 44857.05054904819
1850BC-1750BC ~ 44857.05054904819(1.015)^100 = 198808.49573643997
1750BC-1650BC ~ 198808.49573643997(1.014)^100 = 798418.2199386059
1650BC-1550BC ~ 798418.2199386059(1.013)^100 = 2.905192906160634×10^6
1550BC-1450BC ~ (2.905192906160634×10^6)(1.012)^100=9.576918x10^6
1450BC-1350BC ~ (9.576918x10^6)(1.011)^100=2.8598375x10^7
1350BC-1250BC ~ (2.8598375x10^7)(1.010)^100=7.7353279x10^7
1250BC-1150BC ~ (7.7353279x10^7)(1.009)^100=1.89493951x10^8
1150BC-1050BC ~ (1.89493951x10^8)(1.008)^100=4.20386308x10^8
1050BC-950BC ~ (4.20386308x10^8)(1.007)^100=8.44492152x10^8
950BC-850BC ~ (8.44492152x10^8)(1.006)^100=1.536008752x10^9
850BC-750BC ~ (1.536008752x10^9)(1.005)^100=2.529297216x10^9
(Now, assuming population growth rate stays constant at 0.004 per annum)
750BC-2012AD ~ (2.529297216x10^9)(1.004)^100=8.817679x10^18
(Well, that's kind of off the charts compared to the current world population)

I hope not to misrepresent your model, so I hope you have another way which allows the range to extend beyond 750BC, as there is severe lack of data with regards to population statistics from 2350BC to 750BC. Here's one I have found within this range.

Xia Dynasty - 13.55 million people (2070 BC– 1600 BC)

This single data is an anomaly according to your model, and therefore I hope you are able to devise a better model which allows for prediction of world populations at least to the year 1000AD, or even better, to present times, to further confirm the validity of your model.

EDIT: I found an interesting article on how to estimate ancient populations. Here it is Smile
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/jrz3/PopulationHQ.pdf

And... regarding this statement
Quote:It's a genetic loss of a certain trait that simply turns out to be beneficial in a given circumstance. But that's not evolution - losing traits can't add up to anything! Evolution is supposed to be about gaining traits in the long run. You can't gain millions and millions of genetic traits by losing them one by one!
Heard of vestigial structures? Here are fine examples of evolution that lead to the "loss of traits".

The Evolution of Whales - A story of how a land mammal decided to become the king of the oceans
[Image: whale_evo.jpg]

Human Vestigiality - Try wiggling your ears.
[Image: xfig32_05.jpg]

Blind Animals - They need not their eyes in the dark
[Image: 800px-Close-up_of_mole.jpg]

Remember, you don't necessarily gain traits for every step in evolution. The organism will evolve according to the selection pressure being inflicted onto the organism, gaining traits that allows better survival rates AND/OR losing traits that will lead to lower survival rates.

Also,
Quote:Bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, it's devolution. If you actually studied the known examples of it happening, you'd see that what is happening genetically is actually a loss of certain genes that simply allow bacteria to flourish in a specifically harsh environment of antibiotics. (for example, losing the ability to transfer certain proteins through cell membranes for consumption)

It actually happens both ways. Bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer by conjugation(between two bacteria), transduction(from a virus), or transformation(from stray DNA).

Yes, indeed losing the ability to transfer certain proteins through cell membranes will lead to better resistance against antibiotics. The other way around works well, via active efflux (increasing the ability to transfer certain proteins out of the cell).

There are other ways to stop those antibiotics. A gene which codes for an enzyme which breaks down the antibiotic is one way, an altered gene which led to altered receptors, or for those antibiotics that target cell metabolic pathways, an altered pathways which still produces what the bacteria needs without being disrupted by the antibiotic.

I'm not sure what you mean by losing genes though. Can you elaborate? Do you mean insertional inactivation, a simple base mutation, the work of a restriction enzyme, or all of the above?

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like robotworld's post
21-03-2012, 02:04 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Light is really FSM's way of pissing all over your face. Don't take it as an insult though. He just likes giving golden showers.

A theist and an atheist go to heaven.
theist: "See! There is a heaven."
atheist: "So, you consider heaven a joke too?"
------
Defy gravity... stand up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes craniumonempty's post
24-03-2012, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2012 09:50 PM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(21-03-2012 08:24 AM)Sol Wrote:  Would it be a terrible imposition for you to clarify something for me. If there is no such thing as evolution, how can there be devolution. ?

Because we actually see it - observable, testable, repeatable evidence in labs. Basic mutations in DNA are devolution. Genetic degradation. Genes being destroyed, breaking down. It's all over the place. And yet some people chose to believe that if enough of these mutations can add together, we will accidentally get forward progress, which natural selection then acts on to cause evolution.

(21-03-2012 08:24 AM)Sol Wrote:  Unfortunately that IS the process of evolution, I know it's disappointing. Evolution is not supposed to be about gaining traits in the long run. (I mean how could you get a human from a cuttlefish if that was how evolution worked.)

If evolution is not about gaining new traits, then I'm not quite sure how we get from a cuttlefish to a human? I'm pretty sure a human has many genetic traits which a cuttlefish does not. Can you please explain that to me?

(21-03-2012 08:24 AM)Sol Wrote:  One more question, if that's ok, how can you not discuss evolution in connection with calculating the age of the earth ?

It was simply to avoid going more off topic than we already have. The thread was supposed to be about distant starlight travel times.

(21-03-2012 08:24 AM)Sol Wrote:  If it took millions of years for crocodiles to evolve, where were they living if the earth wasn't inventificated till later ?

Well, that's sort of the point. If the earth wasn't "inventificated" until later, then I'd have to say the conclusion is that crocodiles didn't evolve over millions of years.

(21-03-2012 09:32 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Let the earth - not god - bring forth... according to their kind sounds just like let each species evolve according to its environment. The serpent - god interferes and removes his legs, just like the fossil record indicates; god in this case being an "environmental hazard causing mutation." Wink

I can only say that seems like a very selective reading of a very narrow passage. It seems to imply a narrow interpretation only, and seems to go against the context of the writing. For example, this would only support the evolution of land animals. Different language in a previous verse ("Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth") still lends to the idea of sea creatures and flying creatures being created, not evolving. Also, each time, the language strongly implies multiple types of creatures coming into existence at the same time, as opposed to gradually one by one.

In addition, how do you account for the fact that the verse you quote clearly says all the land creatures came into existence on a single day? I doubt you accept that evolution happened in just one day! Also, how do you account for the order of the animals coming into existence? Flying creatures are listed as coming into existence on the previous day, but evolution says that land creatures came first. And how do you account for the fact that man is clearly specified as being created distinctly, not coming from the animals as you mentioned in that verse? There just appears to be way too many ways that the story in Genesis does not support evolution, I just don't think a single method of reading a single phrase in a single verse can override the rest of the story in that context.

(21-03-2012 09:32 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And I ain't hearing "no money to support creation research" - nobody got money like the church. Thing is, most of the religious accept evolution.

I'd probably have to say the church would typically rather spend money on programs and services that help people - and outrageously opulent, completely unnecessary massive buildings, unfortunately. As for most of the "religious" accepting evolution (or at least those who check off the religious box on a census form), there are lots of things people like that accept that go against the bible - adultery, divorce, lying, etc. Compromise is quite common - but that's a discussion for a different thread.

(21-03-2012 09:35 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  You keep declining your opportunities to make any points, as obviously you can't.

Seriously? I was asked to give evidence that dark matter was hypothetical. I provided 6 definitions from sources that normally provide definitions. All 6 contained the word "hypothetical" in some form. I was told they weren't good enough, so I provided 3 more links, from normally very respected scientific organizations. This included direct evidence pointing to the fact that dark matter likely doesn't exist. How can this possibly be claimed that I decline opportunities to make any points? Do you even read the posts I make?

(21-03-2012 09:35 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  I don't need a thesaurus. YOU need to explain how knowing is NOT a process, in physical terms. "Knowing" *happens*. It occurs by the actions of brain chemistry.
(That's one of the sciences BTW). There is NO instance you can name where that is NOT a PROCESS, (as he said). THAT needs time, (as he said). So sad, too bad. You totally missed the point. They are BOTH processes. "Knowing" happens, (in time), because neuro chemistry happens. End of story.

A whole lot of babble there, and no evidence. I provided explanations, I provided links to external sources with definitions. If you want to simply ignore all of that and arbitrarily claim the opposite, I can't really stop you, can I?

(21-03-2012 09:35 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  As for the "swatting". You missed. As for the "no sweat"...maybe, but it sure did take a lot of your time to do it. Clearly it rattled you.

No, it didn't take much time at all. Clearly it made me laugh, so I thought I would take the brief amount of time it would take to make you look foolish, which was neither lengthy, nor difficult.

(21-03-2012 09:35 AM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Typical. No arguments. Just side stepping all the questions.

As mentioned, when you commit multiple logical fallacies, which I clearly pointed out by name, there is no need to argue against them. They are self-refuting.

You seem to have a desire to win an argument, and believe the best way to do that is to be short on substance, but heavy on the yelling and ranting. Since that's the case, I will happily concede to you. You are clearly a louder yeller and better ranter than I.

(20-03-2012 08:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHXv-NuSn...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (see 43/44 minutes..99+%)

So Bucky, I'm actually curious if you even watched the videos that you linked to?

I'll grant you that the third one has Dr Krauss actually stating the claim you make of 99%+ dark matter and dark energy. That's hardly proof, however, given the myriad of disagreement on the issue, as I've already pointed out. The general consensus is less than your number, so a single YouTube source isn't going to cut it.

As for the first video, did you seriously mean to include a video of Dr Krauss getting his butt handed to him by Dr Craig in that debate? I can't see how Dr Krauss losing a debate to a Christian philosopher helps your case in any way!

And the second video - did you even watch it? That's your proof for the existence of dark matter? That video does nothing to prove it's existence, and everything to counter it's existence! Since you seem to have not watched it, I'll pull out some great quotes from the transcript for you:


"Mysterious"
"Can only be inferred…"
"This powerful, invisible, hypothetical force…"
"The concept of dark matter has been introduced…"
"It is believed…"
"It is dark matter which is believed…"
"It is thought to play a role…"
"Dark matter can only be inferred indirectly…"
"It is also believed to account…"
"If dark matter does exist, it is believed to consist…"
"Dark matter is believed to account for…"
"The inferred, hypothetical, invisible dark matter has been introduced…"
"Created a theoretical three dimensional map of dark matter…"

And the icing on the cake, the final conclusion is:

"In truth, what these speculative flights of fantasy really indicate is that the temple priests of science have no understanding as to the nature of the universe and are simply grasping at straws in creating ever more convoluted and contradictory theories in order to preserve their god."

That's your proof for the existence of dark matter????? I'm beginning to doubt you have any concept of what the word proof actually means! You've just destroyed your own entire argument!

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I hope not to misrepresent your model,

It appears you've done it consistently, as I get the same numbers you arrive at.

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Xia Dynasty - 13.55 million people (2070 BC– 1600 BC) This single data is an anomaly according to your model, and therefore I hope you are able to devise a better model which allows for prediction of world populations at least to the year 1000AD, or even better, to present times, to further confirm the validity of your model.

But that sort of goes against the whole point of what I was saying. I wasn't trying to put together a model that I believe is an exact representation. For example, I don't believe for a moment that the world population was 2.5 billion in 750BC. The whole point of this model was to show that a reasonable model based on rational data and assumptions can counter the idea of unrealistic historically low populations that you brought up to begin with. It seems like at first, the model was too low, and now it's too high! Smile All I was trying to do here was to show a logical way in which the model can satisfy the objection you originally made. To go any further into coming up with a complete scientific model would require the type of research that I simply don't have time for, nor really need to do to satisfy my belief that population growth statistics are modelled better under a young earth paradigm.

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I found an interesting article on how to estimate ancient populations.

Thanks for that link. The article does look interesting. Consider it downloaded and added to my collection!

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Heard of vestigial structures?

I have, and the old lists of vestigial structures and organs have entirely been debunked. We keep learning more and more about how important so many of them are. This is a spot where I'll simply link to details from creationists, since it will provide information on the structures and organs listed on your diagram, and so many more, you may find it interesting.

Vestigial Organs Revisited (including the comments section at the end, which describes why some deteriorated organs do exist)
Do Any Vestigial Organs Exist In Humans?

This is a spot where I would simply reverse a common claim against creationists, and turn it back on evolutionists. "Just because we haven't figured something out yet, that doesn't mean there's not an explanation we may find one day." One thing I always say to people who bring this up: if you truly believe these organs or structures to be vestigial, I'll pay for the operation for you to have them removed. Should we start with the coccyx? Or how about male nipples? Do you really want to have a healthy appendix removed?

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  The Evolution of Whales - A story of how a land mammal decided to become the king of the oceans

This is another typical favourite of evolutionists. But it's simply out of date information. Take Rodhocetus, for example. When Dr Philip Gingerich first found a Rodhocetus fossil, there were certain aspects that made him believe it was a transition between walking mammals and whales. So he interpreted it as such. Diagrams pictured it as having a fluked tail, like whales do. However, the tail bones were not found, including the necessary ball vertebrae which typically denotes a fluked tail or not. In interviews for the book "Evolution: The Grand Experiment", Dr. Gingerich was quoted as saying "I speculated that it might have had a fluke. I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail." In addition, the original fossil was found without front limbs or lower hind limbs. Flippers were added to drawings simply based on speculation - it was believed to be a whale transitional form, so it must have had flippers. Dr. Gingerich subsequently did find additional bones for the front limbs and hands, and now believes that it did not have flippers. So the very scientist who discovered the fossils of this species admits to speculating without evidence, and then changing his mind once evidence was found that proved him wrong. And yet it still shows up in evolutionists' trees for the evolution of whales, since they need to have SOMETHING to put in there, since evolution is accepted regardless of whether or not the evidence supports it.

Similar stories can be found for other species on that list, but I'll let you search them out if you'd like. Basically, where good and complete fossil evidence is found, a case for evolution just can't be made. The idea and interpretation of evolutionary progress from the fossil record only exists in partial, sketchy, incomplete evidence which is reconstructed and interpreted in the most favourable light possible.

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  It actually happens both ways. Bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer by conjugation(between two bacteria), transduction(from a virus), or transformation(from stray DNA).

But this still doesn't explain where the genetic information for such traits comes from. Claiming to get it from another bacteria just transfers the problem to that other bacteria. How did it arise in the first place? It's like asking me how I baked a cake. If I said I bought it already made at the grocery store, it doesn't really explain the process of baking it, does it?

(21-03-2012 10:26 AM)robotworld Wrote:  I'm not sure what you mean by losing genes though. Can you elaborate? Do you mean insertional inactivation, a simple base mutation, the work of a restriction enzyme, or all of the above?

The way I was using the words in that specific instance, I was meaning simple base mutation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 03:09 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Thank you for your reply Smile

I'll make my reply a short one, covering vestigiality and bacteria antibiotic resistance.

Vestigiality does not mean that the organ is useless, but in fact it has lost its original function. Take for example the coccyx, which is the remnant of a tail. But that does not mean the coccyx is useless. Indeed, as the links you provided have mentioned, it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments.

Regarding where the other bacteria got its gene from? Transduction (from viral sources), Transformation (from stray DNA originated from lysed cells), or mutation through substitution, addition or subtraction.

I'm still looking into your other four evidences and on transitional fossils. Will reply when I have enough time Smile

Banana_zorro

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 04:24 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(24-03-2012 09:21 PM)SixForty Wrote:  I just don't think...

You said it. Big Grin

Bible comes from the words of the prophets who interpret visions from god. We're talking primitive nomads who don't know enough not to pee in their water supply. If you think they can tune into the cosmic radio and rebroadcast inerrantly - ya just don't think. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
26-03-2012, 03:36 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 03:37 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(25-03-2012 03:09 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Vestigiality does not mean that the organ is useless, but in fact it has lost its original function. Take for example the coccyx, which is the remnant of a tail. But that does not mean the coccyx is useless. Indeed, as the links you provided have mentioned, it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments.

Like you say, there are completely valid reasons why some organs have deteriorated, as even mentioned in the one article I linked to. But taking the hard evidence for facts like that, and then jumping to the assumption that a coccyx used to be a tail - I just don't see it. If someone accepts evolution already, then it may be the beginning of an explanation under that paradigm. But in the search for whether or not evolution is true, it's just not really close to being evidence for support.

(25-03-2012 04:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Bible comes from the words of the prophets who interpret visions from god. We're talking primitive nomads who don't know enough not to pee in their water supply. If you think they can tune into the cosmic radio and rebroadcast inerrantly - ya just don't think. Tongue

Well, if someone denies that God exists, then I can completely understand that it might look that way. But that's circular reasoning. If God does exist, and was powerful enough to create the entire universe, and all life as we know it, then speaking to a prophet and having them write down His words isn't really the stretch of the imagination that you make it out to be, now is it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 04:30 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(26-03-2012 03:36 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 04:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Bible comes from the words of the prophets who interpret visions from god. We're talking primitive nomads who don't know enough not to pee in their water supply. If you think they can tune into the cosmic radio and rebroadcast inerrantly - ya just don't think. Tongue

Well, if someone denies that God exists, then I can completely understand that it might look that way. But that's circular reasoning. If God does exist, and was powerful enough to create the entire universe, and all life as we know it, then speaking to a prophet and having them write down His words isn't really the stretch of the imagination that you make it out to be, now is it.
Um... why would God entrust such a vital thing to nomads in the desert, encrypted with his own special WTF algorithm which can only be decoded by those who believe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
26-03-2012, 05:23 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(26-03-2012 03:36 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Well, if someone denies that God exists, then I can completely understand that it might look that way. But that's circular reasoning. If God does exist, and was powerful enough to create the entire universe, and all life as we know it, then speaking to a prophet and having them write down His words isn't really the stretch of the imagination that you make it out to be, now is it.

You musta missed http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-The-LC all about Johnny Cantor, prophet of god. Seven billion people, twelve thousand years of civilization, eleven years of love and madness with the divine simulation of Gwyneth Paltrow; all to say Love is Void.

Let yer words be few, book says. I got that part. Creationism? Multiplication of words without knowledge. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 10:11 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  The extraterrestrial seeding idea doesn't really fly well - it simply moves the abiogenesis problem from our planet to somewhere else. First life had to start somewhere, whether here or another planet. As for abiogenesis being impossible, most would point to Pasteur's results, proving that life only comes from life. For me, my main reason, it's simply a matter of statistics. Many people have done the probabilities to show what it would actually take to get all the necessary materials together at the same place at the same time, to be able to form even the most simple, basic form of life that we know of. The number I've seen a couple of times is 10^5000. That's a 1 with 5000 zeros. In contrast, the number of atoms in the whole universe is estimated to be 10^80. Even if every atom in the universe could interact with every other atom in the universe once every microsecond for the entire history of the supposed 13.5 billion year old universe, you'd get somewhere around 10^190 atomic interactions - still nowhere near enough. I did some calculations once on some basic improbable things here on earth that would add up to 10^5000. It's quite amazing how absurdly improbably that number really is! I will try and track down those numbers for you - some of them are kind of interesting.

Pasteur didn't posit that life only comes from life, but that life doesn't generate spontaneously --- and he was right. He didn't claim that life never generated spontaneously, and again I argue that it's a logical absurdity to even suggest it as it creates an infinite regress. And who cares if extraterrestrial seeding is true or not? I even stated that I don't personally believe in it --- I was merely presenting an example to illuminate your false dichotomy of creation or evolution.

Your understanding of probability is limited. Let me educate you on probability, especially on how it pertains to abiogenesis. There are plenty of people who make this same assumption that you've made, that it had to be a one-shot opportunity that could only happen in one place at one time, rather than an event that could happen in any cubic inch of ocean during any given minute.

(21-03-2012 07:24 AM)SixForty Wrote:  The explanation would come from multiple sources. First, if there is a creator, by definition he would not be subject to the things he created. He would be transcendent of them, and since time is a feature of this universe, he would be transcendent of it. Second, from philosophy, various arguments about God (i.e. the cosmological argument) lead to certain observations about what attributes he would need to have, based on the argument given, and timelessness appears to be one of them. Third, from biblical sources, God is quoted as making a number of statements that imply this, things like being the Alpha and Omega, etc. All of those add up to the belief that God always was. It's often hard for me to grasp the implications of that, but it does make sense.

As for your claims that life always was or that the universe always was, I think that breaks down on two fronts. First, science itself, through it's own big bang theory, claims that the universe had a beginning. Second, the law of cause and effect that exists within this universe effectively rules out an infinite past. If there was an infinite past within this universe, then we never would have been able to get to the point we are at right now! In the philosophy of science, this would fall under the difference between a hypothetical series of infinite events and an actual series of infinite events. An actual series of infinite events is impossible to exist in the reality of our universe. If you want me to expand on that, I'd actually need to look up some sources to send you to, because this is a part of philosophy were I quickly get in over my head. (I can occasionally understand some of the arguments along these lines, but I admit that some of the more advanced thinkers on this kind of topic can quickly lose me!)

I understand why these attributes are credited to God, and as you've explained they are philosophical and/or bible-based... none of them are scientifically verifiable. That's the currency we trade here. If you can't describe God through evidence, then we don't take any of these descriptions as "fact".

Even if literally nobody believes that the universe has "always been", that still doesn't prove that it hasn't. While science does have an answer to the universe's origin in the Big Bang Theory, you can't both be supporting it and arguing against it... consider it an alternative theory if you don't believe that the Big Bang Theory is true. My point was that I could simply assert it in the same way without presenting evidence if you felt that it was okay to do that with God's beginning. I would also add the point that there's no logical reason to make a case of special pleading for God to be exempt from this rule that you quoted: "the law of cause and effect that exists within this universe effectively rules out an infinite past". I notice you add "within this universe" to try to exempt God, but literally anything outside of this universe is hypothetical... it can't be observed (if there even is anything outside of this universe), so it's entirely possible that something "outside the universe" is also subject to cause and effect. How could we know that this is not true?

I also once thought, as you do, that time couldn't be infinite because we'd never reach this point... but you're thinking of it in a linear or "Euclidean" fashion. Stephen Hawking posits that time is an enclosed 3D manifold like the surface of a sphere --- no beginning or end, but still plenty of points to be charted. This isn't necessarily the answer to the question of time, but it is an answer that solves the logical paradoxes that I produced. And as you may have noticed, it's an "always existed" argument much like God's "always existence"... but we have much stronger evidence for the existence of time. There's no need to jump the gun and try to prove the origin of God before proving his current existence.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: