Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 07-09-2002, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
I think Ross was pulling from two theories at the time. He was saying that Hawkins had already established that time was created at the creation event. Therefore, there would not have been any time at the creation event whether it was the result of a singularity or a quantum fluctuation. So the problem would remain, no?

(I'm admittedly talking WAY over my head at this point, but this is the position I believe Ross was trying to make. Feel free to intellectually pimp-slap me as needed.)

So, again, is there a time interval for quantum mechanisms to work with even outside a singularity, given Hawkings discovery?

I doubt that Hawking - given his PoV - ever talked of a "creation event"; this seems to be Ross' re-interpretation of Hawking. On the contrary, his models describe a universe which "just exists". I think Ross is just hearing what he wants to hear.

Ross' uncritical analogy between a formula which describes probabilities for an event within the universe to occur, and the proposed fluctuation which "produces" the universe is even more dubious, IMHO.

Regards,
HRG.

Ron Singh · 07-09-2002, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:


Was the cause of the universe supernatural and outside of of the universe? ok...
1. How could something be outside of space when was is no space?
2. How could something be "supernatural" when there was no "natural"?
3. Bahh!

You are misunderstanding. God is not outside or around anything, technically. God is immaterial. Supernatural is just our way of describing it. Have a good day.

Ron Singh · 07-09-2002, 09:32 PM

Tenacious B,

Even if the current flavor of the string theory is correct, there still must be a beginning of time, or otherwise we'de run into infinite regression, and we wouldn't want that!

Doubting Didymus · 07-09-2002, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
"during those 400 million years at least 35 life exterminating impactst must have occured. ... They show that life sprang up on Earth (and re-sprang) in what could be called geologic instants, periods of 10 millions years or less (between devestating impacts."
[/QB]

I know nothing about cosmology, but my field is biology, so I can answer this one.

This argument contains a huge assumption: that these 35 'life exterminating impacts' would necessarily destroy all life on the planet, without exception. This is just unfounded.

Contrary to the popular medias veiw on the subject, meteoric collisions would actually have little or no chance of exterminating life on earth completely. Certainly they can wipe most life forms from existance, but it is quite doubtful that a modern meteor collision could even manage to get rid of all cockroaches, let alone all micro-organisms. Cockroaches can survive a nuclear blast.

After each of these 35 extinction events, there would almost certainly be some organisms somewhere on the planet. Therefore these 10 000 year geological blinks are just the amounts of time that the surviving life repopulated the planet in, which is plenty of time.

It is generally agreed by 'evolutionists' that the first lifeform was not RNA, but a far simpler molecule that replicated itself, like an enzyme. If any chemists out there can postulate what they think the simplest enzyme that could produce a copy of itself is, we have a strong candidate for first ever lifeform. Once these molecules were around in large numbers they would probably be quite resistant to mass extinction. How do you murder every molecule on the globe? Only one molecule needs to survive, and it wouldnt need a mate, food, sunlight or anything else to repopulate.

LinuxPup · 07-10-2002, 12:13 AM

luvluv:

I'm glad to hear from someone who's read that book... I own that book, and have read it. After reading that book, and also reading the arguments from atheists/agnostics, it seems that the theist has the better arguments. One of the things I like a lot about that book are the "Closing loopholes" chapters. The fact is, the supposed "freethinkers" are by no means any more objective then the theist.

eh:

Quote:

And he is proposing a supernatural being as a creator without evidence, and without neccesity simply because he wants to believe in a God. Fair enough. While I agree that most alternatives to the BB don't seem to measure up, they are still more likely to be true than the explaination that magic created the universe.

Without evidence? Read the book. The Big Bang is one of the most convincing arguments for God. Unless you deny the logical principles of causality then the universe has a non-material, timeless, cause. This is what we call God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the compelling evidence.

Quote:

This is complete nonsense. The big bang is widely accepted among cosmologists. Yet, the majority of these scientists are non theists. Why do you suppose this is? The answer is that the big bang in no way implies a magical origin to the universe as Ross is proposing.

You're presenting an "ad populum" argument.

Quote:

I don't wonder at all. Nor do I wonder why peer review and creationists don't seem to go hand in hand. It's much easier to write books to audiences where most of your claims will go unchallenged.

You don't seem to be challenging this claim.

Quote:

Really, did you find anything about this book that was convincing?

Don't walk around the arguments... tell us *how* his claims are false, not just that they are. You never gave any compelling evidence to support the idea that Ross is wrong, so why should I believe you?

The fact is, I think the negative vibes by nontheists on infidels ought to diminish or go away completely. It's not foolish, nor is it without reason to believe in the existance of God. If you only read from this website, you'd think that the theist is completely ignorant with no reason at all for his belief, while the atheist is objective and has always intelligently examined his own viewpoint. This is simply not the case. I have a lot of respect for many atheists that I've written/spoken to, but I think this stereotype ought to leave.

funnyguy · 07-10-2002, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wordsmyth:


This claim is completely absurd and I'm certain he cannot produce any evidence of a single practical theory from any respected scientist to support this.

He seems to be writing specifically to an audience who won't question or attempt to verify the validity of his claims.

In his book, "Just Six Numbers", Martin Rees, Royal Society Research Professor at Cambridge University (Cosmology) presents the observational data for a "finely tuned" universe. The chances of a universe existing wherein it is possible for human life to occur are pretty small, he claims. Rees (who seems to be an atheist) suggests that the only options are "coincidence, providence or a multi-universe." Rees favors the multi-universe.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funnyguy:


In his book, "Just Six Numbers", Martin Rees, Royal Society Research Professor at Cambridge University (Cosmology) presents the observational data for a "finely tuned" universe. The chances of a universe existing wherein it is possible for human life to occur are pretty small, he claims. Rees (who seems to be an atheist) suggests that the only options are "coincidence, providence or a multi-universe." Rees favors the multi-universe.

Like many who study this, Rees has got things bass-ackwards. A universe that operates by selection processes working under natural law will always appear to be fine-tuned. Rees may be an atheist, but that doesn't mean he has a good understanding of the problem. He is like the fish swimming in the ocean claiming "Look how this place was made for us?"

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 06:29 AM

BTW, Luv, if you want to know what Shapiro thinks, see <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990513070141.htm" target="_blank">this article</a>. Far from imagining that life is rare and improbable, Shapiro believes it is more common than everyone thinks. <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/Faculty/shapiro.html" target="_blank">His website is here</a>

Perhaps the book above has mis-represented what Shapiro and other scientists working on abiogenesis actually think?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 06:34 AM

"The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 found in ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now, the earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten curst.

I suggest you look up "extremophiles," bacteria that thrive in active volcanoes and other extreme environments. Obviously, one of the assumptions in your paragraph above is wrong. For example, the first solid crust appeared about 4 billion years ago, according to what I've seen.

Vorkosigan · 07-10-2002, 06:44 AM

Without evidence? Read the book. The Big Bang is one of the most convincing arguments for God. Unless you deny the logical principles of causality then the universe has a non-material, timeless, cause. This is what we call God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the compelling evidence.

ROTFL. There are several reasons this is nonsense.

(1) There are a number of naturalistic scenarios in which the universe goes on forever, fluxing in and out of existence, or similar;

(2) "a non-material timeless cause" might be your definition of a personal god, but for others it is an impersonal force. Even if we assume that some outside force set off the BB, nowhere is it possible to conclude that your particular god, the local deity of Canaanite sheepherders, is the one who did it. Alternative supernatural explanations are equally plausible. In fact, the BB might well have been set in motion by powerful naturalistic beings, or as an offshoot of some other process by supernatural forces or entities. There is absolutely no reason to conclude, based on the BB, that your particular god is the one who did it, or even that it was intended to be done. All other supernatural and natural proposals are equally plausible. This is because, of course, there is no evidence for any of them.

Don't walk around the arguments... tell us *how* his claims are false, not just that they are. You never gave any compelling evidence to support the idea that Ross is wrong, so why should I believe you?

You don't have to believe anything, and given that you are silly enough to believe that the BB proves god when there is no logical connection at all....

Also, Linux, you have a history of posting and then leaving. Why should HRG bother to respond to someone who will fail to engage?

The fact is, I think the negative vibes by nontheists on infidels ought to diminish or go away completely. It's not foolish, nor is it without reason to believe in the existance of God.

Certainly there is good reason to believe in gods: indoctrination from birth, an extremely powerful force. But if you mean reasoning based on evidence and argument, well, then there is no reason at all to believe in any gods.

In any case, compelling arguments that Ross is wrong in concluding that the BB proves his particular superstitution is true have been given by HRG and myself.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

07-10-2002, 06:44 AM	#20
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Without evidence? Read the book. The Big Bang is one of the most convincing arguments for God. Unless you deny the logical principles of causality then the universe has a non-material, timeless, cause. This is what we call God. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the compelling evidence. ROTFL. There are several reasons this is nonsense. (1) There are a number of naturalistic scenarios in which the universe goes on forever, fluxing in and out of existence, or similar; (2) "a non-material timeless cause" might be your definition of a personal god, but for others it is an impersonal force. Even if we assume that some outside force set off the BB, nowhere is it possible to conclude that your particular god, the local deity of Canaanite sheepherders, is the one who did it. Alternative supernatural explanations are equally plausible. In fact, the BB might well have been set in motion by powerful naturalistic beings, or as an offshoot of some other process by supernatural forces or entities. There is absolutely no reason to conclude, based on the BB, that your particular god is the one who did it, or even that it was intended to be done. All other supernatural and natural proposals are equally plausible. This is because, of course, there is no evidence for any of them. Don't walk around the arguments... tell us how his claims are false, not just that they are. You never gave any compelling evidence to support the idea that Ross is wrong, so why should I believe you? You don't have to believe anything, and given that you are silly enough to believe that the BB proves god when there is no logical connection at all.... Also, Linux, you have a history of posting and then leaving. Why should HRG bother to respond to someone who will fail to engage? The fact is, I think the negative vibes by nontheists on infidels ought to diminish or go away completely. It's not foolish, nor is it without reason to believe in the existance of God. Certainly there is good reason to believe in gods: indoctrination from birth, an extremely powerful force. But if you mean reasoning based on evidence and argument, well, then there is no reason at all to believe in any gods. In any case, compelling arguments that Ross is wrong in concluding that the BB proves his particular superstitution is true have been given by HRG and myself. [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2002, 09:32 PM	#13
Ron Singh Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Fremont, CA Posts: 163	Tenacious B, Even if the current flavor of the string theory is correct, there still must be a beginning of time, or otherwise we'de run into infinite regression, and we wouldn't want that!

07-10-2002, 06:29 AM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	BTW, Luv, if you want to know what Shapiro thinks, see <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990513070141.htm" target="_blank">this article</a>. Far from imagining that life is rare and improbable, Shapiro believes it is more common than everyone thinks. <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/Faculty/shapiro.html" target="_blank">His website is here</a> Perhaps the book above has mis-represented what Shapiro and other scientists working on abiogenesis actually think? Vorkosigan

07-10-2002, 06:34 AM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	"The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 found in ancient sediments also indicates a plenitude of life on Earth for the era between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Now, the earth's crust remained molten until 3.9 billion years ago. Life obviously could not survive on or in a molten curst. I suggest you look up "extremophiles," bacteria that thrive in active volcanoes and other extreme environments. Obviously, one of the assumptions in your paragraph above is wrong. For example, the first solid crust appeared about 4 billion years ago, according to what I've seen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.