• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
False. We have an age from the event horizon of the Big Bang. Nobody is sure what, if anything, is beyond that.
Of course we are sure. Time started then. There is NO "before" the start of time. The start of time is the zero time point.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Just wondering, what does big bang has to do with a dad disowning his gay son? Guess both are talking about something in the universe?

The thread naturally evolved (heh, get it?) into this. The letter is either real or not, but that topic was beat to death a long time back and then the religious angle started being discussed. This then lead into a deeper discussion of the religious angle, which then lead to a discussion of evolution. Evolution discussions usually then move to abiogenesis and the creation of the universe.

And here we are. :)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
There are others as well to be sure.

There is a school of thought that smaller chains were formed first, which then combined, etc, into the larger ones. These smaller chains are no longer around as they have no useful purpose and the environment to create them naturally no longer exists. I cannot speak to the validity of such a thought, nor any experimental data on it.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,068
870
126
There is a school of thought that smaller chains were formed first, which then combined, etc, into the larger ones. These smaller chains are no longer around as they have no useful purpose and the environment to create them naturally no longer exists. I cannot speak to the validity of such a thought, nor any experimental data on it.
Doubtless Scientists that advocate a strict adherence to materialism will be forever attempting to come up with explanations for the origin of Life or evolution that doesn't involve any sort of Intelligence whatsoever.

It's rather comical when I think about it, because they are just as guilty of blind faith as the most ardent evangelical.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,517
3,615
126
Doubtless Scientists that advocate a strict adherence to materialism will be forever attempting to come up with explanations for the origin of Life or evolution that doesn't involve any sort of Intelligence whatsoever.

It's rather comical when I think about it, because they are just as guilty of blind faith as the most ardent evangelical.
Negative.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
Doubtless Scientists that advocate a strict adherence to materialism will be forever attempting to come up with explanations for the origin of Life or evolution that doesn't involve any sort of Intelligence whatsoever.

It's rather comical when I think about it, because they are just as guilty of blind faith as the most ardent evangelical.
It's not "blind" faith if there are repeatable observations and tests that back up the belief.

Origin of Life and Evolution is starting to be explained by "Chaos". Google The Secret Life of Chaos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

The science channel had a recent documentary called "chaos science" which is more updated than the BBC and deals with evolution and how order comes from chaos.
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Of course we are sure. Time started then. There is NO "before" the start of time. The start of time is the zero time point.
You're letting "time" cloud your thinking. Time is a dimension; it's to be included along with other dimensions when considering the properties of our universe.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
First off, I didn't say it violated any law. I said it defied them.. What I specifically meant was, that life forms have self organizational properties that cannot be explained by mere physics and chemistry.
Defiance of the law is violation of the law. What law, precisely, is being defied?
The best example I can think of, is gene expression. While living creatures are made up of atoms and molecules just like everything else, the whole process of gene expression is EXTREMELY organized and ordered.

In fact, DNA base sequencing is often compared to a language, and not just because of the information content, but because of how it depends on a specific order for it to accomplish it's intended purpose.

Physics and chemistry may be able to determine the full spectrum of combinations and bonds of these chemicals, but they cannot explain their exceptionally ordered nature anymore than they can explain the words I'm writing right now in reply to you....which also depends on a highly specific order for them to make sense.
Neuroscience adequately explains the words you are writing, chemistry explains genetics.

See my last reply to Cerpin Taxt, as I listed a few of them.. Though I have to say I think it's highly ridiculous for you to utterly reject their analyses and claim they are ignorant of math and physics just because you don't agree with their conclusion.

To the point, they possess PhDs in their chosen fields, whether it be mathematics, biophysics, evolutionary biology etc and have forgotten more about maths, chemistry and physics than you will likely ever know..
I did read it, I asked for the calculations, not the numbers some people got from calculations, supposedly. However, more than that, your creationist quote mine website doesn't show what you think it does.

The quote from Blum, first of all, seems to be between 50-60 years old (as it seems to come somewhere in his work Time's Arrow and Evolution first published in 1951 and updated a couple more times with new editions) and so is pretty useless in terms modern science anyway. More than that, the actual quote from Blum seems to be that last line at the end, the rest being slapped on as commentary by an unknown, and therefor non-credible party. Further still, based on the larger body of the work, he seems to be how evolution takes place within the second law of thermodynamics, his conclusion still being it does with no indication he holds any kind of guided process.

The second quote from Morowitz was deliberately and willfully lifted out of context by creationists. Indeed he very explicitly saying the exact opposite of what they are claiming he says. The quote, in full context, is a description of how in a static environment the odds are extremely low, however, the Earth is not a static environment. What is more, Morowitz explicitly rejects creationism as a viable solution.

The final quote from Yockey, once again, is 35 years old, which isn't a good start, but more than that no part of evolutionary theory, or even abiogenesis requires fully formed modern polypeptides to suddenly appear out of nowhere. It does, however, have well documented evidence of which they can form gradually over time into gradually more complex and stable compounds. What is more, even your uncited source admits Yockey still believed in evolution despite the supposed calculations and so clearly he must not have found them that convincing and so why should I?
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You're letting "time" cloud your thinking. Time is a dimension; it's to be included along with other dimensions when considering the properties of our universe.
Not really...without time, there can be no before. Before requires time to already exist. You cannot have something before time began...it simply cannot happen...

I understand what you are saying, but that is my point. We are so time based, due to being products of a time based universe, that we do not have a way to describe "before" time began.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Not really...without time, there can be no before. Before requires time to already exist. You cannot have something before time began...it simply cannot happen...

I understand what you are saying, but that is my point. We are so time based, due to being products of a time based universe, that we do not have a way to describe "before" time began.
I don't think that ours is a "time-based" universe; we use time segments to count our days/hours/minutes of our lives, we use larger time segments to chart the "age" of our universe. When we get back to the Big Bang, we use incredibly small time segments (Plancks) to count back more accurately to the event. Whatever happened or simply was "before" that event may be expressed in a different way or not at all.

What if the universe always exists, in this or other forms; no beginning and no end. Time can be a great definer, it can also be very limiting. We invented and use time to more accurately describe both ongoing processes and processes recent or long past; we may discover in the future how completely inadequate "time" is as a descriptor or delimiter.
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Not quite. In ye olde days there wasn't any experimental evidence to show the rate of expansion was slowing, it was merely assumed by what we knew of gravity at the time. The thought was that because gravity is attractive and even though the strength of gravity declines greatly over distance, it is still a nonzero amount, it will eventually serve to bring any two objects together not being acted upon by an outside force. That outside forces are minimal in the larger universe, especially over large spans of time, it was assumed this attraction would serve to eventually pull the whole universe back together. Once we had the capacity to actually carry out experiments, we determined much to our surprise that, as you said, not only is the universe not slowing, it is expanding apart which implies a negative pressure on space, which is called dark energy.

Dark matter is something else, something meant to address a different problem. The universe is much, much heavier than the stuff we can see. For example, with galaxies spinning at their observed rate they should be flying apart; too much angular momentum in their arms. They aren't, and what that tells us is there is a much more intense force of gravity than just the visible matter in the galaxy to increase the mass and thus increase the gravitational attraction.

What's more, we have actually seen dark matter, kind of. After galaxy collisions, all sorts of galactic crap gets thrown everywhere; dust, stars, planets, and dark matter. When observing the remains of a galactic collision, we have discovered at least one region of space that produces a gravitational lense effect despite being observably empty. Gravitational lensing, for those not familiar with the term, is where gravity in a region bends light, causing light traveling past it to curve inward towards the gravity well. Like the lense on a camera, it will create a focal point, where, over great distances, light will converge which allows us to see things behind other things. What this all means is that there is an empty region of space with the mass of a galaxy; one of the destroyed galaxy's dark matter halos.

Now, don't get me wrong, we still have a lot we don't understand about them and we are learning more all the time. That said, a little perspective is called for; we aren't marking our maps of the galaxy "here be dragons" either.
I had read about gravitational lensing effect from dark matter briefly though I neglected to tie it into dark energy. Heady stuff; but also a driving force to read more about the two and their connection to more observable and testable forces.

What a shame; I was so hoping to find a celestial dragon lair with maybe a couple of eggs or a newly hatched baby.;)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I don't think that ours is a "time-based" universe; we use time segments to count our days/hours/minutes of our lives, we use larger time segments to chart the "age" of our universe. When we get back to the Big Bang, we use incredibly small time segments (Plancks) to count back more accurately to the event. Whatever happened or simply was "before" that event may be expressed in a different way or not at all.

What if the universe always exists, in this or other forms; no beginning and no end. Time can be a great definer, it can also be very limiting. We invented and use time to more accurately describe both ongoing processes and processes recent or long past; we may discover in the future how completely inadequate "time" is as a descriptor or delimiter.
One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Always is time based, and without time, there cannot be an always - at least in reference to our universe. If you are talking a metaverse, megaverse, alternate realities, etc, sure, but that is so far away from actual science they cannot even be considered valid scientific theories since they are as non-falsifiable as Intelligent Design is.

Time would exist without humans here measuring it, Radioactive decay still happens...and that is a great way to measure time. We simply defined and measure what is already here. When you get back to the singularity, time no longer exists, space no longer exists, the universe no longer exists. The universe is a space-time matrix. Without space and time, you have no universe. Without time, you cannot have a before, since that is time based.

Basically, it is that point where science must stop. The scope of science is limited to the natural world (world to include the universe). Once we leave that realm, we are outside the scope of science, since we can no longer falsify any of the theories. It just is what it is.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Of course we are sure.
Another lie.

Time started then.
Time is not the universe. Time is a coordinate.

There is NO "before" the start of time. The start of time is the zero time point.
I didn't say "before," so I don't know who's posts you've been reading. Time starting does not equal the universe beginning. For something to begin, it needs to have not existed. You are tasked to show where the universe did not exist and then began to exist.

You have utterly failed. All you can muster is lies.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126


There are others as well to be sure.
Do you want to wager that I can construct a plausible thought experiment wherein I personally accomplish within a 24-hour period an event of greater improbability than that calculated by Harold Blum? That is to say, do you think I can demonstrate an event more improbable than 1/10^300 in 24 hours? Would you bet that I cannot?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
We are so time based, due to being products of a time based universe, that we do not have a way to describe "before" time began.
The universe is not "time based" any more than geology is "latitude based." Your confused little mind cannot tell the difference between the map and the territory.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Another lie.


Time is not the universe. Time is a coordinate.


I didn't say "before," so I don't know who's posts you've been reading. Time starting does not equal the universe beginning. For something to begin, it needs to have not existed. You are tasked to show where the universe did not exist and then began to exist.

You have utterly failed. All you can muster is lies.
The universe is not "time based" any more than geology is "latitude based." Your confused little mind cannot tell the difference between the map and the territory.

:D On any timeline, the zero point is the beginning. The word begin is a time based word, without time, the word has no meaning.

Face it, your magic man is making you say stupid things again.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Always is time based, and without time, there cannot be an always - at least in reference to our universe. If you are talking a metaverse, megaverse, alternate realities, etc, sure, but that is so far away from actual science they cannot even be considered valid scientific theories since they are as non-falsifiable as Intelligent Design is.

Time would exist without humans here measuring it, Radioactive decay still happens...and that is a great way to measure time. We simply defined and measure what is already here. When you get back to the singularity, time no longer exists, space no longer exists, the universe no longer exists. The universe is a space-time matrix. Without space and time, you have no universe. Without time, you cannot have a before, since that is time based.

Basically, it is that point where science must stop. The scope of science is limited to the natural world (world to include the universe). Once we leave that realm, we are outside the scope of science, since we can no longer falsify any of the theories. It just is what it is.
Not really; if there's no one to measure it, time has no definition or meaning. Radioactive decay still happens but if humans aren't around it isn't being measured.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not really; if there's no one to measure it, time has no definition or meaning. Radioactive decay still happens but if humans aren't around it isn't being measured.
If humans are not around to measure something, it ceases to exist? Rivers cease to flow because humans are not here to measure the passage of the water? Time ceases to exist because humans are not here to measure the passage of time?

If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
If humans are not around to measure something, it ceases to exist? Rivers cease to flow because humans are not here to measure the passage of the water? Time ceases to exist because humans are not here to measure the passage of time?

If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it.
Just moments ago, you posted the following in another thread:

You guys need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.
Since you have appointed yourself the staying-on-track monitor, I am curious why you feel it's appropriate to continue with this same discussion in light of the fact it has nothing to do with the thread topic. Left to my own devices, I would not have bothered to point that out, but since you're such a stickler I find it strange that you are continuing with this discussion.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Just moments ago, you posted the following in another thread:



Since you have appointed yourself the staying-on-track monitor, I am curious why you feel it's appropriate to continue with this same discussion in light of the fact it has nothing to do with the thread topic. Left to my own devices, I would not have bothered to point that out, but since you're such a stickler I find it strange that you are continuing with this discussion.
Did a mod come in here and say to stop the derailment? If yes, I missed it, point it out and I will call for people to stop violating his command. If no, then you already know the answer but instead are just showing yourself to be a moron.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
One thing has to wonder though, if they believe in parallel universes is:

If Parallel universes exist, it means 1 exists (To infinity) for each decision that was not made. (1 universe where you did eat a chocolate bar on Day X and 1 Universe where you didn't. Which branches to universes if you did/didn't have some other sweet snack)

Therefore, I theorize that if such a thing is true, could it not be stated that each universe is created (big bang) by such an event? Therefore everytime a decision is made, a new universe is created through a big bang that will grow up to be exactly the same except with the opposite of that decision being made. And with this growing to infinity, you can assume there has never been "time" as each universe has a different age.

Or you can go the science route and understand the 11 dimensions, and that each one is a measurement, not a thing. Much like a 3-d plot has x, y, z. A 4-d plot is t, x, y, z. Which goes on to state time is only a relative means to our perception in which we use it to measure and keep order in our minds the chaotic and entropic nature of the universe, when 'time' doesn't exist, but is just a measurement created by life.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The measurement of the flow of time was created by humans, just like the measurement of the flow of a river was created by humans. The river will continue to flow even if no one is measuring it, just as time will.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
If humans are not around to measure something, it ceases to exist? Rivers cease to flow because humans are not here to measure the passage of the water? Time ceases to exist because humans are not here to measure the passage of time?

If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it.
Please note that I never said that time ceases to exist, I said time has no definition or meaning if we're not here to measure it. Likewise radioactive decay still happens, we're just not here to measure it. I never spoke to rivers ceasing to flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_(sense)

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around, the tree falling obviously creates different vibrations in air pressure waves. To most creatures including humans, these vibrations are sound; so if no creatures are around when the tree is falling it does not make a sound.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Please note that I never said that time ceases to exist, I said time has no definition or meaning if we're not here to measure it. Likewise radioactive decay still happens, we're just not here to measure it. I never spoke to rivers ceasing to flow.
Gotcha. You are saying what I am saying then. Time will still exist regardless of there being any life forms to measure its existance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_(sense)

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around, the tree falling obviously creates different vibrations in air pressure waves. To most creatures including humans, these vibrations are sound; so if no creatures are around when the tree is falling it does not make a sound.
The vibrations are still made regardless of anyone hearing them, so a sound it made.:

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

It will not make a noise, though. Noise is unwanted sound. People confuse them a lot. I was the sound silencing petty officer on my sub, so sound and I became best friends for a few years. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY