Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[Cerpin Taxt]

What I am asking is prior to the big bang there had to be a mass to have exploded in the first place. I am asking how was that mass there in the first place?

WHAT "first place"?

All the theories and testable hypothesis assume that this mass was just there the entire time, dormant. Again, I believe in a lot of what you have already stated...I'm just questioning how anything was in existence in the first place.

The big bang theory predicts a common singularity in the past of all existent matter within our patch of space-time. That is not a "mass" that was "just there the entire time" and it didn't "explode." Space-time itself is only meaningful in the future of the big bang singularity -- or more particularly, in the future of the event horizon of the big bang singularity.

To ask what was "before" the big bang is as meaningless as asking what is north of the North Pole.

 

[bas1c]

WHAT "first place"?


The big bang theory predicts a common singularity in the past of all existent matter within our patch of space-time. That is not a "mass" that was "just there the entire time" and it didn't "explode." Space-time itself is only meaningful in the future of the big bang singularity -- or more particularly, in the future of the event horizon of the big bang singularity.

To ask what was "before" the big bang is as meaningless as asking what is north of the North Pole.

It's meaningless in your opinion. Again, not saying you are wrong or anything. I have a tendency to ride the middle on most topics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's meaningless in your opinion.

It is not my opinion. It is a fact of the big bang model. The big bang singularity is a point in the mathematical model where all past world lines converge. It is a prediction based on the observed expansion of the universe. Time has no meaning except after the big bang. Literally, "before the big bang" is as meaningless as "north of the north pole."

 

[PowerEngineer]

You are still not hearing me and maybe it's just my lack of clearly stating what I'm trying to say. I never refuted big bang and the chain of events that brought us to this point. What I am asking is prior to the big bang there had to be a mass to have exploded in the first place. I am asking how was that mass there in the first place? All the theories and testable hypothesis assume that this mass was just there the entire time, dormant. Again, I believe in a lot of what you have already stated...I'm just questioning how anything was in existence in the first place.

I also was not talking about people trying to educate themselves as being a bad thing. As this thread and other threads in ATOT have proven in the past, people will start arguing with attack each other for the sake of proving others wrong and themselves right. They are so blinded by this attempt to try to display their intellectual superiority they ignore what other people say and it devolves into anger and personal attacks. You have proven this to me, quite obviously. I don't doubt you are an intelligent person and I know you have the education to back it.

Perhaps you are right in saying that your central point isn't coming across to some of us. Let me suggest that some of your rhetoric has suggested to us that you think that faith-based and science-based explanations are of essentially equal value. For example:

Creationists and Evolutionists share a common thing, assholes are among them. So don't the entire group because of some idiots.

The theory of evolution, in my opinion, only proved that evolution does exist and is the reason for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It does not explain how life began. At some point there is an assumption that all the essentials for life just happened to be there and the process started some how. You have faith that it was the case and no way of ever proving it. How is that any different than creationism? In that way, science has become a religion. You start with base precepts that will never be conclusively proven and build everything off of that. Religion has been proven wrong in the past and science has been as well. For all we know L. Ron Hubbard may be the greatest prophet and be ultimately proven right.

People who are fanatically religious are so because they want to feel like there is some great plan and that life itself is not chaos. Science fanatics are so because they want to think that they are in control of their own lives and not be bound to a higher being. In that way, they both fear the unknown.

L. Ron Hubbard? Really?

If your actual concern is over our inability to describe what happened "before" the time frames that cosmology can currently theorize, then I'm guessing you'll always have reason to be concerned. Given the very nature of the sigularity from which the "big bang" erupted, it's hard for me to see how science will ever be able to say much about anything before the "big bang".

Now I do understand that there are some theoretical physicists out there that think it may be possible to say something about what existed before the "big bang", but that's too fantastic for me right now.

Even if it turns out to be possible, I'm guessing those theories will only take us a little ways back before the "big bang". And then you'll want to know what happened "before" that! Maybe "we don't know" will always be the answer to "what happened before?".

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Perhaps you are right in saying that your central point isn't coming across to some of us. Let me suggest that some of your rhetoric has suggested to us that you think that faith-based and science-based explanations are of essentially equal value. For example:



L. Ron Hubbard? Really?

If your actual concern is over our inability to describe what happened "before" the time frames that cosmology can currently theorize, then I'm guessing you'll always have reason to be concerned. Given the very nature of the sigularity from which the "big bang" erupted, it's hard for me to see how science will ever be able to say much about anything before the "big bang".

Now I do understand that there are some theoretical physicists out there that think it may be possible to say something about what existed before the "big bang", but that's too fantastic for me right now.

Even if it turns out to be possible, I'm guessing those theories will only take us a little ways back before the "big bang". And then you'll want to know what happened "before" that! Maybe "we don't know" will always be the answer to "what happened before?".

The problem of 'what happened before' appears even if you believe in a god, because essentially god and the Big Bang share certain attributes - namely the fact that they purportedly exist(ed) outside of the spacetime in which our thinking is confined. Neither can provide an adequate answer as to whether there was a 'before', what happened during that time, and why there needed to be a 'now'. It's just that in my opinion scientists tend to handle the not knowing a bit better.

 

[bas1c]

The problem of 'what happened before' appears even if you believe in a god, because essentially god and the Big Bang share certain attributes - namely the fact that they purportedly exist(ed) outside of the spacetime in which our thinking is confined. Neither can provide an adequate answer as to whether there was a 'before', what happened during that time, and why there needed to be a 'now'. It's just that in my opinion scientists tend to handle the not knowing a bit better.

You and PowerEngineer make a good and honest point there. I really only got in this thread in the first place because some people just scream "you are stupid" because some people believe in God and science can answer EVERYTHING. My viewpoint was that this is just as bad as bible huggers that default their answers to God's plans or to just have faith.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Now I do understand that there are some theoretical physicists out there that think it may be possible to say something about what existed before the "big bang", but that's too fantastic for me right now.

The most contemporary cosmological theories that attempt to describe things "before" the big bang actually work in additional dimensions which are really only capable of being described mathematically. That's why "before" isn't a valid reference -- it describes a relationship in time. The theoretically relevant relationships exist in different dimensions than space or time, for which our language has no rigorously defined words.

Even if it turns out to be possible, I'm guessing those theories will only take us a little ways back before the "big bang". And then you'll want to know what happened "before" that! Maybe "we don't know" will always be the answer to "what happened before?".

His primary error is to assume that there must be an absolute beginning, which was the point of my repeated question "What first place?" In all likelihood, there was no such absolute beginning, and the big bang itself merely represents the commencement of our local patch of space-time, while still many other patches of space-time, or even unimaginable sets of dimensions, exist within a larger "superset" of such multidimensional "bubbles."

 

[bas1c]

L. Ron Hubbard? Really?

I was only making a lame joke.

 

[bas1c]

The most contemporary cosmological theories that attempt to describe things "before" the big bang actually work in additional dimensions which are really only capable of being described mathematically. That's why "before" isn't a valid reference -- it describes a relationship in time. The theoretically relevant relationships exist in different dimensions than space or time, for which our language has no rigorously defined words.


His primary error is to assume that there must be an absolute beginning, which was the point of my repeated question "What first place?" In all likelihood, there was no such absolute beginning, and the big bang itself merely represents the commencement of our local patch of space-time, while still many other patches of space-time, or even unimaginable sets of dimensions, exist within a larger "superset" of such dimensional "bubbles."

Perhaps it's my lack of ability to wrap my head around the lack of an absolute starting point that causes dissonance when trying to 100% accept religious or scientific views.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You and PowerEngineer make a good and honest point there. I really only got in this thread in the first place because some people just scream "you are stupid" because some people believe in God and science can answer EVERYTHING. My viewpoint was that this is just as bad as bible huggers that default their answers to God's plans or to just have faith.

"God" doesn't really answer anything. It's merely a placeholder for ignorance. I'm not aware of anyone who would seriously defend the claim that science can answer "everything," but it certainly answers a lot, and the answers it gives are more reliable and useful than any other epistemological method.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Perhaps it's my lack of ability to wrap my head around the lack of an absolute starting point that causes dissonance when trying to 100% accept religious or scientific views.

I understand that it is somewhat natural to assume that there must be a point of absolute beginning -- it seems like "common sense." In reality, there is nothing logically incoherent or inconsistent about an infinite past. Empirically, it appears as though time itself begins at the big bang singularity, but as I said in a previous post, the big bang singularity is a feature of a certain mathematical model. Similar mathematical models that deal with additional dimensions suggest activity of sorts "beyond" the singularity of the big bang, and yet still no absolute beginning.

 

[darkswordsman17]

You and PowerEngineer make a good and honest point there. I really only got in this thread in the first place because some people just scream "you are stupid" because some people believe in God and science can answer EVERYTHING. My viewpoint was that this is just as bad as bible huggers that default their answers to God's plans or to just have faith.

You see it as people saying science answers everything. What is actually being said is there is some well established science that explains why you're wrong, but since you ignore it when its presented and make ridiculous claims while showing you have little to no understanding of even basic science, we can't explain it to you because you obviously won't understand it at all. Hell, these people start off by calling the science they don't even understand stupid. WTF do you think a valid response to that is? To say, you raised some valid points (which they didn't), let me sit and consider your viewpoint (that they really don't explain much at all, we're lucky if we get a "its god!!!!" half the time) and then give you a thoughtful response based on that?

I want just one of you people (you and angry whatever his face that's been whining about this so much lately, among others) to explain how the two sides (since you keep saying its religion vs atheism/science which is wrong in itself, but let's ignore that for now) are on equal ground on the topics you keep jumping into. You keep acting like they are and that its completely obvious how they are and getting mad about it. So please explain why you think that. Or is that what you're ignorant claims about stuff (science is faith!!!) are supposed to be?

 

[bas1c]

You see it as people saying science answers everything. What is actually being said is there is some well established science that explains why you're wrong, but since you ignore it when its presented and make ridiculous claims while showing you have little to no understanding of even basic science, we can't explain it to you because you obviously won't understand it at all. Hell, these people start off by calling the science they don't even understand stupid. WTF do you think a valid response to that is? To say, you raised some valid points (which they didn't), let me sit and consider your viewpoint (that they really don't explain much at all, we're lucky if we get a "its god!!!!" half the time) and then give you a thoughtful response based on that?

I want just one of you people (you and angry whatever his face that's been whining about this so much lately, among others) to explain how the two sides (since you keep saying its religion vs atheism/science which is wrong in itself, but let's ignore that for now) are on equal ground on the topics you keep jumping into. You keep acting like they are and that its completely obvious how they are and getting mad about it. So please explain why you think that. Or is that what you're ignorant claims about stuff (science is faith!!!) are supposed to be?

Contrary to your thoughts, I am not so stupid that I wouldn't understand anything. I have a science background as well though no where near the level of being able to understand theoretical physics so I don't claim to know it. My "thoughtful" response about PowerEngineer and the others making a good point was based on the fact that I did not consider or could comprehend that the start point I am looking for may not actually exist. It's food for thought and I have been exposed to something I didn't really bother considering, so I'm better for it. Again, the way Cerpin, Pedantic, and PowerEngineer responded was what I was looking for, even if you don't believe it. I am not an outside the box thinker and would be the first to admit it. I am more of the type to run with or implement something that someone proposes. So sue me.

 

[Aikouka]

I am more of the type to run with or implement something that someone proposes. So sue me.

As long as you keep an open mind to new (and hopefully rational) ideas, I don't see how that's necessarily a terrible thing.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Contrary to your thoughts, I am not so stupid that I wouldn't understand anything. I have a science background as well though no where near the level of being able to understand theoretical physics so I don't claim to know it. My "thoughtful" response about PowerEngineer and the others making a good point was based on the fact that I did not consider or could comprehend that the start point I am looking for may not actually exist. It's food for thought and I have been exposed to something I didn't really bother considering, so I'm better for it. Again, the way Cerpin, Pedantic, and PowerEngineer responded was what I was looking for, even if you don't believe it. I am not an outside the box thinker and would be the first to admit it. I am more of the type to run with or implement something that someone proposes. So sue me.

When it comes to objectively knowing and understanding natural phenomena, science trumps religious doctrine every single time. Saying that it's either science or religion is 1) a false dichotomy, and 2) a false representation of the reality that religious doctrines have nothing of the rigour and testing that the scientific method integrates.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Contrary to your thoughts, I am not so stupid that I wouldn't understand anything. I have a science background as well though no where near the level of being able to understand theoretical physics so I don't claim to know it. My "thoughtful" response about PowerEngineer and the others making a good point was based on the fact that I did not consider or could comprehend that the start point I am looking for may not actually exist. It's food for thought and I have been exposed to something I didn't really bother considering, so I'm better for it. Again, the way Cerpin, Pedantic, and PowerEngineer responded was what I was looking for, even if you don't believe it. I am not an outside the box thinker and would be the first to admit it. I am more of the type to run with or implement something that someone proposes. So sue me.

First, you need to improve your reading comprehension. I didn't say you are (although I definitely kinda do after some of your comments), but rather the idiots you and the other person keep trying to defend from the "asshole atheists". That is my entire point, I keep seeing people get mad at the people responding when, like the OP, he's the one that starts calling things stupid and as they always show they don't even have any intent on actually learning anything. Many of these people have been bringing this stuff up over and over so there's a history of them outright ignoring any actual discussion given to them.

Lastly, uh, if you want serious responses, maybe consider not posting pretty belligerent stuff like this to start out? Its hard to not be an asshole when you seem pretty predetermined to make people into them.

Creationists and Evolutionists share a common thing, assholes are among them. So don't the entire group because of some idiots.

The theory of evolution, in my opinion, only proved that evolution does exist and is the reason for the vast diversity of life on this planet. It does not explain how life began. At some point there is an assumption that all the essentials for life just happened to be there and the process started some how. You have faith that it was the case and no way of ever proving it. How is that any different than creationism? In that way, science has become a religion. You start with base precepts that will never be conclusively proven and build everything off of that. Religion has been proven wrong in the past and science has been as well. For all we know L. Ron Hubbard may be the greatest prophet and be ultimately proven right.

People who are fanatically religious are so because they want to feel like there is some great plan and that life itself is not chaos. Science fanatics are so because they want to think that they are in control of their own lives and not be bound to a higher being. In that way, they both fear the unknown.

 

[Malak]

Oh, I think you're trying to walk a line that's too narrow even for you.

You certainly have "implied" that your personal beliefs are superior (i.e. more in keeping with God) than those of organized Christian denominations. You have frequently excused yourself from explaining or defending a mainstream Christian belief with the claim that your personal version of Christianity is different and superior, while at the same time choosing not to answer questions about your personal Christian beliefs.

Certainly, that is your right.

But your propensity for dropping judgements into threads without being willing to defend them does come off as a bit "holier than thou". I personally think some of these threads would be more interesting if you chose to really engage in the give and take.

There is little point. My judgment that I just dropped off in this thread was proven quickly. Threads like this exist only for people to tell other people they are wrong and then spend the next week finding new reasons to mock or otherwise insult them. There is no "give and take" like you believe. I personally can't even attempt a conversation because immediately, like you can see plainly here, my faith is attacked. I have never brought up religion in these threads, but as soon as I post anything the vultures swoop in.

As far as my beliefs in things outside this topic, I have answered all questions that I have seen and told people time and again to PM me. I have never been shy about the things I believe.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

My God hung out with whores, drank wine and said the meaning of life was to not be a fuck-tard.


lots of fail in that regard going on in this thread.

Wait, so your god was a modern pot head who drank wine, and met his girls at raves?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Is this still on?

Basic premise: There needs to be a "designer" to life.

Faults:

1. This "designer" is always referred as an anthropomorphic being similar to the dietial figure of the time (this has been around for a while now).

2. ANY evidence to the contrary is not directly refuted, but deflected to another, as of yet, unproven/undiscovered mystery. (Example: Amino acids are not life. Until man can make life in a laboratory, all life must have been magically created out of faith and love)

3. No contrary proof. A proposition bears very little weight just upon the gaps in another, especially when those gaps do not refute the other. "Well we have not seen a three legged kangaroo evolve yet, therefore there must be some smart guy with a beard and a drafters table planning all this out!"

Here's a tricky one for all you theologians out there. Why does God have to be a man? What if God IS nature? IS the universe? What if evolution IS the way "he" set things up to work? What if that is just the way the giant organism that is our own universe lives? Everybody wants to keep reducing down all of this complicated hard to understand stuff into something their little minds can easily grasp.

Much easier to say "God did it" than to have to try and figure out nuclear fusion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is no "give and take" like you believe.

What is it, exactly, that you believe you have to "give" in these discussions?

 

[Juddog]

LOL at people arguing about the big big in an evolution thread.

 

[Jeff7]

LOL at people arguing about the big bang in an evolution thread.

Bah, it's all evolution.

---> Realm that's totally unlike ours, maybe p-branes or something
-> Singularity thingy
-> Rapidly-expanding and cooling spacetime bubble filled with energy that condenses out into matter
-> Matter organizes under fundamental forces, heavy elements form
-> Small collections of matter (molecules) develop the ability to metabolize other elements to make copies of themselves, thanks in part to energy input from a nearby star
-> Molecules continue to increase in complexity and survivability, forming cells
-> Large assemblies of cells argue about their origins.



Big flippin' deal.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Then we find out we are really sub-atomic particles in the atom known as our universe.

The Who's got nothin' on us!

 

[Blintok]

The point is, the abruptness of the appearance. The cambrian explosion took place approximately 530 million of years ago. According to neo darwinian evolutionists, life first appeared on the planet approximately 3 to 4 billion years ago.

So there is an inordinate amount of time for life to evolve during that time, however the fossil records indicate that complex life forms akin to what we see today first appeared during the cambrian explosion.

So if darwinian evolution relies on slight, successive, numerous modifications occurring over lengthy periods of time, why is there such a massive gap in the fossil records?

I mean, we're talking about billions of years here..

E.L.E.
Extinction Level Event.

its not just from a movie

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

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If I understand you correctly, I agree. The "why" questions aren't answerable by science; they fall into the realm of philosophy/religion. Likewise, the "what" and "how" questions are best answered by science. The (unnecessary) conflicts occur only when people try to use science or religion to answer the wrong questions.

But that's only a theory... :sneaky:

Indeed; though "why" is an important domain of science when it is "why what" or "why how".

But the great "why" is, as it where, forever outside of "what" and "how".

WHAT "first place"?

I LOLed

Literally, "before the big bang" is as meaningless as "north of the north pole."

Literally the 'north pole' has meaning because it is defined as the furthest north you can do: this is a word-game. The big-bang being the definition of the start of the temporal-arrow of entropy is, on the other hand, a physical reality that needs no word-game to prove.

I'm supporting your point; I just think you've conflated a self-made set of definitions with physical reality.

because essentially god and the Big Bang share certain attributes - namely the fact that they purportedly exist(ed) outside of the spacetime in which our thinking is confined.

The word-game "GOD" is a logical definition that goes beyond the physical fact of the big bang: Therefore God is greater than anything imaginable and thus greater logically greater than logic it-self.