A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[Davian]

Do you really have a more parsimonious solution?

The options for the problem of beginnings are...

1 - infinitism (there was no beginning),
2 - there was a beginning, caused by some kind of nigel no friends neutrino (physical entity)
3 - there was a beginning, caused by some kind of eternal barry no body spirit (non physical entity)

All of them have, apriori, a probability of jack all.

Same for deities, then.

There is always another option: We don't know.

 

[BrotherRickG]

What scientific evidence led you to this conclusion?

No. Stars didn't start forming until hundreds of thousands of years after the initial expansion of the universe. Before that, the universe was a hot fog of hydrogen ions. It was even too hot for elemental hydrogen to form.

Our own star is a second generation star. Before our solar system there was a star that went supernova. This is what produced all of the heavy elements in our solar system. The hydrogen left over from that supernova explosion formed our Sun and the various gas giant planets.

There was no Earth at the beginning of the Universe.

All galaxies are moving away from us, but not fast enough to produce the effect you are looking for.

It doesn't solve any of those problems. No observed redshift is strong enough for the universe to be 6,000 years old. In fact, they got the 13 billion year old age for the Universe from the redshift of the first light to move through the universe, which is now seen as the cosmic microwave background. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then we should not be able to see any stars that are farther away than 6,000 light years, and that includes any stars that are moving at great speed. A 6,000 light year sphere is not even enough to fit a small portion of our own galaxy into, much less the billions of galaxies we can see through telescopes.

Why do you?

"Lets start over friend; First of all I am saying science is manipulating and using its power to corrupt the mind of man."

They have an agenda of producing good science, and a lot of it.

Their agenda is to lie about the science that the evolutionary science crowd produces.

It is the writings of men.

"God did it" is not an answer to any question. It is what one says when they don't have an answer.

And yet you are blind to the lies that creationist organizations are feeding you. What does that say?

All you are saying is that you have more faith than I do. You bought into the lie and will go down with the ship. Not my problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

All you are saying is that you have more faith than I do. You bought into the lie and will go down with the ship. Not my problem.

Perhaps you could point to a lie that I have told, or a faith based belief that I have.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All you are saying is that you have more faith than I do. You bought into the lie and will go down with the ship. Not my problem.

It isn't a matter of faith. We see the world, and as far as we can tell it doesn't show us a godly influence, especially not that of a benevolent one. We see much of the same stuff, but we interpret them differently. Chances are, no one is completely correct in their views of how the universe came to be, but that doesn't make all we know a lie.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you really have a more parsimonious solution?

The options for the problem of beginnings are...

1 - infinitism (there was no beginning),
2 - there was a beginning, caused by some kind of nigel no friends neutrino (physical entity)
3 - there was a beginning, caused by some kind of eternal barry no body spirit (non physical entity)

All of them have, apriori, a probability of jack all.

As for origins: IMO,

It's always existed.
It had a beginning.

We really don't know, but Dr. Krauss has done quite a bit of work to show that possibly it's always existed. Maybe one day we'll know, and hopefully while I'm alive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As for origins: IMO,

It's always existed.
It had a beginning.

We really don't know, but Dr. Krauss has done quite a bit of work to show that possibly it's always existed. Maybe one day we'll know, and hopefully while I'm alive.

Maybe we will never know. The universe would be boring if there wasn't any mystery left. It would be like defeating a final boss in a video game: a brief sense of satisfaction, and then the realization that there is nothing left to do with it.

 

[BrotherRickG]

This is a small list but shows the growing number of what you guys would call "Smart People" that have always been or moved to Creation as the answer for the beginning of the universe. Or are they just misguided also?
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Kevin Anderson, Microbiology - Biography
Mark Armitage, Biology - Biography
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
Dr. John Baumgardner,

Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics​

Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
John Grebe (chemist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. David Kaufman, Human Anatomy - Biography
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Isaac Newton

(helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope) - Newton was a creationist by choice not because there was no alternative)​

Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Michael Oard, Atmospheric Science - Biography
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
Louis Pasteur

(helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)​

Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin)

(helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)​

Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a small list but shows the growing number of what you guys would call "Smart People" that have always been or moved to Creation as the answer for the beginning of the universe. Or are they just misguided also?

If we showed you that they make up a tiny, tiny percentage of all scientists, and are dwarfed by the scientists and smart people who disagree with you, would you be convinced?

 

[PsychoSarah]

No one ever said all Christians or creationists were stupid. One person that was mentioned by someone else, gosh, can't remember the name, tried to look at the idea of the existence of a deity objectively and attempted to factor in all the variables about life and the universe that they could, and came up with about a 60% chance that there is at least one deity. Now of course this isn't specific about the nature of said deity, but I thought you might like it, BrotherRickG.

 

[Davian]

genez - what happened to that test drive, back in this post?

Just in case you missed it.

 

[Sayre]

Same for deities, then.

There is always another option: We don't know.

Yes, it seems p(deity|beginnings) is only marginally bigger than p(deity), the information about requiring a beginning adds little. But that isn't the point - the point is that none of those other solutions appear more parsimonious than the other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, it seems p(deity|beginnings) is only marginally bigger than p(deity), the information about requiring a beginning adds little. But that isn't the point - the point is that none of those other solutions appear more parsimonious than the other.

Is parsimonious a word that works there? It means frugal (mostly referring to money), sparing, or restrained. It doesn't seem to make much sense to put it there... am I missing a definition?

 

[Mr Clean]

Again, That is my argument. Weren't the stars already on fire instantly after your "Big Bang" and didn't those sparks or "stars" travel out to where the rest today? Isn't it possible they passed by the earth on there way out? Isn't it possible we are seeing the light of those stars, galaxies and super nova's as they were heading away from the earth in real time?

This cannot be that hard of a concept to grasp. I know you were not taught this concept that is why I am purposing it. It answers the question of time to distance theory and allows the universe to be younger.

The stars were not on fire immediately after the Big Bang. The hydrogen that formed the first stars had to coalesce together with sufficient mass to start the fusion process.

The stars are not at "rest". In relation to Earth just about everything is moving in a different direction. A lot of it is moving away from us. The Andromeda Galaxy is an example of something moving towards us.

The light we see from any object is the light that was there in the past and traveled here to where you can see it right now. Even the sunlight you see isn't "now", it left the Sun 8 minutes ago.

What you propose has no evidence to back it up.

I accept the Bible for what it is, The word of God. The great thing about the understanding that there is a Creator is that it answers the question that no evolutionary scientist can answer... Why we are here.

There is actually a great verse that explains mine and many others life which goes like this... I was blind and now I can see. This the way it is when we used to believe in myths and aliens which never made any sense and now we get it. Most of you will not get it though because of your close mindedness and the refusal to believe there is anyone smarter than man. That is your downfall.

There is no proof that there has to be a reason why life is on Earth. There is no proof that there has to be a reason the universe exists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is no proof that there has to be a reason why life is on Earth. There is no proof that there has to be a reason the universe exists.

I like to think that, if that is the case, then we can make our own reason for our existence, you know, forge our own path, so to speak.

 

[bhsmte]

I like to think that, if that is the case, then we can make our own reason for our existence, you know, forge our own path, so to speak.

When we define our own purpose, it tends to mean a little bit more, don't ya think?

 

[PsychoSarah]

When we define our own purpose, it tends to mean a little bit more, don't ya think?

Depends on one's perspective, really.

 

[BrotherRickG]

It isn't a matter of faith. We see the world, and as far as we can tell it doesn't show us a godly influence, especially not that of a benevolent one. We see much of the same stuff, but we interpret them differently. Chances are, no one is completely correct in their views of how the universe came to be, but that doesn't make all we know a lie.

The Creation does show itself, one just has to look. When you look into an electron microscope and watch the tail twisting motor protein found in eukaryotic cells, to the beauty of a redwood tree in its majestic form. Think about the complexity of the electrochemical transponders in the brain and how the body keeps it balanced throughout life. The decay we are seeing is man made like Monsanto, over using anti-biotics, the pushing away from God. The Chem-trails that are being spayed on a daily basis of Nano particles of aluminum, barium and strontium are cause the cancer rate, Alzheimers and other illnesses to skyrocket let alone the crops that cannot grow in the heavy metal soils we now have. The Creation is being destroyed by some science and I think everyone knows it but some are unwilling to speak up.

 

[Davian]

Why not? Do you not place value on what another Christian, of his credentials, has to say on scientific matters?

Preach
verb
present participle: preaching
1. deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people

Post # 304. That was preaching, not a conversation.

Declaring that the bible and creation are proven is not conversation.

You are not challenging, you are declaring yourself right. That is not conversation.


Did you not say that your god talks to you? He doesn't talk to me. I was asking who you meant when you used the word "us".

Cynicism. An inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest;

Not childish at all, dismissing the implied insults. I am here discuss, and explore reality, and to support, justify, and provide evidence for my claims where I make them. I do not think you are here for that, judging from the content of your posts.


This was published many years ago.

"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate."

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you were, it was in an empty rhetoric fashion, unsubstantiated.

Scientific theories can make some people and companies very rich, for sure, but if the underlying science is not robust, they won't. Do you have something against capitalism?

As for money making agenda theories, have you looked at religions take in every year? And no taxes!

"While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion — to the tune of about $71 billion every year."

The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

All that for an industry that has no requirement to produce any evidence that their (contradictory) claims are true. And you are poking your finger at science? Go figure.

No, that is not what I said. Go back, try again.

You preach at your atheist customers, and tell them how your religion is proven?

I did not ask you to retract your statement, but to substantiate it. How is he "evil"? It appears that he is only going after those in violation of federal laws.



Almost forgot: How many times do you think our galaxy has rotated since its formation?

Firstly, I would like to say that I find your modifying of my post, to alter its intent, to be intellectually dishonest. Answer it, or ignore it, or concede the point.

Lets start over friend; First of all I am saying science is manipulating and using its power to corrupt the mind of man.

Why say it if you are unable substantiate it?

That is irrefutable and not my opinion alone. Many highly educated scientist say that.

If it is opinions, it is not irrefutable. Choose your words carefully. All you have is opinion.

Second, Science is and always has been build on unsubstantiated theories that with testing either get validated or proven wrong.

And theories get validated. They are what our world is built on, from modern medicine to the cell phone in your pocket.

That is where my question comes in because I have yet to see dispersement value entered in the conclusion of the star light reaching the earth, it is always the other way around. Scientists have always stated the starlight takes millions of years to reach the earth and in fact it is the other way around. The light was already on when it was put in its place no matter what side you believe.

I don't even know what you mean by this. Try citing a scientific paper that states the issue with more detail.

As for the monies spent on Evolution compared to all the monies spent on preachers houses. That is really funny, how much did the mars landing cost alone. Not counting all the houses that the evolutionary scientists houses and luxury cars. Then you have the atom blaster, Hubble telescope, deep space satellites, etc.

So you are not anti-evolution, but more anti-science.

I look to the track record that science has, which is pretty good.

What has religion produced, for the billions that goes into it each year?

As for me speaking to my Atheist and agnostic customer disrespectfully, I do not. We are grown ups and there is not an internet filter between us and life is good.

Do you not feel that courtesy should extend to those you meet on the internet?

I do apologize for lowering myself in the bantering, albeit kinda fun, and not sticking to my point.

It has its place; the mistake is in thinking that insults and the like will carry your arguments.

As for the type of Christian words I use and being preachy, you chose to put your ideas on a Christian forum. Now you want me to not use my belief structure in my argument against evolution and towards Creation.

No, I am saying that you belief structure, by itself, is not evidence for creation or against the theory of evolution. Sure, you beleive it. Others believe otherwise.

You will need to resort to facts, evidence, robust arguments, and the like.

As for blindly accepting man's answers for anything, I am cynical and tread lightly.

In your posts, you come across as dogmatic and evasive.

As we discussed earlier, man is corrupt whether claiming to be Christian or claiming to be a scientist. I am cautious to follow anyone without vetting them as much as possible.

So get on with vetting him. What's the problem with Dr. Collins? Is he not a Christian? Does he lack credentials? Experience?

Also: how many times has this lovely galaxy of ours rotated during its existence?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Creation does show itself, one just has to look. When you look into an electron microscope and watch the tail twisting motor protein found in eukaryotic cells, to the beauty of a redwood tree in its majestic form. Think about the complexity of the electrochemical transponders in the brain and how the body keeps it balanced throughout life. The decay we are seeing is man made like Monsanto, over using anti-biotics, the pushing away from God. The Chem-trails that are being spayed on a daily basis of Nano particles of aluminum, barium and strontium are cause the cancer rate, Alzheimers and other illnesses to skyrocket let alone the crops that cannot grow in the heavy metal soils we now have. The Creation is being destroyed by some science and I think everyone knows it but some are unwilling to speak up.

Hardly science, but the irresponsibility of humanity in using that technology. The damage we cause is not punishment by some deity but the consequence of our own actions directly.

I see all the same things you do, but I see not creation in them, but rather a precarious ecosystem and universe that only needs the slightest shove to fall into unlivable chaos. I see countless errors and inefficiencies in biology; natural flaws of nature rather than some mistake or change in a "perfect" design.

The only miracle I see is in that this wacky world of ours hasn't killed us off yet.

 

[Sayre]

Is parsimonious a word that works there? It means frugal (mostly referring to money), sparing, or restrained. It doesn't seem to make much sense to put it there... am I missing a definition?

Yes - parsimony makes sense in the context. There are simpler and more complicated models to explain beginnings. But you can only appeal to parsimony in the presence of equal explanatory power. Ockhams razor was only ever meant to choose between models of equal power, not between models of inequal power.