Poll about evolutionary science

[Late_Cretaceous]

" Again you need to accept that species affected earth atmosphere and environment as well as earth affected the development of species"

How else do you explain that the Earth's atmosphere is out of equalibrium. The presence on life makes our atmosphere be 21% oxygen. Without life, our atmosphere would be CO2 CH4 and nitrogen. Of course life affects the earth. The decaying dead algae after an algal bloom can deplete a whole of lake of dissolved oxygen in days, rendering it uninhabitable for fish and making the water toxic for animals to drink. Cut down a forest, rainfall decreases and temperatures fluctuate with greater extremity. Have one species with intelligence, ability to communicate and the ability to manipulate objects (Homo sapiens), and look at the effect on the earth.

 

BTW, the pH of sea water is not the problem.  It is the salinity.  Sea water is almost identical to our own blood serum.   Drinking sea water would cause further dehydration from your body, you need fresh water to replenish what is lost.

Why does God need to be a MicroManager?

 

[Morat]

 Show some substantial logic behind this Big Bang thing. If you know cosmology you should know the Schwarzschild horizon. Anything beyond it is simply is fiction. Also please show where anyone even remotely mentioned conspiracies of the evil scientist LOL  I questions things, everything from Christians to scientists.

   Two questions: (1) Why on earth should your opinion on the Big Bang be of any relevance? Are you a cosmologist? (2) What does the Schwarzschild horizon have to do with the Big Bang? Well, I suppose I could see a relevance if you ignored inflation and just shoved the universe back to a singularity.

Big Bang - Hubble observed that the cosmos expands, from this observation science flocked to the idea of a Big Bang. If you believe in the Big Bang, fine. People believe in Santa Claus and the monster of Loch Ness. Those people can not prove one iota of it, neither can anyone the Big Bang. If you can otherwise show me. If you can't ...

   Actually, people thought "Well, the universe is expanding in every direction. If we reverse the Hubble flow the whole universe shrinks. Ultimately, the whole universe (space-time and all) would pack into a tiny point. Huh. I wonder if that's true?" and proceeded from there.

   So what's your take on the Cosmic Background Radiation? I mean, it's hard to argue with such a successful prediction. It was a very specific prediction of Big Bang cosmology.

I heard that from a priest, how dare do you argue against God's word?

  God's never spoken to me. I hear a lot of people claim God spoke to them, but they believe a lot of mutually contradictory things.

  So, I'm not arguing with God. I'm arguing with you.

 What are scientists? The writers of the new bible we have to follow?

  Why on earth would scientists want to write a new bible? All dogma does is tie you to a single answer. What happens when the answer is wrong? No, dear Sir, I think scientists will stick with science. After all, they'll modify or reject old answers if they turn out wrong. You end up with much better results that way.

   Oh, and scientists? They're experts and scholars. What else would they be?

 

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Morat
   Two questions: (1) Why on earth should your opinion on the Big Bang be of any relevance? Are you a cosmologist? (2) What does the Schwarzschild horizon have to do with the Big Bang? Well, I suppose I could see a relevance if you ignored inflation and just shoved the universe back to a singularity.

To 1, are you a cosmologist? If not, how do you decide which is logical and which is not?
To 2, why do you ask me? Ask your cosmologists how they arrived at their theories. They explain how the cosmos evolved; not I. Cosmos made of matter which stops to exist at the Schwarzschild horizon. The Big Bang blossomed into stars and galaxies from a point much more unexplained as the horizon.

Originally posted by Morat
Actually, people thought "Well, the universe is expanding in every direction. If we reverse the Hubble flow the whole universe shrinks. Ultimately, the whole universe (space-time and all) would pack into a tiny point. Huh. I wonder if that's true?" and proceeded from there.

Has anyone explained why the universe is expanding? Anyone can ‘reverse’ a given action and jump to conclusions. What I am missing here (not by you) why the universe is expanding. If you follow Einstein General Relativity there too the universe is expanding. For him it is the consequence of space-time not the Big Bang. The Big Bang came later. (Well you mentioned space-time) Thus matter itself expands the universe. If matter is the cause (as per Einstein) for the expansion of the cosmos, the Big Bang can not be the cause also. One has to give.

Originally posted by Morat
So what's your take on the Cosmic Background Radiation? I mean, it's hard to argue with such a successful prediction. It was a very specific prediction of Big Bang cosmology.

Truthfully I have not paid much attention to it. We also have discovered unknown matter between galaxies, which also need to be analyzed, that was not ‘predicted’ by Big Bang. - You tell me for a change, what is this radiation? Could there be other reasons for its existence? And if not, why not.

Originally posted by Morat
God's never spoken to me. I hear a lot of people claim God spoke to them, but they believe a lot of mutually contradictory things.

So, I'm not arguing with God. I'm arguing with you.

Fine than argue with me. I can deal with that. - I said God’s Word meaning the Bible not God actually spoke to anyone. In other words I heard that reasoning before, You don’t understand God’s word, when you do you will know it to be true; vs You don’t understand Cosmology, or whatever, we do understand, we studied for decades, we are in the know, if you knew what we know you would not argue with us.
To those I say if you studied something only you yourself could understand, you studied like the Wizards of Old. Yes sardonic.

Originally posted by Morat
Why on earth would scientists want to write a new bible? All dogma does is tie you to a single answer. What happens when the answer is wrong? No, dear Sir, I think scientists will stick with science. After all, they'll modify or reject old answers if they turn out wrong. You end up with much better results that way.

This is what Big Bang is. A dogma. I bet you in the future it will be as flat earth is to us now.

Originally posted by Morat
Oh, and scientists? They're experts and scholars. What else would they be?

Some are and I respect them. Most, like in any other community of a given group, are useless blablas.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Hank

This is what Big Bang is. A dogma. I bet you in the future it will be as flat earth is to us now.

Or as Creationism is to us now...

"Big bang" is a theory. It can be proven wrong, and if proven so, scientists will reject the theory. Dogmatic followers of dogma such as creationism flat earth, unfortunately, are tied down to their one belief, as Morat mentioned.

Dogma is the weakest form of "truth." Discovery, testing, accepting, rejecting things on its own merits is a far stronger method.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by blader
Or as Creationism is to us now...

"Big bang" is a theory. It can be proven wrong, and if proven so, scientists will reject the theory. Dogmatic followers of dogma such as creationism flat earth, unfortunately, are tied down to their one belief, as Morat mentioned.

Dogma is the weakest form of "truth." Discovery, testing, accepting, rejecting things on its own merits is a far stronger method.

Fair enough. I withdraw dogma, in relation to actual scientist.

 

[Morat]

To 1, are you a cosmologist? If not, how do you decide which is logical and which is not?

  Immaterial. I'm not claiming all the cosmologists are too stupid to understand their own work. You are.

To 2, why do you ask me? Ask your cosmologists how they arrived at their theories. They explain how the cosmos evolved; not I. Cosmos made of matter which stops to exist at the Schwarzschild horizon. The Big Bang blossomed into stars and galaxies from a point much more unexplained as the horizon

   Reference this. Please. You got this notion from somewhere. Reference it.

Has anyone explained why the universe is expanding?

  I'll take "Duh, that was the question the Big Bang theory answered" for 200, Jim. 

Anyone can ‘reverse’ a given action and jump to conclusions.

  Wait...what happens next? It's a 'T' word...torture? temper? TESTING. Yes, that's right. Testing. Predictions. All that jazz.

   I wonder if maybe those cosmologists have been doing some of that.

 What I am missing here (not by you) why the universe is expanding.

   Because of the Big Bang.

 If you follow Einstein General Relativity there too the universe is expanding. For him it is the consequence of space-time not the Big Bang.

   Really? What part? Reference this. If you're talking of the cosmological constant, you're more than a little off.

 The Big Bang came later. (Well you mentioned space-time) Thus matter itself expands the universe. If matter is the cause (as per Einstein) for the expansion of the cosmos, the Big Bang can not be the cause also. One has to give.

   No, matter doesn't. The expansion of the universe is an expansion of space-time, not matter. Matter gets dragged along with it. The fact that you don't understand this says loads, right there.

Truthfully I have not paid much attention to it. We also have discovered unknown matter between galaxies, which also need to be analyzed, that was not ‘predicted’ by Big Bang. - You tell me for a change, what is this radiation? Could there be other reasons for its existence? And if not, why not.

  Way to dodge the point, big fella! "Well, I realize this totally unknown radiation was predicted perfectly by the theory, and then verified, but that don't mean much!".

   The CMB was a necessary result of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang happened, the CMB would need to be observably in a specific way at a specific temperature. Failure to be there meant, at the very least, the Big Bang theory was flawed. Important, powerful, persuasive little test there, don't you think? Predicting a very unusual, very specific form of radiation that no one had ever seen or though of before, and being right?

   Now, Hank, is dark matter a required substance for the Big Bang to be true? Nope. So..um...why would it predict it again?

Fine than argue with me. I can deal with that. - I said God’s Word meaning the Bible not God actually spoke to anyone. In other words I heard that reasoning before, You don’t understand God’s word, when you do you will know it to be true; vs You don’t understand Cosmology, or whatever, we do understand, we studied for decades, we are in the know, if you knew what we know you would not argue with us.
To those I say if you studied something only you yourself could understand, you studied like the Wizards of Old. Yes sardonic.

  Um, here's a question: Why are you right and the Hindu wrong?

This is what Big Bang is. A dogma. I bet you in the future it will be as flat earth is to us now.

  Do you even know what the word "dogma" means? I can't imagine you do, because I can promise you that if the Big Bang is falsified, the least of what will happen is it will be heavily modified, if not outright discarded in favor of a better cosmology.

   If you think that's dogma, you need a dictionary.

Some are and I respect them. Most, like in any other community of a given group, are useless blablas.

  Some are, I'm sure. But even the useless cosmologists know far more about cosmology than you. So the question remains: Given your demonstrated ignorance of the Big Bang, why should we consider your objections of any value? See, normally when someone objects to something he knows nothing about, we tend to think that the problem is almost certainly on his end...

   Why should we treat you any different?

 

 

[alexgb00]

BTW, the pH of sea water is not the problem. It is the salinity. Sea water is almost identical to our own blood serum.

LC, tell me if i'm wrong. The pH of the ocean water and its salinity are related. Salt is one product of acid and base mixing.

It seems to me that the concentration of acids and bases in the water do have an effect on salt. But probably in insignificant amounts.

God bless, man.
Alex †

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

That is partly true. Salts result when acids and bases mix. But pH and salinity are distincly different measurements.

You may be thinking of acid base titrations such as hydrochoric acid and sodium hydroxide. Mix equal amounts of equally concentrated HCL and NaOH and you get NaCl, salt water - with neutral pH. This works also with other simple acids and bases to produce simple salts (MgCl, NaBr, etc.).

Although they can affect one another, salinity and pH can operate independantly and are not always related. Adding different types of salt to pure water will not necessarily affect the pH, just as acidifying pure water will not change the salinity.

If you have a very concentrated brine solution, the pH will be neutral. If you add either an acid or a base, they will raise the pH independantly of the salt. If you added HCl to a brine solution you would simply lower the pH in exactly the same way as if it were in pure water.

Acid / base reactions become considerably more complex in nature due to buffering capacity or hardness of the water. These involve the interaction of the salts of weak acids with either hyroxide or hyrogen ions.

The term pH mean "potential Hydrogen". It is a a measurement (on a logarithmic scale from 0 to 14) of the concentration of hydrogen ions.
pH = - log [H+]. Only positively charged hydrogen ions are being measured.

Salinity, is measured based on ionic strength, which means it is a direct measurement of the number (in moles) of ions in a soluiton. It is not dependant on the specific ion.

By definition, salts are neutral tto pH when dissolved- otherwise they are called acids or bases. For example sodium acetate (NaC2H3O2) is a salt, wich does not affect pH when dissolved in water. Now replace the sodium (Na) with a hydrogen ion (H+), and you get acetic ACID - vinegar (C2H4O2). Adding acetic acid to a water does affect pH. Other examles would be sodium glutamate (MSG) vs gultamic acid.

 

[Sinai]

Hank: What I am missing here (not by you) why the universe is expanding.

Morat: Because of the Big Bang.


Don't forget inflation.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Morat  
   No, matter doesn't. The expansion of the universe is an expansion of space-time, not matter. Matter gets dragged along with it. The fact that you don't understand this says loads, right there. 

So, the big bang expands space-time and matter is incidental?


Space-time to me is the Riemann tensor, in R=kT, it explains how the universe works. If you are correct that the Big Bang expands space-time. Let’s stop here ... just because. LOL

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Hank
So, the big bang expands space-time and matter is incidental?


Space-time to me is the Riemann tensor, in R=kT, it explains how the universe works. If you are correct that the Big Bang expands space-time. Let’s stop here ... just because. LOL

Why stop there Hank? Just because we have quickly ran past what you have bothered to learn? Do you thing that science stops because lay-people refuse to learn?

Yes understanding space/time helps us understand the universe now, understanding where space/time comes from helps understand where the universe came from. Space/time has not always existed.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Why stop there Hank? Just because we have quickly ran past what you have bothered to learn? Do you thing that science stops because lay-people refuse to learn?

Yes understanding space/time helps us understand the universe now, understanding where space/time comes from helps understand where the universe came from. Space/time has not always existed.

We run two separate topics on Big Bang. I am done in this one. And you can repost space-time in the Big Bang post.

Also you do not know me. You can critic my posts you don't know me, or do you?

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Nothing in modern biology can be fully explained without the theory of evolution and natural selection.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I am glad to see that even on a predominantly christian website that 70% of the people fully accept evolutionary theory.
Is evolutionary theory (and all it's implicaitons about including an ancient earth and universe) compatible with christianity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!

 

[RufusAtticus]

<conspiracy theory mode>

Late_Cretaceous, this poll only shows that 70% of the people on this forum are dirty atheists just pretending to be christians.

"You will know them by their fruits."

</conspiracy theory mode>

 

[eldermike]

Late_Cretaceous, this poll only shows that 70% of the people on this forum are dirty atheists just pretending to be christians.

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
I am glad to see that even on a predominantly christian website that 70% of the people fully accept evolutionary theory.
Is evolutionary theory (and all it's implicaitons about including an ancient earth and universe) compatible with christianity. I think the answer is a resounding YES!

I agree. Also, I've neve met a person who gave the evidence for evolution a fair shot and then rejected it on scientfic grounds.

In Christ,

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
<conspiracy theory mode>

Late_Cretaceous, this poll only shows that 70% of the people on this forum are dirty atheists just pretending to be christians.

"You will know them by their fruits."

</conspiracy theory mode>

Dirty Athiests who believe in evidence, I guess.

In Christ

Chris

 

[apriest]

Evolutionary Science is not proven or even a fact! Just a theory. We all have a bias to which we look at any issue or problem. We have to ask ourselves if what&nbsp;we find&nbsp;isreally what is there or what we want to be there. Evolutionist have been saying for many years that creationst are looking for God in our findings. Well Evolutionest are looking for "no God" in their findings.

Evolution theory is just that. There is way to much at stake here for true science to be done. Ie... Grants, donations, funds, chairs at&nbsp;universitys.... Poor science&nbsp; is poor science.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Evolutionists are looking for "no God" in thier findings. Huh????
Are medical researches looking for no God in thier research into cures for diseases? Name one science that requires God in any of its thoeries. Name one scientific observation or concept that is NOT in reality a theory. Nothing is science is ever proven 100%, ever. Theories explain facts, they don't become them. There is always room for alternative explanations based on new evidence. Poor science? Poor science happens in all fields, the nice thing is that eventually it is exposed since it never passes peer review. Remember the cold fusion fiasco?

Evolution must be a powerful idea if it threatens peoples' faith. Or, is it that some peoples' faith is just so weak as to be threatened by something as mundane as a biological theory.