PSA: The Big Bang, Evolution and other things that are commonly misunderstood.

[VProud]

Hello everybody, searching through this forums, and speaking to people in general, I've noticed a trend on both sides of many debates as to people not fully understanding exactly what is being debated on either side.
So, I'm posting this to attempt to remedy some common misconceptions about various topics.

Let's begin:

The Big Bang.

First and foremost, the one that seems to be misconstrued most of all, the famous, or perhaps infamous to some, 'Big Bang' theory.
This is usually used as, or seen as either an alternative for, or an argument against, the idea of the universe being created by God.
However, the truth is very diferent. The Big Bang theory is the idea that space is expanding (which we can observe happening) and therefor we can draw the conclusion that, the further back in time you go, the more dense and hot space is.
What's important about this distinction is four things:
-The Big Bang is NOT an explosion.
-The Big Bang is still happening.
-The Big Bang has -NOTHING- to do with the ultimate creation of the universe.
-The Big Bang does not entail anything to do with the creation of matter or energy.

For more information, this video is a great and simple explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MWRvLndzs


Evolution

Another highly debated topic, Evolution is usually misrepresented.

Natural Selection
The most important thing here is that Natural Selection does not attempt to explain where life comes from. It is the idea that if an organism has a mutation that is slightly advantageous, it is more likely to have offspring that also have that mutation, therefor it is more likely to have offspring that survive, therefor it is more likely that the aforementioned mutation will eventually become dominant throughout the species due to out-competing them, and therefor will eventually replaces the species.


Abiogenesis.
This is what is commonly actually being debated when people talk about 'Evolution.' In short Abiogenisis attempts to explain where life originally came from, it's the idea that life can come from non-life. While all theories need further testing, some can be reproduced in a laboratory. Life-like evolution in a test tube | Cosmos Magazine

It is worth nothing that both Macro Evolutionary and Abiogenesis theroies are both highly debated and in the scientific community. To date, no fully satisfactory theory has been found, although the evidence for both is still fairly compelling.

Definitions of belief:
I feel it's important to understand what each person actually is and what that kind of a thinking entails. Too often I see claims such as 'Theists are immune to evidence' or 'Atheist is a religion'. Here are some actual definitions:

Gnostic-Theist: A person who believes that God exists, with absolute certainty and clarity and who could never be swayed, even when provided with evidence to the contrary. Such a person would usually write off such evidence as the product of something else, of the product of an evil entity attempting to sway their faith.

Agnostic-Theist: The philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or the gods he believes in. Such a person would be swayed if evidence could be provided to the contrary of their beliefs.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. It's important to distinguish here, this is not a person that believes it's merely impossible to know something about God beyond any doubt at all, they also believe it's impossible to know something about God beyond any reasonable doubt. E.g. They believe no evidence can ever been considered beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agnostic-Atheist: Also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known. Such a person would be swayed if evidence could be provided to the contrary of their beliefs.

Gnostic-Atheist: A person who totally denies the existence of any God or deity, claiming that it is utterly impossible. Such a person would totally deny the existence of evidence for a God, and would ignore such evidence even if it were provided.

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Proof:
Something I see on both sides of various debates constantly is the misunderstanding of what constitutes proof.
Allow me to debunk some common errors.

Firstly, absolute proof is not possible. Assumptions must always be made first, we then make predictions based on that assumption and if tings tend to work then we say that assumption is indeed correct.
For instance, I have no way of directly proving that Electrons Quantum Tunnel, however, since that assumption was used to make my touch screen phone, and the phone works, I can safely say that the assumption is likely true.
It's important to note that assumptions are not just plucked randomly from the air, they are thought to likely be the case due to observations that we make in nature.
However, absolute proof is impossible because we must make assumptions that we cannot test or verify properly, these are:
-We exist.
-The Three Laws of Thought are true. (Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
-The experience of the observer is not the only experience or is not a totally unique experience.

As such, absolute proof is not possible. However, there are some other logical errors people make when evaluating proof:


Something from nothing, eternity and consciousness.
I'll be brief here. These are also commonly misconstrued, by both people trying to prove and disprove God, and rarely are they represented correctly.

Firstly, it is possible to get something out of nothing, in fact, it happens in nature all the time, we can literally see it happening.
'Nothingness' is essentially comprised of particles fused with their constituent anti-particles, constantly annihilation, with a strong EM field, we can separate them, generating both particles from essentially nothing.
Think of it like this:
+1-1 = 0
But also 0=+1-1
Meaning that we can 'split' a zero into a positive one and negative one. As-long as the net total is the same, energy is conserved.


Secondly, it shouldn't be possible for an infinite amount of time to have passed, but that does not mean something, be it God or The Universe couldn't have existed forever. All that would have to mean is that 'Time' (as a field) hasn't existed forever. This does not mean that before 'Time' became a field there could be no movement or change, only that time would not have existed in the way that we understand it today. There are no Natural or Logical laws that would prevent this from being the case. In fact, we can change the way time moves and acts now. Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thirdly, anyone claiming to know what consciousness actually is, how it functions or why it is, is claiming to have information not seated in empirical reality. The honest truth is, we don't have much information on how or why it works. We know that it is somehow linked to the brain (Since damage to the brain can cause it to be altered) but we don't know whether the brain creates it, or whether it creates the brain, whether the brain is a tool or remember or forgetting, whether the brain makes consciousness, or whether it simply filters it and consciousness is a non-physical part of us etc, etc.
Debate on this topic is highly philosophical and not very empirical.


That is all for now, if you bothered to read that, thank you for your time.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Thanks VProud, lots of good clarification!

 

[justlookinla]

Firstly, it is possible to get something out of nothing, in fact, it happens in nature all the time, we can literally see it happening.
'Nothingness' is essentially comprised of particles fused with their constituent anti-particles, constantly annihilation, with a strong EM field, we can separate them, generating both particles from essentially nothing.
Think of it like this:
+1-1 = 0
But also 0=+1-1
Meaning that we can 'split' a zero into a positive one and negative one. As-long as the net total is the same, energy is conserved.

Just to comment on a small portion of your post. +1-1=0 isn't actually nothing. It consists of two 'somethings', +1 and -1. Particles are something.

 

[VProud]

Just to comment on a small portion of your post. +1-1=0 isn't actually nothing. It consists of two 'somethings', +1 and -1. Particles are something.

Yes, I thought someone would pick me up on that! You are very correct, these particles annihilate to form what is effectively nothing. True 'nothingness' does not exist anywhere (we think), so 'getting something from nothing' is more of a 'not even wrong statement, as in it's doesn't 'mean' anything. However, the idea behind it is solved by this.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yes, I thought someone would pick me up on that! You are very correct, these particles annihilate to form what is effectively nothing. True 'nothingness' does not exist anywhere (we think), so 'getting something from nothing' is more of a 'not even wrong statement, as in it's doesn't 'mean' anything. However, the idea behind it is solved by this.

So could one say that the definition of true nothing (no space) is self negating?

But then again that's kinda like: The only time "incorrectly" is spelled incorrectly is when it is spelled incorrectly.


*scratching head*

 

[PsychoSarah]

So could one say that the definition of true nothing (no space) is self negating?

But then again that's kinda like: The only time "incorrectly" is spelled incorrectly is when it is spelled incorrectly.


*scratching head*

Isn't physics fun

This is why I prefer biology

 

[VProud]

So could one say that the definition of true nothing (no space) is self negating?

But then again that's kinda like: The only time "incorrectly" is spelled incorrectly is when it is spelled incorrectly.


*scratching head*

True nothing is less that most people think it is.
No space means no 'existence.'
It's a non-concept: Like the statement 'Square-Circle' it's a non-thing. We actually have a pretty good descriptions of such things, as in it's very similar to the idea behind this: Not even wrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'True Nothingness' is not even a statement, to say 'True Nothingness' doesn't 'mean' anything.

Put it this way: True nothingness is the same as North of the North pole.

It took me a few mounts to get over and accept that concept, honestly.

 

[VProud]

For Christians to say that God made the universe is saying that God is nothing because it must be obvious to everyone that before there was something there was nothing.

If creationists want something to be there before the universe was made they are going to need to make up something else besides a God to explain it, God did it is not enough.

Honestly, there is no reason something totally incomprehensible could not exist outside of our universe. Or perhaps be an entirely different system of existence all together.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps but unless there is some indication that there is something there why even consider it? religious people have given it thought because they needed somewhere for their Gods to live, where better than a place that seems not even to exist?
never never land or the land of far far away.

Have you given any thought as to what might be beyond the supernatural?

That's a great point.

Personally, when I think of "nothing", I think of this:

if X = all that exists (the universe + the unkown)
then Nothing = X - universe

But frankly, I have no idea what "X" means or is. I also don't comprehend what the "minus" means. And I don't pretend to either. Which is why I'm an atheist.

Physics is crazy.

I just saw in interview with Michio Kaku. He said that Quantum Mechanics is the most ridiculous theory ever presented in the history of science. That it's truelly an embarassement to common sense. It's completely silly and irrational.

But there's one thing specifically that bugs him a lot: it's actually correct.

As Lawrence Krauss once said "the universe has a much bigger imagination then we do."

 

[Zosimus]

Hello everybody, searching through this forums, and speaking to people in general, I've noticed a trend on both sides of many debates as to people not fully understanding exactly what is being debated on either side.
So, I'm posting this to attempt to remedy some common misconceptions about various topics.

Let's begin:

The Big Bang.

First and foremost, the one that seems to be misconstrued most of all, the famous, or perhaps infamous to some, 'Big Bang' theory.
This is usually used as, or seen as either an alternative for, or an argument against, the idea of the universe being created by God.
However, the truth is very diferent. The Big Bang theory is the idea that space is expanding (which we can observe happening) and therefor we can draw the conclusion that, the further back in time you go, the more dense and hot space is.
What's important about this distinction is four things:
-The Big Bang is NOT an explosion.
-The Big Bang is still happening.
-The Big Bang has -NOTHING- to do with the ultimate creation of the universe.
-The Big Bang does not entail anything to do with the creation of matter or energy.

For more information, this video is a great and simple explanation:

(YouTube Video Eliminated)

Evolution

Another highly debated topic, Evolution is usually misrepresented.

Natural Selection
The most important thing here is that Natural Selection does not attempt to explain where life comes from. It is the idea that if an organism has a mutation that is slightly advantageous, it is more likely to have offspring that also have that mutation, therefor it is more likely to have offspring that survive, therefor it is more likely that the aforementioned mutation will eventually become dominant throughout the species due to out-competing them, and therefor will eventually replaces the species.


Abiogenesis.
This is what is commonly actually being debated when people talk about 'Evolution.' In short Abiogenisis attempts to explain where life originally came from, it's the idea that life can come from non-life. While all theories need further testing, some can be reproduced in a laboratory. Life-like evolution in a test tube | Cosmos Magazine

It is worth nothing that both Macro Evolutionary and Abiogenesis theroies are both highly debated and in the scientific community. To date, no fully satisfactory theory has been found, although the evidence for both is still fairly compelling.

Definitions of belief:
I feel it's important to understand what each person actually is and what that kind of a thinking entails. Too often I see claims such as 'Theists are immune to evidence' or 'Atheist is a religion'. Here are some actual definitions:

Gnostic-Theist: A person who believes that God exists, with absolute certainty and clarity and who could never be swayed, even when provided with evidence to the contrary. Such a person would usually write off such evidence as the product of something else, of the product of an evil entity attempting to sway their faith.

Agnostic-Theist: The philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God or the gods he believes in. Such a person would be swayed if evidence could be provided to the contrary of their beliefs.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. It's important to distinguish here, this is not a person that believes it's merely impossible to know something about God beyond any doubt at all, they also believe it's impossible to know something about God beyond any reasonable doubt. E.g. They believe no evidence can ever been considered beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agnostic-Atheist: Also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known. Such a person would be swayed if evidence could be provided to the contrary of their beliefs.

Gnostic-Atheist: A person who totally denies the existence of any God or deity, claiming that it is utterly impossible. Such a person would totally deny the existence of evidence for a God, and would ignore such evidence even if it were provided.

Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Proof:
Something I see on both sides of various debates constantly is the misunderstanding of what constitutes proof.
Allow me to debunk some common errors.

Firstly, absolute proof is not possible. Assumptions must always be made first, we then make predictions based on that assumption and if tings tend to work then we say that assumption is indeed correct.
For instance, I have no way of directly proving that Electrons Quantum Tunnel, however, since that assumption was used to make my touch screen phone, and the phone works, I can safely say that the assumption is likely true.
It's important to note that assumptions are not just plucked randomly from the air, they are thought to likely be the case due to observations that we make in nature.
However, absolute proof is impossible because we must make assumptions that we cannot test or verify properly, these are:
-We exist.
-The Three Laws of Thought are true. (Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
-The experience of the observer is not the only experience or is not a totally unique experience.

As such, absolute proof is not possible. However, there are some other logical errors people make when evaluating proof:


Something from nothing, eternity and consciousness.
I'll be brief here. These are also commonly misconstrued, by both people trying to prove and disprove God, and rarely are they represented correctly.

Firstly, it is possible to get something out of nothing, in fact, it happens in nature all the time, we can literally see it happening.
'Nothingness' is essentially comprised of particles fused with their constituent anti-particles, constantly annihilation, with a strong EM field, we can separate them, generating both particles from essentially nothing.
Think of it like this:
+1-1 = 0
But also 0=+1-1
Meaning that we can 'split' a zero into a positive one and negative one. As-long as the net total is the same, energy is conserved.


Secondly, it shouldn't be possible for an infinite amount of time to have passed, but that does not mean something, be it God or The Universe couldn't have existed forever. All that would have to mean is that 'Time' (as a field) hasn't existed forever. This does not mean that before 'Time' became a field there could be no movement or change, only that time would not have existed in the way that we understand it today. There are no Natural or Logical laws that would prevent this from being the case. In fact, we can change the way time moves and acts now. Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thirdly, anyone claiming to know what consciousness actually is, how it functions or why it is, is claiming to have information not seated in empirical reality. The honest truth is, we don't have much information on how or why it works. We know that it is somehow linked to the brain (Since damage to the brain can cause it to be altered) but we don't know whether the brain creates it, or whether it creates the brain, whether the brain is a tool or remember or forgetting, whether the brain makes consciousness, or whether it simply filters it and consciousness is a non-physical part of us etc, etc.
Debate on this topic is highly philosophical and not very empirical.


That is all for now, if you bothered to read that, thank you for your time.

Your definitions are completely wrong, you have provided no evidence for them, and you completely misunderstand the nature of almost everything you have presented.

First of all, the big bang refers to a theoretical explosion that occurred at the start of the universe. A simple look at What Is the Big Bang Theory? shows that your definition is wrong. It says, "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today."

We do not see the "space" expanding around us. Space is empty. What we observe is that many of the stars, quasars, and galaxies we see around us are highly red shifted. Scientists believe that this red shift indicates that the object is traveling away from us at a high relativistic velocity. This is not the only possible explanation for red shifts. In addition, the finding of highly red shifted quasars in and around Stephen's Quintet, if proved, may lead to the inescapable conclusion that quasars are not nearly as far away as their red shifts indicate.

Second, evolution is not a theory of natural selection. Evolution merely postulates that things change. Evolution can be specifically defined as a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. No one disputes that the frequency of alleles changes. What is disputed is whether this evolution leads to micro changes in species (so-called "micro-evolution") or whether these changes lead to the creation of new species (so-called "macro-evolution"). Evolution occurs all the time without natural selection through many forms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfers.

You follow up by saying that the evidence for both abiogenesis and macro-evolution is fairly compelling. This is untrue not only because there is no way for evidence to be for anything, but also because polls of scientists' beliefs have not substantially changed since 1914. Approximately 40 percent of scientists believe in a personal God. The remainder either don't know, don't care, or believe in an impersonal God, as did Albert Einstein. The latest polls on scientists show:

No specific religious beliefs: 20 percent
Atheist: 17 percent
Agnostic: 11 percent
Protestant: 16 percent
Catholic: 10 percent
Jewish: 8 percent
Evangelical: 4 percent
Other religion: 10 percent (probably including Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.)
Won't say: 4 percent

Accordingly if the evidence for a non-divine source of life were so compelling, we should expect to see greater numbers of agnostics and atheists among scientists than we actually see.

Additionally, you said: "Firstly, absolute proof is not possible. Assumptions must always be made first, we then make predictions based on [these assumptions] and if [things] tend to work then we say that assumption is indeed correct." Now perhaps you do all of those things. Unfortunately, however, you have only engaged in the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." You assume P. If P then Q. You observe Q and then determine that theory P is correct. This is a classic example of a logical fallacy. To illustrate what a dumb idea this is, let P = Scaring the evil spirits out of someone will cause them to recover from a cold. Therefore if I scare the evil spirits out of Maria, then (Q) she will recover from her cold. One week later, since Maria no longer has a cold, we proclaim that the evil spirits theory is true. However, what have we proved? Nothing–it's entirely possible that Maria's recovery had nothing to do with the spirit scaring treatment. Maybe she would have recovered all along.

This kind of nonsense is why it can be proved that Most Published Research Findings are False (see PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ). In fact, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted. It is no exaggeration to say that science, as it is currently practiced, just simply does not work.

Finally, you said, that religion is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." This is so ridiculous that it's hard to know where to start. Your definition not only contradicts itself (as a superhuman controlling power is not and cannot be "gods") but it also eliminates large numbers of religions completely such as Shintoism, which believes in kami or a kind of spiritual energy that can exist in rocks, trees, rivers, animals, and even people, Zen Buddhism, which believes that individuals can reach a state of enlightenment through rejection of logic and a kind of intuitive meditation on the zen of the situation, Satanism, which has many adherents who do not believe in spirits of gods, and simply adopt a materialistic worldview and adhere to the code of the Satanic Bible, and Chinese ancestor worship, which believes that the dead ancestors are still part of the family and can intervene beneficially on the behalf of the family when invoked.

 

[VProud]

Perhaps but unless there is some indication that there is something there why even consider it? religious people have given it thought because they needed somewhere for their Gods to live, where better than a place that seems not even to exist?
never never land or the land of far far away.

Have you given any thought as to what might be beyond the supernatural?

Yes, I think about it constantly.
I agree totally that it's not a practical thing to consider.
Beyond the supernatural?
If you mean actually thinking about such existences in a more grounded way than 'it's magical and stuff', then, yes. Of course these existences would be governed by their own natural laws of some kind, I don't believe in 'magic', but I do believe there is room in existence for kinds of science we do not (yet) understand.

That's a great point.

Personally, when I think of "nothing", I think of this:

if X = all that exists (the universe + the unkown)
then Nothing = X - universe

But frankly, I have no idea what "X" means or is. I also don't comprehend what the "minus" means. And I don't pretend to either. Which is why I'm an atheist.

Physics is crazy.

I just saw in interview with Michio Kaku. He said that Quantum Mechanics is the most ridiculous theory ever presented in the history of science. That it's truelly an embarassement to common sense. It's completely silly and irrational.

But there's one thing specifically that bugs him a lot: it's actually correct.

As Lawrence Krauss once said "the universe has a much bigger imagination then we do."

"if X = all that exists (the universe + the unkown)
then Nothing = X - universe"

Then nothing = (the universe + the unkown) - universe
Then nothing = I]the unkown[/I] ?

 

[VProud]

Okay, this is going to take some writing.

First of all, the big bang refers to a theoretical explosion that occurred at the start of the universe. A simple look at What Is the Big Bang Theory? shows that your definition is wrong. It says, "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today."

It is indeed about how our incarnation of the universe came to be, but 'began' is the wrong word, it makes no attempts to explain where what is (incorrectly) called the singularity came from, what happened before it, but there was something before it, our universe existed in some way before that, we just aren't sure how.
It's the beginning of our current understanding of the universe, and the start of the formation of the observable universe.
In-fact, it's called 'the singularity', because it's simply the point before the Planck epoch (Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in-which things cease to make sense and do not fit the general relativity model. It starts chucking up things like infinite temperatures and densities - this makes no sense.
Since our ideas of time and space break down at this point it's easy to think of that as the 'starting point', although the actual theory it's self predicts this to be the case, the important distinction to make is that all that really means is that our current theory isn't fit to predict that far back, infinite temperatures and densities simply do not work. Which is why things like this exist in an attempt to resolve the issue: Big Bounce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The same thing happens at the center of a black hole, we predict the singularity would have infinite density, which means are maths or theory is wrong somewhere, infinite density cannot happen, least of all because it's not even a number, and mostly because it breaks various natural laws.

We do not see the "space" expanding around us. Space is empty.

Space is never empty.

What we observe is that many of the stars, quasars, and galaxies we see around us are highly red shifted. Scientists believe that this red shift indicates that the object is traveling away from us at a high relativistic velocity. This is not the only possible explanation for red shifts. In addition, the finding of highly red shifted quasars in and around Stephen's Quintet, if proved, may lead to the inescapable conclusion that quasars are not nearly as far away as their red shifts indicate.

I said we can observe it happening, I never meant we can see the effects in our every day lives.
Anyway, I will not deny the existence of the Gravitation and Non-relativistic-Doppler theories, but I will say that spacial expanding is the best fit currently.

The Doppler shift is ruled out because, for distant galaxies, it predicts a different amount of redshift than is actually observed. (The formulas for Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift are slightly different; they're nearly the same for nearby galaxies but they diverge for distant galaxies.)

Gravitational redshift is ruled out because it predicts a redshift proportional to the galaxy's mass. That means two galaxies of equal mass should produce the same amount of redshift even if one is twice as distant as the other. But this isn't what we observe.

Finally, the "tired light" hypothesis conflicts with observation. Here's a quote from Scientific American that explains this better than I can:

"Scientists first proposed this ["tired light"] hypothesis some 75 years
ago, and like any good model, it makes predictions that can
be tested. But like any bad model, its predictions do not fit
the observations. For example, when a star explodes as a
supernova, it brightens and then dims—a process that takes
about two weeks for the type of supernova that astronomers
have been using to map out space. During these two weeks,
the supernova emits a train of photons. The tired-light
hypothesis predicts that these photons lose energy as they
propagate but that the observer always sees a train that
lasts two weeks.
In expanding space, however, not only do individual
photons get stretched (thereby losing energy) but the entire
train of photons also gets stretched. Thus, it takes longer
than two weeks for all the photons to arrive on Earth. Recent
observations confirm this effect. A supernova in a galaxy of
redshift 0.5 appears to last three weeks; one in a galaxy of
redshift 1, four weeks.
The tired-light hypothesis also conflicts with
observations of the spectrum of the cosmic microwave
background radiation and of the surface brightness of
distant galaxies."

Second, evolution is not a theory of natural selection. Evolution merely postulates that things change. Evolution can be specifically defined as a change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. No one disputes that the frequency of alleles changes. What is disputed is whether this evolution leads to micro changes in species (so-called "micro-evolution") or whether these changes lead to the creation of new species (so-called "macro-evolution"). Evolution occurs all the time without natural selection through many forms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfers.

Okay, this is a weird one, being that what you just said, is pretty much what I just said.
I claimed that Natural Selection was used to explain evolution, also, what your talking about is specifically biological evolution, there are other kinds.

You follow up by saying that the evidence for both abiogenesis and macro-evolution is fairly compelling. This is untrue not only because there is no way for evidence to be for anything, but also because polls of scientists' beliefs have not substantially changed since 1914. Approximately 40 percent of scientists believe in a personal God. The remainder either don't know, don't care, or believe in an impersonal God, as did Albert Einstein. The latest polls on scientists show:



No specific religious beliefs: 20 percent
Atheist: 17 percent
Agnostic: 11 percent
Protestant: 16 percent
Catholic: 10 percent
Jewish: 8 percent
Evangelical: 4 percent
Other religion: 10 percent (probably including Buddhism, Mormonism, etc.)
Won't say: 4 percent

Accordingly if the evidence for a non-divine source of life were so compelling, we should expect to see greater numbers of agnostics and atheists among scientists than we actually see.

Where did these numbers come from?
Anyway,
What people believe is not relevant. Especially since Abiogensis does not discount the idea of a God. To people with standing religious beliefs, it may simply disclose his methods.

The first step of Abiogensis can be recreated in a lab: Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Science | WIRED
It has been proven to be possible, which is why I said the evidence for it is particularly compelling (To me, I didn't mean nesecerraly for everybody, although I admit that was wrong.), but I also claimed it needed further testing, because we can only prove that it can happen, not that it did.

Additionally, you said: "Firstly, absolute proof is not possible. Assumptions must always be made first, we then make predictions based on [these assumptions] and if [things] tend to work then we say that assumption is indeed correct." Now perhaps you do all of those things. Unfortunately, however, you have only engaged in the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." You assume P. If P then Q. You observe Q and then determine that theory P is correct. This is a classic example of a logical fallacy. To illustrate what a dumb idea this is, let P = Scaring the evil spirits out of someone will cause them to recover from a cold. Therefore if I scare the evil spirits out of Maria, then (Q) she will recover from her cold. One week later, since Maria no longer has a cold, we proclaim that the evil spirits theory is true. However, what have we proved? Nothing–it's entirely possible that Maria's recovery had nothing to do with the spirit scaring treatment. Maybe she would have recovered all along.

This kind of nonsense is why it can be proved that Most Published Research Findings are False (see PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ). In fact, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted. It is no exaggeration to say that science, as it is currently practiced, just simply does not work.

You've entirely misunderstood what I was saying.

It's not a case of:
"If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P."

It's a case of:

"Q will result in X if, and only if, P.
Q.
X resulted.
Therefore, P."

My phone would work if and only if electrons could quantum tunnel. (It was built with the idea of this theory in mind, the changes of it working for some other reason are ASTRONOMICALLY low. As in, I can not even write out a number for how low that would be.)
My phone works.
Therefore, electrons can quantum tunnel.

Of course, it's more about probability than such absolutes, which is why we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of proof beyond a doubt.

This usually involves multiple predictions, it's all about probability.

Finally, you said, that religion is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." This is so ridiculous that it's hard to know where to start. Your definition not only contradicts itself (as a superhuman controlling power is not and cannot be "gods") but it also eliminates large numbers of religions completely such as Shintoism, which believes in kami or a kind of spiritual energy that can exist in rocks, trees, rivers, animals, and even people, Zen Buddhism, which believes that individuals can reach a state of enlightenment through rejection of logic and a kind of intuitive meditation on the zen of the situation, Satanism, which has many adherents who do not believe in spirits of gods, and simply adopt a materialistic worldview and adhere to the code of the Satanic Bible, and Chinese ancestor worship, which believes that the dead ancestors are still part of the family and can intervene beneficially on the behalf of the family when invoked.

That's the Oxford definition.

Why can't a super human controlling power be classified as a God or Gods?
Superhuman simply means (another oxford definition, incoming!) : "Having or showing exceptional ability or powers." I see nothing there that would contradict the idea of a God or Gods. Which is defined as: "A superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."

These are the definitions for the words that we use.

Shintoism worships beings that fit that definition perfectly: Amatarasu, Izanami-no-Mikoto , etc, etc.

This is also exactly why a lot of people classify such things as a philosophy, not a religion. They may contain religions beliefs, but are not necessarily religions.
But, we're just arguing semantics at this point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just to comment on a small portion of your post. +1-1=0 isn't actually nothing. It consists of two 'somethings', +1 and -1. Particles are something.

And yet I have yet to ever see anyone take 5 apples away from 4. You can't take a -1 apple away from 4 apples. You can take +1 - +1 = 0, but you can not take +1 - -1, as the -1 never existed in the first place.


Edit:

You can't even take away the 4 apples, as the energy thereof will simply transform into something else. Hence scientific belief that energy can never be created nor destroyed, but merely change forms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"if X = all that exists (the universe + the unkown)
then Nothing = X - universe"

Then nothing = (the universe + the unkown) - universe
Then nothing = I]the unkown[/i] ?

yup. I think of nothing as that which is left w
when we remove the universe. I include the unkown, because... Well... It's unkown what would be left after removing the universe.

 

[Zosimus]

Okay, this is going to take some writing.

<snip>

But, we're just arguing semantics at this point.

The funny thing is that you think a theory that makes no sense is a good one, but I'll bet that you instantly criticize those Christians who have theories that make no sense. Similarly theories that postulate that black holes exist are just that–theories. It never ceases to amaze me how often those people who criticize others for belief in unseen things (such as the religious deity in question) are ever so willing to believe in unobserved phenomina such as black holes or dark matter.

A simple look at BB top 30 problems shows many of the problems associated with the Big Bang theory. Admittedly the posters have their own axe to grind, something that will probably lead you to post a long and irrelevant attack on the steady state theory. Since your own theory has so many holes, you spend most of your time attacking other theories. Don't worry–religious people love the idea that the universe started with one big flash of light. You needn't worry that it is scientifically indefensible.

You argue against red shift theories by enumerating the ones you hate and attacking them. Should this impress me? You fail to account for the idea that a new theory will be invented tomorrow. People say that nature hates a vacuum, but I think science hates it more. Scientists refuse to admit that their theories don't work until they have new, better theories to replace them with. That way they can continue to pretend that they know things that they don't.

As for the numbers on scientists' religious beliefs, they came directly from Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project where we can clearly see:

Accordingly if you are one of those people who believe that scientists are mostly atheist, I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but it's simply untrue.

Abiogenesis, the idea that life spontaneously self-created, is ridiculous. This is an idea put forward by people who must believe, regardless of the evidence, that no intelligent being could have been involved in the creation of life. Your defense of it is particularly telling. Since intelligent people can create nucleotides in a lab, it's somehow "compelling" for you that the same thing happened without intelligent assistance in nature. Apparently your logic is that since it's not completely impossible that abiogenesis occurred, then it must have occurred. Somehow you don't extend this logic to religions, I suppose. Since it's not completely impossible that God exists, He (or She) must, therefore, exist. Funny how logic goes out the window when you are defending your beliefs, but comes right back in to attack other peoples'.

Then you run off at the idea that your phone works because electrons can quantum tunnel. Since you feel that other explanations are unlikely, you feel certain that the theory is correct. Apparently you missed out on the idea that the radio and television were invented with the idea that radio waves propagated through a special medium called the luminiferous aether, which is what permits electromagnetic radiation to travel through the void of space. Since the radio works, you have to accept this theory according to your logic (or lack of same).

As for your definition of religion, it stinks regardless whether Oxford was involved in it. A simple look at DEFINITION OF RELIGION shows that even the best scholars cannot agree on a good definition of religion. The closest one can come is to state that it has something to do with defining certain things as sacred (or holy) and other things as common (or profane). Christians, for example, don't run around exclaiming "J-s-s f-ck-ng Chr-st" because to them the name of this person is holy. This definition, however, fails because many environmentalists treat the Earth as though it were holy and engage in many seemingly religious practices, such as confession of past sins, penance through recycling, special holy days such as Earth Day, and evangelical zeal to convert all to the cause. Nevertheless, adherents deny that environmentalism is a religion.

I provided you with four examples of religions that do not fall within the definition you provided. You nitpick at one of the counter-examples and then say that it's all semantics. No, it isn't semantics. It's you trying to control the dialogue to something you have no authority over. You seem to have this idea that people don't agree with you not because your ideas are invalid but because your ideas are being misunderstood by those ignorant savages who don't get the beautiful truths involved in circular logic of the highest order.

In conclusion, your answer ignores most of the points made against you. It can be proved that most published scientific research is false. Science is based on a logical fallacy. You claim that it's a matter of probability, but a simple calculation of the probability of abiogenesis is astronomical. It's not that we misunderstand the ideas you promote, it's that said ideas are not compelling in the slightest.

 

[justlookinla]

And yet I have yet to ever see anyone take 5 apples away from 4. You can't take a -1 apple away from 4 apples. You can take +1 - +1 = 0, but you can not take +1 - -1, as the -1 never existed in the first place.


Edit:

You can't even take away the 4 apples, as the energy thereof will simply transform into something else. Hence scientific belief that energy can never be created nor destroyed, but merely change forms.

I think I agree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The funny thing is that you think a theory that makes no sense is a good one, but I'll bet that you instantly criticize those Christians who have theories that make no sense. Similarly theories that postulate that black holes exist are just that&#8211;theories

Whenever someone refers to scientifice theories as "just a theory", they instantly lose all credibility concerning the subject of science.

A simple look at BB top 30 problems shows many of the problems associated with the Big Bang theory. Admittedly the posters have their own axe to grind, something that will probably lead you to post a long and irrelevant attack on the steady state theory. Since your own theory has so many holes, you spend most of your time attacking other theories. Don't worry&#8211;religious people love the idea that the universe started with one big flash of light. You needn't worry that it is scientifically indefensible.

You can name problems in just about every scientific theory. All it takes is putting your finger in the spots where ignorance still reigns.

Nonetheless, there's one thing scientific theories do that religious faith based beliefs don't: make testable predictions

Because of this, science works. Religion doesn't.

You argue against red shift theories by enumerating the ones you hate and attacking them. Should this impress me? You fail to account for the idea that a new theory will be invented tomorrow

A new theory is "invented" when new data refutes the "old" theory. This is a GOOD thing. It's called learning and progress.

It never ceases to amaze me that the biggest complaint of anti-science people is that science changes when new data comes in. I consider it a GOOD thing.

It's, after all, how we are able to post on this board.

People say that nature hates a vacuum, but I think science hates it more. Scientists refuse to admit that their theories don't work until they have new, better theories to replace them with.

More lies. The fact that in science, explanation is called a theory should give you a hint. It's called intellectual honesty. It's not called "fact" or "law" or "absolute truth", because intellectual honesty dictates that new discoveries, facts and observations could prove these explanations to be wrong.

That way they can continue to pretend that they know things that they don't.

Again with the misrepresentation.
There is no "pretending to know" when you use the word THEORY.
The very word is embedded with an admission that new data could prove it wrong. That it's not "absolute truth". Only religious fundamentalists pretend to hold the "absolute truth".

Theory is nothing like that. At best, it's something like "to the best of our knowledge...".

Accordingly if you are one of those people who believe that scientists are mostly atheist, I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but it's simply untrue.

It's a fact that compared to the general population, atheism is a lot more prevalent in scientific circles. Non-fundamentalist religion even more.

The more radical the theist, the least likely he's a scientist.
And the higher you go on the "elite-scale" of science, the bigger this difference becomes.

Abiogenesis, the idea that life spontaneously self-created, is ridiculous.

Why?

This is an idea put forward by people who must believe, regardless of the evidence, that no intelligent being could have been involved in the creation of life.

Tell it to the theists who work in that field.

Then you run off at the idea that your phone works because electrons can quantum tunnel. Since you feel that other explanations are unlikely, you feel certain that the theory is correct.

The theory of quantum mechanics does work. There's no way around that.
Perhaps you should inform yourself a bit more.

It can be proved that most published scientific research is false.

You are some kind of genious I bet. So why are you here and not lecturing in universities around the world a couple of nobel prizes to wave with?

Science is based on a logical fallacy

You claim that it's a matter of probability, but a simple calculation of the probability of abiogenesis is astronomical.

Anyone claiming to be able to calculate the probability of abiogenesis is a liar.
You can't calculate the probability if you don't have access to all the variables.

The process of abiogenesis is not conclusive in any shape or form. The origins of life are not known. Abiogenesis is the working model / hypothesis that tries to figure out how chemistry can turn into biology. It's a collection of ideas that are in development. It's not finalized or figured out yet.

It's impossible to calculate this probability at this point in time.
We'ld have to know EXACTLY how life can come from non-life to do that.

Furthermore, I'ld say the probability of that event happening isn't terribly interesting, assuming that it's not zero.

It's an event that only has to happen once. Improbable events happen all the time.
You do understand that if the probability of something is, let's say 1 in 20 bazillion, that that means that it will actually OCCUR ONCE every 20 bazillion trials (on average), right?

Considering how big the universe is, considering how barren the planets are that we investigated up close besides earth, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the origins of life is an improbable event.

A big asteroid hitting us is improbable too. Yet it happened multiple times throughout history.
Again, improbable events happen all the time.

It's not that we misunderstand the ideas you promote, it's that said ideas are not compelling in the slightest.

No. It's that you are so anti-science that you'll jump on every fallacious excuse you can find to bad mouth it.

And you only do it because you feel it contradicts (or is capable of contradicting) your bronze-aged faith-based beliefs you hold so dear.

Well, sorry to tell you, but science is not going to stop it's journey just to accomodate for your bronze-age worldview. Science will continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

And you can choose...
Either you get along with it and learn things and make progress.
Or you can clinge to your faith-based bronze age beliefs and stay ignorant.

 

[Zosimus]

Whenever someone refers to scientifice theories as "just a theory", they instantly lose all credibility concerning the subject of science.

And when someone refers to scientific theories as "scientifice theories" he or she loses all credibility in my book. Additionally, when people use "they" to refer to a "someone" they show that they are illiterate in regards to the English language.

You can name problems in just about every scientific theory. All it takes is putting your finger in the spots where ignorance still reigns.

Nonetheless, there's one thing scientific theories do that religious faith based beliefs don't: make testable predictions

Here we go again&#8211;the off-topic attack on religion. "Science is good because... because... because... well, religion sucks!!!!!" Very impressive.

Should I be impressed because the scientific theory you are touting makes testable predictions that have been tested and shown to be bad predictions? Should I swoon all over myself and say, "Wow! What a great theory!" Sorry, I'm not buying.

Because of this, science works. Religion doesn't.

Science works? Great&#8211;here's a peer reviewed scientific study saying that science doesn't work. Just open PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and you'll see that it says, "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false." I didn't say that&#8211;I found it written in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. So chew on that.

A new theory is "invented" when new data refutes the "old" theory. This is a GOOD thing. It's called learning and progress.

It never ceases to amaze me that the biggest complaint of anti-science people is that science changes when new data comes in. I consider it a GOOD thing.

Sure&#8211;when your opponents are wrong, that proves they are bad. But when you are wrong, that proves that you are good. Impressive.

It's, after all, how we are able to post on this board.

No, I'm able to post on this board because Thor, God of Lightning and Thunder, makes electricity possible.

More lies. The fact that in science, explanation is called a theory should give you a hint. It's called intellectual honesty. It's not called "fact" or "law" or "absolute truth", because intellectual honesty dictates that new discoveries, facts and observations could prove these explanations to be wrong.

News flash: Facts and observations HAVE proved these explanations wrong.

Again with the misrepresentation.
There is no "pretending to know" when you use the word THEORY.
The very word is embedded with an admission that new data could prove it wrong. That it's not "absolute truth". Only religious fundamentalists pretend to hold the "absolute truth".

Theory is nothing like that. At best, it's something like "to the best of our knowledge...".

Okay then just say, "To the best of our knowledge, our theories are wrong." Then we can all be friends again.

It's a fact that compared to the general population, atheism is a lot more prevalent in scientific circles. Non-fundamentalist religion even more.

What a shocker that atheists are attracted to a discipline that is mostly government funded, especially when said government is prohibited from funding religious institutions.

Why?

Why what?

The theory of quantum mechanics does work. There's no way around that.
Perhaps you should inform yourself a bit more.

So much for all your previous claims about theories being tentative, and how intellectually honest you are by calling them theories. As soon as you latch onto a theory you are in no mood for blasphemy. You remind me of Christians.

You are some kind of genious I bet. So why are you here and not lecturing in universities around the world a couple of nobel prizes to wave with?

I may not be a genius, but I know how to spell the word.

You shouldn't shy away from logical fallacies. You should be like the guy at Mike's Fourth Try: Why the natural sciences rely on affirming the consequent (and that's OK!) who proudly announces "I pointed out how bizarre that criticism was, because 'affirming the consequent' is actually a necessary and justified part of reasoning in the natural sciences." Be PROUD of your logical fallacies, don't deny them! Or be like the guy at Intro to Logic: Affirming the Consequent who also admits that science engages in logical fallacies, sweeps it under the rug, and attacks religious people for doing so.

Anyone claiming to be able to calculate the probability of abiogenesis is a liar.
You can't calculate the probability if you don't have access to all the variables.

Sure I can. You just pick a very simple life form, such as the simplest viroid, and calculate the chance of it self-assembling. Since viroids have as few as 246 nucleotides, we can give a generous estimation of the chance of it self-assembling by assuming that the exact number and quantity of nucleotides are present in some sort of a soup. What are the chances that the nucleotides will fall into order? That's easy! The chances are 246!, which is 1x2x3x4x5x6...x246&#8211;a number so large that my Excel spreadsheet cannot calculate it. In fact, even if I assume that the nucleotides have been trying repeatedly 60 times every second for the past 15 billion years, my Excel spreadsheet can only calculate the chances of a 179-nucleotide viroid self-assembling ... at 3.929x10[sup]307[/sup] against.

In short, I'd sooner believe that a virgin squirted out a kid that happened to be God before I'd believe that nonsense.

The process of abiogenesis is not conclusive in any shape or form. The origins of life are not known. Abiogenesis is the working model / hypothesis that tries to figure out how chemistry can turn into biology. It's a collection of ideas that are in development. It's not finalized or figured out yet.

It's impossible to calculate this probability at this point in time.
We'ld have to know EXACTLY how life can come from non-life to do that.

Furthermore, I'ld say the probability of that event happening isn't terribly interesting, assuming that it's not zero.

Believe me, when the chances of happening are so astronomically against that it exceeds the number of hydrogen atoms in the known universe, you should take that number seriously.

It's an event that only has to happen once. Improbable events happen all the time.
You do understand that if the probability of something is, let's say 1 in 20 bazillion, that that means that it will actually OCCUR ONCE every 20 bazillion trials (on average), right?

You do understand that a bazillion isn't a number, right?

Considering how big the universe is, considering how barren the planets are that we investigated up close besides earth, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the origins of life is an improbable event.

Maybe because you don't know anything about math.

A big asteroid hitting us is improbable too. Yet it happened multiple times throughout history.
Again, improbable events happen all the time.

Compared to a viroid self-assembling, this is an extremely probable event.

No. It's that you are so anti-science that you'll jump on every fallacious excuse you can find to bad mouth it.

And you only do it because you feel it contradicts (or is capable of contradicting) your bronze-aged faith-based beliefs you hold so dear.

I never considered logic to be a bronze-aged faith-based belief. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Well, sorry to tell you, but science is not going to stop it's journey just to accomodate for your bronze-age worldview. Science will continue to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

And you can choose...
Either you get along with it and learn things and make progress.
Or you can clinge to your faith-based bronze age beliefs and stay ignorant.

I think I'd rather cling to the proper spelling of accommodate and cling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Discussing these things with people like you is a waste of time. But since I have time to waste at the moment, I'll humor you.

And when someone refers to scientific theories as "scientifice theories" he or she loses all credibility in my book.

Do people also lose credibility with you if they refer to a banana with the word "banana"?

Additionally, when people use "they" to refer to a "someone" they show that they are illiterate in regards to the English language.

I'm from Belgium. I speak dutch and french. English is a language I learned by watching the Simpson and surfing the internet.
Bickering about spelling furthermore exposes the lack of real arguments.

Here we go again–the off-topic attack on religion. "Science is good because... because... because... well, religion sucks!!!!!" Very impressive.

Here we go again with the strawman.
The point was that science is good because it makes testable predictions.
What religion does (or doesn't), is irrelevant.

Should I be impressed because the scientific theory you are touting makes testable predictions that have been tested and shown to be bad predictions? Should I swoon all over myself and say, "Wow! What a great theory!" Sorry, I'm not buying.

That's because you don't value the idea of questioning your beliefs. You just want to hold them and not have them challenged.

I don't swing that way. I want my beliefs challenged all the time, because I actually care about my beliefs being as correct as can be. You obviously don't.

Science works? Great–here's a peer reviewed scientific study saying that science doesn't work. Just open PLOS Medicine: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False and you'll see that it says, "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false." I didn't say that–I found it written in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. So chew on that.

Lawrence Krauss once said that 99.99% of proposed explanations in science turn out to be wrong. He was asked about the current hypothesises that attempt to explain the origins of the universe. He went over some of them, expressed his own preference of which one he found most compelling and then stated that until we understand gravity on the quantum level, we won't be able to solve this riddle. And that the actual most likely outcome, is that all current proposed ideas are wrong.

All this is ok. It's how the process of science works. When working backwards to unravel the underlying nature of phenomena when all you can observe is the end-result, you'll be in for a bumpy ride. But, thanks to making testable predictions, you can zero in on the truth.

This is how we came up with atoms, electrons, protons, germs, plate tectonics, relativity, evolution, etc. All these things are theories. All of them are the result of hard work by thousands of people over long periods of time.

And before we came up with these working theories that can be successfully tested, many more people have proposed many more ideas that were utterly wrong.

Again, it's called learning. Obviously, you hate learning.

Sure–when your opponents are wrong, that proves they are bad. But when you are wrong, that proves that you are good. Impressive.

No. There's nothing wrong with being wrong about something. The problem arises when people are wrong and aren't willing to change their views.
That's what religion does. They clinge to their dogma - no matter what the data says.

Science doesn't do that. If an idea is shown wrong, it is discarded or adapted to squeeze out the errors. "impressive" is not an appropriate word here. "Intellectually honest" is what I would call it.

No, I'm able to post on this board because Thor, God of Lightning and Thunder, makes electricity possible.

Electricity powers computers. It doesn't tell you how to design and produce transistors and micro-chips. You need working explanations / theories of the physics involved to be able to do that.

News flash: Facts and observations HAVE proved these explanations wrong.

What facts and observations have proven atomic theory to be wrong? How about Germ Theory? Relativity? Plate tectonics?

Okay then just say, "To the best of our knowledge, our theories are wrong." Then we can all be friends again.

Or... "to the best of our knowledge, micro-organisms - also called germs - cause deseases. "

What a shocker that atheists are attracted to a discipline that is mostly government funded, especially when said government is prohibited from funding religious institutions.

What a shocker that you insist on misrepresenting such statistics.
It's just an interesting correlation.

Why what?

I don't know how to clarify that question even more. It seems pretty obvious what I am asking. I'll just assume that you don't want to answer it.

So much for all your previous claims about theories being tentative, and how intellectually honest you are by calling them theories. As soon as you latch onto a theory you are in no mood for blasphemy. You remind me of Christians.

Theories are tentative and quantum theory is not exception. Neither is germ theory. Or heliocentric theory. Nevertheless, these theories work without question.

Here's an example of a theory that also works, but is known to be wrong: newtonian physics. Newton's gravity theory doesn't account for relativity. It assumes gravity works instantly. It assumes that if the sun would disappear this second, that the earth would instantly become unaffected by the sun's gravity field the very same second. But we know today that it would actually take 8 minutes for that to happen. So Newton's gravity is wrong.

Yet, it still works well enough to calculate certain trajectories within the solar system or to calculate stuff concerning gravity here on earth. It fails once we start doing calculations on a bigger scale, where relativity becomes a factor with more impact.

I may not be a genius, but I know how to spell the word.

Bickering about spelling is a sign of desperation.

Sure I can. You just pick a very simple life form, such as the simplest viroid, and calculate the chance of it self-assembling.

Which would be an intellectually dishonest and pointless exercise, for the following reasons:

- that "simple" life form has been evolving for 3.7 billion years
- nobody in the field of abiogenesis thinks or suggests that a single chemical reaction resulted in a modern life form.
- you'ld still be assuming to know how non-life can turn into life.

Since viroids have as few as 246 nucleotides, we can give a generous estimation of the chance of it self-assembling by assuming that the exact number and quantity of nucleotides are present in some sort of a soup.

No, you cannot. Because you have no knowledge of the kind of process that would allow for such a thing to happen. You are just guessing and assuming without evidence.

In short, I'd sooner believe that a virgin squirted out a kid that happened to be God before I'd believe that nonsense.

That I can understand. What you wrote there indeed was such nonsense that it might even be more non-sensical then bronze-age mythology.

Believe me,

I don't "believe" things without evidence.

when the chances of happening are so astronomically against that it exceeds the number of hydrogen atoms in the known universe, you should take that number seriously.

I don't need to take nonsense seriously.

You do understand that a bazillion isn't a number, right?

Maybe because you don't know anything about math.

No. Because I'm willing to ask the questions without assuming the answers.

Compared to a viroid self-assembling, this is an extremely probable event.

It's a good thing then, that you are the only one that claims that abiogenesis is the idea that a viroid self-assembled.

Arguing a strawman is not an argument against anything.

I never considered logic to be a bronze-aged faith-based belief. Thanks for sharing your insight.

Logic is basic on the evidence of reality.
I missed that you had the "agnostic" label.
Doesn't change the fact that you're seriously anti-science for some reason though. It's a natural reflex on this site to assume the reason to be bronze-age beliefs. Sorry bout that.

I think I'd rather cling to the proper spelling of accommodate and cling.

Bickering about spelling is a sign of desperation.

 

[Zosimus]

The point was that science is good because it makes testable predictions.
What religion does (or doesn't), is irrelevant.

Testable predictions are only useful when theories are abandoned when the predictions turn out to be false. A simple look at The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) shows how badly the Big Bang Theory has failed.

"The story of the discovery and subsequent investigations into the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) by astronomers is one of the most telling sagas of the inflexibility in thinking of our astronomical community. If it were not for the fact that billions of dollars have been spent researching this subject it would be a pathetic chapter in scientific endeavors. As it is, it illustrates why there are constant frustrations for those who take exception to the flow of modern astronomical research.

"We begin our story in 1964 at a lonely outpost in Holmdel-Keyport, New Jersey. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson are testing the Bell Telephone Laboratories 24-foot radio reflector. This reflector was designed with low background noise, but they consistently detected a hissing from the microwave region. After eliminating all known sources of noise (including pigeon nests in the antenna) they came to the realization that the radiation was coming from outside the atmosphere.... They called it the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR).

"Several years before the discovery of the microwave background radiation, George Gamow, a famous astrophysicist and one of the originators of the Big Bang theory, published a paper in which he predicted that the Big Bang should have created an afterglow—a very small residual heat throughout the universe. He predicted that the temperature of this residual heat would be somewhere between 5 and 50 degrees Kelvin, depending on the age of the universe.

"Proponents of the Big Bang theory eventually connected the background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson to Gamow’s prediction, and broadly proclaimed this discovery as proof that the Big Bang really happened.

"Another characteristic of the residual heat predicted by Gamow was that it should be non-isotropic—that is, it should show some variations from place to place in the sky. These variations would be expected, since when one looks to the distant universe it is clumpy. Galaxies tend to be found in clusters, and clusters of galaxies tend to be found as even bigger clusters. This non-even distribution of matter throughout the universe should be reflected by a non-even distribution of residual heat from the Big Bang. Put another way, if the clustering of the universe was caused by anisotropy in the initial Big Bang explosion, then the residual heat should be anisotropic as well (anisotropic means non-even or clumpy). That is, it should vary slightly from place to place. It should also have a blackbody radiation pattern.

"The background microwave radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson seemed to fit what astronomers were looking for. It appeared to be a black body radiation. However, it appeared to be very consistent in all directions, which did not fit with Gamow’s predictions. In spite of this apparent discrepancy, astronomers almost immediately jumped on the findings as “the discovery of the century”, to quote astrophysicist Steven Hawkings.

"There were a few burrs under the saddle, however. In the first place, the temperature was far lower than had been predicted by Gamow (2.78 degrees measured versus 5-30 degrees predicted), but what the heck—nobody’s perfect. What are a few degrees among astronomers?

"The other nagging problem is that the radiation appeared to be too uniform to suit the model described by Big Bang theorists. Remember, the background radiation should be clumpy, to match the clumpiness of the galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe, but ground-based measurements found the temperature to be extremely consistent everywhere the radio telescopes were pointed. Still, astronomers were confident it would be eventually found to be clumpy when better measuring techniques were used.

"So the COBE satellite (COsmic Background Explorer) was launched in 1989 to measure the background radiation from space, where...better measurements [could] be taken, [and] measurements could be made in parts of the spectrum which could not be observed from earth because of the shielding effects of our atmosphere. After several years of data collection, the announcement so long awaited by astronomers about the clumpiness of the background radiation leaked out!

"No luck! The radiation was isotropic (that is, virtually no variation in any direction). There was no clumpiness, except for small variations expected due to the motion of the earth and solar system through the universe! It looked like the Big Bang theory was about to be trashed. Without clumpiness, the background radiation could not have come from a primordial explosion. The Big Bang theory was dead!

"Or so it seemed. But charging to the rescue came George Smoot and others of the COBE project. Using a highly ‘sophisticated’ data analysis program and high-speed computers, the data was re-analyzed, a process that took several years. (Sort of reminds you of the Kevin Costner movie No Way Out, during which a fuzzy polaroid photo is analyzed and re-analyzed for days by the CIA until, finally, an incriminating image appears.)

"And you guessed it, the result of the COBE analysis came out just as expected—the radiation was clumpy! The Big Bang was not only saved, it was proven, and life could go on as usual for all those astronomers who have spent their lives living off the Big Bang theory. A mighty cheer for George!

"Of course, the clumpiness, required for the Big Bang theory, was really not as large as astronomers would have liked, as evidenced by the title of Mr. Smoots book, Wrinkles in Time[1]. But it was enough to save the Big Bang for another day. The unevenness actually amounted to a deviation of only 1 part in 100,000 from perfect symmetry. This is roughly equivalent to a 200-foot rock protruding from the ocean if the earth were completely inundated with water! And even this minuscule variation has been put in question by a Russian satellite. More recently, the IMAP satellite has confirmed the smoothness of the background radiation."
------------------
So you see, the Big Bang theory has been falsified several times over.

I don't swing that way. I want my beliefs challenged all the time, because I actually care about my beliefs being as correct as can be. You obviously don't.

If you want your beliefs to be correct, you'll start by re-examining this nonsense known as the Big Bang Theory.

Lawrence Krauss once said that 99.99% of proposed explanations in science turn out to be wrong. He was asked about the current hypothesises that attempt to explain the origins of the universe. He went over some of them, expressed his own preference of which one he found most compelling and then stated that until we understand gravity on the quantum level, we won't be able to solve this riddle. And that the actual most likely outcome, is that all current proposed ideas are wrong.

All this is ok. It's how the process of science works. When working backwards to unravel the underlying nature of phenomena when all you can observe is the end-result, you'll be in for a bumpy ride. But, thanks to making testable predictions, you can zero in on the truth.

Since you freely admit that 99.99 percent of your theories are wrong, what makes you so certain that said theories are zeroing in on the truth? Other than blind, unreasoning faith, of course?

This is how we came up with atoms, electrons, protons, germs, plate tectonics, relativity, evolution, etc. All these things are theories. All of them are the result of hard work by thousands of people over long periods of time.

No, atoms were invented by Greeks who figured that if you cut something in half, and in half again, and in half some more, eventually you would come to a point where you couldn't cut anymore. Atom is from the Greek word atomos, which means indivisible. In fact, this concept of atoms as indivisible was so strong that Arrhenius, the first guy to theorize that atoms might be composed of smaller particles such as electrons, was darn near blacklisted from the scientific community for daring to utter blasphemy (see “crackpots” who were right 5: Svante Arrhenius | viXra log ). So anytime you expound on how open-minded science is, and in search of the truth, and welcoming questioning remember that you are completely ignorant of scientific history.

And before we came up with these working theories that can be successfully tested, many more people have proposed many more ideas that were utterly wrong.

Theories are never successfully tested. Attempts to do so involve logical fallacies. If I theorize that Bill Gates owns a diamond mine, no amount of showing him to be rich will ever successfully "test" the theory, nor demonstrate that the theory works or that Bill Gates owns a diamond mine.

No. There's nothing wrong with being wrong about something. The problem arises when people are wrong and aren't willing to change their views.
That's what religion does. They clinge to their dogma - no matter what the data says.

It's still spelled cling, not clinge.

Science doesn't do that. If an idea is shown wrong, it is discarded or adapted to squeeze out the errors. "impressive" is not an appropriate word here. "Intellectually honest" is what I would call it.

If that's true, why is the Big Bang Theory still floating around?

Electricity powers computers. It doesn't tell you how to design and produce transistors and micro-chips. You need working explanations / theories of the physics involved to be able to do that.

No, you don't. You just have to think that the current coming out of the bipolar junction transistor (BJT) is 10 times the current going in. You also have to know electricalstechnology: How to Thevenize a Given Circuit? and blind faith in Ohm's law doesn't hurt. While we're at it, let's not forget that scientists called Ohm's law "a tissue of naked fantasy" and refused to publish it. Yay science–you are so open minded.

Theories are tentative and quantum theory is not exception. Neither is germ theory. Or heliocentric theory. Nevertheless, these theories work without question.

I'm glad to know that you think heliocentric theory works. How long have you believed the Sun to be the center of the universe? Were you aware that most scientists believe that all the planets do not orbit the sun, but rather orbit http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf ?

Here's an example of a theory that also works, but is known to be wrong: newtonian physics. Newton's gravity theory doesn't account for relativity. It assumes gravity works instantly. It assumes that if the sun would disappear this second, that the earth would instantly become unaffected by the sun's gravity field the very same second. But we know today that it would actually take 8 minutes for that to happen. So Newton's gravity is wrong.

You are completely misinformed. Scientists long knew that Newton's Law of Universal Gravity didn't work. A simple look at the precession of Mercury showed that. It's also amusing that you think that Newton, who was not a scientist, created wonderful "working but wrong" theories. I'm also amused at how you think you know that gravity travels at the speed of light. This despite such links as Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light? , which says "To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory—the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The 'speed of gravity' must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations." and "The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result." Also, "Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test."
---------------
Maybe you are celebrating too soon? Apparently as soon as someone creates a theory you believe it has been tested and shown to be accurate.

Which would be an intellectually dishonest and pointless exercise, for the following reasons:

- that "simple" life form has been evolving for 3.7 billion years
- nobody in the field of abiogenesis thinks or suggests that a single chemical reaction resulted in a modern life form.
- you'ld still be assuming to know how non-life can turn into life.

No, it's not an intellectually dishonest or pointless exercise. Remember that you say life has been evolving for 3.7 billion years, yet I gave you 15 billion years of trying 60 times a second! I can afford to be that generous because the very thought that nucleotides self-assemble is absurd. Nucleotides don't even occur in nature outside a living cell, yet I generously gave you the exact number of nucleotides and in the exact right quantity so that self-assembly could be, at least theoretically, possible. Additionally, even if the reaction worked, you would just have a viroid, which requires a host cell to infect in order to reproduce. I would sooner believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure, before I'd believe that nonsense.

I don't "believe" things without evidence.

Yes, you do. You believe that evidence is required in order to believe things, even though you have no evidence to back that belief up.