The Cambrian problem

klutedavid · Dec 13, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
What assumption? I have found that creationists when they say 'assumption' at best mean that they do not understand. And yes, in the very early universe, when the universe was much smaller than it is now the density of hydrogen in space would have been greater, therefore more rapid star formation.

Hello SubductionZone.

In post #80, you made the following comment.

What assumption?

The assumption or even better SZ, the belief in 'Uniformitarianism'.

Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that the same natural laws...
(Wikipedia)

The definition of an 'assumption' by the way SZ, is a belief without proof.

Do you like that definition SZ, notice the word 'belief'.

Assumption = Belief

Atheism as an idealism which it is SZ, is a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Atheism in practice though, is the astounding acceptance of every assumption
or belief in existence. Your a true believer in every sense of the word, but you
never realized it.

You take a snap shot of the present forces, states, and processes. Then believe (assume)
that everything that ever happened in the deeper past, will reflect these present processes.

Your replied that the hydrogen density was greater in the past, SZ, will you please
in future list your assumptions first, before making any claim without proof.

For example SZ your assumptions or beliefs, will be as follows.

1) You believe in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

2) You believe that past processes never were the result of any supernatural forces

3) You believe that present processes reflect exactly how all past processes occurred

4) You believe that the evidence for the existence of God is unsatisfactory

5) You believe that you can know and identify what this evidence for God is

6) You believe that the information that your senses detect is always valid information

7) You believe in an objective concensus for the establishment of all truth

8) You believe that experimentation will support your belief system

9) You believe that the claim of empiricism is valid

10) You believe your cognitive thought patterns are trustworthy on all matters

11) You certainly believe that those that follow a creation account, do not understand
what an assumption (belief) is? This beggars belief (assumption).

By the way SZ, believe nothing of what you will ever read, and only five percent
of what you think you observe.

Gracchus · Dec 13, 2015

klutedavid said:
The definition of an 'assumption' by the way SZ, is a belief without proof.
Do you like that definition SZ, notice the word 'belief'. Assumption = Belief

No.

assumption n
1. the act of taking something for granted or something that is taken for granted
2. an assuming of power or possession of something
3. arrogance; presumption
4. (Logic) logic a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted. Compare axiom

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

The definitions pertinent to this discussion are numbers one and four.
Pertinent to definition one: We may take a statement for granted because those around us do, or it may just be the first thing that occurred to an iron-age writer. But those around us may be wrong. The iron age writer may not have been in possession of accurate information.
We may take it for granted because there is so much evidence supporting it that it would be perverse or insane not to accept it as true.

Pertinent to definition four: We may assume a premise. If, by using the correct rules of logic we reach a conclusion contrary to fact or a contradiction, we can deduce that the original premise was flawed. (Reductio ad absurdum)

For instance: From the definitions, postulates and axioms of Euclid, we can deduce the Pythagorean Theorem. When we test it by measurement of the sides of the right triangle, we find that our reasoning and assumptions are justified. In this case, our assumptions have been repeatedly justified by experience.

Or, reasoning from knowledge gathered from geology, paleontology, and biology, scientists go into the wilderness and dig up a transitional between fish and salamander. That is support for the correctness of geology, paleontology and biology.

In short, an assumption may or may not be justified.

Atheism as an idealism which it is SZ, is a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

The phrase, "as an idealism which it is" is your addition. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.

Atheism in practice though, is the astounding acceptance of every assumption
or belief in existence. Your a true believer in every sense of the word, but you
never realized it.

You have erected a straw-man. It is egregiously false. People ought not do that. It puts people in a bad light.

You take a snap shot of the present forces, states, and processes. Then believe (assume)
that everything that ever happened in the deeper past, will reflect these present processes.

What we observe, is that what we observe in the distant past can be explained by currently observed processes. We don't need anything extra. There is no need to posit any gods, angels, leprechauns, miracles, or magic.

PsychoSarah · Dec 13, 2015

klutedavid said:
Atheism in practice though, is the astounding acceptance of every assumption
or belief in existence. Your a true believer in every sense of the word, but you
never realized it.

I used to believe in ghosts. Literally the only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities. Making generalizations about us as a group is as bad as saying all theists practice the same religion. Plus, I have personal doubts about many of the theories in regards to physics, and some in biology as well. Skepticism is not restricted to just religious ideas.

klutedavid said:
You take a snap shot of the present forces, states, and processes. Then believe (assume)
that everything that ever happened in the deeper past, will reflect these present processes.

There is no evidence that suggests otherwise. Were there different rules in the past, we would see it via telescopes, which can view the universe as it was billions of years ago. One of the perks of light not instantaneously reaching destinations.

klutedavid said:
Your replied that the hydrogen density was greater in the past, SZ, will you please
in future list your assumptions first, before making any claim without proof.

It is sensible, considering that stars fuse hydrogen atoms, creating other elements. Literally yesterday, there was considerably more hydrogen than there is today.

klutedavid said:
1) You believe in the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

Nah. Heck, there are theories that the big bang was our universe moving to a lower energy state, not actually that it was the origin of the universe.

klutedavid said:
2) You believe that past processes never were the result of any supernatural forces

I used to believe in ghosts, as I have stated before. But, as the supernatural is not measurable, there is no point in trying to account for it. You have to understand the nature of a variable in order to use it in a meaningful way.

klutedavid said:
3) You believe that present processes reflect exactly how all past processes occurred

Nope. Prior to the big bang, who knows what sort of physics existed, if any?

klutedavid said:
4) You believe that the evidence for the existence of God is unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory for me, personally, yes. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be an atheist.

klutedavid said:
5) You believe that you can know and identify what this evidence for God is

Well, I certainly know what sort of evidence would convince me, but given that the deity you believe in is supposedly omniscient, it too should know how to reveal itself to me in a way I will interpret as such, and not be pointlessly subtle.

klutedavid said:
6) You believe that the information that your senses detect is always valid information

Of course not. My dreams are absolutely nuts, animated things mixed with real looking things, physics being completely defied, me being tasked with making a new sun, and failing to please people with the sun I created, zombies chasing me as I collect Mario coins... of course I can't always trust my senses. Not to mention the unconscious biases I have while awake. I don't ever fully trust myself, and this is why experiments are repeated dozens if not hundreds of times before their results are considered accurate enough to release.

klutedavid said:
7) You believe in an objective concensus for the establishment of all truth

There isn't even an objective consensus on what truth exactly is, let alone what qualifies as true or not.

klutedavid said:
8) You believe that experimentation will support your belief system

I don't think that there will ever be an experiment that can refute or confirm the existence of deities in general. I hope I am wrong, in both being an atheist, and for the potential experimental design. I have been a seeker for 7 years.

klutedavid said:
9) You believe that the claim of empiricism is valid

Nah. Rationalizing things has its place, such as dealing with morality and other things which aren't really quantifiable.

klutedavid said:
10) You believe your cognitive thought patterns are trustworthy on all matters

Negatory, but just because I never completely trust myself, doesn't mean that trusting in an ancient text that contradicts itself multiple times is the superior option.

klutedavid said:
11) You certainly believe that those that follow a creation account, do not understand
what an assumption (belief) is? This beggars belief (assumption).

I think most know what the word means, but don't think it applies to their beliefs.

klutedavid said:
By the way, believe nothing of what you will ever read, and only five percent
of what you think you observe.

Why?

Dr GS Hurd · Dec 13, 2015

klutedavid said:
The assumption or even better SZ, the belief in 'Uniformitarianism'.

Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that the same natural laws...
(Wikipedia)

The definition of an 'assumption' by the way SZ, is a belief without proof.

For example SZ your assumptions or beliefs, will be as follows.

1 - 9

Very interesting errors.

pat34lee · Dec 13, 2015

Loudmouth said:
[*]Supernovas are evidence for an old universe in other ways:
[*]Supernovas are evidence that stars have reached the end of their lifetime, which for many stars is billions of years.

[*]The formation of new stars indicates that many are second generation; the universe must be old enough for some stars to go through their entire lifetime and for the dust from their supernovas to collect into new stars.
[*]It takes time for the light from the supernovas to reach us. All supernovas and SNRs are more than 7,000 light-years from us. SN 1987A was 167,000 +/- 4,000 light years away.

This is one of my problems with naturalists. NONE of the above can be proven.
The life-cycle of stars is a theory. No one has seen the different stages happen.
Nobody has seen star formation. Only lights inside nebulae.
There is no plausible scientific explanation that would attract gases together in
such mass as to form stars. Every gas law makes it impossible, in fact. {PV=nRT}

Have you thought about how they calculate the distance to other stars? Even
if you took measurements at the widest point of earth's revolution around the
sun and used them to triangulate the distance, it would be like triangulating a
point hundreds of miles away, using two points about 1/4 inch apart. Actually,
probably much less.

pat34lee · Dec 13, 2015

Gracchus said:
Buy we do see regions where stars are in the process of forming. As denser regions of gas and dust collapse under the force of gravity heat is released, and when the collapse has led to interior pressures and temperatures high enough, Hydrogen is fused to Helium, producing enough energy to balance the gravitational collapse, and a star is born.

Gravity is one way to do it. On a much smaller scale, a shock wave, such as that produced by a nuclear fission reaction is another.
Science "knows" more than any one person can begin to understand.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

The first part is theory and conjecture. Scientists 'think' stars are forming, but
they don't see anything that proves it.

Gravity is not a strong force. Magnetism is much stronger. Neither could draw
gases together in the mostly void areas of space. The one theory that could
possibly do it is where about 20 stars close together blow up to form one. It
seems that would be counterproductive, though.

"No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement
on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'."
~ C.S. Lewis

pat34lee · Dec 13, 2015

Shemjaza said:
Gravity, and we can see stellar nurseries with the Hubble.

What do you actually see in the picture? A dust cloud in space with lights in it?
How can you prove they were ever anything else?
And, since the colors are not part of the original picture,
it is not a true picture, but more like a painting.
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/

pat34lee · Dec 13, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
There isn't even an objective consensus on what truth exactly is, let alone what qualifies as true or not.

Skipping the minor stuff. Truth is something that does not change by
circumstance or situation. Most people accept facts as truth, but facts
can change with the circumstances.

klutedavid · Dec 13, 2015

Gracchus said:
No.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

The definitions pertinent to this discussion are numbers one and four.
Pertinent to definition one: We may take a statement for granted because those around us do, or it may just be the first thing that occurred to an iron-age writer. But those around us may be wrong. The iron age writer may not have been in possession of accurate information.
We may take it for granted because there is so much evidence supporting it that it would be perverse or insane not to accept it as true.

Pertinent to definition four: We may assume a premise. If, by using the correct rules of logic we reach a conclusion contrary to fact or a contradiction, we can deduce that the original premise was flawed. (Reductio ad absurdum)

For instance: From the definitions, postulates and axioms of Euclid, we can deduce the Pythagorean Theorem. When we test it by measurement of the sides of the right triangle, we find that our reasoning and assumptions are justified. In this case, our assumptions have been repeatedly justified by experience.

Or, reasoning from knowledge gathered from geology, paleontology, and biology, scientists go into the wilderness and dig up a transitional between fish and salamander. That is support for the correctness of geology, paleontology and biology.

In short, an assumption may or may not be justified.

The phrase, "as an idealism which it is" is your addition. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or gods.

You have erected a straw-man. It is egregiously false. People ought not do that. It puts people in a bad light.

What we observe, is that what we observe in the distant past can be explained by currently observed processes. We don't need anything extra. There is no need to posit any gods, angels, leprechauns, miracles, or magic.

Hello Gracchus.

What is an assumption?

Oxford Dictionary, A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

What is a belief

Oxford Dictionary, An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

The ideology of Science is littered with assumptions.

Science has failed to inform it's adherents, that so many of it's claims are far beyond
the realm of ever being able to provide a proof.

By the way Gracchus, mathematics is a pure ideology invented by mankind.

Mathematical Axioms are intended not to be proven within the theory for which they are a basis.
If an axiom could be proven within that theory, then it could be removed from the list of axioms.

Think about it Gracchus.

Shemjaza · Dec 14, 2015

pat34lee said:
This is one of my problems with naturalists. NONE of the above can be proven.
The life-cycle of stars is a theory. No one has seen the different stages happen.
Nobody has seen star formation. Only lights inside nebulae.
There is no plausible scientific explanation that would attract gases together in
such mass as to form stars. Every gas law makes it impossible, in fact. {PV=nRT}

Have you thought about how they calculate the distance to other stars? Even
if you took measurements at the widest point of earth's revolution around the
sun and used them to triangulate the distance, it would be like triangulating a
point hundreds of miles away, using two points about 1/4 inch apart. Actually,
probably much less.

So if gravity can't pull down gas clouds, how do you explain the atmosphere staying on the Earth?

Given that a stellar nebula will have a vastly larger mass then a planet, why wouldn't the gas and dust be pulled together?

Gracchus · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello Gracchus.

Hello, klutedavid!

What is an assumption?

Oxford Dictionary, A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

I don't happen to have an Oxford Dictionary on hand, but I know it lists more than one definition. You picked one of several, and ignored the rest. If one didn't know better, one might think you were trying to be less than completely honest. What starts as an an assumption, either postulated or axiomatic, may be justified by evidence or mere factually baseless intuition.

The ideology of Science is littered with assumptions.

Could you present one or two for discussion? It should be easy, if science (no capital "s" is needed) is "littered with assumptions". I am willing to bet that any scientific "assumptions" you might present are justified by evidence, observation and reasoning.

Science has failed to inform it's adherents, that so many of it's claims are far beyond the realm of ever being able to provide a proof.

Again I would ask you to cites such claims.
Mathematics is based on assumptions: Postulates, axioms, definitions, rules of deduction, etc. Science is based on facts, repeated observations, and rules of inference which most of us take for granted. But science makes predictions based on those observations, then it tests the predictions. If the prediction is accurate it lends credence to the observations, and the rules of inference. If not, science goes back to the drawing board.

By the way Gracchus, mathematics is a pure ideology invented by mankind.

Was the value of pi invented? Mathematical notation was invented, but the mathematical truths were discovered. Euler's Formula, e^(i X n) = cos(n) + i X sin(n) was discovered to be true, and it can be proven true. Moreover it describes phenomena that can be demonstrated in the real world. By contrast, (just for instance) what theological truths can be proven and demonstrated in the real world? (As one wag put it, theology is not the study of God, it is the study of what theologians say and write.)

Mathematical Axioms are intended not to be proven within the theory for which they are a basis.

But we can test, inductively, by prediction and observation, whether the mathematics is justified. We deduce the Pythagorean Theorem from the axioms, postulates, and definitions of Euclid, and when we measure plane right triangles we find that the actual measurements bear out our deductions. The conclusions of quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive, but the predictions are extremely accurate.
When Jenner observed that those who got cowpox were rendered immune to smallpox, his "unproven" assumption was tested and so we have no smallpox epidemics today. Yet, I will concede, the germ (virus) theory of smallpox has not been absolutely proven.

If an axiom could be proven within that theory, then it could be removed from the list of axioms.

How much proof do you need that if two quantities are both equal to a third quantity they are equal to each other? That is: If a=c, and b=c, then a=b. It's just an assumption. How much proof do you need, that if a>b and b>c, then a>c? Another axiom serves as the definition of the equivalence relation: If a=b then b=a. On the other hand, if a>b then b<a. Those are some axioms of arithmetic. Are they unwarranted assumptions?

Think about it Gracchus.

Actually, I have thought about it, in the forty or so years since I left college, where I took courses in calculus, abstract algebra, symbolic logic, basic philosophy, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, et al. And as I passed those courses, I think I am justified in assuming that I thought about them and actually learned something.
Moreover, I try to keep up. Did you know that engineers have actually built and are in the process of testing a plasma fusion reactor? Did you know that by examining the results of an active brain scan they can get a fair representation of a picture you are looking at? Did you know that they are now testing a "quantum computer" that should be capable of operations a hundred million times faster than any computer ever built?
Science works! That's why its "assumptions" are justified.

RickG · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello SubductionZone.

In post #80, you made the following comment.

The assumption or even better SZ, the belief in 'Uniformitarianism'.

Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that the same natural laws...
(Wikipedia)

The definition of an 'assumption' by the way SZ, is a belief without proof.

Do you like that definition SZ, notice the word 'belief'.

klutedavid, what you do not understand is that you are using the word "assumption" outside of its intended context. Scientists and science textbooks use the word assumption regularly, but in that use age its meaning is quite different, much in the same way a scientific theory is different form a laymans definition.

In science an assumption is based on previously obtained repeatable test results. If I hold a ball out and let go of it, I assume that it will fall to the ground because I have an understand of gravity and how it works. Assumptions in science are not unsupported beliefs as you assert. And yes, the principle of Uniformitarianism is an assumption. An assumption based on observations that have never been shown to vary without specific explinations such as thurst faults thrusting older strata over younger strata.

Loudmouth · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello SubductionZone.

In post #80, you made the following comment.

The assumption or even better SZ, the belief in 'Uniformitarianism'.

We observe uniform laws across the universe and through time.

Loudmouth · Dec 14, 2015

pat34lee said:
Skipping the minor stuff. Truth is something that does not change by
circumstance or situation. Most people accept facts as truth, but facts
can change with the circumstances.

Is that a fact?

klutedavid · Dec 14, 2015

Hello Gracchus.

you posted the following.

Gracchus said:
Could you present one or two for discussion?
It should be easy, if science (no capital "s" is needed) is "littered with assumptions". I am willing to
bet that any scientific "assumptions" you might present are justified by evidence, observation and reasoning.

You asked for some examples of assumptions in Science, yet you unwittingly cited three of these
assumptions yourself.

You said, 'evidence', 'observation' and 'reasoning'.

All three of these entities are of course only ever assumed to be of any significance,
by those who adhere to the ideology of empiricism.

Loudmouth · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
All three of these entities are of course only ever assumed to be of any significance,
by those who adhere to the ideology of empiricism.

Yet another tacit admission from a creationist that the observable scientific evidence supports standard geology and evolution.

Gracchus · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello Gracchus.

you posted the following.

You asked for some examples of assumptions in Science, yet you unwittingly cited three of these
assumptions yourself.

You said, 'evidence', 'observation' and 'reasoning'.

All three of these entities are of course only ever assumed to be of any significance,
by those who adhere to the ideology of empiricism.

If you cannot be convinced by evidence, observation, and reasoning, ... !

klutedavid · Dec 14, 2015

Gracchus said:
If you cannot be convinced by evidence, observation, and reasoning, ... !

Hello Gracchus.

If that is what you believe in, then for you that is true.

Gracchus · Dec 14, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello Gracchus.

If that is what you believe in, then for you that is true.

Hello, klutedavid!
For me, and for sane persons in general, true statements are those concordant with reality, and reality does not depend on who or how many believe it. Insane persons make up their own reality.

On the other hand: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Still, I have worked on the nursing staff in a psychiatric ward and I see now what that experience has taught me: Untreated delusions are unshakable.

Goodbye, klutedavid!

klutedavid · Dec 14, 2015

Gracchus said:
Hello, klutedavid!
For me, and for sane persons in general, true statements are those concordant with reality, and reality does not depend on who or how many believe it. Insane persons make up their own reality.

On the other hand: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Still, I have worked on the nursing staff in a psychiatric ward and I see now what that experience has taught me: Untreated delusions are unshakable.

Goodbye, klutedavid!

Hello Gracchus.

You referred to 'Insane persons', given mankind's history, do you really believe mankind
is sane?

The Cambrian problem

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency