Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Either that or Percy Williams Bridgman.
Just one comment (its late and I haven't shaved). You noted that: It is not logical to say that if some science is successful, then the scientific method is always equal. Assumptions used to advance science are different in different fields, and some assumptions may be more valid than others.
Either the scientific method works, or it does not. Assumptions (hypotheses) are a part of that method, not the method itself. You seem to have confused the two.
Good or bad assumptions (like good or bad theories) can be weeded out through time.
You seem to be saying that you feel there is a problem with the evolution side of science.
I think, however, that saying we got from single simple cells to where we are today by random mutation and natural selection alone are like punting on the first down of a football game. In the historical context, it does not seem to explain the increasing complexity or large changes but rather seems to just be a bow to naturalism.
Do you have any evidence here? Or is it just a feeling? There are a great many evolutionary biologists and other scientists who feel this hypothesis is on the right track. It is one thing to criticize the results of a field of study, but to be taken seriously you have to have some logical argument or evidence.
As I said, its late and I haven't shaved. I will be leaving the thread for the evening, but will check back in the morning for your reply.
ping
I'll guess 1.2 trillion.
Yes. But it will be of no avail... (twirls mustache)
I'll guess 1.2 trillion
At least, DS. I think of it this way (perhaps you have a better way). Life has been around about 3.5 billion years, so if organisms on average lived for a year, that would be 3.5 billion generations. But, of course, for almost 3 billion years, only microbial life existed here, and microbes live only about a half hour or so. Let's say an hour, to be generous. Then, considering microbial generations, we have to multiply 3.5 billion by 365 and multiply the resulting product by 24, no, let's say by 15, since the day was shorter billions of years ago. So we get well over 19 trillion generations of microbes.
Now imagine each genome of each microbe trying to faithfully reproduce itself over 19 trillion generations through asteroid hits, comet hits, vulcanism on a colossal scale, changes in the atmospheric gas composition, cosmic ray bombardment, etc., etc. Not going to happen. And we mustn't forget that in, say, a gram of soil, there are something like 10 million microbes. So not only is the number of generations astronomical, so, too, is the number of individuals reproducing.
Holy cow. What might be produced from such a process? (Where's my mirror?)
The mistake that many make, it seems to me, is believing that, without a conscious director, nature is incapable of producing order. This conflicts with my own view of the astonishing fecundity of the physical.
//////////////
imho this is not a quite correct formulation because thinking conceives events as by cause and effect.
Indeed one reason for the religious upsurge in recent years comes from the confluence of Genesis and Physics. In both instances there is an uncaused first cause. In genesis the Uncaused first caused is God. In Physics the uncaused first cause is the whatever it was that caused the big bang.
In both cases the uncaused first cause is outside of nature as we know it.
That last post was written quickly. I should've upped the number of days in the year, since I dropped the average number of hours in the day. But we're within an order of magnitude, so it ought to suffice.
imho this is not a quite correct formulation because thinking conceives events as by cause and effect.Indeed one reason for the religious upsurge in recent years comes from the confluence of Genesis and Physics. In both instances there is an uncaused first cause. In genesis the Uncaused first caused is God. In Physics the uncaused first cause is the whatever it was that caused the big bang.
In both cases the uncaused first cause is outside of nature as we know it.
I suppose I'm not sure that the notion of "uncaused first cause" makes sense, although there's no denying its long pedigree. On most days, I tend to the view that there has always been something physical, just perhaps not in the form that we currently observe. A few months ago, I posted a link on another thread to the following very speculative article:
Anthony Aguirre & Steve Gratton, "Inflation Without a Beginning: a null boundary proposal" (2003, PDF format)
This article is almost certainly wrong. But it at least begins to approach the issue of how one might understand the possibility of a total—indeed, an infinite—physical universe that has neither a beginning nor an end.
Still, you raise reasonable points, as always, ckilmer.
Best regards...
Your error is that you've ignored the Flood. You have only a few thousand years to work with.
</creationism mode>
If you aren't going to put more days in the year (the Earth's orbit around the Sun being about the same), you might as well leave it at 24-hour days.
this placemarker good for only a few thousand years
Correct. That's why I didn't bother posting again. There are about 8700 or so generations per year.
... well over 19 trillion generations of microbes.Your error is that you've ignored the Flood. You have only a few thousand years to work with.
</creationism mode>
You'd think I wouldn't have missed that given current circumstances! Dang.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.