Posted on 01/10/2002 7:18:34 AM PST by JediGirl
my favorite story starts out with "Once upon a time in the west...'.
There are some attempted explanations for the theoretical inflationary phase of the big bang, but nothing I'm aware of that's been nailed down yet by experimental evidence. Physicist can expand on this if he's so inclined. However, you raise a very important philosophical issue. We have here a physical phenomenon (the big bang) which is not yet explained. (It's a very difficult problem, and it's certainly not explained to my satisfaction.) You, and a great many others, latch onto that as a "mystery" which is "proof" for the existence of God. But to me it is no such thing.
An unsolved problem doesn't prove anything about God. All that it demonstrates is that we don't yet have all the answers, which is hardly a controversial point. Whenever such "unknowns" take on the mystical aura of divinity, a terrible conflict is unnecessarily created between those who want to learn more about the physical phenomenon and those who assert that such intellectual inquiry is blasphemy. So that attitude -- that unknowns are "proof" of God -- gives science a hard time; and if the question is eventually answered -- as so many unknowns have previously yielded to scientific inquiry -- it makes the theologians look foolish.
Kinda like polywater, cold fusion, piltdown man, mars orbiter, mars polar lander, Lucy, etc. etc.
And although I believe the Big Bang is the explanation for the formation of the universe, the observables are artifact not direct.
And just why not? Is space something other than the gases and vacuums we know to exist? What is it that makes one conclude that the physical laws that apply on earth do not apply to space? I think that they "do not apply" simply because if one were to apply them, the whole theory would be wrong. We can't have that, now can we?
It seems to me that when it comes to theories about the origins of man and the universe that a lot of good science goes out the window. Things that are known to be true in every situation are suddenly not applicable to these theories if they show it to be false. What I mean is that, in this case, Boyle's law and others like it that relate to gases, pressure, temp, etc, that are very standard and are shown to apply to everything on earth, when applied to space they cause the current theory to be wrong or flawed. So there are two options: either space, for one reason or another, is somehow different than anything we know to exist on earth and therefore these laws do not apply, or the theory is wrong.
I vote for the second option, but somehow, somewhere, someone comes up with the idea that the theory is right, so we must explain the universe in the context of the theory. Some assume that the theory is perfect, so if something comes up that is contrary to the theory, the laws of physics must not apply to that particular area.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm making a lot of generalizations, but I've seen some good science lead to stupid conclusions.
There is so much that we don't know about space, so scientists take the liberty of explaining it within the context of the most current theory by bending or breaking the laws of physics simply because it's the only way to explain it.
"Well, the laws of matter that we know on earth don't fit this theory. Since we don't know that much about space, well, it COULD be this mysterious stuff that lends itself to strange things that are beyond the laws of this planet, so we can just disregard these laws because they obviously don't apply since our theory says so."
Good conclusion, eh?
Yes. What we are dealing with is not a substance, such as a gas, but a dimensional construct (for want of a better word) -- space-time itself.
Yet it is proposed to be expanding in the physical realm (physical distance and separation between celestial bodies). Methinks that since we don't know a whole lot about space, scientists and theorists feel that they are at liberty to make space-time exist as they would like it to so that it will fit their theories.
While their theories may be true (I am no one to disprove it), they have not proven it to be true. They would rather change our knowledge of space-time to fit the theory than change the theory to fit our knowledge (only because it is limited).
They hold religiously to some basic assumptions that their theory is based on, without which it would be invalid. They assume that the universe is billions of years old, therefore their theories reflect that assumption. If the universe was in fact created by God only a few thousand years ago, their theories would have some major flaws. We cannot prove either one beyond a doubt, so any speculation is just that, speculation.
Let's take one example: carbon dating. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept and the practice, so I'll cut to the chase. Please read this with an open mind. It is hard to set biases aside, but please try.
C14 is created in the upper atmosphere. It also decays on earth. Scientists have measured the half-life of C14, and if we assume the earth to be billions of years old, we can assume that the levels of C14 in the earth have reached equilibrium (forming as fast as it decays). Assuming that, we know the rate of C14 formation in the upper atmosphere. Scientists have theoretically calculated how long it would take to reach C14 equilibrium assuming that there is none to start with in the atmosphere. This would take about 30,000 years or so.
If we assume the earth to be billions of years old, no problem. We can also assume the C14 levels to be stable and then C14 dating would work.
However, lets assume that God created the earth 6000 years ago. If it takes 30,000 years to reach C14 equilibrium, the levels of C14 in the atmosphere would still be increasing, therefore anything that is relatively old would have existed when C14 levels were lower than they are today. This would show that the object has much less C14 than is present in the atmosphere today, giving it a much older age. I will explain in simple math (not real numbers for C14). If 3000 years ago there was 1% C14 and now there is 2%, an organism that died 3000 years ago would have started with 1% C14. If we ASSUME the levels to be the same then and now, we would assume that it started with 2%, and thus we are off by one half-life already.
Knowing that C14 exists in very small amounts and it would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium, we would not notice an increase in the levels of C14 over the time span in which we have been able to measure it. It would appear stable (although it is increasing). It would increase in a logarithmic fashion because it would be rapid at first, but then it would start decaying, causing the rate of increase to slow down. Organisms that died around 5000-6000 years ago would appear to be far older (by magnitudes of thousands) than ones that died 4000-5000 years ago.
I'm not sure when we first measured the levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but I'm sure it was within the last 100 to 200 years. Assuming we have known the levels accurately for the last 200 years, if it takes 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and the levels are very low (growth would be very slow), it would appear to be stable. 200 years is nothing compared to 30,000. Imagine a graph where the X axis is from 0 to 30,000 and the slope of the line is almost straight, but increasing. A 200 year section of that graph, even at the portion of greatest growth, would appear straight. We cannot reasonably extrapolate the levels of C14 back thousands of years unless we ASSUME that the earth is very old. Only then does C14 dating work.
This is just one example of how false assumptions at the root of a theory can cause it to fall apart. C14 dating "works" only if it is assumed that the earth is very old. If we assume the earth to be young (as in the scenario that I explained above), we would have to adjust the calculation to reflect the levels of C14 present when the organism died, as they would be lower than what we see today. However, we cannot know what the levels were at that time because we don't know when that time was. C14 dating will not work unless we ASSUME that the levels of C14 have always been stable.
I'm sure you've heard this before, as I can remember several crevo threads where I've brought this up. I believe we are rehashing some old ground (I know I've been over it before). This is probably my last crevo thread since every one I've seen has the same people arguing the same things. It's becoming a waste of my time, so unless something NEW comes up, I'm done.
Have a good one, y'all.
I was not going nyah, nyah, nyah. You carried my intent too far. I was merely pointing out that other than theologians make "errors". Why should the theologian be any more embarrassed or contrite than an erroneous scientist or engineer? Consider that the theologian believes his "evidence" (not proof - as I conjecture that God cannot be proven nor disproven) as does the scientist. In any case, I will make a further audacious conjecture, in this universe we will never have all of the answers.
Everyone makes errors, and so your point, while true, wasn't going to get us anywhere, and I assumed you were trying to say more. I thought you were pointing out that science is, in general, an error-riddled sinkhole of idiocy (as so many creationists seem to believe).
Have you ever visited some of the creationist websites? Like "Answers in Genesis" or the "Institute for Creation Research"? You will find that the swamis who are at the cutting edge (that is, swamp) of creationism cling to their debunked errors, and keep repeating the same old garbage (such as the one about the 2nd law of thermodynamics). No reputable science site would keep on repeating demonstrable errors year after year.
In any case, I will make a further audacious conjecture, in this universe we will never have all of the answers.
Safe assumption.
Accepting that statement, then you must realize that we will never know half of the answers. Carried even further, it may be seen that the answers far outnumber our capacity to know them, in fact, they might be infinitely greater than our capacity to do so. A proof anyone?
As to the second law of thermodynamics, it is related to the observation that heat(and time) has a direction when left "naturally". The misuse of the term entropy in information theory has clouded the issue. Refrigeration is an example of the second law in action. Ice in a refrigerator is formed by heat leaving the cool and going to the warm, however this is at a cost of additional energy and heat in the mechanism that drives the refrigeration. Ice formed at the North Pole is a consequence of the natural flow of heat from the earth to space which is not replaced by solar heat at rate sufficient to maintain the temperature above the melting point of water.
Ice is a simple form of water and thus can be easily formed by "violating" or "adhering" to the second law. The question relevant to life is how a "complex" living organism can be formed based on natural heat flow and chemical bonding requirements. It is obviously not answered to those scientists knowledgeable in this arena.
There are some attempted explanations for the theoretical inflationary phase of the big bang, but nothing I'm aware of that's been nailed down yet by experimental evidence. Physicist can expand on this if he's so inclined. However, you raise a very important philosophical issue. We have here a physical phenomenon (the big bang) which is not yet explained. (It's a very difficult problem, and it's certainly not explained to my satisfaction.) You, and a great many others, latch onto that as a "mystery" which is "proof" for the existence of God. But to me it is no such thing.
An unsolved problem doesn't prove anything about God. All that it demonstrates is that we don't yet have all the answers, which is hardly a controversial point. Whenever such "unknowns" take on the mystical aura of divinity, a terrible conflict is unnecessarily created between those who want to learn more about the physical phenomenon and those who assert that such intellectual inquiry is blasphemy. So that attitude -- that unknowns are "proof" of God -- gives science a hard time; and if the question is eventually answered -- as so many unknowns have previously yielded to scientific inquiry -- it makes the theologians look foolish.
I think the origin of the big bang is more significant than an "unsolved problem". We must account for the existance of the universe in a logical way. The big bang theory takes us back to a sigularity, but does not provide the motive power for the "inflation" of the universe. Nor does it explain the fine structure of the universe.
My definition of "proof" is a "convincing argument". I well know that different people are convinced by different arguments. The theory of a Divine origin of the universe fits the available facts than any other explanation I saw at that time (1969). I haven't seen a better explanation since then, and I have had independent confirmation of the existance of God since then.
Kinda like polywater, cold fusion, piltdown man, mars orbiter, mars polar lander, Lucy, etc. etc.
None of which were refuted by theologians.
It is primarily an unsolved problem. In addition to that, for many people, it has taken on an emotional, mystical significance which goes way beyond the scope of science. But as a scientific issue it's like any other (but far more difficult to work on).
My definition of "proof" is a "convincing argument". I well know that different people are convinced by different arguments. The theory of a Divine origin of the universe fits the available facts than any other explanation I saw at that time (1969). I haven't seen a better explanation since then, and I have had independent confirmation of the existance of God since then.
If you truly had a "convincing argument" it would do what you think it ought to do -- it would convince people. But if your theory of divine origin convinces only people who want to be convinced, and it leaves skeptics un-convinced, then you should realize that your argument isn't very convincing.
I am interested in your "independent confirmation of the existance of God". If you have verifiable evidence, I hope you will present it to us so that all may have the benefit of this confirmation.
Yes, my "independent proof" was independent of the existence of the universe. There are several hundred or several thousand proofs as a matter of fact--the answered prayers I've had since I was converted in 1971. I also consider my very conversion to be proof of God. Why would I, a dedicated agnostic, become convinced of the existance of God without the existance of God? I had no motivation to become converted. My parents were not Christians and I was not a church goer.
This leads to a good experiment for the sceptic. Test prayer in Jesus' name. See if anything changes in your life. I'll happily pray with you. We'll see what happens over 6 months times. The control can be another sceptic who doesn't pray, or who prays to some other deity.
Now, I asked myself many times over,who created that particular "dense single point" and second, are we living in a infinite Universe(no beginning,no end?), because at this point of time it looks that way!
Nobody can explain it, just plausible speculations at best.
Hospitals are full of people who are dying horrible deaths, and who cry out in Jesus' name. Their families pray with them. And their whole churches sometimes join in. Yet they die. By the millions. By the hundreds of millions. Year after year, century after century. I'm happy that you've found Jesus, and that things are going so well for you in your life, but I don't think the totality of of the evidence proves anything at all.
Creation is the answer you must accept, PHILOSOPHY does not upset or mock Jehova God no matter how wise and all knowing man tries to be so get prepared to meet thy God! Knowledge will follow you to your grave but you will have all of eternity to revise you flawed findings and empty theories. Cut to the chase and accept God for all he is now and forever.
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.