RE: Evolution vs. Religion

RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 5:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady I don't want this to turn into an atheist vs. christian thread, or one side bashing the other, there is something I've been wondering about lately. According to creationism, God created everything. According to evolution, everything evolved from a single cell. If evolution is true, then why didn't every cell continue to evolve? Why did frogs not continue to evolve? What stalled a shark's evolution? Yes, I am a Christian, so I am in the creationism camp, and how everything came to be is easy to figure out. However, this point, for me, stalls the evolution camp. Now I'm not saying there isn't an explanation, just that I've never heard one. So for those of you who can explain this to me, I would appreciate it. Keep in mind though, science is soooo not my thing, so please keep it simple! The answer to your questions is: evolutionary/ecological niches.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 9:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This gets fairly counter intuitive but I'll try to explain. Conservation of Mass/Energy and all the other rules of physics only apply in this universe. The universe literally began when the Big Bang started. Before that moment the laws of physics simply don't apply. We have simply no way of knowing where the mass/energy came from, if it even came from anywhere. Thank you for taking the time, Ken. Your comments raise some further questions. The rules of physics only apply in this Universe. Why is that? Is it because this is the only Universe we know? We have no way of knowing where m/e came from, you say, but either it came from somewhere or it was created, which violates the rule [of this universe] Isn't that so? The Physicist Victor J Stenger suggests that there was no beginning but that our Universe appeared out of an older one by something called "quantum tunneling." Totally beyond me. Sorry. I know it is easier and more useful to imagine a singularity ~ one moment when all the matter and energy of this Universe was compressed in one tiny dot of a spot. But maybe that useful image is wrong. I feel like what i would have felt like centuries ago when Copernicus and Kepler were trying to explain planetary orbits that varied from Ptolemy's model. There is much yet to be learned. quote: Dark energy and dark matter are attempts to explain phenomena we see in the universe that otherwise fail to conform to the rules of phsyics. For instance distant galaxies are moving in ways that imply there is a lot more mass in the universe than we can "see." Yeh, this i understand. Similar to there must be a black hole out in that area because light is bent as it passes by. We see the effects even if we cannot see the cause. quote: Contraction is on shaky ground because even with the upper most mass estimates the universe doesn't appear to be massive enough to ever reach a point where the expansion stops and all the matter starts moving back together. This makes sense especially when coupled with the perceived increase in the RATE of expansion. Can't put that baby back in the bottle. No siree. Thanks, Ken. I appreciate the help [:)]

eihwaz -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 10:18:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The problem with the contraction model from my understanding is that spectral evidence (i think) shows the rate of expansion is increasing due to the force of dark energy (whatever the hell that is), so i am at a loss to imagine what gravitational countering force would create a contraction. From what i have read the accumulation of material and the subsequent big bang was born from another universe. That is the theory, at least. Puzzles me it does but fun to speculate over [:)] [...] Contraction is on shaky ground because even with the upper most mass estimates the universe doesn't appear to be massive enough to ever reach a point where the expansion stops and all the matter starts moving back together. Is it possible that the matter expanding in our universe is also contracting into a singularity from whence another universe will be born simultaneous with the end of our universe?

Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 11:02:14 PM)
When people say religion and science can't be reconciled, it bears keeping in mind that Big Bang theory proposes a source for our universe that exists beyond all known laws of physics and independently of space and time. [:D] K.

Real0ne -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 11:22:30 PM)
yeh a the big guess!

Real0ne -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/22/2011 11:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Agree, i have a lot of trouble visualizing multiverses <- thats just a construct in math and i know zip about the phyiscs supporting the theory. Would definately appreciate any help on that. i feel like i am in the position of the flat-earthers who could not visualize the global construct. Logically, if we assume matter and energy are eternal it cannot be created nor destroyed (an assumption that goes back to ancient Greek philosophers btw) and we assume the Law of Conservation of mass/energy then your statement "if there was nothing before it." is an error. Mass/energy always was. if the laws of physics are not to be violated that is corrrect This gets fairly counter intuitive but I'll try to explain. Conservation of Mass/Energy and all the other rules of physics only apply in this universe. Huh? what other universe is there? outside of mathematical constructs and abstractions? The universe literally began when the Big Bang started. one word baloney that is not plausible much less probable regardless of populat myth. Before that moment the laws of physics simply don't apply. In which universe? LOL The only universe that I know of that the laws of physics do not apply was 911. We have simply no way of knowing where the mass/energy came from, if it even came from anywhere. Now that I would agree with, I certainly do not agree with the big bang that is nonsense. quote: The problem with the contraction model from my understanding is that spectral evidence (i think) shows the rate of expansion is increasing due to the force of dark energy (whatever the hell that is), so i am at a loss to imagine what gravitational countering force would create a contraction. Black hole, a really big one. From what i have read the accumulation of material and the subsequent big bang was born from another universe. That is the theory, at least. Puzzles me it does but fun to speculate over [:)] I do not see the distinction. I would argue there is one universe and if it has tunnels well that nice. Dark energy and dark matter are attempts to explain phenomena we see in the universe that otherwise fail to conform to the rules of phsyics. For instance distant galaxies are moving in ways that imply there is a lot more mass in the universe than we can "see." well the opposite of matter which is proportional and the same as energy is antimatter. Contraction is on shaky ground because even with the upper most mass estimates the universe doesn't appear to be massive enough to ever reach a point where the expansion stops and all the matter starts moving back together. well again black holes exhibit contraction quite well. In the nature of energy everything from my experience is in terms of a vortices. I see no reason the universe would not operate in the same manner since after all it is one huge glob of mass/energy.

Rule -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 2:47:42 AM)
FR In my opinion black holes do not exist.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 5:44:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This gets fairly counter intuitive but I'll try to explain. Conservation of Mass/Energy and all the other rules of physics only apply in this universe. The universe literally began when the Big Bang started. Before that moment the laws of physics simply don't apply. We have simply no way of knowing where the mass/energy came from, if it even came from anywhere. Thank you for taking the time, Ken. Your comments raise some further questions. The rules of physics only apply in this Universe. Why is that? Is it because this is the only Universe we know? We have no way of knowing where m/e came from, you say, but either it came from somewhere or it was created, which violates the rule [of this universe] Isn't that so? The Physicist Victor J Stenger suggests that there was no beginning but that our Universe appeared out of an older one by something called "quantum tunneling." Totally beyond me. Sorry. I know it is easier and more useful to imagine a singularity ~ one moment when all the matter and energy of this Universe was compressed in one tiny dot of a spot. But maybe that useful image is wrong. I feel like what i would have felt like centuries ago when Copernicus and Kepler were trying to explain planetary orbits that varied from Ptolemy's model. There is much yet to be learned. The rules of physics only apply to this universe because that is where they are known to work. For instance, assuming present theory is correct, our rules of physics do not apply beyond the event horizon of a singularity like a black hole (specifically effect can precede cause). As to the origin of m/e there is a lot of speculation but at present there is simply no way to get any evidence for which is correct. Probably the most popular is that the start of the Big Bang was the collapse of a singularity (all m/e was contained in a very small area) which could possibly be the end of the contraction of a previous universe or could be derived from another universe by quantum tunneling or some other unknown process. At this time we are constrained by our inability to test any of the competing hypothesi on the subject. The mathematics of several are reported to be sound so we either need more evidence or some way to test them.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 8:10:56 AM)
quote: The rules of physics only apply to this universe because that is where they are known to work. For instance, assuming present theory is correct, our rules of physics do not apply beyond the event horizon of a singularity like a black hole (specifically effect can precede cause). So, that means gravity does not work inside a black hole? I thught that was the essence of a black hole. Additionally, i cannot imagine an example where effect can precede cause. Seems illogical. quote: As to the origin of m/e there is a lot of speculation but at present there is simply no way to get any evidence for which is correct. Probably the most popular is that the start of the Big Bang was the collapse of a singularity (all m/e was contained in a very small area) which could possibly be the end of the contraction of a previous universe or could be derived from another universe by quantum tunneling or some other unknown process. Forgive the semantics but i think they are important. As soon as we use the phrase "origin of m/e" we imply (or i infer) a "nonexistence" of m/e. Your only recourse then is a supernatural creator. Your follow up comments suggests that m/e always was in some form. Perhaps the beginning you speak of is only a delusion born of our limitations to "see" back beyond that "beginning." Maybe it wasn't really a beginning. Maybe time zero is a delusion the Creationists are doubling down on. quote: At this time we are constrained by our inability to test any of the competing hypothesi on the subject. The mathematics of several are reported to be sound so we either need more evidence or some way to test them. In the meanwhile we are left with creative speculative imagery like the ancient philosophers. We haven't come much further I think. thanks Ken [:)]

DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 8:23:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, that means gravity does not work inside a black hole? I thught that was the essence of a black hole. Additionally, i cannot imagine an example where effect can precede cause. Seems illogical. Once the black hole forms it definitely still exerts gravity beyond the event horizon. Below it? We really have no idea. As to effect preceding cause the best know example is Hawking radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 9:14:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen hypothesi Hypothesi? [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif] The notion that "the laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a black hole" indictes that our understanding of physical laws is incomplete, not that there are other laws of physics at work.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 9:20:52 AM)
I posted this about 6 years ago at the Purple Palace; it's something I've thought about occasionally ever since I was 4 or so and was looking at a lamp and imagining that there was a whole universe inside the lamp. "Consider the Universe as having magnitude and duration such that the x-axis is duration amd the y-axis magnitude. Consider also the Universe as a sinusoidal function such that the limit of M as y-->0 is M/infinity (i.e.; the universe becomes vanishingly small). At the precise moment that the slope of the curve goes from negative to positive, the big bang occurs. Contemplate an infinite number of universes, all expanding/collapsing relative to each other. To help visualize this, think of a stable head of beer where the bubbles re-form, collapse, reappear, expand, ad infinitum."

DomKen -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 9:22:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster The notion that "the laws of physics break down inside the event horizon of a black hole" indictes that our understanding of physical laws is incomplete, not that there are other laws of physics at work. It is a simple fact. The physics that applies outside of singularities does not apply in one and we do not know what rules do apply.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 11:03:01 AM)
fast reply i have no idea if contraction is the mechanism involved, but i think that the present expanding universe is but one in an endless series of such universes, there is no beginning or end of this cycle of creation and destruction. one universe is created at the instant of the destruction of the previous one. perhaps what happens is that space/time is curved in such a way that the universe expands so far as to curve around back into itself and thus effectively end with the same result. you know, i actually kind of like that idea. that's what's fun about speculating as to the nature of the matter and the universe, you can propose any wild thing you want, and no matter how crazy, odds are some serious scientist has already proposed it or something even crazier. i mean vibrating strings...wtf!?!?[:D] hannah lynn

Ishtarr -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 2:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, that means gravity does not work inside a black hole? I thught that was the essence of a black hole. From how I understand it -and I'm not a physicist- gravity isn't the essence of a black hole at all. Considering that scientist still don't know if gravity is a fundamental force or an emergent phenomenon, it doesn't need to be relevant at all inside a black hole. If some or the emergent phenomenon theories around gravity are correct, it isn't even really what most people now understand it to be (a force that attracts things) and it's instead an entropic force (like the difference between two sums if you will) which wouldn't apply in the center of a black hole because the entropy stays constant. Ishtar

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 4:28:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML So, that means gravity does not work inside a black hole? I thught that was the essence of a black hole. Additionally, i cannot imagine an example where effect can precede cause. Seems illogical. Once the black hole forms it definitely still exerts gravity beyond the event horizon. Below it? We really have no idea. As to effect preceding cause the best know example is Hawking radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation Okay Ken, maybe i missed it but i did not read that Hawking radiation was an effect that preceded its cause. Why is the radiation emitted?

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 4:34:55 PM)
quote: Is it possible that the matter expanding in our universe is also contracting into a singularity from whence another universe will be born simultaneous with the end of our universe? Maybe there would be some justification in Quantum Theory which i cannot imagine but how could you justify such a seemingly self-contradicting model with classical physics unless you imagine the whole thing curving back upon itself. So, maybe yeah.

vincentML -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 5:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata When people say religion and science can't be reconciled, it bears keeping in mind that Big Bang theory proposes a source for our universe that exists beyond all known laws of physics and independently of space and time. [:D] K. But K, why is the gap in our knowledge an invitation to filling it with superstition or the supernatural?

Ishtarr -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/23/2011 5:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Okay Ken, maybe i missed it but i did not read that Hawking radiation was an effect that preceded its cause. Why is the radiation emitted? I don't know is and why Hawkins radiation is and effect that precedes its cause, but the radiation itself is emitted because near the event horizon the particle half of a particle-antiparticle pair sometimes bounces back when the antiparticle falls through the event horizon giving off the illusion that the black hole itself gives off thermal radiation. Ishtar

tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (4/24/2011 3:20:12 AM)
Here's one observation that might surprise a few people who like the creation myth: "Genesis (1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass" Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all." I wish it was original but it's taken from the Sceptic's Annotated Bible, which is a really cool site (IMHO) and can be checked out here. In a genuinely non-discriminatory (ecumenical?) approach, Sceptic's Annotated versions of the Quran and the Book of Mormon are available too. I'd appreciate it if some one could make sense of the observation for me.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625