Omega, about that background radiation...since it exists, and there is a theory of a big bang, is my supposition that the big bang took place in a particular place in the universe correct ? the center of the universe so to speak ? I AM just asking..
"I stand by my statement that science relies on belief as much as religion does only in a different way. "
That is the opinion of someone who knows very little about how science works. Anything that requires belief in absence of evidence is NOT science, and scientists have no interest in such a thing.
Incidentally, I have no idea where this concept that observing something is the only undeniable proof you can get, as if a. other forms of proof like the ones Omega has noted are not just as good if not better and b. observation was infallible, which it is not.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Rusky> Where did the Big Bang take place? Now THAT’S a tough question
It’s not so, that the “centre” of the Universe is “where” the Big Bang took place. You’re INSIDE the remains of it. There is no centre of the Universe.
You could claim to be said centre – and no one could prove you wrong.
The problem is, that there is NOTHING outside the Universe. It may be expanding at an ever higher velocity, but it’s not growing like when you blow air into a balloon.
(This always reminds me of the Calvin and Hubble cartoon, where Calvin’s dad explains to him about radial velocity and a record ).
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
So before the Big Bang there was no time?
What was before that?
What existed truly before this Bang, perhaps there truly was no beginning... For all that was here is still here.
Back to the actual topic of this forum, evolutionist please explain consciousness.... Why would through selective advantage all other animals develope an inferior consciousness to humans when intelligence would be the most obvious seletive advantage?
(I am not in the mood for typing so these are not elaborated questions or my full host of thoughts, just a few at the top of my mind.)
Along the same lines of the "consciousness" question posed by Raventheonly, I also have wondered about, not only consciousness, but conscience, morality, etc. Most people have a conscience that bothers them when they do wrong - morals if you will. Humans are the only ones who appear to have these morals. Animals can be trained to obey with rewards & punishments, but do they exhibit morals in the same way as humans? Even if it is possible for organisms to evolve physically, would it be possible for them to evolve emotionally & "spiritually". So many different cultures have included forms of worship of a god or gods. If that is innate in us, what put it there? If our conciousness, logic, morals are all evolved, how do we know they are right or good? Where does it go from here? Maybe this is more philosophical than scientific questioning, but it is what keeps coming back to my mind.
Err, weel, we do not know for sure if they are right. Morals are counter-evolutionary. Do remember that evolution is considered part of the Natural world- something humans very often try to have nothing to dom nwith, and with good cause. So what we do and think often has very little to do with evolution- it tries to explain our origins, not our current behaviour.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Raventheonly> "Before" is a temporal concept. Therefore it gives no meaning to speak of "before the Big Bang". There was a beginning - namely the Big Bang. Space AND time was created.
What is so odd about conscience? Other animals didn't develop an infeior consciousness, humans developed a superior consciusness.
The most obvious selective advantage for HUMANS. That it became an advantage for us doesn't mean it's an advantage for other species. Some animals developed wins, fins, tails etc. Some of these traits may seem like a pretty good idea, so why didn't we develop these?
BBC recently had a pretty good show on the whens and whys of the development of intelligence and conscience. Starting with when we picked up tools, and differentiated ourselves from the rock or club - to climatic changes, that made only the smartest humans survive. Those who could remember well.
Julibug> Sociology and psychology and morals. First of all humans are a social species. We used to live in kin-groups of about 20 or so other humans, and we did that for a considerably longer period of time, than we've lived in settlements. So social behaviour helped us survive. Modern morals and ethics has - as Ush says - very little to do with natural. Why else adultery, divorce, war and so on and so forth?
Morals are what society considers right and wrong. Ask yourself WHY society considers these things right and wrong. And what would happen if we abandoned morals.
Highly developed animals do show emotional behaviour. Elephants, whales and dolphins to name a few. But what would be in MY best interests, for MY survival, would not necessarily benefit humankind, or the leaders of society, so I've been brought up with morals.
When we settled in villages (at first) we started being around more people than we used to in kingroups. The term property was invented: My hut, my land, my woman, my goat. We started harvesting fields, and had to save grain for sowing the next year. The grain-storages were maintained by people who could count. These developed into the first priests, and the storages into the first temples.
Now stealing from the storage would be punisable by gods. A good idea at the time, as the grain was needed for winter. It wasn't really about right or wrong at the time - it was about the survival of the village.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
"'Before' is a temporal concept. Therefore it gives no meaning to speak of "before the Big Bang". There was a beginning - namely the Big Bang. Space AND time was created."
No offense, but this answer seems to avoid the issue. What in the universe could produce an event such as the Big Bang? Where did it come from? Where did the material that created this material come from? It goes on and on. Are you telling me that scientists just ignore the fact that this hole exists in their theory? The laws of science firmly would not allow this great event to happen without something causing it. I would easily believe in everything you've debated on this thread if you could just answer this one question: What caused the Big Bang?
Please answer this also. If we evolved from apes, monkeys, etc.; why didn't the others evolve too? I don't want to get into fish, birds, and the like, because they are completely different. There are still simians walking the earth that did not evolve in either intelligence or physical form. If we come from the same stock and lived in the same conditions, why are we so much more intelligent and less hairy, etc.?
I agree with the Georgia School Board on the issue of evolution of HUMAN BEINGS. Evolution should not be taught in the form it is currently being taught in Georgia. Until they can teach kids exactly where we came from, how we became what we are, and why other creatures didn't grow up the same way; the subject should be taught as theory instead of the law. On the flip side, creationism should not be taught at all in schools simply because it cannot be proven nor disproven. This is currently how many teachers educate their students. I went to school in Georgia, so I know what I'm talking about.
because we come form the same branch, but we(humans) took a seperate route from there compare to other primates. We evolved further while they stayed on.
TOP2, it IS taught as theory. It is called the Theory of Evolution. Your problem is in what you think a theory is- as in something that is not quite true or complete. As pointed out, gravity is a theory. Some theories are actually rather comprehensive!
And yes, why would everything evolve at the same time?
And even if Scientsists do not know where the big bang came from or how it happened- and there are a number of good ideas on that- that does not actually in any way weaken the theory. A Detective who sees someone shot through the head may not know who shot the person, but he knows the person has been shot- then he gets to work on finding who did it. That is what the scientists do.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Evolution was taught as law by most of my science teachers in high school. One taught creation as undeniable based on the Bible. I guess that's why I want undeniable proof before I believe any of it.
It's the WHOLE theory of the Big Bang that bothers me. The event definitely happened. Professing that the whole universe and everything in it was created by an enormous event that was spawned from absolutely nothing is exactly the same as saying God created the universe. There is no proof how the Big Bang began.
well they say the big bang happened, dont think they say it spawed from nothing. They dont know or have too many theories of what was before the big bang.
It is we humans that have set boundaries of understanding with words like "out of nothing" and "eternity" That is why a lot of theories is really hard to understand and most of all believe. We cant grasp the reallity of nothing and eternity
I think if you want undeniale proof of things, TOP2, there is going to be very little you will end up believing.
I have a passage here about the workings of science that talks about this subject:
"The phrase “scientific fact” is an oxymoron. So is the phrase “scientific proof.” Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of “facts.” Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of “proof” does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories...
...While it is not possible to conclusively “prove” a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in public schools...
...Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a “scientific proof” it seems absolutely unclear to me just what specifically we are being asked to prove. For example, it makes no sense to prove “the origin of time.” Someone needs to make a specific statement that might tend to explain whether/how/when? time began. I’m betting several people have taken a crack at making such a statement. I know Steven B. Hawking, for one, has."
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
TheOnePart2> I can hardly be offended by someone who doesn't grasp the concept of "no time".
"What in the Univere could produe an event such as the Big Bang"???
Ehrrrmmmm... You're not really reading my replies are you? THE Universe was created in THE Big Bang. As from the where did it coe from, and the materials, do yourself a favour and read my previous replies to you on matter-antimatter, probability and possibility - and pick up a book on quantum mechanics for laymen. Then you'll realise that the only "hole" present here, is YOUR ability to understand and accept a reply when given to you.
When you've acquired some simple understandings of quantum mechanics, such as particle-wave properties, tunnelling, virtual particles and so on, I'll try and explain some of the theories about what may've "caused" the Big Bang. We cannot simply recreate the event to test the hypothesis, but each of them will have certain consequences.
What we need now, more than anyting, is a quatum theory for gravity - that is, a theory on how gravity works between atoms. Equipped with that we'll be able to extrapolate physics backwards to the singularity of big Bang.
Evolution: We're ALL still evolving! Goodness. But why did humans go one way and gorillas another. Because it was advantageous to the survival of the species. The evolution of intelligence isn't really the best thing nature could come up with for natures sake, now, is it. ut it helped early humans survive.
A theory should not be disproven. It's the responsibility AND duty of the one (or the ones) putting forward a hypothesis to prove said hypothesis. There is loads of evidence for evolution. There is absolutely NO evidence for creation - as this thread helps prove. There is plenty og evidence for Big Bang. There is no evidence of any divine beings anywhere.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
I want you to prove that the universe was created by something other than a supreme being. Obviously you cannot prove it was not nor can I prove that it was. In most public schools in the US, teachers are not allowed to teach creationism or anything that has to do with religion in the classroom. Since there is no undeniable proof that humans evolved from monkeys and that God didn't create the universe, why is it so wrong to throw out evolution along with creationism? Until evidence is shown that leans to one side or the other, both are valid theories.
Anyone interested in evidence for evolution and arguments about the process of evolution should read Stephen J. Gould -- he is (was) an evolutionist and popular science writer who was both great at bringing scientists to nonscientists and also was a major force in changing (updating!) our understanding of the process of evolution. He is fun to read and incredibly wide-ranging in his knowledge (well beyond biology). You can find his books of essays (I think that there are at least 8) in any library.
Disagreements about the process of evolution among scientists are often used by creationists to as evidence against evolution. Reading Gould (one of the chief proponents of "punctuated equilibrium") will make it clear that these disagreements about details and mechanism, though sometimes "loud", are minor compared to the general agreement within the scientific community about the evolution itself. He is sometimes hyper-opinionated, but often this is for the purpose of argument.
> Omega -- you asked a while back about Victorian ideas of biology, and specifically about Disney-ish portrayals of scavengers as "evil" and hunters as noble.
I'm not sure whether Gould wrote on this exact topic, but he has a great essay on the "evolution" of Mikey Mouse from a long-nosed mischevious troublemaker to the round-headed insipid creature that he is today, the basic idea being that we are predisposed find juvenile features (large eyes, bulging craniuniums) attractive... ("Homage to Micky Mouse" in "The Panda's Thumb" ).
I am going to stop this because I feel like I can no longer keep myself from turning this into a religious debate. If there is no undeniable proof that the scientific theories of the creation of the universe are correct, how can any of you tell me I am wrong if I say I believe God created the universe?
KMC Community Forums
Mar 20th, 2004 03:31 PM
.. it was his hacking u know 
).
