-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Why don't creationists publish?
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
Yeah, attempting to understand physics on more than a very basic level takes effort. Much easier to simply repeat Bible verses
6days
New member
6days did weigh in on the issue, and you ignored.Redfern said:
1. Do you believe that nothing can create everything?
2. The rescue device (explanations without any basis in science, designed to save secular beliefs) of "no time" is rejected by many cosmologists / astrophysicists. The BELIEF IS NOT SCIENCE.
I asked 6days:
Do you really think that saying that there are scientists who dispute the Big Bang is the conceptual basis I was asking about? Do you even know what “conceptual basis” means?
Amazing. Science shows no such thing. We live on a planet that is orbiting the sun – which a very ordinary star in a galaxy containing a hundred billion other stars. And our galaxy is an ordinary one among more than a hundred billion other galaxies that we can see. We haven’t even made it 1% of the way to the nearest star to our sun, yet you make grandiose claims about our DNA being the “most sophisticated code in existence.” So out of more than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns, most having multiple planets, out of which we have visited not even one single other one, somehow you possess the knowledge of how complex the most complex code is among the ten thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand other places codes might exist. This is one of the most silly and presumptuous statements I have ever seen you make.
I repeat:
Re Big Bang:
Hmmm… I could name a dozen Nobel laureates in physics who think it is science. I have numerous physics texts that discuss it. And we could ask the Physics professors at a few dozen of the top universities in the world, (except last time I suggested that approach you started screaming “That is only popular opinion, That is a bandwagon argument!!”)
So who should I listen to, you who makes no claim to being a scientist, yet feels qualified to dictate what is and is not science, or the scientists themselves?
Let me ask about a couple of the items you have in the list you just enumerated. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” – What is it you apparently find objectionable about those terms? Isn’t there real tangible scientific evidence that those terms are addressing? In other words, if technically qualified YEC scientists were to look through the same telescopes and use the same instruments the secular scientists do, would or would not those YEC scientists see the same unexplained deviations from the laws we thought light and gravity would obey?
You have declared that for you the ultimate test for evidence is your religious text. In contrast there is substantial agreement from diverse fields in secular science that the world is vastly older than you claim it is. That is part of the reason so few of the premier scientists accept YEC claims about how old the earth is, and the origin of life.
Is it logical? Symbolically, if we denote good design as “A’ and intelligent Creator as “B”, then you are asserting that “if not A then not B” implies that “if A then B”. In formal logic the part right after the “if” is known as the hypothesis, and the part after the “then” is known as the conclusion. It is trivially easy to show that your “logic” is fallacious. Using identically the same logic you do, we might assert that “If 6days is not a human (not A) then 6days is not a woman (not B)” implies that “If 6days is a human (A) “then 6days is a woman (B)”. I don’t think you really believe that. (Read “Symbolic Logic", by Irving M Copi, ISBN 0-02-324980-3, for over 300 pages of analysis of formal logic that is vastly more rigorous than your simplistic silliness.)
If you resort to attributing good wing design purely to something God did, then you are jettisoning any pretense of being able to support your claims using science. Remember, if there is even one aspect seen anywhere in nature where nature came up with both a very functional design and somewhere else it came up with a poor design, then that gives answer to your childish question “"If bad design is evidence against an intelligent Creator, then is good design evidence for an intelligent creator?”
I noted:
Is that reply meant to falsify what I said? Notice I had the quotes around only the word “rescue”, but you searched for “rescue device”. In spite of your failed search, Sanford does use “rescue devices” one time in the copy of his book I have – in Chapter 11. Additionally in the book he uses just the term “rescue” 16 times, each time specifically in speaking of where he thinks genetics has a problem. And he uses the specific phrase “rescue mechanism” 17 times. You say device, he says mechanism, which is why I opted to place the quotes where I did, only around “rescue”.
Prior to this thread, I found 20 TOL posts from you mentioning synergistic epistasis. Your comments on it made pretty much a one-note song of derision. You referred to it as one of “various models trying to make the evidence fit”, an “unrealistic model”, a "hypothetical solution", it was “trying to explain away the science”, and you said “the data is not consistent with evolutionary beliefs”. Not once did you even suggest that synergistic epistasis was anything more than a hypothetical “rescue device”.
But now, presented with credible evidence that actual examination of the genome matches the predictions of synergistic epistasis, your adamant dissing of it suddenly softens to “Nobody has said that (it) … is impossible.” and “It may have an effect…”.
The article examined 3 separate groups of humans. Unless you have other actual genomic studies that contradict this one, the “May have an effect” more truthfully should say “In 100% of the human groups so far analyzed the data was as predicted by synergistic epistasis.”
I kinda doubt that the researchers who wrote the article just accidentally picked 3 groups that evidenced the genetic traits Kondrashov said would be necessary to counteract the accumulation of VSDMs. You have some reason to think the people of yesteryear were immune to synergistic epistasis, or that our descendants will be?
And I repeat - I would be impressed if you would contact one or more of the authors of the paper whose title I mentioned, and then you and Sanford show them what is wrong.
In the world of real science, the word “vestigial” is exactly the right word, referring to an organ which no longer performs its original purpose.
Here you again demonstrate that you are ignoring the previous times when it was pointed out to you that being useless is not a criteria for an organ being vestigial. You simply can’t tolerate admitting that a vestigial organ can still perform a function.
I suggested:
I won’t presume to know what criteria YEC-oriented journals use to determine whether or not to publish an article. I suspect you may be right in that case – they fear offending their subscribers.
But for me and every scientific colleague I have ever spoken with about the “publish – don’t publish decision”, you are way off-base. If the editor of a physics journal receives an article that the author wants published, the editor will normally glance at the article to make sure it meets some minimum norms expected of any scientific study. Then the editor will ask someone in the scientific community that is familiar with the specific subject area to do a peer review. In my case, I would pretty much ignore anything but the technical content of the article. If the author demonstrated that they were conversant with recent studies in the field, that they followed proper methodologies, and their article added to the corpus of data or understanding on the subject, then to recommend withhold publishing would have the direct effect of intentionally impeding scientific progress. Our objective is to advance scientific progress, not to insulate our readership from new data, even if that data does not match up with prior studies.
Your relying on yellow journalism speaks volumes about what you will resort to. I hope I never present vomit like the article you just presented in anything I post.
Do you really think that saying that there are scientists who dispute the Big Bang is the conceptual basis I was asking about? Do you even know what “conceptual basis” means?
Amazing. Science shows no such thing. We live on a planet that is orbiting the sun – which a very ordinary star in a galaxy containing a hundred billion other stars. And our galaxy is an ordinary one among more than a hundred billion other galaxies that we can see. We haven’t even made it 1% of the way to the nearest star to our sun, yet you make grandiose claims about our DNA being the “most sophisticated code in existence.” So out of more than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns, most having multiple planets, out of which we have visited not even one single other one, somehow you possess the knowledge of how complex the most complex code is among the ten thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand other places codes might exist. This is one of the most silly and presumptuous statements I have ever seen you make.
I repeat:
Re Big Bang:
Hmmm… I could name a dozen Nobel laureates in physics who think it is science. I have numerous physics texts that discuss it. And we could ask the Physics professors at a few dozen of the top universities in the world, (except last time I suggested that approach you started screaming “That is only popular opinion, That is a bandwagon argument!!”)
So who should I listen to, you who makes no claim to being a scientist, yet feels qualified to dictate what is and is not science, or the scientists themselves?
Let me ask about a couple of the items you have in the list you just enumerated. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” – What is it you apparently find objectionable about those terms? Isn’t there real tangible scientific evidence that those terms are addressing? In other words, if technically qualified YEC scientists were to look through the same telescopes and use the same instruments the secular scientists do, would or would not those YEC scientists see the same unexplained deviations from the laws we thought light and gravity would obey?
You have declared that for you the ultimate test for evidence is your religious text. In contrast there is substantial agreement from diverse fields in secular science that the world is vastly older than you claim it is. That is part of the reason so few of the premier scientists accept YEC claims about how old the earth is, and the origin of life.
Is it logical? Symbolically, if we denote good design as “A’ and intelligent Creator as “B”, then you are asserting that “if not A then not B” implies that “if A then B”. In formal logic the part right after the “if” is known as the hypothesis, and the part after the “then” is known as the conclusion. It is trivially easy to show that your “logic” is fallacious. Using identically the same logic you do, we might assert that “If 6days is not a human (not A) then 6days is not a woman (not B)” implies that “If 6days is a human (A) “then 6days is a woman (B)”. I don’t think you really believe that. (Read “Symbolic Logic", by Irving M Copi, ISBN 0-02-324980-3, for over 300 pages of analysis of formal logic that is vastly more rigorous than your simplistic silliness.)
If you resort to attributing good wing design purely to something God did, then you are jettisoning any pretense of being able to support your claims using science. Remember, if there is even one aspect seen anywhere in nature where nature came up with both a very functional design and somewhere else it came up with a poor design, then that gives answer to your childish question “"If bad design is evidence against an intelligent Creator, then is good design evidence for an intelligent creator?”
I noted:
Is that reply meant to falsify what I said? Notice I had the quotes around only the word “rescue”, but you searched for “rescue device”. In spite of your failed search, Sanford does use “rescue devices” one time in the copy of his book I have – in Chapter 11. Additionally in the book he uses just the term “rescue” 16 times, each time specifically in speaking of where he thinks genetics has a problem. And he uses the specific phrase “rescue mechanism” 17 times. You say device, he says mechanism, which is why I opted to place the quotes where I did, only around “rescue”.
Prior to this thread, I found 20 TOL posts from you mentioning synergistic epistasis. Your comments on it made pretty much a one-note song of derision. You referred to it as one of “various models trying to make the evidence fit”, an “unrealistic model”, a "hypothetical solution", it was “trying to explain away the science”, and you said “the data is not consistent with evolutionary beliefs”. Not once did you even suggest that synergistic epistasis was anything more than a hypothetical “rescue device”.
But now, presented with credible evidence that actual examination of the genome matches the predictions of synergistic epistasis, your adamant dissing of it suddenly softens to “Nobody has said that (it) … is impossible.” and “It may have an effect…”.
The article examined 3 separate groups of humans. Unless you have other actual genomic studies that contradict this one, the “May have an effect” more truthfully should say “In 100% of the human groups so far analyzed the data was as predicted by synergistic epistasis.”
I kinda doubt that the researchers who wrote the article just accidentally picked 3 groups that evidenced the genetic traits Kondrashov said would be necessary to counteract the accumulation of VSDMs. You have some reason to think the people of yesteryear were immune to synergistic epistasis, or that our descendants will be?
And I repeat - I would be impressed if you would contact one or more of the authors of the paper whose title I mentioned, and then you and Sanford show them what is wrong.
In the world of real science, the word “vestigial” is exactly the right word, referring to an organ which no longer performs its original purpose.
Here you again demonstrate that you are ignoring the previous times when it was pointed out to you that being useless is not a criteria for an organ being vestigial. You simply can’t tolerate admitting that a vestigial organ can still perform a function.
I suggested:
I won’t presume to know what criteria YEC-oriented journals use to determine whether or not to publish an article. I suspect you may be right in that case – they fear offending their subscribers.
But for me and every scientific colleague I have ever spoken with about the “publish – don’t publish decision”, you are way off-base. If the editor of a physics journal receives an article that the author wants published, the editor will normally glance at the article to make sure it meets some minimum norms expected of any scientific study. Then the editor will ask someone in the scientific community that is familiar with the specific subject area to do a peer review. In my case, I would pretty much ignore anything but the technical content of the article. If the author demonstrated that they were conversant with recent studies in the field, that they followed proper methodologies, and their article added to the corpus of data or understanding on the subject, then to recommend withhold publishing would have the direct effect of intentionally impeding scientific progress. Our objective is to advance scientific progress, not to insulate our readership from new data, even if that data does not match up with prior studies.
Your relying on yellow journalism speaks volumes about what you will resort to. I hope I never present vomit like the article you just presented in anything I post.
Last edited:
What led to the assertion that the speed of light was a constant?
What do you estimate the mass of that faster-than-c dog to be?
When it comes to physics, you are so far out of your element that I really wonder if there is any point in responding to you.
genuineoriginal
New member
An increase in speed does not cause an increase in mass.
How about you answer my questions. :up:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
JR, I have a few minutes free, so let me return briefly to the “no time before Big Bang” question. I will leapfrog over some intermediate steps to what I hope will illustrate the idea. Time is basically the interval between events. If you drive down the road, you pass a city limit sign and then later you pass a different city limit sign. Time is the interval between those two events. Now let me present a corny example – how long does it take me to move my forefinger from touching my nose to touching my right ear. You could watch me, and using a stopwatch measure the time for me to perform that action.
But now we are going to move far back in time and repeat that experiment. Back to the moment the Big Bang “banged”. The Big Bang – kind of an ultimate Black Hole (but not quite) – where everything in the universe is compressed (for lack of a better term) into a dot. There, the end of my nose and my right ear are not just closer that they were in the first experiment, they occupy the same “dot”, along with the Eiffel tower and the beetle hiding under your refrigerator. But if time is the interval between events, how do you measure how long it takes me to move my finger from my nose to my ear? My nose and my ear occupy exactly the same place. I can’t (conceptually) touch one without touching the other at the same instant. There is no time required for my finger to move to my ear, just as there is no time needed for your beetle (now a dot beetle) to visit Alpha Centauri, which (in our current world) is a minimum of 3 million travel years away.
Philosophically, if the only thing in all of existence was one of those city limit signs that you drove past – no pendulums to mark time, no wrist watches, no day/night, no heartbeat – just a sign – then time becomes essentially meaningless. Just like when everything, including that sign, is at the very same dot – the origin we call the Big Bang.
An oft- presented, but useful analogy can be found here on our earth. Tell me where you live, and I know where I live, and with a bit of math I can figure out how far north and then how far east I need to go to get to your front door. Mathematically, it is most accurate if I think of myself as a dot-sized person trying to reach the exact center of your front door. I can do that from anywhere, to anywhere on earth … almost. What if I elect, instead of taking a quick route, to detour with a momentary stop at the South Pole? Remember, I am a “dot”. Suddenly I have a big problem. Standing at the South Pole, the direction to your house is … north. But that is also the direction to Paris, France. And to Mount Saint Helens, and to every other location on the surface of the earth. Maybe you will be tempted to say that I need to go 20 degrees east of the Prime Meridian, but east does not exist for a dot sitting at the South Pole. As a matter of fact, of the 4 prime directions we innately assume exist – north, south, east, and west – for me as a dot at the South Pole only north exists. I have to step every so microscopically off the South Pole before those other three dimensions have any meaning for me at all.
Similarly in the Big Bang. The “origin” of the Big Bang has only one dimension defined, just as only one direction has meaning at the South Pole. For the Big Bang that dimension is forward time. The instant any finite time elapses from the Big Bang, things start to spread out, in directions that simply had no meaning before. Things spread out, and now my nose and ear are spatially separated, and it becomes meaningful to speak of the time to get from one to the other. Time, and space – up/down, left/right, forward and back come into existence the moment the Big Bang “bangs”.
BTW – lots of students are gonna start showing up on campus pretty soon, so my free time is gonna get scarce.
But now we are going to move far back in time and repeat that experiment. Back to the moment the Big Bang “banged”. The Big Bang – kind of an ultimate Black Hole (but not quite) – where everything in the universe is compressed (for lack of a better term) into a dot. There, the end of my nose and my right ear are not just closer that they were in the first experiment, they occupy the same “dot”, along with the Eiffel tower and the beetle hiding under your refrigerator. But if time is the interval between events, how do you measure how long it takes me to move my finger from my nose to my ear? My nose and my ear occupy exactly the same place. I can’t (conceptually) touch one without touching the other at the same instant. There is no time required for my finger to move to my ear, just as there is no time needed for your beetle (now a dot beetle) to visit Alpha Centauri, which (in our current world) is a minimum of 3 million travel years away.
Philosophically, if the only thing in all of existence was one of those city limit signs that you drove past – no pendulums to mark time, no wrist watches, no day/night, no heartbeat – just a sign – then time becomes essentially meaningless. Just like when everything, including that sign, is at the very same dot – the origin we call the Big Bang.
An oft- presented, but useful analogy can be found here on our earth. Tell me where you live, and I know where I live, and with a bit of math I can figure out how far north and then how far east I need to go to get to your front door. Mathematically, it is most accurate if I think of myself as a dot-sized person trying to reach the exact center of your front door. I can do that from anywhere, to anywhere on earth … almost. What if I elect, instead of taking a quick route, to detour with a momentary stop at the South Pole? Remember, I am a “dot”. Suddenly I have a big problem. Standing at the South Pole, the direction to your house is … north. But that is also the direction to Paris, France. And to Mount Saint Helens, and to every other location on the surface of the earth. Maybe you will be tempted to say that I need to go 20 degrees east of the Prime Meridian, but east does not exist for a dot sitting at the South Pole. As a matter of fact, of the 4 prime directions we innately assume exist – north, south, east, and west – for me as a dot at the South Pole only north exists. I have to step every so microscopically off the South Pole before those other three dimensions have any meaning for me at all.
Similarly in the Big Bang. The “origin” of the Big Bang has only one dimension defined, just as only one direction has meaning at the South Pole. For the Big Bang that dimension is forward time. The instant any finite time elapses from the Big Bang, things start to spread out, in directions that simply had no meaning before. Things spread out, and now my nose and ear are spatially separated, and it becomes meaningful to speak of the time to get from one to the other. Time, and space – up/down, left/right, forward and back come into existence the moment the Big Bang “bangs”.
BTW – lots of students are gonna start showing up on campus pretty soon, so my free time is gonna get scarce.
Ya wanna tell that to the people who run those big machines that accelerate thing like electrons and protons? They are acutely aware that when they take something that starts with an astoundingly small mass, like a single proton, that as they accelerate it to near the speed of light, that they literally have to push it with enormous amounts of energy to speed it up just a little bit.
It is this increase in mass that results in a very fast particle undergoing a quick stop to actually turn into two particles. A commonly used and well understood phenomenon in accelerator physics.
Not sure of which ones you are referring to. If you want me to look at them, either repost them or point to the posts they are in.
And yet, there is still a "before" and "after" you put your finger to your nose. More on that in a sec.
"Time" issue aside for a moment, how do you go from all the matter in our universe in a single point smaller than the period at the end of this paragraph to what we have now into the universe we see today? What caused the "explosion"? Did the matter/energy always exist? If not, where did it come from? It can't have created itself, just like a rock cannot create itself, and it cannot have always existed, just as a fire cannot burn forever without expending all of it's energy. Anyways, "TIME" to go back to the topic at hand...
At the highlighted asterisk above in my quote of your post, I make note that you can't even use language to describe the instant where your supposed Big Bang "banged" without using words that indicate time already in existence. And I assert that it's not possible to do so, because it is an illogical idea, and truth is not illogical.
In addition to that, there would still have been a "before" the "bang" in ANY scenario. Otherwise you would have to assert that it was always "banging", which would imply that the universe was always existing, which is, again, not possible because, as a fire cannot burn forever, neither can a "bang" go on forever without expending all of the fuel it is using in order to "bang," and thus would have stopped "banging" untold eons before it did.
The whole idea of the universe :bang:ing into existence is an illogical notion, because to assert that it came into existence on it's own, you would also have to assert that it also always existed (in some form or another, which leads to "multiverse"), which is a contradiction. And because of the law of non-contradiction, we know that the universe could not both have always existed AND created itself.
And yet, your "move" (if we can even call it that at that point, or perhaps we should just call it a shift of attention from your nose to your ear, like when you're looking at one of those stereo optical illusions and the image suddenly pops out at you?) still has a before and after, a sequence.
Would you like to discuss Science? or would you like to discuss Philosophy?
Because the topic is currently about science.
And yet, there's still a "before" and "after" the :bang:.
I read your posts. But I don't always feel obligated to respond to questions that seem to be of little consequence, and I may sometimes skip over ones that are deserving of a reply.
When I see a very quick TL DR to my posts, that is pretty clear message that you are not much interested in a meaningful dialogue.
But if you are not interested enough to point me to the questions you say I missed, then I am not much interested in trying to figure out what you are going on about.
Thanks for responding so soon. You put far more thought and effort into your responses than I see from most. I want to take some time to carefully read what you said, and then compose my reply.
I'll try to squeeze you in as time permits. Thanks again
That's cool. :up:
But why did you track down everything 6 has ever said about epistasiswhatsitnonsense?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk