01 Jul 19
@sonship saidWhat does being a retired computer programmer have to do with evolutionary microbiology? This seems a peculiar authority to claim.
@DeepThought
I am looking at a lot of pro and con videos on things this week. I'll try to get to yours today.
This is wishful thinking.
Fossils do not PROVE relationships of descent.
It is realism I think.
The evidence tracks evolution of particular species over tens of millions of years.
But it is often circular reasoning bec ...[text shortened]... ological Information: (The Challenge of DNA and the Origin of Life (interview with Stephen C. Meyer)
I'd like a reference that I can access online for "soft fleshy tissue" in fossils. Unless it's insects trapped in amber or dental pulp it seems unlikely. I'd also like the reference to be to a peer reviewed journal and not to a Christian propaganda site.
01 Jul 19
@sonship saidFame and fortune await anyone who can disprove evolution.
@caissad4
Hmmm... Physical evidence (tens of thousands of fossils) not contradicting themselves or books which contradict themselves regularly and contradict numerous other books claiming the same thing.
Human written records are filled with misconceptions, exaggerations and outright lies and some truth. Humans lie, don't they ?
What do fossils prov ...[text shortened]...
Thinking students will realize that macro evolution is not the best explanation of the biosphere.
Fossils of crocodiles and turtles would not indicate extinction.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Fame and fortune await anyone who can disprove evolution.
Fossils of crocodiles and turtles would not indicate extinction.
I didn't say ALL fossils prove extinction.
And "inference to the best explanation" is good enough - absolute proof may not be forthcoming.
It is not mathematics.
Even if evolution on a macro level is true - the very program of such a process is either a miracle or evidence of an extremely capable intelligence.
Keep your macro evolution if you wish. The consequence of your insistence either implies the miraculous or a programming intelligence of near infinite skill.
Maybe you need to take an evening and contemplate - "Is the concept of God really all THAT terrible?"
Let's say I took a chess set enclosed in a four dimensional board in a box. All the pieces stayed in the box as you toss it around. And all the positions each piece was recorded so that all positions could be traced. And then I tossed chessboard box down the slope of a big mountain so that hundreds of positions took place until the tumbling box came to a full stop.
How many times would have I to twirl toss it down the mountain slope before I opened it and saw this result?
The precise move by move game between Capablanca and Alekhine for the 1927 World Championship game perfectly duplicated was recorded?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Jul 19
2 edits
Dear skeptics who smirk and chuckle at the Bible - would just one of you write out your clear understanding of how gravity is the effect of space-time curved around mass ?
DeepThought, you seem to be clear headed about modern education. Break it down for me in a concise post anyone can understand.
I mean if the Roman government in the first century collecting taxes from all its territories' citizens causes you to chuckle at the naivete take something more believable,
How is space time CURVED ? ... like around the planet earth ?
01 Jul 19
@sonship saidWow ! You actually believe that the Earth is a disc divide into quadrants with a firmament and windows to let in water from space. THAT is what your holy, holy book says and you are either a liar or a deluded fool. Or do you cherrypick your so-called literal beliefs ?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Where shall we begin Jonah or the ark?
Your Sunday School picture book for children version or what Genesis says ?
01 Jul 19
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou believe God cannot do super natural things? When God acts like God not a man it is going to automatically mean it is not real. This is why you think God cannot create the universe it is automatically disqualified because it’s supernatural?
Where shall we begin Jonah or the ark?
01 Jul 19
@sonship saidNo no sir, the ark and Jonah appear in the grown-up version of scripture too.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Where shall we begin Jonah or the ark?
Your Sunday School picture book for children version or what Genesis says ?
01 Jul 19
@sonship saidA large mass (like the sun for example) distorts spacetime which curves around it creating the gravitational effect. (Which happens at the speed of light). - Not too long ago I explained this to my niece with a simple drawing of the sun and a curved line above it.
How is space time CURVED ? ... like around the planet earth ?
You appear to share Newton's 'unawareness' of the effects a large mass has on space. (Which is a shame). Did Einstein pass you by sir?
01 Jul 19
@sonship saidIn the late 19th Century Riemann worked out a system of geometry which extended Euclid's results on planes. We know his system as Riemannian geometry. In his system the closest thing to a straight line is known as a geodesic. The simplest example of a geodesic is a straight line on a plane. On a sphere, meaning the surface of a ball, the geodesics are the great circles - being any circle passing through a given point which divides the sphere into two equal halves. Riemann worked out his system by first embedding the surfaces in three dimensional space. This corresponds to a non-surjective mapping from points on the surface to points in the embedding space. If we use coordinates (x, y) to specify points on the surface and coordinates (X, Y, Z) for points in the embedding space then X = X(x, y), Y = Y(x, y) and Z = Z(x, y). One can work out quantities like the curvature in the embedding space. Riemann went on to show that all the properties of the surface could be described using intrinsic quantities alone. Relevant to this is that the curvature and the metric depend only on the position and shape of the surface and not on details of the embedding space, so we can kick that piece of scaffolding away - so to speak.
Dear skeptics who smirk and chuckle at the Bible - would just one of you write out your clear understanding of how gravity is the effect of space-time curved around mass ?
DeepThought, you seem to be clear headed about modern education. Break it down for me in a concise post anyone can understand.
I mean if the Roman government in the first century collecting taxes ...[text shortened]... take something more believable,
How is space time CURVED ? ... like around the planet earth ?
The metric is a bi-linear mapping from the space of vector fields to the set of non-negative functions. So if U and V are vectors the metric function g(U, V) >= 0. Particularly g(U, U) = norm(U)². Where norm is mathspeak for "length of". If we regard dx as being a small change in the coordinate x, then we have the following:
dl² = g(dx, dy)
For a plane the metric is then:
dl² = dx² + dy²
which is just Pythagoras' theorem. On a sphere:
dl² = dθ² + sin²( θ ) dΦ²
Einstein constructed his General Theory of Relativity using Riemannian Geometry, except the metric was not required to be non-negative. The "length" of a vector on a flat space-time is now:
c² dτ² = c²dt² - dx² - dy² - dz²
where t is some observers time coordinate and x, y, and z are the normal Cartesian coordinates. τ is a quantity known as proper time and is the "length" associated with the small displacement {dt, dx, dy, dz}. Notice that for a photon travelling at the speed of light along the z-axis we have {dt, 0, 0, dz = c dt} and so dT² = c²dt² - c²dt² = 0. For causal influences dτ >= 0.
On a pseudo-Riemannian manifold one can construct a tensor, known as the Einstein Tensor G, which is a simple function of the Curvature, itself a function of the metric, and the metric. Einstein then postulated the formula:
G = 8πG/c⁴ T
G is Newtons constant and T is a quantity known as the energy momentum density tensor. One can, at least in principle, solve this to find the metric for a particular configuration of matter. The Einstein Field equation above can be deduced from a variational principle as was shown by Hilbert.
This explains how space-time curvature comes about. One can solve the Einstein field equations to find a metric. From the metric one can deduce the geodesics for the space, by noting that the geodesic is the path with the least proper time. In General Relativity Newton's first law generalizes to the statement that particles travel along geodesics. This explains how gravity is the result of space-time being curved.
I could write more, but to do this subject justice I'd have to write a book.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
This explains how space-time curvature comes about. One can solve the Einstein field equations to find a metric. From the metric one can deduce the geodesics for the space, by noting that the geodesic is the path with the least proper time. In General Relativity Newton's first law generalizes to the statement that particles travel along geodesics. This explains how gravity is the result of space-time being curved.
I could write more, but to do this subject justice I'd have to write a book.
Thankyou DeepThought.
And what you wrote confirms. I think, what someone told me about the matter - It can only be imagined in terms of mathematics, (of course with those with qualifications to analyze the details).
My point is this: We are asked to believe a lot of stranger things that tax our minds to the maximum more than some of the things the Bible records. I think the reluctance for many to want to believe them has more to do with the moral implications then to intellectual accessibility.
The moral significance of the Lukian birth of a needed Savior from our sins is more troubling to us then to imagine empty space could be somehow curved.
"The truth will make you free. But first it will piss you off."
02 Jul 19
@sonship saidThere's a way of explaining it less mathematically which people who understand the subject really well can do, the level of mathsiness was just a reflection of my understanding of it. The whole of fundamental physics is a game of geometry.
@DeepThought
[quote] This explains how space-time curvature comes about. One can solve the Einstein field equations to find a metric. From the metric one can deduce the geodesics for the space, by noting that the geodesic is the path with the least proper time. In General Relativity Newton's first law generalizes to the statement that particles travel along geodesics. Th ...[text shortened]... ty space could be somehow curved.
"The truth will make you free. But first it will piss you off."
I'm less worried by the moral implications than I am by the notion that the Bible should be taken literally. Genesis contains two creation stories. In the earlier part we have:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.I think I posted this earlier in the thread somewhere. In this version man[kind] was created and both sexes appear simultaneously. There is no indication that only one couple was created.
Genesis 1:27 AKJV
Later in Genesis we get the Adam and Eve story:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.and there is a significant pause before Eve is created:
Genesis 2:7 AKJV
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.quite a lot happens between Adam's creation and Eve's. This represents something of an inconsistency between the two creation stories. What this says to me is that they should not both be taken literally.
Genesis 2:18-22 AKJV
A major problem with the Adam and Eve story is that they'd be seriously inbred after a few generations, so you need ad hoc explanations as to why this wouldn't happen. With a 6000 year timescale you don't have much time to explain the genetic variation that does exist between humans and claim that 4 to 13 million years is not enough time for humans to evolve from the last common ancestor with chimps - or that 4 billion years isn't enough time for us to evolve from ribosomes or whatever the first protolife was.
The stories are different and by insisting on a literal interpretation of both of them you are in danger of missing the meaning in them.
For what it's worth I don't agree with the statement: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." it's just a soundbite. A claim does require some evidence to be taken seriously and if it purports to be a scientific claim it should be falsifiable. The difficulty with intelligent design arguments is that they attempt to justify themselves on the basis of imagined problems with the evolutionary narrative, they don't present themselves as falsifiable scientific narratives. Creationism is fine for Sunday School or Religious Studies classes but not for biology classes.