Originally posted by telerionSimply that before evolution began the universe had to get in to the state at which it was at the time it began. You have to wonder how you got to that state. I guess it matters a lot wether "in the beginning" the universe was gassy, dusty, chunky, a mix, or something different, and I am sure that there are a lot of competing theories even in non-creationist circles, but is it safe to say it didn't appear like it does now?
The system in which evolutionary theory pertains is not closed/isolated and so any claims from the 2TD need not apply. You've made this allusion to pre-life conditions before, but have never really explained yourself. What do you mean?
If so, this gassy/dusty/chunky closed system "evolved" but what was the external influence that made it do so?
Anyways, this is a very interesting conversation, but a much large time sink than I had imagined, and it is quite clear that everything I have heard and would have to contribute to the conversation has been heard and addressed before.
So, I will be taking a more passive role, and doing extra research as time allows. I did get some good web references.
Steven
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou know you can call it scientific and believe it or not, it is still what
What is scientific truth isn't defined by what I believe but what I believe is defined by what is scientific truth.
people come up with. Science is not disconnected from the human
race, it is still people at our best as we apply ourselves to know
anything.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by stevenv76That's cool. I hear you on time sinks. I've been trying to cut back a lot over the past months.
Simply that before evolution began the universe had to get in to the state at which it was at the time it began. You have to wonder how you got to that state. I guess it matters a lot wether "in the beginning" the universe was gassy, dusty, chunky, a mix, or something different, and I am sure that there are a lot of competing theories even in non-creatio le, and doing extra research as time allows. I did get some good web references.
Steven
Again, I'll go with you on the assumption that the universe was (and is) a closed system; however, the universe as a whole did not "evolve" in the sense that species "evolve." In at least one infintesimally small portion of the universe (the portion itself is an open system) life arose. This need not be the result of a factor external to the universe. Whether it arose by abiogenesis, divine intervention, or some other cause, it did and evolution occured/occurs. This does not signify some grand directional step in a journal to universal evolution. From what we know of nature, it seems that this situation will not last indefinitely. At least life on Earth will certainly be destroyed once the energy of the sun is spent. Other natural causes may decrease this time horizon. Arbitrary supernatural causes may even cut life off in the next moment. As a whole the universe is overwhelmingly a cold dark place, and it is far better suited for creating black holes than for creating life.
I think that if you apply all the 'god' rules to the universe then you satisfy everyone. That is that the universe is everywhere all the time, it created the earth and all of us via evolution. If we think of the universe as an entity rather than a mass of empty space then you have found your god. After death it is possible that all the good in you contributes to all the future good and all the bad contributes to the future bad. Then you have your heaven and hell. All the prophets were simple people who were ahead of their time and could see this but had to personify the universe in order to be believed. That is why they all preached love thy neighbour, thou shalt not kill etc. They were just trying to make the world a better place. What a shame people took their ideas and started wars!!
Originally posted by KellyJaySO which part of those paper abstracts I posted aren;t scientific then Kelly?
You know you can call it scientific and believe it or not, it is still what
people come up with. Science is not disconnected from the human
race, it is still people at our best as we apply ourselves to know
anything.
Kelly
Originally posted by stevenv76No no no!
I feel like I am going down a tangential rat-hole here, but from your own website:
Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws
and
Example: In the early 20th century, after [b]repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.
L ...[text shortened]... theory, a hypothesis and all long the way it must pass through experimentation and peer review.[/b]
Theories are explanations. You can never, ever, progress from a theory to a law. A law is a simple, normally mathematical, description of a phenomenon. For example, the law of gravity describes, for example why the planets follow the orbits they do (the inverse square rule), but no theory of gravity yet exists. We just don't know why (although a theoretical particle called the graviton has been proposed). Mendel's laws of heredity tell us that the hereditary praticles (genes) are discrete, and that each individual has 2, and that each gamete has 1. it tells us that differing genes are partitioned randomly with respect to any other gene. It doesn't tell us why however. Theories, on the other hand, explain very large data sets, such as evolution. Evolution explains the entire diversity of life on earth.
Now, you can feel free to disbelieve me if you like, but considering I lecture at university level on it for a job you'd be wise not to.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, an expert! Good. My credentails pail next to yours, but perhaps you can explain something to me.
Now, you can feel free to disbelieve me if you like, but considering I lecture at university level on it for a job you'd be wise not to.
Is there no way to discover new laws?
Do we currently know about and have documented all natural laws? If yes, how can we be certain?
If not, when somebody proposes that they have reasoned out/discovered a new law, is it automatically presented to the community as such?
I'm not disbelieving you, but your explanations do not answer these questions.
Originally posted by stevenv76Hrm, for some reason I can't edit.
I'm not disbelieving you, but your explanations do not answer these questions.
Anyhow, I have verified your statement independently, so I was wrong in saying SLOT was promoted from theory to law... perhaps I used the wrong terminology.
But my point was that it has been confirmed and verified through experimentation. Has it not?
My earlier questions still stand. Does the definition of a law go directly from hypthosis to law? Are laws somehow exempt from the scientific method?
Thanks.
Originally posted by stevenv76Of course we can discover new laws. Someone goes out and measures a procress, for example the pressure of gasses within a volume over a range of given temperatures. One then formulates that into a simple mathematical description. This will be retested by others, and if the description is found to be suitably reliable under the range of conditions tested then it will become a law (in this case Boyles law).
Oh, an expert! Good. My credentails pail next to yours, but perhaps you can explain something to me.
Is there no way to discover new laws?
Do we currently know about and have documented all natural laws? If yes, how can we be certain?
If not, when somebody proposes that they have reasoned out/discovered a new law, is it automatically presented ...[text shortened]... nity as such?
I'm not disbelieving you, but your explanations do not answer these questions.
I'm pretty sure we don;t know all the current laws, but we do have a fairly good handle on many of the chemical and physical ones.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you sit there, refuse to believe something is science, and also refuse to look at the evidence?! That says everything one needs to know about theists.
If you believe just because I do not wish to take your pop quiz a sign
of not knowing what I'm talking about, so be it.
Kelly