REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution, science, faith- lightening rod - II

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 30, 2007 08:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8305
PAGE 2 of 4

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Just because some of the Supernatural (like where rain comes from) has been moved to the realm of the natural doesn't mean that everything in the realm of the supernatural will be."

Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:44 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Skulls confirm we're all out of Africa

LONDON (Reuters) - An analysis of thousands of skulls shows modern humans originated from a single point in Africa and finally lays to rest the idea of multiple origins, British scientists said on Wednesday. ... The genetic evidence has always strongly supported the single origin theory, and now results from a study of more than 6,000 skulls held around the world in academic collections supports this case.
www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL1885586220070719



Bah! The Designer made it to appear that way, can't you tell?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:46 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"if there is some thing that had no beginning to its existence" etc

Well, then I can posit that the universe had no beginning and was never created - it always was. And voila ! The need for god to explain anything goes away. Does that help?



You know, I can never tell if you're being snarky or not. But I'll just assume that you're not, for the sake of pleasant conversation.

If it is the case that the universe had no beginning to its existence (note the "if"), then asking who created would be a category mistake, every bit as much as asking who created God. So, yes, I suppose that if one wanted to, they could propose a beginningless universe. On the other hand, it does seem to be the case that the universe began to exist--14.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang, in which not just matter, but space and time itself had a beginning. If that's the case, then "how did it get there" remains a legitimate question.

And to the better-educated in the room, I would like to know the following. I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:47 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Bah! The Designer made it to appear that way, can't you tell?



Limited beta release of the new model followed by different colours for different markets. Of course we all have a problem when the new model year comes around.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not being snarky.

"On the other hand, it does seem to be the case that the universe began to exist--14.5 billion years ago in the Big Bang."

Personally I'm not convinced of the "big bang" because it has too many internal contradictions.

But let's say it's true. How do you know that going from a timeless core to an expanding universe to a timeless core again isn't a cycle ? In which case, you can still hold there was no beginning or end.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:51 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.



You seem to be assuming that anything without material existence does not existence. That would be (I assume) an extension of a commitment on your part to material reductionism--that is, the view that only physical things exist. But the material reductionist view can't be finally and conclusively proven, especially not via a "scientific" epistemology that by definition only deals with the materially observable. If it's the case that it can't be finally and conclusively proven that only material things exist, you can't claim to know it beyond the shadow of a doubt; you can only claim to believe that it's the case. If you claim to believe that something is that case, even though it can't be finally and conclusively proven, then you are believing something for which there is not conclusive evidence. At which point I must ask, how can you claim that your belief, which cannot be finally and conclusively proven by your own epistemology, is more rational than the theist's, which is also not finally and conclusively proven?

And further: are numbers real?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?"

It's b/c they've posited many theories that prop each other up in a nest of supposition.

Starting with 'the expanding universe' explanation for the red shift. Adding, among others, the 'faster than light' expansion of the early universe, and continuing with 'dark matter'. That's the only way they can make it all work out.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, so forgive me if I flog my question about science replacing religion.

It seems to me that science has religion pretty much beat when it comes to explaining previously unknowable questions and controlling previously uncontrollable forces, and the one area we have yet to understand is ourselves: How do we recognize and control our societies and memes? Where does our drive for "justice" come from? Where is religious inspiration centred? (The temporal lobe)

It seems to me that insightful scientists will one day be able to explain what religion "does" for us, and be able to create a similarly-functioning system with no reference whatsoever to supernatural beings* (*IMHO is just anthropomorphization -The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.) of "the Unknown")

Until then, we're just amateurs who occassionally find the levers of human behavior- fear, greed, awe, cooperation - and accidentally create religions and politics and economies and technologies that answer the questions of the day, whether it is about game, rain, disease, or justice.

But when we discover why people behave the way they do- individually and socially- we will TRULY have the ability to direct our ethics, memes, economies, technologies and societies towards whatever we want. Scary thought, isn't it? To control our collective destiny, and not be able to blame gods or devils or fate or nature for our f*ckups?

One more concept. Rue had said at one point that we are self-domesticated. If we are able to create a society where people's needs and wants are TRULY met- not just our need for food but also for meaning, justice, beauty, adventure, and sacrifice... what will the product of that self-dometication look like?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:55 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Personally I'm not convinced of the "big bang" because it has too many internal contradictions.



Replace "big bang" with "evolution" and you are saying almost exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are saying. How are you being more rational in denying the scientific concensus than they are?

Quote:

But let's say it's true. How do you know that going from a timeless core to an expanding universe to a timeless core again isn't a cycle ? In which case, you can still hold there was no beginning or end.



I don't know that it's not a cycle. But from what I remember from my astronomy course, that isn't the prevailing view (though I am, of course, ready to be further informed on the subject). If there were such a cycle, then asking about the beginning of it would be a category mistake, just like asking about God's beginning.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:58 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I keep asking questions until I can't answer them anymore, so forgive me if I flog my question about science replacing religion.

It seems to me that science has religion pretty much beat when it comes to explaining previously unknowable questions and controlling previously uncontrollable forces, and the one area we have yet to understand is ourselves: How do we recognize and control our societies and memes? Where does our drive for "justice" come from? Where is religious inspiration centred? (The temporal lobe)

It seems to me that insightful scientists will one day be able to explain what religion "does" for us, and be able to create a similarly-functioning system with no reference whatsoever to supernatural beings* (*IMHO is just anthropomorphization -The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.) of "the Unknown")

Until then, we're just amateurs who occassionally find the levers of human behavior- fear, greed, awe, cooperation - and accidentally create religions and politics and economies and technologies that answer the questions of the day, whether it is about game, rain, disease, or justice.

But when we discover why people behave the way they do- individually and socially- we will TRULY have the ability to direct our ethics, memes, economies, technologies and societies towards whatever we want. Scary thought, isn't it? To control our collective destiny, and not be able to blame gods or devils or fate or nature for our f*ckups?

One more concept. Rue had said at one point that we are self-domesticated. If we are able to create a society where people's needs and wants are TRULY met- not just our need for food but also for meaning, justice, beauty, adventure, and sacrifice... what will the product of that self-dometication look like?



Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Causal

"Replace "big bang" with "evolution" and you are saying almost exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are saying. How are you being more rational in denying the scientific concensus than they are?"

YOU are seriously mistating the science of evolution. I honestly don't know where to begin. There are MANY observable facts that support the theory of evolution - DNA homologies, isotope dating, geology (uplift, deposition, fossil formation), biochemistry, embryology (the most recent being the SINGLE genetic change that stops the 'limb' gene from activating in whales), etc.

There is, as yet, no directly observable suport for many theories supporting the big bang. And each new theory seems to need another new theory to support it.

Now either you are being snarky, deliberately obtuse, or seriously ignorant.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:13 AM

CAUSAL


With all due respect, that's just not so. I'm not astronomer, but consider something as simple as this: red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion. That alone argues against a static view of the universe. And the inference, of course is that if the universe is expanding through time, then moving backward through time would mean a process of contraction. Obviously, the universe can't contract infinitely, which is what has led cosmologists to posit a beginning for the universe at the "big bang."

Check out UCLA's astronomy department site for tons of information on the Big Bang:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Quote:

Causal

YOU are seriously mistating the science of evolution. I honestly don't know where to begin. There are MANY observable facts that support the theory of evolution - DNA homologies, isotope dating, geology (uplift, deposition, fossil formation), biochemistry (the most recent bing the SINGLE genetic change that stops the 'limb' gene from activating in whales), etc.

There is, as yet, no directly observable suport for many theories supporting the big bang.

Now either you are being snarky, deliberately obtsue, or seriously ignorant.



I must be in trouble! Rue used my screenname!

Actually, I wasn't making any comments of any kind about evolution. I'm not personally calling the theory into question. I openly acknowledge the increasing diversity and complexity observable in the biological record, and I don't dispute the evidence supporting the gradual change of species over time. So please, if we're going to start with the snark, don't accuse me of doing things I'm not doing!

The question I put to you was this. Many religious believers (though I am not one of them), deny the scientific validity of evolution, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational? Red shifted galaxies are just one piece of observable evidence supporting the Big Bang cosmology. So how are you not yourself open to the sorts of charges you level at disbelievers in evolution?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?
There are MANY things that science will never be able to answer. Not because they're out of the realm of science but because our minds are finite and our comprehension is limited.

But there is one question that is very much out of the realm of science: "What do we want to do"?.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:20 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:23 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Just one question: is it within the realm of possibility that there is some thing that science will never have an answer for?
There are MANY things that science will never be able to answer. Not because they're out of the realm of science but because our minds are finite and our comprehension is limited.



Yes, but my question wasn't about humans. My question was this: is it possible that there is some question that, no matter the skill of the scientist, cannot be answered "scientifically"?

For instance, I think that science cannot possibly answer the question, "Is there a God?" The reason I think that that is so is because God is by definition immaterial, and the sciences by definition deal only with the materially observable. It is, then, impossible for science to make claims about the question of God's existence. In short, I believe that science is a limited epistemology. What are your views on that?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:24 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
And to the better-educated in the room, I would like to know the following. I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?



He is mistaken, the Big Bang theory is following the same path as Evolution in that there were serious problems that have been fixed by new information or modifications to the theory and there are still a few concerns that need to be ironed out but the core of the theory is solid and pretty broadly accepted.

Try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Or for more info this:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=big+bang&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talko
rigins.org

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:24 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.



Being that you seem vastly more interested in beating me than in actually discussing this, you can have your ball.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:31 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
He is mistaken, the Big Bang theory is following the same path as Evolution in that there were serious problems that have been fixed by new information or modifications to the theory and there are still a few concerns that need to be ironed out but the core of the theory is solid and pretty broadly accepted.



No, no--I think I may have miscommunicated. He wasn't disputing the Big Bang. We were presented with a number of theories: Big Bang followed by expansion, then contraction, then another Big Bang (the so-called Big Bang/Big Crunch theory); also, the idea that the expansion of the universe will level out and the universe will ultimately cease to expand ("Equilibrium"), the theory that the universe will continue to expand at a linear rate ("Constant Expansion"), and the idea that the universe's expansion will continue and accelerated ("Exponential Expansion"). The professor didn't argue against the event of the Big Bang itself--that he accepts (and I with him). But with respect to what will happen in the universe's future, he rejected the idea that it will stop expanding, contract and Bang again--he even went so far as to say that most astronomers reject that model (and as I recall, our textbook agreed with him). He said that of the remaining theories, the Exponential Expansion (I think) was the prevailing theory of the universe's future.

So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Many religious believers deny the scientific validity of evolution. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational?"

Because I don't believe a make-believe book in place of facts. I dispute the big bang on factual grounds and I put them up to test. Now either I'm ignorant of the facts in which case education with the facts will fix me up or I'm more right than the astronomers, in which case time will tell. Either way, there's an evolution (ahem - that word again) of thought and a change of ideas which you don't find in religious belief.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:35 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I took a basic astronomy class a few semesters ago in which the professor said that the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has been pretty well abandoned by most astronomers. He said the continual expansion of the universe is the dominant theory now. Can anybody speak to that?

Great thread, all. Fun reading. But I must step out of lurking to give my .02 on this... I was an astrophysics major for a short time, changed to physics. So I know something, though it's a bit out of date.

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking says that a simple Big Bang cannot account for a few things. Like the large scale uniformity and smaller scale heterogeneity in the universe. He posits an "inflationary" period in the middle of the Bang and bizarre things like that. And, I believe, since he wrote that book he's stepped back further from the Big Bang.

String theory, which I wish I knew more about, seems to offer another option. It's come out of particle physics, and explains a whole lot of things the Big Bang can't. But, of course, it doesn't fit some other details...

So, no, I don't think the Big Bang is completely rubber-stamped. Certainly, there's strong evidence for it, and it's the popular thing. But, just as certainly, it's not a complete theory.

But here's a point I really want to make: science *can't* explain everything, and no theory is ever 100% settled on, because our discovery of the universe is an ongoing process. The whole spiel can be changed by a new obversation, or by new insight into what we already see.

Example: a cornerstone of the Big Bang theory is the red shift. You all probably know, but... light from further away galaxies is more red-shifted, which is taken to be the Doppler effect. So everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. Hence, expansion. Hence, it was all together in a single point once. Hence, big bang.

But maybe that's the wrong interpretation. Maybe there's some inherent quality to space that makes light red-shift. Like... dark matter. If someone came up with a satisfying proof of that, then the whole game could change. This may sound way out there, but I have read papers suggesting things like this - that perhaps expansion is wrong.

Anyway, my point is, scientists make the best theory they can to explain observations. Any theory can get thrown out the window when something better comes along. That's the process. And that's the beauty of the process.

So, auraptor, you argue against evolution because it doesn't explain everything. Duh! Of course it doesn't! But it fits better than anything else we've come up with and it's based on several independent lines of inquiry. The observations and experiments that back it up can be repeated by anyone, including you. Whether you believe it or not.

The theory of evolution certainly isn't perfect, but it will get better and better as long as we keep making observations, keep asking ourselves why?, and keep our minds open as to the answer.

This is the danger of fake science - ID, scientology, or anything that gives the answer "because God did it." It's a dead end in the asking process. That's just no good to anyone, not in the long run.

OK, done now. Back to lurking. Pray continue the talk.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal
"red-shifted galaxies means that the universe is in the process of expansion"

Originally posted by rue:
Not true. You got it bass ackwards. The red shift is the observable phenomenon. The expansion is the theory. I can think of other reasons for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion.

Originally posted by Causal:
Being that you seem vastly more interested in beating me than in actually discussing this, you can have your ball.


HUNNHH?

You did have an error in your thinking. You think that an expanding universe was proposed and the red shift was cited (with caveats) as a supporting observation. In fact, it is the other way around. The red shift was the original observation. The expanding universe was proposed as the explanation. And then the big bang was proposed as the cause of that.

But, as I alluded to and as Mal4Prez specifically stated, there are other potential mechanisms for a red shift that have nothing to do with expansion. It may be that the universe isn't expanding at all ! That basic idea has yet to be addressed.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:55 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?



Dang this thread moves fast! Can't lurk... quite yet... must post...

So, there are scientists (I really should look up sources, sorry, no time now) who have noted how, on a really, really, big scale, matter (superclusters of galaxies) seems to lie in groupings around huge empty bubbles. Think of it like pasta goop clustered in the spaces between bubbles rising in boiling water... The universe could be like that, instead of one big expanding balloon. Really, it could. (Cool, huh?)

Thing is, the universe is too big and our vantage point too limited for us to be making any solid, sure conclusions. I stress - we're doing the best we can, but cosmology is a subject that's been changing fast since we got space based observatories. I'm sure it'll continue to change fast in the future. Goodness knows what we'll believe in 100 years!

IMHO, anyone trying to make God arguments out of our understanding of the origin and fate of the universe might get a workout from all the hand-waving, but that's about it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:00 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
So what I was trying to find out was, what are astronomer's thinking about the univers's future? Was he correct that the Big Crunch theory has been rejected?



Ah, well to that all I can say is that I've only heard passing mention of Big Crunch theory so AFAIK it is not in contention for the lead.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:15 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
IMHO, anyone trying to make God arguments out of our understanding of the origin and fate of the universe might get a workout from all the hand-waving, but that's about it.



Interestingly, I think this works in both directions. If one takes current scientific data and tries to make an argument for God, they accomplish little. But by the same token, if one takes current scientific data and tries to fashion an argument against God (existentially, at the very least), they accomplish little. I think that this goes back to the idea discussed above regarding the quite different spheres of applicability of theology and science. They're just not asking the same questions, so trying to force them into competition is a losing strategy, at best.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:16 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
The question I put to you was this. Many religious believers (though I am not one of them), deny the scientific validity of evolution, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. You deride those people as utterly ignorant of all scientific knowledge. Yet you yourself deny the scientific validity of Big Bang cosmology, thus defying the majority of scientific thinkers. How can you deride the one as ignorant an unsicentific (as it clearly seems to be) and defend your own position on cosmology as rational? Red shifted galaxies are just one piece of observable evidence supporting the Big Bang cosmology. So how are you not yourself open to the sorts of charges you level at disbelievers in evolution?



Without dissenting voices science would not progress, I don't know what Rue's issues with the BBT are but I suspect she has honest factual complaints. The ID crowd has ideological complaints, subjective complaints and non-factual (often blatantly so) complaints. In the few places where their complaints are valid they are acknowledged, though the flaws are usually far too minor to warrant a replacement "theory".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:18 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
They're just not asking the same questions, so trying to force them into competition is a losing strategy, at best.



Which is why I sorta wish Dawkins would get back to science and leave theology alone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I wish there was a jaw-drop emoticon, Citizen.

Thank you, I do try, in fact some find me very trying.
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Well, when you eliminate everything material as being the provence of science, you are left with that which can't be see, heard, felt, tasted smelled, measured - in other words, with something that has no material existance at all. In which case you are talking about the completely imaginary. Just like my big white furry friend here, Harvery.

Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.

The possibility of something being beyond the scientific domain is one that can not be discounted neither logically nor scientifically.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The possibility of something being beyond the scientific domain is one that can not be discounted neither logically nor scientifically."

My thoughts are these:

Science deals with the physical. Further, I would say everything physical is beyond the definitive grasp of science. That's b/c science is a collection of models made by the human mind relating one physical thing to another, which are at best poor approximations of the real thing. So I'm not saying that science encompasses the physical. But it does address it.

That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

For instance, I think that science cannot possibly answer the question, "Is there a God?" The reason I think that that is so is because God is by definition immaterial, and the sciences by definition deal only with the materially observable. It is, then, impossible for science to make claims about the question of God's existence. In short, I believe that science is a limited . What are your views on that?
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:39 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.



I'm not sure God is a good subject for sociology either, but at least it's not a science.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:49 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.

~I think that's rather a false dichotomy.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


How so?

If it's not physical, then what is it ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:52 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"Science deals with the physical. Further, I would say everything physical is beyond the definitive grasp of science. That's b/c science is a collection of models made by the human mind, which are at best poor approximations of the real thing. So I'm not saying that science encompasses the physical. But it does address it.

That which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary.



In order to establish the premise that "that which doesn't address the physical by default addresses the imaginary" you will have to presuppose material reductionism (i.e. the view that only physical things exist). Based on the comments you make, this clearly seems to be the case. The trouble with material reductionism is two-fold.

In the first place, there quite clearly seem to be things that are real, yet not physical. Most philosophers of mathematics (yes, there are such things) think that numbers are real--but abstract things. After all, "one" is not a physical thing. If I try to show you "one," what I'll really be showing you is a single quarter, or a single apple, or a single rock. And every attempt to point to "oneness" will fail because "oneness" isn't a physical property that can be shown the way mass or heat or dimensions can be shown. How could I go about just examining the number 1? Can't be done. But curiously, I can ask, "How many quarters am I holding?" and expect a consistent reply. So it seems to be the case that three quarters remain three quarters irrespective of who I ask or in what culture. And furthermore, it seems to be the case that even if I and every other human were to die tonight, it would remain the case that my car has four tires on it, even if there's no one around to count them. Consider such notions as "love," "justice," "humor," or "right." These seem to be real things that are, nonetheless, not physical things.

The second trouble with material reductionism is that it cannot be proven. An interesting feature of material reductionism is a concommitant reliance upon scientific inquiry to provide the final answer to any and all questions. But one question that science cannot answer is whether or not there exist things with no material existence. The scientific epistemology is by its very nature confined in its scope to that which is materially observable. So what if there really were some immaterial thing that existed? There would be no way for science to be able to detect such a thing, because science can only work with that which is materially observable (by some technique or other). So even if there were immaterial things that existed, there would be no possible way for science to either prove or disprove their existence.

A further complication is this: philosophically speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of some thing, so long as that thing is a logically possible thing (that is, as long as the thing isn't self-contradictory, like a square circle). Statements of non-existence have the following logical form: "given any x, that x is not a ________." So, for instance, a statement about God's non-existence would have the following logical form: "given any x, that x is not God." In plainer language, we might express it this way: no matter what thing you pick, that thing won't be God. In other words, you could keeping picking things until you ran out of things, but would never find one that was God. The trouble with this is that in order to finally and conclusively prove such a statement, you would have to find and examine every x in the universe, to include all x's that ever have existed, all x's that now exist, and all x's that ever will exist. And of course, that simply cannot be done (for any number of reasons). So in the final analysis, there is no way to prove a statement of non-existence (so long as the object is a logically possible thing).

The upshot of all this is that while you may firmly believe that there are no non-physical things, there's no way to prove it finally and conclusively. Which means that you can either provide a strong philosophical argument for your position, or you can just take it as an assumption. Either way, however, your position is in no way stronger that the position of the person who claims that there are non-physical things, because that person is limited to the same to options that you are: philosophical argumentation or blind faith.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.
Higher spatial dimensions help unify our understanding and predictions of observeable phenomena. But their success or failure as a concept- like "electrons" - rests on their ability to match up with the observeable world. Unlike "God".



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:58 PM

CAUSAL


False Dilemma fallacy (aka False Dichotomy, et al): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma and http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

You present two options as though those are the only two options and demand that a choice be made between the two, when in fact there may be other choices.

You say, in essence, that given and particular thing X, that thing X is either physical or imaginary. But those might not be the only options. There may be some other sort of thing that your X could be. Which is, of course, my point: your X might be neither physical nor imaginary--it might have some other sort of existence which, while very much real (and thus not imaginary) is not physical.

You can't merely assume that those are the only two choices. You must convincingly argue that they are.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:02 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it.



So am I to understand that you think that science is not limited in any way in its scope of inquiry? That science just is the universal epistemological method? That either a question can be answered by science or that it is no question at all?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:07 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
How so?

If it's not physical, then what is it ?

I do not know, but I don't believe that physicality is necessarily all there is. There is the possibility that there is something beyond the reach of our senses or instruments, which is nonetheless, not merely in the imagination.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"One" is a model - a human idea made to characterize a quality (singleness). (BTW even chimps and monkeys appear to be able to model quantities in the abstract.)

"one question that science cannot answer is whether or not there exist things with no material existence" That begs the question of the meaning "exists". (Kinda reminds of a philosophical debate that ended when one person earnestly asked another "what is the meaning of meaning?")

The problem is definitional, not logical. "The trouble with this is that in order to finally and conclusively prove such a statement, you would have to find and examine every x in the universe." If we DEFINE god as being non-material (which is how the definition is trending over the long course of human history) then, by definition, everything which materially exists (the only kind of existence for which we will ever have evidence) is not god.

"while you may firmly believe that there are no non-physical things, there's no way to prove it finally and conclusively" And that again gets us back to the definitional question of "exists".


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:10 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Higher spatial dimensions cannot be measured, but they simplify the natural forces, and are the basis for scientific theories such as superstring.
Higher spatial dimensions help unify our understanding and predictions of observeable phenomena. But their success or failure as a concept- like "electrons" - rests on their ability to match up with the observeable world. Unlike "God".

Indeed, but they are still 'outside' our natural four dimensional world. We can't percieve the other 6 dimensions, and we may never be able to directly observe them.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.


Rue- yes, what is the meaning of "is"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:27 PM

FLETCH2


Further, what we can determine is limited by the tools we have. You can't see in the UV, you would have no way of knowing that there was anything in the UV if we didn't have the tools to "see" in it. The UV spectrum wasn't "unreal" back in the 1700's just because we didn't have the tools to observe it, we just didnt have a way to know it was there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:27 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.

Physical universe is, by definition, what we can physically percieve. Nevertheless, I actually said "outside our four dimensional natural world". We percieve the world in four dimensions, so other dimensions are, therefore, outside our four dimensional existance.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:35 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" "What color are dragons?" Just because I can ask a question doesn't mean it needs to be part of an espitemology. If you were to ask "What roles does the concept of 'god' play in society?" then we could talk.


we should discuss what role 'God' plays in society, like how such a concept originated to begin with. some of you, like Rue, seem to think that the concept was invented out of thin air, simultaneously by every culture in the world, coincidentally from the dawn of recorded history.

Quote:

Even the question "What is our purpose"? might be ammenable to scientific enquiry once we figure out what triggers our sense of "purpose" and when we feel we "need" it


so is their such a thing as moral absolutes? for example, the '7 deadly sins', such as greed, lust, envy... are you saying they're in actuality just arbitrary, relative emotions? Rue likes to tout material science as the final arbiter of truth.. i wonder where that leaves established moral and ethical standards, since science has no bearing on the matter. then again, its probably all irrelevant anyways....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:36 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Citizen- the fact that we cannot perceive them doesn't make them "outside" of our physical universe, just "outside" of our ability to naturally model them in our brain.




But.... if the test for "reality" is that it's physical and measurable then the extra dimensions don't actually exist. They are mathematical abstracts you can't see or actively measure, they exist because they need to exist to explain other observed phenomena, just as the Big Bang is infered from the interstellar background and the redshift.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:44 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Now, if it can be reasonably shown that life came from non-life, and since it has been shown that life evolves according to the whims of time and circumstance, the religious (specifically biblical) arguments for how things are fall flat. It's not that humans are god's 'special' creation given dominion, or that humans and god have a special historical relationship, or that humans have a 'god given' purpose. Humans are just another animal formed by the same kind of chance that formed everything else.



im glad you admitted this openly.. it makes my job easier. if humans are just 'another animal' formed by chance, explain why we should be treated differently then?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:52 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen,

"I do not know, but I don't believe that physicality is necessarily all there is. There is the possibility that there is something beyond the reach of our senses or instruments, which is nonetheless, not merely in the imagination."

I think everything is ultimately beyond the complete reach of our senses and instruments. Our few senses are themselves limited resonators with the universe. And our brains are geared to organizing our senses in ways addressing survival. And our brains make the models upon which are instruments are built. So to say that something physical is beyond the reach of our senses or instruments is, I feel, an acknowledgement of our own miniscule physicality/ mentality.

But I see that as being distinctly different from saying that it exists outside of the physical universe.

So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

To put my ideas this way - if something is outside of our physical universe, then by definition it doesn't interact with it in any way. And the existence or non-existence of such a thing is immaterial (pun intended) because by its nature it will not impact the physical universe, or us, in any way. So while it would be impossible to prove or disprove such a thing, it would also be completely meaningless. That is what I think of as the realm of god.

OTOH there do exist things in our physical universe which we can't sense or measure directly which DO directly or indirectly affect the physical things we can sense/ measure. We intuit they must be there, but have no direct proof either way. That I think of as the realm of the mysterious.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:56 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
some of you, like Rue, seem to think that the concept was invented out of thin air, simultaneously by every culture in the world, coincidentally from the dawn of recorded history.



Simultaneously? No, different groups probably came up with their gods at different times though it's possible that the concept of god was created before humans started splitting up and migrating but it's too far in the past to know for sure. There are some that we can be pretty sure of, Islam for instance was created (more or less) by Muhammad in the 7th century for instance but the original concept of god probably sprouted in several different groups.

As for religion existing since the dawn of recorded history, so what? Humans were intelligent long before writing developed so it's no surprise that someone asked some unanswerable questions that ended up being attributed to supernatural causes before history was recorded. The desire to keep track of things that happened for the sake of keeping track is a relatively recent thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:57 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"One" is a model - a human idea made to characterize a quality (singleness). (BTW even chimps and monkeys appear to be able to model quantities in the abstract.)



Is "singleness" imaginary? Or is it real? You use "singleness" as the quality that defines "one." So is "singleness" also a human model? Or is it real? If it's real, maybe you're onto something, but then if it's real you've got yourself a real thing that isn't physical (you can't go get a pound of singleness at the supermarket). But if singleness isn't real, if it's just imaginary (as you seem to take "one" to be), then what defines it? It seems like you're either going to have to contradict yourself or engage in an infinite regress of imaginary properties.

Quote:

That begs the question of the meaning "exists". The problem is definitional, not logical.



I will resist my every urge to tell you how little you know about philosophy if you think that logic doesn't invade every single thing we thinking.

One simply cannot think accurately if one isn't thinking logically. Logical think just is accurate thinking.

Besides which, you seem to have no trouble with defintions when what we're talking about is physical things--you only seem to want to get into semantics when we're talking about non-physical things. So either you yourself don't know what you're talking about when you say that physical things exist, or you're making a special pleading ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html) for your case. When I talk about the existence of non-physical things, you argue that it's just really hard to talk about what exists. But when you talk about physical things, you don't seem to have any problem with it. To be logically consistent, you're going to either have to firmly come down on the side of difficult definition and argue how we can know that anything--including physical things--exist, or you're going to have to stipulate the fact that the vernacular use of "existence" is sufficient for the case at hand. And since I don't take you to be a skeptic, I can't imagine that you would deny that we can know that physical things exist. And that leads me to the conclusion that you yourself are using the term "existence" in such a way as to include the physicality in what it means to exist. To which I must call foul, because you don't seem to deny that "models" and ideas can exist, despite the fact that they're not physical.

Philosophically speaking, existence is a matter of the instantiation of properties. So say that the properties of Santa are: 1) wears a red suit, 2) rides in a sleigh, and 3) lives at the north pole. The reason we can be justified in saying, "There is no Santa" is because there is no thing that instantiates properties 1-3. No matter how many things you pick to look at, you'll never find one that instantiates the properties of Santa.

It's easy to find things that instantiate the properties of being an apple. So we can definitely say that apples exist. But it sounds like what you want to do is to deny that anything with the property of non-physicality can exist. For which I must once again call for an argument, and not a mere presumption.

Quote:

If we DEFINE god as being non-material (which is how the definition is trending over the long course of human history) then, by definition, everything which materially exists (the only kind of existence for which we will ever have evidence) is not god.



Well, again, you're making sweeping assumptions. You say that we can only have evidence for materially existing things, and never ever for immaterially existing things. To which I ask: how can you prove that? You seem to take if for granted that the only way to truly know anything is via scientific inquiry. Tell me: how would you use scientific inquiry to prove that we can only know things scientifically? Your position is closely akin to that of Logical Positivism, a failed philosophical movement which collapsed under its own weight. The key assumption of Logical Positivism is that nothing can count as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The trouble, obviously, is that that key assumption can't be empirically verified! So the center of their movement collapsed, and now hardly anybody claims to be a logical positivist.

Yet AGAIN, you cannot merely presume that only physical evidence counts as evidence. You must give a cogent argument for such a proposition.

Quote:

"while you may firmly believe that there are no non-physical things, there's no way to prove it finally and conclusively" And that again gets us back to the definitional question of "exists".



Again, you seem to have no problem talking about the existence of physical things. So are you making a special pleading for your view, or are you ready to extend the so-called "definitional" problem of exist to that of physically existing things as well? If you can't be consistent, you're being irrational.
________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


We cannot "perceive" electrons directly, but we can perceive their effects on magnets, wires, droplets of oil, presumed "photons" and other secondary observations. Many scientitifc concepts do not make much inutitive sense. What is a "negative" charge, other than being opposite of a "positive" charge? what is "spin"? What is "strangeness"? Is a fifth, sixth and seventh dimension any weirder than that?

AFA the BBT- There seems to be a leap pf faith that the red shift is due to the doppler effect. There have anomalies in observed redshifts that indicate that perhaps it's not a simple case of velocity.

Observed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California
www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060703explosion.htm

Observed by Burbidge
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111115201.htm

Summarized here:
Quote:

Abstract The Tully–Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1) several clusters of galaxies are examined, in which late type spirals have significant excess redshifts relative to early-type spirals in the same clusters; (2) galaxies of morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s−1 Mpc−1; (3) individual galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological (intrinsic) redshifts.

www.springerlink.com/content/u52qh80262484j07//

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

im glad you admitted this openly.. it makes my job easier. if humans are just 'another animal' formed by chance, explain why we should be treated differently then?
Why indeed?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, March 18, 2024 08:03 - 6091 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts
CNN: Is the US on the brink of another civil war?
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:22 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL