On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT),
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
>
>You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
My "it" above refers not to the Big Bang, but to Universal Heat Death,
which was the topic you were discussing at the time. You seem to
think the two are related. To the best of my understanding, there's
nothing about BBT that predicts or makes necessary Universal Heat
Death. More about that below.
>> Similar to evolution, it
>> is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
>> Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
>> ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
>> into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
>> it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
>> likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
>
>Sorry if it came across like that. I was not intending to play silly word games of conflate different concepts.
>
>At the moment the Big Bang seems to be predicting 'heat death', which is not ideal from a naturalistic perspective. A never-ending cycle of some sort would have been preferred. From something incredibly dense and hot, to the universe we see now and ending in the biggest waste of space imaginable. I don't think I said the theory couldn't change, but that's pretty much where it is right now. However, it makes no attempt to explain how the material that it started with came about - my point (a).
It appears that you're conflating two separate cosmological concepts,
Universal Heat Death and The Big Rip.
Universal Heat Death is a prediction based on a principle of
thermodynamics, that the entropy of a closed system always increases.
So the Universe eventually will reach a point where there is no
thermal difference between any two points. All matter will decay into
fundamental subatomic particles and energy, and everything will simply
stop doing anything. And since time is a measure of change, it can be
said that time also will stop.
Universal Heat Death is backed by our understanding of thermodynamics,
which is pretty good but not perfect. For example, it isn't obvious
how thermodynamics and quantum effects interact when all points are
theoretically identical.
The Big Rip is a prediction from a possible characteristic of Dark
Energy, that it's strength increases by distance *and* time. If so,
the Universe eventually will reach a point where Dark Energy
overwhelms all other fundamental forces. All matter will be torn
apart down to its subatomic particles, with a net result similar to
Heat Death.
The Big Rip is entirely speculative. Nobody knows what Dark Energy
is. It's repulsive properties are only recently discovered. The best
evidence suggests that Dark Energy is strictly a function of distance.
If so, it can't separate objects that are gravitationally bound. If
so, our galactic supercluster will eventually merge into one
super-galaxy, while the rest of the Universe simply receded pas our
light horizon.
None of the above are necessary consequences of BBT.
>> >> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> >> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>>
>> >Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
>>
>> Wrong again. Did you not learn about infinities?
>
>I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
Time may extend infinitely in both directions, past and future, or it
may have a beginning and no end, or it may have an end but no
beginning. In all these cases, time is infinite.
Time may have a beginning *and* an end, in which case time is finite.
HTH
>> > (what does the evidence say?).
>>
>> All evidence have limited scope. Scientists quantify the limits of
>> evidence with error bars, and make active efforts to express
>> conclusions within their range.
>
>I agree.
>
>> To say that it's certain the Universe
>> will end at time X for reason Y is the ultimate weather forecast.
>
>Perhaps, but if it's infinite you should probably define 'end' first.
I believe I characterized "infinite" well enough to address your
confusion about it.
You introduced "end of the Universe" to this thread, so I leave its
definition to you.
>> >If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
>
>> To wonder of alternatives broadens the mind. To doubt any particular
>> alternative for no good reason is a waste of time.
>
>I agree.
So what is your reason for wondering why the Universe hasn't already
ended?
>> >I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
>>
>> That's not it. You continue to conflate different concepts. I make
>> no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
>> your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
>> axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
>
>Except my God is supernatural and your Uber-Universe is natural. If the natural can do supernatural things (like spontaneously create itself) then there are no constrains.
That's what's called a word game, where you presume your conclusion
within your definition.
More to the point, you just described the basic problem with the
concept of supernatural; there are no constraints. That problem
applies as much to your God as my Uber-Universe, and is why such
axioms aren't useful for developing a valid chain of reasoning.
>> >But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
>>
>> More accurately, you assert skepticism, but you don't identify a chain
>> of reasoning to support it.
>
>I said this in point (a). To expand: the natural does not do supernatural things. It can't spontaneously create matter or the laws that govern itself. In particular, it has no reason to do anything conducive to life on earth. But here we are.
BBT is a material consequence of direct observations of the Universe.
In its original incarnation, Georges Lema�tre only went as far as the
point where the concentration of matter and energy created
mathematical infinities. Gamow pushed beyond that to work out Big
Bang nucleosynthesis. Later, Guth added Cosmic Inflation, to explain
the large-scale structure of the Universe.
To question BBT up to that point obliges you to challenge a host of
solid observational evidence and theory. I admit that none of the
above addresses where the energy, or the physical laws, came from, but
that lack doesn't alter the BBT's veracity of what it does address.
>> >Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>>
>> Why do you think it strange that we have yet to find evidence for life
>> elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
>> about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
>
>I don't think it's strange. You said that life can exist in unexpected places. And we have several candidates in our own solar system that share the same sun, and presumably the same early conditions. And we have looked at some of these candidates - but nothing so far. Now we can hypothesize about that but if you only rely on evidence to date, there's only one conclusion.
I confess, when someone writes "Strange then...", I take it to mean
they think the followup to be strange. Perhaps it's just me, but it
could also be another word game.
You are incorrect that anybody presumes the current conditions on any
planet in the Solar System is anything like what the primordial Earth
was like.
More to the point, to rely on the evidence to date implies there is
sufficient evidence to date to rely on it. When it comes to
extraterrestrial life, that is simply not the case.
You deleted a large amount of text without attribution, and then
replied to it out of context. I'll assume it was an honest mistake
this time, and restore the context, but don't do it again:
*****************************************
>>>> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>>>>
>>>> >Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>>>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>>>
>>>Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
************************************
>>On what basis do you claim to know what your talking about on
>>Evolution?
>
>I have no qualifications if that's what you're getting at. I am simply pointing out that there are some problems with purely naturalistic explanations for origins (of the universe and life).
That's not what I'm getting at. You submitted yourself as someone who
knows what he's talking about on Evolution. I have seen nothing that
suggests that you do, which is why I asked. And even if you are,
citing yourself is circular logic.
So, I missed what you think are problems with purely naturalistic
explanations for origins of the Universe and life. Will you specify
them here?
>> >Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
>>
>> Why do you seek absolute explanations from science when you offer none
>> in support of your infinite Creator?
>
>The Creator has revealed Himself through the Bible. We live in a natural universe and we're supposed to find out how it works, but we're also told we can expect to be confounded. In other words, absolute explanations for some things are beyond us. That's doesn't mean we can't try.
I applaud your quest to seek absolute explanations. I challenge that
the Bible is a good source for same. At the very least, it's
insufficient to give you the absolute explanations you demand from
science.
>> Question begging is another noisome habit. Will you specify an
>> evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
>
>Ok. Let's take transitional fossils. First it was predicted they should have been abundant, but the evidence provided just a few debatable examples. No problem for evolution - just make every fossil translational (except, of course, when they aren't).
First, to the best of my knowledge, nobody who knows anything about
fossils ever predicted that transitional fossils would be abundant.
Fossils themselves are rare compared to the abundance of life that
created them.
Second, what qualifies as transitional definitely depends on which
transition. For example, mesohippus is a good transitional form in
the evolution of modern horses, but not in the evolution of modern
humans. So yes, it's reasonable to say that any unspecified fossil is
a transitional from for some unspecified evolutionary history.
Third, you don't say how this is supposed to be a problem for
Evolution. Please specify.
So, once again, do you have someone specific in mind? Or are you
content with innuendo? (and please don't suggest yourself again).
You again deleted a large amount of text without attribution, and then
replied to it out of context. Since it seems you can't figure out
what to delete, perhaps you shouldn't delete anything.
Restoring:
*****************************************
>>>> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>>>> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
******************************************
>>>>
>>>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>>>> that principle.
>>>
>>>No, I'm clear on that.
>>
>>You are not clear on that when you represent "God didn't do it" as a
>>scientific claim.
>
>Not a claim, a presupposition.
Another word game. Fine, it's not a scientific presupposition,
either. Science doesn't make presuppositions about what God does or
doesn't do. To argue as if it does, shows that you fundamentally
misunderstand how science works.