Future of t.o.?

[Nick Matzke]

Hi all,

I was concerned to read this:
============
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
============

I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).

But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice / ideas on the following?

1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google Groups stops doing it?

2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?

(Full disclosure, I still barely understand what usenet is/was, I was not computer-aware until the mid 1990s.)

Cheers!
Nick Matzke

[erik simpson]

There's hope for us all. The following is copypasta from the
threatening message's "Learn more":

What do I need to do?

If you don’t actively engage with Usenet content, you don’t need to do
anything. Current Usenet users will need to do two things before
February 22, 2024 if they want to continue engaging with Usenet content:

%%%%%
Find a new Usenet client. Several free and paid alternatives are
available, both web-based and application-based. To find a client, do a
web search for "how do I find a usenet text client"

Find a new public Usenet server. The new client you choose will
likely have a default server or a set of curated options for you. If
not, to find a server, do a web search for "public NNTP servers."

Because Usenet is a distributed system, you do not need to migrate data.
All of the Usenet content you can access today on Google Groups should
already be synced to the new server you choose. After you select a new
client and server, you can reselect the groups you’re interested in.
%%%%%%%%

Mozilla's Thunderbird mail app and giganews.com as newsserver work well
for me.

[Robert Carnegie]

I've switched to Thunderbird and a free
subscription to "Eternal September", both
a joke and a "news" server. The joke was
that Usenet used to see new naive participants
when colleges started each year, in September.
Then home internet access started to offer
Usenet, and if you had "AOL" then they
connected their own message service to Usenet.
An "eternal September" began.

Eternal September at <https://www.eternal-september.org>
lets you download messages since late 2013.
I suggest you don't do that. When I finish
reading new messages, it starts showing me
the oldest ones... from 2013.

You don't have to set up Thunderbird
for e-mail, to use it for Usenet.
You Don have to respect Eternsl September
user rules, such as "do not send spam".

I think Erik's message is written for
"Google Groups" users. Google Groups
exists and will continue as a separate
service, but it won't receive new messages
from Usenet or transmit messages to Usenet.
So it's not quite right to say that "If you

don't actively engage with Usenet content",

that you aren't affected. There will not be
New messages to read in talk.origins at Google.

I think thst one or more of talk.origins users
did previously set up their own separate groups
in Google Groups. Just to talk to themselves,
we assume. I can't speak for anyone else but
I will prefer to use the real talk.origins
on Usenet.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2024-02-08 16:14, Nick Matzke wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was concerned to read this:
> ============
> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
> ============
>
> I suppose that the talk.origins group, like the creationism issue generally, are not nearly as big as they were. And of course I hardly post on newsgroups anymore (or much at all, blogging has also decline compared to general fragmented/marketized social media chaos).
>
> But: it would be nice if something continued. Do people have advice / ideas on the following?
>
> 1. What are modern news-readers / archives for Usenet, once Google Groups stops doing it?

I'm on a Mac and use a combination of eternal september and thunderbird
to access t.o

> 2. Is creating a talk.origins Google Group, which is purely a Google Group rather than a usenet thing, a feasible option?

I don't really see what the point of this would be. Then there would be
two separate groups operating in parallel, and I (and I suspect most
people who use usenet via a newsreader rather than Google groups) are
unlikely to follow a google group as opposed to a usenet group.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Was Google Groups’ demise because of this?:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/gi4TlIokEgY
posted 12-9-23

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups
“On December 15, 2023, Google announced that Google Groups would end
support posting or viewing new Usenet content on February 22, 2024, with
existing archives remaining available.[6]”

https://support.google.com/groups/answer/11036538
“Much of the content being disseminated via Usenet today is binary
(non-text) file sharing, which Google Groups does not support, as well as
spam.”

Given the many projects Google started then abandoned like Google+ and
Glasshole I am amazed their support for Google Groups lasted this long:
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-axed-again-interest-augmented-reality-plummets-2023-3
:
“The original Google Glass was axed in 2015, and reintroduced as a
business-focused product in 2017.”

Google Graveyard:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/26/20977968/google-graveyard-products-shut-down-dead-not-supported-discontinues-spring-cleaning/archives/2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Google_services

https://www.popsci.com/technology/google-discontinued-products/

[jillery]

Most free Usenet servers are no longer active. However,
eternal-september and solani are still up and work reasonably well. My
experience is that pay Usenet servers are no more reliable wrt being
online and capturing posts, than the free Usenet servers.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[erik simpson]

I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
reader.

[erik simpson]

I also tried solani. Some problems, pretty much like e-s.

[J. J. Lodder]

Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
takes care of that,

Jan

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[]

> > I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
> > giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
> > beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
> > reader.
>
> Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
> takes care of that,
>
> Jan
>

But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?



--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Richmond]

There is:

https://talk.origins.narkive.com/

Which says the first post was 21 years ago, but I haven't gone back to
see if it is actually in the archive.

[J. J. Lodder]

Kerr-Mudd, John <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> []
> > > I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
> > > giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
> > > beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
> > > reader.
> >
> > Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
> > takes care of that,
>

> But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
> what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?

No problem, in the last month they will all have said
all the same things that they were saying ten years ago,

Jan

[erik simpson]

Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
having such a record.

[jillery]

Better for who? l suppose for the trolls who like to lie about what
they posted.

[erik simpson]

I'll suppose it's just a matter of interest. I haven't any in old
trolls, and very little in new ones.

[J. J. Lodder]

Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?

Jan

[Robert Carnegie]

To add, my perception of the purpose
of talk.origins is that people who want
to argue creationism in other groups
that exist to discuss real science,
those people were to be told to come
here instead of there for that.

Another function, perhaps, is to protect
the general public from it, as well.

There is something of a "general public"
still on Usenet, but new members with and
without creationist beliefs are rare.
So what and where should an online
talk.origins as a public drain or sewer
be established? And is the need served?

How about an AI chat-bot?

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:57:01 -0800, erik simpson

What you call a lack of interest, I call willful blindness.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Channelling Gould there is the distinction to be made between historical
origin and current utility of t.o. which may be as an arcane or esoteric
refuge from post-Web 2.0 shitholes:
https://www.ft.com/content/6fb1602d-a08b-4a8c-bac0-047b7d64aba5

With the eclipse of Google Groups at least some of the spam will subside.

It can remain as a niche for old-timers before the bolide hits each of
us…that got dark.

[*Hemidactylus*]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
>>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> []
>>>>> I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
>>>>> reader.
>>>>
>>>> Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
>>>> takes care of that,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
>>> what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
>> having such a record.
>
> Nothing wrong with having a record, but why look at it?
>

To point out pervasive injustice.

[erik simpson]

I don't see what injustice is involved. Intelligent things were said
many years ago, as well as a lot of not-so-inteligent things. My own
remarks were directing at old trolling and new trolling. Some of the
old trolls are still here, not too different from the new ones.

[Robert Carnegie]

I have fantasised at length and in detail
about doing terrible things to the spammers.
Physically.

[erik simpson]

Spam is just the internet equivalent of junk mail. Toss it in the trash
and forget it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 12:51:41 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@gmail.com>:

>To add, my perception of the purpose
>of talk.origins is that people who want
>to argue creationism in other groups
>that exist to discuss real science,
>those people were to be told to come
>here instead of there for that.
>

Correct; I recall something like "to keep the loons away
from the real science groups".

>
>Another function, perhaps, is to protect
>the general public from it, as well.
>
>There is something of a "general public"
>still on Usenet, but new members with and
>without creationist beliefs are rare.
>So what and where should an online
>talk.origins as a public drain or sewer
>be established? And is the need served?
>
>How about an AI chat-bot?
>

No.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 10:22:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

No reason, obviously. But as long as there are those like
The Math Professor Who Shall Remain Nameless who obsesses
over every post ever made which in any way involve him, and
many which don't, and repost sections of them in exhaustive
(and exhausting) detail, I'll go along with Erik. "Get Over
It" by the Eagles comes to mind...

[J. J. Lodder]

Still no reason not to have it, [1]

Jan

[1] I have used mine to see for example
how long ago posters vanished forever.
I may use it again in a years time to estimate
how big the coming mass extinction really was.

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:04:36 -0800, erik simpson

But you don't. Instead, you respond to some, if only to complain
about others responding to what you think forgettable. You likely do
that for the same reasons as those you complain about. If you think
bailing against the tide is pointless, you still act as if you
recognize the merits of bailing the boat you're standing on. How much
better it would be to stand on a more seaworthy ship than complaining
about others complaining about what you think is forgettable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:32:48 +0100, the following appeared

I agree; my comment was more about the few who seem to
obsess over past "wrongs" and repost them, with extensive
annotations, on a regular basis.

>
>[1] I have used mine to see for example
>how long ago posters vanished forever.
>I may use it again in a years time to estimate
>how big the coming mass extinction really was.

[erik simpson]

It will be somewhat interesting to see who hangs around.

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:31:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Based on the above, and your own posting history, you prefer the many
who repost baseless accusations on a regular basis.

>>[1] I have used mine to see for example
>>how long ago posters vanished forever.
>>I may use it again in a years time to estimate
>>how big the coming mass extinction really was.

--

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are we talking about a position near the beach? If so a smaller boat might
work much better even if it needs to be bailed. If it submerges one can
easily abandon it and swim to shore. A more seaworthy ship may be too large
to risk coming too close to shore because the sandbars or rocky reefs.
Given the cost of such a vessel running it aground would not be advisable.
Such an event would make great spectacle for the sunbathers on shore though
if you crush an unsuspecting surfer or two in the breakers there will be
hell to pay when it hits the news.

Also, a minor nit, you didn’t specify the tidal action. Are we talking Bay
of Fundie tides? We rarely see huge fundie surges in these parts anymore.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well hopefully we won’t see as much soon. I recall the onslaught of Chinese
sneaker spam so many years ago. Still too soon.

Does anyone recall the Night of the Meows here and I think on other
newsgroups back in the late 90s? This is more general, but I recall more
specifically posts by many of our regulars here that just said “meow”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars

[*Hemidactylus*]

In retrospect I’m trying to recall who was our worst monster here over the
years. Prawnster comes to mind, but Jabbers was pretty horrific too. There
was that one weirdo that used to stalk Harshman who may have had multiple
nyms.

[erik simpson]

Do you recall the Canadian loon from Saskatoon who was convinced that
MI5 (or maybe it was Mi6? maybe both?) was surveilling him?

[*Hemidactylus*]

I recall someone we called MI5(?) guy. There was someone else who said he
was running from the Ukrainian mob. I think we called him vowel boy because
he lacked consonants in his nym. And there was (M)adman.

[jillery]

My point here is simply that everybody likes to complain about others.
Just as with what is and isn't "woke", what is forgettable or spam or
junk is rarely an objective fact, but is almost always a matter of
personal opinion.

>Also, a minor nit, you didn’t specify the tidal action. Are we talking Bay
>of Fundie tides? We rarely see huge fundie surges in these parts anymore.

"fundie tide" is an apt metaphor. While it doesn't manifest much in
T.O., real-life current events illustrate a fundie flood the world
hasn't seen since Noah. The coalition of Christian nationalists and
Trump toadies are the tail poised to wag the USA dog.

[J. J. Lodder]

Or conversely, who was the greatest loss.

From memory, I think it was our philosopher, John S. Wilkins,
of 'Species book' fame.
John, if you are seeing this, please come back,

Jan

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:50:48 -0500
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[]

>
> My point here is simply that everybody likes to complain about others.

Chez!

[]

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:14:40 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Missing posters of yesteryear]

> >>
> > Do you recall the Canadian loon from Saskatoon who was convinced that
> > MI5 (or maybe it was Mi6? maybe both?) was surveilling him?
> >
> I recall someone we called MI5(?) guy. There was someone else who said he

"Mike Corley" hasn't been posting on usenet for a fair while.

> was running from the Ukrainian mob. I think we called him vowel boy because
> he lacked consonants in his nym. And there was (M)adman.
>

[erik simpson]

Wilkens was a serious loss, as was Roger Shrubber.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And Richard Norman.

[erik simpson]

As our President, I was trying to think of his name. I think he just
left this sandbox for pleasanter prospects. On the other hand, I don't
miss our own "complexity theory" guy in the least.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And an RIP for Harter, Gans, and others who have departed existence.

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:10:51 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 04:50:48 -0500
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[]
>>
>> My point here is simply that everybody likes to complain about others.
>
>Chez!

What?

[Mark Isaak]

Him and Andrew MacRae.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Robert Carnegie]

On 11/02/2024 14:26, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:57:01 -0800, erik simpson
> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/24 8:52 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:15:06 -0800, erik simpson

>>> <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/10/24 1:33 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 22:15:04 +0100
>>>>> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> []
>>>>>>> I too had problems with Eternal September. That's why I switched to
>>>>>>> giganews even though it isn't free. Don't start reading at the
>>>>>>> beginning. There's almost 2 million entries in TO and it bogs down the
>>>>>>> reader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort by date, and mark all but the last month as 'Read'
>>>>>> takes care of that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, but, then how will newcomers learn all the background on 'who said
>>>>> what' in the fights from 10 or more years ago that are still on-going?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not having any record of who said what ten years ago is better than
>>>> having such a record.
>>>
>>>

>>> Better for who? l suppose for the trolls who like to lie about what
>>> they posted.

>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>

>> I'll suppose it's just a matter of interest. I haven't any in old
>> trolls, and very little in new ones.
>
>
> What you call a lack of interest, I call willful blindness.

I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
creationism and evolution. Scientifcally
mined people can come here to avoid their
peers elsewhere being pestered on thse
topics, to enlighhten the pesterers, rarely.
and to have their own time wasted.
A talk.origins archive seems to me mainly
to serve the last of those purposes.
Real science can be discussed elsewhere.

[Robert Carnegie]

I will be happier if I see little further
discussion about how vaccination is eevull.

[Robert Carnegie]

On 12/02/2024 16:04, erik simpson wrote:
> On 2/12/24 5:49 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On 09/02/2024 09:35, *Hemidactylus* wrote

>>> Was Google Groups’ demise because of this?:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/gi4TlIokEgY
>>> posted 12-9-23
>>
>> I have fantasised at length and in detail
>> about doing terrible things to the spammers.
>> Physically.
>>
> Spam is just the internet equivalent of junk mail. Toss it in the trash
> and forget it.

This has been a deluge of spam - 1000 spam
messages for each "real" one isn't an exaggeration.
Your Usenet and e-mail accounts have been receiving
that for years. Disposing of it is a real
inconvenience, and finding genuine messages
becomes difficult. Probably that is done before
you see any messages. That is why some important
messages to you are automatically filed as spam,
and some, you never see at all.

I do not know why the latest outrage was
not removed "automatically", meaning by human
effort of a kind volunteer or low-paid worker.
I've seen claims whose truth I can't assess
that the spam was sent only for the purpose
of drowning legitimate content in newsgroups,
and also thst somehow Google Groups was being
used to send it. On that point, forgery of
origin seems equally likely to me.

It doesn't matter, as Google Groups' relationship
with Usenet is being severed, anyway - it doesn't
matter unless you are interested in the other
"groups" operated by Google, which may be equally
vulnerable to the same assault, but may be hobbyist
users less well prepared for it. talk.origins
has moderation; blocking spam like this before
anyone sees it isn't especially difficult.

[erik simpson]

If you're using a mailreader (like THunderbird), it's easy to create
filters to block specific spam producers. Alternatively, you can just
click the little trash can icon and it disappears. More difficult is to
know what to do about threads that achieve unnatural length, with only a
few being interesting. "Masterclass" and "Free will" are good (bad?)
examples. Philosophy can easily morph into philosophistry.

[Richmond]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
> creationism and evolution.

Does it include the origin of the universe?

[J. J. Lodder]

Not really.
It was about the 'Origin' in Darwin's sense.
It can be extended to origins of life.
(chemical evolution and all that)
It should not be extended to origins of the universe.
(physics and all that)
But 'the argument from design' can be dicussed,

Jan
(IMHO)

[jillery]

In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.

[Richmond]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:42:09 +0000, Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing creationism and evolution.
>>
>>Does it include the origin of the universe?
>
>
> In practice, TO is open to arguing any science topic which
> pseudoskeptics have glommed onto. That would include the origin of
> the universe, flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and extraterrestrial visitors.

I think humans have evolved to assume everything has an origin because
everything they come across on earth has an origin. But whether the
universe has an origin is rather doubtful, in my opinion.

[jillery]

As you say, that's your personal opinion. Do you have a basis for it?

[Richmond]

According to "Emerging Spacetime" theory, space and time are not
fundamental attributes of the universe, but emerging spacetime proposes
they arise from deeper, more fundamental structures and processes.

Origin strikes me as being temporal, in this context, if the origin of
the universe is at some point in time, what was going on before that,
and why did it change? Although origin could mean something else, like
the origin of a river.

So if time emerged from something more fundamental, then there cannot
have been a beginning.

[erik simpson]

As you've probably already noticed, hardly anything is completely
off-topic in TO. The origin of the universe, or non-origin if you
prefer has been argued here extensively. There's considereable
observational evidence that something pretty dramatic happened ~ 13.8
GYA. Before that, if "before" has actual meaning, we know nothing.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Yeahbut there are galaxies out there nearly that far away.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Sorry, I didn't paste the reference before posting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

[Robert Carnegie]

Officially no, practically yes. Or rather,
the evolution of the universe. Or, both.

I treat "creationism" as meaning only the
doctrine, which I do not believe, that
living things are what they are because God -
or someone or ones or things like God -
created them, without evolution happening.
Or with some evolution.

A chart was printed in some Christian bibles
showing that God made everything in the year
4004 B.C. Mostly, it is supposed to have not
changed much since then. Many Christians find
scientific evidence more satisfactory than
the chart.

I can see in Google Groups, but not in
Thunderbird using Eternal September,
a description of the talk.orgins group as
"Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).
(Moderated)". I do not now remember if
that is "official" information. And I don't
remember if it used to say "creation" instead
of "creationism".

But in practice, arguments accepted as
"on topic" here - usually of "fundamentalist"
followers of several religions, against
aficionados of scientific knowledge - are on
subjects including:

Origin of the universe
Evolution of the universe
Origin / evolution of the Earth
Origin / evolution of living things
Origin, nature, and relationships of human races
Supernatural phenomena

These are separate topics, although one
person may want to argue about all of them,
at once. For instance, Charles Darwin's book
_On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life_ is about evolution,
but it has little to say about the origin of life
from which evolution started.

[erik simpson]

The race is on-going to find the oldest whatever. That object at about
400 MY short of the "beginning" is quite close to the opacity limit.
Earlier than that, free electrons obscure electromagnetic radiation.
Gravitational signals, and leftover fluctuations in the cosmic
background radiation are what we currently have to play with. They
constrain the physical models of what was going on. There's much still
not understood.

[J. J. Lodder]

???
Your 'more fundamental thing' can have a beginning too,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Indeed, you can deny it. Fred Hoyle did, to name just one.

But ultimately you can only have arbitrary 'opinions' about it,
so science is out,

Jan

[Richmond]

How can something begin when there is no time?

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't know if I can legally link this
lecture text web page of Stephen Hawking's
with some stern warnings, but Google search does.
<https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time>

This is from 1996, somewhat out of date,
and not perfectly clear to a general aufience,
but Professor Hawking described the "no boundary"
idea of space-time at the Big Bang - to avoid the
scientific problem of a universe starting with
a singularity.

Imagine that the universe is like the Earth
globe, and time runs south from the North Pole.
In one way, the North Pole is the beginning of
time. In another way, it is just a position
in spacetime which happens to have every
direction in time being forward, not back.
Like you can't go north from the North Pole,
but that is because there is no north to go
to from there. It's just the shape that the
world is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 19:49:05 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:

Oh, look! Multi-colored navel lint!

(If you're unsure of the relevance of this, you can ask.)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:49:33 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

JWST seems to show stars and galaxies formed earlier than expected. As
exciting as that might be, it would pale in comparison if either were
found to have formed before the Universe.

[jillery]

My impression is your questions and comments describe the stereotype
origin paradox "what came first, chicken or egg?" My experience is
these are false paradoxes based on false dichotomies. Just as what
laid the first egg was not a chicken, it's reasonable to presume our
universe originated from something different from this universe. So
while physics can describe our universe's origin, what came before is
beyond its scope at this time, possibly in principle.

[J. J. Lodder]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/02/2024 17:42, Richmond wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I see talk.origins as a home for arguing
> >> creationism and evolution.
> >
> > Does it include the origin of the universe?
>
> Officially no, practically yes. Or rather,
> the evolution of the universe. Or, both.
>
> I treat "creationism" as meaning only the
> doctrine, which I do not believe, that
> living things are what they are because God -
> or someone or ones or things like God -
> created them, without evolution happening.
> Or with some evolution.
>
> A chart was printed in some Christian bibles
> showing that God made everything in the year
> 4004 B.C. Mostly, it is supposed to have not
> changed much since then. Many Christians find
> scientific evidence more satisfactory than
> the chart.

Dissatisfaction started immediately after Bisshop Ussher
published his date of 4004 BC.
Others came up with slightly different dates,
but that did not really matter.

Ussher did inspire others, like Champollion,
to take up the matter more seriously.
We know what happened next: Champollion translated the hieroglyphs,
and made a beginning with Egyption history,
and succeeded in setting up an Egyptian timetable.

What it boild down to is that the biblical chronology is a fantasy
invented somewhat later than 1000 BCE. [1]
The irony of it is that Champollion had set out on his quest
with the idea that he could use Egyptian sources
to refine Ussher's accounting,

Jan

[1] For example, Ussher's date for the flood
falls right in the middle of the pyramid building period in Egypt,
without anyone in Egypt noticing it.

[Richmond]

No, it simply follows from what I was saying before about the "emerging
spacetime" theory, "So if time emerged from something more fundamental,

then there cannot have been a beginning."

The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.

'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.

--
Hyphen hyphen space

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:14:12 +0000, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:

Do you fail to see that your statement contains an inherent
contradiction, in that duration, however slight, is implicit
in the phrase "emerged from". And since duration implies
time, there *must* be time, or something quite similar,
involved. Or is this equivalent to "It's been discovered
that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another
Greek with the same name."?

So duration is zero (since there is zero time in which
duration exists). And if something has zero duration (exists
for no time at all), can we not say that it also has zero
existence?

[jillery]

ISTM your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. I
don't recall reading anybody besides yourself asserting it.

My understanding of emerging spacetime theory considers time starting
*for this universe* when this universe originated. Presuming there
was no time before this universe, would by definition render
meaningless considering what came before this universe, just as it's
meaningless to consider what's north of the North Pole.

>The more fundamental thing from which time emerged did not include time,
>time wasn't there, so it didn't have a beginning, except in the way a
>piece of string has a beginning, but that would still be there.
>
>'Beginning' in this context at least, is temporal.

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:10:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, no reply? OK.

[Mark Isaak]

Yes.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell