He isn’t a bot, he’s just…I don’t know a good word to describe him
Actually the first humans were black, according to National Geographic Magazine. Starting in Africa, they spread out. Adapted to different climates, the skin became paler. I read that in National Geographic.
Back to topic: Do you think that simply using a larger time period for the usage of the word day in the creation story, making it, FOR EXAMPLE 6 Billion years, I’m saying if God does exist and He kicked off the Big Bang, could this allow for evolution to be true as well?
well put lol i love that!!!
at least someone who is close to my idea. you are not alone here.
Well since we all know that the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the earth being around 4 billion years or, and life being about 3 billion years old… If there was no big bang, then the elements needed to form planetrs like iron: (the first metals came from super novas) as well as carbon, wouldn’t have come into existance either. And Life depends on carben, We are carbon based organisms. We date fossil remains by using carbon dating. So no evolution could not have happened if there was no big bang
There are a lot of strange appeals to belief and other logical fallacies in the op, but this one is particularly common. My Mother, who is both a staunch evolutionist and a staunch Christian uses it all the time.
This isn’t really a theory or even a hypothesis, it’s just a way to shoehorn evolution into Judeo-Christian mythology. If such a specific and clear part of the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally, what in it is, exactly?
You could just as easily say that Moses wasn’t real (since there is NO historical evidence for Exodus at all) and that his story was a just an allegory about escaping sin or something. People are doing that for Noah now as well, since there is such a huge amount of evidence against the flood.
It’s never a good sign when you have to retrofit your premises to match observations (like evolution), and that’s exactly what religious apologists do all the time.
Hawking’s recent work implies that First Cause is not needed for the ‘Big Bang’.
BTW - the ‘Big Bang’ isn’t viewed as the ultimate origin of Life, The Universe and Everything. It is described as a quantum event, so not necessarily Singular.
Judeo-Christian creation, as well as the other descriptions of the natural world (flat Earth supported by pillars, Geo-Centric Universe, Luminous Moon, Firmament, etc) are demonstrably false. There’s no real doubt about their invalidity… While the validity of repeatable, verifiable, describable observation and mathematics is demonstrable - unless someone wants to make some baseless and delusional argument that observation is a supernatural illusion created by Satan or that 2+2≠4 - which are the arguments that Creationists have to make, not as arguments that support a Creation proposition, but as desperate counter-arguments to challenge the observed, verified, and validated.
There’s no REAL debate here. Sometimes I think that these kinds of threads are like free freak shows to amuse ourselves and marvel and the lengths of intentional ignorance to which the delusional will go to desperately cling to their sense of righteousness and superiority. Their insanity is frustrating and annoying, but it mostly just makes me sad - not the kind of acute sadness as when you lose a loved one, but a vague, dull, amorphous sadness - a kind of resignation.
BTW - gibbelin’s mom concept is Darrow’s argument to Bryan in Scopes. Darrow was cross-examining Bryan, so using Socratic Method, which meant he could make no statements, only ask questions. He had to get Bryan to answer a series of questions about Genesis. So, Bryan himself supplied the premises and conclusion that showed that evolution was NOT false in the context of Genesis, which was the Creationist argument - that Evolution contradicts Genesis and is therefore necessarily false. Bryan suffered a heart attack and died 5 days after the end of the trial.
Agreed, but for the sake of fairness, the stuff in The Grand Design isn’t quite science yet. Hawking mixed in a lot of philosophy that is not testable in that book, and those claims which are testable haven’t been verified because we don’t currently have the technology. So right now it’s just all just loose theory and hypothesis.
I’m not saying it can’t be cited in these kinds of discussions, but it isn’t strong evidence. Yet.
Still, it’s good food for thought.
I wasn’t referring to this book - I haven’t actually read it, just some excerpts here and there. But I know that he does talk on M-Theory a bit in that book, and that’s partly to what I was referring - specifically Bagger–Lambert–Gustavsson.
It’s not ‘loose theory and hypothesis’ - it’s all completely testable. We currently have that technology and have had it for some time.
https://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/lhc-en.html
Here’s Bagger–Lambert–Gustavsson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger%E2%80%93Lambert%E2%80%93Gustavsson_action
Here’s a copy and paste of a nutshell description of the problem Bagger-Lambert-Gusatavsson solves (maybe):
“What does the BLG action really mean? Does the action imply that fermions have supersymmetric partners on the wrong side of the Fredkin-Wolfram-Brown event horizon? Elementary fermions are grouped into three generations each comprising two leptons and two quarks. The first generation includes up and down quarks, the second charm and strange quarks, and the third top and bottom quarks. All searches for a fourth generation of quarks and other elementary fermions have failed, and there is strong indirect evidence that no more than three generations exist. The main evidence is based on the resonance width of the W and Z bosons, which constrains the 4th generation neutrino to have a mass greater than ~45GeV/(c2). This would be highly contrasting with the other three generations’ neutrinos, whose masses cannot exceed 2MeV/(c2).”
Quantum Mechanics isn’t ‘theoretical physics’ - it’s a done deal. All this stuff can and has been observed.
The M-theory stuff works mathematically now. Most string theory stuff, can be or has been verified experimentally. That’s not the problem. The problem is that part of the math violates existing experimental data that predicts the mass of a specific probability, and requires particles of specific spins. It’s not unusual to get all kinds of weird stuff in HVP collisions. But hunting predicted particles is much harder than finding a specific grain of sand on a beach, if you remember how hard it was to observe other theoretical particles like the quark.
In any event, Hawking’s books are pop science written in English with his interpretations of how these ideas might change common assumptions, etc - but the ideas from physics that he references aren’t weird, obscure, untestable theoretical physics. Nobody does that - theoretical physics isn’t crazy untestable stuff - it’s MEANT to be tested. All you need is an application and the funding to submit to CERN or some other Accelerator/Collider, although you need LHC for the really cool stuff.
So, this isn’t just math, it’s all testable. Looking at CERN now reminds me of how awful it was that Congress stopped funding of the SSC in Texas in 1993. We would be so much further along by now, and the SSC was going to be more than 40 TeV compared to LHC’s 14 TeV - and that was 18 years ago. That was a huge kick in the crotch.
I referred to Hawking because he’s the guy that implied that ‘First Cause’ isn’t necessary. He’s the guy that attributes everyday meaning to this stuff - nobody talks about ‘First Cause’. That kind of stuff doesn’t have anything to do with physics and no one cares. I don’t know any religious physicists, and no one ever speaks in terms of ‘First Cause’. My impression of the phrase itself is that it’s used by religious people trying to sound ‘philosophical’. When Hawking used ‘First Cause’ it was an attempt to communicate with those people. It’s hard to tell if he was genuinely attempting to communicate using their vernacular or if he was being snooty and mocking.
That’s NOT what I’m talking about. I assumed you were referring to the work in The Grand Design. Apparently you weren’t, so sorry.
OBVIOUSLY quantum theory is not only testable, but has passed nearly every test it’s ever been put up against. That’s been the case for decades, and it just gets reinforced more every year. I don’t even know why you brought that up.
If you want to get into M theory and its cousins, Edward Witten would be one of the first people to tell you that it’s still an incomplete theory and much of it is still untested. That’s more along the lines of what I was talking about, but I was specifically referencing The Grand Design, which I made very clear in my post.
Seriously, I hope we get some good readings today. Depending on what we find, we might just disprove string theory. That would make my day! If we do, I’m not gonna be gracious about it either! I’m gonna rub people’s FACES in it!
(Sorry, go on.)
I brought up quantum mechanics, because that’s what we were talking about. I don’t write particularly well, and have a lot of dangling concepts that seem to have no reference because I assume some things to be understood. Other times I get too detailed, over-explain, and repeat concepts in different terms. I have to edit and rewrite in order be clear and concise. That’s why my comments read like the literary equivalent of a handful of shit splattered on a wall.
As far as M-Theory being mathematically incomplete - Bagger-Lambert-Gusatavsson likely solves this, but I don’t know. There were a shit ton of papers published in February - write ups of the LHC results, their meanings, etc. But a friend told me that his group wasn’t going to use funding for LHC until it goes back to full power - which is 2014. I take that to mean that they’re not seeing stuff beyond 3Gen at 3.5 TeV. But I don’t really know - they’ve just started. But I do know that this stuff is hot, and M-theory experimentation has been fast and furious since LHC came back on-line.
As far as what’s going on right this second, I don’t know, but I know that the journals are jammed with all the write-ups from LHC.
Anyway, it’s not untestable and I believe that it’s mathematically complete now, but this might not be the case, depending on what happens in the next couple years.
I think your sources for what’s happening in M-Theory right now might be a little out of date. M-theory is flaming hot right now, and it’s a race.
I don’t know what Ed Witten thinks at this exact moment, but it’s probably same as all the other String Theory guys are thinking: “SHIT IS GOING DOWN. REPEAT: SHIT IS GOING DOWN”
Is it just me or does he sound exactly like Ray Romano when he says this?
Somehow after all these debates I don’t even care what people believe in, as long as they still accept academic science and don’t murder people because of that.
How far are the LHC-people in regard to Supersymmetry? Anything new? You guys seem to know your physics…
Well, that’s the big question isn’t it?
ATLAS February:
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.2357v2.pdf
CMS February:
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.1628v2.pdf
The New Predictions from both results:
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4585v1.pdf
Physics World Wrap up of round one:
Had anyone brought up Radio active decay?, I know Uranium 238 has a “Half Life” 4.468 Billion years
That’s good to know. Admittedly, I get a lot of my info on the subject from my friends, one of whom is a working geophysicist (master’s degree, not phd, but he knows his stuff) and the other who is a doctoral student at the City College of New York. But the last time I saw either of them was at Xmas, so I’m a little out of date. I’m glad new shit is going down, that’s exciting.
Exciting is the right word.
I just hope I come to see the day when they will only briefly mention Newtonian physics in school and then start with a unified quantum model of the world.
Or am I a bit too hysterical?
Humans didn’t just originate in one place…
They started in Africa, Mediterranean, and Asia among other places.
No, they originated in Africa. Lern2history.