New theory suggests some black holes might predate the Big Bang
May 10, 2011 by Bob Yirka 
An artist's rendering of the M87 black hole. Image credit: Gemini Observatory/AURA/Lynette Cook.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Cosmologists Alan Coley from Canada's Dalhousie University and Bernard Carr from Queen Mary University in London, have published a paper on arXiv, where they suggest that some so-called primordial black holes might have been created in the Big Crunch that came before the Big Bang, which lends support to the theory that the Big Bang was not a single event, but one that occurs over and over again as the universe crunches down to a single point, then blows up again, over and over.
The idea is based on the fact that the Earth, and the rest of the known universe is occasionally bombarded with unexplained bursts of gamma rays; something that could, according to Coley and Carr, be the result of primordial black holes running out of energy and disintegrating.
Primordial black holes are thought to be of a different type than the regular kind that are formed when a supernova occurs, leaving a void that is filled by the entity that is commonly known as a black hole. Many theorists support the notion that there does exist other types of black holes that were formed in the first “moments” after the Big Bang; black holes that would be smaller and created by the energy of the Big Bang itself. In this new theory, however, Coley and Carr suggest that some of these black holes, if they do actually exist, might have been created by the collapsing universe as part of the Big Crunch, and then somehow escaped being pulled into the pinpoint singularity comprised of everything else. And then, after the Big Bang, they simply assimilated with the newly formed universe. One problem they agree on is that it would likely be impossible to tell the difference between pre and post Big Bang primordial black holes.
It’s all purely speculation of course, as no one has ever actually seen a primordial black hole, or even offered much proof that they exist, but it does raise very difficult questions; ones that are impossible for scientists much less casual observers to answer. Questions such as, if the universe contracts, then blows up, over and over, has this gone on forever? Or is it possible that our view of the universe is so limited that we’re only seeing one tiny fraction of it, and thus, any theories or explanations we offer, are little more than guesses. And finally, maybe the hardest one of all; is it possible that the universe actually goes on forever; that it has no boundaries or borders? Which would mean the Big Bang was actually little more than one tiny event going on in one small part of an endless expanse.
It’s possible that no matter how long we as a people survive, we’ll never really know the answers to such questions, which might in the end mean, we’ll just have to take our theories on faith.
More information: Persistence of black holes through a cosmological bounce, B. J. Carr, A.A. Coley, arXiv:1104.3796v1 [astro-ph.CO] http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3796
Abstract
We discuss whether black holes could persist in a universe which recollapses and then bounces into a new expansion phase. Whether the bounce is of classical or quantum gravitational origin, such cosmological models are of great current interest. In particular, we investigate the mass range in which black holes might survive a bounce and ways of differentiating observationally between black holes formed just after and just before the last bounce. We also discuss the consequences of the universe going through a sequence of dimensional changes as it passes through a bounce.
© 2010 PhysOrg.com
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
1 hour ago
-
The Global Positioning System !
2 hours ago
-
A Question relating Power
3 hours ago
-
Writing a book so im learning about things, i have some general questions please read
5 hours ago
-
Question about induced E field.
6 hours ago
-
Charging a capacitor in a tesla coil
6 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
May 24, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (15) |
42
|
Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed
(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – ...
May 25, 2012 |
4.2 / 5 (21) |
47
|
Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector
Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.
May 23, 2012 |
4 / 5 (7) |
15
|
Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots
(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of “robots” as a laser ...
May 23, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
2
|
Sound increases the efficiency of boiling
Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
2
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (11)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (10)
Since we cannot be travelling at even 1% of the speed of light this implies that at creation the universe cannot have been less that 20 billion light years across.
Can anybody explain how we can be created from a singularity an then be able to detect light from 20 billion years ago?
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (6)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (19)
Space expands. Think of it like a balloon expanding (and galaxies and whatnot as points on its surface). The galaxies don't move, but the expansion causes the galaxies to become further apart nonetheless. Stuff moves on the balloon ALSO due to each others' gravity.
The place where the Big Bang happened is right here. It is also EVERYWHERE else in the universe. This is why you get residual radiation from the big bang from EVERY direction you look.
Only if you think space is static and the universe exploded into that space - then you could take about a big bang having taken place 'over there' and stuff having moved away since then. But this is not the case (in that case we'd get rge residual radiation only from one direction).
So, without any motion, the distance between two faraway points can actually even increase faster than light could shorten the distance between them (such objects would be beyond our 'visibility horizon')
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (5)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (26)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (19)
If Gravity could not stop the expansion in the past, it certainly isn't going to stop the expansion in the future. On a cosmic scale, everything is much farther apart and is actually accelerating.
MIBO:
That's not the half of it.
If we receive light from an object allegedly 13 GLY, which is also moving away at 0.86c due to hubbles constant, then where is the light going which was emitted in the opposite direction? That light will have moved 13GLY through space-time, but then space-time will also have allegedly been expanding along that path due to hubble's constant, and during 13 billion years, 13GLY expands to around 26Gly.
Therefore, the photon which left a distant galaxy in the opposite direction at the same time as a photon whch was detect here on earth had left that galaxy is now at least 39 billion light years away from the earth.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (13)
Having said all of that: I understand MIBO's point. Even on a ballon the distance between two objects was less the further back we go to the point that we were right next to each other. Of course with those pesky black holes just staying put.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (20)
For objects near the edge of the light horizon, the Milky Way galaxy only exerts a gravitational acceleration of around 4E-20 m/s^2.
This means it would take over a TRILLION years for the Milky Way to accelerate an object at that distance by 1m/s.
However, the object would have been moving away arbitrarily close to the speed of light, and accelerating even more due to hubble constant, so at the end of the trillon years it would actually be several quadrillion light years away, since every ~15 billion light years or so the hubble expansion rate increases by a factor of c.
So I hope this shows have gravitational acceleration can NEVER, EVER even remotely stop cosmic expansion.
Even if the Hubble constant were an order of magnitude smaller, gravity could never stop the cosmic expansion.
There was no Big Bang, and there DEFINITELY is no "Big Crunch", certainly not a naturalistic one anyway.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
Except that they don't stay put. Remember that gamma ray flashes we receive from far away ALSO mean that they happened a long time ago.
Good question. There should a range of energy that would create a universe the way we observe it: a minimum amount of energy needed for the singularity to 'bang' at all and an upper limit or we'd get an immediate recollapse.
That rate seems to have been variable in the past and may be variable in the future. Current models suggest the universe is rather flat - but the total curvature is still unknown.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
IMO, the "fecund universe" was incorrectly abandoned, because of an invalid assumption of "natural selection" of universes producing an incorrect prediction regarding the mass of the most massive neutron stars:
http://en.wikiped...e_Smolin
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
First, if you wish to scold a fellow christian, you should do so according to the bible and do it in private. I do believe that is what the P in PM means. Instead you decide to take something I said and twist it to slander.
Second, I believe the spanish inquistion had a good way of converting the masses. If they won't repent, then we slaughter them? If we decide that our religion must be taught in schools, then what of the other religions? They must all be taught. Is that what you want?
I will admit that I used a poor choice of words to convey my meaning, but you are obviously here for a fight and nothing else. So I'll just leave it at that. No point aruguing with someone whose only desire is to argue.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (9)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (14)
Do you realize that Jesus is a fairy tale? Seriously, grow up already. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Tis a nice thought from Aristotle: The difference between knowledge and belief: Knowledge is a container on the deck of a ship, firmly tied down with many ropes; while beliefs are loosely bound, subject to being thrown overboard in a storm. (my addition: Beliefs become dangerous when they become firmly tied down).
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (8)
Well put! This was exactly my point. For so long, our scientific beliefs have been taught as truth...as for certain this is what happened. When obviously the jury is still out on what even the big bang is or even what shape the universe is. We can teach (in schools) what we do know. And leave what's unknown out.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (16)
Maybe you might want to do a little research and find out WHY they think so, if your mania will allow you to concentrate for that long-
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
And it's QC that needs throwing overboard, of course. :)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.2 / 5 (11)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
I feel mostly at fault for this religious derailment. And I'm sorry. I didn't come here to get this topic going when it's ruined so many other conversations on here. I'll learn to use less words in the future.
@ghost
Not cowardice at all...just using the bible's words the same that he did toward me.
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Its all highly theoretical with no proof either way
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (32)
Do you realize you're ignorant? I'm an non-religious agnostic, yet must acknowledge the existence of the man jesus as a historical fact as valid as any other man of that period.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You are not to blame. There are those here with an agenda to add to their earnings towards heaven, by preaching their superstitious tribal beliefs every chance they get.
Now repent and go to Jesus;)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (10)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Or, since you've spent so much time here on us with such limited success, you might want to start with those other creatures.. After all it doesn't say to preach to only one creature, and you wouldn't want to throw that commandment away.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
I feel like I'm rambling, and I'm ok with that. Let me use fewer words: True christianity isn't evil. And anyone who tries to force it on others is missing a few critical points to the whole message.
Now...lets get back to science!
I'll be starting my second year of my BS this fall so I'm so far less of an expert that it isn't funny, but if the black holes came from our universe, wouldn't they need to remain a part of it? Or is there a part of conservation that I'm not getting?
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
the Hubble Constant is a linear formula, which is commonly cited as being around 72km/s/mparsec.
If we are looking at a galaxy 13billion light years away, then the "local" motion of light expanding in a sphere in every direction from that source object has gone 13 billion light years in every direction, including in the direction we are looking.
13+13 = 26 billion light years
Then you have to figure how much has the space-time expanded between the photon and US as it moved away.
You can get that from the Hubble Constant because spacetime expands by an additional 72km/s/mparsec, or said another way, for every billion light years of additional distance already attained, space-time expands faster by an additional ~1/15th of the speed of light, thus giving the other 13Gly distance approximate to total 39.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
But that doesn't stop matter and energy from moving farther away, nor does it stop matter and energy from farther away from moving towards us locally.
However, anything moving towards us from farther away than ~15gly can never reach us due to hubble expansion, which created the light horizon.
The light horizon exists across any distance greater than ~15gly BECAUSE the spacetime between those two points is expanding away from itself faster than the speed of light.
For objects beyond 30GLY distance (i.e. objects on opposite points of our own light sphere,) the hubble constant is causing space-time to expand at more than twice the speed of light.
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
You may have heard that the Vatican over the past 10 years has endorsed the Big Bang at least twice.
See the following link:
http://(omit).foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/13/pope-benedict-reconciles-science-religion/
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (12)
It's complicated to explain why, but that space expands also during the 13 billion years.
Space between us and an object apparantly 13 billion years old expanded by 13 GLY in that 13Ganum
13+13 =26gly.
c * 13Ganum = 13Gly
26gly + 13gly = 39gly
However, as in the paragraph above, it's complicated to explain why, but the space BETWEEN the distant galaxy and the photon on the other side moving away also expands. Since the average "Local" distance between the photon and the source during the 13ganum is 6.5gly, then this ends up being the average hubble expansion factor as well. When you add this to 39gly, you get:
39gly + 6.5gly = 45.5gly
Wikipedia agrees. (see "Observable Universe")
I derived that my self, you ignorant jackass.
YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH PHYSICS OR MATH, OTTO.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
The Vatican also prays to departed saints, which is necromancy, and maintains an extra-biblical priesthood heirarchy, as well as supporting several other false doctrines and extra-biblical traditions, teaching them as "salvific", which have no historical precedent in either Judaism or early church history.
I recognize neither the Pope nor the catholic priesthood, because they do not reflect Biblical church leadership, and directly contradict many of Paul's teachings on Salvation, as well as church leadership.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
AND CAN WE START DEBATING THE SCIENCE OF THE ARTICLE ONLY! jeez...
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (12)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (12)
Anyway, objects which "appear" to be pretty far away are actually already several times farther in distance, and beyond the light horizon.
AND SO my original criticism of the psuedo-scientific theory of the "Big Crunch" stands, since the total gravitational effects could never, ever, not in a trillion years slow down the expansion...
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (11)
@ The fellas criticizing one for having beliefs: Have you not realized atheism is a belief system as well? You believe and have faith that there is no God, why is it so crazy to believe that there is a God?
Better question for same target audience: You believe that the computer in front of you allowing you to read this content is real, meaning you believe in it's existence, but yet isn't it possible for this whole experience to be a figment of your imagination? But you believe it to be true...
We are discovering things in quantum mechanics that a fictional "fairy tale" wouldn't even produce.
As for the question regarding the size of the universe @ MIBO, there are multiple theories giving rise to faster-than-light speeds.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
If they average the same mass as the Milky Way, that would be:
1.4E51kg
By Newton's Shell theorem, we can calculate the gravitational acceleration at the Light Horizon using the simple classical gravitation acceleration formula.
A = GM/r^
M = 1.4E51kg
G = 6.67E-11
r^2 = ~2.014E52
A = 4.64E-12 m/s^2
So the gravity of ALL of the matter inside the Light Horizon exerted on any given point on that light horizon WAS "A"...13 TO 15 BILLION YEARS AGO, back when the stuff was where it appears to have been...that small.
Now, however, the radius of the matter which "Was" inside the light horizon 13Ganum is now much larger than that, close to the 45 to 46.5GlY figure, which is 3.576 times farther away, which further decreases gravitational acceleration by a factor of 3.576 squared, or 12.794...
If the gravity could not stop it back then....
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
the gravitational force (i.e. the field or bending of space-time) propagating from any given point in space-time cannot effect anything beyond the light horizon anyway, because it can never catch up to that matter or energy to actually apply the acceleration to it...
Thus, anything AT or beyond the light horizon will NEVER be accelerated back in this direction, no matter how massive the observable universe is or was...because the gravity cannot effect it at all...
Thus, if space-time actually is expanding, gravity cannot stop it ever. Even an infinite amount of gravity could not stop the expansion, because the gravity would not propagate fast enough to catch up to the matter and energy racing away at or above the speed of light...
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (9)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
Now to stuff that matters. This theory sounds like bull to me. Anyone else? What about the notion that the universe is growing in dimentionality and that random bursts of gamma may actually result form structures that existed in the previous two dimentional universe and are destabalizing, such as decaying cosmic strings, which some galaxy formation patterns suggest actually did exist.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (13)
That's sounds a typical black and white caricature of Americans, which is typical of the mush-headed liberal mentality, with their manufactured collective nuance and endless shades of grey.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (3)
Their description of pre-universe black holes is on the page Once again physorg tries to support something discussed at trueliberty.us
Their description of pre-universe black holes is on this page: Act IX: The Occurrence of Singularities in Space.
However, it helps to read a section or two before this section to really identify with what the writer is saying.
However, it helps to read a section or two before this section to really identify with what the writer is saying.
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Just admit you were called out for making the same error that B.Madison did, which was to construct a caricature to argue with.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (32)
Space-time would have been created as part of the big-bang. Also, time not absolute, but relative,... that is, the flow of time can be different for different observers.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Leviticus 25:44-46
Luke 12:47-48
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21:20-21
Exodus 21:2-11
So please explain away jesus/the bible's love of slavery. If god is omnipotent why then would he advocate, acknowledge and set-up rules for something so evil and obviously wrong. (That is i guess unless you agree that slavery should be something that we continue today.)
A little sample of what the above bible quotes state:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (8)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Madison, clearly addressed his comment to "@ The fellas criticizing one for having beliefs:",... not to those "who [are] disgusted with Q_C's vision of god, and there for atheists".
QED, and check mate.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
How does a black hole "tell" you it came from one or the other? AFAIK a singularity is a singularity. What information survives a total entropy reversal is beyond me.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (27)
Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Hilarious!
Hilariouser!
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Your approach will never win anyone over, which is what your fellow Christian you were also putting down was trying to say.
You may wish to ponder one more verse - Matt 5:22:
"Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." OK, perhaps it's a bit out of context, but I still think it's something for you to ponder.
You've annoyed people here such that they won't ever listen to anything you say. Maybe it's time to move on?
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (6)
Indeed.
It's like writing the headline "New theory suggests infants born deaf might go deaf at 8 months and three seconds as opposed to 7 months and ten seconds"....with interviews of said infants at 5 years old as your only means to confirm this.
That's the hilariousest....
How does entropy survive being merged into a single point of infinite density?
I'm serious, is there math that says this is possible? I'm pretty incredulous at the moment of any such a claim.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I think that sums it up rather well.
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 4.7 / 5 (28)
It follows from thermodynamics.
http://en.wikiped..._entropy
May 10, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (28)
A possible big bang relic of circular patterns were discovered in the cosmic microwave background, and some have proposed as an explanation for them, that the big bang occurs cyclically,.. among them are R. Penrose.
Also, is it appropriate to regard a BH as a 'thing' strictly existent IN a particular universe, when it is an infinite curvature of space-time, and not understood at the singularity?
May 10, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (26)
Hmm, you're correct.
May 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Well, as far as the EH, IMO yes, definately. As far as the singularity, who knows. Besides, any real BH are going to be Kerr BHs, and Penrose went to town showing that the Kerr solution led to ring singularities that opened up to other universes. But until we have a QG theory it's one hell of a presumption to make that BHs, their event horizons and all can somehow evade a speculative Big Crunch rather than merge with it.
May 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"Add your Comment"
O.k. Makes sense. I have my strait jacket on. So my version of "Too much crazy" or if you will, imagination is harmless.
The view of a thermodynamical singularity - infinite density, infinite temperature - is dismal.
"At an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. Physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, rather than an unchanging probability distribution."
cont...
May 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Shannon's work, his accent is on hypothetical transmission of events defined abstractly, so that a temporal aspect is given to the theory. Thus, his work may more properly be termed transmission theory - to distinguish it from information theory based strictly on energy distribution - a distinction he was aware of.
I digress once again to Wikipedia's Entropy (Information Theory)...
"...at a multidisciplinary level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount ..."
Starter Kit reading:
Wiki's Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory.
Here, the blackholeless world still makes sense. For me.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
You single handedly stooped this un-needed debate into a new low. Congratulations on assuming everything wrong about me, as well as miss the entire audience I was targeting my rebuttal towards. Way to, as you do it, *lash* out at someone when not fully understanding their comment.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
I believe that anytime you criticize someone for what they believe in, that is criticizing their beliefs am I right or wrong? Oh, and yes, you must have a belief or you simply do not think, my friend. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you believe the air will be breathable? These are all yeses, just ones you never really pondered on. So in other words, a human without beliefs is... not alive. Think..
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Incorrect.
Matthew 18-21. Jesus lays it out there... nice and neat. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't screw around. Don't lie. Don't be a greedy bastard. Nowhere does he say you need to worship him. Nowhere does he say you need to pray to him. Nowhere does he say you need to believe he's God or the son of God.
American fundamentalists always seem to drop the ball on this. I was raised Orthodox and was forced to go to Sunday school as a child. You see, it's really the only brand of Christianity that pays attention to what Jesus taught instead of all the BS that goes on with most other denominations.
Sorry to everybody else for getting all religious on your butts. With science, there's not much room to argue. Conclusions based on data... repeatable results, etc. Theories and such are interesting, but are ultimately left to the imagination.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
May 11, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (11)
Who. Cares.
Seriously. Who cares what some freak said 2 millennia ago when it comes to issues on a science site? Go away. Take your religion to some site that cares about fluff like that.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Exactly what definition of tautology are you using in your criticism? You also avoided the question as well.
What's not to understand?
Hmmm... fairly confident doesn't sound like knowing... but more like having faith in...
Never was I defending Q_Cs comments in the first place.
All your arguments, the way you dissect comments instead of actually arguing against them, seems characteristic of a philosopher...
What did you do besides quote me and offer nothing in response but critiques instead of valid argument points?
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
I have a pet theory that encompasses this. New forms of matter are created around each big bang - our proton/electron/neutron chemistry is the product of our big bang. There were others, and thats what dark matter is - it is the remains from a different big bang. I don't think the logic contradicts itself, but it may be hard to prove ;P
May 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (25)
There are other issues wrt epistemology and a-priori conceptual structures that the mind requires for intuitive understandings, and in fact reality as it is in itself may not conform within such elements of thought, and remain consistent.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
@ Gawad
With your answer, instead of beating around the bush. Establish why they are "pointless". Making accusations without reason remove credibility no matter how well you articulate your expressions.
I simply created argument in response to an individual. That individual had criticized someone for having beliefs. I offered the argument "that everyone has beliefs, regardless if they realize it or not". I went on to elaborate that point.
Gawad, stop being the "internet debate policeman" and prove me wrong. I want some valid substance from you.
I see above you have come up with some good arguments for other comments, but not for mine.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
How so?
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I also have the standing question "How so" for you to respond to.
May 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (25)
Induction is not certain but allows one to learn new things about reality.
Deduction is absolutely certain, but one can not learn new things about reality (out side the axioms.).
[I should mention, I am Erscheinung above, logged in multiple devices, not that it matters]
May 11, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
Those blackholes could have always existed. At genesis, beginning of time, they could have been accentuated with passing em energy, let there be light, dark mass could be unaccentuated blackholes. This is one.
The blackholes could have all evolved into their own universes, each one creating an interference in the Higgs field. Pulling charge out of the fabric. Exploding (or quickly decaying) by way of weakforce into a world made of matter like our own, or maybe one with completely different physical laws.
Maybe a combination of the two. The newly generated universes (new genesis) could be evolving and stemming from us.
May 12, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If this were the case there should be flow patterns and distruptions in the universal pattern of galaxies due to the influence of re-existing energy and matter. Otherwise, in the traditional concept that all light, energy and matter exists as ejecta from the big bang, everything should statistically be fairly evenly spread throughout the universe. But we don't see this.
May 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
May 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
May 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
May 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Which is after all simple enough for anyone to accept if they choose not to think about it. Simple is best for simpletons- the people who invented your religions realized that. One god is a lot easier to maintain than dozens.
May 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
I'll give you a standard dictionary definition (Webster):
Now where does god conform to this? There is no study and certainly no practice involved. There are no general laws deducible and he certainly doesn't conform to the scientific method (again I give you Webster's definition):
God does not conform to testability or collection of data or falsifiability.
Saying "god did it" is the exact opposite of being scientific.
May 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
May 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
Agreed. Maybe the energy within a single electron could be subdivided into smaller parts, and if those parts have the same relationship between them as the relationship between particles in our universe, it could be an exact replica of our universe.
May 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I mean calculating the event horizon that have the same mass has the known univers. I am no specialist, but it seems to me that if all the univers collapse in a big crunch, this will create one big blackhole and nothing will escape of it, so no "rebounce", no new big bang ,etc.
May 15, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
But the disturbance in the higgs field causes charge to arise out of nothing, negative positive divergence of charge on potentially infinite planes (we view what's relative to us what's not is irrelative). Energy causes mass and mass causes energy. It is an infinite loop.
May 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 15, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I gave you a bunch of ones because Gawad is right that you have a reading problem. You even quoted him accurately and then restated it wrong.
Gawad said
Which may be a bit over the top but not much really as QC is insisting that all that don't think his way should burn for all eternity. Which is WAY more than a bit over the top. It's just plain psychotic.
Now to that YOU said this
Which is a sign that you can't read and you repeated that same error in nearly every post even after it was pointed out time again that NOWHERE did Gawad criticize ANYONE for merely having beliefs. NOT ONCE did he do that yet you insisted that he did many times.
LEARN HOW TO READ.
IS NOT EQUAL TONot even close to equal to that.
More
May 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Other than that welcome to the site.
Try writing in a text editor and reread before posting. I recommend Notepad++ with the spellcheck plugin. Despite it's not even having the word SPELLCHECK. Its based on an OLD dictionary but you can choose to add in new words as they come up.
Ethelred
May 15, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Basically, we would have to witness the birth of black hole with a detector about 5 cubic kilometers, which would mean since the birth of a black hole is presumably quick and since we cannot pinpoint when it will happen that we would need about at least 100 000 such detectors (1 pointed at each candidate star) and if we're lucky then within a 1000 years we will witness the birth of black hole and if were godly lucky then the detector pointing at it will work without flaw and identify new particles created during the birth of the black hole from which will would be able to start to answer said questions. If we were the borg we can could make it happen; unfortunately we're not.
May 15, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Looking back in time it would appear that everything was once in the same place due to the dilusion of the details of what existed before. So as of today everything that is older than 15 billion years is lost and appears homogenious except for vague differences in what we perceive as cosmic background noise which is likely just extremely diluted shifted radiation
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
For what use would perfect understanding of the universe be other than to be the universe itself.
If there is a Creator that is greater than the universe we imagine, then you better be humble and listen more than you talk.
Or if the universe is cyclic, self referential, self defining, wholly contained and without context, then perhaps even as the universe seems ancient we create it now with our thoughts and measurements, and at some future date our decedents or other children of the universe will reach back to measure what was atom by atom and build the heavens for each of us as we imagined them to be.
Or perhaps the universe is a mystery even to itself, and no true understanding exists. *Shrug*
May 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Well, then evolutionists have a problem. In a purely material world general truths would not exist, and even if they existed we would not be able to know them. If man is just a bunch of matter, then knowledge itself is demoted to a meaningless random or deterministic brain state, and inaccessible to objective validation.
General laws such as the laws of logic or the laws of physics
are immaterial principles that reside in the abstract.
They are not the property of atoms. Without an external and objective standard of truth, these laws would not exist or be relative and subjective. In a world of random evolution, universal laws are an oxymoron. So the fact that science and knowledge can exist, provides solid proof for the existence of God.
If you dont believe this, then prove that a random evolutionary process can generate objective standards of truth such as modus ponens or the law of non-contradiction.
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Then why do we actually already know the many that we do since you LIED that we cannot know any?
42. Or the meaning of life is clear. To continue to reproduce. If you find that meaningless please don't reproduce.
Horseshit. The produces the physical laws we live by and indeed emerged from. There in nothing abstract about it.
They are properties of the Universe and atoms are an emergent property of the laws of the Universe.
More
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Where is that world? It isn't this one. Evolution is NOT random. It is a lie to claim that it is.
That is an exceeding false claim. Science and knowledge are created by HUMANS. Not Jehovah. The particular version of Jehovah you believe in is contrary to those laws you claim are dependent on that non-existent god.
Why would I want to prove a bullshit claim like that.
More
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
I think you need to understand what scientific laws are: They are models of how we experience the universe. We use them because they work (not because they are 'true' in some ultimate sense. Indeed philosophy can show that any law7model cannot be ultimately true unless it is as complex as the thing it describes).
When the laws we have found to date don't work we try to adapt them or try to find better ones through something called the scientific method. That's it. No more and no less.
Whether we say "the scientific laws are fundamental and the universe behaves according to them" or whether we say "the universe is thus and we fit those laws to it" is the same. (Both can be wrong, but the track record of those laws is rather good)
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Modus ponens is an inherent property of logic. And YOU contradict yourself and reality frequently so there is no law against it. It simply produces thinking that fails to match our universe. Now for the promised repeat of the post you ignored.
You did that before and were given plenty of evidence. So go read the stuff you ignored the last time.
Megatons of fossils showing evolution occurring over hundreds of millions of years is more than good enough of course. YOU demanded and I produced. Now its YOUR TURN TO ANSWER.
You could read this site, as the one we are on as it has had ample evidence for evolution since you arrived.
Or this site
http://www.talkor...ogy.html
More
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
http://pandasthumb.org/
Or this
http://humanorigins.si.edu/
Or the Dover trial record
http://www.aclupa...ipts.htm
Or this
http://afarensis....olution/
Or this massive paleobiology database, something that could NOT exist without evolution as there would be no paleobiology
http://paleodb.or...ridge.pl
More blatant human evolution
http://www.archae...cies.htm]http://www.archae...cies.htm[/url]
The reality of biology in the form of cladistics
http://www.archae...cies.htm]http://www.archae...cies.htm[/url]
All against your NOTHING that supports you in anyway. Clearly you are aware of that massive lack of data since you consistently refuse to support yourself or answer questions.
Nevertheless just when was that Great Flood anyway?
More
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Now its your turn to answer questions. How about a smidgen of proof instead of another rant. And I will post this exact same post on every thread where you post questions based on ignorance but refuse to debate or try to answer the more than reasonable questions that I and others have asked.
Ethelred
May 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
On the other hand, things like knowledge, conscioussness, laws of logic and the law of gravity are immaterial. They have no colour, volume, mass, spin or electrical charge.
If evolution were true, everything would be material, and immaterial and abtract concepts would not exist. Our thoughts and words would be illusory side effects of matter.
Your thoughts however are more than electric currents, just as your words are more than just moving air. They have meaning that is not derived from the electrons and air molecules involved. The fact that we have thoughts and know things, proves evolution as completely false.
PS: Observing an object falling is of a totally different category than finding dead animals in the ground. Fossils do not prove that molecules once upon a time evolved into mankind, they only prove that in the past these animals lived, and now are dead
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Thanks for the many links that you have posted.
My request however was an observation of Darwinian evolution by scientists in a controlled environment. Please provide me with the best piece of observational evidence available (according to you). If possible in your own words, not some website or link. Thanks and be blessed.
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Huh? Without material things all of your "immaterial" doesn't exist. You really don't know anything about information theory do you?
WOW! That was quite the illogical leap. Baseless. Pretty much just an idiotic thing to say.
Maybe some chemical stuff going on. Possibly even some "quantum" stuff, but just to be disagreeable... Nope, computers will show soon that electric currents are all that is needed.
...
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Yes they do! What is your point?
Nope. Another illogical leap. Baseless. Pretty much idiotic. Again.
No, they don't only prove that. They are evidence. If you don't like science go away and bury your head in your book. Are you saying that ghod's noodly appendage put them there for our amusement? Oops, I forgot. The unknowable. Don't question. Faith. Go back to sleep.
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
*Didn't click on any of them.*
*LaLaLaLaLaLa I'm not listening. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.*
*Yay! I spread the word and blessed my enemy. Now I get to enter the gates. Yipee!!!!*
OK. Now go away already and spew your filth where it is better appreciated.
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 16, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Well, you put him in a spot if you only want his opinion and don't want evidence. What value is that? But, thankfully the evidence in the exact type of example you seek is available. If you'll read it:
http://en.wikiped...periment
May 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
May 16, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Counter-question: How do you PROVE a creator? Impossible.
The one claiming the existence of something must prove that thing - not the one making no claim.
(claiming the absence of a creator is only done AFTER someone claimed the presence of one. So the onus of proof is still on the one claiming to know that there is a creator. Before no proof for that is forthcoming - and I see none so far - that claim is completely delusional)
May 16, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
Space is nothing and thats why space dont do anything. it is not expanding or curving.
Denser, like nucleus of atoms, neutrinos and photons expanding all a time in space "who" is nothing!
There is behind everything, very very small and very very fast denser, who moving lot of faster that photons and are lot of smalle that photons.
When this very small and very fast denser moving inside quarks, neutrinos, photons or other denser, they losing "energy" for our visible universe denser.
This is happening all a time!
There is no pulling force at all!
No dark matter or dark energy!
No extra dimensions.
Galaxys born to inside to outside!
Google: Eternal Horn of plentys youtube videos
Thanks
.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
No one is going to bother to google something you couldn't be bothered to link to. Especially since your post made exactly as much sense all your other posts. None whatsoever.
That being said I would still like to congratulate on your unique achievement. You have been here for over half a year and in this time you have made a fair number of posts. I think there are now enough posts for statistically significant conclusions.
Your ranking is ONE. Only one single post is above one at the staggeringly high level of 1.2. Even universally reviled posters like omatumr have a higher ranking. This is a grand achievement to maintain the minimum possible score for dozens posts over many weeks. Usually this sort of ranking is limited to spammers selling fashion knockoffs from offshore accounts who are banned before 24 hours have past.
You are hereby authorized to use a new Honorific DrI, Doctor of Ignorance. Use your new honorific with pride.
Ethelred
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
No, That isn't what you asked but those posts covered it anyway and when you try moving the bar again like that they will have covered the new goal as well.
Done and done and done and lots more dones plus SteveL gave you one that is a bit more succinct. Which is probably why you have yet to reply to him.
Now about MY questions. Answer and then we go on to other things.
Ethelred
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
No. Without the claim to a god there would not even be a concept of a god - and hence there would be no possibility to claim the non-existence of one.
Consider this: Are you a non-hglinflminsiglist? Do you claim that hglinflminsigl does not exist? And do you NEED to prove that it doesn't?
No you don't because no one came up with the concept of what a hglinflminsigl is (yet).
Now, if I were to claim that hglinflminsigl exists, who would you argue must supply proof first? You or me? Certainly I would have to supply proof first. Otherwise you would call me delusional for making an unsupported statement.
Now substitute hglinflminsigl with 'god' and there you are.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Since you are not willing to answer my question, and shy away from naming a concrete example yourself, I do not feel any obligation to answer your question either. The very best evidence for evolution is simply too flimsy to waste words on I guess.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
There is NO evidence that supports your beliefs. The Flood never happened and you are lying about me not answering.
Ethelred
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
You are forgetting that human evolution has been taking place for a long time. How do you prove that the first modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) didn't already believe in god prior to entering the modern human stage of evolution?
With the unknowable established your claim that the believers must prove existence to non believers is a circular argument (like what came first the chicken or the egg). You have no proof that the first modern human didn't already believe in god.
This is all beside the point. There isn't an onus on anyone. If you want to prove that god doesn't exist that's on you. That task is impossible.
Faith is based on belief. Science is based on data. Do you understand that we cannot collect data on god? Whether that be because he doesn't exist (as you claim), or, because he exists outside of the reality he created (like in another dimension) is unprovable. The only way to prove/disprove gods existence is by gathering data on him.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
There is nothing to consider. You are looking for scientific proof for gods existence. None exists on either side of the argument. Either believe or don't. Neither option is the sane one in comparison with the other they're just different. A believer cannot supply proof past the point of what FEELS right just like a non believer can't. This is a stupid argument. Especially on a scientific website.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
And what has the BELIEF in a god have to do with the EXISTENCE of a god? People believed in a flat earth. Was it therefore flat? No.
If two options are available that doesn't mean they need to be accorded 50/50 probability.
When you can't see what is behind a corner then the hypotheses "there is a unicorn" and "there is no unicorn" are not equally likely - though they are mutually exclusive and all encompassing for the problem. Which one of the two would be the 'sane' assumption? Seems obvious to me.
(again: replace 'unicorn' with 'god' and you've got the gist of the problem)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Agreed. It is really stupid to have to explain these very basic concepts to people who think they can read (much less comprehend) scientific articles which are already dumbed down for the general populace.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
You are heavily biased. That's unscientific. You must give each option equal opportunity. Now present me with data that supports your claim.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Don't get angry because you've been proven illogical.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
The existence of God is LITERALLY an extraordinary claim, therefor the burden of proof rests on those making the claim that God exists. It's NOT a 50/50 split. (Of course, atheists who wish to prove God doesn't exist are welcome to try as well.)
For what it's worth, I don't think it's provable either way *even in principle*. (Heck, I'm not even sure that the notion of a being supposedly originating the universe and transcendent to it can even accommodate 'burden of proof'.)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Neither side has to prove anything as this is a field based on belief rather than a scientific matter.
If you want to turn it into a scientific matter the only correct scientific approach is an unbiased one: treating both sides as equal (50/50 probability) until proven otherwise.
This argument is stupid as neither side has any evidence. No data no proof.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
A quick look at "Russel's teapot" might also be enlightening as to why the 50/50 claim is absurd.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
"The Flood never happened..."
I beg to disagree. The evidence points to a different direction. In fact, the geological proof for a global flood event is so overwhelming, that secular science agrees a global flood happened in some form. They just refuse to connect the dots back to Genesis.
Almost all ancient cultures knew some kind of flood story as clay tablets and inscriptions confirm. Some even refer to a man called "Nu" or "Noa". One of course is at liberty to believe it never actually happened, but to say there is no evidence is indicative of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that one often finds with antagonists of the Bible.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
What evidence do you have to prove that god doesn't exist?
May 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
There is nothing wrong with saying that you don't believe god exists. You may be correct. There is nothing wrong with stating you believe in god. You are free to believe what you wish.
If you're going to come out and claim you know prove it. Since you don't have proof all you're left with is suspicion.
Now drop this childish topic.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
But the philosophical gibber jabber uber goober pooper snuper WAS the point! Arrrg!
May 17, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
If this is true_ god sucks.
Now this would explain a great deal.
May 17, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
True. You are free to believe in unicorns and you are free to think that unicorns are not an isse worth thinking about. One is a unicornist, the other a a-unicornist.
One is sane, the other is not. You chose which is which. And then explain to my why it's different for god.
Which is what I'm asking. You make a claim and base conclusions on it. I make no claim and base no conclusions on it (because declaring something a non-issue (like invisible elephants) is not a claim. )
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
There is no evidence for a world wide flood.
Overwhelmingly nonexistent.
Now that is lie. There is NO evidence for global flood. EVER, at any time since life started billions of years ago.
Yeah the Book that has two different contradictory orders of creation, neither of which match the evidence.
All cultures have been subjected to 100 year and even 1000 year floods. NONE have been wiped out by a world wide flood covering the highest mountain.
All which came from the Bible. And I do mean ALL.>>
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Lie. To say there is no evidence is to know that the physical evidence is and as opposed to what it should be if there had been such a flood. Tales told by story tellers do not constitute evidence UNLESS there is some physical evidence that supports the claims. There is NO SUCH EVIDENCE. The actual historical evidence is that has not been such a flood. That is history as opposed to myths.>>
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
ALL humans are supposed to have descended from ONE SINGLE MAN, Noah was the father of the other three men, and four women. This means there would be four lines of mitochondrial DNA and only ONE Y chromosome. This is not the case. And that is only the human DNA problem. EVERY animal on Earth has DNA that disproves the flood.
There should be flood debris EVERYWHERE and there isn't. There should be flood drainage patterns EVERYWHERE and there isn't. If the flood had occurred there would be no doubt at all. The PHYSICAL evidence would indeed be overwhelming. There is NONE.
Nevertheless I still want to know just when you think it happened. That way we can deal with the details of your total failure to support your claim of a world wide flood as opposed purely local floods that more than adequately cover the stories.
Ethelred
May 18, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (3)
We simply need to stop: 1) opening the door for fanatical responses with religous baiting, and 2) stop responding to fanticism. Simply grade them a "1" because a "0" isn't provided, ignore their banter and move on. After being ignored long enough perhaps they will move on.
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
noodge, also nudzh: to pester, nag, whine; as a noun, a pest or whiner (from Yiddish nudyen, from Polish or Russian)
May 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
When 3/4 of a topic is filled with fluff off-topic junk it becomes a serious waste of reader time. I have little proplem with people who I disagree with and some of the lively discussions here can be quite educational - when it's on topic.
May 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Which is censorship.
Now I am all for banning spammers and fanatics that refuse to engage in actual discussion. Kevin should be banned. Same for Mabarker and Oliver K Manual as they refuse to engage in REAL discussions. There are sites that have that sort of rule.
And staying on topic ONLY means high levels of moderation. Physorg barely manages to stop the spammers. Besides 90 percent of the articles are fluff in the first place and there is nothing worth discussing. Using the article as a starting for OFF TOPIC discussion has often lead to far more interesting stuff.
Just set the filter if you want to skip the crap.
And quit whinging about it. That is off topic as well.
Ethelred
May 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
I don't know what your credentials are regarding genetics, but that statement is grossly oversimplyfying the complex issue of genetics. Due to variations and all kinds of reshuffling of genetic material there is no direct one on one relationship between the people on the ark and the current populus.
Human genome information available so far however is consistent with the Biblical record of a very tiny starting population, and a genetic bottleneck during the flood.
Just two important results confirm this:
(1) The total global variation is less than 0.1 %, which is inconsistent with the measured mutation rate over millions of years.
(2) The Linkage disequilibrium is humans is very high, pointing to a "an extreme founder effect or bottleneck: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today"
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Johannes, your credentials regarding genetics are bleedingly obviously ZERO, or even less than that. And Fundies using the Bible as a textbook for history, biology, genetics, cosmology, and geology typically have an IQ hardly above that. Best of luck with the latter.
Just 2 days left! Repent!
May 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
These bears are trying to save the world. Exposure is their food. They will spout whether corrected or not.
May 18, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Since there was no ark that statement is true. However I was referring to the parts of our DNA that do NOT shuffle. Clearly you need to learn more before you write on genetics.
http://en.wikiped...rial_DNA
This section is what I was referring to.
http://en.wikiped...rial_DNA#Female_inheritance
And here for the Y chromosome
http://en.wikiped...enealogy
More
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
But fully consistent with a bottleneck tens of thousands of years ago and NOT with just 8 people less than 5000 years ago.
Tens of thousands of years ago and the few was few thousand not 8.
Now are you going to keep avoiding the question?
When was that Flood? You know so much about it surely you can tell us when it occurred.
While you are at it, what were the last words of Jesus on the cross?
Ethelred
May 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
I think you need to be more careful with your sources. Wikipedia is not considered a final authority. Research based on wikipedia is usually dismissed in academia.
Are you a biologist or genetic expert? What exactly is your educational and professional background? I am trying to establish what value I should attach to your assertions about genes.
To finalize: genetic similarities between humans on all levels clearly point to the following:
1. Inconsistent with mutation rates for 100k or more years
2. A bottleneck not so long ago. The exact timeframe is difficult to estimate, given the error margin in measuring mutation rates. Certainly not millions of years though.
3. The size of the bottleneck is estimated at serveral dozen or less by reputable scientists (1). So not thousands.
All this evidence is consistent with a flood event survived by 8 people.
(1) Reich et al: Nature 411: 199-204, 2001
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"The team compared the LD patterns of people from northern Europe and Yoruba people from Nigeria. Close to the markers, the LD pattern was very similar. This reflects the common ancestry of the two groups more than 100,000 years ago. Farther from the markers, however, the Yorubans exhibit much lower LD than the Europeans. The implication is that something happened to the ancestors of northern Europeans after they had split from theancestors of Yorubans.
Cont.
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
May 19, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
You lying dog. Perhaps you read research papers like you read your bible- by knowing already what's in them? You expect the people here to accept your references without actually looking at them, like your typical congregationist would?
Prepare to meet your maker. Two days until liars like you begin to fry.
May 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
It puzzles me why you seem to think that insulting others would reinforce your poor reasoning. In addition to that you seem to lack proper reading skills. The article I quoted is relevant to the bottleneck size, not its supposed age.
The age of the bottleneck is considered in much more detail in other sources (1). Like I said, none of them are consistent with millions of years. A precise age estimate is difficult, considering the variety of ideas regarding mutation rates etc.
One source that suggest a much younger age (perhaps 30,000 years) is the following:
"These results differ from those expected if alleles from divergent archaic populations were maintained through multiregional continuity. The observed virtual lack of sequence polymorphism is the signature of a recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations."
(1) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 93(9):43604364, 1996
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Read the exerpt again. It says that a small group split off from an African pop 100k years ago. Both those groups are still with us. Nobody drowned in a great flood.
The bottleneck described in the article you cited is most likely due to a small group of euro pioneers, who left their African forebears. The Africans exist to be tested today. They are not decended from Ham. THEY DIDN'T DROWN.
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Oh wait. That might be hard since it didn't really happen.
Once again, take your nonsense elsewhere. **Kudos to you for bringing Otto and Eth together arguing the same side in a reasonably coherent manner.
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
http://creation.com/
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
http://www.cs.unc...ity.html
-Sounds pretty collegiate doesnt it? The cs in cs.unc.edu stands for creation science. More deception. The article ends with the very uncollegiate observation:
"This is undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg, and many similar results will undoubtedly soon be reported. We hope that these results will cause biologists to give more serious consideration to the possibility that the Biblical record of a recent creation is historically accurate."
-Maybe somebody would like to pull it apart snippet by snippet?
May 19, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Also, plausible alternatives to the 'noahs ark' replacement scenario are given, which the Religionists do not acknowledge. Chronic tribal warfare in Africa, with a single culture consistently victorious in killing all male enemies and impregnating the females, could explain lack of divergence.
These 'nephelim' the men of renown which bible legend and the book of enoch refer to, could have been the first Diaspora which populated the world, destroying Neanderthal and other upstarts as they went.
May 19, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
May 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Creation acceptance. Creation belief. You either believe in creationism or you aren't sure about it but you accept it.
The other side is creation rejection or creation disbelief. This side says we emerged as a random turn of events, that aspects of natural reality comprise us as human beings.
How do you prove which side is right? Created just as everything else (humbling) or evolving from particles that happen to be - to be what we are. Where did the particles come from though?
May 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
May 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Before getting egocentric a God creating the universe is alot more advanced than we humans are. We were not created in his image. We're just a transitory phase of evolvance, just as all living creatures before us during us and surely to be after us. We're just an animal, a human animal. Evolution is a proven fact. So is the evolution of the universe from a point of dense mass and high energy to where we are now. But can it be proven that God is not driving the change?
There are somethings that will remain unprovable, but this is not science.
Science would be creating a universe. Designing landscapes and beings who can calculate their own reality and wonder if someone created them, brought them into existence. Is awareness a natural emergence?
May 20, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
May 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
It is odd that someone who a few posting ago called me a lying dog, is now suddenly demanding respect. I wonder if that incoherent behaviour is due to your worlview that is so divergent from reality.
I have given you solid quotes from two peer reviewed articles, while you have given nothing. Science is therefore not something you can claim any longer.
These articles provide independent evidence that humankind went through an extreme genetic bottleneck that could have occured less than 30,000 years ago. No just some "out of Africa travellers" as you claim, but the whole species on earth. The fact that some scientists rule out the possibilty of a worldwde flood is just their presupposition. The hard facts are aligned with Genesis, and not with millions of years gradual evolution.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jojo you appear to have a severe reading comprehension problem. Please refer to Ethelred's comments, he said it well enough. The OVERWHELMING geologic evidence is that there was NOT a global flood event. The OVERWHEMING genetic evidence ACROSS species is that there was NOT a global flood event. While it is entertaining seeing Otto rail against you and Eth debate you, the majority of your contributions don't increase anyone here's estimation of your intellect.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Just to name a few:
- Fossils of sea creatures are found all over the planet high above sea level
- Billions of fossils rapidly buried in kilometer thick graveyards
- Rapidly deposited sediment layers accross thousands of miles
- No evidence of erosion between the layers, despite supposed millions of years
- Bending and curved layers of sediment of (non vulcanic) rock in many places.
I am not here to score points. I am just giving tesimony of what is a self-evident truth: the fact that God created the world, and not the world created itself. The Biblical account is much more consistent with observational science than alternative historical speculations such as evolution.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
And all of those fossils are the same age? And all of those animals were alive the day the flood came and so carefully preserved them? Nonsense.
more nonsense.and more.??? No idea where you are going with this.
You aren't scoring points. You are wrong. Testimony? So you were there? Oh no, you are just repeating the uneducated ramblings of prescientific men who lived over a thousand years ago.
No, the Biblical account is not more consistent, no matter how many times you say it is.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
You mistook my making fun of you for demanding respect I think. Another worldly sign of your cognitive disconnect.And I went to those articles and recovered facts which prove to you they had nothing to do with your creation fable.
1) How does your allele theory jibe with the timeline from the original paper, which is extrapolated from divergence between humans and APES? Address that please.
2) Where is the genetic pan-species evidence for your floody bottleneck? Did your god erase this and if so, why not human allele evidence too?
3) How does your bottleneck theory jibe with the conclusions from the original paper, which compare genes between euros and the people they left in Africa whose descendants are still ALIVE to be tested? Address that please.
YOU provided these references and they DIRECTLY disprove your delusional and deceptive postulations. SLAP yourself, shake your head violently, and realize this.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
@PyleI think his theory is the one where the flood wells up and splits Pangaea along what is now the mid-atlantic ridge. This of course exerts great force on mud strata which is created during the same event, rippling and baking them solid, underwater mind you, and miraculously ordering fossils according to increasing complexity from bottom to top. I guess complexity is more buoyant?
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
"The team compared the LD patterns of people from northern Europe and Yoruba people from Nigeria. Close to the markers, the LD pattern was very similar. This reflects the common ancestry of the two groups more than 100,000 years ago. Farther from the markers, however, the Yorubans exhibit much lower LD than the Europeans. The implication is that something happened to the ancestors of northern Europeans after they had split from the ancestors of Yorubans."[...]Either way, the LD data allow an estimation of the extent of the bottleneck. The effective breeding population, by this estimate, could have been as small as 50 individuals for 200 generations..." Read the source this is still unclear to you.
ADDRESS this please.
May 20, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I am assuming that you are affiliated with the creation.com site in some way. Do your readers know you reference articles based on info which assumes humans and apes share a common ancestor?
ADDRESS this please.