New theory suggests some black holes might predate the Big Bang

May 10, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
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 ; 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 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 .

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 actually goes on forever; that it has no boundaries or borders? Which would mean the 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.

Explore further: Ultrafast imaging of complex systems in 3D at near atomic resolution nears

More information: Persistence of black holes through a cosmological bounce, B. J. Carr, A.A. Coley, arXiv:1104.3796v1 [astro-ph.CO] 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.

Related Stories

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

Nov 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion ...

Black Holes Lead Galaxy Growth

Jan 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers may have solved a cosmic chicken-and-egg problem -- the question of which formed first in the early Universe -- galaxies or the supermassive black holes seen at their cores.

Recommended for you

What's next for the Large Hadron Collider?

20 hours ago

The world's most powerful particle collider is waking up from a well-earned rest. After roughly two years of heavy maintenance, scientists have nearly doubled the power of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ...

User comments : 191

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mahal_Kita
1.6 / 5 (12) May 10, 2011
This idea is an affirmation of my "Mobius Universe" theory. Do proceed, guys :-)
MIBO
2.7 / 5 (11) May 10, 2011
One issue that confuses me is the notion of a pinpoint singularity. If the universe is 20 billion years old and we are able to detect radiation from 20 billion years ago, then at the time the radiation was created the souce emitting it must have been nearly 20 billion light years away from our current location.
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?
Rdavid
4 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
If these primordial black holes "somehow escaped being pulled into the pinpoint singularity," then it's not a singularity, no?
antialias
4.8 / 5 (20) May 10, 2011
MIBO:

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')
Mayday
4.1 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
Question: in a "pinpoint singularity," what defines how much matter(?) and energy will pour out when it finally bangs big? Would not singularity-ness equalize and cancel all quantitative measures of content from the previous crunch?
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (52) May 10, 2011
Good question, I doubt anyone knows.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (21) May 10, 2011
When is the whole big bang / big cruch crap going to be laid to rest?

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.
61SD
2.5 / 5 (15) May 10, 2011
I really have nothing scientific to add to this topic. But as someone who grew up first learning about creationism from a christian school then learning about big bang in high school, I feel that it is a huge diservice to teach children some of these general ideas as fact when we're not even sure of them ourselves. Long ago, children were taught that the earth was flat. Aren't we doing the same thing? We can teach the science that we do know as truth, but the science that we don't know for certain should be taught as theory and 'subject to change'. Religion on the other hand (and I do call myself a Christian) should not be taught at all in schools. Not because it's wrong, but because it isn't right for everyone's culture and beliefs.

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.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (22) May 10, 2011
Gravitation at cosmic scales is almost insignificant.

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.
antialias
4.6 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
Of course with those pesky black holes just staying put.

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.

what defines how much matter(?) and energy will pour out when it finally bangs big?

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.

On a cosmic scale, everything is much farther apart and is actually accelerating.

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.
DavidMcC
4.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011
Primordial black holes are not only consistent with Ashtekar's "big crunch", but also with Smolin's "Fecund universes". The big crunch seems like a side effect of the way Ashtekar ran his simulation backwards from the present and found re-expansion of the bit of space represented by our universe. He couldn't allow for the possibility that what "crunched" was only one massive object within the previous universe, not the whole of it.
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
DavidMcC
not rated yet May 10, 2011
... However, the primordial black holes would have to be very shortly after the "big bang", not before.
61SD
4.6 / 5 (11) May 10, 2011
My comment may have been my first on on here, but it isn't the first time I've read your comments QC. I guess the point of what I was trying to say was lost to you. Thanks for highlighting the non-point.

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.
Johannes414
1.3 / 5 (12) May 10, 2011
The evidence points to a creation event, not to any supposed exploding singularity (whatever a singularity is).
bewertow
3 / 5 (19) May 10, 2011
@ Quantum Conondrum

Do you realize that Jesus is a fairy tale? Seriously, grow up already. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
ILIAD
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
The big-bang did not have 1 singularity; rather it was a composition of an infinite number of bursts, creating 1 universe. The universe is rather flat; more like ribbon candy than a sphere. The ideas for the triggering mechanism for this universe are numerous. Light bends and the visual distance to another galaxy may differ from the actual distance; due to the shape of the universe.

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).
61SD
1.6 / 5 (9) May 10, 2011
@ILIAD

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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) May 10, 2011
So I hope this shows have gravitational acceleration can NEVER, EVER even remotely stop cosmic expansion.
And yet many many SCIENTISTS who are far better at calculating than you believe that gravity can do this you imbecile. Obviously (to most people) something is wrong with your calculating as usual (perhaps the fact that you fail to realize you don't know near enough to do physics?)

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-
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
Aristotle, isn't it the other way round? It is beliefs that tend to stick way beyond their sell-by date, whereas knowledge has to be updated from time to time (ie, gets thrown overboard in a storm). He may have been thinking of moral principles rather than what we call "knowledge".

And it's QC that needs throwing overboard, of course. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (20) May 10, 2011
"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature..."
"Physician, heal thyself." What a sorry character.
First, if you wish to scold a fellow christian, you should do so according to the bible and do it in private
Why is that? You too timid to air your dirty laundry in public? You don't think it's 'healthy' for Religionists to argue as their position is already untenable to begin with? Yuck. I smell cowardice.
61SD
2 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011
There are things in this universe that we do not understand. And as much as we might try, we may never understand these things. The bible may appear to contradict something that we think we know, but could it also be we don't know as much as we think we do?

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.
extremity
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
If black holes suck in everything and compress them, and if this new theory was to hold any truth about black holes being an exempt and able to bypass being a part of a quantum singularity,then, if you shift your thinking a bit, isn't it plausible that the compression of black holes could be a source of a big bang? Essentially, when a black hole's quantum singularity gets to its breaking point it explodes. Although that thinking is a bit of a stretch, its similar to popcorn kernels in a bag. If an un-popped kernel represents a black hole, then, when it reaches a critical point it explodes. A universe's outward force keeps it structured and simply pushes and shifts different universes around. The random bursts of gamma radiation we get are residual shockwaves from other "big bangs" by other black holes. It is rather interesting when you speculate that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy and universe.

Its all highly theoretical with no proof either way
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (59) May 10, 2011
@ Quantum Conondrum

Do you realize that Jesus is a fairy tale? Seriously, grow up already. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?


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.
JamesThomas
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011
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.


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;)
Gawad
3.5 / 5 (15) May 10, 2011
God himself says that "everything imagination of man is only evil continually...Man is evil from his youth".

Their cultures and beliefs NEED to be changed, because that's exactly the fruit of their spiritual condition which is seperating them from God and sending them to hell.
QC, if you really believe that shit, your religion is evil and so are you. You're as screwed up as most Taliban. And your mind-poison dosen't belong on a science site.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature..."

Guess we just throw that commandment away to pacify the worldly political correct agenda? Which is to lie about everything lest the truth offend someone.

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.
61SD
2.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
Again from a christian stand-point: I'm not going to say that my religion is evil but I'm also not going to say that other religions are evil. Why? Not because I think that all religions lead to the same place, but for the same reason everyone here is attacking QC. If I try to force feed some dogma to you, you are more likely to reject it. I may feel that my religion is the only true path, but that path instructs me to never blow myself up for some cause.

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?
Quantum_Conundrum
May 10, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (12) May 10, 2011
Obviously (to most people) something is wrong with your calculating as usual (perhaps the fact that you fail to realize you don't know near enough to do physics?)


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.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
The Light Horizon is allegedly around 15GLY distance in every direction, for any given observer.

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.
julius_sowu
not rated yet May 10, 2011
would explain where the rest of gravity went , or before the bang there was only gravity, theory would then be that we exist on the minutia of what gravity leaked from what was there before "just musing out loud grin"
hardtime_killinfloor
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Black holes surviving a big crunch and big bang cycle seems to imply some sort of relationship between the two.Maybe black holes are affecting the universe in such a way as to produce a singularity and subsiquent bang.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
@Quantum Conundrum:
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/
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (14) May 10, 2011
Further, something I didn't mention earlier, 39 doesn't take one other factor into consideration: The space between the starting point of the photon and it's instantaneous position.

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.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (15) May 10, 2011
@Quantum Conundrum:
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/


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.
Paljor
5 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
I just have to say if matter crunched in the big crunch as the modals predict than why does everyone assume that space itself contracts into a tiny little singularity? wouldn't space make a gigantic gravity well? And a ton of matter formed into a singularity with gravity most likely so strong that not even the light photons escape. that sounds like a black hole to me.

AND CAN WE START DEBATING THE SCIENCE OF THE ARTICLE ONLY! jeez...
ngmcs8203
May 10, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (17) May 10, 2011
no true Christian is anything like a muslim or a suicide bomber.
Most Talids are not suicide bombers. They *are* convinced that anyone who isn't of their religion is going to Hell (including *you*), however, and that it is their duty to proselytize. Just like *you*. Exactly like you. And your blindness to your BS isn't just "silly", is downright crazy. Your HUBRIS in thinking that those who don't share your beliefs are in need of fixing or facing damnation isn't just 'silly', it's SICK almost beyond comprehension. It's the basis for so much blood being spilled throughout history, both within and without xtianity, that calling it evil almost doesn't do it justice. You're already in Hell, Q_C, you're just too goddamn stupid to realize it.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (14) May 10, 2011
Now on my linear approximation above, I came to within margin of error of measurement of the same value of what was calculated on the wiki article...only I derived it myself from memory...ok, pretty damn close, OTTO...

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...
Billy_Madison
1.5 / 5 (13) May 10, 2011
This is too funny, I even signed up to this site just to make a comment.

@ 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.
Paljor
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
I do enjoy these debates slash arguments but after a while it gets annoying. they keep arguing over the same thing...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (13) May 10, 2011
Based on estimates from the Hubble Deep Fields, there are probably around 1 billion galaxies inside the Spherical Light Horizon.

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....
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (13) May 10, 2011
Matter of fact, the hilarious thing is this...

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...
Gawad
2.8 / 5 (14) May 10, 2011
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?
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist. Sorry Billy, but you come off as a *stereotypical* American (whether you are one or not) all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues. Thank goodness, y'all ain't like that-ma cousins down in Richmond ain't none, I kid ya not-but heaven knows, ya sure seem to have a serious deficit in the collective nuance department.
Ramael
3.9 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
Well theres one thing we can all agree on, the bible was a tool designed by wealthy roman polytheists, to control the growing christian population and to subliminally implant the idea of a single unquestionable authority which is only manifested in the form of a priest or politician. Nothing more.

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.
Erscheinung
2.3 / 5 (19) May 10, 2011
...all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues.


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.
Gawad
2.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011
...all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues.
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.
Hey, guess what, you're *also* right. It *is* a "typical black and white caricature of Americans." Which is *why* I called it a *stereotypical* description, oh sharp one. Let me guess, American much because you feel the label might stick in *your* case? Just as guess. And I voted conservative in *our* last elections (not that it helped Stevie), but of course, to folks like you, anything not extreme right wing comes off as leftist, doesn't it? How's *that* for a mush-headed right-wing nut mentality? Then again, if the shoe fits, hey, deal with it.
icecycle66
1.3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
Once again physorg tries to support something discussed at trueliberty.us

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.
rynox
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Did the big bang have any effect on time itself? It seems to me that when you start talking in billions of years, we have to have a better understanding of time, what it is, is it always constant, etc.
Erscheinung
3.4 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
...all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues.
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.
Hey, guess what, you're *also* right. It *is* a "typical black and white caricature of Americans." Which is *why* I called it a *stereotypical* description, oh sharp one. Let me guess, American much because you feel the label might stick in *your* case? Just as guess. And I voted conservative in *our* last elections (not that it helped Stevie), but of course, to folks like you, anything not extreme right wing comes off as leftist, doesn't it? How's *that* for a mush-headed right-wing nut mentality? Then again, if the shoe fits, hey, deal with it.

Just admit you were called out for making the same error that B.Madison did, which was to construct a caricature to argue with.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) May 10, 2011
Did the big bang have any effect on time itself? It seems to me that when you start talking in billions of years, we have to have a better understanding of time, what it is, is it always constant, etc.

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.
J-n
3.9 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011
QC, With all your comments on jesus and religion. With all of your admonishing of others who do not share your beliefs, i still do not see an explanation, reasoning, or ANY acknowledgement of the Bible quotes i have been offering whenever i see you posting bible quotes of your own.

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)

Gawad
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
Just admit you were called out for making the same error that B.Madison did, which was to construct a caricature to argue with.
Wrong. Again. Just admit the application of the caricature went *right over your head*.
Johannes414
2.3 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
Most humans also predate the big bang. It was invented in the 1950's. The big bang started in the minds of its proponents. Its still expanding.
Erscheinung
3 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
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?
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist.


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.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
How in the hell are you going to tell the difference between a black hole that came from a point of "infinite density" as a previous universe collapsed or as a singular creation event?

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.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (54) May 10, 2011
How in the hell are you going to tell the difference between a black hole that came from a point of "infinite density" as a previous universe collapsed or as a singular creation event?

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.


Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.
Pyle
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
MM: I don't understand why we are even discussing this.
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.

Hilarious!
Its all purely speculation of course, as no one has ever actually seen a primordial black hole, or even offered much proof that they exist

Hilariouser!
Gawad
3.6 / 5 (14) May 10, 2011
Muslims got Islam from Mohammad, a false prophet who allegedly based his religion on misquotes of the Bible. He wrote the Koran half a millenium after the last epistle of the Bible was finished. The Koran MIS-quotes the Bible as a "reference" on dozens of occasions, and contradicts itself internally
This is exactly what I mean by your blindness. You have no trouble picking this up as far as religions other than your own, but are completely, utterly unable to apply the same process to yourself. And yet the juxtaposition is so plain, so stark. It's astounding. Q_C, to a "good Muslim", there are *no contradictions in the Koran* either. Get it? Didn't think so. Never mind.
Gawad
3.2 / 5 (11) May 10, 2011
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?
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist.


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.
Hardly: That, Ers, is called a *stretch*. Q_C is reasonably the only "one" that could be behind the motivation for the statement. You'll have to do better then that. And you're still defending religious BS that has no place here.
Physmet
5 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
@QC - you could learn something from Paul. Do you recall Paul at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34)? He connected with them where they were at, such that he was invited to speak to them. He flattered them. He expressed his faith. What he didn't do was come in and say, "Look fools, you're stupid. Believe."

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?
Erscheinung
3.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011
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?
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist.


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.
Hardly: That, Ers, is called a *stretch*. Q_C is reasonably the only "one" that could be behind the motivation for the statement. You'll have to do better then that. And you're still defending religious BS that has no place here.
I am an anti-religion agnostic,, so not defending it. Further I'm not American as you surmised earlier, but Canadian (residing in USA). You call Madison an "idiot" for making presumptions, yet you leave a trail of them, as I have shown.
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011
MM: I don't understand why we are even discussing this.
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.

Hilarious!
Its all purely speculation of course, as no one has ever actually seen a primordial black hole, or even offered much proof that they exist

Hilariouser!


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....

Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.


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.
Gawad
3 / 5 (10) May 10, 2011
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".
Besides, his reasoning is also flawed on several levels. One of which is that his is a stawman argument. *Nobody* was criticizing anyone just for having "beliefs". Everybody has beliefs of all kinds for all kinds of reasons. No, it's Q_C and his ilk's effed up beliefs and their *inappropriateness* here that provoke criticism. Billy was also guilty of false dichotomy: either you're a theist or an atheist, which is false, as well falsely implying that some kind of belief is the only option. Basically, he's just wrong, wrong and more wrong and you agree with him. Congrats.
Jonseer
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2011
"r 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."

I think that sums it up rather well.
Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet May 10, 2011
Does anyone think that the big bang is maybe the otherside of a blackhole, this could explain dark matter or matter from nothing. We as humans cannot perceive this notion though.
Gawad
2.8 / 5 (9) May 10, 2011
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...
The whole paper is simply bizarre. BHs have to be formed within a universe & there's no reasonable way to imagine them escaping a Big Crunch as that would literally require them to escape their own universe. How would they do that? The authors explain that by 'somehow'. Lovely. Never mind that there is currently absolutely no indication that the Big Bang is anything other than a one-off, so where to they get their Big Crunch from other scenarios that have been out dated for over 30 years. Sheesh. Even dark energy is looking more and more like a simple CC rather than some sort of Quintessence field that could conceivably eventually change sign and ultimately reverse expansion. (IMO, this is just one more dead end paper dropped into the arXiv.)
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (55) May 10, 2011
Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.


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.


It follows from thermodynamics.

http://en.wikiped..._entropy
71STARS
2 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
Oh, great! Now we have a theory of "before" the Big Bang. Tell me, what was the composition of the Universe? Wasn't it Pure Hydrogen? How does this equate to constituting a black hole? Did the hydrogen collapse in places to conjure up a vortexed black hole? Unless you tell me what was the composition of the Universe, this article is useless.
Gawad
1 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
Further I'm not American as you surmised earlier but Canadian (residing in USA).
Like I said, it was just a guess. And it would be a wrong guess in your case. But at least its presented as such. And maybe it's time you come back up north for a vacation. As for the rest of it, you'll have to point out exactly how that applies, 'cause you've done a lousy job so far. Er, bro.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (55) May 10, 2011
..The whole paper is simply bizarre. BHs have to be formed within a universe & there's no reasonable way to imagine them escaping a Big Crunch as that would literally require them to escape their own universe. How would they do that? The authors explain that by 'somehow'. Lovely. Never mind that there is currently absolutely no indication that the Big Bang is anything other than a one-off, so where to they get their Big Crunch from other scenarios that have been out dated for over 30 years. Sheesh.


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?
TabulaMentis
1.8 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
Oh, great! Now we have a theory of "before" the Big Bang. Tell me, what was the composition of the Universe? Wasn't it Pure Hydrogen? How does this equate to constituting a black hole? Did the hydrogen collapse in places to conjure up a vortexed black hole? Unless you tell me what was the composition of the Universe, this article is useless.
The weirdest part of the whole idea is that it all started from nothing.
Gawad
2.3 / 5 (6) May 10, 2011
Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.


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.


It follows from thermodynamics.

http://en.wikiped..._entropy
Err. But this applies to the event horizon. I don't see it applying the singularity in any way until the event horizon goes to 0 through hawking radiation, and even then...it's still about the EH.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (52) May 10, 2011
Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.


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.


It follows from thermodynamics.

http://en.wikiped..._entropy
Err. But this applies to the event horizon. I don't see it applying the singularity in any way until the event horizon goes to 0 through hawking radiation, and even then...it's still about the EH.

Hmm, you're correct.
Gawad
1 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011
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.
I remember, and I'm eager for confirmation or obliteration. Penrose is a hell of a sharp guy, but I admit this claim caught me very much off guard.
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?
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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) May 10, 2011
you don't even believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so why would you bother teaching it to someone else.

If you really believed, then you'd care about what othe rpeople believe, and you wouldn't be so apathetic about which "religion" someoen claims to believe.
This is good this is good... QC and the other godders are demonstrating how religions rape the world over conflicting opinions about nonsense and drivel. Have at it. Macht's gut-
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...
And yet...we're still left with the nagging problem of all those SCIENTISTS who disagree with your 2 posts-or-so of calculating. Do you suspect that maybe theres a little more to it than that QC? Something that all those learned people who study for decades and write papers and teach students might know that you dont? Like maybe PHYSICS perhaps??
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011
The box where I am typing this says:
"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.

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.


Theoretically, the difference is entropy,... a black hole having high disorder, while the universe singularity having low.


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...
hush1
2.6 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011
cont...

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.
Billy_Madison
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2011
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist. Sorry Billy, but you come off as a *stereotypical* American (whether you are one or not) all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues. Thank goodness, y'all ain't like that-ma cousins down in Richmond ain't none, I kid ya not-but heaven knows, ya sure seem to have a serious deficit in the collective nuance department.


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.

Billy_Madison
1.8 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
Besides, his reasoning is also flawed on several levels. One of which is that his is a stawman argument. *Nobody* was criticizing anyone just for having "beliefs". Everybody has beliefs of all kinds for all kinds of reasons. No, it's Q_C and his ilk's effed up beliefs and their *inappropriateness* here that provoke criticism. Billy was also guilty of false dichotomy: either you're a theist or an atheist, which is false, as well falsely implying that some kind of belief is the only option. Basically, he's just wrong, wrong and more wrong and you agree with him. Congrats.


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..
n0ns3ns0r
3.7 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011
Gawad:

Again, I cite Jesus...

the REAL Christian theology and doctrine has always been that all unbelievers go to hell.


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.
Johannes414
1.5 / 5 (8) May 11, 2011
Jesus said: I am the resurrection and the life. If you believe on me, you will never die. He said also: unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins. (They did not understand that He was speaking of the Father, the Bible writer adds). The Jews understood: they started throwing stones because Jesus called God His Father, making Himself equal to God.
antialias
4.4 / 5 (13) May 11, 2011
Jesus said: ...

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.
Gawad
3 / 5 (10) May 11, 2011
*Nobody* was criticizing anyone just for having "beliefs". Everybody has beliefs of all kinds for all kinds of reasons.

I believe that anytime you criticize someone for what they believe in, that is criticizing their beliefs am I right or wrong?
That's called a tautology. Were you trying to make a point?
Oh, and yes, you must have a belief or you simply do not think, my friend.
Excuse me, but do you have a reading impediment? Look at that part of quote I left up there. What do you think that means?
Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you believe the air will be breathable?
No, actually, I don't. These are things I *know*. (Well, I'm fairly confident about the air bit anyway)
These are all yeses,
Oops
just ones you never really pondered on.
Pot...kettle
So in other words, a human without beliefs is... not alive. Think...
Like I said, you must have a reading impediment. From a guy leaping to defend Q_C's nonsense, not a big surprise.
Gawad
1.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011
You're *right*. But you're also an idiot for thinking that someone who is disgusted with Q_C's vision of god must be an atheist. Sorry Billy, but you come off as a *stereotypical* American (whether you are one or not) all Bush-like in black & white with no colours or hues. Thank goodness, y'all ain't like that-ma cousins down in Richmond ain't none, I kid ya not-but heaven knows, ya sure seem to have a serious deficit in the collective nuance department.


You single handedly stooped this un-needed debate into a new low.
Just watch me.
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.
Ha! Show me the money!
Billy_Madison
1.8 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
@ Gawad
Exactly what definition of tautology are you using in your criticism? You also avoided the question as well.
Oh, and yes, you must have a belief or you simply do not think, my friend.
What's not to understand?
No, actually, I don't. These are things I *know*. (Well, I'm fairly confident about the air bit anyway)
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...
Ha! Show me the money!
What did you do besides quote me and offer nothing in response but critiques instead of valid argument points?
antonima
1.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011
So we have plenty of black holes and big bangs, and a singularity is not necessarily everything.

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
Gawad
1 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
You also avoided the question as well.
Ask a question that merits an answer and you'll get one. Anything else is a waste of time.
Oh, and yes, you must have a belief or you simply do not think, my friend.
What's not to understand?
"Everybody" includes *me* when I write "everybody has beliefs," so your long winded point about my necessarily having beliefs was just...POINTLESS.

These are things I *know*.
Hmmm...fairly confident doesn't sound like knowing...but more like having faith in...
Then you know little either way if you go on faith the sun will come up tomorrow.
Never was I defending Q_Cs comments in the first place.
Fine.
All your arguments, the way you dissect comments instead of actually arguing against them, seems characteristic of a philosopher...
I'll take that as a compliment.
What did you do besides quote me and offer nothing in response but critiques instead of valid argument points?
How else to respond to pointless statements?
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (52) May 11, 2011
Science is based on inductive reasoning, so is not purely deductive or analytic, which means generalizations of causality are based on particular observations. Such propositions can be made at best to a high degree of probability as the their truth is not ensured in an absolute sense, therefore an element of faith, albeit infinitesimal in cases, remains.

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.
Billy_Madison
2.3 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011
Thank you Noumenon, I don't have the vocabulary to elaborate my voice in such eloquence.

@ Gawad
How else to respond to pointless statements?

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.
Gawad
1.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011
Establish why they are "pointless".
Because the answer was in the very quote from me that you reposted. Jesus. What is it about that that you don't understand? Reread it a dozen times if you have too and stop wasting not just my time but your own.
Gawad, stop being the "internet debate policeman" and prove me wrong.
Billy, are you having persecution fantasies?
I want some valid substance from you.
You're making me worried is what you're doing: I'm not that important.
I see above you have come up with some good arguments for other comments, but not for mine.
(How does one convey dismay in this silly little typing box?) Sheesh! Not that I mean to leave you out, but...look, why do you think that is? As far as the "beliefs" bit it's because you've *already had the answer*; you even quoted it!
Gawad
1 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011
Science is based on inductive reasoning, so is not purely deductive or analytic, which means generalizations of causality are based on particular observations. Such propositions can be made at best to a high degree of probability as the their truth is not ensured in an absolute sense, therefore an element of faith, albeit infinitesimal in cases, remains.
"in *cases*". Granted. Of course. But is the Sun coming up tomorrow one of these? I certainly hope not. Barring being hit by a domain wall, there's just no faith required. It's about *evidence*. And just in case: no, I am not a Boltzmann brain. With 100% confidence. (I'd need an environment in any case, and we'd be back to universe creation as a solution...and even if the latter didn't apply, as a BB I'd have never come up with Q_C to begin with ;^)
Billy_Madison
2 / 5 (4) May 11, 2011
Ahhh, I get it. I just realized what you really are Gawad... a troll.

Barring being hit by a domain wall, there's just no faith required.

How so?
Gawad
1.7 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011
Ahhh, I get it. I just realized what you really are Gawad... a troll.
Well, there you go Billy. Ya registered today and y'already have it all figured out. That's me: the Philosopher Troll. Good boy. Have a noogie. Now, why don't you go pray for me or something.
Billy_Madison
3 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011
Who ever said I was religious? I was simply arguing against something I didn't feel was right.

I also have the standing question "How so" for you to respond to.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (51) May 11, 2011
@Gawad, My statement applies to all scientific reasoning without exception. We have faith that inductive reasoning will lead us to knowledge of reality. If science was deductive as is mathematics, we would not require faith as truths would be obtained with absolute certainty.

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]
Turritopsis
2.2 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011
If the universe began from a singular point in space then one blackhole must have predated it, the universe is its successor. The Big Bang theory calls for a singularity of infinite mass and density that exploded into reality. Could other such blackholes have existed even prior to that event? There are infinite ways of calculating that very thing.

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.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2011
Could it be that a big bang simply doesn't require all matter, just enough (however much that is) to create the reaction? In addition, could it be that distant supermassive black holes may by their very mass resist the pull of the pre-big bang source long enough to not become part of the big bang?
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.
Johannes414
1.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2011
The only scientific theory that is consistent with all the evidence, does not lead to hopeless contradictions and does not require an endless stream of fudge factors:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) May 14, 2011
And this is scientific exactly how? Do you even KNOW what 'scientific' means?
Johannes414
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2011
Please explain, what does scientific mean according to you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) May 14, 2011
The only scientific theory that is consistent with all the evidence
-except for the great load of evidence which contradicts it
does not lead to hopeless contradictions
-except all those that godders choose to ignore
and does not require an endless stream of fudge factors:
-except for the ones godders invent and then say 'well, nobody can understand why god does anything anyway.'

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
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.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) May 14, 2011
Please explain, what does scientific mean according to you?


I'll give you a standard dictionary definition (Webster):
knowledge attained through study or practice or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.


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):
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

God does not conform to testability or collection of data or falsifiability.

Saying "god did it" is the exact opposite of being scientific.
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2011
This has gone to court many times my favorite is McLean v. Arkansas in short the creationist lost the case because there argument was not considered science.
pauljpease
2 / 5 (2) May 14, 2011
Question: in a "pinpoint singularity," what defines how much matter(?) and energy will pour out when it finally bangs big? Would not singularity-ness equalize and cancel all quantitative measures of content from the previous crunch?


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.
Maxter
not rated yet May 15, 2011
Anyone ever calculated the event horizon of the entire universe?
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.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) May 15, 2011
Anyone ever calculated the event horizon of the entire universe?
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.


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.
Wulfgar
not rated yet May 15, 2011
Its my understanding that part of the motivation for this theory is to explain anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background. These anomalies point to something before the big bang, or if your feeling adventurous, perhaps pointing to there being no big bang at all. Coming at this from the point of view of an outsider, there seems to be some elaborate speculation going on here to explain observations that are incongruous with the basic big bang theory. Not to mention that the article admits that there would be no way to tell if this theory is correct or not. I find this very unsatisfying.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2011
Billy Madison

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
QC, if you really believe that shit, your religion is evil and so are you.
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
@ The fellas criticizing one for having beliefs: Have you not realized atheism is a belief system as well?
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.
QC, if you really believe that shit
IS NOT EQUAL TO
for having beliefs
Not even close to equal to that.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2011
Now if you stop doing silly things like that and then compounding it for post after post you might be worth bothering with.

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
eric96
not rated yet May 15, 2011
Answering those questions is a fairly simple problem to solve, but requires so many resources that it probably will never happen at least for another million years if we make it.

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.
WhiteJim
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2011
my personal theory is that there was no big bang. The universe is constantly being created uniformly from every point in space. It is a property of space to perpetually come into being from nothing at the smallest scale possible. If measured it would be a roughly constant value. As a result everything is moving away from everything else because space between them is growing. The more space between two objects the faster they appear to be flying apart because more space is growing between them.

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
Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet May 16, 2011
my personal theory is that there was no big bang. The universe is constantly being created uniformly from every point in space. It is a property of space to perpetually come into being from nothing at the smallest scale possible. If measured it would be a roughly constant value. As a result everything is moving away from everything else because space between them is growing. The more space between two objects the faster they appear to be flying apart because more space is growing between them.

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.-------------------------------------
Then how the hell did matter come from nothing everytime humans get a little closer to the truth the universe get wierder, Not a religous person but its like God is saying," Oh no don't haha" Watch this
Sanescience
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2011
It is fun to read intelligent peoples creative ideas of what the universe may or may not be. People spewing their sociopolitical agendas need to lighten up and enjoy what may be more valuable than all the "hard knowledge" there is in the universe, the spirit of discovery and conversation.

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*
Johannes414
1.4 / 5 (11) May 16, 2011
So science is all about general truth and general laws?

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.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
In a purely material world general truths would not exist,
This does not become true just because you made the ludicrous claim.

and even if they existed we would not be able to know them.
Then why do we actually already know the many that we do since you LIED that we cannot know any?

If man is just a bunch of matter, then knowledge itself is demoted to a meaningless
42. Or the meaning of life is clear. To continue to reproduce. If you find that meaningless please don't reproduce.

General laws such as the laws of logic or the laws of physics
are immaterial principles that reside in the abstract.
Horseshit. The produces the physical laws we live by and indeed emerged from. There in nothing abstract about it.

They are not the property of atoms.
They are properties of the Universe and atoms are an emergent property of the laws of the Universe.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
Without an external and objective standard of truth, these laws would not exist
They exist and no one has any evidence of anything external to the universe. Things do not become true just because your needs them. For instance you religion needs a young Earth. We don't have that.

n a world of random evolution,
Where is that world? It isn't this one. Evolution is NOT random. It is a lie to claim that it is.

So the fact that science and knowledge can exist, provides solid proof for the existence of God.
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.

then prove that a random evolutionary process can generate objective standards of truth such as modus ponens or the law of non-contradiction.
Why would I want to prove a bullshit claim like that.

More
antialias
5 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
Without an external and objective standard of truth, these laws would not exist


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)
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
Evolution is NOT random. This has been pointed out to you before. It is due to Natural Selection and mutations. Selection is NOT random.

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.

I challenge any evolutionist: give me the very best scientific observation by scientists of Darwinian evolution in the past 150 years.
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
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
Or this
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
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
The theory of gravity has been proven because space ships have been observed to fall back to earth and the apple always drops down
That is not proof of a theory. It is evidence IF DONE CORRECTLY in support of a theory. That things fall is FACT. Why and the details of how is theory. Evolution is a fact as can be seen in the fossil record and lab experiment but there are theories of how it occurs. All modern theories of evolution are are related to Darwin and Wallace's theory of Natural Selection. Any study of genetics quickly leads to the conclusion that evolution by natural selection is something that MUST occur and cannot not happen since both mutations and selection do happen.

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
Johannes414
1.6 / 5 (7) May 16, 2011
The universe is material. It consists of matter and energy in a fixed amount of dimensions.

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
Gawad
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
@Gawad, My statement applies to all scientific reasoning without exception.
Sorry, I believe I misread your earlier statement about about "infinitesimal in cases". Actually, in cases where it is "infinitesimal" I take it as = to 0. Such is the case with the Sun coming up tomorrow, AFAIC. To doubt my experience, knowledge, and understanding of that would require me to doubt nature of my existence and existence itself in a way that is typified by my Boltzmann Brain comment (which is why I made it in the first place). Or that Australia may not actually exist because I've never been there myself, even though it's on every so called modern map of the so called world that I've ever seen and one of my so called coworkers claims to be from this place even though his so called Australian accents actually sounds rather British. Hummm... come to think of it, I've never actually been to Great Britain either. I have been to France, though, or so I thought... Sounding silly enough yet?
Johannes414
1.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2011
Dear Ethelred,

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.
Gawad
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Who ever said I was religious? I was simply arguing against something I didn't feel was right.
Then let the "or something" apply instead.
I also have the standing question "How so" for you to respond to.
And *you* hit *me* with the label of "philosopher" and "troll". How's this one for ya: priceless. And to answer your question: until you fix your critical reading impediment you're a waste of time. Go fly an Airbus.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
The universe is material. It consists of matter and energy in a fixed amount of dimensions.
??? So what?
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.
Huh? Without material things all of your "immaterial" doesn't exist. You really don't know anything about information theory do you?
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.
WOW! That was quite the illogical leap. Baseless. Pretty much just an idiotic thing to say.
Your thoughts however are more than electric currents
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.

...
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2011
just as your words are more than just moving air.
Actually all our words here are bits and bytes. Electric currents to magnetic storage, to electrical currents, ...
They have meaning that is not derived from the electrons and air molecules involved.
Yes they do! What is your point?
The fact that we have thoughts and know things, proves evolution as completely false.
Nope. Another illogical leap. Baseless. Pretty much idiotic. Again.
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
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.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) May 16, 2011
And now for my illumination of the true meaning of your last post:

Thanks for the many links that you have posted.
*Didn't click on any of them.*

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.
*LaLaLaLaLaLa I'm not listening. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.*
Thanks and be blessed.
*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.
Gawad
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
...We have faith that inductive reasoning will lead us to knowledge of reality.
This is going to depend on how exactly you interpret "faith". If you take faith as belief without proof (in the sense of mathematical proof), you'll always need faith, even as far as the Sun coming up tomorrow. It's evident to me that that is how you are using "faith" here. AFAIC, this is pretty much useless. I see faith as an act of belief without *evidence* (not *proof* as in math proof) or even belief in contradiction to evidence. I don't think we're on the same wavelength here.

If science was deductive as is mathematics, we would not require faith as truths would be obtained with absolute certainty.

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]

Gawad
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
[I should mention, I am Erscheinung above, logged in multiple devices, not that it matters]
Well, I like you better as Noum.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
Dear Ethelred,

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.


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
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) May 16, 2011
How do you disprove a creator? Impossible. Some religions have been disproven by observational data, this is true, some haven't been but unfortunately there is no scientific tool that can research this because it requires data from outside of our universe - a relative perspective we're confined to - Or do we have to be? Can we exit and reemerge reality? Science fiction says travel faster than light is possible by skipping space and time. There exist some questions that are unprovable but when we prove one that seems unbelievable is greatest. That's human evolution. You can't disprove god until you meet him. That's how it goes.
antialias
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
How do you disprove a creator?

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)

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2011
How do you disprove a creator?

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.

Your first paragraph is correct.

Your second is incomplete. The one claiming existence must provide proof but so does the one making the counterclaim.

Your last statement is assumptive. How do you prove that the first human being didn't believe in god (that that's the norm). In that case the one claiming otherwise (stating there's no creator) must provide proof against the accepted.

Science and religion are divergence out of neutral state. One is based on faith (belief) the other on facts (observations).
(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)


MrPressure
May 17, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2011
MrPressure

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
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
Thanks for the many links that you have posted.
Your welcome. Now try clicking on any of them.

My request however was an observation of Darwinian evolution by scientists in a controlled environment.
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.

Please provide me with the best piece of observational evidence available
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.

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?


Ethelred
antialias
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
Your second is incomplete. The one claiming existence must provide proof but so does the one making the counterclaim.

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.
Johannes414
1.4 / 5 (9) May 17, 2011
Hi Ethelred,

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.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
I answered your question.

There is NO evidence that supports your beliefs. The Flood never happened and you are lying about me not answering.

Ethelred
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
Antialias,

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.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2011
For data on god to exist god himself must exist. Do you understand the difference between faith and science?

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.
antialias
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
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?

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.

Neither option is the sane one in comparison with the other they're just different.

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)
Gawad
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
Hi Ethelred,

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.
Hey, Jo, would you do me a favour? Don't worry, you'll like this. Would you, please, make right with your god (I mean reeeaally right)? Please repent for your sins, do good works and save a dog or cat from an animal shelter. Please. As you may have heard, the Rapture is supposedly in hardly four days. Four days, Jo! And I really, really want you, Q_C and Kevin to get sucked up into Heaven. PLEASE!!!
antialias
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
This is a stupid argument. Especially on a scientific website.

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.

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2011
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?

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.

Neither option is the sane one in comparison with the other they're just different.

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)


You are heavily biased. That's unscientific. You must give each option equal opportunity. Now present me with data that supports your claim.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2011
This is a stupid argument. Especially on a scientific website.

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.



Don't get angry because you've been proven illogical.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2011
Something to add Toronto?
Gawad
2.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
This is a stupid argument. Especially on a scientific website.
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.
Don't get angry because you've been proven illogical.
He hasn't, which only shows you're doubly ignorant. You suffer from Burden of Proof fallacy. Fix it. Look it up: www.nizkor.org/fe...oof.html

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'.)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
Gawad,

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.
antialias
5 / 5 (4) May 17, 2011
Please read up on what 'argument from ignorance' and 'false dichotomy' means. You will find out that you have comitted one of the most basic philosophical fallacies.

A quick look at "Russel's teapot" might also be enlightening as to why the 50/50 claim is absurd.
Gawad
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
Gawad,

Neither side has to prove anything as this is a field based on belief rather than a scientific matter.

This argument is stupid as neither side has any evidence. No data no proof.
While I quite agree that it is ultimately a stupid argument as no proof can ultimately be provided, I think some "exhibits" can reasonably be submitted as "evidence"--even from the scientific domain (fine tuning, etc.)--though I personally don't find them convincing (they're evidence for God for some, evidence of a multiverse for others).
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.
Well, no it's not. You simply don't know what you're talking about as far as scientific burden of proof, especially with respect to extraordinary claims. You really come off as clueless. Sorry. Try reading up on it, starting with the link I provided.
Johannes414
1.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2011
Ethelred,

"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.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2011
Produce proof to show god doesn't exist. I don't have all day. Stop the philosophical gibberjabber and get to the point.

What evidence do you have to prove that god doesn't exist?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) May 17, 2011
Just as I though. Nothing.

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.
Gawad
2.7 / 5 (7) May 17, 2011
Produce proof to show god doesn't exist. I don't have all day. Stop the philosophical gibberjabber and get to the point.

What evidence do you have to prove that god doesn't exist?

But the philosophical gibber jabber uber goober pooper snuper WAS the point! Arrrg!
Karlsbad
not rated yet May 17, 2011
According to radio signals emanating from the center of the Milky Way galaxy (Sgr A*), god may be a sentient super massive black hole.

If this is true_ god sucks.

Now this would explain a great deal.
antialias
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2011
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.

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.

If you're going to come out and claim you know prove it.

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. )
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2011
I beg to disagree
Don't beg. Answer the question. When was it?

The evidence points to a different direction.
There is no evidence for a world wide flood.

In fact, the geological proof for a global flood event is so overwhelming
Overwhelmingly nonexistent.

hat secular science agrees a global flood happened in some form.
Now that is lie. There is NO evidence for global flood. EVER, at any time since life started billions of years ago.

They just refuse to connect the dots back to Genesis.
Yeah the Book that has two different contradictory orders of creation, neither of which match the evidence.

Almost all ancient cultures knew some kind of flood story as clay tablets and inscriptions confirm.
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.

Some even refer to a man called "Nu" or "Noa".
All which came from the Bible. And I do mean ALL.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
One of course is at liberty to believe it never actually happened
One is at liberty to go on the physical evidence. There is none, which is why you are using myth instead of physical evidence. If myths were true then I could just as easily claim that the Earth was licked out of a block of ice by a giant cow. However the physical evidence doesn't support that nor does it support a Great Flood.

, but to say there is no evidence is indicative of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that one often finds with antagonists of the Bible.
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.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
To go over the evidence that doesn't exist.

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
SteveL
4.3 / 5 (4) May 18, 2011
And so once again; another scientific and worthwhile topic gets crushed by religious spam.

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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) May 18, 2011
And so once again; another scientific and worthwhile topic gets crushed by religious spam.

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.
1) Religionists will always show up here and spout. That's what they do. 2) This must be countered and it provides an opportunity to clear up many misconceptions and maybe save some nonexistent souls. 3) This is a valuable community service. 4) It is entertaining and educational. 5) It is easy enough to ignore and parallel discussions take place in threads all the time. 6) It provides the site with valuable traffic and many clicks. Google physorg and see how popular it is. 7) So quit being a noodge.

noodge, also nudzh: to pester, nag, whine; as a noun, a pest or whiner (from Yiddish nudyen, from Polish or Russian)
SteveL
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2011
The problem is that this same thing keeps happening in topic after topic. If you want to get rid of the trolls, do what Yellowstone National Park did to get the bears back out into the woods where they belong (and not on the roads), stop feeding them. I would just like to see us apply a successful tactic that works in nature.

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.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2011
The idea is to change minds. The only way to do that is to engage in discourse. Ignoring them rarely makes them go away. The only way to make them go away is for active moderators to enforce posting rules.

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
Johannes414
1.8 / 5 (5) May 18, 2011
Ethelred,

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"
Gawad
2.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2011
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.
Human genome information available so far is consistent with a population bottleneck approximately 70 000 yrs ago involving a drop in numbers to 8 000 give or take 6 000. The event responsible is almost certainly the Toba Catastrophe. So in terms of timing, you're off by over an order of magnitude; in terms of numbers, you're off by well over *two* orders of magnitude and in terms of the nature of the event, well you basically have the wrong one. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a little flooding was also involved.

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!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2011
The problem is that this same thing keeps happening in topic after topic. If you want to get rid of the trolls, do what Yellowstone National Park did to get the bears back out into the woods where they belong (and not on the roads), stop feeding them. I would just like to see us apply a successful tactic that works in nature.

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.
So dont READ it noodge. Is your scroll finger broken perhaps?

These bears are trying to save the world. Exposure is their food. They will spout whether corrected or not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) May 18, 2011
So in terms of timing, you're off by over an order of magnitude; in terms of numbers, you're off by well over *two* orders of magnitude and in terms of the nature of the event, well you basically have the wrong one. Don't worry, though, I'm sure a little flooding was also involved.
Typical godder deception tactic, quote some impressive facts but leave out the critical ones which disprove their bible tales. Exposed again johann. Maybe some 19th cent seminary scholar can help you out-
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2011
I don't know what your credentials are regarding genetics, but that statement is grossly oversimplyfying the complex issue of genetics.
No it is one hundred percent correct. I did leave out the term 'non-recombinant sections of the Y chromosome' due to the obvious 1000 character limit.

there is no direct one on one relationship between the people on the ark and the current populus.
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
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2011
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.
None of that is true. There was a bottleneck. Long before the Flood is supposed to have occurred. Indeed it was before modern men existed.

(1) The total global variation is less than 0.1 %, which is inconsistent with the measured mutation rate over millions of years.
But fully consistent with a bottleneck tens of thousands of years ago and NOT with just 8 people less than 5000 years ago.

k: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today"
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
Johannes414
1.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2011
Ethelred,

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
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) May 19, 2011
From your own source:
"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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) May 19, 2011
"That event could be the recolonization of Europe after the previous Ice Age by a small band of founders. Or it could have occurred much earlier, a severe bottleneck during the founding of the European population or during the emigration of modern people out of Africa. 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 20 generations, 1,000 individuals for 400 generations, or any other combination with the same ratio."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) May 19, 2011
So. Your source describes a bottleneck 100k years ago OR MORE, which occurred in a euro pop only. And this is shown in comparison to Africans, BOTH groups of which would have survived your flood previous to their separation, and previous to your bottleneck.

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.
Johannes414
1.6 / 5 (7) May 19, 2011
GhostofOtto,

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
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) May 19, 2011
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.
Your attempts at deception are insulting, as is your condescending attitude.

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.
Pyle
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2011
Cherry picking one sentence out of peer reviewed work isn't providing support for your claims. Show us work with that actually mentions your flood event and its timing.

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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) May 19, 2011
I googled his snippet and the first site on the list, even before the papers, is this one:
http://creation.com/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) May 19, 2011
In fact the google list is full of religionist articles. Right after the PDF of the paper, is this site:
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?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2011
Couple more comments on this particular paper; the allele divergence rates resulting in the 30k yr replacement event were based on extrapolating divergence rates between modern humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos. This does not lend itself to kosher creation theories.

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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) May 19, 2011
Sorry here is the original paper PDF:
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2011
Creation is not a science. Creating is.

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?
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2011
All religions are lies, the only real belief is ones own. How do you believe in someone elses belief? That's laughable.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2011
Can anyone prove that the big bang was not God creating the universe? That the physical laws are what they are because they were created to be that way?

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?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
One more thought re allele divergence; divergence in each and every animal that walked onto the ark 2 by 2, all other factors being considered, would point to the same event. Anybody mention this? This would be indisputable corroboration for a global catastrophe, as well as conclusive evidence against if not. But I'm assuming this is not the case.
Johannes414
2.1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
GhostofOtto,

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.
Pyle
2.6 / 5 (5) May 20, 2011
Jojo - Your quote mining from peer reviewed journals was addressed. Otto's behavior is not incoherent. He is rather inflammatory at times, and does cross the occasional line, but I just consider it part of his colorful personality. He hasn't advocated genocide in several months, so I feel he is getting better at controlling hit outbursts. ;)

The fact that some scientists rule out the possibilty of a worldwde flood is just their presupposition.
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.
Johannes414
2.1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2011
There is overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood. The real question is how people interpret this evidence. That is based on their worldview. If you believe in evolution and uniformitarianism, you will interpret the evidence accordingly.

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.
Pyle
3.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2011
Fossils of sea creatures are found all over the planet high above sea level
Really old fossils of sea creatures that lived millions of years ago, not 6000. Besides, how long was your flood?
- Billions of fossils rapidly buried in kilometer thick graveyards
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.
Rapidly deposited sediment layers accross thousands of miles
more nonsense.
No evidence of erosion between the layers, despite supposed millions of years
and more.
Bending and curved layers of sediment of (non vulcanic) rock in many places.
??? 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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) May 20, 2011
@Johan
You mistook my making fun of you for demanding respect I think. Another worldly sign of your cognitive disconnect.
I have given you solid quotes from two peer reviewed articles
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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) May 20, 2011
Just to name a few:
These have all been addressed and explained scientifically which I'm sure you are aware of and yet continue to posit them as if scientists never considered them. Here people tend to call this Marjonism; a repetitive compulsive disorder. You are compelled to post lies repeatedly, and are oblivious to info which discounts what you post.

@Pyle

Bending and curved layers of sediment of (non vulcanic) rock in many places.
I 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?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2011
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
YOUR source claimed it not me. let me post it again:

"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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2011
""Divergence (uncorrected) between bonobo and human was 3.3%. Between common chimpanzee and human it was 4.0% [...] Assuming a molecular clock calibrated by the divergence of humans and bonobos, one can generate via computer simulation the expected distribution of  observed nucleotide differences between sequences ..." -etc. This verbiage is adjacent to a large chart comparing dna of humans and various apes.

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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.