In Science, arriving at the truth of the matter, always matters.
If you were a DA putting together a murder case against me, it would matter a great deal to the jury if I had 40 minutes to drive across town and commit that murder and clean up the scene, or if I only had 4.
Cosmologists job is literally investigating and explaining how the universe developed over the years. Knowing how many years is kind of crucial in that effort.
The processes by which life comes to exist in our Universe still appear to be much more naturalistic than 'designed' even if we disregard the immense spans of time involved.
We can say with a great deal of confidence that the very early Universe was made up of only Hydrogen, Helium and a little Lithium. Those elements had to go through the process of condensing into large concentrations until gravity began to take effect and at a certain point of density, fusion was triggered and the first star began to shine.
After hundreds of millions of years some of these early stars went through the process of collapse and exploding as supernovae, in which heavier elements were formed. Those heavier elements, essential for building rocky planets and making life possible, then had to coalesce from a large disk of gas and dust to form the Solar System we're familiar with.
There isn't anything about that long process that can't be explained by means of current scientific understanding. It looks like an entirely natural process. I think what's much more problematic (for the Creationist) is explaining why any thinking 'agent' would go about things in that way?
What's missing is an understanding of how our Universe emerged in the first place and what it was that caused the first rudimentary lifeform. To answer those questions we need more information and research.
Yes, precisely in this universe with the way all the natural laws work, to know you were in a crime scene if everything could or could not be explained at the scene. If there are things that leads outside of the scene, that cannot be explained the at the scene you have a crime.
If you cannot explain the universe from within the universe you must look outside of it.
You my be making the mistake of thinking that because these questions haven't yet been answered in naturalistic terms, therefore no such explanation is possible but that isn't necessarily the case.
And there are highly speculative hypotheses about the possible emergence of our Universe from some kind of quantum state. So looking outside the Universe for explanations is fine.
You my be making the mistake of thinking that because these questions haven't yet been answered in naturalistic terms, therefore no such explanation is possible but that isn't necessarily the case.
And there are highly speculative hypotheses about the possible emergence of our Universe from some kind of quantum state. So looking outside the Universe for explanations is fine.
Please offer anything that can explain how the universe and life came to be with the properties they have! If there isn’t anything within the universe that can explain it, then outside is where the answers are.
You my be making the mistake of thinking that because these questions haven't yet been answered in naturalistic terms, therefore no such explanation is possible but that isn't necessarily the case.
And there are highly speculative hypotheses about the possible emergence of our Universe from some kind of quantum state. So looking outside the Universe for explanations is fine.
How can you tell the difference between something that is not real and people are looking for it, and confirming something we have no idea what it is?
The processes by which life comes to exist in our Universe still appear to be much more naturalistic than 'designed' even if we disregard the immense spans of time involved.
We can say with a great deal of confidence that the very early Universe was made up of only Hydrogen, Helium and a little Lithium. Those elements had to go through the process of condensing into large concentrations until gravity began to take effect and at a certain point of density, fusion was triggered and the first star began to shine.
After hundreds of millions of years some of these early stars went through the process of collapse and exploding as supernovae, in which heavier elements were formed. Those heavier elements, essential for building rocky planets and making life possible, then had to coalesce from a large disk of gas and dust to form the Solar System we're familiar with.
There isn't anything about that long process that can't be explained by means of current scientific understanding. It looks like an entirely natural process. I think what's much more problematic (for the Creationist) is explaining why any thinking 'agent' would go about things in that way?
What's missing is an understanding of how our Universe emerged in the first place and what it was that caused the first rudimentary lifeform. To answer those questions we need more information and research.
What does a natural process look like, shouldn’t the natural processes be what we see in nature? We see in nature minds manipulating the material world to create meaning and function as we design things. What is natural about processes that don’t degenerate and degrade over time without influence?
Gravity is a force of nature and when it acts on material that possesses mass in such a way as to concentrate that material more and more densely until fusion is tiggered, that's a natural process.
This occured in the very early Universe and caused the first stars to be born. After many millions of years had passed, the fuel became exhausted causing such a star to collapse and then explode, forming a supernova. This is also an entirely natural process.
Under immense pressures and temperatures, simpler elements were formed into heavier ones, also a natural process.
With the best will in the world I cannot fathom why a 'creating mind' would go about things in such a way. Problematic as the emergence of our Universe is, and that of life, the sensible approach is to admit we do not know the answers to such questions at this time.
There are a host of myths, misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the relationship between religion and science. Perhaps the most prevalent and the most pernicious is the one that posits the two are incompatible, that they are, in fact, at war with one another.
The reality of the situation, however, is far more nuanced and interesting than many would have us believe…….
……This conflict does damage to both religion and science. The harm to religion arises from at least two factors. First, many people who have at least a rudimentary understanding of science are put off by the anti-intellectual position of religious leaders demanding that evolutionary theory be rejected. Second, even though it is only a subset of all religious denominations that promote this belief, all religion is tarred by this brush and is broadly perceived as intellectually intolerant and anti-modern. Together these factors lead to fewer people embracing religion and understanding its potential power.
Similarly, the harm to science also arises from at least two factors. First, the denigration of evolution, something so central to science, leads to a refutation of expertise and the belief that science itself is based on opinion rather than data. Second, the animus towards evolutionary theory has dramatically altered the way science is taught. The problem goes far beyond the discipline of biology and shapes the understanding students have of the scientific method itself. When faith, opinion and facts are considered to be equal it becomes impossible to differentiate scientific ideas from non-scientific ideas and society quickly loses much that the Enlightenment has brought us.
Yes, precisely in this universe with the way all the natural laws work, to know you were in a crime scene if everything could or could not be explained at the scene. If there are things that leads outside of the scene, that cannot be explained the at the scene you have a crime.
If you cannot explain the universe from within the universe you must look outside of it.
Yes.
And Science Deniers at one time, used to have a whole list of “things that cannot be explained from within the universe”
But as the centuries rolled by, our understanding of the universe grew. Stronger and stronger.
And the Deniers list grew shorter and shorter.
Because the Deniers have no ground of their own to stand on. They can only hide in the shadows. The areas Science has not uncovered yet. And use that as their “proof.”
But as time moves forward, Science moves forward. And the shadows become fewer and fewer.
One day, all questions will be answered, and the final shadow will be removed. And where then will the Deniers hide?
Gravity is a force of nature and when it acts on material that possesses mass in such a way as to concentrate that material more and more densely until fusion is tiggered, that's a natural process.
This occured in the very early Universe and caused the first stars to be born. After many millions of years had passed, the fuel became exhausted causing such a star to collapse and then explode, forming a supernova. This is also an entirely natural process.
Under immense pressures and temperatures, simpler elements were formed into heavier ones, also a natural process.
With the best will in the world I cannot fathom why a 'creating mind' would go about things in such a way. Problematic as the emergence of our Universe is, and that of life, the sensible approach is to admit we do not know the answers to such questions at this time.
I am quite sure there are many things you don't have answers to in the universe and that is justification for what? What is the difference between something that isn't real that people look for and something that isn't known but is? Most serious people have stopped looking for a perpetual motion machine, you think that wise, should we spend serious time over that or accept the universe doesn't allow for that with the laws that govern it?
There are a host of myths, misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the relationship between religion and science. Perhaps the most prevalent and the most pernicious is the one that posits the two are incompatible, that they are, in fact, at war with one another.
The reality of the situation, however, is far more nuanced and interesting than many would have us believe…….
……This conflict does damage to both religion and science. The harm to religion arises from at least two factors. First, many people who have at least a rudimentary understanding of science are put off by the anti-intellectual position of religious leaders demanding that evolutionary theory be rejected. Second, even though it is only a subset of all religious denominations that promote this belief, all religion is tarred by this brush and is broadly perceived as intellectually intolerant and anti-modern. Together these factors lead to fewer people embracing religion and understanding its potential power.
Similarly, the harm to science also arises from at least two factors. First, the denigration of evolution, something so central to science, leads to a refutation of expertise and the belief that science itself is based on opinion rather than data. Second, the animus towards evolutionary theory has dramatically altered the way science is taught. The problem goes far beyond the discipline of biology and shapes the understanding students have of the scientific method itself. When faith, opinion and facts are considered to be equal it becomes impossible to differentiate scientific ideas from non-scientific ideas and society quickly loses much that the Enlightenment has brought us.
You are treating evolution as if it were a sacred cow of sorts, exactly what is a 'truth' that we dare not question but a dogmatic view!? I cannot recall the man's name that said, "I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that cannot be questioned." Everything we set forth as a possible truth must be questioned, if it cannot be you may as well call it on par with religious text. Science was and is fine with or without evolution, it isn't that important and if it gets in the way of honest discussion, inquiry, and research it has become the problem.
Yes, precisely in this universe with the way all the natural laws work, to know you were in a crime scene if everything could or could not be explained at the scene. If there are things that leads outside of the scene, that cannot be explained the at the scene you have a crime.
If you cannot explain the universe from within the universe you must look outside of it.
Yes.
And Science Deniers at one time, used to have a whole list of “things that cannot be explained from within the universe”
But as the centuries rolled by, our understanding of the universe grew. Stronger and stronger.
And the Deniers list grew shorter and shorter.
Because the Deniers have no ground of their own to stand on. They can only hide in the shadows. The areas Science has not uncovered yet. And use that as their “proof.”
But as time moves forward, Science moves forward. And the shadows become fewer and fewer.
One day, all questions will be answered, and the final shadow will be removed. And where then will the Deniers hide?
You are lumping people who disagree with any theory of evolution as if that were all science is, hardly science is not defined by the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Heaven help you if you believe that, and if you are wrong about evolution, you will have set yourself up to fail by your own blinders not truth.
Professional Biologists often remind us that without evolution nothing in Biology makes any sense!
Please, that is a load, and if you are going to suggest that bring the quote so we can see it in context. It only makes sense if you are attempting to justify a worldview that requires it, if that were not the case it wouldn't make any sense at all. The design theory makes much more sense than mindless evolutionary processes when it comes to the specified functionally complex integrated systems within life than mindless chance and necessity. When information directs it all with a highly complex code, the only natural cause for that is a coder.
Not enough is known to make such an emphatic assertion! How did the Universe come into existence? We do not know.
How did life come into existence? We do not know.
For the time being that is enough. Colourful speculation may be fun but isn't particularly helpful.
Not enough is known to make such an emphatic assertion! How did the Universe come into existence? We do not know.
How did life come into existence? We do not know.
For the time being that is enough. Colourful speculation may be fun but isn't particularly helpful.
This is the point of looking at evidence of those things we do know!!!! There will always be things we do not know. You do not know there is a materialistic answer to the questions, yet you have hung your hat on that have you not, something may show up someday, and with that, you ignore everything we can see, everything we do know.
Nothing colorful about looking at everything we do know and saying according to what we do know, this is the most probable explanation, instead of something we do not know may someday give us something we cannot prove now.
There was a point in the 19th. century when scientists were eager to establish the age of the Earth. Calculations were based on the assumption that our planet was no more than a cooling body and if reasonable estimates of the starting temperature and rate of cooling were used then the time taken to reach it's present temperature could be arrived at.
Ages of the Earth at around several hundred million years kept being produced but geologists knew it had to be much greater because of the time involved for geological processes to take place. Of course this also affected emerging theories of evolution (of life) because they also require considerable periods of time to take place.
These things were seemingly irreconcilable and people at the time might well have thought it pointed clearly to some kind of divine origin since natural explanations just didn't work.
Then radioactivity was discovered and it became clear that the Earth is in fact not several hundred million years old but many thousands of millions. That's to say, you never know what's around the next corner?
My point facts are not things we conclude they are the things we base them on, and to look at a conclusion as if it were a fact is to build your house on shifting sand, when the weather changes your house will fall without a sure foundation. Looking at things and making any claim about what is and isn't 'natural' that we cannot point to in nature that we see is an error, to suggest something that runs counter to what we see in nature as a natural explanation is ludicrous.
There is no difference between waiting for something true to show up when there is no reason to accept it is true and waiting for something that isn't true either, both are without cause except your desire to believe in it.
Although it does matter how much time was involved, it becomes a meaningless question with God, because the length of time would not put any burden on God who is transcendent to time, space, and so on in our universe. Where the real questions come into place is without an agent with an agenda could any of this occur through any other means? We are transcendent beings in this universe, we can produce meaning by arranging the material in the universe so that it is recognizable to others.
That leaves but two possible causes for the arrangement in the universe itself and life was an agent involved? I am telling you how much time doesn't matter, when you write a paragraph and I can read it does it matter that it took you 4 minutes to write it or 4 years? The fact meaningful words were arraigned in any medium in the material world speaks to an agent with a mind.