There certainly is Robin. That’s where those pretending like little children adjust their heads so not to see the elephant.
Against such complete, perfect, consilience there is only the rallying cry of the childishly meretriciously innocently murderously wilfully ignorant, ‘Yeah but’. The ruling class have it so easy.
God could do it easily. If He wanted to. If He had to. He obviously doesn’t. Ever. Why do you blur evidence and interpretation of evidence? Evidence is evidence. Evidence doesn’t change. Cannot change. Evidence is measurement. Which can only improve up to statistical variance, quantum indeterminacy. Evidence for God would be evidence for, by God, in no uncertain terms. Like this from 30:30. Not by pathetic fallacy, in particular the sharpshooter and incredulity.
Exactly, Robin. Something that is growing in size cannot possibly be infinite. Which brings me back to my first question… How can a universe that is expanding equally in all directions FROM a central spot not have a center?
It appears that nobody here has a valid and reasonable explanation for this, which tells me that a lot of us are simply believing things we are told without really thinking about them.
Next we are told that the inflation/explosion sent raw energy shooting out from the singularity in all directions. Within seconds, the four fundamental forces of nature “emerged”.
Does it make sense to anyone here that these forces all just somehow “emerged” from an exploding/inflating singularity? Or do we just accept it on faith because really smart people tell us it happened?
Or perhaps, people are trying to think about things that are just really, really, hard to conceptualize, because they are not part of our ordinary experience.
The fact that some really smart cosmologists can at least make mathematical sense of some of it certainly doesn’t prove they are right - and they will be the first to admit their own developing understandings are far from complete, and almost certainly in need of more data - that puts them ahead of those who (on much lesser grounds) want to pretend that their own understandings are complete, and that no further curiousity is appropriate. I far more admire the Christian thinkers who have the humility to enthuse along with all the curious, more than those whose want for humility leaves them indignant that anybody else should still be on a quest for deeper understandings.
1 Like
I see a word salad of baseless claims. When we see clear indications of design, such as in Stonehenge, rational minds conclude it appears to have been designed because it was designed. So what you call our cognitive bias actually IS rationality.
On the other hand, Dawkins identifying the clear appearance of design in biology, but then concluding that despite those appearances, the living things weren’t designed, is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
Please explain how this “cognitive bias” evolved due to its survival value. Walk us through the process. I’ll start you out…
There were 100 primitive pre-humans living in a local societal group. One of them developed a cognitive bias towards his own significance due to a belief that he was designed for a purpose.
- How did this development occur? Random accidental mutation(s)? Just a passing thought he had?
- How did this particular development in this one particular member of the group cause him to procreate more proficiently, thus ensuring a better survival rate of his progeny?
- How was this particular evolutionary development passed on from him to his offspring?
I’m just thinking out loud here to give you my understanding of what your blanket claim (“it evolved because it had survival value”) really must suggest when you get down into the nuts and bolts of it.
Now I’d really love to hear your nuts and bolts version of the event.
No he didn’t. Again. he identified our cognitive bias. How things appear, not how they are. I’m looking at a red brick wall outside my window, therefore crystals are intentionally meaningful.
What event?
What? We are talking about things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, but then concluding that - despite all appearances - the thing wasn’t designed for a purpose.
My Stonehenge example follows Dawkins’ statement perfectly. It is clearly not a non-sequitur, and I suspect that your response is your attempt to avoid answering the question in the quote box above. But no worries… I’ll just ask it a different way:
-
Is it rational to recognize the clear appearance of design in Stonehenge, but then conclude that it wasn’t designed?
-
Is it rational to recognize the clear appearance of design in living organisms, but then conclude that they weren’t designed?
1 Like
No, it’s not rational to look at a brick wall and say that God has anything to do with crystallography.
How do we know whether or not the results are discordant?
The labs need to know the age of the rock before they test the rock?
Really? Let’s find out if that’s true. What is your field of expertise, James?
Maybe try a little less condescension.
But let me stop you right there for a minute. You’re my professor, and it’s the first lab day in my “Hearing the Cosmic Microwave Background” class.
I walk right up to the device and start twisting knobs at random so I can hear the static left over from BB. What do YOU do at that point?
Audio of the CMB radiation…
This one claims (in the first 30 seconds) that we first heard this radiation while channel surfing on our old TVs…
So then static we can hear on TVs and radios after all, huh?
Anyway, I was speaking colloquially/generally. Even though I’m apparently so stupid that you feel the need to talk to me like I’m a child, I wasn’t asking if you’ve personally cupped your hand to your ear, tilted your head, and heard the CMBR. I may be a dummy, but I’ve seen the episode of The Big Bang Theory where they shot a laser at the moon and then noted that the numbers on the computer screen said they had a direct hit. And the one where Raj was finding new celestial bodies in the universe by watching a string of numbers on his computer screen. So yeah… I assumed there would be electronic instruments involved.
My question still stands. Have you personally been there with Raj and Sheldon and the guys while the sensors were enabling you to hear this CMBR with your own ears? Were you able to ask them how they knew the sound they were picking up with the sensors was for a fact what they claimed it to be? Did you ask them how they could separate this particular radiation from all the other static/noises travelling through our air waves every second of every day? (One of the videos I checked out said they had to remove the pigeons from the roof to make sure they wouldn’t interfere with the readings.) So what about airplanes and radio signals? Did they clear the skies for thousands of miles and halt all local TV and radio stations from broadcasting? Did they prohibit use of microwave ovens during the testing? And did you ask them how - if what they were detecting is the same thing we’ve been hearing on TV sets for decades - their test proved anything at all?
Listen James, the point of me asking if you’ve personally validated this, that or the other is to show you that ALL OF US are just listening to YouTube videos of sounds that I could make on my keyboard, and looking at charts (like the one you posted and like the famous CMB Map) that I could make in my Microsoft Paint app.
Have you personally VERIFIED these things as being 100% factual? Or are you just believing things that other people tell you?
And since we both know that your honest answer is the latter - despite all your attempts to condescendingly teach me about the rigors of science and what a laboratory is for - it still boils down to you believing in the worldview that you do because you’ve been told things by other people and you believe those things.
Now… how can a universe that is expanding out equally in all directions from a CENTRAL POINT not have a CENTER?
Because this is another of the many things these people claim out of the blue, and millions just blindly accept it. I’m trying to get you to think for yourself about some of these nonsensical claims that you just believe on blind faith… in this case, about the many bizarre and irrational claims made by proponents of BB.
How are we able to truly verify that it ever works? By which method do we verify that any radiometric result is accurate?
Well said! Concluding that a thing wasn’t designed after acknowledging all appearances to the contrary would be a perfect example of adjusting one’s head so as not to see the elephant.
1 Like
A fascinating discussion which I am not able to substantially contribute to with respect to the scientific data. But I do find this question about an infinite universe to be wonderful. And while there cannot be an infinite number of objects, is space itself infinite? Which would depend, I suppose, on whether it is infinitely divisible.
1 Like
Or perhaps the rallying cry of a person who isn’t afraid to think for himself asking simple questions like, “But how do you actually KNOW that thing?”
Btw, is this the kind of consilience of which you speak?
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply…” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science , vol. 276, 1976, p. 47.)
“A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” (Kemp, Tom, “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.)
“Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?” (Azar, Larry, “Biologists, Help!,” Bioscience, vol. 28, 1978, pp. 714.)
“Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. …And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about the pattern of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” (Eldridge, Niles, Time Frames , 1985, p. 52)
So much consilience that only a fool would question the claims, right?
You didn’t answer my questions. Please do so in a clear and direct manner. Thanks.
Do you seriously not know the difference between evidence and the interpretations of that evidence? Or are you just making a joke?
I see three problems with your response here. First is the epistemic closure. Shown a clear statement that Popper reconsidered his own views about evolution being scientific, you don’t consider his argument. You simply dismiss it because it disagrees with what you want to be true. The second is about the accuracy of your original statement. As Popper’s later comments make clear, he never argued that common descent was not a testable scientific hypothesis. He argued that natural selection was an untestable assumption. And yet your original claim, which you now say has been vindicated, was about common descent, not natural selection.
Third, you mistake the reason that Popper thought natural selection was untestable. He never (as far as I know) argued that it was untestable because it concerned events in the past which could not be repeated. He argued that it was tautological – that it was defined as the survival of those who survive. And he wasn’t entirely wrong about that: early formulations of natural selection did treat it as deterministic. Later (in the 1960s IIRC) biologists realized that the concept was better defined in probabilistic terms: NS means that the fitter trait is the one more likely to succeed, not that it’s certain to succeed.
3 Likes
You have inadvertently identified the problem, Mervin. What if we were to remove those really smart cosmologists from the equation, and just think for ourselves?
If an object is expanding out equally in all directions from a single point, can there be any doubt that the single point from which it expands out is the center of that object? How could there possibly be a different center? Or worse, no center at all?
Your own God-given common sense tells you this would be true for any such object.
But once we add the really smart cosmologists who say there is no center back into the equation, you apparently go from someone thinking rationally and critically for yourself to someone who is “trying to think about things that are just really, really , hard to conceptualize”.
IMO, the only think making it hard for you to conceptualize is that the really smart cosmologists claimed some utter nonsense, and your brain is having a fight between your God-given common sense and your strong desire to blindly believe the nonsensical thing that the really smart cosmologists said.
I don’t know which claims/questions you are answering here - or if you’re even talking to me. It’s like when Robin said it’s a good thing he’s retiring. I have no idea who she was talking about because she didn’t include a quote with her response.
As for your brick wall… do you think that any particular instance of crystallization gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose? Does anybody think that? If not, you are comparing apples to oranges.
Fair enough. Please answer my questions in the quote box above this time. Thanks.
I’m also waiting for your direct and honest answer to whether or not objects moving away from the observer is the only cause of redshift. Thanks.