Evolution vs. Creationism. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham.

[Brian]

I doubt that I have ever altered my word usage regarding evolution (or other serious discussions as well). Evolution is a fact. I have no "Bible", not even the TTC. I just spoke to species mutations above. This is my understanding as to how different species arise and until I have been shown better proof and understandings I will stay with my current understandings.

 

Life evolved out of non-life. That is my understanding. My chair evolved out of numerous materials. Evolution or devolution is constantly in progress. Some species devolve themselves into extinction. One day our sun will expand and that will be the end of all life on Earth. There was a time when the Earth did not exist but other objects in the universe existed for over 8 billion years. Man did not create the universe.

 

Man did create his various gods though. Every original culture throughout time has had its own creation theory. And they vary dramatically. They had the need to explain the unexplainable. In my opinion few have come close to anything resembling reality.

Ummm...

 

Your chair did not evolve. It was created.

[Marblehead]

Hi Brian,

 

A rather long but none-the-less interesting post. Thanks.

[Brian]

I want to speak to these two paragraphs.

I used to admire Billy Graham until I found out what his net worth was. All that money he reaised to help other people. He didn't say that one of the 'other people' was himself.

 

This is true for the angry Atheists. No arguement there. But rational Atheists are different. At least I am. That trick you played above has been play by Christians ever since people started claiming to be Atheists. There is no substance to it.

 

I have never said that there are no rights or wrongs. You steal my stereo and you have done me wrong. If I catch you you will have a price to pay. That is the beauty of being an Atheist as well as an Anarchist. We leave others to there own doings as long as they do be doing onto us. The old saying "Don't tread on me." still stands.

I live about two miles from the man and I respect him on a personal level Respected his late wife Ruth even more. His son Franklin less so...

[Marblehead]

Ummm...

 

Your chair did not evolve. It was created.

Really? Well I'll be a son of a gun.

 

[Marblehead]

I live about two miles from the man and I respect him on a personal level Respected his late wife Ruth even more. His son Franklin less so...

Yes, I just said a similar thing about Jimmy Carter.

[Brian]

Scientists are only great grandchildren of philosophers ;-)

I still prefer the term "natural philosophy" over "physics." That's what it was called in Newton's day...

 

[Brian]

Yes, I understand your questioning. Fair is fair. We base our understanding on what we have learned in life.

 

No, not every galaxy is drifting away from each other. The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will collide and merge in about 5 billion years. This is because they both are within one single galaxy cluster and their gravity is attracting each other faster than they can be forced apart.

 

As I mentioned, 'Big Bang' is still a theory. But it is supported by very strong evidence, mostly based on repeated observations.

 

For those who are religious based, the Big Bang theory does not try to contradict the existence of a creating force. What caused the Big Bang? Religious believers can simply say, "God".

Two really important points in MH's post I quoted above.

 

One is the powerful influence of forces -- I stated earlier that every point was moving away from every other point and this is true from a "structure of space-time" perspective but not necessarily from an object-oriented level, in much the same way that a train can go past while kids run around inside the train.

 

The other related to the role of science. Physics is about the "how" rather than the "way" and is confined to the parameters of the model being implemented. The big bang theory says nothing about why the big bang occurred or what caused events prior to t=0 -- it is simply outside the scope of the model.

 

 

Much appreciated!

 

If you could talk a little in terms of the scientific method, give a short primer on theory, and how peer review works? That may be helpful to some here.

 

Gotta run and take care of clients.

I touched briefly on some of this in my post above but I'll expand a little here...

 

Scientific method, in a nutshell, is to pick an item of inquiry, compose a hypothesis as to what you think will happen, develop a model for the mechanics you think explains the expected results, devise an experiment that either confirms or refutes the hypothesis, conduct that experiment, analysis the results (including error analysis), derive a conclusion.

 

To make it a theory, you have to add the ability to predict future events.

 

A simple example might help -- in elementary school, my son did a science project on momentum and energy. He wanted to see if you could make a skateboard move by throwing something while standing in the board. He predicted that you could. His model was based on equal & opposite reaction and his experiment was to throw latex gloves filled with sand. When experimentation confirmed the hypothesis, he expanded the experiment to see what effect throwing two or three gloves at a time (but with approximately the same force) would have. He then did some arithmetic, composed a table and a graph, and did some really rudimentary error analysis -- all in a formal write-up which detailed the whole process in sufficient detail so that someone else could repeat the experiment.

 

Peer review is when someone else with the requisite knowledge and abilities examines your work and comments on your approach. Sometimes this involves that person following your method and repeating your experiment to see if they get the same results.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Brian,

 

Overall very good work in your posts here. Thank you for taking the time for them.

[adept]

This guy talks a lot of sense, and backs it up with science.

http://stephencmeyer.org/

Edited February 6, 2014 by adept

[ralis]

Thanks Brian! Will have a few questions later but until then I must deal with one more client.

[Brian]

So, to understand the problem with teaching creationism as "science," think about how you might go about experimentally validating the theory.

 

While you are thinking about it, though, think about other beliefs which are taught as science that also lack such validation.

 

When we speak of scientific principles, we often are sloppy about stating assumptions or clarifying beliefs or describing models employed -- and is fine among peers or on uncontroversial topics. When the topic impinges upon belief systems (especially culturally engrained ones), there is an ethical responsibility to be very clear about what the data shows and what it doesn't. The language of the conscientious scientist then becomes filled with qualifiers.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Brian

[ralis]

So, to understand the problem with teaching creationism as "science," think about how you might go about experimentally validating the theory.

 

While you are thinking about it, though, think about other beliefs which are taught as science that also lack such validation.

 

When we speak of scientific principles, we often are sloppy about stating assumptions or clarifying beliefs or describing models employed -- and is fine among peers or on uncontroversial topics. When the topic impinges upon belief systems (especially culturally engrained ones), there is an ethical responsibility to be very clear about what the data shows and what it doesn't. The language of the conscientious scientist then becomes filled with qualifiers.

 

 

Belief systems which are usually based on absolutist thinking can be a problem for both sides of this debate. I have had many discussions over the years with research scientists from Los Alamos National Labs and The Santa Fe Institute. Those discussions challenged me to ask well thought out questions and to clearly think before opening my mouth.

[Aetherous]

No, not every galaxy is drifting away from each other. The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies will collide and merge in about 5 billion years. This is because they both are within one single galaxy cluster and their gravity is attracting each other faster than they can be forced apart.

 

So every galaxy-cluster that we're aware of is drifting away from every other? Question for anyone who knows: what is a reliable source for this info? By reliable source, I mean hopefully peer reviewed and based on actual observation rather than mathematics.

 

...

 

To ralis, I was able to watch about half an hour of the Stanford lecture that you posted yesterday. Busy these days.

 

I was only somewhat able to keep up with the math, but in my view there were too many assumptions being made before even getting into the equations. Basically, from what I could understand, it was set up so that if one galaxy is observed to move at a certain speed in a certain direction, then it's assumed that all galaxies move at an equally related speed determined by this invisible grid (which doesn't exist) and equally outward from the chosen center (which is very likely not actually the center of every galaxy). If we had a way to accurately measure each galaxy's true position and movement, I doubt we'd see what the math assumes. But yeah I fully admit that I only understood about 70% of what I saw in the lecture, so maybe my idea about it is wrong.

[Green Tiger]

When we point a telescope at a celestial light source, we see that every single spectral line is shifted towards longer wavelength (the so-called "red shift") AND that there is a direct correlation between shift and distance -- the farther away an object is, the faster it is moving away from us. The mechanics of determining the distances of celestial objects is more complicated than we'll get into here but the correlation is so perfect that we now simply use red-shift to measure distance.

 

It is more interesting than that, though. Astronomers realized that it should be possible to find the center of the universe by mapping out the patterns. What was discovered was that WE are the center of the universe! Not only is every single object moving away from us but the rate of expansion increases in relation to the distance from Earth -- not the center of the Milky Way or whatever -- from the observer. Two explanations came to mind -- either Earth is truly the unique and special center of the universe or the entire universe is expanding. The former is rather egoistic (but not implausible) so the focus was on the latter.

 

Think about an expanding foam, like you might spray into cracks around windows & doors. It expands like a solid rather than like a thin shell as a balloon expands. Rather than being on the surface of an expanding universal balloon, our measurements suggest that all the planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, etc., are inside this expanding blob of cosmic foam, and that every bit of it is expanding in all directions at once, NOT just expanding outward from a central point. This means that the very concept of "the center of the universe" becomes meaningless because every single point tracks back to a single point and every single observer anywhere in the universe calculates that center to be the spot they are standing.

 

 

 

Great post, Brian. It reminded me of an Alan Watts quote:

 

“As you make more and more powerful microscopic instruments, the universe has to get smaller and smaller in order to escape the investigation. Just as when the telescopes become more and more powerful, the galaxies have to recede in order to get away from the telescopes. Because what is happening in all these investigations is this: Through us and through our eyes and senses, the universe is looking at itself. And when you try to turn around to see your own head, what happens? It runs away. You can't get at it."

 

Keep in mind, Watts said this 30 years before anyone was aware that the universe was expanding at an increasing rate.

[Brian]

 

 

Belief systems which are usually based on absolutist thinking can be a problem for both sides of this debate. I have had many discussions over the years with research scientists from Los Alamos National Labs and The Santa Fe Institute. Those discussions challenged me to ask well thought out questions and to clearly think before opening my mouth.

Oh, I TOTALLY agree!

[Brian]

 

So every galaxy-cluster that we're aware of is drifting away from every other? Question for anyone who knows: what is a reliable source for this info? By reliable source, I mean hopefully peer reviewed and based on actual observation rather than mathematics.

 

...

 

To ralis, I was able to watch about half an hour of the Stanford lecture that you posted yesterday. Busy these days.

 

I was only somewhat able to keep up with the math, but in my view there were too many assumptions being made before even getting into the equations. Basically, from what I could understand, it was set up so that if one galaxy is observed to move at a certain speed in a certain direction, then it's assumed that all galaxies move at an equally related speed determined by this invisible grid (which doesn't exist) and equally outward from the chosen center (which is very likely not actually the center of every galaxy). If we had a way to accurately measure each galaxy's true position and movement, I doubt we'd see what the math assumes. But yeah I fully admit that I only understood about 70% of what I saw in the lecture, so maybe my idea about it is wrong.

Think about it this way -- if you are watching a car race and you stand on the side of the track with a radar gun near the end of a straightaway and "shoot" every car as it approaches, you are measuring the speed of the car relative to you. You can then calculate the speed of every car relative to every other car (as of the moment you "clocked" them, of course). You can then calculate the speed of each car relative to someone sitting in the in-field or relative to someone cruising in the blimp overhead or relative to a train passing by (assuming you know their speeds, too...)

 

Equations of motion transform very simply, even if the speeds involved are relativistic (that is to say, close enough to the speed of light for dimensional changes to become significant).

[Nungali]

.....

 

It occurred to me that often the discussion of evolution is actually sophistry by semantics. THe 'bible' on evolution is a book called 'Origin of the Species' yet when an evolutionist is confronted with a question about one species coming from another they say that that is not evolution but speciation, and that evolution is simply change. See the subtle shift in the meaning of the word. Darwin certainly claimed that evolution was the origin of the species.

 

If that is the case then I must (as a guerrilla anthropologist) pick you up on this:

 

Goatguy ; " THe 'bible' on evolution is a book called 'Origin of the Species' ... "

 

Charles Darwin; " ' On the Origin of Species.' "

 

"Sophistry by semantics ..." ? ? ?

 

 

 

If we say that life cannot magically spring forth from non-life, the evolutionist says that is not evolution but a-biogenesis. But going from a Big Bang to having living organisms is a required belief in evolutionism, and the shifting of the conversation to a-biogenesis just a dodge.

 

< Raises an eyebrow > ... but regardless I want to address a basic idea behind this ;

 

It is a classic example of pop-science and 'scientism' : 'The Readers Digest Book of Facts ' ('facts', mind you ) (date - cant remember , sorry ) A section on 'bio-genisis' (not that they called it that) basically outlines the primeval goo idea. It goes like this.

 

From the living first cell /s life evolved and species separated and developed.

 

But where did the first living cells come from ? In the laboratory scientists made up a (supposed) primeval goo copy put it in a flask and stimulated it with electric charge to 'replicate' lightning and other forces . They discovered certain amino- acids were formed that are necessary for the formation of life. There is a gap in the experiment but scientists (there is that overall reference again ) believe that , in the future, they will be be able to replicate this part of the experiment and we will understand how life evolved.

 

I call this classic 'scientism' and this in particular the 'case of the time travelling scientist'. What sort of 'theory' is this for a scientist to be involved with .... we replicate the first half of an experiment ... we have information to conclude the 3rd part of the experiment and we bridge the middle and most crucial part by saying a scientist in the future will be able to do that, and we take him from the future and back in time to now and insert him in the middle part and say this is a valid scientific theory ? ? ?

 

I am glad we have 'Brians' scattered about to help clear some things up

 

But then again he is not relying on his posts here to generating an income or seek a research grant

[thelerner]

So every galaxy-cluster that we're aware of is drifting away from every other? Question for anyone who knows: what is a reliable source for this info? By reliable source, I mean hopefully peer reviewed and based on actual observation rather than mathematics.

This is pretty old information, I believe astronomer Hubble discovered it in the 40's, and it rocked the scientific world and they named the Hubble telescope for him.

<Wrong decade. it was 1929 w/ an old fashion 100 inch telescope. http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1929

 

sample:

1929: Edwin Hubble Discovers the Universe is Expanding

When Edwin Hubble was hired to work at Mount Wilson Observatory in 1919 (part of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington) as a junior astronomer, the most pressing question of the day concerned the nature of the cloudy patches called nebulae. Most of Hubble’s colleagues at Mount Wilson thought they were all in the Milky Way, but he was not so sure. He succeeded in answering this question by taking the best possible photos of these objects, providing convincing evidence that at least some of them were well beyond the Milky Way. By discovering other galaxies Hubble expanded the known universe 100-fold. But he didn’t stop there. By measuring the distances and motions of the galaxies he surprised everyone, including Einstein, by discovering that the universe is expanding.

 

[Apech]

 

This is pretty old information, I believe astronomer Hubble discovered it in the 40's, and it rocked the scientific world and they named the Hubble telescope for him.

<Wrong decade. it was 1929 w/ an old fashion 100 inch telescope. http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1929

 

sample:

1929: Edwin Hubble Discovers the Universe is Expanding

When Edwin Hubble was hired to work at Mount Wilson Observatory in 1919 (part of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington) as a junior astronomer, the most pressing question of the day concerned the nature of the cloudy patches called nebulae. Most of Hubble’s colleagues at Mount Wilson thought they were all in the Milky Way, but he was not so sure. He succeeded in answering this question by taking the best possible photos of these objects, providing convincing evidence that at least some of them were well beyond the Milky Way. By discovering other galaxies Hubble expanded the known universe 100-fold. But he didn’t stop there. By measuring the distances and motions of the galaxies he surprised everyone, including Einstein, by discovering that the universe is expanding.

 

 

 

Also by looking into deep space they can view the light which has taken billions of years to reach us and therefore portrays the galaxies as they were billions of years ago. If they compare galaxy cluster density then to now they can calculate expansion.

[Aetherous]

Think about it this way -- if you are watching a car race and you stand on the side of the track with a radar gun near the end of a straightaway and "shoot" every car as it approaches, you are measuring the speed of the car relative to you. You can then calculate the speed of every car relative to every other car (as of the moment you "clocked" them, of course). You can then calculate the speed of each car relative to someone sitting in the in-field or relative to someone cruising in the blimp overhead or relative to a train passing by (assuming you know their speeds, too...)

 

Equations of motion transform very simply, even if the speeds involved are relativistic (that is to say, close enough to the speed of light for dimensional changes to become significant).

 

In this example, we aren't measuring the relative speed of other race cars based on a non-existent grid that they're all intersected by. We find the relative speeds based on the actual speed measured of each race car in comparison to another actual speed. In pure mathematics, the (nonexistent) grid says that it's impossible for a race car to spin out and start going in the opposite direction. But look at what happens in the reality of the race track...cars can spin out, and can start traveling in the opposite direction. This is because there is no grid that connects all race cars...one car's behavior isn't dictated by the behavior of another in any way, so long as they aren't colliding. Just like it is with other galaxies...unless they are all actually endlessly expanding away from the earth...which would be very strange if true (I'm not the type to just take someone's word that it is true).

[Brian]

Strictly speaking, the cars on the racetrack interact with each other gravitationally and electromagnetically, just as they interact with the Earth gravitationally and electromagnetically. The former interactions are generally dwarfed by the latter, though.

 

The exact same laws of motion and the exact same forces are in play for the cars on the racetrack as for birds in the sky or planets orbiting to Sun or galaxy clusters interacting with each other. The principles of measurement and of mathematics are the same, too.

 

Why would you believe otherwise?

[Aetherous]

I don't, and wasn't saying otherwise. In talking about the grid and mathematics, I'm referring to the first half hour of the Stanford video that ralis posted, just to be clear.

[Brian]

Ah! OK, I didn't watch it.

[Marblehead]

So every galaxy-cluster that we're aware of is drifting away from every other?

I doubt it would be correct to state this to be so. Too many variables. Especially the galaxy's initial movement and its alterations of the gravity of other galaxies.

[thelerner]

It behooves people with scientific aspirations not to get too arrogant. Good science progresses, tearing down old paradigms. Good science is open minded and knows its present models will change. It discredits little and says how can we test it?