Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[oval]

I politely propose that fallen man includes a racism, in hording his brand of consciousness to himself.

How more obvious could it be? In addition the grasp in nature of a Maker, due to this hording consequence in thought, not only gets shut closed, but slammed closed in the God exploration.( as easily seen in this thread

Also animals are continuing to show low levels of awareness. Some parrots I think with huge vocabulary’s including indisputable experiments with mirrors. Porpoises, there is evidence all over the place.

I’m surprised here because I remember years ago reading a book, or maybe it was a movie on the life of St Francis Assisi . Birds animals all warming up to him and so forth. Has no one seen things like The Horse Training and relationships?

How is all the noticed communicating going on…physical survival…hmmm Seems like communication and attribute is translated to suit taste in the usual thinking.

Obviously there is a conscious nature to everything bio out of the element synthesis

The way the thinking is going here, you all seem to have the Maker using Trillions and Trillions of life as no more then doormats for the very unique human. And then to top it off it was the only way all powerful could God do it…casualties I guess…a commander in chief.?

The thinking will not allow the individual to be one with creation. Creation will perceive the bias. I wonder if St Francis held the bias, hmm. Don’t think so and I think he would have something to say here.

Obviously from a blade of grass to Einstein all is part of Gods conscious and unconscious creation, adding to it, the billions of galaxies which was necessary to make it all happen. We may as well admit it.

If there was zero huge universe, or zero history in the development of human… existence would be out of order, in the absence of order… Order & consciousness comes about by the well known consequence to random(contrast) within the well known laws or boundaries. Since the odds exist, the outcome must gravitate toward order,like every thing else known, and as we see, it did.

 

[Bradski]

I can see how natural restrictions can arise when creating a system for a particular end; this is to say that a goal or agenda can restrict the way a system works. I don’t think even God can avoid those kinds of limitations.

I’m not sure I agree. The end result that has obtained - this world, is surely a direct result of God’s intention. So if we see agony that serves no purpose, then it is part of God’s plan.

If God arbitrarily creates things just for the sake of it, then I can understand the difficulty in accepting that God would create this particular world. To arbitrarily create a situation in which beings suffer does not make any sense.

Agreed. And I don’t believe that people believe that it’s arbitrary. People feel that we are here because we are God’s plan so everything else has been set up as part of that plan.

But if for instance the Natural Evolution of the Universe is a principle of Gods creative act, then it makes sense that Gods activity is restricted by what ever good that God thinks will come out of creating a universe that naturally evolves.

But as God is omniscient He would know what the result would be. If I write a computer programme and let it run its course, I still (generally) know what result I’ll get.

A naturally evolving universe, as we can see, inevitably involves limitations, errors and suffering; but we can also see good things in that same universe.

Agreed again. But we are effectively removing God from the picture.

Much of our values, our humanity and sense of worth, ironically develops out of our experience of suffering and our desire to stop potential suffering.

Agreed again. But what value do we achieve from animal suffering? When we are quite often, in fact almost totally unaware of it. There were billions of years of evolutions with unimaginable suffering before we even made an appearance. I’m sure that Tonyrey will suggest that any life is better than no life, but what purpose did the pain and agony serve.

If you say that it’s just a natural and unavoidable result of God’s will, then at least we have someone to blame.

It all depends on why God created the universe.

Isn’t it for us? Aren’t we the end result? I’ve been told so many times that the whole box and dice, the universe including the unobservable universe was set up for us.

 

[oval]

We need gravity for a universe…check

We need 2+2=4 for gravity…check

2+2=4 is everywhere in layers upon layers of interconnecting systems

All the 22222222 all the contrast +++++++222222222 all the consequence=====all the

unity444444unity44444unity44444

consciousness is in some form, in all bio as 2(mass) +2(light,element) unity 4

the moment to moment 2+2=4…Happens in every slight(plant) to larger(human) life.conscious moment

it is a collision of 2+2=4 in every conscious moment.

that is why there is pain in everything bio…Order.2+2=4 This equation is import-order, its everything

pain is a representation in the lack of ease in the collision by some bodily or whatever
in the moment to moment conscious experience in the collision of 2+2=4 consciousness is a system…how could it not be…its just a personification

so yes, there would be a slight lowering in the order of “experienced” time-space by arbitrarily yanking a wild plant out of the ground for “absolutely” no good reason…being one with God and his whole creation is what its all about…unity

…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Isn’t it for us? Aren’t we the end result? I’ve been told so many times that the whole box and dice, the universe including the unobservable universe was set up for us.

If I might chime in (don’t mind if I do), the answer to your question is no. God did not create the universe for us. We are understood to be “the crown of his creation”, but all things, from a Christian perspective, were created for Him. We are not privy to God’s ultimate motivations, but it has been oft suggested in Catholic theology that the universe serves other purposes besides us.

 

[Sister_Terese]

“Consider also that while God could in principle create a universe where no suffering ever occurs, this doesn’t mean that it would be a good universe if by doing so a greater good is not achieved. In that respect a universe with no pain becomes a great evil. It all depends on why God created the universe.”

Well, as usual, you guys pretty much lost me. But, I do want to make one reflection on the comment above. God did create a universe where no suffering ever occurred–the problem is that man disobeyed God and because of that, Paradise was lost to mankind. Since I believe that God created all things, what He creates cannot be bad–it MUST be good–PERFECT good. God is the ultimate good, therefore, until we achieve happiness with Him in Heaven, there can only be limited good attained in our earthly existence. God created the universe out of Love. Here is an over-used cliche, but profound TRUTH: God is pure Love. How can the finite mind comprehend that which is infinite? As St. Paul said, (and I am paraphrasing here…) “We see as in a dark mirror. But then we will see all things as they are.” …or whatever it was that he said!

 

[ReapReason]

I’m not sure I agree. The end result that has obtained - this world, is surely a direct result of God’s intention. So if we see agony that serves no purpose, then it is part of God’s plan.

If the end goal of this world is simply that it “exists” (an assumption made by you), then your arguement makes sense. But that is not what Christians hold to be true, and so your arguement here is a straw-man and a poor one at that.

 

[ReapReason]

So if we see agony that serves no purpose, then it is part of God’s plan.

As for the knowledge of what has purpose and what does not; firstly, to speak of the purpose of a particular part within a unified system may only have meaning in light of the end goal of that system as a whole and not in respect of its individual being. Therefore you have to know what the end goal of that system is before you can legitimately judge whether or not any particular part is fulfilling a purpose. Secondly, while a particular thing by itself might not serve any direct and immediate purpose, Its potential existence may still be a necessary or inevitable by-product or requirement of a system that has a particular goal to fulfil. To permit errors in a system is sometimes a good thing if the prevention of those failures do not reflect the end goal of that system. The Permission of Agony, may very well be good, if the prevention of it results in something even more abominable.

 

[Bradski]

The Permission of Agony, may very well be good, if the prevention of it results in something even more abominable.

I think that we’re heading towards a thread killer such as: ‘Who can know God’s will’. But anyway…

I understand (although do not necessarily agree with) the concept that suffering could be required as a means for mankind to rise above it and become somehow better for the experience.

That doesn’t relate to the natural world, and certainly didn’t in the 4 billion years or so that life has been on the planet before we made our entrance. Again, I cannot see how someone can argue against the proposal that God could have set everything up differently. He cannot have been constrained in how things have evolved.

If you don’t believe in evolution, then it’s even more bizzare because you would then believe He created every creature as it is now and they weren’t part of a blind process that He couldn’t or wouldn’t control. He set up a system that was a food chain where most creatures have to kill others to survive.

If we get to the point where we can terra form planets, do you think we’d do the same?

 

[greylorn]

I still do not understand how you choose to not believe in one of the most tested theories of all of physics and astronomy. I imagine it comes second in the ‘most tested theory’ category after quantum mechanics.

I shall assume that this is an honest and sincere question, which leads me to conclude that you are quite young and easily impressed by authority figures. That’s okay. Been there before.

Having astronomers test BB theory is akin to having the Pope test the Shroud of Turin, appointing a gang of foxes to guard the chicken coop, or expecting Democrats to honor the US Constitution. .

I’d have been impressed if, before the WMAP results came in, some scientists would have predicted them, yes, in advance. What we got was a bunch of bobble-headed pinheads declaring that it is exactly what we predicted— well after the fact. Phooey!

Had the WMAP results come back showing complete homogeniety in the background radiation, they would interpret those results as “exactly what we predicted.”

Forget what your perfessors told you. The ultimate test of a decent scientific theory is its ability to predict something as yet undiscovered. That is why Einstein is well respected. His theories predicted nuclear fission/fusion, time dilation, and the gravitational warping of light before these things were discovered.

If the Big Bang theory was worth a damn, it would have predicted Dark Energy and Dark Matter. As things stand now, Big Bang theory cannot even offer an explanation for these things— things which comprise 95% of the universe. It is, therefore, a worthless theory.

 

[tonyrey]

Pain is the result of a fallible defence mechanism which cannot determine when pain is unnecessary or excessive. There are bound to be purposeless events in a system with natural laws.

I am simply stating an indisputable fact which explains why animals** may** experience pain. Whether they do or not is impossible for us to know because we cannot feel what they feel. Both facts undermine the unsubstantiated argument that animals experience excessive pain.

Your second argument consists of examples when the pain is rendered insignificant.

I think that we need to know which you are going with. Do animals feel significant pain in the wild or not?

A false dilemma! Ignorance of how much pain animals experience is an unsound basis for reaching any conclusion. If they do experience pain at all I have given the following reasons why it is mitigated:

1. I know from personal experience that when you are paralysed with fear your blood runs cold, you become numb and are virtually dead.

1. Endorphins in the brain produce analgesia and are far more effective in a natural environment than in man-made cities.

1. People who live in primitive conditions are far tougher than those in a modern environment.

1. In times of battle soldiers are often not even aware they have been seriously wounded.

1. We can only speculate about the feelings of animals in a state of shock.

You have not refuted any of these statements.

Notwithstanding your answer, the world has been set up by God to operate in a particular way.

Design doesn’t exclude evolution. The development towards greater complexity, autonomy, sensitivity and creativity culminating in humanity is powerful evidence that it is not due to a series of accidents.

There are many creatures that are vegetarian (no animal was hurt in the development of the species!).

All types of animals have been hurt as the result of accidents and disease regardless of whether they are herbivores or carnivores.

There is no reason, apart from a natural process of evolution, that animals need to be carnivores. If God is controlling evolution, then why carnivores? Why allow a creature to develop that needs to rip another apart to exist? Unless He doesn’t control evolution.

It is simplistic to think - like Calvin - that not a drop of rain falls without God’s express command. David Hume was more realistic - for the sake of argument - in accepting the belief that God works through the laws of nature. To a certain extent the world is out of control because there is an element of chance within the framework of Design. Conflict and competition are inevitable where there are countless individuals pursuing different goals.

Predation probably originated as the result of physical necessity but at all events it is not intrinsically evil. Life cannot exist without life - or death. Higher forms of life certainly cannot survive and develop solely on a mineral diet. Herbivores spend so much time eating and searching for food they have not progressed mentally to the same extent as carnivores. A human meat-free diet is a luxury enjoyed by intellectual vegetarians like myself as a result of the carnivorous diet of our ancestors!

The following questions put the issue in a nutshell:

1. Do you believe the amount of pain in the world outweighs the immense value of life?
2. Would it be better if life had never existed on this planet?
3. Can you design a better world?

 

[Bradski]

…easily impressed by authority figures. That’s okay. Been there before.

Yep, it wasn’t a singularity. It was a small pea.

It began with the notion that some little cosmic micropea smaller than a proton had always existed, then suddenly exploded without cause.

This is sometimes called the MasterChef Theory of Creation. If you can imagine a small pea in a microwave oven and then you turned the microwave on full power and the pea explodes? Well, it was nothing like that.

Talking of which, you haven’t responded to my question re Hoyle and his buddy. If you’re going to impress us with connections with authority figures, then I think we should know what that connection was.

Perhaps you should investigate the history of the BB theory. I was part of it, being involved in astronomy during the conversation between Gamow and Hoyle, and participated in “end-of-day and over-a-few-beers” kind of arguments with several astronomers

Sounds like you’re name dropping.

 

[greylorn]

Yep, it wasn’t a singularity. It was a small pea.

This is sometimes called the MasterChef Theory of Creation. If you can imagine a small pea in a microwave oven and then you turned the microwave on full power and the pea explodes? Well, it was nothing like that.

Talking of which, you haven’t responded to my question re Hoyle and his buddy. If you’re going to impress us with connections with authority figures, then I think we should know what that connection was.

Sounds like you’re name dropping.

You are becoming less interesting with every post. Answer my questions first, and not with more questions. Else, go pester someone who fancies that you might become interesting some day.

 

[oval]

I think that we’re heading towards a thread killer such as: ‘Who can know God’s will’. But anyway…

I understand (although do not necessarily agree with) the concept that suffering could be required as a means for mankind to rise above it and become somehow better for the experience.

That doesn’t relate to the natural world, and certainly didn’t in the 4 billion years or so that life has been on the planet before we made our entrance. Again, I cannot see how someone can argue against the proposal that God could have set everything up differently. He cannot have been constrained in how things have evolved.

If you don’t believe in evolution, then it’s even more bizzare because you would then believe He created every creature as it is now and they weren’t part of a blind process that He couldn’t or wouldn’t control. He set up a system that was a food chain where most creatures have to kill others to survive.

If we get to the point where we can terra form planets, do you think we’d do the same?

The most obvious answer would be if the universe is a system made up of systems including life then the makers characteristic’s if wondered about at all, may be somewhat system orientated . There is nothing else to use unless you “make it up” And if you make it up, there is nothing real to connect to the natural world because you made up some kind of thing, that has no process. People can say spirit, that seems ok, but the definition is finished with an entity complete within itself. If the entity is complete within itself, there is no doorway other then the idea’s in faith to open and have a look inside, which brings us to exactly these curiosity’s.

 

[oval]

If I might chime in (don’t mind if I do), the answer to your question is no. God did not create the universe for us. We are understood to be “the crown of his creation”, but all things, from a Christian perspective, were created for Him. We are not privy to God’s ultimate motivations, but it has been oft suggested in Catholic theology that the universe serves other purposes besides us.

Well said and makes perfect sense. I think the disposition is fair and reasonable. Lets face it…if anyone was even close to having captured even a shadow of a God, it would be all over every newspaper in the world for days…therefore at this present moment no one is even remotely close to knowing anything with what I call value, outside of spiritual. There would need to be verifiable proof. I think everyone has their own idea’s then again in how proof and value are summed up individually. I have an idea which is based on systems and order…( which I’m fairly sure I will not be introducing to this effort…Ive done far too much work and thought to have it dumped on by hasty thinking , its more for a science orientated forum) …everybody seems to have idea’s…systems again. There is no escape.

 

[Bradski]

Answer my questions first, and not with more questions. Else, go pester someone who fancies that you might become interesting some day.

Are you asking me questions in another thread? Because I can’t find any addressed to me in this one. You said the same thing in post 513 to which I responded:

You must be confusing a question that you asked someone else with one that you thought that you’d asked me. And I’m quite willing to answer any question. Especially if it’s for me.

But maybe I missed it. If so, could you perhaps repeat it? Or maybe you were mistaken. If so, maybe you could ask me one in your next post. Maybe you’ll answer mine when I’ve done so – or you could include in in the next post when you ask that question. It’ll save us both some time.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I shall assume that this is an honest and sincere question, which leads me to conclude that you are quite young and easily impressed by authority figures. That’s okay. Been there before.

Neither young nor easily impressed.

Having astronomers test BB theory is akin to having the Pope test the Shroud of Turin, appointing a gang of foxes to guard the chicken coop, or expecting Democrats to honor the US Constitution. .

Oh, so you would have some condensed matter physicists test the big bang theory? Or would you prefer psychiatrists? Or computer scientists? There is no one better to test the cosmological theory of the big bang than cosmologists and astronomers.

I’d have been impressed if, before the WMAP results came in, some scientists would have predicted them, yes, in advance. What we got was a bunch of bobble-headed pinheads declaring that it is exactly what we predicted— well after the fact. Phooey!

I am beginning to believe that your interest in physics and astronomy is amateur at best. Probably little to no college education on it? One, maybe two classes? The homogeneity of the temperature distribution was a prediction prior to the COBE mission that began construction in the mid-70’s before being launched in '89. On the COBE was the differential microwave radiometer which was to detect the anisotropy of the CMB. Sounds like the prediction came long before WMAP, which did not get into space until 2001.
There are other predictions of the big bang theory as well: the redshift-distance relation probably being the more famous one.

My suggestion is to start reading your history books again, rather than trying to pretend to be a scientist or a writer of new-age/science fiction.

Had the WMAP results come back showing complete homogeniety in the background radiation, they would interpret those results as “exactly what we predicted.”

As above, COBE data showed that in the early 1990’s based on the predictions going back prior to the mid-1970’s.

Forget what your perfessors told you. The ultimate test of a decent scientific theory is its ability to predict something as yet undiscovered. That is why Einstein is well respected. His theories predicted nuclear fission/fusion, time dilation, and the gravitational warping of light before these things were discovered.

Redshift-distance relation, CMB isotropy, neutrino count. Check, check, check. Theories predating empirical evidence.

If the Big Bang theory was worth a damn, it would have predicted Dark Energy and Dark Matter. As things stand now, Big Bang theory cannot even offer an explanation for these things— things which comprise 95% of the universe. It is, therefore, a worthless theory.

Actually, technically speaking, it did predict dark energy due to Einstein wanting a static universe. He just did not know that it was significantly smaller than the unity he assumed. Big bang theory accounts for them just fine. And, if you believe Melia’s R[sub]h[/sub]=ct universe, the equation of state explain the numbers of dark matter.
But, of course, there are many who do not believe in the existence of dark matter.

 

[greylorn]

Well, I’m not able to give you good reasons to locate a reaction like I just described above – say ethanol => ethene + water, acid catalyzed – in deep space. But if you have ethanol (plausible? I know methanol clouds have been identified in space, but methanol is not dehydrative in the way that ethanol is) dehydration taking place, the manufacture is “pre-arranged” by the nature of reaction, no?

OK, well, we are to first base, then.

It’s certainly more complex and more “extreme” in the sense that the conditions for assembly are not nearly so ubiquitous as they are for water, but I suggest these are both differences in degree of complexity/configuration, but not in the “naturalness” of the affinities and rules of chemistry itself. That is to say, yes, it’s a much more exotic product, but such exotic products are no more and no less natural/chemical than water, so far as I can see.

Do I understand you then, in light of your knowledge of chemical synthesis to take a position of incredulity, where DNA (Or RNA, or more rudimentary polymers…) synthesis is considered?

Ahh, that’s a well worn, comfy-couch of a topic for me. I’ve been debating creationists (not saying your are own, can’t quite get a bead on your position yet) for a long time, so this is highly familiar territory. I’d be willing to stipulate that most of the action in that “explosion” is likely bounded by a period of 50 million years. But, while this is a complex topic of its own, it’s important to point out that evolutionary mechanics are incremental not gradualist in the sense that populations evolve and adapt at uniform rates, generation after generation. In sense that is true – genetic mutation rates in reproduction are basically constant, meaning heritable variations are produces at a predictable and consistent rate. But the rate at which variations are affected by the selective pressures of the environment, and thus become fixed in the population, varies wildly.

Horseshoe crabs, for example, are today basically unchanged compared to their ancestors from hundreds of millions of years ago. This is not a sign that heritable variation stopped, or changed at all, or is any different than the variable factors for other animals (whose populations may have adapted and changed dramatically in the same period); the horseshoe crab represents a “local maxima” of adaptations, a niche of high optimization for the environmental context it inhabits.

Evolution can, and observedly does, lurch forward in fits and starts in many cases. It’s still and always incremental, but changes in the environment, and more importantly, changes in adaptions of some species catalyze “great leaps forward” over comparatively small time periods, viewed, against, say, the relative stasis of the horseshoe crab over 500 million years.

If you gotta cram all that development and adaptation into 50 million years, no problem! That is really a stupendously long time – count the generations, for example, for any species you like.

Well, there’s been a whole lot of work done on “molecular clocks”, which addresses this question. As you state it, though, that “simple” rate is not simple at all; it may be a single number, but it’s a function of thorough knowledge of environmental parameters we can’t hope to accurately reconstruct. We’d have to have reliable population sizes, at a local level, for example, in order to derive this number. That’s a challenge that makes “complete fossil lineages” look like tiddly winks. Molecular clocks, which is promising avenue of investigation, but problematic in its own right, works something like the reverse; if we look at observed mutation and change rates that we can measure around us, then we might use that to infer and calculate environmental and population parameters back in time. As we watch the genomics change, and calibrating those rates against fossil markers, if available, we can estimate things like points of species divergence, population densities, etc.

Interesting. Maybe you could sketch out a back-of-the-napkin calculation that shows the problem you found, here?

OK this raises concerns. If we just take a pop-science bit from a couple years ago, we can see how speciation can happen at dizzying rates. In the London Underground , a new species of mosquito has emerged:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

Now, how does this speciation happen? Is this the result of hyper-rapid and “smart” mutations? No, not hardly. Like most speciation paths, this one obtains just due to separating off a sub-population from another population. In order to create two species where there was just one, a very simple recipe: just split the population in two, and keep them segregated. Don’t change any rates of mutation, any mechanics for horizontal gene transfer, none of that. Just divide 'em and wait.

Which is what happened with the London Underground mosquito, as an example here. All across the planet, populations of insects (and all manner of other things) get “split off”, and these new, discreet populations breed amongst themselves, and due to genetic drift, eventually become breeding-incompatible with the population they split off from. Voila! A new species. This scenario is in play all over the place, and is a prolific engine of speciation (and not just for insects).

I think maybe a lot of the concrete elements of the model, and the evidence that attends it and validates it may just not be known to you. This certainly doesn’t strike me as a rejection that is robustly familiar with the theory.

-TS

TS
I’ve been appreciating my conversation with you. My day job, plus publishing work, prevented me from formulating a functional and timely reply to your posts. If you are still around, I’d like to continue. You are one of the few people on CAF whose mind I appreciate.

I propose a shift in the style of our conversation. By now, we each know that we share some levels of technical expertise, so there is no need to expound on that. (Do we really want to discuss the effects of DNA changes on the end caps, or whether mosquitoes who no longer care to breed with other mosquitoes are significantly different species, etc? That I am not interested in copulating with 200 lb. females, or that beautiful young women do not want to mate with me, does not put any of us into a different species.)

This is, after all, a philosophy sub-forum. Might you and I not be better advised to look beyond our data, or even better, use the data as a lens for the viewing of better ideas?

The very fact that you and I have been debating the causes of biological creation suggests that there is something undecided about biological creation. After all, we are not debating whether Newton got his laws right, or that Einstein extended them. Why not? These things are pretty much settled.

Yet, the intellectual side of the planet’s population continues to squabble with the religious side over issues like the origin of life and what it really means to be human. This suggests (you’ll have read Thomas Kuhn, yes?) that both sides are in some way, mistaken. Therefore, I’d like to change the thrust of our conversation.

Instead of defending an establishment belief system (which you do effectively and, to my ongoing surprise, honestly) why not consider an alternative?

I cannot defend conventional beliefs of any sort, having long since decided that they are neither logical nor consistent with physical reality. I feel the same about conventional disbeliefs.

Experience tells me that human consciousness is embodied in an entity that is independent of the human brain-body system, and science has already found evidence for this. For various reasons, I do not believe that this entity owes its creation to the Creator of the universe. I assume that this entity is empirically verifiable.

I’ve developed a simple, yet far-ranging theory for reality which accounts for all the available evidence. It includes a Creator-concept, but that concept is unrelated to the God in which you have wisely chosen to disbelieve. The theory incorporates both knowledge and questions from physics, cosmology, and biology. It affirms the validity of all empirical data, but pretty much blows off currently popular theories about the beginnings.

In other words, it treats cosmological theories and Darwinism as if they were religious theories, because they are.

I would love the opportunity to engage a mind like yours in an honest conversation about an entirely new set of ideas, because you will find flaws that I missed, and can contribute to human understanding in ways that I’d not have considered.

This may not be the right forum for such a discussion, and if not we might seek another. I hope that it is the perfect forum, because I know that there are many posters and lurkers on CAF who are here to learn through conversation.

 

[greylorn]

Are you asking me questions in another thread? Because I can’t find any addressed to me in this one. You said the same thing in post 513 to which I responded:

But maybe I missed it. If so, could you perhaps repeat it? Or maybe you were mistaken. If so, maybe you could ask me one in your next post. Maybe you’ll answer mine when I’ve done so – or you could include in in the next post when you ask that question. It’ll save us both some time.

An even better way to save time is to avoid posters who answer a question with a question, then expect me to research their posts for them.

 

[Bradski]

An even better way to save time is to avoid posters who answer a question with a question, then expect me to research their posts for them.

C’mon Grey. At least give me a clue as to what the question was…

 

[greylorn]

Neither young nor easily impressed.

You sure fooled me there.

Oh, so you would have some condensed matter physicists test the big bang theory? Or would you prefer psychiatrists? Or computer scientists? There is no one better to test the cosmological theory of the big bang than cosmologists and astronomers.

Let’s not be absurd. Regrettably, the only people capable of testing these theories are astronomers, because they have a choke hold on the economic structure needed to do the experiments. An alternative experiment of which they did not approve would never be funded.

Today, science development is under the control of the science establishment, just as, during the time of the Inquisition, theology was under the thumb of the Catholic Church.

I would like to see the Church rise from its intellectual grave and challenge some of the doctrines of science, but that will not happen in the modern day Church.

I am beginning to believe that your interest in physics and astronomy is amateur at best. Probably little to no college education on it? One, maybe two classes? The homogeneity of the temperature distribution was a prediction prior to the COBE mission that began construction in the mid-70’s before being launched in '89. On the COBE was the differential microwave radiometer which was to detect the anisotropy of the CMB. Sounds like the prediction came long before WMAP, which did not get into space until 2001.
There are other predictions of the big bang theory as well: the redshift-distance relation probably being the more famous one.

My suggestion is to start reading your history books again, rather than trying to pretend to be a scientist or a writer of new-age/science fiction.

I actually have a simple BS degree in physics, and learned astronomy from working in the field for 15 years. I managed to contribute to, and do some pioneering work in the field, including writing the control code for the first space telescope. I am not formally instructed in astronomy. The astronomers with whom I had the privilege of working convinced me, after hours, that it was mostly a lot of invented bs anyway. I did write a minor paper on variable stars, derived from my own research, and published under the names of my department chairman and his buddies.

From there I moved on to biochemistry, and have since viewed astronomy from a more distant perspective. I am self-taught and non-credentialed in all subjects since physics/math/EE, and have not been able to maintain a high level of knowledge in all these fields. (Darned day job.) I expect people like you to catch my errors, and point me in the direction of further education.

Early on, I took a wider, philosophical perspective on all my studies, trying to figure out how they contributed to fundamental questions about the nature of reality, and of human consciousness. I’ve been published in this context, and some of my writings were used (in the wrong context) by Doug Hofstadter in The Mind’s I.

As above, COBE data showed that in the early 1990’s based on the predictions going back prior to the mid-1970’s.

Redshift-distance relation, CMB isotropy, neutrino count. Check, check, check. Theories predating empirical evidence.

Give me a break— or even better, a legitimate reference. I worked in astronomy long enough to know what a bunch of B.Essers these wonderful people are. You are just flailing your hands, professing your beliefs.

Actually, technically speaking, it did predict dark energy due to Einstein wanting a static universe. He just did not know that it was significantly smaller than the unity he assumed. Big bang theory accounts for them just fine. And, if you believe Melia’s R[sub]h[/sub]=ct universe, the equation of state explain the numbers of dark matter.

That is utter nonsense. Unfortunately, you do not seem to know it. I do not even know about Melia’s whatever universe, so how can I believe it? I must wonder how a state-equation might apply to a dynamic universe. I’m sure that you will throw more snow, or siht in my direction by way of explanation. I can hardly wait.

But, of course, there are many who do not believe in the existence of dark matter.

This implies that you are one of them. A pseudo-scientist who does not believe in the data. Interesting, and suggestive that your complaints are all about belief.

Are you aware that your cosmological beliefs are anti-Catholic? I wonder what you believe about Darwinism? If you walk a science-dogma line that is parallel to your trust in cosmology, I have to wonder where your belief in God fits in. What is God? What did he do? What is God’s part in creation?