Religion and Science!

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations - **

If you read that paragraph again, and more closely, you will see that he is confirming that physical beings could not exist before time began. Only metaphysical beings … God, for example. And that is a philosophical question, not for science to decide.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

No, no, no. Everyone knows that purple people eaters only eat purple people.

So that’s how they get to be purple? Sheesh!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

How about Penrose giving a Christmas lecture entitled Aeons Before the Big Bang?

As I said above, Penrose is an atheist … so as far as causality is concerned, he has nowhere to go except aeons before the Big Bang.

 

[grannymh]

(sorry, too good to miss )

And I am sure that 87.73% of CAF posters will miss what is happening in post 315. That is what I am sorry about.

 

[inocente]

If you read that paragraph again, and more closely, you will see that he is confirming that physical beings could not exist before time began. Only metaphysical beings … God, for example. And that is a philosophical question, not for science to decide.

No, you read the paragraph again (no you hangup, no you hangup ).

Your original point was that there couldn’t be time before the big bang, yet Lemaître says “Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe”. Hence he allows a before.

Lemaître goes on to say “as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero”, again allowing a before.

And then “Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning”, again allowing a before.

He even says “We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation”.

Incidentally he may well be correct that in (re)setting the physical clock to zero all evidence of a before was lost, but Penrose thinks there could be a discernable signature in the CMB to settle the question.

As I said above, Penrose is an atheist … so as far as causality is concerned, he has nowhere to go except aeons before the Big Bang.

I’m fairly certain from his writing that Lemaître would not discount a hypothesis on grounds its author is an atheist, but if you want to split scientists into pens then please note the title Christian Scientist has already been taken.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Incidentally he may well be correct that in (re)setting the physical clock to zero all evidence of a before was lost, but Penrose thinks there could be a discernable signature in the CMB to settle the question.**

More could-be. Ho-hum. Why not just more atheist wish-it-were?

Do you actually think that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, did not believe the universe was created?

 

[StAnastasia]

But if you don’t believe me, would you believe the Bible? If I can wrestle you away from Genesis for a moment, try looking at a different creation account. What? There’s another creation account? In the Bible? Really? Psalm 104 (NAB so you’ll feel at home): The Bible itself says Noah’s flood cannot possibly have covered the world, so if it ever happened it must have been just a local flood.

Creationists Drive Young People Out Of The Church: huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/creationists-and-young-christians_b_1096839.html

 

[StAnastasia]

Creationists Drive Young People Out Of The Church: huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/creationists-and-young-christians_b_1096839.html

"Particularly disturbing is the finding that only 27 percent of evangelical pastors “strongly disagree” with the statement that the earth is 6,000 years old. A higher number “strongly agree” that the earth is just 6,000 years old, a conclusion refuted by mountains of evidence. Seven in 10 evangelical pastors “strongly disagree” that “God used evolution to create people.”

Also out this fall is a survey by the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, explaining why most evangelical Christians “disconnect either permanently or for an extended period of time from church life after age 15.” It turns out that science is a major factor."

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia

You have, of course, noticed that nowhere in the article does it allege that young Catholics are being driven out of their Church by Creationism. Actually, the article alleges that young Evangelicals are being driven out of their churches into the Episcopal Church. If true, perhaps from there they will cross the bridge into Catholicism, as many already have.

In that sense Creationism is unwittingly serving as a liaison to Catholicism.

 

[tonyrey]

To build an arch, you cannot just stack stones over air, because they fall. You need to build a supporting scaffolding until you can put the keystone in last, when the pressure of the stones keeps them in place. Then when you take the scaffolding down, everyone wonders how the arch was made.

Your analogy is a delightful example of a designed process!

A similar process happens organically. Duplicate genes switch functions, code for a physical development, which provides an advantage; the development continues to be modified, and some examples disappear…

Belief in an unintelligent information system suggests a misinformed and unintelligent source of belief…!

 

[rossum]

Your analogy is a delightful example of a designed process!
Belief in an unintelligent information system suggests a misinformed and unintelligent source of belief…

However, while it is possible to use a designed process to construct an arch, it is also possible for a natural process to do the same:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In this case the “scaffolding” was the rock that has been eroded away to leave the arch. It is possible for natural processes to mimic designed processes. That is where Behe’s Irreducible Complexity came to grief.

rossum

 

[rossum]

inocente
**
Incidentally he may well be correct that in (re)setting the physical clock to zero all evidence of a before was lost, but Penrose thinks there could be a discernable signature** in the CMB to settle the question.

More could-be. Ho-hum. Why not just more atheist wish-it-were?

Do you actually think that LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, did not believe the universe was created?

Penrose could well be right. See Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’. You might have to put the date of creation a bit longer ago.

rossum

 

[emisher]

Penrose could well be right. See Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’. You might have to put the date of creation a bit longer ago.

rossum

"Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. From inside the parent universe, (italics mine) the event would be surprisingly unspectacular. "

Father Universe??

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia

You have, of course, noticed that nowhere in the article does it allege that young Catholics are being driven out of their Church by Creationism. Actually, the article alleges that young Evangelicals are being driven out of their churches into the Episcopal Church. If true, perhaps from there they will cross the bridge into Catholicism, as many already have.

In that sense Creationism is unwittingly serving as a liaison to Catholicism.

Good – they they won’t be bringing YECism into the Church!

 

[buffalo]

However, while it is possible to use a designed process to construct an arch, it is also possible for a natural process to do the same:

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/17/23/32/natural-arch.jpg

In this case the “scaffolding” was the rock that has been eroded away to leave the arch. It is possible for natural processes to mimic designed processes. That is where Behe’s Irreducible Complexity came to grief.

rossum

We are discussing biologic processes. In the case of natural arches something was eroded away (degraded) leaving an arch but a weaker structure than before.

Start eroding biologic processes which you claim are on the edge anyway and what do you have? Most likely cell death.

 

[grannymh]

However, while it is possible to use a designed process to construct an arch, it is also possible for a natural process to do the same:

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/17/23/32/natural-arch.jpg

In this case the “scaffolding” was the rock that has been eroded away to leave the arch. It is possible for natural processes to mimic designed processes. That is where Behe’s Irreducible Complexity came to grief.

rossum

Is that the eye of the needle?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Penrose could well be right.

More could-be.

What about those could-be purple people-eaters?

 

[buffalo]

Is that the eye of the needle?

Nope - a camel can fit through it.

 

[grannymh]

rossum

Penrose could well be right.

More could-be.

What about those could-be purple people-eaters?

What about those could-be first parents?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StAnastasia

**Good – they they won’t be bringing YECism into the Church! **

But, being fundamentalists by temperament, they might become so orthodox that, as new Catholics, they might put your not-so-orthodox nose out of joint.

Food for thought?