Theory is science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
How many theories are competing for how life developed on earth?

What are some theories about the orchestration of the universe? How did the orchestration of the universe develop?

What I am trying to ask: if there was a development, which laws came first, second third and so forth.

The universe is highly orchestrated, sorry about the figure of speech. HOW?
 
Jim_Baur said:
How many theories are competing for how life developed on earth?
Click to expand...
There is one theory - evolution - for how life developed on earth. There is no real competition, though there are a few know-nothings shouting about their ideas and claiming there’s a competition.
What are some theories about the orchestration of the universe? How did the orchestration of the universe develop?
Click to expand...
Big bang theory. Just look it up on wikipedia.
What I am trying to ask: if there was a development, which laws came first, second third and so forth.
Click to expand...
That is actually extremely high level physics. I don’t claim to know and I would surprise that a degree in physics would be almost necessary to properly grasp the answer to this question.
 
Evolution is a banned topic.

And the Big Bang sounds like it too is based on not a whole lot.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Evolution is a banned topic.
Click to expand...
Banned to discuss eventually. If it’s the answer to a question, then there is no problem.
And the Big Bang sounds like it too is based on not a whole lot.
Click to expand...
Then I would suggest that you actually open a book on the subject. We both already know how scientifically literate I think you are, so I will hold off on further comment.
 
The official position of the Catholic church is to embrace the big bang. There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-Catholic about it. As a matter of fact the big bang is consistent with creation.
 
Jim_Baur said:
How many theories are competing for how life developed on earth?
Click to expand...
The actual origin of living things themselves and the possible transition of inanimate matter to living matter is still under heavy investigation.

Since you said “developed” though and this implies that life was already around, then, evolution is the only theory hands down.

Science isn’t democratic, we don’t sit around and take a straw-poll on the theory we like best. It’s not really like the humanities either where each idea has supposedly equal merit or you can debate things ad nauseum (like in philosophy). We go where the evidence points us and at this stage, evolution looks like the best explanation and it has a heavy basis in evidence.

I dont understand your orchestration question nor your law question.

Everything scientists discover about the natural world has already previously existed, Gravity didn’t come into being when we could describe it mathematically, evolution was occurring before Darwin described it and diseases existed long before we knew what caused them.

It’s a bit like storing a bunch of your personal items in a dark room of your house. You come back a few months later, the objects in the room have always been there but you don’t know whats there until you turn your torch on and shine the light. Science is a bit like that.

**
 
I hate attacking a brother. Well, actually that’s a lie. I remember being at my grandmother’s wake. An old man came up to me and said,“damn you’re fat”! I would have hit him but it was grandma’s wake. My mom said,“that’s your cousin Tony”. I went up to Tony and said,“I can always lose weight, but you will always be ugly.” Anyway, that is how guys interact.
I strongly disagree with your characterized image of philosophy. Rather then being mental masturbation, philosophy addresses the issues that really matter. And not the empirical,that cannot be explained (by definition ) without a meta-physical system. I am not using meta-physical in the new age sense, rather the academically respectable philosophical sense.
 
wittgenstein said:
I strongly disagree with your characterized image of philosophy. Rather then being mental masturbation, philosophy addresses the issues that really matter. And not the empirical,that cannot be explained (by definition ) without a meta-physical system. I am not using meta-physical in the new age sense, rather the academically respectable philosophical sense.
Click to expand...
If you were talking to me, i don’t disagree.

A lot of atheists (especially those so called “new” atheists, i probably dislike them more than a lot of religious people do) subscribe to scientism or the idea science and religion have to be in conflict and that philosophy is useless. I’m not one of those. Even as an Atheist i kind of buy the idea of NOMA.

So, i wasn’t attacking philosophy. I was more trying to make out science and philosophy are distinct fields, operate in different ways and on different things.

I love philosophy, i probably spend more time reading about it than the actual work i need to do in science, so, i hope that can illustrate i didn’t mean to slight it.
 
For “how life developed”, you mean like how the first living things arose? I don’t think there is anything settled there. Lots of hypotheses and observations and hand-waving, for example the so-called RNA world where RNA molecules could serve as information carriers as well as catalyze their own replication as well as catalyze other types “biological” synthesis; combine this with phenomena like self-assembly of lipids into membranes to form proto-cells, chemical reactions catalyzed on surfaces, etc. and you have the essence of abiogenesis. Nobody has replicated anything quite like that “from scratch” in a lab using basic building blocks like RNA nucleotides which could form by purely abiotic means, but then again no lab experiment happens on the same volume & time scale as primordial earth, i.e. a billion or so years, and whatever the volume of the oceans were then.

Either way, one ends up believing in miracles; in the case I described we try to come up with a plausible physical mechanism for the miracle, but it’s basically a just-so story.
 
wittgenstein said:
The official position of the Catholic church is to embrace the big bang. There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-Catholic about it. As a matter of fact the big bang is consistent with creation.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

In what sense?

By whom?

When?

In order so that I can comprehended, where is this taught and explained?

Thanks for your help!!!
 
Jim_Baur said:
How many theories are competing for how life developed on earth?

What are some theories about the orchestration of the universe? How did the orchestration of the universe develop?

What I am trying to ask: if there was a development, which laws came first, second third and so forth.

The universe is highly orchestrated, sorry about the figure of speech. HOW?
Click to expand...
Funny you use the term “orchestrated”. Science still kicks around String Theory…which at its core…claims that all matter is held together by vibrations. The Bible starts with (properly translated) “God sang out Let there be Light”.
Therefore, we have the WORD keeping us together. Paul writes…“In Him we live and move and have our being”. Is Jesus the Divine song of life?
 
Pugsly

I am the OP.

I am a believing and practicing Catholic.

In the area of philosophy, I desire holding logic, science, math, the arts and philosophy together. The University was developed to study the universe/cosmos.

The early philosophers did just that, that is where I borrowed the idea.

Also, the early philosopher discern there is a structure (Ideas/Forms) in the cosmos.

That is the background for my questioning, questioning the principles of human knowledge and being.

Also, I am of the opinion that math describes the physical laws, but it does not discern the essence of those laws. I am of the opinion that the essences are noumenon.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Pugsly

I am the OP.

I am a believing and practicing Catholic.

In the area of philosophy, I desire holding logic, science, math, the arts and philosophy together. The University was developed to study the universe/cosmos.

The early philosophers did just that, that is where I borrowed the idea.

Also, the early philosopher discern there is a structure (Ideas/Forms) in the cosmos.

That is the background for my questioning, questioning the principles of human knowledge and being.

Also, I am of the opinion that math describes the physical laws, but it does not discern the essence of those laws. I am of the opinion that the essences are noumenon.
Click to expand...
Brother…DNA…is highly organized information written into matter itself. Where there is organization there is a reason at work. Where there is information there is intelligence. DNA is where phenomena and the noumenal meet. God’s fingerprints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top