Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Well remember that the words in "Beowulf" were almost certainly perfectly clear and understandable to the author writing in the language and experience of his time. But I would have hated to have had to decipher it without assistance from a competent English Lit teacher. (Okay, I hated it anyway but at least I learned something about it.) Even Chaucer is challenging to understand using only 21st century English to decipher it. Bible literature is much older and mucher further removed from modern language, culture, and understandings, and it is tough to understand the original meanings without help from a good Bible scholar. Some I think we don't fully understand yet, and no doubt modern scholars have made some errors in their conclusions, but recently discovered artifacts, excavations, old documents, etc. have helped a us a lot to learn much that was previously mystifying to us.

0 Replies

Trudat Physgard,
....And you you help affirm my position....... My Brother! Cool

0 Replies

Quote:

Even the proponents of this theory admit that for a galaxy to arise out of dust and gas would take a long time. Many years according to some. Thousands of years according to others.

Now tell me again who has documented this process from beginning to end?

Whoa..no one can follow the life cycle of any single gas cluster....however, one reaches conclusions by observing the evolution of different stars which are of different ages. There are methods to determine the age of a particular star..such as the fusion cycle..stars which burn heavier elements..Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen are much older than stars burning hydrogen. Other factors are size, density etc.

Stellar evolution is not a real debate...There are minor points which astrophysicists disagree on, but thats not questioning the validity of the general process. Its a logical and intuitive process for the most part.

0 Replies

real life, you've quite more than adequately established your credentials. I should think there no reason for question concerning the weight of such opinions and expositions as are forwarded under your hand. You're certainly welcome to hold and espose your position. You should expect it to receive its due, and be not dismayed when it does. Remember, it is not you who falls to ridicule, it is the argument you champion which fails to stand.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Whoa..no one can follow the life cycle of any single gas cluster....however, one reaches conclusions by observing the evolution of different stars which are of different ages. There are methods to determine the age of a particular star..such as the fusion cycle..stars which burn heavier elements..Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen are much older than stars burning hydrogen. Other factors are size, density etc.

Stellar evolution is not a real debate...There are minor points which astrophysicists disagree on, but thats not questioning the validity of the general process. Its a logical and intuitive process for the most part.

Thank you, Physgrad, for confirming the obvious for us. The stellar lifecycle is anything but a well documented process as Timber asserted, for the simple reason that no one has lived long enough to document such a thing.

That is why I stated it is (at least at present, and for all practical purposes) an unprovable theory. Verifiable evidence to support it cannot be expected to be accumulated for a loooooooooong time, if ever.

Now of course, assuming stars to be of a certain age does not make it so. Lots of other assumptions that have to be made to make this theory "work" deserve to be challenged.

However from what you are saying there is not much original thought going on concerning this subject today. Too bad.
---------
Therefore, back to it--my question still remains: Where in nature do we see complexity arising spontaneously and all on it's own from simplicity-- no direction, no pattern, no design, just raw energy added?

Anyone else care to give it a go?

0 Replies

Obviously, real life, if one refuses to see it, or through some fault of intellect is unable to see it, then one does not see it. That would be a personal matter.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Obviously, real life, if one refuses to see it, or through some fault of intellect is unable to see it, then one does not see it. That would be a personal matter.

Sorry that you've given up so soon. This time, a slam only, and ZERO attempt to address the topic. Sad to see your argument has sunk to this level.

0 Replies

real life, it is you, through this entire exchange, who has failed to provide substantive support for the proposition you set forth. I submit you alledge there to be a deity, which deity takes interest in and action regarding humankind. Once again, why should there be a deity, and why, if there be a deity, should said entity have interest in and effect on the affairs of humankind? Until you answer those questions, your argument has no credibility whatsoever. Should those questions be accorded incontravertable answer to the affirmative, your argument triumphs, trumping all objection.

Answer the questions.

0 Replies

Quote:

Thank you, Physgrad, for confirming the obvious for us. The stellar lifecycle is anything but a well documented process as Timber asserted, for the simple reason that no one has lived long enough to document such a thing.

That is why I stated it is (at least at present, and for all practical purposes) an unprovable theory. Verifiable evidence to support it cannot be expected to be accumulated for a loooooooooong time, if ever.

Now of course, assuming stars to be of a certain age does not make it so. Lots of other assumptions that have to be made to make this theory "work" deserve to be challenged

okay i'm gonna give this one last shot!! Cool

Did you really think that I meant to support your stance or is that just sarcasm?

first:
Lets differentiate between assumptions and facts
1.No-one is assuming the stars to be of certain age, they are proving the stars to be of certain age. This proof is accomplished by identifying the elements that the stars are burning, rates etc. The identification of elements is accomplished using standard spectroscopic techniques which are proven to work in the lab. I believe freshman physics labs do the spectroscopy experiment, I've TA'd it. So that spectroscopy can identify elements is fact!! No assumptions.

2. It takes a lot more pressure to reach temperatures which would allow you to fuse heavier elements. If lighter elements were still around, then they would burn first..again fact..think of it like using paper to light a log..the paper burns easily and if put together, the paper will burn first.

3. So if you can establish age then observation of stars at different ages samples stellar evolution.

Assumptions:

Not too many..the periodic table..quantum mechanics(for white dwarfs etc.)..certain aspects of nuclear physics..energy mass equivalence..nothing that is not experimentally verifiable.

There is plenty of research in astrophysics, but after you've established certain principles you take research to the next level. You dont sit around questioning facts till you get a result that you want.

Physics is based on observation and experiment, it doesn't matter how you want things to be, you have to modify your theories to fit physical realities.

Also, In physics you need to prove any claims of exceptions. If you believe that 1 particular star is going to evolve contrary to others in the same group(that is others like it), then you better have a real good reason why.

So now I ask you, what assumptions are you referring to? Basic chemistry? Which assumptions in this theory do you want to challenge?

Don't feel too bad about not liking stellar evolution. A lot of people thought galileo was a blasphemer for claiming that the earth revolves around the sun. Something which he concluded after assuming newtonian physics and taking observations.

Noone is asking you to take stellar evolution on faith, I believe a lot of people on this thread have tried to explain it from first principles.

So please, offer a valid objection and then one can debate.

0 Replies

The issue I addressed at the outset was the mathematical impossibility of life originating from nonlife by means of randomness.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, assisted by Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, estimated that the odds obtaining the required enzymes for even the simplest cell to be so high that he termed it "nonsense of the highest order".

"Hoyle infamously compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously, " Wikipedia notes. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

The problem with theories of stellar evolution, as well as many other types of postulated evolution, comes when the theory proposes that complex systems, (or complex organisms, etc) are the result of simple elements arranging themselves by means only of random chance into what we see today.

0 Replies

Anyone care to give it a shot?

0 Replies

God almighty timber..is he always like this...my sympathies...

real life..if you do not want to descend to the level of answering any of my posted questions then thats ok, but then expect the same response.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The issue I addressed at the outset was the mathematical impossibility of life originating from nonlife by means of randomness.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, assisted by Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, estimated that the odds obtaining the required enzymes for even the simplest cell to be so high that he termed it "nonsense of the highest order".

Please state your "mathematical impossibility" in correct mathematical terms.

(Note that "impossibility" means that the "odds" must be infinity:1)

(Not sure Sir Fred was up to date with chaos science)

0 Replies

Hoyle's contributions to science, in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s, were immense, and undeniable. Seems he started getting sorta squirrelly in the '70s, though, and took some pretty wild tangents. Perhaps that came from his chief, and prized, theory, that of the Steady State Universe, being stacked alongside the Ptolemaic System and the Copernican System in the closet of cosmology's greatest misses. His stubborn defense of the Steady State Theory despite its growing failure of congruence with observed phenomena through the '60s and beyond, no doubt is largely why Hoyle bever received Nobel recognition. He wrote some pretty successful fiction, too, and is considered among the giants of that genre. That he formulated and championed a failed theory, and in his later years became a bit .... uhhhhhh .... eccentric does nothing to lessen the impact of his earlier work.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

God almighty timber..is he always like this...my sympathies...

Oh I think it typical of zeal-over-reason religionists in general. I imagine having no logically consistent, forensically valid, academically accepted support for one's argument makes that argument quite difficult to press in logically consistent, forensically valid, academically accepted manner. Faced with this hurdle, religionists - particularly those subscribing to any of the assorted religions sprouting from the Abrahamic mythopaeia - commonly become evasive, distractionary, confrontational, argumentive, even abusive, but never themselves resort to proper argument in support of their core thesis. I think it foolish even to contemplate being done with such; they have nowhere from which to start, so how they might think to get anywhere escapes me. It is entertaining to chase them around their circles though, and they seem to enjoy it.

0 Replies

getting back to the original post..

I'd advise the poster to see what different religions have to offer. For some people religion can enrich life, provide comfort or maybe provide meaning. You'll never know till u try.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Hoyle's contributions to science, in the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s, were immense, and undeniable. Seems he started getting sorta squirrelly in the '70s, though, and took some pretty wild tangents. Perhaps that came from his chief, and prized, theory, that of the Steady State Universe, being stacked alongside the Ptolemaic System and the Copernican System in the closet of cosmology's greatest misses. His stubborn defense of the Steady State Theory despite its growing failure of congruence with observed phenomena through the '60s and beyond, no doubt is largely why Hoyle bever received Nobel recognition. He wrote some pretty successful fiction, too, and is considered among the giants of that genre. That he formulated and championed a failed theory, and in his later years became a bit .... uhhhhhh .... eccentric does nothing to lessen the impact of his earlier work.

Then it should be easy for you to prove his math wrong. Go ahead.

0 Replies

Allow me...

Steady State is wrong.

Therefore Hoyle's maths are wrong.

Besides which...astronomy and maths don't appear to make one the most reliable biologist.

Also, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing he was a theist which could have biased his views enormously.

0 Replies

Hoyle was an atheist early in life. Having coined the term "Big Bang" and elucidated that description of how the universe came into being, he slowly, but more rapidly as he considered it (according to biographers who refer to his correspondence), came about fully, and became a committed theist, saying that a "big bang" event not only was comensurate with a creator, but that it implied the existence of a creator.

This statement is not a commentary on Mr. Hoyle's views. People here know well enough my attitude to such questions.

0 Replies

Yeah, its like you're famous. I mean, everybody who's anybody knows your opinions.

0 Replies

Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know