Davis

Cardelia Wrote: > Imagine an atom of uranium which is placed in a > perfect vacuum with no forces acting on the atom. > You give the atom some momentum (for example, > velocity of 1 kilometre per year) in a certain > direction and leave it alone. > > Now, if Newton's first law holds true, you could > come back in 1 year and the uranium atom will be 1 > kilometre away from the original point, still > moving in the same direction. You could come back > in 1000 years and the uranium atom would be 1000 > kilometres from the original point, still moving > in the same direction. You could come back in 1 > billion years and the uranium atom would be 1 > billion kilometres from the original point, still > moving in the same direction. And so forth. > > Except that's not what will happen. > > At some point, the uranium atom will undergo a > spontaneous decay process. It will emit an alpha > particle and some gamma radiation. It will change > itself into a thorium atom with lower energy, > lower mass and a different velocity. So if you > come back in 1 billion years, your uranium atom is > no longer 1 billion km from the original starting > point heading in the same direction. It's > somewhere else, heading in a different direction > at a different velocity. In fact, you don't even > have a uranium atom at all. No force has caused > the decay process within the atom, but a change > has occurred. So you've broken Newton's first > law. > > > Do you agree that all which can be observed and > > measured in the universe is finite (meaning it > has > > not always existed and at a certain point it > came > > into existence)? > > If we assume that the universe is a closed system > then no, I don't agree because the first law of > thermodynamics comes into play. Energy cannot be > created or destroyed. Everything which can be > observed and measured has always existed in one > one form or another. I appreciate the explanation you gave relating to Newton's first law. From your example I understand that it is not applicable to every domain. You said 'everything which can be observed and measured has always existed in one one form or another', from this do you mean it is infinite i.e. no beginning and no end? In short, are saying the universe is infinite?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will use scientific language if necessary, > because it reflects the depth of my scientific > knowledge. If you can't cope with it, then I > suggest you don't get into debates on things you > are not knowledgeable enough on (I note you using > well worn lines paraded out by creationists all > the time though). I also suggest you cease > dismissing science you do not understand, while > pushing fairy tales, and trying to sound clever > with playground logic. You made a claim that a > creator exists and you have hard science to prove > it, so, academic papers please Davis. No amount of > condescending long winded deflection from you > changes that you have made a claim you have not as > yet backed up. Hard science please. Blah Blah, You have once again decided to employ your amazingly dismissive and condescending tone. A tone I am sure you have developed over many years, yet a tone I feel you would not use in face to face encounters. I have debated with scholars from various fields as well as people with no higher education and even though we disagreed there was civility and a desire to at least understand the opposing view. Unfortunately, these are qualities you lack. I am neither a scholar or a person any academic merit, but I like to read and study and discuss ideas. What are you? I do not believe in fairy tales including Darwinism and have outlined some of my reasons above. I have presented an argument and have given you the opportunity to engage it in your own words, but alas you have thus far declined.

I do not believe in fairy tales. My beliefs are based on reason and in this post I will present a few of my own arguments against a version of Evolution theory which is used to posit that creation appeared without an external agent i.e. a Creator. In following posts I intend to explain what I mean by a Creator and then present a rational argument based on observation that a Creator exists. Blah Blah and others who may wish to take part in this discussion I kindly ask that you also explain your arguments and beliefs in your own words. I do not feel it is conducive to this discussion to make comments such as biologist have made discoveries in this era or this is something that physicists can explain. If you have belief for or against something, I feel it is fair to ask that you explain it in your own words. If you think my arguments below are wrong than please explain why in your own words and based on your understanding of evolution theory. If we spoke in person this would the format and I ask we replicate this here. My understanding of Evolution theory is that organisms through random mutations and then by natural selection were able to transform from one species into another. According to this theory a particular species would develop a mutation which would give it an advantage and then this mutation would be carried to its offspring and the cycle would continue evolving in this manner. According to the theory this was a slow and long process and thus between species that would have be countless transitional forms. My argument against Evolution theory starts from the initial premise that there is an inherent desire for life in an organism, which then leads to natural selection. The desire to live is a choice as is the desire to die. They are both possibilities. Single-celled micro-organisms or microbes in the most basic form had according to the theory the desire to live. However, the problem is, if this attribute, the desire to live, is a possibility and not inherent what gave it this attribute? It is inconceivable it gave itself this attribute in the same manner it is illogical to assume that a computer program wrote itself. My second argument against Evolution is against the notion that random mutations over millions of years leads one species to transition into another. Mutations according to the theory are random there is no conscience mechanism deciding which mutation is advantageous. The problem with this idea is that even if a mutation is advantageous there is no biological mechanism to guarantee it will be carried on to offspring. The same way a child from parents of which one is a carrier of sickle cell thalassemia is not guaranteed to be a carry of the illness or to suffer from the illness, there is not a guarantee that a random advantageous mutation would be carried on to offspring. This can be confirmed through observation and science. For example, there is no guarantee that Usain Bolt?s children, grandchildren and so on will have an advantageous trait of being able to run fast. Also, related to this topic of mutations is the issue of time and space. According to the theory transitions happened over millions of years that is to say a fish over the period of millions of years developed lungs. However, because these transitions would have been so minute between each generation, they would have served no advantage to the fish with the mutation and thus the concept of natural selection is not applicable. This is explicitly clear when considering the differences between birds and the reptiles they are assumed to have evolved from. Birds have different bone structures which have no advantage to land-dwelling creatures. Natural selection as catalyst of change does not work when considering these points. In relation to space i.e. geographical locations, if evolution is through random mutations how is it that creatures throughout the world, separated by land and sea, have all evolved at the same rate? If the theory of evolution were true, there would be different phases of evolution observed in different regions. However, contrary to this there are not transitional humans (or other species) to be seen even in the most remote regions of the world. Nor is there any reference to humans encountering these transitional forms in the historical record. My third argument against Evolution theory relates to the lack of empirical evidence for what in essence is an extraordinary claim (species transforming into other species by themselves). It is worth noting that just because there are similarities in the DNA of various species this resemblance is itself not proof that they derived from each other. Rather it is proof they have similarities and it is non sequitur to assume from that they originated from each other without additional proof of how the actual transition occurred. According to the theory these transitions happened over millions of years and thus there should be billions (this is just a symbolic number) of translation forms. However, there is no empirical evidence of their existence. Also, according to the theory humans should be on a spectrum ranging from those closest to what they evolved from (namely a primate) and those who are furthest away from what they evolved from. This was the belief of Charles Darwin himself, however, there is no scientific proof to authenticate this claim. If anyone claims Evolution theory is demonstrable, they should be able to present proof of transitional forms.

Cardelia Wrote: > Newton's laws are good for explaining most of the > observable world around us, but they're no good > for explaining something like the origin of the > universe. Once you start looking at the behaviour > of atoms (and smaller particles), especially under > extreme conditions, you need to rely on quantum > mechanics, not classical mechanics. > > Modern physics left Newton's ideas behind over 100 > years ago. For example, radioactive decay violates > Newton's first law, yet we can see it and measure > it. We even use it to power our homes. So I can > deny that Newton's first law is true without my > world collapsing. And I don't need to resort to a > philosophy which is irrelevant to life in order to > use electricity generated from nuclear power > stations to make a cup of tea. Please can you cite a reference that supports your claim that radioactive decay violates Newton's first law. From my research, and I am not a specialist in this field by any account, nuclear decay does not contradict what is inferred from Newton's first law but rather his second law which relates to conservation of energy. 'In 1896, the French physicist Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852?1908) accidentally found that a uranium-rich mineral called pitchblende emits invisible, penetrating rays that can darken a photographic plate enclosed in an opaque envelope. The rays therefore carry energy; but amazingly, the pitchblende emits them continuously without any energy input. This is an apparent violation of the law of conservation of energy, one that we now understand is due to the conversion of a small amount of mass into energy, as related in Einstein?s famous equation'. Reference: https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/collegephysics/chapter/nuclear-radioactivity/ You seem to have a degree of expertise in this area, perhaps this is your field of study. Regardless, it would be very helpful to the discussion to receive your answer to the following question: Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point it came into existence)?

JohnL Wrote: > This is Quantum Stuff not Newtonian stuff though - > and Quantum stuff in extreme conditions. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141106-why-does > -anything-exist-at-all > > And you can't observe due to the uncertainty > principle - so we're b*ggered :) What is it you are uncertain about John? I am certain of Newton's first law it is scientifically proven through observation. Also, according to the scientific principal it must be falsifiable which it is, yet it has not been disproved hence it is a constant, a universal law. To deny it so it fits a theory/belief of how the universe came into existence falls into cognitive dissonance on a ground scale. It would be like someone saying (in relation to the example I gave above of the meal) that their claim the meal came about without an agent is true because their claim proves itself, despite their claim contradicting an established principal. Also, would it make they claim any stronger if they said 'you can't disprove me because you were not there when the meal came about'? Absolutely not. Perhaps now you can begin to see why I said theories like the big bang and Darwinism rely on philosophy.

I understand what you are saying; however, just because we do not know everything it then does not mean we have to deny what we do know. It is illogical to deny what is known based on what is unknown. Would you ever apply this principal to your daily life? I guess not, so why apply it to your core belief?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Davis, Do you believe observations and > measurements are always accurate? Something may > appear to have come into existence because it has > changed form, maybe from something we have no > understanding of. Transformation, change is > constant. TE44, no I do not believe observations and measurements are always accurate. However, I do believe, based on what is provable, that constants exist. For example, Newton's first law essentially states an object does not move unless an external force moves it and an object does not stop unless an external force stops it. This is a constant. If a person denies this their known reality will collapse and they will enter into philosophy. But, the problem is you cannot apply this type of philosophy to life. Let me give you an example. You come home from work and on your dinner table is a meal which you or anyone you know did not prepare. The meal is still hot and appears to be cooked to perfection. Also, the plate the meal is on is not yours. Out of curiosity you taste the meal and confirm it is delicious. You are confused by this occurrence and explain it to a friend. Your friend tells you perhaps all the base elements of the meal and the plate just appeared on your table and then they started moving about which caused heat and reactions and after a while these reactions became the meal and the plate on your table. Would you ever accept this explanation? Regardless, this explanation is impossible based on Newton's first law. Moreover, Newton's first law is provable through the observation of our reality. To deny it would cause reality to collapse and lead us into a philosophy which is not applicable to life. According to the big bang theory elements and extreme temperatures appeared and started moving and this caused reactions which lead to the universe. Besides other things this contradicts Newton's first law. How did these elements appear and then start moving without an external force ( an agent of change)? To believe this is to deny what is observable. Moreover, if you believe this you must also, by logic, believe that it is possible for a meal to appear on your table without anything causing it.

Kidkugger I reject what you have said. You talk about religion but are too arrogant to acknowledge you indeed have a religion. You seem to be filled with hate and unhappiness and project this here by favoring insults over an intellectual discussion. Perhaps you hate yourself. You are rude and arrogant and I do not wish to discuss with you any further.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Human kind has eyes, I have eyes, you have eyes, , > animals on land and in the sea have eyes, we all > have eyes. But what you see with your eyes is what > matters. You never really answered the question, but nevertheless it is relevant to add what we see is affected by ideology i.e. what we perceive can be very different than what is in front of our eyes. Perhaps there may be truth in the play of words that real eyes realize real lies.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Davis, from what you've said my understanding id > that you don't believe their is a God or greater > power, (apart from the power of nature itself) and > that we didn't evolve from creatures in the sea or > apes or chimpanzee? dbboy, I believe in a God, a Creator, who brought the universe into existence with purpose and wisdom. My belief is based on 'hard science' and objectively quantifiable evidence. dbboy, look into the mirror and look deep into your eyes and contemplate. Do you think that your eyes which are far more complex and beautiful than any camera, came about by accident? What is your belief in how they came about?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can argue it Davis, but you seem to have > little understanding of the science around DNA. We > may not have all the links for every species and > their evolution, but the principle is correct. And > creationists and all the other religious > detractors to that out there, are cranks. > > The Sun God was an an example of the form that the > evolution of god theories took. There are plenty > of written examples of pagan civilisations and > their supernatural beliefs, and polytheism like > the early Romans and Greeks, so we do know a fair > amount about why these beliefs existed. It is also > why transitions from that to monotheism have made > absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever. > The sun still rises, the wind still blows a gale > sometimes, and sometimes crops still fail. > > I think everything that genuinely exists can be > measured yes, because we can already measure so > much and the history of science is in part the > history of debunking previously held beliefs and > theories that were based on no real science > whatsoever. > > Science does not claim to know for certain there > was a big bang, nor of what existed before. But > people far cleverer than you and I have got us to > the level of understanding that we do have, about > what we are, and what the universe is around us. > We know for example that this solar system will > cease to exist at some point as the Sun expands > and swallows us up (we will be long gone before > then). Only the arrogance of human philosophy > thinks we are any more important than that. I > certainly won't be entertaining fantasy theories > around God or creators as fact, unless someone > provides scientific evidence of such, and think it > perfectly sensible to hold that approach. > > TE44, I tend to agree with you. I just get annoyed > at anyone saying certain ideas exist in a > measurable way, when they absolutely don't, and > Gods/ creators are an example of that. There is a > big difference between saying, I think God exists, > and saying I know God exists. Knowing something > that is not proven (or disproved even), is kind of > where this conversation began anyway. Blah Blah there are many inaccuracies in your above post and fundamentally you failed to answer the foundational question I posed. However, I admit, on reflection, I did present many questions and you may have missed it; also it is unrealistic to think you would have the time to address all my questions. Likewise, I do not have the time to address every error in your previous post but I will repost the same foundational question again in the hope we can have a measured and scientific discussion on the topic stemming from this question. Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point in time came into existence)?

Kidkruger, I do not believe in a ?big ju-ju man? in the sky. Who does? Or is this your attempt to ridicule me? It would be a better show of character to engage the discussion with evidence and reason rather than mockery which I condemn and reject. What do you believe in, can you support it with evidence and reason? Do believe in Darwinism? If so I should make it clear I find it quite regressive to believe in an ideology based on racial hierarchy and one that posits human existence is the result of an elaborate accident. It is an ideology based on a belief that contradicts what is observable and measurable. When was the last time you saw a half human half primate in the museum? It should not be hard to find them as there should be an unaccountable amount of these transnational forms. You said ?at this advanced ( in some respects only, obvious) stage?, which social and political respects do you consider to be advanced? The growing economic inequality, the fact that one in five women are sexually harassed in the UK, the continued destruction of the planet, or is it the many European wars fought for greed and exploitation? Moreover, you should know that there is nothing advanced in your patronizing tone, rather it is astoundingly regressive.

I would argue that you are mistaken in many of your assertions and incorrect in your claim that DNA and genetic science have proven evolution theory. Where are all the uncountable number of transitional forms? Also, what is the evidence that the first god worshiped was the sun? Can you cite a source to support your claim? The belief in a Creator is based on hard science; meaning, it is based on what is objectively observable and provable whereas the Big Bang theory and Darwinism are based on ideas that contradict what is objectively observable and provable. Thus, it is the theory of the Big Bang and Darwinism which are based on philosophy as they both require the suspension of the observable laws that govern the universe. You say you prefer hard science so I will ask you the following question: Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point in time came into existence)?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is a very relevant conversation to have > in today's climate of fact denial (climate > change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'), > and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about > everybody, including those who govern us. On less > clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based > around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes > tricky though. These are social constructs and > learned. Religion is a perfect example of that. > The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet > so many are convinced they exist. That confidence > of belief in something as true. without hard > evidence, fascinates me more. I agree with you that it is a relevant conversation to have in today?s climate especially with the increase of extremely divisive politics becoming the standard in the UK. I believe the issue of Brexit has changed the political and social climate to resemble one of the 1970?s and 1980?s in terms of attitudes towards race and immigration. However, you have conflated many different issues in the examples you gave. It could be easily argued that a rejection of information which is contrary to, for example, the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks is a form of cognitive dissonance. The key is to identify the basis of a belief. How much of the belief relies on an adherence to social norms (blind following) and how much is based on objective quantifiable information. When you discuss religion, do you include atheism? When you talk about ?God? and ?gods? what definition do you adhere to? There is a tendency in relation to these topics to limit the definitions of religion, ?God? and ?gods? to the post Enlightenment European gaze. However, from other perspectives every ideology is a religion and a ?god? is anything which is given certain attributes. For example, the concept of a ?big bang? can be considered to be a ?god? because it is ascribed the ability to create life. Likewise, the notion of evolution stemming from Darwinism can be considered to be a ?god? as it is assumed this mystical mechanism (evolution) bought about humans and other forms of life. It also fascinates me greatly that people can accept crucial beliefs without evidence yet claim they are critical thinkers. It may be the case that you have not been convinced on the basis of evidence of the existence of a ?God?, but on what grounds can you then claim others have not? I would argue there is evidence proofing a Creator exists. However, as you raised this subject so confidently what I wish to understand is what is your belief regarding how life came about? Do you believe in Darwinism, if so, please share your honest account why? This is an area I have researched greatly and what I find extremely interesting is that the period Darwin?s theory emerged the notion of racial hierarchy was the basis for many ideas and theories stemming from post Enlightenment Europe. A core part of the belief of racial hierarchy was that the European was racially superior and as a consequence anything which contradicted their subjective social norms was viewed as barbaric. In short, their social norms were assumed to be universal, an objective truth and functioned as a criterion to distinguish between humanity and barbarism. For example, the very observation of cannibalism was used to reinforce notions of European superiority and the inferiority of other races. A case in point, Charles Darwin after giving an account of cannibalism practiced by the Fuegians concluded in his log dated the 25th December 1832 that, ?Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow-creatures, and inhabitants of the same world. It is a common subject of conjecture what pleasure in life some of the lower animals can enjoy: how much more reasonably the same question may be asked of these barbarians! (Darwin 1997 pg 203-204)?. It is important to note that Darwin?s assertions regarding the Fuegians occurred 27 years before he published the ?Origin of Species?. Meaning, he was already analysing data from a position of racial and ethical superiority which predated arguments of racial superiority based on evolution theory. His claim that the Fuegians who practiced cannibalism were subhuman, is ideologically consistent with his later theory that the European was more evolved than the other ?savage races?. Darwin asserts that, ?At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1871 pg 193)?. The point I wish to make is that Darwinism and European universalism are inseparable from racial of hierarchy. This is extremely problematic because even though the notion of supremacy based on race is currently rejected in Europe the very ideas and beliefs (e.g. Darwinism) which stemmed from it still have currency.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do I know what I know, seems a simple enough > question, when looking at our own beliefs and > assumption where they come from, how we learn, > what we rely on etc. Having similar beliefs with > others where the same action or decisions are > taken does not guarantee the same morals. It > depends which situation you're looking at. To > observe lets say 2 different heroin dealers as > simply commiting an act of what appears to be > selling drugs to make money. On hearing two very > different stories it may be your judgement morally > differs with each when understanding of > the people, individually, outside of there action > is learned, creating no dissonance, then again it > may be on your estate where your children pass > each day, and you feel threatened, once we feel > threatened it breeds a cutting of point for many, > or else a battleground for each side to have > Inclination to see it through each other view. The question you started with is an extremely important and unfortunately most people do not question why they believe what they consider to be a given truth, an objective fact. In most social contexts the status quo is taken as a means to validate what people believe and how they act. If a certain act or belief conforms to social norms it is legitimized and if it clashes with them, it is rejected. This is a circular form of argument i.e. it would be like saying this idea is correct because it is the same as my idea even though I have no proof that my idea itself is correct. Regarding the same belief producing different morals this is true to an extent. From my own research in this area I would argue that people adhering to the same ideology can have differences in cursory elements as long as those differences do not challenge the foundational premise of that ideology. You also highlight how different perspectives change judgment in the example of a drug dealer. However, there is another element to this which is double standards derived from an ideological bias. For example, most people in the UK would condemn the 9/11 attacks as an immoral act of terrorism because the perpetrators of the attacks targeted civilians, but they would not apply this rationale to the RAF?s deliberate bombing of Dresden and Hamburg which targeted civilians and killed hundreds of thousands. The cause of this is ideological bias. When the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are in agreement with the act is legitimized, but when the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are opposed to than it is condemned. The other point you make about a diabetic eating something they feel they know is harmful is not completely the same as the main topic I raised about cognitive dissonance. A diabetic can eat unhealthy food while maintaining the belief that it is healthy. Most people contradict through actions what they belief. However, the main point I raised is when people deny observable evidence because it contradicts core beliefs. For example, imagine a good friend that you trust and have invested a lot of time into building a strong relationship with because you believe your friend to be an honest and good person. Then one day you observe your friend telling you something which you know to be a lie; according to the theory your habitual reaction will be to deny this and perhaps think you misheard or misunderstood. The reason is the consequence of discovering you friend is a liar will completely undermine your relationship with them that is built on the premise they are an honest person.