Scientists piece together human ancestry

[tlongII]

I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...

What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...

But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...

Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.

Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

[MiamiHeat]

lol

[Susan Boyle]

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

To bad he's not a dog or a bull then you could just shoot or drown him since all animals are beneath you.

[Phenomanul]

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

Look tlongII, You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly don't have the grounds to come at me with that approach.

Don't confuse the logical construct of my arguments... with your own lack of subject-matter comprehension...

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

Let me restructure the argument so that I can summarize it, considering it had been threaded along several posts...

Altogether there are about 30 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict as dependent variables... They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the Weak and Strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism (Cuulomb's, Planck's constants, energy density ratio), the strength of gravity, etc... The chance that all of these constants produced by the Big Bang would 'take on' the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infintesimal... And yet, those are exactly the parameters that we observe today - our Universe is wildly, staggeringly, improbable. If we couple that observation with other chance factors such as the Universe's critical expansion rate, and the asymmetry of matter/anti-matter production, we find that the existence of the Universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

You may rightly object at this point that this argument is a bit circular: the Universe had to have parameters associated with this kind of stability or we would not be here to comment upon it... This general insight is referred to as the Anthropic Principle: the idea that our Universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans... It has been a source of much wonder and speculation since it was fully appreciated just a few decades ago...

Essentially, there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle (I'll quote it directly from one of my books since it's getting late...):

1) There may be an essentially infinite number of universes, either occurring simultaneously with our own or in some sequence, with different values of the physical constants, and maybe even different physical laws. We are however, unable to observe the other universes... We can exist only in a universe where all the physical properties work together to permit life and consciousness. Ours is not miraculous, it is simply an unusual product of trial and error. This is called the "multiverse" hypothesis...

2) There is only one Universe, and this is it. It just happened to have all the right characteristics to give rise to intelligent life. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing this. We are just very, very, very lucky.

3) There is only one Universe, and this is it. The precise tuning of all of the physical constants and physical laws that make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the Universe in the first place....

On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

[french bread]

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

Translation: I am going to pull a Miamiheat and get out of having to debate any further.

[LnGrrrR]

On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

Science will never and can never answer this question, just like it couldn't answer the question "Which is the best painting of all-time?" or "What is the best meal?"

[Blake]

No... not difficult at all...

I simply refuse to answer it based on our previous exchanges...

if you were as confident in your answer as you seem to be in your other answers, you would have no problem

You enjoy insulting others who don't share your perspective - I get it... and you've never conceded an argument if and when others point out that you've constructed an incomplete/inaccurate/irrelevant or biased argument. By now you should know that conceding an argument and conceding the discussion are not the same thing.

quit changing the subject.

I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of facts.

So if I recognize a futile pattern when I see one.... why waste my time indulging your insincere requests?

Besides, my escatological beliefs were never the focal point of my argument; so why bring them up?? No need to open up another thread...

because you have clearly used words that would imply a religious nature.

[JoeChalupa]

Science will never and can never answer this question, just like it couldn't answer the question "Which is the best painting of all-time?" or "What is the best meal?"

I concur.

I had a lively debate over the weekend with my niece about religion and how she doesn't understand how I can believe in "the greatest story ever told". Interesting discussion.

[Blake]

I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...

What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...

But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...

Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.

Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.

this type of post is why I'm asking if you believe the Bible is legit.

[Blake]

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)...

and yet you are getting owned by scrubs at a Spurs message board.

did you study with Dr. Gerald Schroeder?

[tlongII]

Look tlongII, You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly don't have the grounds to come at me with that approach.

Don't confuse the logical construct of my arguments... with your own lack of subject-matter comprehension...

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

Let me restructure the argument so that I can summarize it, considering it had been threaded along several posts...

Altogether there are about 30 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict as dependent variables... They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the Weak and Strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism (Cuulomb's, Planck's constants, energy density ratio), the strength of gravity, etc... The chance that all of these constants produced by the Big Bang would 'take on' the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infintesimal... And yet, those are exactly the parameters that we observe today - our Universe is wildly, staggeringly, improbable. If we couple that observation with other chance factors such as the Universe's critical expansion rate, and the asymmetry of matter/anti-matter production, we find that the existence of the Universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

You may rightly object at this point that this argument is a bit circular: the Universe had to have parameters associated with this kind of stability or we would not be here to comment upon it... This general insight is referred to as the Anthropic Principle: the idea that our Universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans... It has been a source of much wonder and speculation since it was fully appreciated just a few decades ago...

Essentially, there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle (I'll quote it directly from one of my books since it's getting late...):


On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

What a bunch of garbage! I thought you argued previously that Earth was the only place in the universe where we would find complex life? Make up your mind! Look, I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have created the universe. The thing I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous. We have no idea how the universe began. However, we must continue the search for answers. Some day in the distant future we may find the answer.

[Richard Cranium]

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Everyone knows that humans were the result of aliens injecting monkeys with their DNA. Had that not happened the human race wouldn't exist. This "evolution" theory of some 47 million year old mini-monkey is worthless.

[Susan Boyle]

The following is why you can't argue with TlongII he contradicts himself over and over ........

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

What a bunch of garbage!

Make up your mind!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous.

However, we must continue the search for answers. Some day in the distant future we may find the answer

What a bunch of garbage!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous.

Make up your mind!

What a bunch of garbage!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

[Blake]

The following is why you can't argue with TlongII he contradicts himself over and over ........

I don't think there's any need to point out why you can't argue with a troll.

[Phenomanul]

and yet you are getting owned by scrubs at a Spurs message board.

Only in your mind, Blake... only in your twisted angered mind.

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

The worst part is having to witness your continual resolve to pat yourself on the back at 'my expense'... when you simply haven't had the grounds to do so...

Again... believe what you want...

[Blake]

Only in your mind, Blake... only in your twisted angered mind.

I'm not "angered".

That's funny.

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

what argument? That the earth is less than some thousands of years old?

I don't have to argue anything. The common consensus in the scientific community is my argument.

You name dropped MIT and according to the scientists at YOUR school, they've been saying the universe is 15 billion years old since at least 1990.

November 14 | 1990

A New Yardstick and Clock for the Cosmos

by Eugene F. Mallove

The universe is like the "average" child: if you know her size, you know
her age, and vice versa. That is because the universe, like a growing
child, has stretched its space ever larger since it began expanding from
a point-like origin some fifteen billion years ago.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/nov14/23834.html

The worst part is having to witness your continual resolve to pat yourself on the back at 'my expense'... when you simply haven't had the grounds to do so...

Again... believe what you want...

The worst part is you patting yourself on the back for thinking youre smarter than real scientists that do real research on the subject.

You wont answer my question because you know that it leads to another question you know you have no answer for.

I believe you are an idiot. You believe what you want.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute. But where is the tangible proof of a creator?

[Blake]

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute. But where is the tangible proof of a creator?

there's no proof of anything.

the problem here is that science for all practical purposes has proven that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, but literal Bible honks can't wrap their head around that because the Earth was supposed to have been created in "7 days".

[Phenomanul]

if you were as confident in your answer as you seem to be in your other answers, you would have no problem...

Yeah... I'm confident that your approach hasn't changed... again, no need to waste my time with insincere requests...

quit changing the subject.

I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of facts.

According to you... which would make your criteria rather subjective.

Restated: "I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of mine."

because you have clearly used words that would imply a religious nature.

Sometimes these things do... that's kind of the point. The existence of the Big Bang begs the question of what came before that (Manny alluded to this earlier), and who or what was responsible. It certainly demonstrates the limits of Science as no other phenomenon has done... The consequences of the Big Bang Theory for theology are profound. For faith traditions that describe the Universe as having been created by GOD from nothingness (ex nihilo) this is an electrifying, if somewhat expected outcome. Does such an astonishing event as the Big Bang fit the definition of a miracle?

The sense of awe created by these realizations has caused more than a few agnostic scientists to sound downright theological... In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow concludes the book with this statement:

At this moment it seems as though Science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries...

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. And Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we've only managed to find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

[Blake]

Yeah... I'm confident that your approach hasn't changed... again, no need to waste my time with insincere requests...

right......which is why you are taking the time to reply to my other comments.....

why not just put me on ignore?

According to you... which would make your criteria rather subjective.

Restated: "I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of mine."

wrong. It's not my opinion that the universe is billions of years old.

I've been quoting real sources like the one above from MIT (your school). You've been quoting out of your ass.

Sometimes these things do... that's kind of the point. The existence of the Big Bang begs the question of what came before that (Manny alluded to this earlier), and who or what was responsible. It certainly demonstrates the limits of Science as no other phenomenon has done... The consequences of the Big Bang Theory for theology are profound. For faith traditions that describe the Universe as having been created by GOD from nothingness (ex nihilo) this is an electrifying, if somewhat expected outcome. Does such an astonishing event as the Big Bang fit the definition of a miracle?

The sense of awe created by these realizations has caused more than a few agnostic scientists to sound downright theological... In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow concludes the book with this statement:

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we can only find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

so you respond in this manner for at least the 4th time, so I'm asking for the 4th time: "In your opinion, is the same Creator you believe in the one that created the Bible?"

simple question....... but apparently you are too smart to answer it. Good move on your part.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not "angered".

That's funny.

You're right... you just like insulting people because it gets you off...

That's worse... because it shows that you enjoy getting off of others. It exposes that insecurity complex of yours...

what argument? That the earth is less than some thousands of years old?

That's not even my argument... I gave my opinion on Earth's age, but said that such a belief would have to be backed by a supernatural evidence trail for which we have no specific discovery tools... I then said that what was more important was acknowledging the that possibility of a Creator was plausible given our current findings...

I don't have to argue anything. The common consensus in the scientific community is my argument.

That's such a copout and you know it...

You name dropped MIT and according to the scientists at YOUR school, they've been saying the universe is 15 billion years old since at least 1990.

I know what the scientists at my school say... and not all of them feel that way. But that right there is the problem, you and others feel that all academic scientists must abandon the belief in GOD... In your minds, their right to retain such beliefs, somehow voids them of their voice in such matters... that somehow their knowledge base disappears if they also believe in a Creator... that they have no basis to refute others' arguments because they have somehow been handicapped by a belief in GOD.

That line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

The worst part is you patting yourself on the back for thinking youre smarter than real scientists that do real research on the subject.

That is your problem... I've said no such thing... In fact those scientists would be the first to corroborate what I just explained above... their conclusions may be different, based on their own experience... but ultimately they know that Science is incapable of giving them the answer they hope for... and why they continue to search for other explanations.

You wont answer my question because you know that it leads to another question you know you have no answer for.

I won't answer it because it is irrelevant to the flow of this argument. I can't help that you fail to see that...

I believe you are an idiot. You believe what you want.

Some more 'hot air' I see....

[The Power Hour.]

why not just put me on ignore?

May be the best post you ever posted at ST!

[Phenomanul]

wrong. It's not my opinion that the universe is billions of years old.

No... it is your opinion that my belief in GOD somehow voids all of my arguments. We won't get anywhere until you are able to discern the difference between my arguments and my explicitly stated theistic opinions.

I've been quoting real sources like the one above from MIT (your school). You've been quoting out of your ass.

Put up or shut up... point out exactly what I've said that can't be backed by our current scientific knowledge base. I've been pretty clear on what my opinions are...

I've stated that my belief in GOD is not derived from the data. Nonetheless our scant data on origins has beckoned many questions... many are inherently unanswerable and others still carry theological implications... Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit that much...

so you respond in this manner for at least the 4th time, so I'm asking for the 4th time: "In your opinion, is the same Creator you believe in the one that created the Bible?"

simple question....... but apparently you are too smart to answer it. Good move on your part.

I'm smart enough to know that no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof on the existence of GOD... but I'm OK with it... I also know that it bothers you to admit that the above statement also opens the door for the plausibility of GOD's existence. Apparently, you can't deal with this schism.

[Phenomanul]

I have to step out...

Peace....