Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | June 22, 2007

[Texas Songwriter]

I ask you again, why are you afraid to answer my question? Ad hominems nothwithstanding. Please be rational and scientific, no conjecture.

[hosepipe]

[.. I ask you again, why are you afraid to answer my question? Ad hominems nothwithstanding. Please be rational and scientific, no conjecture. ..]

I see..... you don't care for an answer..
You want to get back to writing songs..

Thats O.K... some questions require W.O.R.K...
Are you a monkey in a metaphorical tree WATCHing other monkeys considering a Rolex watch?.. I am...

[Texas Songwriter]

I think your answer is clear to all who reads your post. If you wish to have a rational discussion feel free to write me. Thank you.

[hosepipe]

[.. If you wish to have a rational discussion feel free to write me. ..]

You appear to be looking for an easy answer..
Not all questions can even be answered..

"A man needs to know his limitations"- Dirty Harry..

[Texas Songwriter]

I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question?

[hosepipe]

[.. I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question? ..]

I did answer it.. SLAP SLAP... WAKE UP... you in there?..
Talk to me dude...

[narby]

The creative process which God chose to give us our cosmos and our lives (including our souls) could hardly be thought of as soulless, by any stretch of intellectual honesty. A cannot be made to mean not A.

Nice philosophy. But it's not science.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views, dear hosepipe!

I really hesitated in responding because you and I have an inherent failure to communicate whenever we speak of geometry – dimensions in particular – because I use those terms (which include space and time) in the sense of geometric physics and you do not.

However, for the discussion, there are a few points I’d like to bring to the table:

The question “did the universe have a beginning?” was essentially settled as far as science is concerned when it determined by the measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960’s that the universe is indeed expanding and therefore had a beginning of real space and real time.

Every “steady state” or "infinite past" physical cosmology was discredited at that time – and since then, cosmologists have labored to theorize a physical cosmology which obviates the necessity of an uncaused cause of the beginning: space, time, physical causation itself.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

All physical cosmologies require geometry for physical causation. All of them require a beginning because of the geometry: big bang/inflationary model, multi-verse, multi-world, cyclic, brane theories, ekpyrotic, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.

Time is geometric. Space/time is a continuum.

The structure of space/time is such that for an observer near the vicinity of a black hole a week may elapse – while forty years elapse on earth. Likewise, for an observer traveling at the speed of one earth’s gravity (equivalence principle) 25.3 years may elapse – whereas 5x10¹⁰ years would elapse on earth.

For those interested in exploring how this can be, here is a particularly helpful animated introduction to special relativity. For general relativity, think of the space/time fabric as warped.

Eternity is time without boundaries, or more specifically infinity future.

But there is no infinity past. There was a real beginning of time.

So much for the math and science, now for the theology:

Time is part of the Creation – not a property of the Creator. The word “timelessness” would be more appropriate in speaking of Him, the uncaused cause, prime mover, Creator of “all that there is.”

Timelessness (not merely time without boundaries) is the appropriate concept when speaking of God the Father, as we can see from these passages:

But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. – Mark 13:32

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20

Of course, neither of these replies have much to do with your use of the word “time” or “dimension” – dear hosepipe – because you are using the terms poetically or philosophically.

[narby]

[Ok. Let's say God was the "first cause". Now you tell me what was the "first cause" that created God.] This is old hat, narby. Something is eternal. You're not well-read on this kind of reasoning, or are you?

Oh, now I get it. I must be "well read" in order to be so confused that the universe needs a creator, but the creator does not.

I suppose it takes a real intellectual to be able to understand something so illogical.

[js1138]

Whether it is unanswerable for you or not, there are only two possible answers.

That simply isn't true. the question is malformed. It is no more answerable by yes or no than My question to you: have you stopped having sex with your mother?

More is required of an answerable question than grammatical correctness.

[narby]

I understand your reticence to answer the question. But why are you afraid to answer my question?

Maybe because hosepipe and js1138 noticed that when I wouldn't give you an answer to your unanswerable question, you eventually used that as an excuse to ridicule me. I suspect that no matter what the answer you get you have a line of argument that eventually leads to you ridiculing your correspondent, no doubt to pump up your ego.

Don't you have anything more constructive to do?

[js1138]

In consonience with rational thought and scientific thought how do you explain the scientific evidence for an expanding universe, the radiation echo, and the second law of thermodynamics? One of the laws of rationality is that all events or occurrences or things had a cause. Do you believe the universe is eternal and without cause?

Hawking has given a cogent mathematical description of a universe without a beginning in time.

The word "eternal" makes hidden assumptions about the nature of time that are not relevant in a system lacking change.

Your question is in the same class of discussion as the assertion that gravity is the pressure we feel on our butts when we sit down. You assume that because you feel or see the passage of time, that your feeling about the nature of time is sufficient knowledge from which to draw conclusions about the birth and fate of existence. A rather arrogant assumption, in my humble opinion.

[js1138]

I suspect that no matter what the answer you get you have a line of argument that eventually leads to you ridiculing your correspondent, no doubt to pump up your ego.

Why do I keep thinking there is a really snappy follow-up question lurking behind this? Something on the order of, did the universe make itself, or, can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?

[unspun]

Nice philosophy. But it's not science.

Exactly. And from that, you might get your fist clue, FRiend.

[unspun]

However, if science is not founded on epistemological reality, it ceases to be science.

[hosepipe]

[.. The question “did the universe have a beginning?” was essentially settled as far as science is concerned when it determined by the measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960’s that the universe is indeed expanding and therefore had a beginning of real space and real time. ..]

Expanding?... maybe.. maybe not.. The Universe could be revolving.. not expanding.. Where is the center of the Universe?.. Since no one knows or can see the entire Universe or the "edge" of the Universe,even..that cannot be determined..

The Universe could be revolving appearing from "observation" from earth that it is Expanding.. or some other NOT readily measured reality.. i.e. dark energy/matter..

I do tend to be suspicious of what appears to be true in most things, true.. Call it a weakness.. That could originate from the fact I HATE PHOTONS.. If even there ARE photons.. If there are photons they are WAY TOO SLOW.. I hate them.. Maybe NOT hate but am suspicious of them(what they appear to be)..

True we do have quite different suspicions about how things "work".. If there are multiple dimensions beyond what we see(experience).. diagnosing anything "scientific" from "this" dimension could be humorous or a cartoon..

The meme; Events cannot happen without TIME for them to happen in.. could be error.. Time could be a mirror image of reality.. Reality being eternity.. Time would be very important to creatures that DIE... Past, present, future.. in a linear paradigm.. But those creatures could be spirits wearing a body suit(dimensional space suit)..

The bible says NOBODY dies.. only bodys die.. but "WE" whatever "WE" are.. do not die..

If "things/anything" could even BE eternal/infinite then the Universe could be eternal too.. Hard for a creature that can die to conceive of that though.. to them everything MUST have a beginning and/or end.. and a shape(GEOMETRY).. Could be that even "shape" is a mental construct.. i.e. dark energy/matter..

[js1138]

The Universe could be revolving.. not expanding..

I'm thinking that such scenarios have been investigated and do not fit the evidence. Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions.

[cornelis]

Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions.

What are they in comparison to a span of billions and billions?

[cornelis]

So you’re hedging. You want to frame the debate, badly.

[hosepipe]

[.. Theories that survive for 70 years accumulate a lot of evidence from many directions. ..]

A mere hundred years ago the medical establishment regularly ordered laudanum(opium + mercuric compounds) to be given as MEDICINE...... even into the 20's and beyond in certain parts of the world..

Currently physics cannot connect the micro to the macro world.. Relativity and Quantum mechanics do not agree.. I may have wored this wrong but you get the idea..

A problem?.. Nah! we are only humans..