Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:With only one minor difference science is open to suggestions and new evidence.

But that's not what you're showing. You're being confronted with certain evidence, and you're trying to explain it away.

These aren't desparate arguments but rather areas of disagreement.

Saying 'It might not be true, we have to wait and see if there's more data', in the face of clear evidence that it is true, and that successful predictions have been made on the basis that it is true, is desparation whether used by Fundamentalists to argue against the evidence for evolution, or by non-theists to argue against the evidence for the Big Bang.

As the ultimate authority is nature itself, men can argue and reinterpret the data over and over, however there may always be unanswered questions in the subject of physics.

Again, that could have been said by a Fundamentalist.

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Because a fusion reaction would destroy all life anywhere near it...that's why.

Fortigurn wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:With only one minor difference science is open to suggestions and new evidence.

But that's not what you're showing. You're being confronted with certain evidence, and you're trying to explain it away.

When confronted with new evidence it is important to rework current understanding. If this is viewed as "trying to explain it away" I would have to ask how?

Fortigurn wrote:

These aren't desparate arguments but rather areas of disagreement.

Saying 'It might not be true, we have to wait and see if there's more data', in the face of clear evidence that it is true, and that successful predictions have been made on the basis that it is true, is desparation whether used by Fundamentalists to argue against the evidence for evolution, or by non-theists to argue against the evidence for the Big Bang.

Explain what we are talking about here?

Fortigurn wrote:

As the ultimate authority is nature itself, men can argue and reinterpret the data over and over, however there may always be unanswered questions in the subject of physics.

Again, that could have been said by a Fundamentalist.

Within the paradigm of physics natural observation is the ultimate authority. The similarities are well founded because men are falable and subject to preconceptions and personal beleifs.
=)

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Because a fusion reaction would destroy all life anywhere near it...that's why.

You took this out of context. The point is that there is a tendancy of energy to flow towards an increase in entropy.
And that all physical processes follow this.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:When confronted with new evidence it is important to rework current understanding. If this is viewed as "trying to explain it away" I would have to ask how?

You aren't trying to 'rework current understanding'. You are trying to retain your present understanding.

Explain what we are talking abouot here?

See my previous post. I'm talking about your response to the evidence for the Big Bang, and your promotion of a counter-theory which has no supporting evidence:

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.

Arguments which Fundamentalists use, and which you have just used:

• 'It's still debated' (for a given value of 'debated', which means 'opposed by a tiny minority')
• 'Does not form the basis for scientific experimentation' (Fundamentalists say the same about evolution)
• 'Different interpretations' (Fundamentalists likewise argue 'Some scientists have different interpretations which do not include evolution', but that's just cherry picking')

Ironically, this is what you said to AKS:

Lack of evidence and not acknowledging evidence are two entirly different animals. It is of course your right to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence but, I doubt you can successfully argue that evolution is based on a lack of evidence.

That's exactly what I see you doing here.

Within the paradigm of physics natural observation is the ultimate authority. The similarities are founded because men are falable and subject to preconceptions and personal beleifs.
=)

It was actually your appeal to the God of the Gaps that amused me.

Fortigurn wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:When confronted with new evidence it is important to rework current understanding. If this is viewed as "trying to explain it away" I would have to ask how?

You aren't trying to 'rework current understanding'. You are trying to retain your present understanding.

Please be more specific

Fortigurn wrote:

Explain what we are talking abouot here?

See my previous post. I'm talking about your response to the evidence for the Big Bang, and your promotion of a counter-theory which has no supporting evidence:

I don't promote the counter theory I am just illucidating that there are physicists which object to the reintroduction of the cosmological constant. And I am quite sure that they are working out new hypotheses as we speak.

Fortigurn wrote:

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.

Arguments which Fundamentalists use, and which you have just used:

• 'It's still debated' (for a given value of 'debated', which means 'opposed by a tiny minority')

Yes it is a minority but there is no evidence either way. Thus the search for dark energy and matter.

Fortigurn wrote:[*] 'Does not form the basis for scientific experimentation' (Fundamentalists say the same about evolution)

Ah I see I did not mean that the theory does not form a basis for experimentations. I meant that some experiments are made without regard to the theory, i.e not universally accepted. Note

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics.

Fortigurn wrote:[*] 'Different interpretations' (Fundamentalists likewise argue 'Some scientists have different interpretations which do not include evolution', but that's just cherry picking')[/list]

See below on quasi-equilibrium. Background radiation is not the definitive answer because it is subject to different interpretations, and proves alternative theories as well. Also the fact that the background radiation is so smooth poses another dilemma. How come the universe is so lumpy today? A smooth background radiation proved some versions of the Big Bang Model, and disproved others.

Fortigurn wrote:Ironically, this is what you said to AKS:

Lack of evidence and not acknowledging evidence are two entirly different animals. It is of course your right to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence but, I doubt you can successfully argue that evolution is based on a lack of evidence.

That's exactly what I see you doing here.

I dont follow how am I theorizing on the lack of evidence?

Fortigurn wrote:

Within the paradigm of physics natural observation is the ultimate authority. The similarities are founded because men are falable and subject to preconceptions and personal beleifs.
=)

It was actually your appeal to the God of the Gaps that amused me.

Please explain I don't follow.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:When confronted with new evidence it is important to rework current understanding. If this is viewed as "trying to explain it away" I would have to ask how?

You aren't trying to 'rework current understanding'. You are trying to retain your present understanding.

Please be more specific

I don't think I could have been more specific than this:

Fortigurn wrote:

The Big Bang theory is still debated scientifically and does not always form the basis for scientific experimentation in the field of theoretical physics. Other problems with the theory include the reintroduction of the cosmological constant, dark mater, dark energy and different interpretations of background radiation.

Arguments which Fundamentalists use, and which you have just used:

• 'It's still debated' (for a given value of 'debated', which means 'opposed by a tiny minority')
• 'Does not form the basis for scientific experimentation' (Fundamentalists say the same about evolution)
• 'Different interpretations' (Fundamentalists likewise argue 'Some scientists have different interpretations which do not include evolution', but that's just cherry picking')

Ironically, this is what you said to AKS:

Lack of evidence and not acknowledging evidence are two entirly different animals. It is of course your right to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence but, I doubt you can successfully argue that evolution is based on a lack of evidence.

That's exactly what I see you doing here.

Within the paradigm of physics natural observation is the ultimate authority. The similarities are founded because men are falable and subject to preconceptions and personal beleifs.
=)

It was actually your appeal to the God of the Gaps that amused me.

What's unspecific about that?

I don't promote the counter theory I am just illucidating that there are physicists which object to the reintroduction of the cosmological constant.

Thanks for the clarification. You're still using Fundy tactics though. For the record I am a Christian with no particular theological objection to evolution, and who believes in an 'Old Earth'.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Yes it is a minority but there is no evidence either way. Thus the search for dark energy and matter.

There is evidence for the Big Bang. Precisely what mechanisms are holding the universe together subsequent to the Bang may be debated, but not the event itself.

I dont follow how am I theorizing on the lack of evidence?

You are arguing that there is insufficient evidence for the Big Bang.

Fortigurn wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Yes it is a minority but there is no evidence either way. Thus the search for dark energy and matter.

There is evidence for the Big Bang. Precisely what mechanisms are holding the universe together subsequent to the Bang may be debated, but not the event itself.

The big bang theory does not take into account the formation of this dark matter. Physics assumes that the physical forces in the current also existed in the early moments after the big bang. If there is a new force or effect which is causing this acceleration of expansion, the original equations and descriptions of the early Universe needs to be revisited. For instance mathematically in the super charged high temperature environment in the moments after the Big Bang the fundamental forces (electromagnetic,weak and strong) were one and the same.

The expansion is described using these fundamental forces and current understanding has it as more of a Big Expansion. However if our understanding of gravity is flawed then this will also effect our calculations and thus the description of how the Universe was in its infancy. This in turn may change the predictions which led to the discovery of the background radiation.

Fortigurn wrote:

I dont follow how am I theorizing on the lack of evidence?

You are arguing that there is insufficient evidence for the Big Bang.

I did no such thing. I only argued that things are open to reinterpretation. A universe which is in a quasi-equilibrium would also show a smooth background radiation.
Just making a point not that I agree.
=)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Because a fusion reaction would destroy all life anywhere near it...that's why.

You took this out of context. The point is that there is a tendancy of energy to flow towards an increase in entropy.
And that all physical processes follow this.

But it's much funnier out of context.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Because a fusion reaction would destroy all life anywhere near it...that's why.

You took this out of context. The point is that there is a tendancy of energy to flow towards an increase in entropy.
And that all physical processes follow this.

But it's much funnier out of context.

You have a point.

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Must pay attention better...I missed the largest contradiction in the history of mankind...(well...that I know of at the top of my head)...

There is a trend towards the more complex

as entropy increases towards chaos

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The intense heat and pressure in the sun causes simple hydrogen to squeeze together and form helium. Helium fuses and becomes carbon. There is a trend towards the more complex as entropy increases towards chaos. Is it falacy to assume the same with organic chemistry?

Must pay attention better...I missed the largest contradiction in the history of mankind...(well...that I know of at the top of my head)...

There is a trend towards the more complex

as entropy increases towards chaos

Energy tends to go into lower entropy. Not matter. There is no contradiction. Let us take a volcanic eruption as an example. Thermal energy is bottled up in one place. The tendency is for this energy to dissipate and flow into regions of less energy. As this occurs the matter containing this energy is thrusted outwards. As it cools crystallization occurs and elements are sorted out as they have differing rates of cooling. This seeming increase in complexity does not violate the second law of thermal dynamics.

BGood is talking to himself, I swear

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Increase in order, not complexity. And the increasing order does not conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics becaues of the energy given off during the explosion...

Well the players are minerals which can bond only in specific ways. What happens when the possibilities are multiplied as in organic chemistry? When a cell respires grows and divides does entropy increase or decrease? What about order or complexity?

Lets try another explanation. You appear to be a proponent of astrology.
Clouds of hydrogen condense and become stars in a galaxy. The cloud orginally in motion now starts rotating. Eventually the entire formation become a galaxy. There appears to be order and complexity in the formation of the galaxy. Did entropy increase or decrease. What about order and complexity?