The Problem with Religious Moderation

[32519]

You will be waiting a long time, because the collider has been turned off for two years to prepare it to run at its peak energy. But there are websites and magazines (eg New Scientist, Scientific American) in which you can read about the data collected by the LHC and the significance of them.

Sorry Vampyr, but you are just utterly wrong with the reasons for turning off the LHC. I was peeking over the wall again to see what MikeH was up to. Great was my surprise when I saw Richard Wiley there with him. So I listened in on what they were discussing.

Wiley was telling MikeH that I would go away if the LHC delivered. So MikeH got onto his cell phone and phoned the guy heading up the project. His question was straight forward, “How long will it take for the LHC to deliver?” When the guy answered, “Never,” MikeH had a near fatal heart-attack. In sheer panic he began screaming out, “What do you mean, never? What are you going to do then?”

The other guy did his best to calm MikeH down, “Listen MikeH, we are among the lurkers following that pesky thread. If we continue with the LHC we are going surrender out Ace of trumps to the opposition, the theory of Evolution. We have perfected this over a period stretching more than 100 years. Would you like to see that go up in smoke alongside the BBT?”

MikeH started whimpering, “No, no, of course not. That question is equally stupid to the BBT.” I don’t think MikeH realised what he had said until Wiley slapped him in the face with a stern reprimand, “Did you hear what you have just said? Are you defecting to the opposition? Traitor!” Now Wiley was really angry, with MikeH staggering backwards at the force of the slap. “Did I really say that?” he asked Wiley in disbelief. He did his best to apologise but Wiley wasn’t buying it, who immediately snatched the cell phone out of MikeH’s hand. The guy heading up the LHC was still on the line.

“Did you hear all that?” Wiley asked him.

“Yes,” I heard.

“So then what are you guys going to do?”

“Wiley, it’s a no-brainer. We are going to turn off the LHC and present a fake excuse to the world why we switched it off. The 9 billion set aside for the project has already been increased 3-times, much in the same way that the USAs debt ceiling is continually increased.”

“How long do you intend switching it off?”

“For two years.”

“Two years! Why two years? Who decided on the two years?”

“It was gwnn’s suggestion. That 32519 guy asked you for feedback in a year from now, the 16th of October 2014. We want to save your ass, but more importantly, we want to save ours as well from further embarrassment. Hopefully in two years time 32519 will have gone away all by himself and everyone will have forgotten about that pesky thread.”

“So what are you guys going to be doing during the two year interim period?”

“We will be brainstorming all sorts of new theories for the origin of the universe. We might even resurrect some of the older ones which we ourselves have discarded, dust them off and represent them to all non-scientists. We have roped in PassedOut to start gathering in new ideas/theories from every scientist who has utterly rejected the possibility that a super-natural being after all did really create the universe and everything in it. He placed us all under a lot of pressure when he posted, ‘There is no plausible alternative to the theory of evolution.”

 

There you have it my beautiful sister. From the horses mouth. They have faked the reason for turning off the LHC. Nobody wants to lose the theory of evolution after continuously bashing everyone on the head with it who didn’t buy into it along with the scientists.

[Winstonm]

Are there any religious moderates willing to castigate the troll because his basis for belief is irrationally based? If one argues on any other basis than an invalid core belief in irrationality as a basis for beliefs, one ends up with what we have now - endless, baseless repetitions of faith statements.

 

Instead of the Big Bang and evolution, the questions being addressed should be: 1) what is the process to re-animate human tissue that has been dead for 3 days? 2) What is the mode of conception and the objective evidence for that mode for the joining of a spiritual being with a human virgin that allows that human to remain a virgin post conception? 3) How can any being be visible to a crowd, rise in the air, disappear and live unseen for thousands of years and then reappear alive and well at some future unknown time - what is the mechanism that allows those things to happen?

 

Hint: An appeal to supernatural power first requires objective evidence that there is a reality outside of the natural world - and, as this assumption can only be supported with subjective claims of validity, it is nothing but an opinion, and, as such, an opinion for which the merit is produced solely by word-of-mouth.

In other words, the belief in a supernatural world is an opinion which is supported solely by the used-car-salesman-like claim of "Trust me, it happened!"

[Trinidad]

You make used car salesmen look bad.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

You make used car salesmen look bad.

 

Rik

 

 

In a previous life, I was one for about 3 years. <_< <_<

[mikeh]

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.

(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

 

So, let's get down to brass tacks.

 

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

 

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

 

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

 

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

Surely you know by now that the troll has no interest in trying to follow any proof that you might give it? It operates on a very simple premise: if someone who it views as non-religious says something, it metaphorically plugs its ears and writes some version of 'la-la-la-la-la'. It is possible, I suppose, that deep down inside the troll there exists some tiny ability to actually think as rational people do, but the evidence to date suggests otherwise.

 

Does anyone here really think that the troll will be persuaded by any rational argument?

 

If not, why continue to feed it?

[Trinidad]

If not, why continue to feed it?

Mike, can we keep him as a pet? Please? Please? Mike? He is so cute! I promise I will feed him every day, Mike. I promise! I really do! Can we keep him? Please?

 

Rik

[mikeh]

Mike, can we keep him as a pet? Please? Please? Mike? He is so cute! I promise I will feed him every day, Mike. I promise! I really do! Can we keep him? Please?

 

Rik

Now, Rik

 

That's what you said about the baby alligator, not to mention the Komodo dragon!

 

And who did those pets bite? You know that these baby trolls can grow up and become very aggressive. They can't help themselves.

 

Oh well, so long as you REALLY mean it this time....*sigh*

[Vampyr]

Sorry Vampyr, but you are just utterly wrong with the reasons for turning off the LHC. I was peeking over the wall again to see what MikeH was up to. Great was my surprise when I saw Richard Wiley there with him. So I listened in on what they were discussing.

 

<bizarre story>

 

There you have it my beautiful sister. From the horses mouth. They have faked the reason for turning off the LHC. Nobody wants to lose the theory of evolution after continuously bashing everyone on the head with it who didn’t buy into it along with the scientists.

 

Do you actually believe this story you have told? If so, you need help.

 

Anyway, you can't claim that I am wrong about the reason they have turned off the LHC, and make up a fairytale explaining yourself.

 

By the way, what connection do you imagine the LHC has with biological evolution?

[PassedOut]

Do you actually believe this story you have told? If so, you need help.

 

Anyway, you can't claim that I am wrong about the reason they have turned off the LHC, and make up a fairytale explaining yourself.

 

By the way, what connection do you imagine the LHC has with biological evolution?

Now 32519 is clearly dishonest. The religious stuff is in his posts to provide indirection.

[32519]

The theory of EVOLUTION is 100% dependant on the BIG BANG theory. When the BIG BANG theory fails, the EVOLUTION theory fails as well.

If we take the time and effort to disprove this, will you shut up and go away?

How much time do you need? But your request brings a smile to my face. It is simple enough and I will agree to it if you also agree to my request, which is this –

1. Cut out post 249 of this thread and stick it on your fridge. Then on the 16th of October every year (the date when the post was made) come and update this forum on LHC developments.

2. Your update must include –

a. Progress

b. Failures

c. Latest actual spend on the LHC

 

Deal or no deal?

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

 

So, let's get down to brass tacks.

From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

 

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

You have overlooked my first requirement. Stick post 249 onto your fridge, then take a snapshot of it and post it in this thread. If you cannot meet something as simple as that, then I place no value on anything else you post here.

[hrothgar]

You have overlooked my first requirement. Stick post 249 onto your fridge, then take a snapshot of it and post it in this thread. If you cannot meet something as simple as that, then I place no value on anything else you post here.

 

This will need to wait until I get home from work...

[Trinidad]

This will need to wait until I get home from work...

Ouch!! That might take a while if it wouldn't be for science... how long would you need to walk (naked and barefoot, of course)?

 

;)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

Ouch!! That might take a while if it wouldn't be for science... how long would you need to walk (naked and barefoot, of course)?

 

;)

 

Rik

 

The refrigerator, camera and computer are also problematic...

[mikeh]

I have to confess: I opened post 249.

 

One part of the problem is that the troll is fundamentally ignorant. He doesn't have a conceptual basis for understanding the basic issues.

 

'Nothing' is an interesting concept, especially in light of (what I understand of) the Standard Theory.

 

Space-time is a 4-dimensional volume and even in a perfect vacuum the theory is that particles at the most fundamental level of reality are popping into existence, in pairs with a net energy of zero, and then, usually, annihilating each other: the analogy I have seen is to a continual foaming sort of creation and destruction.

 

Krauss, in his analysis of how something can be and, in his view, inevitably will be generated from 'nothing' asserts, persuasively in my view, that we need to go further than this 'vacuum' when we speak of 'nothing'.

 

'Nothing' includes the absence of space-time itself. I don't know about Krauss, but my ability to feel that I had some intuitive grasp or mental image of the concepts failed at that point, but that is no reason to ignore the argument.

 

His idea is that 'nothing', in this absolute sense, is unstable and will lead to the spontaneous creation of 'something', which in turn means that space-time comes into existence and so on.

 

By contrast, we see that 325's concept of 'nothing' is extremely parochial: wind, water, earth and so on.

 

His mind is so limited that his understanding of language is different from those of us with even a modicum of exposure to 'science'. He literally doesn't understand words the same way we do.

 

Krauss touches upon the ignorance of the meaning of 'nothing' that became apparent in the words of, iirc, a bishop of some branch of the Christian church, but I suspect it is a common lacuna in the understanding of many. Indeed, I had not thought of 'nothing' in the Krauss sense until I read his book.

 

But I and, I suspect, most of us here did have some understanding that 'nothing' was a concept somewhat more sophisticated than not having any water or air :P

 

The Big Bang postulates (and the math seems to work all the way back to an extraordinarily short time after the BB) that the early universe was so dense with energy, that it was too 'hot' for anything we'd recognize as 'matter' to exist. As it inflated and expanded, the density of energy (the 'heat') dissipated and 'matter' began to, as it were, precipitate out. As the expansion continued, the average energy density dropped, and matter began to clump together, due, it seems, to a very tiny asymmetry in the energy distribution.

 

And so on.

 

This theory allowed for the calculation, based on estimates of the size of the universe, of what the 'background' residual energy density ought to be: the residual 'temperature' or measurement of 'heat' of the universe. It was only after theorists had said that this ought to be measurable that experimentalists tried to capture it.

 

Interesting, the Noble prize for discovering the background radiation went to a team of researchers who were not actually looking for it. They were trying something else, and noted what they first thought was signal contamination. It was only after they spent time trying to eliminate it, and found that it was uniformly present no matter which direction in the sky they aimed their apparatus, that they realized that they had found this theoretically predicted concept.

 

As Deutsch, and others, have argued: while it is possible to observe a phenomenon and then theorize to explain it, the Enlightenment ushered in an era in which it has become possible and popular, amongst scientists, to theorize first and then test the theory by looking for data consistent or inconsistent with the theory. This is, for example, precisely what led to the discovery of the higgs boson: higgs and others, at about the same time, came up with the idea that there was some particle that played a role in providing mass to other particles, and many years later experimental physicists were able to devise experiments that would either confirm or refute the predicted particle.

 

 

It is this, some philosophers argue, that caused the rapid expansion of human knowledge that started almost exclusively in the Western World. The Enlightenment led to many changes, including the notions that underlay both the American and French Revolutions and the development of capitalism, but also and, for these purposes, the development of the approach that became known as the scientific principle. It was only after the intellectuals began to realize that one could and should challenge authority and the notions promulgated by authority that, gradually, the idea emerged that one could make conjectures and then test such conjectures. The result: an exponential growth in the discovery of ideas and facts. However, some people can't cope with the resulting uncertainty and reject all of this. Ironically, the troll seems unaware that his ability to post his ravings is based entirely on the concepts that he rejects. The ideas that allow the design and construction of microprocessors are founded on the very same mathematics and physics that validate the Big Bang :P

 

All of this attitude towards reality is alien to the troll. Imagine a homo sapiens from 50,000 years ago. Cave painting and the creation of crude musical instruments from hollowed out bones constitutes the latest advance in manipulation of the external world. Imagine a helicopter landing nearby. There is no possibility that an adult homo sapiens could ever understand how the helicopter came into existence or was able to fly. He simply lacks the concepts and, being adult, his brain isn't flexible enough to allow him to be taught.

 

Instead, in all likelihood, he'd either run away or he'd make some show of bravado...howling at the helicopter the way my dogs bark at objects they've never seen before.

 

To my way of thinking the troll is either the howling homo sapiens/my barking dog, or he actually has some understanding but is getting his jollies by pretending he doesn't, while provoking us with his absurdities. Or both :P

 

Anybody willing to bet that if he comments on this post, he will show that he understands the idea of the cosmic background radiation and the role that its discovery played in validating the big bang theory? or that he'll point to a plausible explanation of the existence and level of the radiation that is consistent with an explanation of the universe beyond 'god did it'?

 

I thought not :D

[c_corgi]

...

Anybody willing to bet that if he comments on this post, he will show that he understands the idea of the cosmic background radiation and the role that its discovery played in validating the big bang theory? or that he'll point to a plausible explanation of the existence and level of the radiation that is consistent with an explanation of the universe beyond 'god did it'?

...

 

This possibility is difficult to evaluate due to interference at quantum level induced by hrothgar's fridge magnets.

[hrothgar]

This possibility is difficult to evaluate due to interference at quantum level induced by hrothgar's fridge magnets.

 

I don't have any fridge magnet's, you insensitive sod...

[kenberg]

I have to confess: I opened post 249.

 

One part of the problem is that the troll is fundamentally ignorant. He doesn't have a conceptual basis for understanding the basic issues.

 

 

Not exactly the real problem, I think. When it comes to fundamental physics, I am ignorant. With 32etc, it's simply total rejection. To the extent he has any interest, the interest is to reject. Knowledge, if any, is used to reject. You say, at one point, that you had trouble with an intuitive grasp of the Krauss idea of nothing. So do I. But so what? I have trouble with some biological concepts, I don't reject biology. I have trouble with some financial ideas. I don't suggest we go back to wampum. At some point it becomes clear that further discussion has no point, at least as far as 32 is concerned. As for me, I found your comments about physics interesting. So it's not a total loss.

 

There is no chance in hell or elsewhere that you will convince 32 of anything. Accept what we cannot change.

[Vampyr]

I don't have any fridge magnet's, you insensitive sod...

 

I find greengrocers' apostrophes offensive.

[Vampyr]

'Nothing' includes the absence of space-time itself. I don't know about Krauss, but my ability to feel that I had some intuitive grasp or mental image of the concepts failed at that point, but that is no reason to ignore the argument.

 

I don't understand "nothing" but I also don't understand "something", because to my mind, it seems very unlikely. I also don't understand how "time" (outside of our own universe's spacetime) could have had a beginning, or how it could have not had a beginning.

[hrothgar]

Here you go.

 

http://postimg.org/image/cfx1weypp/9418a9eb/

 

Now, do you accept the framework that I suggested?

[32519]

If the cost of a year's freedom from your drivel is as simple as a bit of research and posting something on 10/16 each year I am more than happy to take one for the forums.(Thankfully, I have a calender app that can remind me of this)

So, let's get down to brass tacks.From what I can tell, I need to accomplish two distinct things.

1. Provide sufficient supporting evidence that supports the theory of evolution. (This shouldn't be too difficult). You've already admitted that this theory seems plausible.

2. Demonstrate that the theory of evolution does not depend on the big bang theory.

 

Are we in agreement about the specifics?

Here you go.http://postimg.org/image/cfx1weypp/9418a9eb/

 

Now, do you accept the framework that I suggested?

Don't bother about point 1. There is enough info available. I am more interested in your point 2. Convince me how you managed to separate the theory of evolution entirely from the BBT, allowing it to remain standing all on its own. You can ask PassedOut to assisst you. The LHC team has tasked him to start collecting new theories to explain the origins of the universe. Convince me, and I'll give you guys a break.

[PeterAlan]

Convince me how you managed to separate the theory of evolution entirely from the BBT, allowing it to remain standing all on its own.

I don't see what basis you ever had for supposing that the theory of evolution was in any way connected to, let alone dependent on, the Big Bang cosmological model.

 

Quite apart from any scientific aspects, which I'll leave to others, the theory of evolution by natural selection (to be a bit more precise about it) got underway with Darwin's and Wallace's paper to the Linnean Society in 1858 and the publication of On the Origin of Species the next year, was developed over the next decades, and was more-or-less established theory by (if not well before) the 1920s.

 

The Big Bang Theory as we have it now essentially dates, at the earliest, from Friedman's expanding-universe solution (1922) to Einstein's equations of general relativity, Lemaitre's 1927 expanding-universe model, and, above all, his 1931 proposal that the universe began with an explosion of an "atom primitif". The "Big Bang" name was coined by Fred Hoyle in a 1949 radio broadcast; Hoyle himself favoured an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, and the Big Bang theory only really won out in 1964/65 with Penzias's and Wilson's discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

So historically the theory of evolution was largely developed before Big Bang theory was ever mentioned.

[Trinidad]

Convince me how you managed to separate the theory of evolution entirely from the BBT, allowing it to remain standing all on its own.

[Nice historical account of the evolution theory and the Big Bang Theory]

 

So historically the theory of evolution was largely developed before Big Bang theory was ever mentioned.

So, to put it in 32's words:

 

"The theory of evolution has been separated entirely from the BBT for 64 years, allowing it to remain standing all on its own."

 

Q.E.D.

 

Convince me, and I'll give you guys a break.

It's going to be awfully quiet here.

 

Rik

[Codo]

After some weeks of work and holiday I came back to bbf and found this thread. I really missed this. :)

So much convidence in ignorance in just one place.... Wonderful.

And in the same thread so many little gems to think about. Surely it is this mixture which makes me love these threads.

 

BTW: Czaba, did you notice that the troll was feed by atheists only?

 

I guess the "moderate belivers" simply ignore these guys. Looks like quite an intelligent apporach to me, but maybe I am biased...

[gwnn]

Silence can mean one of two things:

 

1) You say such outlandishly stupid things that I cannot see how replying to you can help anyone.

2) You say outlandishly strange things in outlandishly rude fashion but I don't want to carefully refute them because I don't have enough time to explain why beliefs are fundamentally different than yours even though many of the axioms are the same.

 

Unfortunately, in many cases it is difficult to distinguish 1) and 2) and it would help to just say something. I did not say the moderates agreed with 32519 but only that they gave mikeh et al a much harder time than 32519 so from at least at a superficial level it definitely looked that way. This you see very often in real life and very often it has much more severe consequences.

 

My name is Csaba BTW.