Evolution?

[mathmom]

<p>mini, that’s a great story about foreskins and the rings of Saturn.</p>

[mini]

<p>To refresh the memory:</p>

<p>During the late 17th century, Catholic scholar and theologian Leo Allatius in De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba (“Discussion concerning the Prepuce of our Lord Jesus Christ”) speculated that the Holy Foreskin may have ascended into Heaven at the same time as Jesus himself and might have become the rings of Saturn, then only recently observed by telescope.</p>

<p>The problem with this account does not have to do with the Saturnian rings, but with the fact that the “modern” version of circumcision only came into vogue around the time of the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 A.D.), hence making the Allatian speculation anachronistic (only the tip of the Lord’s foreskin would have been removed).</p>

[SlitheyTove]

<p>

I have a PhD from MIT in mechanical engineering, so feel free to use whatever level of physics you may require.

</p>

<p>

You may conclude that when we receive light from an object that appears to be millions or billions of light years away that the universe necessarily must be millions or billions of years old, but this is indisputably an extrapolation. It is at least conceptually possible that the universe may have been created at a much later time with the light waves and other radiatiation appearing as if they had been generated by objects millions or billions of light years away.

</p>

<p>Next time there’s a discussion about the merits of Caltech versus MIT, I’ve got a reference point. ;)</p>

[rocketman08]

<p>pafather, you are perfectly free to question the validity of the laws of physics. As a scientist I will happily listen to what you say, but don’t expect to be taken seriously unless you have some actual evidence or logical reasoning to back up your rants against the wonder that is modern science.</p>

[pafather]

<p>rocketman08 , I have never questioned the validity of the laws of physics. I only pointed out that assuming that they have not changed for billions of years is an assumption that is not provable by science. I have not even opined that the assumption is false. I have only pointed out that it is impossible for you to scientifically prove the truth of the assumption. For example, even if you have a model that fits data approximately well for long time periods, it is impossible to prove that the universe did not start with non-zero initial conditions. The laws of physics cannot be used to scientifically explain how time and matter was created from nothing, because this would be a violation of the laws of physics.</p>

[rocketman08]

<p>Do you not see that all these arguments you’re attempting to make work to debunk the idea of creationism even more than they question science? </p>

<p>Nobody alive today was around to witness the events in the Bible so based on your arguments we should be highly suspicious of what it tells us and place more faith in what we can observe and test right here and right now before us… exactly what science does.</p>

[owlice]

<p>I wonder why it matters at all, from the social/religious aspect, how the world came to be. I don’t understand the stubborn clinging some religions do to a creation story (especially considering that the creation story in Genesis is borrowed from another culture/religion).</p>

<p>To me, whether a God exists is irrelevant. If one behaves well simply because there is a God (assuming one believes there is) and doesn’t want to suffer eternal damnation or hell or whatever one believes are the negative consequences in a hereafter, then is one really virtuous?</p>

<p>I am glad that those who need such a belief to behave well have that belief; I certainly wouldn’t want them to lose their faith and then start down a path of bad behavior.</p>

<p>That said, isn’t virtue its own reward?</p>

[ellemenope]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>I wonder why it matters at all, from the social/religious aspect, how the world came to be. I don’t understand the stubborn clinging some religions do to a creation story (especially considering that the creation story in Genesis is borrowed from another culture/religion).<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>I don’t know why it matters, but it seems to matter very much. Every culture has its own creation story (that includes that culture’s people as the first people). I love reading mythical creation stories–always remembering that one man’s myth is another man’s religion.</p>

[cottonwood513]

<p>The rings of Saturn: I thought they were made up of our missing socks from the dryer.</p>

<p>“She was …ed off” lol</p>

[orchid_2010]

<p>One of the big arguments I have heard in favor of creationism is that life is too complex to have evolved on its own – the human eye is often given as an example of an improbable degree of complexity that could not have evolved, but must have been designed.</p>

<p>If life is too complex to have evolved, and there was indeed a creator. . .</p>

<p>Where did the creator come from? Did the creator (who must be unbelieveably complex him/herself, in order to create entire worlds filled with life forms) get created by something or someone else? And if so, where did that entitity come from?</p>

<p>I have always wondered.</p>

[CBBBlinker]

<p>

Where did the creator come from? Did the creator (who must be unbelieveably complex him/herself, in order to create entire worlds filled with life forms) get created by something or someone else? And if so, where did that entitity come from?

</p>

<p>Uh-oh – this is starting to remind me of the whole infinity question. What’s beyond our solar system, and how far does it go? How can anything go on forever? After a while my brain gets tired trying to grapple with all that. I may have to head over to the Alley for a cool one!</p>

[musicamusica]

<p>For those in So Cal who are interested. The Skeptics Society (oh ya Im a member) is holding one of its annual conferences at Cal Tech on the first week in Oct. Sessions are titled “Origins” with speakers Paul Davies(ASU), Leonard Susskind(Stanford) and Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) and “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?” with Stuart Kauffman (Penn) and others. These conferences are always well attended and as much fun as you can have with a room full of theoretical physicists and astrobiologists. You can register at
skeptic.com.</p>

[mercymom]

<p>"Where did the creator come from? Did the creator (who must be unbelieveably complex him/herself, in order to create entire worlds filled with life forms) get created by something or someone else? And if so, where did that entitity come from?</p>

<p>I have always wondered."</p>

<p>We were taught in Catholic school religion class, either from the Bible or more likely the infamous Baltimore Catechism, that God is and always has been, that He has no beginning and no end.(I think there is a quote like “I have always been and always will be”) Think about the sign for infinity and that is God. It also resembles what I think of when I feebly try to grasp the time space continuum and all the bending and warping stuff. Physics may be God and God may be physics. Mathematics is the language.</p>

<p>Another weird thought. Think about how many times in the Bible Jesus/God says stuff like “I am the light”. Think about all the properties of light and the electromagnetic spectrum. Maybe God actually is in the light. When I start throwing stuff like this around at home my mother says I’m a heretic. Oh well, I think it’s fun.</p>

<p>“In the beginning there was darkness and God said, let there be light and there was light.” The Big Bang.</p>