Matthews to Tancredo: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?
posted at 7:35 pm on May 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
A reprise of last night’s ballyhooed fiasco with Mike Pence. Sir Tancelot does better — he’s not evasive, at least — but to borrow a line from “The Princess Bride,” I’m not sure “intelligent design” means what he thinks it means. Near as I can tell, he’s attempting to square the circle by imagining an essentially deist god (or intelligence) that created all species in some primitive form and then let evolution go to work in turning them into the creatures we know today. I thought most ID-ers believe that life today is, more or less, how the designer originally designed it. If not, if it’s simply about proving that there’s a designer somewhere in a process that might have taken billions of years, then it’s really just Darwinism + a remote God at the very beginning, no?
I’m not sure what he means about there being no trans-species transitional fossils, either. What about Archaeopteryx?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I must clarrify – thermodynamics talks about “measures of randomness”, in terms of equivalent ordered states. It does not address anything about the universe generating random events.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Whether one ‘believes in’ evolution or not doesn’t matter-if it (natural selection) does happen, then it happens regardless of what we choose to believe. Actually, all one has to do is to look at the problems with the problems of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and pesticide resistant varieties of insects to see it happening even now.
But, the converse is true as well I believe. That is, whether we choose to believe in God in no way makes God real or if we don’t believe makes does not make him not real.
At one time people believed in geocentrism…didn’t mean they were right. People were unaware of cells and electrons…doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.
The important thing is why people believe this or that.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 6, 2009 at 9:34 PM
It’s silly to ask if someone believes in evolution.
Every creationist believes in evolution…just not macro-evolution.
Every pro-lifer wants stem cell research…just not embryonic SCR.
No small-government advocate is anti-tax…just anti- consfiscatory or punitive taxes.
jgapinoy on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 PM
You know that’s controversial, & you know that Darwin predicted there would be millions of trans. forms found when the fossil record was more fully uncovered. Where are the millions?
jgapinoy on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Ok. once again, I’ve put my case poorly.
My contention is that if a person describes, names, compartmentalizes, qualifies, or explains anything, that person is the master of that subject.
The author cannot attribute DNA (or anything else) to God without being able to state God’s capabilities – in a defined way. Once defined, it is subject to the definer.
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 9:39 PM
“Every creationist believes in evolution…just not macro-evolution.”
That is like saying you believe in seconds, but not minutes.
Dr. Manhattan on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Are Republican politicians supposed to be evolutionary biologists now?
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Absolute nonsense, as anybody who has ever studied quantum mechanics will tell you. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, give it a look some time.
Hilarious!
Well, quantum mechanics has never, ever, ever, ever been disproven. Sorry.
WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 PM
We aren’t saying the ‘scientific method’ is disproven. the scientific method is a way of evaluating evidence objectively. Science discovers things ALL THE TIME that PROVE prior ‘knowledge’ was false. The problem is when new evidence is found, instead of trying to rethink the entire argument, they try to fit the new evidence into the OLD THEORY when it comes to evolution.
They find something that contradicts evolution, and they say ‘it mutated’.
And the whole mutation of bacteria and flu strains doesn’t prove macro-evolution. they are still bacteria, they are still flu strains. They never become new species.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 PM
jgapinoy
The conditions that allow the formation of fossils are very rare. I have dug out fossils for museums myself. We mostly find teeth, as they are so dense and survive long enough to become slowly mineralized.
The question isn’t why aren’t we finding millions more fossils. The question is a rhetorical one: How amazing is it that we find any at all?
Dr. Manhattan on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Dude, it’s bad, but its really only a handful that are willing to out themselvs as such. Maybe there is still hope for the lurkers.
WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 PM
The sound of water lapping on a hull…
Similar but never the same…
Sirens call out to the sailor
Never knowing the seaman’s name,
Luring him to his fate …
Telling him of his prowess
With words she will deny
She ever spoke…
Proving only once again
The mystery has no end.
Existentialism…
jerrytbg on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Don’t be an idiot. The Heisenberg principle is about KNOWING the position and momentum of something, not about its actual position and momentum, which are well-defined. You don’t really know what you’re talking about. You should probably stop.
Are you high? Disproven? Quantum has many, many open questions and there are many systems that do not afford analysis by quantum theory. Do you understand what that means? (Probably not) Get a brain, man.
String theory has never been “disproven” either. So?
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 9:52 PM
I’m not sure if knowing something automatically makes someone a master of the subject. I can say you once posted on Hotair.com, but that by no means I understand all the details and complexity of your life. Perhaps you should read the book. Later.
AbaddonsReign on May 6, 2009 at 9:53 PM
I’d have to agree with WisCon. There have been quite a few painstaking experiments that validate the general outline of quantum theory. Which doesn’t have to cause you grief. Max Planck was a Christian, for example.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 PM
The rebuttal to Matthews childish straw man is:
Yes, I certainly do believe in the scientific method.
If you would like to debate the science of anthropogenic global warming, then lets debate it, Chris. One thing I can say for sure, is that Darwin offers no opinion on it, so let’s leave him out of it. I think Boyle, Kepler, and Newton would be more relevant to the discussion, don’t you?
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Only at the particle level. There are many paradoxes of quantum theory that have not yet been tested (though some have shown some signs of being possible, such as the EPR paradox that later formed the basis of Quantum Computing, teleportation, etc.). But there are many other macro-paradoxes that have not yet been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.
So, we have a set of probabilistic laws that seem to have some limits of scale at which they can be applied, but no one knows what these scale determinations are. That is the state of quatum theory.
It causes me no grief. I’m not a Christian (I’m not religious) and don’t believe in ID. But I understand the limits of what we currently know and our current theories.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:04 PM
One of these guys just needs to turn it back on Matthews. “Well, Chris, do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in God? Aren’t you a Catholic? What about abortion? Isn’t that hypocritical of you? Do you believe in transubstantiation?”
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Actually, I know exactly what I’m talking about. If one can’t even know with certainty the position of electrons, then how can you predict the outcome of everything in the universe? Pretty much everything about quantum mechanics flies in the face of any deterministic explanation.
The equations that govern quantum mechanics, which confer randomness and chance to our universe, have never been shown to be invalid for what they purport to describe. That is (again) why your deterministic model is invalid.
WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 10:07 PM
WisCon is correct (but WisCon already knew that). Uncertainty does not only mean that humans cannot measure something more precisely than the appropriate Planck quantity; it also means nothing else in the universe can know anything about its surroundings more precisely than the relevant Plank quantity (i.e. the Planck energy, Planck length, etc.). If one particle is to be affected deterministically by another’s, say, gravitational field, the first particle has to know very precisely the mass and the location of the second particle. The first particle cannot know exactly, so it, in effect, guesses.
The Double Slit Experiment, and the existence of Scanning Tunneling Microscopes, are just two examples of how Uncertainty in quantum mechanics has been quite conclusively proven. I’m sorry if it offends your philosophy, p_over_p, but it is indisputably a feature of the natural world.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM
^ Conservatives worry FAR too much about being “liked”, especially when they sit down for interviews with MSM idiots.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Exactly.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Yes.
Do you believe in the scientific method, Chris? Is an unborn child a person?
How can we have a serious discussion about the science of anthropogenic global warming with a political movement that thinks that an unborm child is not a human being?
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Not true; a particle’s position and momentum are not even defined for itself. See the link re: scanning tunneling microscopes I posted above–the electrons themselves have no idea where they are.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Some of you need to get offshore and know the horizon by where the stars stop…
You can throw out there all the theories you want …
But until you’ve seen it …you have no idea what life or fragility is about…
Sorry…I’m just off on a tangent…
I think I’ll go now…lol!!
jerrytbg on May 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM
*sigh*
Particles don’t “know” anything. Your anthropomorphizing of particles is nutty.
Particles HAVE definite positions and momenta. That these well-defined values cannot be measured says nothing about their existence or exactness.
Some of you people don’t seem to understand what the “uncertainty” modifies in Heisenberg’s principle.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:14 PM
That’s a classic. Really.
What do electrons know?
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:15 PM
How?
Saying you can have ID without religion is preposterous. ID Is religious theology. Its like saying teach geometry without mathematics.
ID is not science, it is Creationism, often specifically Young Earth Christian Theology at that. It was began as an attempt to get Religion into the classroom, because when it was phraseas as Creationism, it got thrown out of court time and time again.
So they couched it in a new term, trying to say it is science, when it is nothing new at all.
Lets keep Science in the Science classes, and Religion in religion classes and Churches. Everyone is happier that way.
firepilot on May 6, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Let me make this simple for you, a particle has a definite position and momentum at any point in time. You can choose to measure ONE of these quantities, but not both. You could measure the potition, changing the momentum, or you could measure the momentum, changing the position. But both traits existed and were well-defined, just not accessible to YOU at the same time.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Thank you for this thread, Allah! I love these threads, though most don’t.
Don’t know why, because they allow us creationists to go toe-to-toe with evolutionists. Makes for good reading (and research).
Skidd on May 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Prove it.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Let me make this simple for you, a particle has a definite position and momentum at any point in time. You can choose to measure ONE of these quantities, but not both. You could measure the potition, changing the momentum, or you could measure the momentum, changing the position. But both traits existed and were well-defined, just not accessible to YOU at the same time.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Prove it.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Let me make this simple for you, a particle has a definite position and momentum at any point in time. You can choose to measure ONE of these quantities, but not both. You could measure the potition, changing the momentum, or you could measure the momentum, changing the position. But both traits existed and were well-defined, just not accessible to YOU at the same time.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM
You’re playing a semantics game, and it really shows that you are the one who hasn’t studied the subject. Particles DO NOT have an exact position or momentum prior to measurement. That is a core principle of quantum mechanics.
WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Stick with the anthropomorphism conceit a little longer, and maybe you’ll see that it makes sense–they have to “know” their own positions and momenta and the positions and momenta of the particles around them in order to make informed decisions about what forces to feel.
A particle is not actually a particle; it is a probability smear. It mostly behaves as if it were a particle in the classical sense, but occasionally it forgets where it is and shows up in a lower probability region in its position distribution function.
Read the article on scanning tunneling microscopes. They work. Graduate students can build them. We can use them as an instrument to image individual atoms in crystalline structures. They can be used for this purpose because Uncertainty is a fundamental property of the universe. And, like all other fundamental properties of the universe, your wishing it weren’t true doesn’t make it so.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Just google “uncertainty principle” and read up on it. There are better explanations than I can give you. Unfortunately, you’re wrong. No harm, no foul. It’s freaking quantum physics, it’s not supposed to be easy.
RightOFLeft on May 6, 2009 at 10:32 PM
The only ones who would be happy with science classes being changed into theology classes, would be a small subset of Christians, and only for a little while until every other religion gets their way.
For those of you so hostile to science, its ironic since you are using a computer and the internet, and science is a part of your daily life in about every other regard too. While some of you think you are suspicious of science, you are completely willing to use products of science in your life.
So, should we also bring theology into math classes too? I mean should we toss out say there are no definite answers to adding and multiplying, since a few fishes fed thousands?
Should we change our ideas of meteorology and hydrology, since according to theology we had a worldwide flood that would have rained and meterologically impossible rates, then the water just disappeared?
firepilot on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Nicely stated.
WisCon on May 6, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Why do you assume it disappeared?
Skidd on May 6, 2009 at 10:36 PM
One of the physics professors at my university had a poster on his office door. It said, “Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. Quantum physics is doing the same thing twice and getting different results.”
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Heh. That explains a lot about physicists (no offense if you are one, though!).
RightOFLeft on May 6, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Let me make this simple for you, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says only that you can choose to measure ONE of the quantities, position or momentum, but not both. You could measure the position, changing the momentum, or you could measure the momentum, changing the position. But both traits existed and were well-defined, just not accessible to YOU at the same time.
As to your idea that particles need to “know” where other particles are is just silly.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I disagree.
Bringing religion into science class, I agree, is preposterous.
Suggesting there is a possibility that an intelligence of some sort behind the design of the universe is scientific conjecture.
Shall the idea that there may be life existing elsewhere other than planet earth be banned from science class too?
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:45 PM
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I see I wasn’t the only one having trouble getting something to post about that time, so hit submit more than once! :P
bikermailman on May 6, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Oof! I didn’t see that my original post finally went through.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I realize that you have moved on, but for the record: your analogy is flawed. My posting on Hot Air can be demonstrated. DNA can be demonstrated. That God had anything to do with it, or that God even exists, cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore, to link DNA and God, in any way, is to define (a part of) God’s abilities.
The writers of the Scriptures did not fall into that trap. They wrote only of rules, regulations, instructions etc, contained within the Old and New Testaments – as instructed by God.
When Job tried to explain and justify God, he was slapped down.
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM
It’s only silly if you think about forces in a 19th century manner, i.e. that they are carried by fields. Forces are carried by particles (photons, gluons, bosons, and perhaps gravitons) which are themselves subject to Uncertainty.
I myself used to doubt that quantum mechanics was correct, for no other reason than that it violated Ayn Rand’s notions of causality, but then I looked at the evidence for it. As it turns out, quantum mechanical principles do not defeat the notion of causality; they just defeat the notion of deterministic causality. No big deal.
I’m not a physicist; it’s just a (very nerdy) hobby.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM
should we also bring theology into math classes too? I mean should we toss out say there are no definite answers to adding and multiplying, since a few fishes fed thousands?
firepilot on May 6, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Well, sure why not?
Since two 300 pound fishes could feed about 2000 people,
how many could a few feed?
Of course, I wouldn’t pose such an easy question to kids past say, the third grade.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I don’t “doubt” quantum theory. I understand its efficacy. I doubt your understanding of it.
And quantum theory certainly does attack causality. In quantum theory, there is no causality, only the idea that the probabilities predict that we will observe something that looks like causality, almost all of the time – but definitely NOT all of the time.
Things don’t “move” in quantum theory. They just appear upon measurement, and they can appear anywhere, essentially – though they are highly likely to appear where we think they should.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 10:56 PM
ID is not a scientific conjecture, and even if it were, it is a question-begging argument–where did the designer that created the other life come from? Occam’s razor and the anthropic principle both militate against such “circles-within-circles.”
Classes about life existing elsewhere than earth are currently taught in college astronomy departments (I took one myself). Intelligent design was not mentioned once–there was nothing that such a conjecture would add to the theories, and there were no predictions such a conjecture could make that could not be made better without it.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Matthews babbled for over 6.5 minutes and Tanc spoke for just a little over a minute.
Was this an “interview”?
I listened to Matthews and literally none of what he babbled made sense at all. Could someone please tell me why GE thinks this guy is worth giving airtime to? I know some GE shareholders jumped on the CEO at the last shareholder’s meeting, but seriously, they need to jump on him, he’s simply throwing potential income out of the door with Matthews, Maddow and Olberman. Seriously, they could get higher ratings simply rerunning the Today show, NBC nightly and their regular NBC “news” programs in loops.
Jason Coleman on May 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM
saying that Christians are ‘against science’ or Creationists are ‘against science’ is a straw man. We aren’t ‘against science’. We just disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence that exists.
Replicate it, predict something with it, and then maybe we’ll have something worthwhile. Other than that, evolution is not even important to understand things like the temperature and barometric pressure where water boils, the density of mass, etc. Where we came from, how we originated is extremely insignificant to understanding science.
Mostly it is an opportunity for atheists to bash Christians as ‘kooks’.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Can you imagine Chrissy asking Jesus on the Great Judgement day if Jesus believed in evolution? I don’t think Chris would say anything but yet he would bow and say truely you are Lord as Chris also bends his knees. Those who say the bible is not literal are gambling on your eternal destiny and in case you are wrong there is no second chance.
garydt on May 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM
if I may interrupt. That’s a very interesting question. There are lots of ideas and conjectures that have been or are now popular in science. Some are treated as facts in popular culture. others are treated as serious theories.
So, if you want to explain, I’d like to know your opinion. How you think such ideas should be treated in the classroom? And, in particular, what do you make of SETI?
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Pure conjecture.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Quantum mechanics looks exactly like causality all of the time once you realize that Uncertainty is a fundamental property of the universe. A generation of brilliant physicists were stunned by the results of the dual slit experiment. Their failure to explain the outcome away through other means, coupled with their observation of similar phenomena through other methods, coupled with their theories having born enormous amounts of fruit in terms of technology, is why quantum mechanics is the method of choice for understanding the behaviour of the universe on a very small measurement scale.
Any new theory anyone might advance would have to explain all of the phenomena quantum mechanics explains. The universe behaves in accordance with its nature, and does not care whether or not its nature gives us unsettled feelings about “spooky action-at-a-distance.”
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I think it’s cool!
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Okay, Saltysam, I’ll bite. What can Intelligent Design explain that biological science cannot? What predictions can be made in an ID framework that cannot be made in the framework of biological science? How can these predictions be tested?
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Just listen to yourself. I mean, really.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
That’s exactly what scientists do. You just aren’t paying attention. See, for instance, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/05virus.html
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I have found this thread to be most enlightening. To the uninformed (me), both hicsuget and progressoverpeace have made convincing arguments. The problem is – who is right?
It is now easy to see how people can be misled by eloquence alone. Without appropriate knowledge of my own, how can i judge between the two?
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This is just one single example of the Bible doing what you say it doesn’t do.
The whole Bible defines God’s attributes. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Skidd on May 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM
I think that we should not go into a classroom with tape over our mouths, and a cotton in our ears.
All science begins with a question. Imagination is our only limitation.
Myself, I’m pretty limited.
But take the genius of Newton and Einstein. If they were brilliant, it is first that they had the powerful imagination to ask the question.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Wow, Allah’s traffic-whoring posts have lost their touch… Used to be you could count on 1000+ comments. We’re at around 250 right now? Are people tired of taking the bait?
RightWinged on May 6, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Gravity.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:14 PM
BTW, the lack of causality in quantum has nothing to do with the Uncertainty Principle, but with the fact that the same wave function can collapse to different states upon the same measurement – as you sort of noted in your quip about insanity (which was true). Uncertainty has to do with the need to affect a particle in order to measure it. You are conflating two very different aspects of quantum theory.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Allow me to channel Solomon: don’t take either of our words for it. Internet forums are where people debate opinions, not facts, and thus they are not a good place to learn science. Hawking touches on Uncertainty briefly in A Brief History of Time; that might be a good place to start.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Biology does not attempt to explain gravity; it leaves that task to physics.
And what in heck does ID have to do with gravity?
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I can agree with that. I would add a recommendation of Roger Penrose’s “The Emperor’s New Mind” for the best lay discussion of most of the interesting foundational aspects of math and physics.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 11:21 PM
It’s impossible not to talk about God if you’re going to talk about an intelligent agent that could have designed the universe. Sure, it would make for a lively discussion, but it’s not appropriate or productive to hold the discussion in a science classroom. How would high school students — who’ve never even taken an introductory philosophy course — benefit by spitballing about life, the universe in a freshman biology class? They’re supposed to be learning about the scientific method and the current state of biological knowledge.
The possibility that life may exist on other planets fits well in a biology class (or an astronomy class, or even a geology). Life on other planets can be experimentally confirmed, and the concepts relate well to understanding how life exists here on earth.
RightOFLeft on May 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Allah, Archaeopteryx is a bird with modern feathers. It is not some part-bird, part-reptile hybrid. Larry Martin of the University of Kansas said in 1985 that it was not an ancestor of any modern birds. Rather, it’s a member of a totally extinct group of birds.
The evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nuoy says, “We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and brids, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have no been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.”
CarpeFishem on May 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Did gravity exist before the big bang?
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Doesn’t the “invisible” part of that line refer to the things of which we do not know about God? Also, the rest of that verse seems to state that we are to understand about God through the things that He has shown us.
I don’t think that verse attempts to define God, as such.
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Thank you. I wish we could discuss this further, but that would be difficult here. So, i shall just add:
To me, there is something that comes before the question: confusion, doubt, wonder, or awe. I cannot remember a day in my life that I have not felt one of these. Indeed, wonder is the first thing I ever remember feeling. It’s always one of these emotional responses first, then come the questions.
I confess that I rarely have enough time or resources or expertise to investigate sufficiently, then answer my own questions. But I feel fortunate for so frequently knowing that I do not know, and there is so much that I do not know. Life is an extraordinary mystery.
I may return later to see how these discussions are doing. Please take good care of yourself.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Thanks to you, both. I shall attempt an education.
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Thanks Lox.
Here’s to the opening of the mind! ;-)
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:37 PM
We have yet to know whether or not intelligence can be experimentally confirmed.
I suspect that we are still quite primitive.
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:40 PM
You didn’t answer my question.
Intelligent Design is packaged and sold as an alternative to evolutionary biology. ID does not allege that an intelligent being designed the whole universe—that is Creationism, pure and simple. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
As to your question, no; gravity did not exist before the Big Bang. Or, to be more precise, there is not a single thing science can do to attempt to understand anything that happened or existed before the Big Bang—it represents the beginning of our universe in a philosophical sense. There could have been a previous Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by the Big Bang with which our present universe began, or the Big Bang might have just spontaneously happened; we have no way to know one way or the other; no evidence from an earlier time could have been preserved.
Back to your question: gravity is a property of space—Einstein threw out the notion that gravity is a force. It is meaningless to talk about space without matter, and meaningless to talk about matter existing outside of space. Your question is a bit like asking if the chewyness in chewing gum existed before chewing gum was invented.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM
OldEnglish on May 6, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Its OK.
Ugly on May 6, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Can this be said in science class?
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Your question is a bit like asking if the chewyness in chewing gum existed before chewing gum was
inventeddiscovered.hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:41 PM
(If you’re trying to be consistent in your analogy)
Saltysam on May 6, 2009 at 11:53 PM
In a college-level physics course, yes. It would probably blow the minds of a high school class.
Have you ever seen an equation in algebra that looks like this: n/0 = x ? The x in that equation is as undefined, as meaningless, as any talk of anything outside the light cone of the Big Bang.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Chicle was discovered, polyisobutylene was invented; both are used to make chewing gum.
The point is, chewiness does not exist apart from the chewing gum; it is a property of the chewing gum. Gravity is a property of space. And space exists only within the light cone of the Big Bang.
hicsuget on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM
I prefer the axiom of geometry.
A point exists.
Saltysam on May 7, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Didn’t the Thermopolis archaeopteryx have key features that were more closely related to theropods than birds?
dedalus on May 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Pure conjecture.
Saltysam on May 7, 2009 at 12:02 AM
So, can it be said in science class?
Saltysam on May 7, 2009 at 12:04 AM
As a wave of probability.
OldEnglish on May 7, 2009 at 12:08 AM
LOL!
Saltysam on May 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM
While I have incredibly strong feelings about this issue, it’s not really that important right now… am I the only one who see’s how soon we’ll be experiencing something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvmY3Q9cY
Wake the F up people!
RightWinged on May 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM
It’s called “General Relativity.” General Relativity has so far been an excellent predictor of experimental results, including the curvature of space brought about by matter and energy, and the gravitational acceleration such curvature causes. Not pure conjecture; conjecture based on discrepancies in previously-accepted theories and backed up by subsequent confirmation by 94 years of experimental evidence.
Hawking said it; I doubt anyone would get fired for saying it. Anything that happened or existed before the Big Bang is completely incapable of influencing anything we might be able to observe.
hicsuget on May 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM
Because we do not seem to be underwater right now from a rainfall that would have been about 6 inches per minute in order for the literal translation of Noahs flood. If it happened, it had to have gone somewhere. Unless it was a POOF it is there, and POOF it is gone. If it happened at 6 inches per minute rainfall, our knowledge of meteorogy needs to be rewritten, and same with our ideas of hydrology and geology too, all to incorporate water that receded into nowhere.
But the current ID/creationism movement, did not come about by scientific conjecture. It came about from losing court battles about creationism in the classroom. And if it was conjecture, it could be tested and observed, with predictions made about it.
Its theology, not science. Even those who coined the ID term admitted their goal was to replace scientific ideas with religious ideas.
Yeah, but instead of disagreeing in a logical way that shows scientific errors, and comes up with a different testable scientific theory, it comes down to basically saying Evolution and the age of the earth is wrong because you find it in conflict with your religion.
Biology is just as much of a science as physics. Maybe you have to observe longer, but it is science just the same.
And yes, for those who believe Noahs flood covered the entire earth from 40 days of rainfall, our idea of temperature, barometric pressure, and meterology would have to drastically change.
And for the young earth crowd that believers radiometric dating is totally inaccurate and bogus, well then Nuclear Physics has to be a bogus worthless field too, but somehow nuclear power seems to be for real too.
And yes, scientific theories should be testable, which right there debunks the Creationists who insist ID is also scientific. I do not think we have anything testable come from places like the discovery institute.
Even they in their own exhibit photos show their idea comes from the Bible, not science. So saying ID came about from scientific conjecture is not accurate either.
firepilot on May 7, 2009 at 12:11 AM
All of quantum mechanics is based upon the fact that what we call “particles” are not particles, but something that is a mix between a particle and a wave. That is why there is an uncertainty principle, and that is also why we can’t predict exact events at that scale – only probabilities.
And that is why your deterministic description is a load of crap.
Give it up already.
WisCon on May 7, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Unless a light wave can actually cease to exist, and since light travels in all directions (apart from a focused beam), doesn’t that mean that the universe/space is infinite?
OldEnglish on May 7, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Matthews is an Obama butt boy and bootlicker. Fortunately nobody watches his show.
echosyst on May 7, 2009 at 12:16 AM
The question was specifically directed at this:
which is the actual event…
…not the “non events” that occurred before it.
Your position is that this is not inconsistent with science, but that ID is a philosophical discussion that has no place in a science class.
Do I understand you correctly?
Saltysam on May 7, 2009 at 12:22 AM
I think your assumptions are off, firepilot. What do you think would happen if there was a massive rainfall throughout the world to everything that makes up earth?
I don’t know where you get the 6 inches of rain per hour number, but even so, what would 6 inches of rain per hour do to earth?
Skidd on May 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I meant to write your “6 inches of rain per minute”, not “hour” as I printed above.
Skidd on May 7, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »