Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
7 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Stile, Tangle (6 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,523 Year: 12,635/6,534 Month: 2,128/1,988 Week: 249/460 Day: 11/91 Hour: 7/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   first genetic material
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 84 (508027)
05-10-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
05-09-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
The elements are not "created" by superheated oxygen and silicon.
I think he's trying to refer to the oxygen-burning process and the silicon burning process: the last two stages of nucleosynthesis. Admittedly he's not doing so very accurately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 05-09-2009 4:58 PM onifre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 84 (508120)
05-10-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by dpeele
05-10-2009 6:27 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
However, I am interested by this statement found on Wiki dealing with the Big Bang... "At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptonsof the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe."
Unknown Reaction?? It sounds as if this unknown reaction has to take place for all this to work... or is this layman's terms as well?
Something must have produced an excess of matter over anti-matter, because this excess exists.
But no-one knows for certain what. As a result, as invariably happens in such cases, scientists say: "We don't know. So let's try to figure it out"; and creationists say: "We don't know. Therefore we do know: it was caused by God doing magic to make the universe in an act of fiat creation 6000 years ago. Oh, and as a corollary all the things that scientists know for certain must be wrong."
You will notice that only one of these reactions is logical. You may also consider that, given scientists' track record of finding things out, and creationists' track record of being wrong about everything, the smart money would be on the scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 6:27 PM dpeele has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 8:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 77 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 84 (508130)
05-10-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dpeele
05-10-2009 8:04 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
What was that something? Why not a being doing magic that exists outside of time and space, as absurd as it sounds.
Why not? you ask.
Well, sure, but why?
"God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so." - William of Conches, c. 1150 A.D.
As to why not, I would point out that typically, when we do find out the reason for something, the reason turns out not to be miraculous. Indeed, I have never witnessed any event of which the cause, when discovered, turned out to be supernatural. On this empirical basis, we must take the existence of a naturalistic explanation for as yet unexplained phenomena to be the default assumption until positive evidence is shown to the contrary.
"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, there would be no end of divine things." - Hippocrates, 4th century B.C.
I mean...
quote:
Something must have produced an excess of matter over anti-matter, because this excess exists.
does not convince me either.
Why not? I merely observe that something must have caused it to be the case, because it is in fact the case.
Do you deny that there is, in fact, an excess of matter over antimatter, or do you deny that this fact does indeed have a cause?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 8:04 PM dpeele has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 8:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 84 (508131)
05-10-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by dpeele
05-10-2009 7:22 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
What is the origin of the primeval atom?
Well, Lematre, being a Roman Catholic priest, thought that God made it. Indeed, the Pope at the time trumpeted the Big Bang as proof of a Creator.
There are other opinions as to the origin of the Universe, but as has been pointed out, this is not just the wrong thread but the wrong forum for it. This is the "Origin of Life" subforum, you want "Cosmology and the Big Bang".
---
I might point out, however, that Lematre's notion of a "primordial atom" was wrong. Lematre knew relativity but not quantum theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 7:22 PM dpeele has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 84 (508142)
05-10-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dpeele
05-10-2009 8:55 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
I can't deny its existence. however, neither of us have the answer to the "something", so we will have to wonder what that "something" was and believe what we believe. I don't know what is it was, but you can't tell me either (but it was definitely not a Being).
I did not say that it was definitely not anything.
You can "believe what you believe", if you like. I'll believe that I don't know. This seems to me to be a more honest approach, given that I do not, in fact, know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 8:55 PM dpeele has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 84 (508143)
05-10-2009 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by dpeele
05-10-2009 9:06 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Nice paste... I don't need to know about the quarks,antiquarks, leptons and photons... although an interest read. I would like an explaination for the "unknown reaction" that violated the conservation a little over 13 billions years ago.
So the only thing you want to know is the one thing you can find that no-one knows yet?
Then want must be your master.
Which according to the article "The baryon number is nearly conserved in all interactions of the Standard Model."
Note the word "nearly".
I've taken a shot at your question... now tell me where did the "primeval atom" originate?
As I've pointed out, there wasn't one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 9:06 PM dpeele has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 84 (508232)
05-11-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dpeele
05-10-2009 11:51 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Both positions appear to build on or back into unapprovable assumptions.
No ... scientists aren't allowed to do that. That's why you can find scientists saying that there are things they don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 11:51 PM dpeele has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022