Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

Ask Jeffery for the citation.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html


Try again?

[reaper]

Those links don't prove a thing, my argument is correct.

[fdrjk]

rofl

[quadz]

Those links don't prove a thing, my argument is correct.

This is what I look like when reading a post by reaper in the Ye Religion Thread.




This is what I look like when I respond to reaper's post.

[QwazyWabbit]

Part of the problem of wrapping your head around an expanding universe is understanding that it is a space-time universe and not a universe of space and time. This was the leap of Einstein's intellect.

When the universe was a singularity a photon could travel across the universe in zero time. That is, the space-time interval of a photon is zero. Since the laws of physics must hold for all space-time then a photon can still traverse the universe of space-time in a zero space-time interval. From the photon's point of view it is at every point of the universe at the same (zero) time. This is true regardless of the "size" and "age" of the universe. Because the space-time interval of the universe is 1, everything in the "visible" universe must be "visible". You can't see something than hasn't emitted a photon. So there are photons that are "as old as the universe" and there are photons that are younger than the universe.

As you look deeper into the "space" of the universe you are looking back in time. Since the universe of space-time was "expanding" faster when it was younger the further back in time you look the greater the red shift we observe. This is why the CMB is at microwave wavelengths, the space-time point of their origin is receding so fast from us that the brightest light of the big bang is red-shifted beyond the infrared.

The other problem is that there is no "stationary" frame of reference, there is no point in space-time that is "special". Therefore for any point at any place in space-time, the universe of space-time must appear to be receding from that point at the same rate and the "edge" of the universe of space-time will appear to be the same age as at any other point.

[reaper]

Here is an interesting timeline , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology

[Sgt. Dick]

Quads,

I watched the Tyson - Big Bang Video (painful)

For someone in that field I'm sure it all makes sense, but it left me with more questions.  How do the look at things at the molecular level, millions of miles away 

While it may play a key role, The Big Bang theory is much deeper than my original question.  My question is - how were humans created.  I can assume that people will say that human life started as a single molecule and grew from that over time.  Fader mentioned DNA comparisions between humans and monkeys, are there similiar results from monkeys to other creatures 
Is there a scientific path back to where humans began     

[|iR|Focalor]

They're not guesstimations in the sense that would allow for the kind of variation you're talking about.

There are several independent techniques for estimating the age of the earth, as well as multiple techniques for estimating elapsed time since the Big Bang. 

We literally set our clocks by some of these techniques.

If we were wrong about the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, atomic clocks (and GPS navigation) wouldn't work, for instance.


Regards,

We set our clocks by the speed at which the earth rotates. One rotation around the sun is one year. None of that necessarily accounts for periods of time in which poisonous gases or oxygen deprived gases spewing from the core of the earth might have choked all living organisms forcing living things back to square one (or at least the land dwelling variety). Seems like a hasty move to assume that our technology and knowledge is advanced enough to claim that gaps in traditionally recognized time periods of the earth are an impossibility. Perhaps these types of catastrophic events weren't even worldwide which may have something to do with commonality between fossils and currently existing organisms. It wouldn't be the first time that groups of humans were presented with evidence that pointed to one conclusion only to later discover that the conclusion wasn't 100% correct. DNA can indicate commonality, but it can't provide an exact age of the DNA sample itself. To do this, they date the rocks in which the fossil is found. They also date rocks by which fossils are found in them. It's not an exact linear process in all instances. Obviously, it doesn't prove that only the fossils we've FOUND are the only creatures ever to exist. My point is this: I believe they are headed in the right direction with these assumptions, but I still believe they've only merely scratched the surface and in time will discover that many of their theories aren't entirely correct.

It's quite unfathomable to the tiny human brain that the universe and the space our planet floats around in is absolutely infinite and never ending. It's unfathomable to us how the concept of time doesn't really exist and that space has always been and will always be. So it seems quite logical that the earth floating around in this inconceivably vast nothingness that has always been is probably many times older than we can currently understand it to be.

We know jack shit about anything.

[quadz]

I watched the Tyson - Big Bang Video (painful)

Sorry it was painful, but thanks for taking the time to watch it.

My question is - how were humans created.  I can assume that people will say that human life started as a single molecule and grew from that over time.

Right.  However, DNA is presumed to be too complex to have likely been the initial self-replicating molecule that led to the development of cellular life.

Some recent research has shown that simpler RNA enzymes can be configured to self-replicate indefinitely, without the help of other proteins.  Additionally, the enzymes were subject to possible random mutation during the replication process, and were able to carry the mutations on to successive generations:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Interestingly, the article also mentions that evolutionary techniques were used to "breed" an improved version of the RNA enzyme that was better at replicating than what they started out with.

Fader mentioned DNA comparisions between humans and monkeys, are there similiar results from monkeys to other creatures 
Is there a scientific path back to where humans began     

Most definitely.  Both the fossil record, and our genetic history form an evolutionary tree.

Here's an example of the tree that is revealed when we sequence the genomes of present-day species:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/2000px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_%28biology%29 )


The tree revealed by gene sequencing agrees with the tree shown by examination of the fossil record.


The fossil record reveals a tree going back billions of years:

http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif
(Explanation: http://evogeneao.com/tree.html )

Note that the above tree has various limitations, described on the explanation page.  ("The smallest branches are purely illustrative; they are intended to suggest the effect of mass extinctions on diversity", etc.)  However I find its arrangement easy to read.


Regards,

quadz

[quadz]

We set our clocks by the speed at which the earth rotates. One rotation around the sun is one year.

We don't employ astronomical measurements when we need accurate time.  (GPS satellites, Internet time servers, etc. etc.)

We build atomic clocks that don't lose a second in 30 million years.  They are reportedly on the order of a million times more accurate than what we can obtain via astronomical measurements. ^[1]

None of that necessarily accounts for periods of time in which poisonous gases or oxygen deprived gases spewing from the core of the earth might have choked all living organisms forcing living things back to square one (or at least the land dwelling variety). Seems like a hasty move to assume that our technology and knowledge is advanced enough to claim that gaps in traditionally recognized time periods of the earth are an impossibility. Perhaps these types of catastrophic events weren't even worldwide which may have something to do with commonality between fossils and currently existing organisms.

Multiple techniques are used in dating the age of the solar system:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

It wouldn't be the first time that groups of humans were presented with evidence that pointed to one conclusion only to later discover that the conclusion wasn't 100% correct.
[...]
We know jack shit about anything.

I'm reminded of the sort of statement Dan Dennett refers to as a "deepity".  A proposition "that has at least two readings and balances precariously between them.  On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another reading it is false but would be earth-shattering if it were true."

1. Our ignorance of the universe is nearly boundless, and it is common for existing theories to be encapsulated and superceded by more-explanatory new theories.  (true)

2. Acknowledging our vast ignorance, we should expect existing well-tested highly experimentally accurate theories to be overturned by new theories which show the prior theories to have been wildly inaccurate.  (false)

#2 is a common misconception, which I am choosing to refer to as, "the Tubby."


Consider what happened when Newton's laws of motion were superceded by Einstein's relativity.  Does relativity reveal cases where Newton's laws would produce inaccurate results?  Yes.  Were the two centuries of calculations performed using Newton's laws prior to the discovery of relativity suddenly wrong?  No.

Similarly, should we expect relativity to be someday superceded by a more-explanatory theory?  Yes.  Should we expect all the relativistic calculations we've been doing (again, used in GPS systems) to suddenly be shown to have been wildly inaccurate when the new theory arrives?  No.

Same goes for calculating the age of our solar system.  Is it likely we'll discover increasingly accurate ways to determine its age in the future?  Sure.  Should we expect the current calculations to be off by billions of years?  Probably not.

[quadz]

Same goes for calculating the age of our solar system.  Is it likely we'll discover increasingly accurate ways to determine its age in the future?  Sure.  Should we expect the current calculations to be off by billions of years?  Probably not.

On a related note, some of the challenges of dating moon rocks:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128265.100-moon-may-be-200-million-years-younger-than-thought.html




Edit: oddly, the following is a Google image search result for "dating moon rocks":

[astral]

who says the universe ever had to expand, maybe it has been and always will be this size for this particular universe, fact is no one has a real clue about the origins or life of the cosmos

My point about relativity and expansion, was that who says the fundamentals of the "observable" universe are bound to humans ideals and beliefs.  Fact is that what we see might be a reflection of the "reality" we humans create continually while being alive, nothing more and nothing less.  We might be "fooling" ourselves into thinking this is what the universe is(!), while in reality the universe isn't that way at all.

I recognize the mindset.  Tubby veered in a similar direction months ago when engaged about his misapprehensions concerning the gene-centric mechanisms of inheritance.

In any case: It hardly matters whether the 'true' nature of the universe is different than the one we can observe.  (For instance, we could all be running as a simulation on some alien mainframe.)

In practical terms, we appear to all be participating in the shared experience of living in a universe governed by consistent laws.

As Dr. Krauss observed in the link posted earlier (about time 12:00) - "If we could just convince a lot of people of just that simple thing: that the universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not -- I think we'd overcome a lot of problems in this country; and I have to waste far too much time on that..."

In short: Don't be a Tubby.

I was trying to have a legitimate discussion but thanks

[astral]

Now where I was going with my discussion:

The wave particle duality of matter, in essence, matter is aware of being observed.  Thereby changing characteristics accordingly.

Back in the 1800's  Thomas Young discovered the dual wave-particle nature of light.  I was suggesting that the observable universe might have such abilities as well. 

[Whirlingdervish]

rocks

[reaper]

Now where I was going with my discussion:

The wave particle duality of matter, in essence, matter is aware of being observed.  Thereby changing characteristics accordingly.

Back in the 1800's  Thomas Young discovered the dual wave-particle nature of light.  I was suggesting that the observable universe might have such abilities as well. 

Your original question was how could we observe light 93 million trillion light years away, and estimate the age of the universe so that light wouldn't have the time to travel that far.  Whether light is a particle or wave doesn't change that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, and we determine the traveled distance from its frequency.  Given the vastness of space, and fundamental forces, I would guess it's a particle that behaves as a wave of energy.  But hey that's just a guess : ).  Checking the age versus distance is not straightforward because the space-time itself is expanding.

An observation itself changing state at a quantom level is not related to observing the photons, their frequency and origin.  Quantom level is really small, like parts of an atom, not detection method for distance.