Recently, a young-Earth creationist named Nathaniel Jeanson gave an invited talk in Boston, and besides the usual crowd of believers, a group of skeptics attended as well. Rebecca Watson penned a wonderful description of the event (and on Skepchick as well), complete with audience — and speaker — reactions.
I don’t generally go to talks by creationists, as it would be a rare event indeed for them to say something original, or accurate. But Rebecca noted this:
Because his work at Harvard focused on biology, that was the bulk of his talk, but before reaching that discipline he first dismissed both astronomical and geological evidence for evolution and a multi-billion-year-old universe. Of the former, he declared that when we observe galaxies around ours, they are spread out equally to the “north, south, east and west” of Earth, and therefore we are literally at the center of the Universe (and therefore blessed by God?). This is silly. Mountains of research suggest that the Earth occupies a wholly unremarkable corner of a Universe that is vaster and more ancient than Jeanson’s comparatively puny philosophy can imagine.
I listened to a recording of the talk for this part, and Rebecca reports his argument faithfully. His argument is totally wrong. I know, shocker. His basic assumption is that the Universe has a physical edge, which is incorrect. There is a visible limit for the Universe, a farthest distance we can see. That distance is about 13 billion light years. We can’t see any farther away because there hasn’t been time since the birth of the Universe for a photon to get any farther. You can consider objects that have moved more than 13 billion light years away from us, but we simply cannot see them due to the expansion of the Universe.
You might therefore naively make a map showing all the objects in the Universe, and lo, we are at the center. But that would be true for any and every single point in the Universe. If you are on Alpha Centauri, or in the Andromeda Galaxy, or sitting near a young quasar 10 billion light years away, you would look out and still see yourself apparently centered in the Universe. The whole point here is that there is no special location in the Universe, no preferred point.
So, BZZZZZT. He’s wrong.
But, we knew that.
Of course, Jeanson ignores another rather obvious and difficult problem: if the Universe is 6000 years old, how do we see galaxies billions of light years away? Creationists have to bob and weave a lot to answer that one. Perhaps the light was created already on its way, or the Universe was created appearing old already. But that would be awfully tricky of a creator, trying to fool us by providing millions of individual bits of evidence of an old Universe but then saying it’s young.
I thought deception was someone else’s purview in the Bible.
Anyway, its stuff like this that’ll probably keep me away from live lectures by creationists in the future. Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:26 am
Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere.
But fun! Or at least the Moebius strip unicycling ride sounds like fun anyway!
Nice analogy.
Uh .. can you ride a unicycle BA?
Can there be accurate 3d model Moebius strips? What’s the largest Moebius strip in existence – anyone know?
—-
PS. First post! Wooo-Hoo!
(Just in case you hadn’t noticed!)
August 21st, 2009 at 7:33 am
Technically, you can see objects that are — now — further than 13 billion light years away because the metric expansion of space is not limited by the speed of light. Objects at the edge of the observable universe emitted the light that we now see about 13 billion years ago, but those objects are now physically more like 46 billion light years away.
Not that this invalidates any of your arguments, or makes creationists any less misguided, but it’s a common misperception.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:34 am
The problem, of course, is that the general audience that attends such events doesn’t read Skepchick. I’m sure the “argument” that we are at the center of the universe triggered a wave of nodding heads and silent “amens.” I mean, the man went to Harvard, right? He’s a scientist! And everyone knows the opinion of one creationist scientist is all it takes to counter the sum total of all other scientists…even the ones who seem to know what the heck they’re talking about.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:41 am
Actually, Phil, we can see objects quite a bit further away. Though I suppose distance measures in cosmology can be a bit arbitrary, the furthest we can see is the cosmic microwave background. When it was emitted, the part of the surface of last scattering which we see today (the stuff whose light has traveled for 13.7 billion years) was around 41 million light years away or so. As the universe has expanded around 1100-fold since then, that stuff is now around 45 billion light years away.
For some people it can strain credulity that we can see parts of the universe which are today much further than the time it took the light to get to us. But it all comes down to the details of how the universe has expanded over time.
Other than that, though, your point is perfectly sound. There is a definite limit to how far we can see. It’s just not quite as simple as 13.7 billion light years, because of the expansion.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:41 am
Just to quibble: although the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, the edge of the observable universe is currently much more than 13 billion light years away. Objects that began emitting light 13 billion years ago are now, due to the metric expansion of space, approximately 46 billion light years away. The metric expansion of space is strange stuff, and not limited by the speed of light.
Regardless, none of this invalidates your points or makes creationists any less badly misguided.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:41 am
It’s a good job these people were not in charge of atlantic sea crossings.
“Oh look, I can see the same distance N, E, S and W. Right, that must mean i’m in the exact middle of the Atlantic” Fail.
Total nonsense.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:43 am
Wow! Center of the whole universe, eh? And with directions aligned with the cardinal points on the compass to boot! Ain’t science wonderful!
August 21st, 2009 at 7:46 am
Sorry, I’m a bit confused. I don’t agree with the creationist view but can I ask a wee bit more about the idea that we are at the centre of the universe? Perhaps one of you cosmologists can answer this for me.
Is the 13 billion year age of the universe an observational and/or theoretical value?
I understand thanks to Wilson and Penzias that they were able to ‘observe’ or rather hear the background hum of cosmic background radiation in equal intensity in every direction – is this the case? If so, doesn’t this too suggest we are at the centre of the universe?
Is it true to say that “that the Universe has a physical edge, which is incorrect”?
Surely if there was a Big Bang then there must be a finite amount of universe otherwise it would not be expanding?
Thanks in advance.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:47 am
Phil, at the last paragraph, in the first line: “Anyway, its stuff like this that’ll probably keep me away from live lectures by creationists in the future.”
That should be it’s ( it is), not “its”.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:49 am
I have one (crappy) picture of his slide showing this. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sc00ter/3827508315/
August 21st, 2009 at 7:49 am
If you are on Alpha Centauri, or in the Andromeda Galaxy, or sitting near a young quasar 10 billion light years away, you would look out and still see yourself apparently centered in the Universe.
[Pedantic fool mode on]
If you are on Alpha Centauri – you are dead because it is actually a star or three that you’ll be standing on & thus very, very hot! Three thousand degrees at coolest, six thousand plus at hottest. Assuming you aren’t *very* well thermally & radiation-ally shielded.
Actually the view from Alpha Centauri is virtually identical with the view from our Sun -at least cosmos -wise. There’ll be three suns in the sky, one dim and reddish, two like headlights, solar bright or above and there’s an extra very bright star in the constellation Cassiopeiae which is Earth’s Sun but other than that – the view is about the same. Oh, minus the planets Jupiter, Venus, Mars, etc .. o’course and possibly with a few different planets instead.
Or from the Andromeda Galaxy too? Well that’s a very big place – like saying from the Milky Way where we are but again, not really so different depending on where in the Andromeda Galaxy you are. Assuming you’re in the outskirts of M31 somewhere rather than the dense packed Andromedan core or an M31-ese globular then it’ll be pretty much the same – only different constellation patterns – and one extra barred spiral galaxy in the sky which will be our Milky Way. No Magelllanic clouds* but similar satellite galaxies will adorn Andromeda hypothetical’s skies. ( Namely M32 & M110 among others.)
Near a young quasar OTOH?
Hmmm.. Now that would be interesting. Quasars are super bright, variable and very different looking – they also are very youing and in an era when the cosmos itself was quite different. More energetic, younger, less likely to have habitable planets or life. Actually without a time machine it seems unlikely you could be there.
Still if you could it’d be different & the sky would be amazing – but the BA’s right you would still be cosmic centre perspective wise.
@ 7 IVAN3MAN :
Phil, at the last paragraph, in the first line: “Anyway, its stuff like this that’ll probably keep me away from live lectures by creationists in the future.”
Pity. Be fun having you raise your hand and interupt them with the odd rational point! I get the feeling Creationist lectures could use a few hecklers!
And how about the dead creationist lectures???
Zombie creationist lecturer : Braaaaiinnns! Brrraaaaiiinns! {looks around thetare odf fundy Christians} D’oh!
[Zombie Creationist lecturer walks out of theatre in search of some actual working brrrraaaaainnns!]
*********
* Or would the Magellanic clouds be visible from Andromeda? I don’t think they’re big & bright enough but I could be wrong .. Mostlikely they’d look from M31 like M32 & M110 do from here. Best guess.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:50 am
“like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere.”
This might be the nerdiest analogy I’ve ever heard. Which obviously means I love it, and will steal and use it at any and every opportunity.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:52 am
The BA said:
Aha, the old “Last Thursdayism” argument again.
Basically, the logical failure of the “universe created recently with the appearance of age” is that (a) there is no way to test it; and (b) that it allows for the entire universe to have popped into existence last Thursday but with the appearance of great age (including all memories of events prior to last Thursday).
August 21st, 2009 at 7:55 am
Ian:
My cosmology isn’t great, so I’m looking to be corrected here as well, but let me try to answer your question:
The universe is indeed finite, and it’s expanding, but it’s not expanding in the way that a blob of pancake batter expands on a griddle, it’s expanding like a balloon being filled up with air. Objects that were close to each other are getting further apart, rather than a gradual flow from a center to the edges.
You sort of think of the universe expanding to take up more and more space, moving into what was previously a vacuum. But it’s not: the space itself is what’s expanding in the first place. Even if you could go faster than light, there’s no edge of the universe you can fly to and look over into the void. There’s actually no space where there’s no Universe.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:58 am
I always hated the idea of a God who would create us with great reasoning abilities, plant tons of fake evidence to mislead those reasoning abilities, and then punish us if we used the reasoning abilities he gave us with the fake evidence he planned. If I’m going to believe in a God, I’m going to believe in one that rewards us for learning the inner workings of the Universe, not one that punishes us.
“I thought deception was someone else’s purview in the Bible.”
Well, if all of the fake evidence was planted by Satan, then the study of that evidence would be Satanism… Just what we need, creationists frothing at the mouth that public schools are teaching their kids Satanism and all science should be banned.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:59 am
@Jason Dick – the edge of the observable universe is believed to be about 46.5 billion ly away due to the expansion of the space metric – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
August 21st, 2009 at 8:03 am
Ian (6) said:
Both. The theory provides us with a framework within which to perform a meaningful calculation, and the calculation is based on measurements of the distances of supernovae in distant galaxies. The distance to a distant galaxy allows us to calibrate the Hubble constant (the expansion velocity of the universe) which in turn allows us to calculate the age of the universe.
No, it doesn’t. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is everywhere in the universe, which is why it looks the same in all directions (until you get down to some very fine measurements, when you can detect anisotropy – that is, differences in different parts of the sky). But the CMB would look like it were the same everywhere from any point in the universe.
As far as can be determined, the universe has no physical edge. This is supported by the fact that every candidate theory that matches most observations calls for a universe that it infinite in extent.
Of course, it gets more complex in some theories, because the fabric of the universe is curved in four or five dimensions (or even more, in some theories) and it is impossible to imagine that as a physical object without your brain dribbling out through your ears.
Apparently not. We are at the ragged edges of my understanding here, but IIUC the universe does indeed appear to be unbounded in space, but with a definite start point (i.e. at least one boundary in time). Although infinite in extent, there is no reason why the universe cannot be expanding. You seem to be having the conceptual trouble of “what is the universe expanding into?” but this is the wrong question. There isn’t any space or anything outside the universe (well, certainly it is impossible for us to observe anything outside the universe), and the universe has no edges, so there isn’t any meaningful context into which we can put that question.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:05 am
@ Messier Tidy-upper:
Zombie creationist lecturer : Braaaaiinnns! Brrraaaaiiinns! {looks around thetare odf fundy Christians} D’oh!
HA!!!!!!!!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:06 am
TechyDad (12) said:
That’s right! Teaching evolution leads to atheism, which is obviously (
) the same as Satanism!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:07 am
Fundamental Christianity is in its death throes… and like a dying animal, it is viciously spitting venom. Just avoid the goo and walk around the pitiful thing.
You are too brilliant to waste your efforts analyzing such nonsense. It is beneath anyone who truly honors science.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:07 am
Oh, man, I confused the emoticon thingy.
That was supposed to contain a
between the parentheses.
ETA: Hey, that worked. I just went back and edited it so it might be less confusing for the computers.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:11 am
“Hmmm.. Now that would be interesting. Quasars are super bright, variable and very different looking – they also are very youing and in an era when the cosmos itself was quite different. More energetic, younger, less likely to have habitable planets or life. Actually without a time machine it seems unlikely you could be there.”
Please do correct me if I am way off, and I do not mean to offend:
The way I understand it quasars are viewed at a point in time where our universe was very young. But we see this era as young because the most recent light has not reached us yet. Is it not true that if I was at the actual location it would likely appear similar in structure as our local cluster, super cluster etc?
August 21st, 2009 at 8:13 am
There’s actually a big difference between :
1) Trying to wrap your head around creationist astronomy
&
2) Trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip.
Because the latter sounds like fun and sounds like it’d actually be *worth* attempting for the heck of it!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Phil: “I thought deception was someone else’s purview in the Bible.”
TechyDad @12: “[A]ll of the fake evidence was planted by Satan…”
When a YEC trots out this argument, do a little happy dance in your head and calmly point out to them that ascribing the power of creation to the devil has been considered heresy for some 16 or 17 centuries. Fun little factoids like that are very useful in preventing the sort of “talking past” that goes on in a lot of these discussions.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am
Asimov Fan said:
Can there be accurate 3d model Moebius strips? What’s the largest Moebius strip in existence – anyone know?
Not only is it possible, but Möbius strips are used all the time. Conveyor belts in factories are a good example of this. They turn the belt into a Möbius strip in order to make sure both sides of the belt wear equally.
Not only are Möbius strips are very easy to make, but (if you can ride a unicycle) you can *easily* ride a unicycle down a real life Möbius strip.
Wikipedia has a few pictures of Möbius strips in real life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip
August 21st, 2009 at 8:24 am
Thanks 11 and 16 – still confused.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:25 am
And here I thought all this time I was the center of the Universe.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:27 am
It reminds me of the Church of the Spaghetti Monster, who states that the Spaghetti Monster created the world one hour ago and just inserted fake memories in people’s brains.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:28 am
Now I totally want to go to the airport with my Unicycle, mark a spot on the conveyor belt,and ride my unicycle on it until the spot comes around again.
I’d do it if I didn’t think I’d be nabbed by Homeland Security and thrown into an unknown prison for the next 16 years.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:35 am
Also, last I heard the CMB actually is not perfectly smooth but has tiny anisotropies. It was my understanding that the Cosmic Microwave background Explorer (Headed by Mr. Smoot) picked up these anisotropies over a decade ago.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Don’t forget mathematical modeling in terms of knit and crochet (i learned to crochet simply because i wanted to crochet a Lorenz manifold)–there are plenty of moebius strips walking around masquerading as scarves:
http://www.planetshoup.com/easy/knit/scarfmb.shtml
here’s an article about the Lorenz manifold:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219170412.htm
and for more info on the link between crochet and hyperbolic space, go here:
http://www.theiff.org/oexhibits/oe1e.html
August 21st, 2009 at 8:49 am
It’s always amused me that the people who believe in an omnipotent deity are the people with the least understanding of how infinity works.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
I’m off to the Mythbuster’s website (Where the BA’s Close Personal Friend hangs out). I had heard that Formula 1 racecars are areodynamically designed to get sucked down to the road with enough force so they could drive upside-down. I’ll suggest making a BIG Möbius strip and drive one of those cars around it. That would be kewl!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:57 am
If there was a physical edge of the universe, i’d totally be down for the road trip
August 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am
@ Nigel – re: comment 13
Given that the universe is expanding at a continuously accelerating rate, would it be fair to say that the Big Bang, instead if being a singular event is instead the current condition of the Universe?
August 21st, 2009 at 9:07 am
I like Jeanson’s idea that there are galaxies to the N S E and W of Earth, as if the universe were laid out like a two dimensional map. Once he said that, I’d have been done with him. He’s got nothing else of interest to me after showing such an insanely ignorant view of space.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:11 am
RE: trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip:
I think a roller coaster based on a Moebius strip would be a blast. Half way thru the ride you would go thru the station at high speed upside-down.
While you’re loading, the other car would be speeding below you upside-down.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Just for the sake of argument, let’s grant that the Universe is a big spherical room with galaxies scattered evenly inside. Let’s also agree that to some approximation we appear to be at the center. But how can a creationist argue from empirical measurements that we are at dead-center?
All physical measurements have inherent imprecision to them. Thus, data presented properly all have error bars attached to them. To date, measurements of the distances of astronomical objects, especially galaxies, have enough imprecision that we could easily be way off to one side of the center of the hollow ball universe. Maybe we’re at the bull’s-eye, or we may be several light-years from it. It’s uncertain; and if it turned out that we’re not quite exactly in the middle, then are we still blessed above all others? And if the answer is yes, then what difference does it make as far as theology is concerned?
I mean, even if core is smack-dab in the middle, we out here on the surface certainly aren’t. No matter how creationists cut it, we the people aren’t at the physical center of it all.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:55 am
For a YouTube clip of Jeanson talking about irreducible complexity and calcium regulation, check out this link. It was filmed at the 7PM “lecture” last Sunday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQDQs3Fp_Q
August 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
Phil nailed it. To believe in a a 6,000 year old universe, you have to accept that your “God” is deliberately attempting to deceive you. Or is incompetent.
Either way, why would you worship such a creature?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
While the creationist quoted in the OP is an idiot, I like the poetic idea that we are indeed in the center of the universe — along with everything else, that being the idea with an expanding universe which started out as a point. So we are at the center. So is everything else. An ultimately equitable universe, if being in the center is at all meaningful anyway.
But this is only interesting from a poetic standpoint; the truth is that the idea of a “center” is meaningless. Since the universe has no real edge, it has no real center either.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:09 am
I admit, I never went to university. Somtimes I regret it, but then I read things like this. If a person can achieve the highest degree possible — in a field of science, no less — from one of the most prestigious schools on the planet, while demonstrating a head full of astonishingly incorrect ideas about his own field of study, what then is the value of an expensive Harvard education? If I met an M.D. who believed disease was caused by evil spirits and not microorganisms, not only would I be hesitant to seek his services, I would also hold the institution that bestowed the title in low regard.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:16 am
#4 Jason Dick, I am one of those people you spoke about.
I know, or rather I have learned recently, that there are indeed a few separate ways to define the concept of distance in an expanding Universe and I do understand the logic behind it. But I do still have trouble with the idea of a universal now that underlies the comoving distance estimate you gave.
In the time that light from such a (spatial) distance takes to travel to us, the expansion doesn’t stop until it hits our eyes (or instruments) I get that, that’s logical. But I can’t get my head around the fact that if you look at it either from a background-independent point of view, meaning the real physical relations between those two points, which can only exist if those points are within each others horizons, or we could take spacetime seriously and don’t think in a Newtonian way in a separate space and time framework.
Could you (or anyone else) perhaps point out to me, and maybe others if I am not the only one, where am I making the crucial mistake(s)?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:26 am
My personal favorite bit of convoluted logic from the YECchies came my way when I was in grad school: A fundie student explained that the reason we could see objects more than 6000 light years away was because when the universe was created, it was perfect, and the speed of light was infinite. Then Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, which defiled creation and slowed light to its present value(!). How’s that for geo-(ego?)centrism!
August 21st, 2009 at 10:39 am
@Dan
Perhaps someone should give the fine fellow a copy of Flatworld. Then again, it might be above (north of?) his head.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Answered my own question with regards to CMB. From Wikipedia the CMB is in fact not “perfectly smooth”:
“Microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength” announced in April of 1992. So, to me, “Perfectly smooth” means perfect… a 1.9mm wavelength is not perfect.
As for my first question, I am no phd and have learned all I know from texts, web and other hodgepodge sources, but it seems to me that we are looking at more exceedingly old light the further we look outward. This tells me that the light we see from our star is very young light and recent, and the light we see from 13 billion ly away is extremely old. Meaning that the newer light from 13 billion ly out we have no hope of seeing… ever (the human race will likely be long extinct by the time it gets here). But if we could survive that long, that younger light to me should show similar structures that we see today.
Is my logic and/or data wrong?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:42 am
The creationist use the supposed existence of a redshift quantization as evidence that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe. They neglect to mention the many, many arguments against that position.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
@Phil, and @Daffy –
You presume that God making a universe to appear old, or making light in transit would be “fooling” us — but how many of the billions of people who have spent time on earth know anything about the size or age or shape of the universe, and are therefore “fooled”? A scant few. Perhaps his goal was to shine billions and billions of little lights as a message and lesson to people who gaze upward into it? The point wouldn’t be to fool, but to teach an entirely different lesson to those willing to learn it.
I build simulations. In them, I am the master of time and reality. My simulated models know nothing about me, can’t see me, have no way to perceive me, and yet they exist in what appears to be infinity (at least out to the limits of a double =). I can’t help but think God smiles a little when we think we stare off into infinity and think we see reality without him. It may all just be a simulation (sort-of like the matrix), designed to see what you and I will do when faced with temptation. You can get hung up on stars and dinosaurs and believe that it doesn’t matter whether you’re good or bad, but in the end, that’s the choice we’re each making.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
@Bryan
The point wouldn’t be to fool, but to teach an entirely different lesson to those willing to learn it.
And what lesson would that be?
Reminds me of an old piano teacher I had once. A nun. Every time I made a mistake she rapped my knuckles with a ruler. What lesson was she trying to teach? I gave up playing the piano mores the pity.
Anyway if your god has built a simulation, by golly you guys have a fixation with the Matrix, he hasn’t designed it very well.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Mild thread jack here. I’m curious if anyone knows the answer to this.
I’m no astronomer or physicist. But the third-grade logic in my head says that wherever the “ignition point” was for the Big Bang, there should be something “special” there. Whether it’s a bright “hole” that got torn in the fabric of our universe that looks into the “macroverse” of other branes and whatnot. Or more likely, a gigantic hole of NOTHING. I mean if everything flung out at rapid speed from that point and continues to accelerate away from that central point, shouldn’t our telescopes eventually zero in on a colossal “blank spot” of sorts?
Please educate me.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Bryan,
In which case I fall back on incompetent. Did He—in His omniscient wisdom—not know that one day there would be people who would be able to take measurements? Pretty big oops, if you ask me.
And I do think it matters very much whether we are good or bad (want to debate Karma?); I just don’t need fear of divine retribution in order to behave myself. You’re right; it is a choice. How sad that some people only make the right choice because they are frightened.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:05 am
@Bryan:
Speculation has no weight without evidence to back it up. Seeing a similarity does nothing to support speculation. Unless God himself (or this Spaghetti Monster I keep hearing about) comes to all of us and says “guys really it’s been fun but… you’re all taking far too long to figure it all out so, here is what’s going on…” there really is no way to verify. I can say that the universe appears this way because God had to go real, real bad and just pulled up to the side of the ethereal highway and that’s how this all started. Can you prove it wrong? Can you prove it right? No on both counts.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:12 am
@Brian #50
Not meaning this as offense, but you are assuming that the expanding universe was/ois expanding into pre-existing spacetime. This is an incorrect assumption that many make (I made it myself 20+ years ago when I embarked on my own journey of discovery). Universe means all-of-it, not all of it except space and time… the origin of the universe means space, time, the 4 forces and everything else without exception. Well, that’s they way I understand it. I am sure I will be corrected shortly if I am wrong.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am
Brian (with an I)
The problem is that the ‘ignition point’ is everywhere — essentially, you’re taking the starting point and stretching it out to make the whole universe. (It’s why I prefer the ‘balloon analogy — if you imagine that the universe started as a infinitesimal dot of rubber and the Big Bang turned it into an expanding balloon, everything that was in that dot of rubber is now in a 2-D surface that doesn’t have an edge.)
August 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
My understanding of his “north south east and west” claim was that he wasn’t trying to say that we’re in the center of the visible universe, and therefore in the center of the whole universe, but that he was advocating the fringe alternate explanation for dark energy/the accelerating expansion of the universe that if we are near the center of a relatively empty part of the universe, then the denser surrounding universe (outside the visible universe) would pull everything around us, and that gravity would explain the acceleration we’re currently attributing to dark energy.
Obviously, this contradicts the basic assumption that there’s nothing special about our position in the universe, but I’ve never been quite comfortable with arguing that a model is wrong because it contradicts an assumption. Rebecca’s write-up links to an article that I hadn’t encountered before, indicating that other observations are much better explained by the usual dark energy model than this “center of a relatively empty part of the universe” model. So not only is it contrary to a fundamental assumption of astronomy, it’s also not the best explanation for our observations.
So, he was making a faulty argument, but I think it was a SLIGHTLY more legitimate faulty argument.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Becca
Even still, if everything is hurtling away from everything else, shouldn’t there be a growing “nothingness” somewhere in the universe. Or to take the balloon analogy farther, are the galaxies actually curving around and filling all space like the air molecules inside a balloon so that even as they fly away from each other, they are also flying toward each other?
Is anyone else’s brain melting?
August 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
Brian, in the balloon analogy, the skin of the balloon is the entire universe. The “inside” and “outside” are failures of the analogy and don’t correspond to anything in the real world.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:26 am
@Brian:
Part of the problem is that we are trying to describe transcendent events metaphorically using natural phenomena such as explosions and the inflation of balloons. There is no “special” point, since the Universe is expanding equally. The “Big Bang” didn’t fling matter out from any particular point but rather is an analogy of the expansion of that point. Another way to look at it is that everything is still inside the origin point, it is just now as large as the entire Universe.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
56. Brian
bad analogy. sorry
August 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
#50 We will never be able to look back at the BB directly, in fact we will not be able to look farther back than what is called the surface of last scattering, which is itself not really a surface in the strict sense of the word but more like a region where the hot gas, consisting of hydrogen and helium is becoming suffiently cooled down for the atomic nuclei to hold on to their electrons and become atoms. Further back in time that primordial gas is fully ionized and so photons are continually colliding with free electrons and bounce off to all directions, only to collide with another electron, making the universe effectively impenetrable for photons. When the gas cools down enough (to 3000 K) only after 400.000 years after the BB, the gas becomes de-ionized and the fog clears up and the universe becomes transparent for photons. So the CMB is essentially a freeze-frame of the universe at 400.000 years after the BB and we can never directly see beyond that. But indirectly cosmologists can infer a whole lot of things (with really amazing precision) from analyzing the acoustic imprint on the CMB.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Doesn’t the balloon analogy assume a closed universe? Meaning if I go out in a straight direction on a spherical balloon, I will eventually loop back to the same point. I didn’t think we currently had any evidence that our universe is shaped that way?
August 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks everyone. Actually I’m reading that “distances and motion” link now and it’s making the analogy clearer… basically saying what all y’all just told me. I’d always thought the balloon anlogy meant we were INSIDE the balloon. Now I realize, that space is the physical rubber of the balloon itself… Which of course makes the brain melt even further because now space is being treated as a tangible tactile thing.
Seriously everyone, wouldn’t it just be easier to say god did it, c’mon now.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
So I was wrong with the bread analogy, sorry.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:35 am
!AstralProjectile: That is the coolest Mythbusters idea ever. A giant Mobius strip racetrack. I can’t stand racing (boooring) but *even I’d* go and watch a race on one of those:).
August 21st, 2009 at 11:40 am
Hey, you know what? This is fascinating. I was standing outside, in front of my house. I turned left and saw about 4 miles away, i turned 45 degrees and obvserved another 4 miles out, then repeated until i turned all the way around. do you know what i found? My house is in the exact center of the world.
What i can derive from this is that since it is the center of the world and our earth is the center of the universe, my house is the very center of the universe. How about them apples!
I think China doesn’t exist and it is an illusion, created by God, to fool me into thinking the world is round.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
@brian:
In the balloon analogy the *skin* of the balloon represents space. We’re letting an essentially 2d object (the skin of the balloon) stand in for a 3d object (space) because in general we’re not very good at visualizing 4th and higher dimensional objects.
The area inside the balloon is empty (or doesn’t exist, or is the past, depending on how you want to look at it). All the stars and planets and galaxies are on the skin of the balloon. As the balloon inflates, the skin becomes larger and all points on the skin become farther apart.
There is no center of the surface of the balloon. It’s of finite size, but has no edge…if you go far enough you just get back to where you started.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
So… then SOMETHING is causing space to stretch. What is that something. I’m sure that’s the inherent question isn’t it? Does it seem likely that we would ever be able to “see” or infer what that force is/was?
August 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Rock on… many astronomers fail to realize that cosmology is often Public Enemy #2 of creationists, right behind evolution. When one considers the number of coincidences that would have to line up to make us the center of things in a <6,000 year old universe, one can easily spot the old geocentric bias all over again. We might as well inhabit a flat Earth on the back of an elephant, on the back of a ram, on the back of a turtle…(or is it turtles all the way down?) Excellent piece!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
# 61. No the balloon analogy isn’t meant to represent the shape of the universe but is just an instruction tool to show how expanding space increases the distance between each point proportional to their initial distances and how no point is special and nothing more.
To my knowledge by measuring up the sizes of the patches in the CMB and other advanced high precision measurements it is established to the best of our current abilities that the Universe itself is flat on the grandest scale. And so Euclidian geometry applies and so you will never return to the same point from where you start travelling in a straight line.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
67. Brian Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
So… then SOMETHING is causing space to stretch. What is that something. I’m sure that’s the inherent question isn’t it? Does it seem likely that we would ever be able to “see” or infer what that force is/was?
__________
I read somewhere that it was a repulsive force of gravity, but that may be deprecated now.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Non-scientist (but interested amateur) question here. My albeit limited understanding is that we understand pretty well what happened microseconds *after* the Big Bang, but that scientists are still trying to figure out what happened at the exact moment that the Big Bang occurred. Is that wrong?
August 21st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
71. Angela Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Non-scientist question here. My albeit limited understanding is that we understand pretty well what happened microseconds *after* the Big Bang, but that scientists are still trying to figure out what happened at the exact moment that the Big Bang occurred. Is that wrong?
No, it’s right. I think we understand what happened as far back as 10-360 seconds after the Big Bang, when the strong force and the electronuclear force separated and the universe began expanding. Before that the picture’s a bit fuzzy.
But this may change once they finish fixing all the magnets in the Large Hadron Collider. Then there may be a glimpse into the time period from 10-430 to 10-360 seconds.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
22. Roen:
Can someone pls help me with this?
August 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Phil, see creationist got the whole year thing wrong, see those 6000 years are actually 6000 god years (kinda like dog only backwards). We originally were in the center of the universe but then god belched and pushed everything out away from him(her,them,it) at an ever expanding rate. However, not to make us feel bad for not being the center of the universe and he didn’t want to start all over again, he tweaked light so that we’d *think* we’re at the center of the universe. Oh and dark matter is actually a large amount of invisible tape god had to use to hold the galaxies together (it’s a lot of work to make a galaxy, so it’d be a shame if everything went flinging all over the place).
There we go, everything explained.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
@Bryan (with a y)
Okay, so what would that lesson be? If the world (universe) were only 6,000 years old, then does adding the appearance of age (by either tricking our measurements or creating the light already in transit) add to the lesson being taught? And is it even relevant?
Either way, to assume that things were created with the appearance of age tells us nothing, really. It answers no questions. As others have pointed out, it doesn’t even prove (in even the loosest sense of the word) that the world is 6,000 years old. It could be 6 seconds old. Or it could be 13.7 billion years old. The observations would still be the same: that the universe appears to be 13.7 byo. So, the most parsimonious explanation is that it is, indeed, 13.7 byo.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I always thought the inside of the balloon was the past and what’s outside is the future.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
69. Albert Bakker: Thanks. I did some searching and it does seem like most recent studies using WMAP show the universe to be flat within 2% error. The next question I can’t see to find an answer to is, assuming a flat universe, wouldn’t Phil’s statement “You might therefore naively make a map showing all the objects in the Universe, and lo, we are at the center. But that would be true for any and every single point in the Universe. ” be incorrect? Wouldn’t there be some “edge” of the universe and some points where the amount of matter would be generally less than in the other direction?
That said, it still doesn’t come close to defending Jeanson’s argument. The matter distribution of the universe would be generally even in all directions from most points in the universe. Our location is not special in that regard.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
57. Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 11:24 am
Brian, in the balloon analogy, the skin of the balloon is the entire universe. The “inside” and “outside” are failures of the analogy and don’t correspond to anything in the real world.
________________
I think when many of us picture the Big Bang, we think of it as a supernova explosion – massive rapid expansion away from a single point. As I understand, that’s no longer the model.
The model I prefer to think of is a big lump of rising bread dough. With galaxies as raisins. The raisins are not just around the outer edge of the dough, they’re all the way through it, and as the dough expands, each raisin gets a bit farther away from every other raisin. It may be that there are raisins so far away that their light will never get to us because the dough is expanding faster than their light can travel.
The Big Bang would then be more accurately thought of as the Big Plop, when a brane interaction I don’t understand caused a huge lump of Planck Dough to come into existence.
79. Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Someone from their point of view could, today, be seeing quasars where we are.
Or at least, where we were.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
for some enlightening (ha!) explanation of the big band and related stuff, check out:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/
and read the posts about the big bang etc. they are scattered around back to the beginning of August.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
@Roen #73: Sorry, I’m not sure what you help with. You got it right on the first try. We see quasars because we’re seeing very, very old light. Someone from their point of view could, today, be seeing quasars where we are.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@toasterhead: The bread analogy is easier to visualize, since it’s 3-D (and delicious). The problem with the bread analogy, of course, is that there is a definite center and edge to the “universe”. Any analogy will need supplemental explanation that amounts to “ignore this here, where the analogy falls down”.
I say “analogy” too much.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@ Jim:
There is a fun little science fiction short story in which a young person is sitting beside a pond, in the middle of which an old stump sticks out, barely above the water. An alien spaceship arrives, two aliens march out and nail a metal plaque to the stump. They depart as quickly as they arrived and the young boy swims out to read the plaque, which identifies that very spot as the center of the universe.
The story, by Grant Carrington, is title, appropriately enough, “After You’ve Stood on the Log at the Center of the Universe, What is There Left to Do?”
August 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
# 71 Angela, to my knowledge at least, you understand correctly.
Cosmologists do not have the necessary physics (nor anybody else.) For if we roll back the movie then the Universe going back is getting increasingly hotter and hotter. At a certain point, incredibly close to it’s absolute beginning 10^-43 of a second, the temperature rises above the Planck temperature and then all our physics breaks down and nothing remains but to raise up your hands in despair. I think Toasterhead is overstating (or understating depending how you look at it) his temporal estimates, since they are orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck time.
# 77 Scott B. No it wouldn’t change anything if space is flat and Phil is right, regardless of any shape of space (or geometry) of the Universe. There is of course no edge other than the Big Bang itself. But if you think of the Universe in a Newtonian way which best fits our human intuition, then you can see at this way.
In every possible direction you can look, you will look back in time and you will see the space through which that light has already travelled. This is true for every point in space and for every time.
There are of course variations in matter-density, which is a good thing for otherwise we wouldn’t be here, but these average out over larger and larger distances and become eventually so smooth that we can assume complete homogeneity for the Universe as a whole. So taking into account sufficiently large distances there is no place in the Universe where you would have more matter, dark matter or dark energy on your left hand side than on your right for example.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
#80. Thank you very much! I apologize if my request for clarification was not clear, sometimes my questions seem more obvious to me than others.
#83
So we basically hit the proverbial wall of what we can directly witness and the rest is up to the LHC?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
81. Naked Bunny with a Whip Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@toasterhead: The bread analogy is easier to visualize, since it’s 3-D (and delicious). The problem with the bread analogy, of course, is that there is a definite center and edge to the “universe”. Any analogy will need supplemental explanation that amounts to “ignore this here, where the analogy falls down”.
________
Sure, it’s not perfect, but it rather invalidates the point that the center of the universe is something special. I mean, what’s at the center of a loaf of raisin bread besides bread (or perhaps a raisin?)
I don’t think the current model of the universe refutes the fact that there is a center. Anything that has a finite volume has to have a geometric center.
If one were to look at the entirety of the observed universe as a three-dimensional model, there would be a center to it, and there would be an edge to it. That edge is not where the universe stops, of course, it’s just where light runs out of time to get to us. It could be that the universe extends “north” another 10 billion light years and “south” another 50 billion light years, thus putting us off-center, but we won’t know that before the Sun expands and kills us all.
And in this 3-D model, I’d wager that the unfashionable spiral arm of the galaxy we inhabit would fall pretty close to the center, since the “edge” would be the limit of our ability to view the universe from our perspective. So, in that sense, we are at the center of our own observation of the universe. But that center is a thoroughly meaningless point in the grand scheme of things.
Except to us, of course, cause it’s where we keep all our stuff.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Aren’t you essentially committing the same kind of error as Jeanson when you state, “if the Universe is 6000 years old, how do we see galaxies billions of light years away? Creationists have to bob and weave a lot to answer that one. Perhaps the light was created already on its way, or the Universe was created appearing old already.” Although your statements are certainly reasonable, you can’t disprove what you attribute to Jeanson and creationists in general through your argument about the creation of light. You’re making an argument that only allows for what you know, and suggests distance always equals age. I’m not sure science and knowledge are benefited when we assume what we know about something is also complete knowledge about that thing. In this case, the Universe appears “old” based on an assumption you’ve asserted and apparently hold. I’m not a young Earth young universe advocate, but I’m not convinced that your argument is any more valid in the end than Jeanson’s. You may be better informed and can make a better argument based on observations, but you may not be any more right. I’m not saying I agree with Jeanson either. He may be very wrong, but in this case, you’ve only convinced me you disagree with him, not that you’re right. This also holds true for your assumption that everywhere in the universe is the same or center. Perhaps true, based on what we can see today (no edge), but I’m not sure it’s as certain as you say unless you’re prepared to demonstrate we’ve actually seen the entire universe and know it has no limit. If you choose to discredit Jeanson, I think you can do it in a better way than you have in this post.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
83. Albert Bakker Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
# 71 Angela, to my knowledge at least, you understand correctly.
I think Toasterhead is overstating (or understating depending how you look at it) his temporal estimates, since they are orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck time.
___________
Yes – my bad. I was misreading a timeline I found on Wikipedia that was on a logarithmic time scale. Sorry…
August 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
85.
then is not the center the begining of time itself, like the center of the air portion of the balloon?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@toasterhead #85: The observable universe is a 3-D volume with us at the center. That’s different from the universe as a whole, though, which is where the geometry gets hard (impossible?) to visualize without analogies.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
87. Roen Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
85.
then is not the center the begining of time itself, like the center of the air portion of the balloon?
_______________
The opposite, actually. The “center” is here and now, when we’re looking from our perspective. Everything else is older. The farther away we look, the farther into the past we look. The light from the moon we see when we look up at the night sky is 1.2 seconds old. The sunlight we see in the daytime is 8 minutes old. The light we see from Sirius is eight years old. The light we see from Andromeda right now is 2.5 million years old. The stars in the most distant galaxies we can see, 13.7 billion light-years away, created that light 13.7 billion years ago. We don’t see anything visible farther back in time and farther away than that because stars only started igniting about a million years after the bang. Before stars, there wasn’t anything to generate visible light, so there’s nothing for us to see, in the visible spectrum.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@Chris A,
Too bad that “Adam and Eve’s sin slowed light down” isn’t true. If it was true, and if less sin meant faster light, we could build a Sin-O-Meter to measure worldwide sin rates. Alas, all efforts to construct a working Sin-O-Meter have failed. (Though religious fundamentalists liked the one with the dial stuck on “The World Is Extremely Sinful.”)
August 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Here is an interesting thought experiment.
Let’s suppose that I’m a Young Earth Creationist. As such, I know that the earth (and the rest of the universe) is only 6000 years old. Therefore, any ‘evidence’ that contradicts that, such as old light from 13.7 billion light years away or geological features that are millions of years old or fossils that are evolutionarily related to other species, were simply created to appear as if they were that old.
If that is the case, then isn’t it fascinating the creator left those things just for us to find? If there are lessons that the creator intends for us to learn, could not some of those lessons be contained in, or learned by studying, these breadcrumbs that were left for us to discover?
If I wanted to truly behold the glory and splendor of creation, would I not want to observe and appreciate these illusions?
Would it not, in fact, be heretical to ignore and discredit parts of the creation?
As I said, a thought experiment. I might like to ask a Young Earth Creationist these questions.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I did it again and was not clear and confused the issue, so sorry. What I mean is that using the balloon analogy the center of the universe seems to be the center of the balloon, which as I understand is the beginning of time.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
For some reason talk about the balloon analogy for Universal expansion has led me to picture our Universe as a balloon at a carnival with God as the circus clown inflating it. And, somewhere, a creationist is having a fit because I thought of God as a circus clown.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
OKay so let me make sure I”m crystal clear on this. To go by the balloon analogy, it would appear that galaxies aren’t so much hurtling THROUGH space as they are hurtling ON space. Is that accurate?
August 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@Brian #93: Right.
Galaxies do move through space, of course. We’re moving toward Andromeda, for example. But that’s relatively slow and is swamped by the expansion of space on the large scale.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Okay so riddle me this. Is it theoretically possible for all the galaxies to reclump together on one side of the “balloon”. And if that happened, what would that do to “space”. Would it destabilize whatever it is that we’re coasting on?
August 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pm
hey, Brian, go check out:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/the_size_of_the_universe_a_har.php
it has ants walking on expanding balloons!
August 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Also, in those Starts with a Bang posts, he says that gravity is still trying to pull everything back together. But according to the balloon analogy, aren’t the galaxies expanding away from each other via a force that gravity would have no effect on. As I asked in my previous post, couldn’t gravity in theory pull all the MATTER and ENERGY back together on one side of the balloon yet leave the balloon (space) still expanding.
Criminey guys, this is going to keep me up all weekend. Why did we start this on a Friday???
August 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
If you watched “Lexx” there was a season where they were running from a giant band of replicating, well, replicators (not the Stargate Replicators, but close) & they ate the majority of matter in the Universe. Then they were tricked to moving towards one particular spot, which destabilized the Universe as a whole & caused another Big Bang.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
95. Brian Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Okay so riddle me this. Is it theoretically possible for all the galaxies to reclump together on one side of the “balloon”. And if that happened, what would that do to “space”. Would it destabilize whatever it is that we’re coasting on?
____________
I don’t think so. I don’t think it is even theoretically possible for gravity to pull all the galaxies that way. It’s not very strong. Gravity is actually a very weak force.
Think about it this way – if you have a paper clip sitting on your desk, it has the gravity of the entire Earth – a 5,973,600 trillion kilogram planet – holding it down. Yet you can counteract all that gravitational force by picking up that paper clip with the electromagnetic force of a tiny refrigerator magnet.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
97.
Man I loved that show, yes they started in the “Dark Universe” and then traversed through a vortex into the light universe (this one), where that found the binary pair of planets called simply “Fire” and “Water”. Stanly Tweedle did not have a fun time there as i remember.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I am sorry to inform you about the following
“He (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.”
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
sorry I couldn’t resist
August 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Is it theoretically possible for all the galaxies to reclump together on one side of the “balloon”.
Well, hmm. Only if they’re moving toward each other for some reason through space, and doing so faster than space is expanding.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
i know this may sound stupid but the first comment made me think about it. if i ever get a tattoo i want a mobius strip depicted around my arm with the m.c. escher metamophosis (sp?) artwork.
i like being at the center of the universe. it means when aliens come to visit they know exactly where we are.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
If God is all knowing why did he not foresee his human creation becoming so evil that he had to kill all but a handfull with a massive flood (or noodly appendage, whatever)?
August 21st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
I love posting here, lots of fun responses, and from people with such a different mindset from mine.
@Daffy: Doesn’t have to be “incompetent” — how else to make billions of tiny little lights in the sky, if you have infinite power? Maybe there are almost no stars at all, just streams of light headed this direction. Of course I have no clue (”your ways are not my ways”), but he certainly doesn’t appear to go too far out of his way to convince people who have no interest in believing, which makes me think that making you believe in Him right now isn’t critical to His plan. Declaring the idea silly because that’s not how you would do it doesn’t say much to a believer, though. (Who would conceive of a story so bizarre as the atonement of Jesus?)
@Roen: Just because you have no evidence of a crime doesn’t mean it wasn’t committed. It just means you can’t prove it. I would pose that hard evidence of the existence of God would bypass for people some of the hard decisions they have to make while they’re here, i.e. how true to my conscience am I going to live given full mental freedom?
@Todd: How should I know what lesson he intended for you? Here are a few he intended for me: you are a tiny piece in a very large universe, and there is one primary source of light in your life (sun = God), yet billions of other lesser sources of light and knowledge (stars = other people, e.g. those reading here =)) that can offer some truth but could never compensate for the lack of God’s light in your life (nor make anything substantial grow), and there are many places and worlds far beyond this one, and we should act with nobility and kindness as members of a beautiful place in the midst of a lot of darkness around us.
(Most of the folks in the bible talking like this got pounded, I’m glad I only have to take a digital pounding here. =)
August 21st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
But no, god isn’t trying to deceive us. He is benevolently trying to entertain us, with those mind expanding and awe inspiring vistas of the apparently old universe! It’s like a good movie, you see – wonderful to look at, even when you know it’s make believe.
And to make sure we don’t get confused, he gave this here book, see, which describes all 42 versions of the ultimate Truth(TM), in detail.
The nature of god is beyond human comprehension, but we do know one thing for certain. God loves astronomers, and has arranged to keep them gainfully employed.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
107. Bryan:
Wow, I can barely see the edges… very nice job wallpapering over the meaning of my message, Bryan.
I was gifted with a brain that is capable of seeing logic, reason and the illogical assumptions of others. But it is fine that you and I think different. I do not expect you to use my method of reasoning and you certainly will not see me using yours.
No, lack of evidence is not proof of a crime, nor is it the proof that a crime was committed. In the area of this deity construct it is simply pointless going over ignored point after ignored point. Maybe someday you will have some logical revelation, causing you to see science for what it is and the universe as the wonderful playground it is for us, but maybe not. I am okay with this… are you?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@Roen:
Funny how you see my points as illogical, they make perfect sense to me. True I can’t trace them back to things I see/think, but instead back to things I feel/experience. Also not sure which points I’m ignoring. Granted I don’t draw the same conclusions as you from the evidence.
And I think I see science for what it is, the honest attempt to understand the world and universe around us through observation and testing. I think it’s wonderful and good. Just woefully inadequate in teaching us what to become.
Do I still need another “logical revelation”?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I wonder if a better approach to dealing with this sort of thing is “you know, that’s a very intuitive idea, but unfortunately it doesn’t stand up to science for the following and very interesting reasons…”
You know; that for a long, long time, being at the center of the universe was accepted but a lot of very smart people, based on observations and a lot of deep thinking, but over the past N years better observations have yielded the following… (a long, but very interesting course on cosmology follows.)
This is what won me over when I was young; Genesis on one hand, and books about modern cosmology (as described to the young, and distorted by StarTrek) on the other… “oh, this book can’t be taken literally. Problem solved. Next…”
August 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Additionally:
“and we should act with nobility and kindness as members of a beautiful place in the midst of a lot of darkness around us”
Do you mean to say that without the light of this God thing you speak of I cannot possibly act with nobility and kindness? Am I then unable to shed light on some darkness? Are you then telling me that because you have the light of this deity in your eyes that you are somehow better equipped to be kind and noble?
“Who would conceive of a story so bizarre as the atonement of Jesus?”
A human being a long time ago. A human, with all his faults, misconceptions… yes, even goofy notions. Occams Razor cuts to the bone.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
110. Bryan:
Am I correct in drawing the conclusion that you see your God as a moral figure and not the entity out to screw with our collective heads?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
@ #86 JP:
You’re making an argument that only allows for what you know, and suggests distance always equals age. I’m not sure science and knowledge are benefited when we assume what we know about something is also complete knowledge about that thing. In this case, the Universe appears “old” based on an assumption you’ve asserted and apparently hold.
Actually, Dr. BA’s “assumption” is not something he’s “asserted,” rather it’s something that is a direct, logical consequence of observations that have been made over and over again. You can measure the speed of light. It’s been done for over four hundred years now and the results are consistent. It’s not speeding up. It’s not slowing down. It is what it is. (Hmm…that sounds familiar.)
The same cannot be said for any creationist “assumption.” They have no observations. They have no evidence. They cannot make predictions. They cannot measure anything or draw logical conclusions. All they can do is point to their book and say, Godidit.
Which, BTW, begs a huge question: why is it always their god? What evidence have they for Yahweh, vs. say, Ahura Mazda?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@ Roen & Bryan:
“Who would conceive of a story so bizarre as the atonement of Jesus?” …
A human being a long time ago.
Paul of Tarsus, to be exact.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Thank you so much, `nigget!
@Religoids:
If you’re trying to say that what we see, experience and deduce as physical laws and processes we cannot trust to be accurate, then you are by the same stroke saying that what you see, experience and deduce as a god also cannot be trusted to be accurate. If our evidence of the universe existing without divine influence is misleading, then the same goes for your, so called, evidence of the divine.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Ah, yes, the old Cosmic Cheater gods. It isn’t only equivalent to solipsism, it is bad solipsism.
I used to mention that self-defeat of a religion as well. But I’ve recently learned about an argument that while still using the underlying physics to uncover the empirical problem it arrives at a more powerful and version of self-defeat as a result.
We all know that parsimony is eliminating solipsism or religion from competition with testable science because they are needlessly adding on observers or gods to physical theories. Instead David Deutsch in his “The Fabric of Reality” pull back this parsimony of the universe outside the 0 year (solipsist) to 6000 year (YEC) light sphere into it. I.e. the solipsist would find most of his ‘outer region of self’ anti-solipsist and a YEC would find most of his ‘outer region of creation’ anti-creationist.
More importantly, they would have to acknowledge validity of science in this region by the usual measure, it works. For the solipsist the study of ‘outer region of self’ must be real, because the reality of self is assumed. For the YEC the study of ‘outer region of creation’ must be real, because the reality of creation is assumed.
Poof! Unparsimonous theories aren’t only the least likely, but in this case they self-destruct immediately.
[Note to self: I'm usually wary of arguments which seems to have philosophy in them, as always consistent but never falsifiable so not testably empirically factual and so seldom, likely never, useful. But as this particular one is using the empirical measure of parsimony on theories, and works analogously to a simple math transform while making the parsimony explicit and immediate, the eventual philosophy it may be based on seems to have ... self-destructed. I'll accept it for the time being.]
August 21st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Paul of Tarsus, to be exact.
Except for the parts he *ahem* borrowed from earlier works, of course.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
D’oh! That should have been “most of his assumed reality in the form of his ’outer region”.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“Of course, Jeanson ignores another rather obvious and difficult problem: if the Universe is 6000 years old, how do we see galaxies billions of light years away?”
Oh, it’s quite simple really, as I found out when I visited the UK’s very own creation museum less than 10 miles from where I live. You see, the speed of light must have been faster in the past, to allow it to traverse such large distances in only a few thousand years. In fact (!) the value of c was actually infinite at about 4000 BC, and has been slowing down ever since. Now, though, it has stabilised at a constant value, and that’s why current measurements of c all return similar values.
/sarcasm
The evidence for decrease in the speed of light is … non existent, but creationists don’t let a detail like that stop them promulgating such nonsense – after all, even an unsupported hypothesis must be right if it agrees with the Bible.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
@ Torbjörn Larsson:
I have no idea what you just said.
@ Roen:
Well, yeah. Goes without saying. Little bit of this, little bit of that, et viola! Truth™!
August 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I have actually been wondering for a while if people actually made the argument that god created all these streams of photons so that it would look like we were seeing something billions of years ago. Quite an elaborate con that god guy has arranged!
August 21st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Dave Dickenson:
Of course it’s not turtles all the way down. The turtle *swims*.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“You might therefore naively make a map showing all the objects in the Universe, and lo, we are at the center. But that would be true for any and every single point in the Universe.”
The above statement seems to imply that the universe is infinite in its extent. As far as I know, it is still undetermined whether or not the universe is infinite. Is my logic flawed?
August 21st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
@Roen:
More fun. =)
You ask me as if I (foolishly) think I know the details of God’s work — most of it I have no clue. How are you on dark matter? But I’ll give you my 2 cents since you asked — yes, God is a moral figure, as in he is completely good (”Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”) What you may be missing is that he has granted full agency to man to make decisions, and permit the consequences of those decisions to be felt. People blame God for bad stuff, but usually the blame rests pretty squarely on our shoulders. (You can blame God for Katrina, for example, but he didn’t build the levies or the houses nearby.) There’s also the fallen world, consequence of man’s sin, to blame for mosquitos and sickness, etc. All anticipated as part of his plan, but not his fault.
As for your “religoids” comment (is that a slight?) — I would propose that your accuracy in what you perceive and measure is only as good as the fidelity of your instrument. Those who strive to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of their “instruments”, both physical and spiritual, are able to get a more accurate read on their subject. We had ether a while back, now we’re a little smarter, but 100 years from now I venture much of what you believe to be rock solid truth will be understood to be only partially correct, and the rest just plain idiocy — at least that pattern has held for the last few hundred years.
@kuhnigget: No observations? No evidence, no conclusions? We observe the painful and damning effects of sin in others’ lives, and take that as evidence, and draw conclusions. We pray and feel comforted, fast and are enlightened, serve and feel hope, all down to the very soul. You scoff (I guess), yet I never felt any of those kinds of things in any of my college courses, or reading the BA blog. I have a very happy life. And I love to read and learn and study. You do the latter, how are you on the former? A different kind of knowledge, learned a different way, and for a different purpose.
Just so the challenges don’t go completely unanswered. =)
August 21st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
@ bryan:
I’m glad you have a happy life. I have one, too!
We observe the painful and damning effects of sin in others’ lives, and take that as evidence, and draw conclusions.
Nice work, if you can get it, observing the “damning effects of sin.” How’s that clam chowder taste? Oh, damn!
Seriously, is that not something of a tautology? Sans religion, there is no “sin,” and no eternal punishment. Unless you are referring to the general human condition? I’ll take the improvements to that wrought by science over religion, thank you. And I’m willing to bet, you would, too. (Not into faith healing, are you?)
We pray and feel comforted, fast and are enlightened, serve and feel hope, all down to the very soul.
Positive thinking does wonders for one’s mental state. Fasting releases endorphins that trigger the pleasure centers of the brain. Neither prove Yahweh is hanging over you. Maybe it’s Ahriman, luring you into a false sense of hope. Can you prove otherwise? BTW, this soul you have…you measure it, how now? It’s located where? It’s made of what?
You scoff (I guess), yet I never felt any of those kinds of things in any of my college courses, or reading the BA blog.
I don’t scoff, I merely point out religion is not science. It does not provide evidence of its “truth” (or its “false”, for that matter), nor does one version of it have any greater or lesser chance of being more valid than any other. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who can whup Yahweh’s semitic arse.
I also insist that practitioners of a particular religion know their own history. Your religion did not emerge fully formed from a clamshell. It has and continues to contradict itself. It evolves as human thought evolves. The ultimate truth of one day is the silly superstition of another. Both are products of specific times and places, shaped by the same forces that shape all human endeavors.
And perhaps you just took the wrong college courses? Why, exactly, do you read Dr. BA’s blog? Has it changed your point of view?
I look out at a black sky filled with the universe and feel a rush of wonder and awe. It lasts for days, weeks, gets renewed every time I go outside. I don’t need a church or a prayer book to get “enlightened.” The stars are bright enough for me.
Love on ya.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 am
@ 122. Calli Arcale:
“Swims” in what medium? And what contains that medium? And what is outside the “container”.
And I hate to sound all “Ayn Randian”, but it seems that the definitions of morals and values have gotten their paths crossed again.
Values are the things that determine morality. If one adheres to one’s values, then one is a moral being. Regardless of what form those values take. Moral beings are not inherently “good” or “evil”. “Goodness” is entirely subjective.
Interesting conversation created around this one, though.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 am
117, Tornbjörn Larsson, nicely put! But the solution to that problem for either the young Earth creationist or the solipsist is to reject the guiding principle of parsimony outside their enlightened spheres, which becomes easier the less you know of the science in this case and ever more close to impossible the more you do. Judging from the carefully prepared lecture of the learned mister Jeanson it would be rather easy for them.
And so they could fall back on sophistry to defend their untenable position for example by claiming that a purely objective criterion to demand maximal simplicity is unknowable and so parsimony cannot be used to decide for or against superfluous complexity (or added nonsense) to even the most absurd measure. And so the (logical) inconsistency of a theory to fit the Biblical narrative inside the real world is not a valid argument against assuming it’s validity, it is only objectively decidable by whether the Bible says so or not. And the reason that’s not circular reasoning is because the Bible is squaring it. And as for the solipsists I have never been convinced they really exist.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 am
“Technically, you can see objects that are — now — further than 13 billion light years away because the metric expansion of space is not limited by the speed of light. Objects at the edge of the observable universe emitted the light that we now see about 13 billion years ago, but those objects are now physically more like 46 billion light years away.”
Not that you are wrong it any of this, it’s all true, but getting on Phil about it (or anybody else) is one of my major pet peeves. For all intents and purposes the edge of the universe IS 13 billion light years, because as Phil has pointed out, the light hasn’t gotten to us yet (and won’t for another 33 billion years.)
The reason it is a pet peeve of mine is that it just confuses laymen. You can’t see out to 46 billion years, 13 billion years of stuff has been going on since then so we have no idea what the edge of the universe looks like now (although probably not very different).
Here’s a good analogy of what I’m trying to say… Make the sun magically vanish. For all intents and purposes it is instantly gone. BUT it will still be shining brightly in our sky for 8 minutes until we realize it is gone. Make the edge of he universe magically vanish. We won’t know about it for 33 billion years so saying it is 13 billion light years distant is a valid answer. (and until we narrow down the hubble constant and the acceleration of expansion a good rule of thumb instead of confusing every one by saying it’s at 46 billion ly away (which is true) but we can’t see it at that distance NOW (whch is also true).
I remember talking to a layman about the 1987A super nova. He was stuck on the fact that being so far away it was already over (which he was right). But my point was that as far as we were concern it was happening NOW because nothing can travel faster than light. Getting worked up over exactly when it happened or exactly how far the edge of the universe is NOW doesn’t help our cause much with the laymen who aren’t use to thinking the way we are.
So to not confuse laymen I recommend we just say the edge is 13 billion ly away. I mean we are talking to some who suggest it is at 6000 ly away!
People insisting that saying the edge of the observable univers is not at 13.5 billion ly away and it is wrong to tell laymen that is, in my opinion, just being pedantic. That’s as far as we can see NOW. Where it really is now doesn’t matter to laymen who are also hearing it is only at 6000 ly away and we are at the center of the universe.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 am
Thanks for the explanation Rift (129) I am one of those laymen who get confused by those comoving distances, but maybe not unnessecarily so, because I for example have great difficulty understanding superhorizon growth, without lifting the fog in my mind about the former. Okay, I won’t do anything more than just mention it in passing.
But I think you are victim of the confusion yourself when you claim that “now” an object that emitted light that travelled 13 billion years through space to reach us, is thanks to 13 billion years of meanwhile expansion some 46 billion ly away. That light it emits “now” (if by some miracle it would live that long) will take 33 billion ly to reach us you said. That cannot be true, since in the 33 billion years that it takes to travel to us the Universe is still expanding (at an accelarating rate even since we entered the era of Dark Energy ) so it will take far, far longer, which in the meantime the comoving distance “now” will also grow proportionally with it.
Okay that said, take your illustrative solar analogy. The sun magically vanishes, okay. So this means that at precisely that magical moment it lies 8 minutes into our future. From our position on Earth we have no way of knowing it, not just because we are technically underdeveloped or could learn to telepathically monitor solar well-being, but it is physically forbidden. The light cone of our misfortune has not reached Earth, therefore the disappearance of the sun really physically does not yet exist from Earth’s perspective. I wish to emphasise the physical reality of that fact. It is a future event, space and time are interchangable.
So in my view each point in space is not given by it’s space-coordinates and then artifically superimposed on each point a set of arbitrarily chosen time-coordinates, that you are free to manipulate, but really a set of spacetime-coordinates that lie inside or outside each others lightcones, which is the sole criterium of deciding whether the relations are real or superimposed artificial constructions of the (human) mind.
Translating this into the case of the comoving d= 13 ly object, this would mean that the real physical relation between us and that object is defined by us entering it’s lightcone and any projection into it’s own future from our vantage point is essentially an extrapolation from our understanding of expanding space, and albeit logically sound, still not a physical reality until it becomes so.
I hope it is somewhat clearer now wherein my confusion lies. I hope to clear up this mess in the near future, but the sooner the better as far as I am concerned and I would appreciate any assistance in doing so.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 am
@ 25. gopher65 Says:
Asimov Fan said:
Can there be accurate 3d model Moebius strips? What’s the largest Moebius strip in existence – anyone know?
Not only is it possible, but Möbius strips are used all the time. Conveyor belts in factories are a good example of this. They turn the belt into a Möbius strip in order to make sure both sides of the belt wear equally.
Not only are Möbius strips are very easy to make, but (if you can ride a unicycle) you can *easily* ride a unicycle down a real life Möbius strip.
Wikipedia has a few pictures of Möbius strips in real life:
Thanks! Much appreciated.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 am
Gulp!
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 am
@Zyggy
And I hate to sound all “Ayn Randian”, but it seems that the definitions of morals and values have gotten their paths crossed again.
If you use some very specific definitions and ignore others, maybe.
Values are the things that determine morality. If one adheres to one’s values, then one is a moral being. Regardless of what form those values take.
So nothing Hitler did was immoral as long as it didn’t conflict with his values, and if I call someone amoral based on my own values, I’m using the word incorrectly? That’s silly. You’re stripping away the usefulness of the word. Out of curiosity, what word do you thing I should be using if I say “Hitler was amoral”.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 am
@Jareed #124: The universe is either infnite, in which case any given point can be called “the center”, or else it is finite and wraps around on itself like the surface of a globe, which also means that any given point can be called “the center”.
Either way, there’s no edge and no single centerpoint.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 am
@ 114 kuhnigget: You misunderstood my point. I’m not questioning the speed of light, or that when light begins at a source it moves at a known speed, allowing us to calculate distance. I’m questioning Dr. BA’s assertion that Jeanson is wrong because we’ve never seen light “start” from anywhere other than a particular source. (Admittedly, it would be remarkable.) We didn’t see the origin of the sources we use as a basis for measure either. On a broader scale, we came in on the story in the middle. Thought would never advance if we assume we’re completely right about things, just like it won’t advance if we take the other extreme and assume we can’t know/trust anything we observe. The middle ground is were we settle on enough to let us move forward. Beating up on a young earth guy doesn’t make Dr. BA’s view right. In fact, I don’t really see a point in poking at Jeanson at all. If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. Dr. BA just needs to continue to champion the facts supporting his own view. It keeps him on more solid ground. I want him to champion good science, not highlight what he appears to believe is bad science in the form of religion.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 am
Sorry Guys! I am the center of the Universe…….Just don’t ask my wife. I’m liable to become a singularity.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 am
José – you can think Hitler was amoral, although I suspect he wouldn’t agree. Someone who is amoral denies the existence of morality; I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.
According to modern values, Hitler was immoral – ie. he refused to conform to the values of our societies whilst acknowledging they existed. There is some evidence of this – Hitler was certainly aware the world expected him not to invade Poland, yet he did it anyway. However by a seperate set of values – say those of Lurr of Omikron Persei 8 – Hitler may be perceived to be very moral, if that society had as a set of values invading your neighbours, taking their stuff and trying to wipe out anyone you thought was inferior.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 am
@ 136: Charles, you’re a funny and wise man. Well done.
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Thank you JP! Don’t encourage me. Actually I think of evolution in it’s basic form as change. If the change is beneficial it is likely to last. An interesting philosophical point. If we are unable to comprehend anything beyond the edge of the visible universe, is it there? Of course if we travel out to the edge and beyond, then everything here is gone. I credit my existence to God. Nobody else could have imagined me. I visualize God as everything eternally evolving. Given forever, I was bound to happen. And I am living proof that given forever, I can happen again. When I am not here, I am very patient. See you again!
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 am
I began to understand evolution at a very young age. Every time I finished doing the dishes, more happened. I could never keep them done. Then I realized that”the only constant is change.” I wish I had thought of that. To me it is the theory of everything.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
And for the religious folks who say:”No man can comprehend God.” I agree. I can never comprehend everything.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 am
Of course, our little speck is pretty neat.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Man is the only creature ever to moon God.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
All references to God are only my opinion. The management in no way endorses or recommends my techniques for the avoidance of hell. I place myself in God’s care……not much option here.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 am
Ian (at #6)
an explanation offered to me by Prof James Gate of the University of Maryland is that if you go back to the Big Bang “we” were all more or less at the same place. Now that space and time have expanded anyone of those “we”s will have more or less a similar view.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
@Bryan
Assuming that the universe is only 6,000 years old, all of those lessons can be achieved without the addition of apparent older age. So why do it? The universe could also be, as appears, 13.7 byo, and the same lessons could be taught.
The simplest explanation, then, is that the reality of the age of the universe matches the observations.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
@ Bryan
Dark Matter is a name for something we do not understand enough. Really, we have to call it something.
“As for your ‘religoids’ comment (is that a slight?)”
Not really, more meant in fun… maybe a slight “slight”.
“but 100 years from now I venture much of what you believe to be rock solid truth will be understood to be only partially correct, and the rest just plain idiocy”
This is the difference between our two methods, when you say “rock solid truth” we say “reasonably certain given the evidence that we currently have”. Unless it is a law of nature (ie. gravity & other forces) it can only be described, or supported… or not and needs to be discarded. This pattern you see that has held over a few hundred years is called science. Why would we hold onto an idea that has so obviously been shown to be wrong?
Religion is based on faith, science is not. In matters of faith and emotion I see no problem with someone seeing a religious figure for guidance if needed. In matters of the study of nature, I am sorry, but this is the realm of science, and religion is very poorly equipped. But, really, in most cases of human existence I see little need for a constant influence of a deity. Most of the time we can use our own conscience as a guide. It is in matters of moral ambiguity and adversity that human need to be guided, that is because we are a social species. Finally, in the end, we go see another human when we are in doubt, not a deity. We do not summon the physical presence of God to answer our questions, we go to the church, or even a psychologist. I know, God is all around us you will say, but again I do not see this… I see nature all around me. It is about using the right tool for the job. To drive a nail into wood we use a hammer, or nail gun, and not a screwdriver. Religion is in the habit of using screwdrivers to drive nails into wood.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Also @Bryan:
Just now my wife pulled a small tomato out of my garden and gave it to me. I plopped it into my mouth and, knowing that I would soon experience the awesome taste of something we grew together and feel that taste burst all over the inside of my mouth, I held off in preparation for the experience. Then I bit down and I savored that moment, to be honest I giggled slightly. I do not need a god to enjoy all there is about nature and life. I feel the same way when I look at the stars, and even when I read on some new discovery in nature. I did not need a god for this. I also do not need a god to teach me to be a moral human being, this I do on my own merits. So, we have an example of at least one human not needing a god in his life in order to appreciate and respect all there is.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
@ JP:
We didn’t see the origin of the sources we use as a basis for measure either. On a broader scale, we came in on the story in the middle
Right, but…we have observable evidence, consistent with the apparent laws of nature that we’ve deduced from other observations, that tells us something about what came before. Because of that, our conclusions about what (might) have gone on before are, at least from a scientific standpoint, valid. They might be wrong, if more evidence is gathered that contradicts them, but more evidence might continue to build our case, too.
You cannot say the same for creationism. Yeah, there’s a slim case it could be right, but if it is it’s a wild ass lucky guess, because there is no evidence for it. Human mythology is not evidence. It offers insight into the state of a particular ancient culture’s awareness and mindset regarding the world around them, but it is not valid scientific evidence in regards to the actual composition and structure of the universe.
Until the creationists build an argument based on evidence, Dr. BA is entirely right in stating the obvious: “Your ‘theory’ has no evidence. It is contradicted by mountains of observations in favor of other, valid, theories. You are wrong.”
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
@ Roen:
Religion is in the habit of using screwdrivers to drive nails into wood
Ha! I like that.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
@kuhnigget:
Nice work, if you can get it, observing the “damning effects of sin.” How’s that clam chowder taste? Oh, damn!
(No clue what the clam chowder reference is about…)
Seriously, is that not something of a tautology? Sans religion, there is no “sin,” and no eternal punishment. Unless you are referring to the general human condition? I’ll take the improvements to that wrought by science over religion, thank you. And I’m willing to bet, you would, too. (Not into faith healing, are you?)
Not “faith healing”, though I’m not opposed to higher-powers doing it.
Religion (mine at least) offers a moral code, most of which has been around for several thousand years. Some of it’s intuitive (don’t steal or kill), some is less intuitive (don’t commit adultery, don’t lie), and some is a head-scratcher (keep the sabbath day holy, don’t take the name of the Lord in vain, don’t covet, forgive those who wrong you, “turn the other cheek”). Those who don’t believe in religion tend to do whatever’s convenient at the time, even if it means going against these guidelines (commandments) — yet for those of us who live them, we come to understand the benefits of living them (deep physical recovery one day a week, throttled speech, proper control of what are easily boundless desires, quick purging of internal bitterness, and a subtle and seldom understood fact about human nature). I’ve seen firsthand the blessings of living this code, *especially* the parts that don’t make immediate logical sense. For each law, those who don’t believe don’t live — and therefore don’t enjoy.
Positive thinking does wonders for one’s mental state. Fasting releases endorphins that trigger the pleasure centers of the brain. Neither prove Yahweh is hanging over you. Maybe it’s Ahriman, luring you into a false sense of hope. Can you prove otherwise? BTW, this soul you have…you measure it, how now? It’s located where? It’s made of what?
Agreed, positive thinking is good. I never felt “pleasure” in fasting, but I’ll take your word for it. Why would those prove God exists? Like I said, I think he purposely left us without all proof because us being able to prove he exists would nullify some of his purposes here. (And “hanging over me”? what kind of God do you think I believe in? he’s the actual father of our spirits, not some kind of torturer…) Measure my soul, eh? I was referring to being sensitive to spiritual messages and influences from heaven (God, the Holy Ghost, or some other heavenly messenger). 300 years ago could they measure alpha particles? Just because you can’t measure it now doesn’t mean it can’t be measured. So why believe it exists now? (a) because it makes sense in a religious context, (b) because it’s part of the creed, and so far the other things I’ve been taught have worked out to be true, and (c) other questions are easier to answer if this is true, e.g. Why are twins often so incredibly different in personality right from birth? Why do some have incredibly aptitudes for certain things, e.g. music, from a very early age with no obvious heredity of such skill? And why do I feel like I’ve known and experienced far more than I actually have as an mortal?
I don’t scoff, I merely point out religion is not science. It does not provide evidence of its “truth” (or its “false”, for that matter), nor does one version of it have any greater or lesser chance of being more valid than any other. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who can whup Yahweh’s semitic arse.
You “don’t scoff”, yet you do. Agreed, we can’t learn religious truths the same way you learn physical truths. But it’s all truth. This is my favorite part of my religion: “You only have to believe the truth. If it’s not true, we don’t believe it!” Are dinosaur bones real? Absolutely. Do stars appear to be billions of light years away? Absolutely. Do I understand how they all piece together? Of course not, though I do have my suspicions.
I also insist that practitioners of a particular religion know their own history. Your religion did not emerge fully formed from a clamshell. It has and continues to contradict itself. It evolves as human thought evolves. The ultimate truth of one day is the silly superstition of another. Both are products of specific times and places, shaped by the same forces that shape all human endeavors.
Of what religion do you assume I am here? Perhaps you lump me in with spaghetti worshipers or something. I do not see contradictions, though I do see change appropriate for the time. I see it as God making adaptations for the needs of the people and condition of the world.
And perhaps you just took the wrong college courses? Why, exactly, do you read Dr. BA’s blog? Has it changed your point of view?
Maybe I did take the wrong classes — but the ones I sat in weren’t close. BA points out lots of cool stuff in the universe, which I love to see. I also love seeing all the little intricacies and surprises that God has left for us to find out there. Has he changed my point of view? Not really, only to show me that the astronomers know less about how to interpret what they see than I thought, but that’s not bad.
Note, there are lots of religious wackos in the world, and I don’t think I’m one of them. =)
I look out at a black sky filled with the universe and feel a rush of wonder and awe. It lasts for days, weeks, gets renewed every time I go outside. I don’t need a church or a prayer book to get “enlightened.” The stars are bright enough for me.
I’ve done the former, it’s pretty good. I’ve done the latter, and it’s orders of magnitude better — incomparable. To feel and know that you’re on the right path, that God loves you and is awaiting your return, and to understand why we’re all here, what we’re here to do, and to feel the brotherhood and strength of those around me, to feel the joy and peace that comes from the spirit of the Lord. Incomparable. (Note, not all creeds get all this, but mine does.)
Love on ya.
You too.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
@Roen:
Of course you don’t need a god to enjoy a tomato! But those of us with religion…
(the right kind, anyway, there are plenty of the wrong kind created by the devil to appear wacky to normal sensical people to discourage them from seeking the right kind, but I’ll stop there)
… get to enjoy tomatoes too, but we also have a creed that encourages us to live a higher law which yields higher benefits than what I get from a tomato. (see my previous post for some of them)
@Todd:
I don’t particularly believe in the 6000 year old universe because “time is measured only unto man”, and I argue with a guy at work about this who thinks that when God said “day” he meant day and that’s just the way it is. Blah. Just like me and my simulations, God doesn’t care how long forward or backward time goes — I blink and a billion years goes by in my sim, so what? I instantiate a model and concoct a world of things around it just to see how it’ll behave in that case, so what? I say, God didn’t have to create stars, he could do anything he wanted, make light en route, etc. Maybe the whole thing only holds together in steady state, so he created it that way. Big deal, I do that all the time in my models. Personally I think he went back a few billion years, fired it off in his first day, came back a few billion years later his next day and did the next part — just because that would be more efficient. Why this offends the guy I work with I have no clue — he is kind-of a religious wacko. Anyway I only say that because people use the byo-universe as evidence that there’s no god, and I say baloney, that’s not evidence.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Bryan! Dude, try not to miss important information here. I am not just talking about enjoying a tomato, I am talking about human moral structure as well. God is NOT the only game in town, my friend. Mine works just as well and I can still honour my own integrity.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
@ Bryan:
Those who don’t believe in religion tend to do whatever’s convenient at the time
BUNK. There are an incredibly large number of very religious people who are the most amoral, vile people imaginable. Likewise, there are some incredibly good people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. The two — religion and morality — do not equate.
Furthermore, I daresay that “behaving” only because of a threat or a perceived “goody” if you do is not really being moral at all.
(No clue what the clam chowder reference is about…)
I thought not. You bring up “sin.” Yet religious definitions of what is sinful and what is not are as malleable as the human cultures that invented them. According to the authors of Leviticus, eating clam chowder is an abomination unto Yahweh, a sin. Do you believe eating a clam is sinful? No? Then you are rewriting God’s law to suit your own needs.
For each law, those who don’t believe don’t live — and therefore don’t enjoy.
Again, egotistical bunk. Your religion helps you enjoy life, to “live.” Great! Bully on you. But that doesn’t make you better than anyone else (Pride cometh before the fall.) or more “alive” than someone who lives differently from you. You don’t know how “alive” I am, how much I enjoy my life, because you are not me. Who knows, if you were to suddenly find yourself in my shoes, you might find yourself saying, “My god, I never knew it could be this wonderful!”
Bottom line: you cannot judge your own experience with anything but your own experience.
Just because you can’t measure it now doesn’t mean it can’t be measured. So why believe it exists now? (a) because it makes sense in a religious context, (b) because it’s part of the creed, and so far the other things I’ve been taught have worked out to be true, and (c) other questions are easier to answer if this is true
I “believe” in that which I can observe in some fashion, be it directly or indirectly. Alpha particles can be observed. They interact with and affect other matter. I’m sure there are others that we’ve yet to figure out how to observe yet, and I won’t rule out their existence. But I won’t come right out and state they exist, either, because I have no evidence of that.
Paul Bunyon’s giant axe “makes sense” in the context of an old North American folk tale, but that doesn’t make it real in the sense it actually exists in the real world. It makes for a good story, and without it the tale of Paul Bunyon would be considerably lacking, but it’s still not real.
As for why twins are so similar…it seems to me there is a growing body of biological science that explains exactly why they behave the way they do. But that’s beside the point, really. What possible theological take on the soul could cover both twins that are similar and twins that are vastly different? You can’t have your soul cake and eat it, too. Unless anything that doesn’t fit your theology is just the devil’s work. Very convenient.
Of what religion do you assume I am here?
Don’t know. Don’t really care. I suspect you are making up whatever religion you, personally, need. Fine by me. Just don’t try to pass it off as any sort of Truth.™
I do not see contradictions, though I do see change appropriate for the time. I see it as God making adaptations for the needs of the people and condition of the world.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, do you at least consider the possibility that it is the other way around? People adapting God to meet the demands of a changing world? At least there is evidence for that…witness the changes to the stories of the old testament, the evolving story of Jesus in the gospels, and the ever-changing theology of pretty much any historical organized religion.
Has he changed my point of view? Not really, only to show me that the astronomers know less about how to interpret what they see than I thought, but that’s not bad.
I don’t see that as the case at all, Bryan. What you are seeing, and perhaps understanding a bit for the first time, is the core difference between science and religion. Science is a process that allows for, and demands, change as new evidence is gathered. Theories come and theories go. They evolve, grow stronger…or die, as new discoveries refine our knowledge. Science does not proclaim Truth™, only truth, with the caveat that it’s our best approximation…for now.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
No clue what the clam chowder reference is about…
Some basic Biblical Scholarship:
Leviticus 11:9-12 (New International Version)
9 ” ‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
Kuhnigget:
Pride cometh before the fall.
Proverbs 16:18 (New International Version)
18 Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.
(as long as I had a tab open to biblegateway[com])
J/P=?
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
@Bryan:
I am about to ask you a very important question. I need you to not answer it right away. Please give yourself time to mull it over and answer the question completely. Are you ready? Okay, here goes:
Do you believe that I am an amoral, arrogant, self centered or otherwise evil person because I do not believe in a deity?
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
26. Ian Says: “Thanks 11 and 16 – still confused.”
OK, here’s the simpler version. Since the Big Bang is considered a singularity (all the matter in the universe in a single, dimensionless point), that means that after the bang every point in the universe has been expanding uniformly away from every other point. No matter which point you choose to observe from, you’ll see every other point expanding away from you equally. That means a regressive motion analysis will show the entire universe tracks back to your current location, no matter where it is.
- Jack
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
@Roen:
(Wow, I wonder how long they let these threads go?!)
Bryan! Dude, try not to miss important information here. I am not just talking about enjoying a tomato, I am talking about human moral structure as well. God is NOT the only game in town, my friend. Mine works just as well and I can still honour my own integrity.
Of course God is not the only moral structure people might take, but don’t skip my point either: that I *highly* doubt you honor all of the guidelines that I honor (and I may not honor all that you honor either, I’ll admit), and I have found great blessings in honoring them. Do you ever go to the store on Sunday? Watch rated-R movies? Pay a tithe to a church? I imagine your answers are different from mine, yet I’ve reaped blessings (natural and otherwise) from these that you probably haven’t — and there are likely another 500 items on this list. Out of curiosity, what points of your moral code would you guess that I don’t honor? I’ll happily admit to them — I’m not trying to say I’m better at honoring the moral code taught to me, only that I believe this moral code is superior to the one most people make up on their own (and I’ve discussed this with thousands of people).
@kuhnigget:
BUNK. There are an incredibly large number of very religious people who are the most amoral, vile people imaginable. Likewise, there are some incredibly good people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. The two — religion and morality — do not equate.
Any data? Just curious. Not equate, but correlate.
Furthermore, I daresay that “behaving” only because of a threat or a perceived “goody” if you do is not really being moral at all.
What religion is this you’re talking about? It’s not mine. I’m curious what part of the world you live in, and would suggest you learn about other religions than whatever one you’re basing these comments on.
I thought not. You bring up “sin.” Yet religious definitions of what is sinful and what is not are as malleable as the human cultures that invented them. According to the authors of Leviticus, eating clam chowder is an abomination unto Yahweh, a sin. Do you believe eating a clam is sinful? No? Then you are rewriting God’s law to suit your own needs.
Actually, I think it was Peter in the New Testament who did the rewriting based on a revelation from God. Jesus actually modified (fulfilled) many of the old Mosaic laws during his ministry. Not me.
Again, egotistical bunk. Your religion helps you enjoy life, to “live.” Great! Bully on you. But that doesn’t make you better than anyone else (Pride cometh before the fall.) or more “alive” than someone who lives differently from you. You don’t know how “alive” I am, how much I enjoy my life, because you are not me. Who knows, if you were to suddenly find yourself in my shoes, you might find yourself saying, “My god, I never knew it could be this wonderful!”
“Bully on you?” What does that even mean?
I didn’t say *I* was better than anybody, but I follow a better creed than most without religion (and I have thousands of data points on this one) and therefore enjoy a better life. Can you see the difference there? Compare your average person in the US to your average person in Somalia. Which is better? Pretty easy to see that one is better *off*, but no one can say which one is *better*. I’m not better, just better off. (I know you’re not going to read that right, but no matter.)
Bottom line: you cannot judge your own experience with anything but your own experience.
I disagree, I talk to other people.
I “believe” in that which I can observe in some fashion, be it directly or indirectly. Alpha particles can be observed. They interact with and affect other matter. I’m sure there are others that we’ve yet to figure out how to observe yet, and I won’t rule out their existence. But I won’t come right out and state they exist, either, because I have no evidence of that.
Exactly, now you’re understanding me!
Paul Bunyon’s giant axe “makes sense” in the context of an old North American folk tale, but that doesn’t make it real in the sense it actually exists in the real world. It makes for a good story, and without it the tale of Paul Bunyon would be considerably lacking, but it’s still not real.
What about my great-great-grandpa’s axe? Would you believe that’s real? No evidence, no observation. Likelihood of existence, however?
As for why twins are so similar…it seems to me there is a growing body of biological science that explains exactly why they behave the way they do. But that’s beside the point, really. What possible theological take on the soul could cover both twins that are similar and twins that are vastly different? You can’t have your soul cake and eat it, too. Unless anything that doesn’t fit your theology is just the devil’s work. Very convenient.
I’m saying they’re *not* similar. No matter here, either — it would be very convenient to find a fallen tree on my great-great-grandfather’s property if I believed in his axe. Doesn’t have much to do with whether he had one or not.
Don’t know. Don’t really care. I suspect you are making up whatever religion you, personally, need. Fine by me. Just don’t try to pass it off as any sort of Truth.™
Wow, that’s a stretch. You’re just as closed minded as you think I am.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, do you at least consider the possibility that it is the other way around? People adapting God to meet the demands of a changing world? At least there is evidence for that…witness the changes to the stories of the old testament, the evolving story of Jesus in the gospels, and the ever-changing theology of pretty much any historical organized religion.
Not only do I consider it, but I *know* they do that. But that doesn’t dissuade me from my beliefs.
I don’t see that as the case at all, Bryan. What you are seeing, and perhaps understanding a bit for the first time, is the core difference between science and religion. Science is a process that allows for, and demands, change as new evidence is gathered. Theories come and theories go. They evolve, grow stronger…or die, as new discoveries refine our knowledge. Science does not proclaim Truth™, only truth, with the caveat that it’s our best approximation…for now.
Not new to me at all, but well put.
@Roen, part 2:
I am about to ask you a very important question. I need you to not answer it right away. Please give yourself time to mull it over and answer the question completely. Are you ready? Okay, here goes:
Do you believe that I am an amoral, arrogant, self centered or otherwise evil person because I do not believe in a deity?
I don’t have to think about that twice. I have no clue whether you are amoral, arrogant, or any other of those things. Actually you’ve been rather pleasant here, so I’m leaning away from thinking that. But what I think doesn’t matter a lick. Or what anyone else thinks, for that matter.
The real question is, when all is said and done, will you have ended up where you would’ve wanted to end up? And will you be the best person you could’ve become? I have nothing to do with that. But God has a very personal interest in you and your future, and if you don’t insist on doing it your way, I’m betting you’d be pleasantly surprised at where he would lead you.
Thanks for the fun discussions.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
José – you can think Hitler was amoral, although I suspect he wouldn’t agree.
I wouldn’t expect him to agree with me.
Someone who is amoral denies the existence of morality; I don’t think there’s any evidence of that.
No, the prefix -a-, means lacking or without. Not “denies the existence of”.
According to modern values, Hitler was immoral – ie.
That’s what I’m arguing. According to my values, Hitler was amoral. I’m not saying there are some absolutes as to what is moral and what isn’t.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Like all religious trolls who come here, Bryan dodges the questions asked of him and hides behind his own grandiose opinions of his philosophy.
Any data? Just curious. Not equate, but correlate.
You went first. Where’s your data? Religion “correlates” with many human inventions. Tribal law, for example. I imagine you can find a way to make it correlate with sunspot minima and maxima, too. Name me a religious person you consider “good.” I’ll name another obviously and blatantly bad. Whatever correlation there is doesn’t rise above background noise.
I didn’t say *I* was better than anybody, but I follow a better creed than most without religion
Totally subjective, Bryan. That’s your opinion. Again, I don’t know nor care what your creed is, but there are millions of other people in the world who don’t follow it and lead lives that are just as good, just as fulfilling, just as happy as yours.
But I won’t come right out and state they exist, either, because I have no evidence of that.
Exactly, now you’re understanding me!
Apparently you are not understanding me. There is no evidence for your god, nor anyone else’s god(s). Your “faith” in his/her/its existence is not based on evidence. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely to be the creator and ruler of the universe as your god, whomever or whatever he/she/it may be.
What about my great-great-grandpa’s axe? Would you believe that’s real? No evidence, no observation. Likelihood of existence, however?
You’ve missed the point, friend. Your great-great-grandpa existed, did he not? You have evidence of this? He had children, they had children, you exist? The likelihood of his owning an axe is one thing, but that isn’t what the analogy is about. You implied that ancient traditions somehow suggested the reality of your god. But traditions are not real. They may reflect some real event or situation…or they may not. You cannot use them as evidence of reality, especially when the historical situations in which they arose can be studied and known, and those studies contradict the traditions themselves.
Hence Paul Bunyon. He is a work of fiction. The stories about him are real enough, but he, his friend Babe, and his big ol’ axe are still fiction. They are not real. His plow didn’t carve the grand canyon, and his axe did not clear the great plains.
Actually, I think it was Peter in the New Testament who did the rewriting based on a revelation from God
Now you have utterly missed the point and dodged the issue. It doesn’t matter who rewrote the laws or what excuse they gave (and in case you’re wondering, God told me to write that), the point is they were rewritten…to suit the needs of society at that time. You, yourself admitted it just now in a post to Roen…you ask if he goes to the store on Sunday. You’re implying “working” on the sabbath. But the sabbath, according to the bible, is Saturday. Sunday worship did not supplant it until the second century, or the very late first century at the earliest, in Rome. The Roman church had to make the change, not for theological reasons, but because official Roman reaction to the Jewish revolt resulted in harsh public sentiment toward anything remotely Jewish…including that odd Jewish off-shoot, Christianity. The early Christians had to make themselves distinct, hence Saturday temple became Sunday church. Historical record, Bryan.
Again, religion evolves to meet the needs of men.
And finally,
Don’t know. Don’t really care. I suspect you are making up whatever religion you, personally, need. Fine by me. Just don’t try to pass it off as any sort of Truth.™
Wow, that’s a stretch. You’re just as closed minded as you think I am.
Really? Closed minded? Why? Because I don’t take your word for it that you possess the one and only answer? That I ask for evidence beyond your say-so? That is not being closed-minded, Bryan, that is calling out arrogance and megalomaniacal behavior.
As I said before, I don’t particularly care what you believe, nor what religion you practice, nor what religion is being touted by the gentleman Dr. BA mentions in his post. All I care about is that same religion being placed on a pedestal as if it were established fact. It is not.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
@ Bryan:
“… only that I believe this moral code is superior to the one most people make up on their own”
It was a yes or no question. Like kuhnigget, I do not care how you structure your own morality nor do I care how superior you feel it is. You can be the high priest of the mushroom of chaos cult, it does not matter to me. But during this conversation the only thing that seems to stand out about you is that you see your code as “superior”, which is far too prideful for any human no matter how divinely misguided.
I know why you are here. You are here to save me, or kuhnigget, or someone else. The only thing I need to be saved from is religious people who just cannot accept it when someone else is not like them.
“Thanks for the fun discussions.”
Sorry if this sounds aggressive, but having failed in converting us you leave?
@All:
This is why discussions about morality will always yield nothing. You will always have the religious camp and the skeptical camp. Neither will yield to the other for obvious reasons. Also trying to convince a creationist to stop using screwdrivers to pound in nails will always be that… trying. They’ll only hurt themselves anyway. Science does not try to teach morality and religion should steer away from describing nature.
No change in understanding has occurred here. As always we skeptics are supposed to be more understanding than the creationists. It’s sad that I draw the conclusion that this will never change.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Not to ruin a perfectly good metaphor, Roen, but the only problem I have with creationists using screwdrivers to pound nails is that it tends to create splinters, sharp bits of rubbish that stick in the flesh of perfectly innocent bystanders, e.g. children, who are forced to “study” this crap instead of learning to use their own powers of reasoning.
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Look at it this way, `Nigget… they get first hand experience at the illogical long enough that there is less of a risk of being “born again”. {eyeroll}
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere.”
For a minute there I thought you were talking about evolutionist arguments. Funny how everyone sees the world with their own preconceptions.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Sorry, 163 almost makes no sense. Children are very independent minded. So what I really meant too say was those that will buy into religion will buy into it regardless what you do or say to the contrary. However, the nonsense does become apparent to those who are critical by nature. Even in a catholic system those that will resist the religious teaching will resist. By keeping them in the catholic system only helps us as they will gain a better insight into the lame arguments so they will be better equipped to resist them later in life. *sigh* that’s better.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
@Joe
For a minute there I thought you were talking about evolutionist arguments. Funny how everyone sees the world with their own preconceptions.
Believing the Bible is true and then looking for evidence to support that idea, while ignoring evidence that doesn’t support it, is seeing the world through preconceived notions. Believing that evolution is true because of mountains of evidence is not. If you’re going to troll, try harder.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Sorry, Roen, but your powers of reasoning have failed this time. It was never about you. I would never expect anyone to be converted by a few blog comments.
(And, incidentally, my creeds did not come from me, so I don’t get to take credit for them nor be prideful because of them — you seem quite proud of yours though.)
You see, I subscribed to BA because I happened across a post about Saturn and loved it. However I quickly learned that BA is more about religion-bashing than it is astronomy. That’s fine for a personal blog, but for one associated with Discover magazine I expect better.
My motivation was merely to show those with less exposure to religion that there are other sides to these stories, and they’re not as foolish as some would claim. I may not have succeeded, but at least I got a little practice. =)
See you on the other side.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:39 am
@Bryan:
Less exposure!? I can’t help BUT be exposed to it. The more I get the more I distance myself from it. BA is about skepticism. Phil makes that abundantly clear, it is unfortunate you missed it every time.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
Just letting know Rift – 129 (and Jason Dick – 4) the comoving distance fog is slowly clearing up and I am beginning to see the error of my ways (within the Standard Big Bang model.)
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 am
Asimov Fan, there is a cute little short story, “A. Botts and the Moebius Strip,” in which an officious, obnoxious, but safety-conscious Army Lieutenant is kept out of trouble when the men of a small camp convince him that if the short bit of visible belt between generator shack and engine shack needs to be painted red for safety, he should do it himself. They caution him, however, not to get any paint on the INSIDE of the belt (as it would make the pulleys slip)…
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 am
“…it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere.”
How about just plain stupid. Don’t sugar coat it.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am
My motivation was merely to show those with less exposure to religion that there are other sides to these stories, and they’re not as foolish as some would claim. I may not have succeeded, but at least I got a little practice. =)
See you on the other side.
In other words, I have no substantial arguments, so I’ll take my ball and go home now.
Roen, why would you even bother offering rational arguments to someone like this? He’s operating at the cognitive level of a child. He “feels” something to be true, therefore it’s true.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
What bothers me the most about these Christians who want us to take Genesis literally is the inherent bias against Jews. Stay with me here; I can back this up. Remember, the Jews wrote that story (OK, actually the Babylonians originally, but we’re talking about the Biblical version)…and if you bother to ask a rabbi (I have) you will find that they do not think Genesis is meant to be taken literally at all. That is a notion the Christians came up with on their very own…completely rejecting the interpretation of the people who actually wrote the bloody thing!
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
@Jeff E:
I dunno, until recently I was in a nice, comfortable state of not-talking-about-religion. On occasion I forget that I just don’t talk to these people, because they don’t listen.
“My motivation was merely to show those with less exposure to religion that there are other sides to these stories”
I don’t believe this is entirely honest, as evidence does not bear this out; this very statement demonstrates a preaching quality akin to conversion. Repeatedly he demonstrates what appears to be a desire to convince us that his option is viable and how superior his morality is. He seems interested in some facts but he shows too much reliance on his religious construct to be intellectually honest with himself about everything else.
Regardless of his denial he feels it’s his God-given duty to convert those of us so firmly on this side of the fence. How useless is that? We have stated many times to him that we trust the evidence. As the fictional character, Gil Grissom on CSI states, “Concentrate on what cannot lie. The evidence.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Daffy,
I think it may vary from Christian to Christian. Like any group, there is diversity of thought and interpretation. I wonder what the Vatican priests with degrees in Astronomy and doing actual scientific work think about Genesis.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
“My motivation was merely to show those with less exposure to religion that there are other sides to these stories”
Pride again, as well. I happen to have quite a lot of exposure to religion. Raised in a catholic/Greek Orthodox house. Studied comparative religion many years in college, minor hobby of studying the origins of Abrahamic religion, written two novels in which religion plays a role (and did extensive research for both), an open mind toward all points of view…when they are backed up with evidence.
And what do the Bryan’s of the world have? As Roen noted, they have their “feelings,” their “beliefs.”
Which is fine and dandy for one’s own personal “creed” — which, I can’t help but notice Bryan never actually fessed up to identifying for us — but such doesn’t cut it when trying to prove a particular point of view actually matches and explains reality.
You can go on and on with these people; their enthusiasm for their own opinion is apparently as boundless as the universe itself. As my new hero, Congressman Barney Frank might say, however, having an actual meaningful exchange with them is like talking to a dining room table.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
@ Daffy:
When the stories in Genesis were originally developed, they were very much taken as literal truth. There was no separation between religion and reality in those days. Having a god or gods be the cause behind an observable effect was perfectly acceptable. It was not until later, as Judaism moved on and developed a less literal point of view, that the idea they might be metaphor arose.
Once again, an example of human beings molding their religion and their god to suit the changing times.
BTW, there are still many orthodox sects of Judaism that believe quite strongly in a literal interpretation of the OT. Nuttiness isn’t confined to Chrisitianity. Tho at least the orthodox Jews don’t proselytize, unlike their fundy Christian cousins.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
Kuhnigget,
I have to take your word (and do) regarding orthodox Judaism, since I have not looked at that very closely…however, I do stand by my comment: every rabbi I have ever spoken with has said that the stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken literally. I did not mean to suggest, however, that nuttiness is confined to Christianity. One needs only to read Leviticus to see that.
ND, I agree…individuals vary a LOT.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
BTW, there are still many orthodox sects of Judaism that believe quite strongly in a literal interpretation of the OT.
Even the most stringent among the Hareidim (the “ultra-Orthodox”) don’t understand it literally in the way that Christian fundamentalists do. They actually pay far more attention to the Talmud, the oral interpretive tradition. It’s true that they don’t proselytize, but it isn’t out of a sense of tolerance. Most of them are xenophobic to one degree or another; the gentile world is simply irrelevant to them.
every rabbi I have ever spoken with has said that the stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken literally
I think this is true, as regards the way we understand the term “literal”. They believed them, but they were developed in a story-telling culture. The collective consciousness was oriented more toward a mythic point of view.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
On occasion I forget that I just don’t talk to these people, because they don’t listen.
Yeah. They really don’t.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
@ Daffy and Jeff:
Yup to both.
BTW, Jeff, I once had the pleasure of having a chunk of brick heaved at me because I turned at the wrong corner and chanced to walk down a very hasidic street in Brooklyn. I guess I stood out like the proverbial sore thumb.
No, lunacy is not confined to Christians.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
When I was in grade school, I was reading this book of evolution. The other kids thought it was sooo cool… to ridicule me after I said that we evolved from apes. They all started acting like apes, too. That pretty much turned me off of science and learning for a long long time. I ended up dropping out. There is much more to this story but I will leave those nasty details out. Ignorance is indeed not the sole realm of religion.
Heh. Some day I’d like to calculate the actual chances of an ice cube in hell and have a t-shirt made.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Sorry, I know I get windy on this subject, but I wanted to add one more point of emphasis.
Jeff said: They believed them, but they were developed in a story-telling culture. The collective consciousness was oriented more toward a mythic point of view.
This is absolutely correct, and not limited to the cultures of the Levant. All ancient cultures believed this way, at one time.
Furthermore, and this is the point I want to emphasize, the idea of there being a separation between the supernatural and the natural is a very modern one. To ancient peoples, the distinction simply didn’t exist. The idea of gods and demons being responsible for the world and its events was perfectly “natural.”
We have to be careful when we look at these creation myths and other religious tales from our modern perspective. Yes, we can say at certain times and in certain places the stories were “never meant to be taken literally,” but that’s a very modern point of view. The question itself about a story’s being “real” or not simply would not have come up in the ancient world. There was no distinction.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
The question itself about a story’s being “real” or not simply would not have come up in the ancient world. There was no distinction.
Right, absolutely. Unfortunately, we now have people who get PhD’s from Harvard, yet they still can’t wrap their minds around this.
BTW, Jeff, I once had the pleasure of having a chunk of brick heaved at me because I turned at the wrong corner and chanced to walk down a very hasidic street in Brooklyn. I guess I stood out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Wow, seriously? One hears of this all the time, in some neighborhoods in Israel, if one is desecrating the Sabbath, or if a woman is “immodestly” dressed, etc. – but I’ve never heard of a Hasid throwing a brick at someone here merely for walking down the street.
It’s usually young people – but they’re learning the intolerance at home.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Comparisons: Angels winged creatures that carry dead to heaven-vultures?
virgin birth- unwed mother? Gods child- aren’t we all? Resurection- premature burial? Assention after 40 days- death from infection? Faith-reason? What’s to doubt? And yet I believe in God. Why? Something gave me the chance to exist. Something put my consciousness in this body at this time. I Am. I suspect that God may be everything eternally evolving. Given forever, my combination of atoms was bound to happen, if everything is evolving forever. Science wonders about multi-verses or our universe coming from another universe. I don’t know how it works. But I know that I am. In a finite universe with limited time, I would be very lucky to exist. In an eternally evolving situation, I would have forever to show up. ……and, I am very patient. I don’t claim to know the truth. Perhaps I just won the lottery. But something gave me the chance to exist. I call that something God. Just perhaps, everything is God. Man can’t comprehend God. Man can’t comprehend everything. Take all our knowledge of science and religion. Pile the books into a mountain. Move out to the moon. The mountain shrinks to nothing. Move out to the edge of the galaxy. The solar system shrinks to nothing. Move out to the Hubble deep field. The galaxy shrinks to nothing. So how great is our knowledge of everything? How great is our knowledge of God? But, we all know the Truth don’t we? Compared to God , Compared to everything, we shrink to nothing. So folks, just what is the Truth? Looking for the beginning or end of eternity from the middle is an endeavor of conjecture with unlimited possibilities. We have only gathered a couple of grains of sand from the desert. Keep gathering.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
[...] Be aware that planetary nebulas have nothing to do with planets. Phil Plait talks about “creationist astronomy.” Ouch. That was painful…but worth it for his great closing line: “Trying [...]
August 24th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Ok, question, lot of comments, read the first 50 or so. Need to ask/get this clarified.
Can a very easy explanation of us “being the center” simply be that we see the universe as a time line (or a timecircle)?
We are at the present, everything we look at, is in the past, the further away an object, the further into the past we are seeing. thus, we and anybody else observing the universe from whichever location, would be the center, as that would be the present, looking at a timeline going back. Guessing that’s what Phil meant, but I just needed to get it clarified, as that’s how I’ve understood it so far
/P
August 24th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Mike Haubrich, FCD (35) said:
Erm … possibly. Except that the big bang is simply a term for the start point of the universe in modern cosmology (and a name for the theory that describes its consequences).
August 24th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Roen (46) said:
Erm … I detect some deep confusion about what the CMB actually is.
All electromagnetic radiation has both a frequency and a wavelength associated with it. These are related by the speed of light (frequency x wavelength = c). Thus, high frequencies correspond with short wavelengths and vice versa. Incidentally, this is why a VHF radio antenna has longer cross-members than a UHF TV antenna; microwaves are a little bit different, but the same basic principles apply. Think of the radio stations you might listen to in your car – each is transmitted at a frequency that has a corresponding wavelength. For instance, 100 MHz corresponds to a wavelength of about 2.9 m.
The radiation at 160.2 GHz is electromagnetic radiation corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm.
But the wavelength is an intrinsic property of the radiation, and has nothing to do with its “smoothness” or lack thereof.
The lack of smoothness of the CMB is in the fine detail only. As I understand it: If you measure the frequency of the radiation at different parts of the sky, it is all the same (i.e. it is smooth) if you measure to 4 significant figures (e.g. 160.2 GHz). If, however, you measure it to, say, 10 significant figures, you start to notice differences. I don’t know exactly how big the differences are, but I do know that you only detect differences if you measure to a very high level of precision.
Because this radiation is the very-strongly-doppler-shifted remnant of radiation that was emitted by hot plasma, the differences in frequency (and wavelength) indicate different temperatures. Thus, the “lumpiness” (or anisotropy) of the CMB is the fact that, at the very finest detail, different parts of the sky seem to have different background temperatures.
Yes, this is right, but in reality it’s a bit more complicated. Because the universe is expanding, not only does the light get doppler-shifted in its journey, it also means that the universe is much larger when distant light reaches our telescopes than it was when the distant light was first emitted.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:25 am
>>>”I believe this moral code is superior to the one most people make up on their own.”
Of course you do Bryan. Because your own massive ego prevents you from realising that ALL human morality was invented by humans, and your own sentence shoots your argument right in the foot.
>>>”But God has a very personal interest in you and your future, and if you don’t insist on doing it your way, I’m betting you’d be pleasantly surprised at where he would lead you.”
But the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a very personal interest in you and your future, and if you don’t insist on doing it your (particular opinion of your particular god’s) way, I’m betting you’d be pleasantly surprised at where He would lead you.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Bryan (48) said:
You can’t help believing in the existence of something for which there is no evidence?
Would you like to meet my invisible pink unicorn? Only $2500 to you, special rate!
It may. What do you propose we do about this possibility? For myself, I’ll ignore it. I’m going to assume that the world that I interact with is the only world, unless you can come up with some evidence to suggest that your possibility is anything more than wild speculation.
And you can get hung up on unprovable propositions on the assumption that something larger than humanity cares about whether you are good or bad. Investigating reality and discovering what the universe is and how it works have nothing whatever to do with how you behave. If you need the fear of god to behave civilly towards your fellow humans, then so be it. I feel very sad for you. Just don’t assume that the rest of us need the thought of an invisible super-nanny judging our every deed to ensure good social behaviour.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Joe Smith CA (74) said:
This reminds me of a Star Wars joke:
Why is gaffer tape (duct tape) like The Force?
Because it’s light on one side, dark on the other and holds the universe together.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Toasterhead (85) said:
Yeah, but I thought the universe was infinite in space? So its volume is infinite and therefore it doesn’t have to have a centre.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:23 am
@Nigel 189.
Nice clarification on the CMB. Thank you, sir!
193.
This was covered earlier in the convo, but I understand… 190+ messages is hard to sift through. Consider the universe as a balloon. The surface of the balloon is the universe. The air-filled space inside the balloon is basically the past. So, the universe is finite not infinite. Spatially there is no center, it is nonsensical to conceptualize a center with what we now know. Thus, there is no room in the theory for a center.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
190. Darth Robo Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Of course you do Bryan. Because your own massive ego prevents you from realising that ALL human morality was invented by humans, and your own sentence shoots your argument right in the foot.
Not necessarily. Research I’ve heard about on chimpanzees, bonobos, and our other evolutionary cousins reveals a large part of the in-group social dynamic that could be classified as “morality” – sharing of resources, protection of the young, refraining from violence, etc. I believe we actually inherited quite a lot of our “human morality” from our ancestors.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:03 am
193. Nigel Depledge Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 5:58 am
Toasterhead (85) said:
Yeah, but I thought the universe was infinite in space? So its volume is infinite and therefore it doesn’t have to have a centre.
______________
Assuming it’s infinite, yes. But how do we actually know that it’s truly infinite, and not just really really really big but finite? I have a lot of difficulty reconciling the concept of infinity with the concept of a multiverse. Is there a cosmological calculation that points to infinity versus really really big finity?
August 24th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Brian (99) said:
Well, think of it this way:
Space is expanding, and carrying everything else with it. However, gravitation causes an attractive force to exist between things that have mass (e.g. galaxies). Gravity causes objects to move through space, even while that space is expanding to make things (on large scales) farther apart.
The expansion of the universe is scale-dependent, i.e. the rate at which things move apart depend on how far apart they are. The rate of expansion, the Hubble constant, is measured in kilometres per second per megaparsec. Thus, objects that are close together can easily move toward one another faster through space than the local speed of expansion of that space. However, this is far harder for objects that are far apart, because the expansion of the universe is separating them at a much higher velocity.
I hope this helps.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:16 am
189. Nigel Depledge Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Yes, this is right, but in reality it’s a bit more complicated. Because the universe is expanding, not only does the light get doppler-shifted in its journey, it also means that the universe is much larger when distant light reaches our telescopes than it was when the distant light was first emitted.
_________________
Which also means that some of the most distant galaxies we see in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field are going to disappear eventually, when the distance between us grows farther than the time needed for their light to reach us. Which really hurts my brain to try and conceptualize.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:13 am
@Roen #194: Right. A finite volume only has a geometric center if it also has a boundary. In 2-D terms, a circle drawn on a flat piece of paper has a finite area, a boundary, and a center. However, the surface of a sphere, while also having a finite area, has no boundary or center.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
So, in this respect is it not possible for there to be a temporal center (ie. the center of the volume filled area inside the balloon?
I wonder if this is meaningfull in anyway
August 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
You can stretch the balloon analogy (pun intended) so that the interior represents time, but that’s not really the purpose of it. It implies that a change in the rate of expansion is also a change in the rate that time flows (whatever that means), and of course it falls down if the universe is allowed to contract, since that would imply that time is moving backward.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Perhaps the light was created already on its way, or the Universe was created appearing old already. But that would be awfully tricky of a creator, trying to fool us by providing millions of individual bits of evidence of an old Universe but then saying it’s young.
Phil: You really must do some more research on current YEC ideas. The above explanations were dismissed long ago.
Having spent the last few months arguing with some rather nasty YECs on Premier Christian Radio’s discussion forum,but to no avail, the distant starlight problem doesn’t phase them at all now. What has been thrown at me are the following:
D Russell Humphreys’ white light cosmology.
http://creation.com/explaining-new-cosmology
We know from experiments that time flows at different speeds in different places. For example, clocks run faster on the tops of mountains than at sea level. The clocks in GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth and the calculations of position have to account for this, otherwise the position given will be seriously in error. These are real, measurable effects.
It was in six days E.S.T.—Earth Standard Time—that God made the universe, He said in Exodus 20:11 and elsewhere. So when someone asks you, ‘How old is the universe?’ you should say, ‘By whose clocks?’ By the only ones that matter, the cosmos is 6,000 years young!
So time dilation is a reality. My new cosmology simply takes advantage of that fact, as do the other three relativistic creation cosmologies as well. God chose that His creation, physical time, would flow at different rates in different places.
To be honest, I just don’t know how to answer the above but if I had a pound (or dollar) for every time that’s been thrown at me when I’ve raised standard candles such as cepheid variables or type 1A supernova.
You might also like to check out Starlight,time
,and the new physics by Dr. John Hartnett:
https://store.creation.com/uk/product_info.php?sku=10-3-505
Written by Dr John Hartnett, this is a bold new answer to the distant starlight issue. Many still doubt the Bible’s clear timescale because, they think, it is impossible for light to have reached the Earth in only a few thousand years from stars that are millions of light-years away. This misconception is often the ultimate stumbling block to a straightforward acceptance of the Bible—even the gospel itself.
I’m not sure if this is different to Humphrey’s “Starlight and time” or a variation on a theme. Hartnett has recently toured the UK promoting his new book. A review would be useful Phil as this is being used to good effect to convert the faithful that distant starlight is absolutely no problem for a young earth.
And then there’s Halten Arp. They continually refer to Arp ad nauseum. I think it’s time to put Arp’s ideas to rest in the context of YEC astronomy. I assume Arp isn’t a YEC ? Does he realise he’s become a holy grail to YECs ??? Maybe a quiet word in Professor Arp’s ear might help.
Anyway, hope the above is useful Phil. They may be wrong but they are convinced more than ever that they are right.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Toasterhead (85) said:
I don’t think the current model of the universe refutes the fact that there is a center. Anything that has a finite volume has to have a geometric center.
193. Nigel Depledge (193) said:
Yeah, but I thought the universe was infinite in space? So its volume is infinite and therefore it doesn’t have to have a centre.
First infinities can have centres, the set of all integers for example. But that’s not really important here. Whether the Universe has a centre depends on your frame of reference. Because that point is the exact centre of a sphere with an observational horizon beyond which nothing is causally related to anything inside it, and has therefore no physical meaning. But any point inside that sphere is the centre of it’s own sphere and there are points inside that sphere that are not inside the first sphere. These spheres of course are not identical, they are defined by the spacetime coördinates of that centre and the evolution of the Hubble “constant” relative to it.
But theoretically, meaning if you could step outside the Universe and look at it from a timeless perspective, in an absolute sense it has a centre, that’s the Big Bang. But from where we are now if we could look at it directly we would never be able to see but an infinitesemal part of that centre across the entire sky, in fact that centre however tiny it began is far larger than the entire observable universe. So there you go with your understanding of what exactly defines a centre inside an inflating and then expanding Universe. You might as well think the Universe isn’t expanding but is imploding instead.
Physically speaking the question of whether the Universe is infinite or finite is completely meaningless, because it is infinite from any possible frame of reference.
It is a philosophical matter, which is another way of saying that whoever succeeds in making his thoughts completely impenetrable by others has won the debate. So let me have a go, because I am blessed with some talent in this department. Here it goes. Since the Universe had a definite beginning it can only stretch infinitely in one direction of time. Since the Universe has a finite speed of growth of space, whether it be inflation or expansion it’s space can only become infinite when time has reached infinity.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
As I keep saying I am a Christan ( Roman Cathloic) who beleves in the theory of evelotion and the big bang and I beleve the universe is 13 billon years old (In fact I wonder if its older then that ) not all Christans are young earth creationsts > By the way Phill you forgot something : He said that the galaxys are evenly distrbuted in the universe WORNG!!!!! the galaxys are grouped into clusters ( ours is called the local group) and the galaxyclusters are grouped into super clusters also let me say I am a Chirstan but I don’t hate science (I would not be a ameuter astrormer if i did ) nor do I hate nonChristans and I not out to force others to follow my faith . AND I WONT BE VISITING THE CREATIONIST MUSUME The last part is for those who think all Chirstans are a like and have the same Bible interpation or oppions.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Here is a nice collection of videos which explain why you must deny gravity if you are a young earth creationist. My favorite part is the discussion of the implications of the “god created the light from distant galaxies already on it’s way” argument.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Nice pun, Bunny. But your point is taken.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Toasterhead (85) said:
The surface of the Earth is finite and does not have a center.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Bryan said something very confusing on the subject of science.
[i]I think it’s wonderful and good. Just woefully inadequate in teaching us what to become.[/i]
Inadequate? We went from thinking that the earth was flat and that the panets and stars (who were gods) revolved around us to what we know today due to science. We discovered fire, tools, the wheel, due to science. We have substantially increased the lifespan of humans due to science. I’m not sure what you mean by “teaching us what to become”, but It seems to me that science has a pretty good track record so far.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I am a Chirstan but I don’t hate science
Same here Mike. Unfortunately, most of the evangelical groups do hate science now. Shame on the evangelical hierarchy (such as the Evangelical Alliance in the UK) for allowing this to happen and for letting people like Ken Ham to get away with it. Of all the sciences, astronomy is the one which disproves a 6,000 year old Universe the most.
By the way Mike, I’ve also done degree level astronomy. I successfully completed OU course S 283 (replaced by S 281) . I would definitely recommend the OU (which stands for the Open University).
August 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
207. Roen Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Toasterhead (85) said:
The surface of the Earth is finite and does not have a center.
____________
Well, yes – there’s no such thing as the center of the surface of a sphere – that’s like trying to measure the corner of a circle or the curvature of a triangle. But the sphere of the Earth itself (or oblate spheroid, if we’re gonna get technical) does have a center – the intersection of all diameters.
____________________________________________
203. Albert Bakker Says:
August 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Physically speaking the question of whether the Universe is infinite or finite is completely meaningless, because it is infinite from any possible frame of reference.
___________
From any frame of reference that we know of, sure. But what about from, say, Galaxy [HM92] 230149-3736.8, which is 1.6 billion light years away (or at least, was 1.6 billion years ago – it’s probably much farther away by now.) If we could take the Hubble telescope through a wormhole to the outskirts of galaxy [HM92] 230149-3736.8, do we know for certain that we would see a perfect 13.2-billion light year sphere of galaxies around us, or is it possible that we’d be near an edge of the universe and only see 12 billion light-years out in one direction?
August 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
is it possible that we’d be near an edge of the universe and only see 12 billion light-years out in one direction?
No. There’s no edge. To use your phrase, talking about the edge of the universe is “like trying to measure the corner of a circle”. The universe is either infinite, or it’s finite and unbounded like the surface of a sphere. Those are the only shapes which don’t require spacetime discontinuities, i.e. singularities.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
@ denuded rodent and carbonized wheat head:
That’s one of the drawbacks of using analogies. One can get hung up on the features of the analogous example, forgetting that it’s just that…an analogy, not the real thing.
To be more accurate, the balloon model would have to feature an inflating balloon that is expanding into 4 dimensions.
Go ahead, try to imagine that.
Yup. Therein lies the weakness.
August 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
208. @Peter:
“Bryan said something very confusing on the subject of science.”
Yeah, well… you’re not alone. I gave up a short time ago.
210. @toasterhead
Please do enlighten me, as I obviously missed something important.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
We know from experiments that time flows at different speeds in different places. For example, clocks run faster on the tops of mountains than at sea level. The clocks in GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth and the calculations of position have to account for this, otherwise the position given will be seriously in error. These are real, measurable effects.
Weird, I’m not keeping up with YECers, but actually used the same argument in my ’satire’ of them.
As for the age of the Earth, Darwinists insist that the length of time for the creation is billions of years, yet in their physics classes, students learn that time is a relative thing, according to Einstein. Thus, what may be experienced as days by those in one ‘referential frame’ can be years, even millions or billions of years, to someone in another ‘referential frame’, bringing the claim of extremely long times into question according to their own ’science’. This also causes a failure of the claims that radioactive decay is consistent.
http://members.cox.net/ditto-busters/Creation.htm for the entire ‘article’
J/P=?
August 24th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Another quick link (dub dub dub’d to skip moderation) about a NYT ‘op-ed yesterday by Robert Wright of the New America Foundation proposing “A Grand Bargain Over Evolution,” ‘
(note: comments may not be appropriate for all)
mediamatters(dot)org/blog/200908240130
J/P=?
August 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@ J/P=?
As noted earlier, that blog points out the chief problem I have with Wright’s otherwise promising effort at a historical survey.
His motivation is worthy: he believes the clash between various religions are at the root of many of the modern world’s most dangerous conflicts (and when you populate each one with “Bryans”, i.e. “I’m better than you because I say so,” it’s easy to grant him that one).
But like most apologists, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too, and the only way he can do it is by making a grandiose supposition about the nature of God, sidestepping the slight issue of “lack of evidence for…buckets of evidence agin’.”
In the end, his well-intentioned “bargain” comes across as somewhat trite.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Peter Henderson (202) said:
Try this:
Time dilation is a known and measureable effect. It only has an impact when you are dealing with large accelerations, very strong gravitational fields or extremely precise measurements. When comparing something on the surface of the Earth with other stuff on the surface of the Earth, time dilation is irrelevant.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Albert Bakker (203) said:
But, surely, the BB happened everywhere?
August 25th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Albert Bakker (203) said:
Unless, of course, it was unbounded in space at time zero.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:31 am
Peter Henderson (209) said:
Actually, I think geology gives us the most direct evidence against a 6,000-y.o. universe. We have measured the actual age of many rock samples, both terrestrial and lunar, and found that the Earth and Moon are about 750,000 times older than 6,000 years.
August 25th, 2009 at 3:42 am
@Nigel & Peter: If you begin with the assumption that an omnipotent god can and does vary the laws of physics at will with no negative consequences, then you have removed yourself from the realm of science. Models and evidence become meaningless to people like that.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:05 am
John Paradox (214) said:
John, what’s scary about your parody is it took me a couple of minutes to spot the flaw! The YECists ought to hire you as a copy writer.
The flaw is, of course, that the Earth has remained within just one referential frame for its whole existence. Or, to be a bit more accurate, reference frames in which time dilation could be a substantial factor involve either implausibly high accelerations or gravitational fields so strong that the Earth would have been torn apart by the tidal forces.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Three questions:
Are we not wasting our collective brainpower on this YEC trash? Surely there is something more worthy of our attention.
Are we not just preaching to the converted (so to speak)? Seriously, out of all those who post here those that trust their god over a tried and true system of discovery are not regulars. They come in, distract our attention and then leave. I suspect that they giggle like little schoolgirls while they watch us waste our time.
Can we not move on and talk about something useful? We know we can trust the scientific method, we know they will never change no matter how much we beat them over their heads with logic and evidence.
I’m just putting this out there, because I have noticed a pattern. Every time Phil posts something on YECers or (psycho god lovers, as I like to refer to them) one or more show up, but not at the same time oddly, and a flurry of exchanges lasts for upwards of 200 posts. In the end we achieve nothing and most of our time goes toward tilting at brick walls. Isn’t it time that we not fall into this habit?
Sorry, that was 4 questions.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I agree that there is no point in talking to them. The goal of the scientist, or of anyone with an objective world view, is to learn as much as possible about the nature of reality through examination of empirical evidence. The goal of the believer is to continue to believe.
This comment by one of PZ’s regular commenters, in the Pharyngula thread about the lecture, is relevant here:
It has been suggested by some neurologists and psychologists that religious beliefs seem to involve different parts of the brain than ordinary analytical beliefs, and that they may be part of earlier, more primitive systems of thought formation from our childhood. That could explain why they’re so immune to reason and disconfirmation.
… For a believer, a statement like “God exists” wasn’t processed like factual statements such as “There are penguins in Antarctica” or “my father works in an office.” Instead, areas of the brain lit up in the same way they lit up for “I love my mother” or “my father loves me.” They are literally confusing claims of fact, with claims of emotion.
That might be one reason they seem to be so child-like to us. Young children have this tendency to confuse feelings about facts with the facts themselves, but normally grow out of it as they mature. Apparently, a religious belief system can foster it, retaining it for specific areas involving faith and belief. This is possibly why it feels so natural and normal to them. It is natural and normal for all of us — at three.
There’s more evidence that it may have (I would say almost certainly has) a neurological basis: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Heilman-neuroscienceandfundamentalism
These are people who have such an overwhelming need for absolute certainty that they are perfectly content to abandon the vast majority of human beings – often, even their own children – to an eternity of unspeakable suffering, as long as they can have the ontological security blanket while here. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from attempting to engage them in any sort of reasoned dialogue. Again, they’re operating at the cognitive level of children – and disturbed children at that. They need to be treated accordingly.
August 25th, 2009 at 7:54 am
222. Nigel Depledge Says:
John, what’s scary about your parody is it took me a couple of minutes to spot the flaw! The YECists ought to hire you as a copy writer.
I wish SOMEone would hire me for SOMETHING. (I have 3 resumes: Writer/editor, Computer, and Broadcasting)
J/P=?
August 25th, 2009 at 8:08 am
@ Roen:
Every time Phil posts something on YECers or (psycho god lovers, as I like to refer to them) one or more show up, but not at the same time oddly, and a flurry of exchanges lasts for upwards of 200 posts.
I believe there is a slight degree of masochism involved. But truly, you cannot let the bastards have the last word, even if it is nothing but their own giggling glee you are cutting short.
And have you ever checked out any of the ufo nutter posts? One of those hit 1200 comments!
@ J/P=?:
I wish SOMEone would hire me for SOMETHING
Heh heh…ditto. Heh. H…er, sighhhhhhhhhhh.
Buy a novel anyone? Anyone? Buy a novelist anyone? Anyone?
August 25th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Actually, I think geology gives us the most direct evidence against a 6,000-y.o. universe. We have measured the actual age of many rock samples, both terrestrial and lunar, and found that the Earth and Moon are about 750,000 times older than 6,000 years.
Yes, indeed Nigel. However, they’ll tell you radiometric dating is based purely on assumptions. Personally, I think the geological sorting of fossils is pretty good evidence against a global flood.
However, in astronomy we are actually observing events that happened in the past. From the sun a mere 8 minutes ago, to Andromeda, 2.5 million years ago, through to the most distant obsects that are visible through modern telescopes, billions of years ago. It’s interesting to read the the replies you get back re. Andromeda.
“How do you know the laws of physics are the same everywhere”
“How do you know the speed of light is the same in different parts of the Universe”
“How do you know that time runs at the same speed in other parts of the Universe”
etc. etc. etc.
These are the main arguments I get from YECs when I pose questions on Andromeda (which is of course a naked eye object).
August 25th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@ Jeff Eyges:
Thanks for that link.
That sort of thinking goes a long way toward explaining why the monotheistic religions, especially, inspire such fundamental(ist) adherents. Monotheism typically presents its god/goddess as a parental figure. Personally, I can’t think of a single one in which the omnipotent being is worshipped as a big sister or brother, let alone a second cousin once removed.
Of course the Christians try to have it both ways with the Trinity, not to mention Mary and all the saints. Jesus is sort of the big brother friendly side of the family, while God himself is the stern father figure. (I’ve never been able to figure out what the hell the Holy Spirit is supposed to be.)
The popularity of the cult of Mary has so many Freudian possibilities you couldn’t walk into a Catholic church (especially in Latin America) without tripping on them. And what insecure person wouldn’t want to go through life knowing mommy is right there, ready to embrace him in her perpetually open arms whenever trouble arises? “Hush, now baby…don’t cry. Mummy’s here…just hang on a sec while I put in an appearance on a Ritz cracker.”
August 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@Roen
Are we not wasting our collective brainpower on this YEC trash?
1. There are many more people that read these posts than actually comment. Look at any post where Phil gives stuff away for evidence of that.
2. Not everyone who has doubts about evolution is a YEC. Some are people who have just been misinformed by YEC lies. If no one responds, it may makes it look like there is something to those lies.
3. Have you ever known a former fundi whose faith was thrown into question when they discovered that the people they looked to for moral guidance are nothing more than dirty, lying con men? I have.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Roen (223) said:
There is a pretty good reason for addressing the tripe that the YEC fundies / antivaxxers / Moon hoax believers trot out: So that people who do not have the appropriate depth of knowledge can find out how and why the arguments expounded by the lunatic fringe are wrong, and how to show this in a (relatively) concise way.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Kuhnigget (226) said:
Depends. Are you house-trained? And have you ever been bitten by a moose?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Peter Henderson (227) said:
Of course, what you say is true.
However, the argument that radiometric dating (and for some weird reason they usually say “carbon dating” as if that were ever used on rocks) is based on assumptions is a simple lie. It is based on sound measurements.
Fortunately for us, the only assumption that one needs to make in science is that what we observe and measure correlates directly with an objective reality. And this is an assumption that everyone makes every day.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:15 am
@José & Nigel:
I keep forgetting about those lurkers. Creepy little buggers, I tell you. They’re like stalkers… where did I put my taser?
August 26th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@ Nigel Depledge:
Yes. And I can calculate the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow. Because, you know, one has to know these things.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:22 am
@ Kuhnigget:
What do you mean? An African or European sparrow (hang on, shouldn’t that be swallow?)?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
(Hanging his head in shame….)
…unladen swallow.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:02 am
[...] special. And there’s even less evidence to the idea that we’re in the center of it all, despite the claims of some ardent creationists clinging to Biblical literalism. Since right now, our solar system is the only vantage point we [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 7:18 am
GoKlavierKlavierFan…
Megacool Blog indeed!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website Enjoy!…
December 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I think you guys are close-minded and cannot think outside the box. You question a young universe but have you even questioned where the element of time came from? Maybe an answer to this could explain your ridicule of a young universe in the face of objects being light years away.
Of course, all of you are so smart. Why, naturally, physical matter appeared from nowhere and then blew up! Or is this pseudo-science by some other name? And of course life is well-known to have come from non-life! (Remember, life is anything that grows and reproduces!) And if it takes 46,656 throws of a die just to get a sequence of 1 to 6, then its entirely possible for an amino acid or protein to form? Incidently, if the present processes are the key to understanding our universe’s past, why does just about every scientific law including genetics have to be suspended? And where did the laws of physics come from? Why everyone of you are so smart that I’ll bet you think they just appeared out of nowhere! Or should we believe in tooth fairies, also? And how does a genome add add information to itself? And if a genome only survives by a loss of genetic information or a change of it, how do you explain that marvelous journey of molecules to humans? Hmmm…mutations? I haven’t learned of an additive mutation yet, let alone a beneficial one through adding information. I’ve only heard of bad mutations which lesson the opportunity for an organism.
December 20th, 2009 at 12:36 am
God is the answer. Let his light shine upon you and do not look into the evils of science to answer the truth of the Universe. I hope all of you here will see the light and understand that all of this science is nothing more than the work of Satan. He has been giving us false info since the Garden of Eden and yet even with such a well stated and fundamental story circulated across this great planet people still listen to his lies. This makes me cry that there are so many ignorant people out there that can so blindly be taken in by something so fundamentally flawed as science. All science does is when you see something in Gods great universe that you do not understand you then make up some random rule that makes you feel better. The truth of Gods wisdom is written before us in plain English and yet you ignore it. I will pray for you all.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Interesting blog and comments.
I am a Christian and I hold to a basically ‘young earth’ position… although I do have many unanswered questions. However, in the Westminster Confession of faith, both ‘Nature’ and ‘Scripture’ are identified as ‘Revelation’ from God. Both proclaim truth and therefore cannot contradict each other. If they appear to be contradictory it is because at least one of the two is misunderstood, possibly both.
Psalm 19:1-2 says, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge”. I submit that the heavens are primarily speaking of God’s infinitude and eternity. They are not speaking primarily of themselves but God and so they appear to be perhaps even eternal.
When Jesus turned the water into wine (though many reject the historicity of this), that wine appeared to be of some age, maybe a year old but in fact it was not. If a ’scientist’ had compared the alcohol & sugar content, his conclusion would have determined the age to be something other than a few minutes in age. He may have been able to tell you what types of grapes were used and maybe even where those grapes where grown. But all of that would have been erroneous because the wine was created directly by God. So how can I reconcile both what the Scriptures teach and what appears in Nature? By believing both and trying to understand how the two sets of fact blend and harmonize. To make them contradict each other shows that neither are correctly understood.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Ignorance is bliss…… creationism….lol