Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
|
In an earlier post as to what existed before the Big Bang I wondered why it is we humans, as individuals, always seem to be in a stone age. Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer already by 1939 had shown that in a massive stellar collapse time for the internal observer is so slowed the collapse of a Black Hole's progenitor can take billions of years while to those of us sitting outside drinking a beer, the collapse can be over in a nanosecond. The questions we ask today were dealt with seventy years ago.
You are applying this the wrong way, as a stellar collapse is an event we are not a part of, thus we can view it from a different frame of reference, thus we are not part of it, so there would be a time delta between frames of reference. The Big Bang included the entire universe, thus it is/was our frame of reference, so there would be no time delta, as you would be drinking bear in the same universe, analogous to within the stellar collapse, since we are 'internal observers' within the universe.
Get it now? As what you are trying to apply, doesn't apply.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
|
I am pointing out that our questions come from an inadequate understanding of how time behaves. If there were a massive singularity before it was disturbed by the Big Bang what we take as time here, would have been proceeding very slowly. Of course there was no here at that point but we think that way anyhow. That's all.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
|
jstan... We do understand how time behaves pretty well.. GR and SR describe the deltas due to gravity and velocity very well.
What we don't quite understand is the true 'nature' of time... Why it has an arrow that points only one way. Even entropy and the laws of thermodynamics do NOT specifically preclude (generally they do) the arrow from pointing the other way.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
|
"jstan = hmmmmmm let me see"
I'll try and prevent Werner from figuring that out.
The world and especially the US are in real mess that seems be coming to a climax at a faster rate with each passing year. I don't see any exit that does not include people discussing real issues sincerely and squarely facing things we would rather not face. I am watching an experiment.
Is it possible for a group of really talented people who love to fight
to make that transition?
Enough excellent discussions have taken place on ST to give me
a little hope.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
|
Dr F,
I understand where you are coming from.
However, I do honestly believe that religions in general were created by man
in order to provide a basic sense of structure and answers.
As such, humans do seem to have an innate need for order and hierarchy in their lives.
Humans from our early beginning as developing consciousness also have a
almost biological strong need to want to believe in something other than themselves.
As a species, we seem to really need to believe in an afterlife.
This provides humans with a real sense of peace of mind, a sense that it is
not all over when we die, that we can go on.
My mom will be 95 on Friday. She is very frail and in a Catholic nursing
home. She goes to Mass every day, as she has all her life. I see the peace
that her faith in a god and an afterlife give her. It truly does give
meaning to her life and the really good feeling she has that she will be
with her family for eternity.
So Dr. F. Please do not generically lump all religions together and brand
them as "bad" or their believers "delusional".
That really is a personally insulting thing to say. And it is hurtful to
the billions of humans who do want to believe in an afterlife.
I, like you, am an atheist. But I also have respect for the longing that
people have for what and why they believe in.
Can you understand this and not be so attacking of people like my mom?
And people like Gobee. They all are just trying to get through this life
any way they can, like you and me. We are all human in this together.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 06:17pm PT
|
you would be drinking bear
I ain't gonna drink no stinkin' BEAR!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 06:46pm PT
|
I don't believe anything until I "see" it ....
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 07:09pm PT
|
Oh for Christ's sake.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 07:26pm PT
|
'Natural selection', the mechanism directing evolution, acts as a gate, for the most part allowing practical changes (achieved through random mutations) through, and useless or detrimental ones generally don't get through. That is not random... It is a 'selection' process, that's why it's called 'natural selection'.
You've got it wrong. Natural selection does not exist because there is no <b>selection</b> in nature. It would best to talk only of mutation and "survival of the fittest." For example, the track that runners run on does not select who will win the race. It does affect the outcome of the race but it does not select, act, direct, or do anything consciously. There is no selection going on in "natural selection" and it is a stupid term.
If you discuss evolution, don't use any words that even hint at something controlling it. "Direct" is wrong. "Select" is wrong. "Act" is wrong.
Don't anthropomorphize evolution.
Dave
P.S. To be fair, everyone uses those terms mentioned above when discussing evolution. I'd just like to see it discussed in more scientific terms that are descriptive of the actual process. To use those anthropomorphic terms makes scientists look like hypocrites to the religious types who might be smart enough to notice. At a minimum, it conveys the wrong information to people who don't understand evolutionary theories very well.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
|
What are you guys ultimately trying to do here?
Some of us here have a passion for how the world works and like to talk about it. What's more, we also like to criticize those institutions (religious or not) that mischaracterize how the world works, that give a false impression of how it works. And it's not just because we are critics with nothing better to do either; it's because we get the link - the relationship - between (a) our understanding of how the cosmos works and (b) our prosperity, pursuit of goals, successes, in the practice of living.
.....
"I don't see any exit that does not include people discussing real issues sincerely and squarely facing things we would rather not face. I am watching an experiment."
jstan, I feel the same way, like I'm watching an experiment.
.....
rAdam, that's some pretty good writing on the previous page - for someone who doesn't have a college degree let alone graduate. Right on.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
|
Rectorsquid, I enjoy all your posts. But you really have a hangup in regard to the word, selection. IMO.
"Selection" derives from the latin meaning "apart + to choose or gather". The word doesn't imply there has to be any mental faculty or conscious agent behind it.
But then we've already had this discussion, I think.
.....
"If you discuss evolution, don't use any words that even hint at something controlling it. "Direct" is wrong. "Select" is wrong. "Act" is wrong. Don't anthropomorphize evolution."
This is just so off-base. For instance, in regard to style points. Read Dawkins and Dennett. They talk about this indepth. Also a couple of linguistic courses or books.
It's not anthropomorphizing. Use of words like "want" as in Nature "wants" the sodium and water to react... could be argued as anthropomorphizing. So if your interest is eliminating these anthropomorphic "carry over" words, well, good luck to you. It's innate to our language. A course on metaphors and how broad and deep they extend into our communications should disabuse you of any hope of eliminating these instances. IMO.
(a) The eddy "directed" the raft into rapids. (b) The surf "acted" upon the broken glass shards over the years, making them smooth and exciting to the touch. (c) These seed types are "selected" (or chosen or picked) for the journey at the expense of the heavier ones. Everybody gets these. -Which is the point of communications.
.....
"P.S. To be fair, everyone uses those terms mentioned above when discussing evolution. I'd just like to see it discussed in more scientific terms that are descriptive of the actual process. To use those anthropomorphic terms makes scientists look like hypocrites to the religious types who might be smart enough to notice. At a minimum, it conveys the wrong information to people who don't understand evolutionary theories very well."
Well, I do get this, too. Then again, there's also the problem of people (including scientists, science enthusiasts, science communicators, etc.) appearing overly-analytical (anal) about things. That doesn't "sell" either. (Is it okay to use the word sell? :))
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 08:23pm PT
|
"Don't anthropomorphize evolution."
What about nature? (Mother Nature)
The cold? (Jack Frost)
The Mississippi? (Old Man River)
What about death? (Grim Reaper)
last but not least...
What about the force, or forces, behind gift giving? (Santa Claus)
Jan might be able to tell you I'm pretty fond of personification (aka anthropomorphism). It has its place in the human enterprise.
When people get it, I think it contributes to the language, the communications, the zeitgeist.
Dave, I'm responding to you just because I'm spent on Go-B, that's all.
Peace.
.....
Yay, George Carlin.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2010 - 08:31pm PT
|
Excellent post, Norton.
It shows the complexities of the subject and issues were dealing with here.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 09:40am PT
|
i admit i haven't been following all along, but...
"I can recall not one incident of the sort you hypothesize."
i did not mean to refer specifically to the thread but to the general attitudes...a single abortion doctor is killed by a single gunmen espousing christianity and the entire religion is implicated...hundreds of homocide bombers repeatedly target and murder innocent civilians in the name of allah, but everybody wants to be the first to praise islam as "peaceful"
"In any number of areas numerous designs are dug up."
a "design" implies a DESIGNER
"But my Main Point, that can NOT BE DISPROVEN!!!
Is that if Booky, Bluey, JE, TGT Goobers, and the rest of the so called " Good Christians"
If they were born in Iran, Saudi, or anywhere else beside America
They would be what ever they grew up with
And if it was a Muslim Country, the same exact person, would be saying that they HATE Christians
No one can disprove this fact"
once again, f, you proclaim your ignorance...do you know that there are actually christians and jews born and living in iran? probably a few other religions, too...do you mean all muslims are extremists? do you understand that most iranian muslims are shiite and a good number "hate" sunnis more than they hate christians and jews?
ever heard of a guy named jesus? peter? paul of tarsus? matthew, mark, luke, and john? they lived in a jewish state ruled by the pagan romans...martin luther? he lived in a catholic state and grew up with a religion ruled by the pope...siddhartha gautama? he was born a hindu in a hindu state ruled by hindus...mohammed? he was born into a pagan society ruled by pagans...zoroaster? akhenaten?
ok, how many examples do you require before admitting that you're wrong? or would you rather explain how the human mind works for those of us whose minds don't work anything like yours?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 09:57am PT
|
dmt, your own story refutes your own argument
true, most people will adopt their parents religion, politics, eating habits, sense of humor, etc.; however, one's personal development rarely end with one's parents
for most religious people i know, their journeys were much more complex...and typically, the more religious they are, the more complex their journey...to assume religion is simply a matter of rote shows a shallow understanding of faith (including atheism)
and, would you not prefer your children to have a thorough understanding of religion before rejecting it? or will you just "foist" your beliefs on your children rather than allowing them to decide for themselves?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 10:17am PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 11:07am PT
|
dmt doesn't offer stats, either
and what is an "exception"
we're ALL influenced by our parents; however, if dmt/f were right, we'd ALL be sun worshippers or worshippers of the mother goddess
dmt is the exception to his own rule unless he's including himself when he says we're all just blind/mindless followers of what our parents "foist" on us, in which case, why take him seriously if he admits his own ideas are mindless?
the existence of god is a "serious question" and i'll assume most people think seriously about it before deciding on an answer
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:45pm PT
|
Really, what's the difference between going along with Santa for a day or two and going along with God (Father in Heaven) for a year? Not much some might argue. -Esp for good times and esp for the sake of the children and young at heart.
Alright, I'm in.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
|
book... You are confusing 'as a general rule', with 'as a hardfast rule'. Actually, you are attempting to force his statements into meaning something he didn't say, as he was carfeul to use the correct qualifiers.
You even said yourself:
dmt, your own story refutes your own argument
true, most people will adopt their parents religion, politics, eating habits, sense of humor, etc.; however, one's personal development rarely end with one's parents
for most religious people i know, their journeys were much more complex...and typically, the more religious they are, the more complex their journey...to assume religion is simply a matter of rote shows a shallow understanding of faith (including atheism)
Note the 'qualifiers' you used in bold above. D used the very same qualifiers, yet you want to ignore his using the word 'most' and suggest he is making hardfast rules, which he is not. In doing so, you find 'exceptions' and say that it is invalid and refuted. There are exceptions to 'general rules'... That's why they are general.
Example:
Most people are right handed. This is a true statement, yet what you are doing is analogous to pointing out people who are left handed saying that that refutes the statement. It does not. Left handed people are the exception, not the rule. The statement is correct.
Get it?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
|
Book:
Thanks much for your reply.
My original question:
["why the attacks against christians and the simultaneous defense of muslims?"
I can recall not one incident of the sort you hypothesize. Have you an example? Please cite.]
I was asking for an example of where we have seen anyone attack Christians for their religious zeal while at the same time defending Muslims. I am having difficulty reading your reply as an answer.
Your reply:
["i did not mean to refer specifically to the thread but to the general attitudes...a single abortion doctor is killed by a single gunmen espousing christianity and the entire religion is implicated."]
I see equal condemnations of Muslim and Christians for stoning and shootings. An example supporting you would be a person who condemns a shooter while supporting the stoning of a Muslim rape victim.
Now as to the flow of blame onto a whole religion because of the shooting of a medical doctor, consider this. When such an event occurs is it not entirely reasonable and prudent that the religious body as a whole begin to ask whether their advocacy and practices need to be refined so they are in no way causing such tragedies?
I have not seen this. By its lack of prudent action the religious body is seen as supporting the act.
Would you not agree?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!