|
crazy christian quote page (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | have you ever read the counter arguments.
like the probability of the big bang ending up with life on earth? its 10^240 approx |
I sincerely doubt that figure. It's possible to synthetically create amino acids - the building blocks of complex life - in lab conditions replicating those of early Earth. Once you have a seething, tepid pool of these acids and other complex carbon structures (such as sugars - something else that isn't hard to produce synthetically in lab conditions) and a few hundred-million years to wait, it seems almost inevitable that life was going to form here.
Also, there seems to be a perception that life is somehow fundamentally different from all other material in the universe - that it is somehow "special", stretching the laws of chemistry and physics. Keep in mind, then, that the first life appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, some 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth. The first organisms were all microscopic, mainly single-celled organisms called "cyanobacteria", and were no more complex than the bacteria we see today. They survived via a process known as "photosynthesis" and they still exist today, performing the same, essential function within plants. The step from amino-acid / complex carbon-based molecules to simple bacteria is not a big one. The step from simple bacteria to simple, self-replicating bacteria and other simple single-celled organisms (such as algae) is slightly bigger, but consider that the emergence of a cell capable of replication only needed to occur in one or two spots over the globe for the organisms to spread (as there was no competition at this stage).
The evolution from single-celled organisms to complex beings such as those we see today is, again, a big step, but bear in mind that the step from microscopic lifeforms to macroscopic lifeforms took about 1.4 billion years. Even then, the first macroscopic organisms we essentially just structures created by communities of single-celled organisms known as "carbon films". Simple plant structures such as seaweed began forming until slightly later on. The first "animals" didn't appear until about 2.9 billion years after the emergence of the first traces of life, when worm-like organisms began to evolve.
It wasn't until the Cambrian period that animal life began to rapidly diversify, but by then all the building blocks were in place. Life existed all over the globe, and as organisms became mnore complex competition became more fierce and the need to evolve became more necessary. And we know the rest of the story....
Is there anything too difficult to believe in all this? My dad is a geologist, so I've known and understood all this from a fairly early age, so it perplexes me to see someone declare that the odds of life emerging are 1/10^240. Even if that were true (I'd like to see how that number was developed) it seems almost irrelevent - we're here, and if we weren't we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's called the anthropological principle - anthropocentricity. We're here against the odds and we believe that this must be a sign of our importance, perhaps an importance imparted from the divine. It is, however, failing to take into account that if it had happened any other way - if the odds stacked against us hadn't worked in our favour - we wouldn't know about it and there'd be some other being standing where you are now thinking "wow, out of all the possible beings, it could only be through God that I am standing here right now". Of course that being - that possibility - never materialised, just as we may never have. It's easy to say that the odds against our existence are too high to comprehend, but it's like hitting a golf-ball: the odds of it landing on a particular blade of grass are millions to one, but it has to land somewhere. So when you play golf do you run around after every shot screaming "oh my God, out of all the billions of blades of grass on this course it landed on that one! The odds are billions to one! It must be a sign from God!"? It's the law of truly large numbers. Now matter how many contingencies there are, one must eventuate. The fact that it was the human race evolved here instead of the Quarg race is like that game of golf: against the odds, the ball landed on our blade of grass, but that does not make us special. If it hadn't landed on our blade of grass we wouldn't know, and the non-existant Quarg's (whose existence is every bit as improbable as ours) would be saying exactly what we are now.
| quote: | | big bang not powerful enpough solid block of matter, too fast vapor forever, to get our solar system two typoes of neutron stars exploding at precise times etc... ends up being approx a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 0's.1% chance of working. |
Once again, the odds are irrelevent. If the universe was any different we wouldn't be here, or we would - at the very least - be different types of animals all together. If there were a "trillion trillion trillion trillion" universes that were not suitable for the development of the solar system as we know it and of our species as we know it, then we wouldn't be aware of it. For all we know there have been that many universes, so - going by your odds - the natural emergence of this exact universe in this exact state was inevitable. Once again, you don't seem to be grapsing the anthropological principle or the laws of truly large numbers.
Also I'm intrigued to know what you mean by the big bang not being a "powerful enough solid block of matter". |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
We consider cooling of neutron stars (NSs) with superfluid cores composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons (assuming singlet-state pairing of protons, and triplet-state pairing of neutrons). We mainly focus on (nonstandard) triplet-state pairing of neutrons with the $|m_J| = 2$ projection of the total angular momentum of Cooper pairs onto quantization axis. The specific feature of this pairing is that it leads to a power-law (nonexponential) reduction of the emissivity of the main neutrino processes by neutron superfluidity. For a wide range of neutron critical temperatures $T_{cn}$, the cooling of NSs with the $|m_J| = 2$ superfluidity is either the same as the cooling with the $m_J = 0$ superfluidity, considered in the majority of papers, or much faster. The cooling of NSs with density dependent critical temperatures $T_{cn}(\rho)$ and $T_{cp}(\rho)$ can be imitated by the cooling of the NSs with some effective critical temperatures $T_{cn}$ and $T_{cp}$ constant over NS cores. The hypothesis of strong neutron superfluidity with $|m_J| = 2$ is inconsistent with current observations of thermal emission from NSs, but the hypothesis of weak neutron superfluidity of any type does not contradict to observations.
:)
Scientists have found that a rare and enigmatic class of neutron stars, of which only five are known, are actually magnetars -- exotic stars with magnetic fields ...
go to google.com and search for "types of neutron stars" :D
and what i meant by too fast is that even local gravity effects wouldnt be able to pull it all together |
By any chance a physics major? At any rate it's been a while since an astrophysics class so I'm not going to be able to make heads or tails out of star composition formulae. Speaking from a more abstract and less mathematical viewpoint, what indicators are there that the big bang would likely occur too fast such that expansionism would overwhelm local gravity? Additionally, if ultimately the big crunch theory were correct and the universe were to experience something similar to a rubber band effect, wouldnt there only be a certain amount of mass that would propogate a big bang to achieve a certain amount of velocity? |
|
|
| Dark Apostle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
have you ever read the counter arguments.
like the probability of the big bang ending up with life on earth? its 10^240 approx
big bang not powerful enpough solid block of matter, too fast vapor forever, to get our solar system two typoes of neutron stars exploding at precise times etc... ends up being approx a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 0's.1% chance of working.
again food for thought, dav and I already had this discussion hehe
cheers |
What you say would only be true (if it's correct) when there would have been only one universe and there only will be one universe.
And even if the probability is 10^2458969 there is still a chance.
(will and have are here used relativly ;) :p) |
|
|
| Orbax |
Hehe, i just like how you guys are saying that its a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion chance of happening and that is what you are staking your soul on.
food for thought :)
Cheers |
|
|
| Orbax |
Hehe, i just like how you guys are saying that its a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion chance of happening and that is what you are staking your soul on.
food for thought :)
Cheers |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
We seem to be forgetting a key detail here (the problem with getting too caught up with science)...
If we could prove, beyond a measure of doubt, that the big bang theory is correct and actually happened, this does not, in any way, shape, or form, discount the possibility of the existence of God. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by Michael Russo
We seem to be forgetting a key detail here (the problem with getting too caught up with science)...
If we could prove, beyond a measure of doubt, that the big bang theory is correct and actually happened, this does not, in any way, shape, or form, discount the possibility of the existence of God. |
its more of the idea that if the big bang happened there isnt neccessarily a God, therefore who knows, lets not feel guilty about bad stuff |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Hehe, i just like how you guys are saying that its a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion chance of happening and that is what you are staking your soul on.
food for thought :)
Cheers |
You say it as if it's either there is a God and no Big Bang, or there is a Big Bang and no God (unless i have just misunderstood your post). I would not venture to say that those are the only two plausible "begining of the universe" senarios, though i couldn't provide anyone with a better theory. I guess i'm just saying that both the possibility of a God existing and the Universe being created by the Big Bang have equal weight.
[/pretending to understand arguments] |
|
|
| Orbax |
ill say this again in better language.
The big bang does not require a God to facilitate it, whereas stating that there was nothing, and then God spun the heavens out of nothing is quite different than a universe that has always (whatever the hell that means) existed. I think people throw around the idea of the inifinte without having thought about just how big infinite really is.
Try to imagine the concept of always. My mind stops working. Its too much. that is like asking "what is nothing" because what if everything was nothing, how would one know it... i dont going far afield here
point being that even if macro-evolution was a possible thing under God's influence (even though Bible says species are immutable) giving the alternative of a sequence of small changes gives an out for people who dont want to believe in God.
my take :) |
|
|
| Orbax |
| silly double posts, tricks are for kids! |
|
|
| 'mju:zik |
| guys what are u still arguing about? my post on page 7 clearly shows that god does exist...so end it |
|
|
| joeh152 |
My aunt and family are a mad christians:
Once she smuggled bibles in to China.
Her husband went on a christian mission to Kazakhstan
Her son went on a christian mission to South Africa.
Her job is teaching english to asylum seekers (mostly muslims) - and she takes them on holiday for free to bible camps to try and convert them to christanity!
She had a 35 year old pastor from ghana stay in her house for a week - sharing bunkbeds with my cousin lol. |
|
|
|
|
