Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Pre big bang to date


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 mfa5

mfa5

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 04:39 AM

Hi. My quest is to find like-minded individuals who might be interested in discussing a theory that I am developing. The theory is to be developed strictly in accordance with the Scientific Method and does not (hopefully) subscribe to any crackpot notions.

Fundamental Juedo-Christian beliefs in the form of creationism are widely held in the United States, where the belief is that humans are the result of a special creation by god in the past 10,000 years. A more recent description is that of “intelligent-design theorists”

This is where we have the ongoing issue with “science” in that scientists have taken it upon themselves, perhaps in a justifiable way, to insist that the “scientific method”, the formulation and testing of hypotheses is the only “acceptable” alterative to religion.

Scientists argue that that the problem with creation science is that the fundamentalists’ basic theory is not really open to falsification per se. Creationalists may formulate hypotheses and gather data but since the theory is truly an article of faith, there is no possibility of changing or discarding it, regardless of their results.

Within science however there are equally as weak arguments. The assumption for example that in the case of the absence of evidence presently, that evidence is likely to emerge in the future automatically tends to follow any issue which is yet un established.

It seems impossible to find a medium that can be accepted to exist between religion and science; what is the problem; why so entrenched?.

The existence of our universe and ourselves within it lies outside the ability of our science to understand. Consideration of issues leading to its existence must almost inevitably lay outside matters of our understanding. Our consideration thereof must inevitably be undertaken within the parameters of our ability to understand, using terminology such as ‘entity” which whilst possibly wholly in appropriate is the only terminology that we know.

Following on from our interpretation of the Big Bang and the associated theories it is possible to hypothesise that some event occurred immediately prior (in the context of time as we understand it) to the Big Bang.

Following on further it is possible to hypothesise that there was some form of “divine” (not in the religious context) entity driving events and planning and occasioning the creation of the universe and its subsequent development. It follows that any such entity could hold the ability to manipulate and adjust developments in its creation.

My curiosity is to consider whether any, of the many, unexplained factors in life which await some future archaeological or similar discovery can be demonstrated as lying outside the accepted Darwin concepts of progression.

#2 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 05:14 AM

the result of a special creation by god in the past 10,000 years. A more recent description is that of “intelligent-design theorists”

This is where we have the ongoing issue with “science” in that scientists have taken it upon themselves, perhaps in a justifiable way, to insist that the “scientific method”, the formulation and testing of hypotheses is the only “acceptable” alterative to religion.

Scientists argue that that the problem with creation science is that the fundamentalists’ basic theory is not really open to falsification per se. Creationalists may formulate hypotheses and gather data but since the theory is truly an article of faith, there is no possibility of changing or discarding it, regardless of their results.


What world do you live in? :sherlock:

Within science however there are equally as weak arguments. The assumption for example that in the case of the absence of evidence presently, that evidence is likely to emerge in the future automatically tends to follow any issue which is yet un established.

It seems impossible to find a medium that can be accepted to exist between religion and science; what is the problem; why so entrenched?.

The existence of our universe and ourselves within it lies outside the ability of our science to understand. Consideration of issues leading to its existence must almost inevitably lay outside matters of our understanding. Our consideration thereof must inevitably be undertaken within the parameters of our ability to understand, using terminology such as ‘entity” which whilst possibly wholly in appropriate is the only terminology that we know.


We can only observe that which we can perceive. It is much more powerful than that which we cannot percieve.

Following on from our interpretation of the Big Bang and the associated theories it is possible to hypothesise that some event occurred immediately prior (in the context of time as we understand it) to the Big Bang.

Following on further it is possible to hypothesise that there was some form of “divine” (not in the religious context) entity driving events and planning and occasioning the creation of the universe and its subsequent development. It follows that any such entity could hold the ability to manipulate and adjust developments in its creation.

My curiosity is to consider whether any, of the many, unexplained factors in life which await some future archaeological or similar discovery can be demonstrated as lying outside the accepted Darwin concepts of progression.


"Outside the accepted Darwin concepts"?

Enlighten us, please?

#3 mfa5

mfa5

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 05:24 AM

i am curious about something...maybe others share that curiosity...maybe not...

i am certainly not interested in indulging in an argument about my curiosity...particularily with those who find the need for facetious comments

as to the world i live in i aver to the greater knowledge of "humankind emerging" 0205423809

#4 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 05:47 AM

As to the world the rest of us live in...

You must support your claims per the site rules! If you cannot do so, you will quickly find yourself at odds with this site.

#5 mfa5

mfa5

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 05:52 AM

i seek not an argument...just kindred curiosity if extant...why are you so keen on adversity? live and let live

#6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 10:50 AM

We can only observe that which we can perceive. It is much more powerful than that which we cannot percieve.


This is true, but human reality perception will filter through the lens of what we believe. For example, a creationist has a certain belief, which acts as the lens, for their perception of reality. Science has it own set of lens called theories. If you believe in String Theory, as an example, one does not have to prove the existence of strings, for the lens to be functional. One only needs faith that they exist. Based on that lens, one will extrapolate perception of reality, through that lens, to include a wide range of physical observations. One can create a memory loop that is self reenforcing to the lens, where the lens causes you to expect something, so we perceive what we expect to see.

The evolutionary theory is also a type of lens. It creates its own perception loop for reality expectation. It is not easy to change the lens in midstream, because one can become disorientated, since memory is organized for the old loop, even if you replace it with a new lens.

As an example of the affect, at one time the lens for reality had the world flat. If you accepted this lens for perception, when you looked outward, into reality, the data will make the world look flat, since that is what you expect to see, based on the lens. If someone throws a data curve, one might have to fudge or polish the lens so the data perception is flat again. To suggest the world was round, meant surgically replacing the lens. This was easier said than done, because the brain had set up a memory loop, based on the old lens, and changing the lens, doesn't change the memory loop, immediately. It lead to disorientation. It was easier to resist changing the lens.

A good analogy between religion and science, when it comes to evolution, from cosmology to life, is religion uses say a red lens and science uses a blue lens. If you had a maze of red and blue dots, depending on which lens you use, will determine which dots you will be able to see. If you use the red lens, you can only see the blue dots, due to the contrast of the red lens. Based on that you will learn to navigate the maze of blue dot data. If I was to change the lens to blue, one will become disorientated, because the time proven path through the maze is now different, since the new contrast causes one to see the other dots. It is easier to avoid changing lens, once habits have formed.

#7 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 11:55 AM

i seek not an argument...just kindred curiosity if extant...why are you so keen on adversity? live and let live


I would not call it adversity, but rather, contention.

Despite my perceived intention, live and let live is perfectly valid. Nonetheless, my aim is to coax you into revealing the true nature of your curiosity.

You've already mentioned Creationism, which doesn't float a shoe around here. So, I guess I'm really questioning your intention.

BTW:

My curiosity is to consider whether any, of the many, unexplained factors in life which await some future archaeological or similar discovery can be demonstrated as lying outside the accepted Darwin concepts of progression.


"Progression" assumes that there is some forward drive, that something better is continually produced. While this is not exactly wrong, it's not exactly right either. Darwin proposed Natural Selection. The "Selection" part seems to portray a "betterment", but this is not always the case. NS selects for the most beneficial traits for the species in a particular environment, period.

That said, I'm also interested in concepts that lie outside of NS, but I've not yet found a valid model. If you have a valid alternative model, by all means, produce it!

#8 mfa5

mfa5

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 21 February 2009 - 02:57 PM

having managed to post the same original text in two places i cannot now track down the previous reply that i posted (it had a reference to my web site and i now find that quoting the "address" prevented it from being posted).....i suppose my score in terms of navigation of this forum to date must amount to 0/10 but i will improve

anyway moving on...i do not have a model.......repeating from my "lost" previous response i wondered...for example... about the absence of archaeological evidence of any intermediate artefacts leading to the fine jewellery say...in ancient egypt
the natural history museum in the uk kindly invited me to visit to discuss and the curators' conclusion was that in the absence of such intermediate artefacts archaeologists had not considered their "absence"...they research only material that is discovered

so simplistically...how did the progression occur?

if we consider that the creation of the universe was by... say some specific intent..might the source of that specific intent have intervened specifically at some point?..for example to progress metallurgy

or...another question...was the angle of presentation of the earth to the sun specifically engineered to facilitate the development of humankind as we find it now?

it must be said that my questions have found little if any interest elsewhere.. perhaps i am just as mad as the proverbial "march hare"...anyway folks...many thanks for your patience