It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design; Does Modern Genetic Research Mean Darwin's THEORY of Evolution Belongs In The..

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


But how is it explained that something came from nothing, unless of course it is a wild assumption on my part that there wasn't anything and then in an instant everything came to be? Or is that the premise of cosmological evolution?

Also I have just finished reading this and I am not exactly sure what to make of it because this seems to say the opposite. It is mainly discussing Haeckel and embryonic recapitulation. This seems either for or against some bases of evolution, what does all of this mean in regards to present scientific theory?
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 




But how is it explained that something came from nothing, unless of course it is a wild assumption on my part that there wasn't anything and then in an instant everything came to be?

It is your mistaken assumption.
The big bang did not come from nothing. It came from a singularity. A black hole (also a singularity) is not nothing

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes but doesn't hawking assert that there was a "beginning" I understand singularity if you are saying that before the big bang all the matter in our present universe was bound in something with infinite density or something to that effect? The thing about it is as far as I have read anywhere prior to the big bang nothing is considered in theory because there is no consequential evidence of before the big bang. I get a little confused about this stuff sometimes.

I guess Hawking does believe in a beginning and it is that singularity
I had to look up his lecture "The Beginning of Time"



It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning.


Beginning of Time

I suppose this is not any kind of evidence of ID like the OP suggests but it is interesting I just had a thought, that really all we are is just a temporary jumble of atoms just like everything else its mind bending to think there is no real reasoning and everything is purposeless in a sense.



edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


Yes but doesn't hawking assert that there was a "beginning"
Yes. The beginning of the Universe was the big bang. The singularity was not the Universe. The big bang "made" it the Universe.


The thing about it is as far as I have read anywhere prior to the big bang nothing is considered in theory because there is no consequential evidence of before the big bang.
Yeah. But really what it gets down to is that since time itself is a property of the Universe there was no time until the big bang occurred. Therefore one cannot actually speak of "before" the big bang at all. Without time there can be no "before".



edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So in theory then can there be a so called time reversal all the way back to the singularity if I am reading correctly?


I guess what I am getting at and what it is that is confusing to me from what I am trying to absorb at the moment is basically, that all things have a purpose or reason (galaxies move away from each other due to big bang, life hunts eats survives etc etc) except for the beginning of time it was just random?

edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by Phage
 


But how is it explained that something came from nothing, unless of course it is a wild assumption on my part that there wasn't anything and then in an instant everything came to be? Or is that the premise of cosmological evolution?

Also I have just finished reading this and I am not exactly sure what to make of it because this seems to say the opposite. It is mainly discussing Haeckel and embryonic recapitulation. This seems either for or against some bases of evolution, what does all of this mean in regards to present scientific theory?
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)


The standard model for "the big bang" (which was a term used to make fun of the idea) does not state that everything came from nothing. Instead it says that everything was compressed into a single point much smaller than an atom. Before this time the state of all things is not understood.


I looked through both of your links. I'll start with the first. It seems to be peppered with some truths and some misrepresentations. You will never come to an understanding of these ideas if you only read peoples opinions of the work. You must delve into the actual work.

Haekel was a huge proponent of darwin's theories. And although i think he was onto something by comparing the embryos of different animals to each other he ultimately was caught misrepresenting his work which was a terrible shame. You have to understand that this was a long time ago and what they knew was just the early stages of this type of work. His opponents were mostly theists who were the majority. Many of them were also caught misrepresenting their work.

The next link is a little more unbiased. It at least states that wilhelm was also faking his work.

Ultimately the glaring problem is that all this work was done in the mid to late 1800's. They had no idea really where this work would lead or any of the practical applications that would come from it.

Have you had a chance to view some of Dr. Venters lectures yet? There is a youtube vid of dawkins interviewing venter in his massive lab complex. They go into a lot of the background of how he got started and how he organized his huge network and how he got his funding. ( billions of dollars). If you can find it would you post it here? It is worth a thread of its own.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


So in theory then can there be a so called time reversal all the way back to the singularity if I am reading correctly?
I see no such implication.


I guess what I am getting at and what it is that is confusing to me from what I am trying to absorb at the moment is basically, that all things have a purpose or reason (galaxies move away from each other due to big bang, life hunts eats survives etc etc) except for the beginning of time it was just random?
A reason is not the same thing as a purpose. The reason the nail goes into the wood is that the force from my hammer is tranferred to it. The purpose is that I had to fix a loose board. Reason is cause/effect. Purpose is intent.

Reasons can be random to a great degree (flirting with chaos theory here). There are a lot of asteroids in the Solar System. They are indeed guided by the laws of physics but we can (more or less) randomly be hit by one just as Earth was randomly hit by them in the past.

Purpose is not random. Purpose requires intent. ID assigns purpose to the Universe. That purpose is life. ID says we are here because something wanted us to be here. I can see how that could be of comfort to some, in a Universe of scary random events. Of course, it can also lead to "Why me? What did I do to deserve this?"

Me, I just consider us lucky. Or not.


edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Yes I did actually, I read your links in regards to Craig Venter. I have been trying to keep up with all the information I just got through reading some of member Peter Vlars links as well. I think in order really for anyone to begin making a claim for ID it really should start with the beginning and am very greatful for all the information being put forward here. I still remain skeptical but I still have a whole lot of reading to do and then the making sense of it. Right now I am reading the works of V.S. RAMACHANDRAN Here and so far is presenting one of the most mind blowing arguements in favor of development of modern humanity I think I have ever read ( at least so far ) I would suggest checking out this link it is worth it entirely






MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution

[V.S. RAMACHANDRAN:] The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance to human brain evolution — which I speculate on in this essay — is the single most important "unreported" (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments.

edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



"So in theory then can there be a so called time reversal all the way back to the singularity if I am reading correctly?"
"I see no such implication."

I ask because in Hawkings lecture he begins to explain how the light cones work and how they bend over longer distances and talks about time reversals in black holes etc, I will go back and quote the section I am alluding to and a little confused about.





As we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. As one goes back in time on the diagram, the light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as one goes back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning.

edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

No time reversal there, just seeing light that was emitted a long time ago from far away. Light travels with finite speed.

The time reversal within a black hole has nothing to do with the flow of time outside just as nothing else which occurs within a black hole has much to do with what occurs outside it. Cause and effect get all screwy.
curious.astro.cornell.edu...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok that link just made my head hurt, so in other words it isn't a reversal of time but rather like a filter between past and present states? Where as apparently you see both the future and the past at the same time?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket!
I think. I think it's really screwy is what I think. The problem is really that we don't have the tools (math) to cope with what happens in there (much less being able to imagine it).



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So there would probably have to be some kind of math that goes backwards and forwards at the same time while also describing matter and non matter and its relationship to place in space and non location? Also then inside there all events in the universe are more or less streamed through based on the travels of light? How then does this information of all things work? If discovered how it did work would this method be capable of seeing exactly how things began, evolved, and ended, along with all possibilities of things that has happened not happened and could happen?
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Jeez, this topic really when in different directions since I last saw it, haha.

I'm not quite sure where to respond first, but lets go with this.


Brotherman
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok that link just made my head hurt, so in other words it isn't a reversal of time but rather like a filter between past and present states? Where as apparently you see both the future and the past at the same time?


Yes and no. We aren't seeing the future by seeing omitted light from stars/nebula/galaxies. However, you are correct that viewing this light is as if we are looking in the past.

Lets say that a single star is 6 billion light years away. Light years is the time light travels within a year on earth. So, if the light was emitted by this star 6 billion years ago, and is 6 billion light years away, it will take 6 billions years for the light to reach earth.

So, when we see that light on earth, we're seeing light that was initially created 6 billion years ago. Technically, we're looking into the past, while in the present time, while looking at that light. The same goes for any light source.

This is a fundamental flaw with young earth creation. If the earth was only a few thousand years old, and there is no mention of gods work in speeding up light just so we can see more stars (which I don't see why that would be necessary), then our sky would be almost all black, excluding the reflection of light from some of our planets and a handful of other stars.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 


So there would probably have to be some kind of math that goes backwards and forwards at the same time while also describing matter and non matter and its relationship to place in space and non location?
Not so much that as a math which can cope with "infinite" values like the density of a black hole.


If discovered how it did work would this method be capable of seeing exactly how things began, evolved, and ended, along with all possibilities of things that has happened not happened and could happen?
No. But it might clarify what happens within the event horizon of a black hole.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


I was reading an argument about that last night, as I said I am skeptical and been trying to read what differing sides had to say, but basically some young earth creationist say that the beginning of time and creation on earth are apart more or less they were saying that a creator may have created the universe for intentions we do not understand and then picked this place to put life on it more or less. Now don't get me wrong here I do not believe it is true or false as I am still trying to establish a more founded stance in the quagmire of available information. Starting with the beginning I guess this is how I find all the cosmological things in direct importance to establishing creation by creator versus creation by chance (I guess would be the way to put it =/)

The Op didn't really pose any boundries in the query is it time to put Darwin in a museum or something to that effect. So far from what I am reading, it is far from time to put anything anywhere but where it is.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 

Those aren't stars. They're holes in the celestial spheres.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Event horizen in context to the link you provided more or less the threshold where past and future come together? It does say that it is thought that there is actually 2 EH involved? I am not exactly understanding what they mean with past and future now that I think about it if it isn't past and future cognitive events like the Merlin analogy what does it truly mean? I tried to look it up but I am not very privy with the huge math formulas and trying to make sense out it. Is there a simple term somewhere?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Brotherman
 

No simple terms. That's the problem. It's too weird for simple terms and there is no way to relate it to our world.

What is means is that within the event horizon you could see (if you were able to actually be there, which you couldn't) something happen (also within the event horizon) before it did. Now, does this mean time reversed or does it mean that you are seeing into the future? Is there a difference?

The thing is, it has no relationship whatsoever to what happens, did happen, or will happen in the Universe. Beyond the event horizon the Universe does not exist. From our point of view, in the Universe, what is in there doesn't exist.

And none of it has anything to do with evolution.


edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It can almost be like saying then being there is also like being at two places at once? I think it does have an awful lot to do with evolution, or at least establishing whether or not I believe in creation or ID or not. The title of this OP starts with Intelligent Design, so really I am using this thread to affirm whether or not it is real or if I believe in it. Another interesting aspect of things I have not yet been able to read more about is teleological (classic and contemporary in regards to biology and purpose) but also the the implication of quantum changes in dna talked about within a paper I am reading and similarities to other theorized quantum changes in the universe both of which are used in context of evolution versus creation. This is where I am trying to affirm a stance, thanks to some you guys (or girls) I have been given a ton of information and it is really helping my understandings I would guess in a broader spectrum. Either way I at least think does have a great bit to do with evolution or at least my beginnings to understand it better that is.





Now, does this mean time reversed or does it mean that you are seeing into the future? Is there a difference?


I guess being aware of time would be a factor wouldn't, if not cognitively aware of time I would imaging it wouldn't be viewed as past or future but how it is as a holistic state of things combined all combined moments of things existing together
edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join