Posts by rawe

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

No matter how we look at it we have a boundary problem. Over the years I've grown comfortable to simple say, we don't know and it may be impossible to know. Logic and reason for example applies only in our universe. We're trapped in the box we're trying to explain. I will say this, if going back to a singularity is a problem, Rodger Penrose book Cycles of Time gave me pause by thinking in the other direction. So, what happens if we imagine the universe going on expanding into the far future. According to Penrose you eventually lose all the identify of the universe, including matter, space and time. And... this might be the setup for the next cycle, the next big bang event. I found the model very interesting if mind warping! Because one needs to let go of what you would normally think of as the "singularity."

The BB tends to make us think of a single point, not something that was vastly spread out in the prior cycle. But... if I've got the gist of Penrose, a vastly spread out universe would eventually lose the concept of space and time and would then be from the perspective of the other side a singularity.

Not wanting to pump too much into this thread all at once, but aw, what the heck... last week I watch a Lawrence Krauss video on A Universe From Nothing. The main point as I understood it had to do with the values that would regulate the expansion of the universe we see and that such is consistent with the energy of empty space (i.e. "nothing"). That there are actual solid mathematical reasons to say the universe came from nothing. The problem I have with both Penrose and Krauss is my own ability to comprehend is limited. I listen and try and aborb, but I don't have any sense I really get it.

Cheers,

-Randy

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"I’m talking about the origin of existence itself. The beginning of all beginnings, if there is one?"

To me the best way to think of orign of... questions is a matter of running the clock backwards and seeing where that takes you. For example, the origin of earth is throught to be tied to a giant dust cloud that was in orbit of the Sun much like the rings orbit Saturn. The fact that all the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction and on the same plane tends to support that idea.

The origin of the universe likewise is often a question of running the clock backwards. Since the universe is expanding, it stands to reason the universe in the past was a smaller and hotter place. Just how far back can you take this? Alas, not all the way! As you go further back and get the universe into a smaller and smaller and hotter and hotter space the calculations begin to break down. We must then say, we don't know. All we know is that the universe is here.

Calling it "chance" doesn't seem to help in my view. In fact all the words one could use, breakdown and make little sense. You can't talk about "before" the Big Bang, because "before" relates to time and time doesn't exist until after the Big Bang event. You can't talk about "cause and effect" because, again, that is an artifact of our universe. So, the best word we can come up with is "nothing." Although such a word seems odd, as far as I can tell, it has been chosen to reflect that fact that what is being discussed is exactly not anything within the physical universe.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. In regards to the JW thing, I was just responding to simplistic dismissive use of the word "chance" one finds in Awake! and The Watchtower.

19

Chance?

by Seraphim23 in

jw
friends

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

rawe

Hi Seraphim23,

"Does anyone really think that chance created existence?"

Your question seems to falls into a category of "origin of..." questions. I am not sure what existence you're talking about, is it origin of life? Or origin of the Universe? Origin of anything that exists, such as a rock or lake or river?

The word "chance" is often used in Awake! and The Watchtower when the subject of the origin of life is under discussion or the theory of evolution. The odd thing about the role of "chance" is physics and biological systems is that it is not unconstrained and arbitrary. The "chance" of the exact sperm fertilizing the exact egg that became you is extrodinarily improbablle event -- but clearly it did happen. On the other hand, once fertilized, there was no "chance" your mother would give birth to a mouse.

What is though is unconstrained and completely arbitrary? Of course that is the actions of a divine being. When the Canadian Bethel was under construction and in need of a larger water storage tank, Jehovah arranged for it take place according to his will. Yet when the Lillelid family tried to witness to a group of young people at a rest stop, rather than bless their effort, Jehovah looked on as the family was murdered. What exactly causes Jehovah to act in the first case but not the second? Or in any case for the matter? I personally believe the answer is a simple as Jehovah does not exist. But if you really believe he exists and acts, then it really would be a belief in a profound sense of chance happening.

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Frankiespeakin,

Thanks for that BBC Horizon video! David Attenborough does a much better job of explaining population dynamics than I do. I also was struck by his point about family size and educating girls. I know Christopher Hitchens made a similar point how atheism can be helpful compared to the charity supported by religion. Atheist tend to speak up for education, whereas some aspects of organized religion make a virtue of ignorance. In the worse cases religion is used to block girls from getting an education. Yet when girls have equal opportunity to be educated and especially if it is valued within the culture, they tend to be older before getting married and then have fewer children. In the documentary David Attenborough highlighted an area in India where this true.

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Oz,

If we had evolved would we not have eyes in the back of our heads, 4 arms and retracted testicles?

I know you're just kidding, but this is a good question! It recently was covered in a Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolved-eyes-back-of-head

Of course the reason has to do with a phrase Darwin used in his book, Natura non facit saltus (nature makes no jumps). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_non_facit_saltus

Here is my understanding. The theory of evolution dictates change happens, not so much as a random chance thing, but through a process of mutation, gene selection and what survives and what dies. In all cases evolution must work with the current state and in no way is purpose driven or planning towards some end. So when certain things locked in and worked all that happens is they get refined and refined. Thus forward facing 3-D bilateral eyes will be selected for in predators, and more off on the side non-3D surround vision in prey, such as rabits. Animals like us, tend to land on the predator side of this, so our eyes are forward facing. But because humans became so social, things like the white portion of our eyes became more visible -- it helps other humans know where our interests are.

Since humans evolved the ability to cover great distance and hunt in social groups, we gave up our 4 arms/hands and went instead with feet. Not too good for tree climbing but very helpful for covering distant without tiring out.

Our testicles are a bit retractable, in as much as regulating the temperature in this are of the body is critical. I've read, although not sure how well established these ideas are... Some experts speculate the changes in human sex organs, eyes, hair texture/color and breasts tend to reflect our upright walking stance. The challenge of attracting a mate face to face is somewhat unique to humans among mammals.

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Lost,

"The natives were invaded and put of[f] the land, and turned into slaves and servants. If that hadn't happened in history, all our lives would probably be so much different."

I appreciate you're trying to make a different point that I will apply here... but your comment jumped out at me. When a native population is decimated by invaders and we're talking humans there are often social and politcal things in play. But... at a biological level, this happens as well. And it is very strange if you think in terms of special creation, but exactly what you would expect if you think in terms of evolution.

There is a quote in this article by Judy Holms that explains this idea...

“Darwin was among the first to consider species invasions as a biological process that is totally consistent with natural selection,” Fridley says. “Natural selection says a species needs to be as good as or better than its neighbors. But a species can’t have adapted to be as good as or better than something with which it has never had to compete.”

See http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2013/releases/fridley_fulbright.html

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Lost,

"Or are you all home schooled getting your information from book's/internet, other people's research, thoughts, ideas, theories, ?"

My formal education is 12th grade graduate, Correlieu Senior Seconday School, Quesnel, BC, Canada 1983. I would count myself a true subject matter expert in only one area of knowledge: The C Programming Language, which I've work with nearly every working day since the mid 1990s as a software engineer.

But I am not sure if your question really makes much sense. Of course I get my information from books, the Internet, research of others, etc. I am certain that even people who do the actual field work, combine that with exactly the same thing. Even though I claim expert-level knowledge of C, in real life, it doesn't keep me from making programming mistakes and when I express myself to another engineer, I cannot argue just from expertise, I must be able to show how this or that can be done better.

My comments about birth rates vs death rates stems from an article I read, but to be honest I no longer recall where I read it. Likely it was an article in Scientific American, since I've been a reader and subscriber to SA for many years -- even before I left the faith in 2007. My comments about the reproduction rates of elephants really does come from Darwin's Origin of Species, which I've read. As to field work, the closest I have ever got to that -- and this is fun to relate -- was walking out to the area near Tumbler Ridge in BC with my brother-in-law (he is still a JW) and looking at the dinosaur prints in the rocks near a river. It was absolutely amazing to see and feel such things in real life!

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Tornapart,

"A few statistics.... they say man was about a population of 1 million about 10, 000 years ago. There are about 4 generations (for arguments sake) in 100 years. So to get from 2 people doubling each generation (going by the bacteria illustration), that would be roughly 20 generations. At that very slow rate it would take only 500 years to reach a million. We are talking about 500,000 years, a thousand times longer!"

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to look at the math. I tend to think of population as hour glass with a hole also in the bottom. You add to population by giving birth to children and subtract by having people die. If the rate of birth and death were in perfect balance it would not matter how many generations you had the number would not go up.

To make the number go up, you need a rate of birth that exceeds the rate of death. If you had a perfect 50-50 split between male and female and they all were mated, all pairs would need to produce at least two children to keep the population from declining. If instead a few produced 3 and most produced 2, then it could increase. So you need to think in terms of all the variables that could impact the birth rate -- for example polygamy could increase it, but polyandry (where a woman has more than one husband) could decrease it. If either men or women are compelled to spend a lot of time in pursuit of something other than sex, then birth rates would decline. Then you would need to think of all the things that could impact death rate, including things that kill humans before they are old enough to reproduce.

The very odd thing about this argument is the theory of evolution actually faces the other problem. The theory of evolution demands time and reproduction bumped up against selective pressures. Thus if the rate of reproduction is too slow the time variable becomes a problem. Darwin tackled this directly in Origin of Species by working out rates of reproduction for elephants. His conclusion was there is indeed enough time available even with animals that take a long while to reproduce.

Cheers,

-Randy

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi James,

"I can see the idea that we are made of stardust. I don't believe they have ever found anything in space that is not here on earth. At the same time they haven't done much exploration of space." The actual quote from Carl Sagan was in his series Cosmos...

The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff

As I understand it, all of this relates to our current understanding of the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. Helium for example is understood to be formed in stars like our Sun via nuclear fusion. The Wikipedia article on it talks about much of helium in the universe being formed in 1 to 3 minutes after the Big Bang event. As we move on to heavier stuff, like carbon, current understanding suggest supernova star explosions are required. Thus all the elements that made the earth and ultimately resulted in living things like us, can be said to come from 'starstuff' as Carl said.

Cheers,

-Randy

ps. Thanks for your comments about reading to children. To be honest they grumble a bit as we get started, but it only takes a few minutes, so it works out not too bad. And I do hope they will have fond memories of this.

427

If man evolved?

by tornapart in

i know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.

however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?

surely there'd have been many billions by then?.

rawe

Hi Cofty,

"Genesis says god made Adam as a special creation from the dust and then breathed magic breath into him." To be sure, I am not suggesting that Carl Sagan views are in agreement with broader scope of Genesis. I am only making the very narrow application of "from dust" to suggest the connection between some of the thinking you see and Genesis and what has later been illuminated through science. Science starts with observation and moves on from there. I think it is reasonable to assume the writer of Genesis did make some observations, such as death leads to decay and thus back to dust, so perhaps that too is where we came from. His observations were of course pretty superficial and even technically inaccurate since most decay after death would be considered a biologiclal process.

Cheers,

-Randy