Speed of light

[Guest Bro David™]

Just wondering -

Do you believe evolution evolved in us a need and a desire for purpose in life, for there to be "something" greater than ourselves - even if just fate - when there isn't anything there to believe in.

Wouldn't that be a genetic defect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I myself give credence to some versions of the "evolution of religion" theories. Basically the form of the theory I find most convincing is that religion in its earliest forms banded groups of early humans together in a way that made them more able to hunt as a unit and defend themselves and eachother. Thus, the religions that weren't able to form such a bond very well were weeded out. However, I don't think this was the *single* driving force behind the developement of religion. (However, that's just how I believe.)

However, a genetic defect is usually defined more as a maladaptive genetic trait posessed by one or a specific few members of a species, so it really wouldn't fall under that definition.

However, it's not as if evolution never causes bad effects. For instance, apes are much more adapted to walking on four limbs, not 2. As a result, our spinal columns are not yet adapted to upright walking, and chiropracters reap the benefits. As well, we have wisdom teeth, a trait which could come in handy for a hunter-gatherer with no dental coverage, but just causes problems now that we have such simple things as toothbrushes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok tell you what.

Tell me how Humans evoloved without God creating Us.

I would also hint to you to not be predictive in your reply.

.

Let us just talk pure logics for a few mins.

Awaiting your reply.

[Bread_of_Life]

A change in the speed of light would have to be a result of a change in the fabric of space and time themselves.

Actually, a change in the speed of light would affect a good many things. The results from the Oklo Reactor that I mentioned in my earlier post were based on neutron capture rates which are affected by alpha, the fine structure constant, which is sensitive to the speed of light.

Let me explain. Samarium-149 captures a neutron to become samarium-150. The rate at which this neutron capture occurs is dependent on fine structure constant, alpha, which is turn is dependent on the speed of light. A change in the speed of light will affect alpha, and will in turn affect neutron capture.

Results from the Oklo Reactor show that the speed of light has barely changed in the last 2 billion years (by 5 parts in several hundred million, if calculations are correct). There are many many more examples and things that would change if the speed of light changed.

Of course, this is typical of creationist "explanations" - they get more and more desperate when faced with evidence, and start to have more and more outlandish complications. For example, creationists now say that radioactive decay rates increased millions of times to create the radiometric data we gather today - ignoring that radioactivity produces heat, and this heat would not only melt the rocks that radioactive elements were in (creating artificially young ages for these rocks), but melt/vapourise large parts of the earth.

[Logician]

[quote name='Bro David

Edited May 11, 2005 by Logician

[Bread_of_Life]

What logician said, it's all accurate scientifically. Good to have (what I presume to be) a fellow scientists among us, or at least someone with an active enough interest in physics to know what the fine structure constant is.

Just to expand on one point, at the start of the expansion of the universe, matter didn't exist, there was only energy. That's because every time matter condensed out of the energy, it was immediately destroyed by the energy and high energy rays around it.

But as the universe expanded, there was less energy per unit volume, less energy in any one space, and it got to a point where matter could exist without being instantly destroyed by the surrounding energy and rays. This was called the "decoupling" of matter and energy - and what was left behind was the matter that we and all stars were eventually made of - and on the energy side, the static that you see on the TV and hear on your radio. How cool is that, every time you tune your TV out you can see the ancient remnants of the big bang randomly noising up your screen?

[Gerioke]

How did self awareness come about?

Why are humans the only critters to know good and evil?

Why does science say we are suped up monkeys.

You don't have to answer my questions because I'm probably the least scientific guy on the boards. I just like to vent.

[Bread_of_Life]

Nik

[Logician]

What logician said' date=' it's all accurate scientifically. Good to have (what I presume to be) a fellow scientists among us, or at least someone with an active enough interest in physics to know what the fine structure constant is.[/quote']

*Bows.*

At your service.

Yup. Science is my thing.

Just to expand on one point, at the start of the expansion of the universe, matter didn't exist, there was only energy. That's because every time matter condensed out of the energy, it was immediately destroyed by the energy and high energy rays around it.

Can you cite your source on this? I've not heard anything about mass being destroyed by energy (aside from something like mass increase as predicted by relativity.) Only that the universe was opaque for quite a while after the big bang (due to density).

But as the universe expanded, there was less energy per unit volume, less energy in any one space, and it got to a point where matter could exist without being instantly destroyed by the surrounding energy and rays. This was called the "decoupling" of matter and energy - and what was left behind was the matter that we and all stars were eventually made of - and on the energy side, the static that you see on the TV and hear on your radio. How cool is that, every time you tune your TV out you can see the ancient remnants of the big bang randomly noising up your screen?

Yup. Cool stuff. It's nice to be able to show that most people have "performed" experiments confirming the big bang without even knowing it.

**********************************

How did self awareness come about?

That depends on your definition of "self awareness."

If you're referring to awareness of the mental self, self awareness would have come with symbolic thought somewhere in the process of the evolution of language.

Why are humans the only critters to know good and evil?

First of all, I'd disagree to the stance that we do know good and evil. No two people will agree completely on what's good and evil, so how can you say that humans "know" good and evil with any true reliability.

However, I believe what we do know of "good and evil" to have been defined along with social conventions, along with the developement of empathy (basically the ability to think what it would be like to be in somebody else's shoes.) We humans are one species who has discovered the need for "strength in numbers," which is why we developed society in the first place. So, we have social conventions against things like murder (however the definition(s) of murder vary), and theft, and such. As well, humans feel empathy (which leads to guilt) for those that they harm, so they tend to avoid doing it.

So, our concept of evil basically what goes against social conventions and causes guilt in the perpetrator.

This is why good and evil vary with culture, religion, and time. It even varies from book to book in the Bible.

Why does science say we are suped up monkeys.

Well, most dictionaries include "nonhuman" in the definition of monkeys, so by most definitions, we're not monkeys.

However, by the scientific definitions of primate, we share the same "order" (a biological classification more general than species and genus, but not as general as phylum or class) as monkeys because we are biologically incredibly similar to many apes (because we share a comparitively recent common ancestor with them.)

You don't have to answer my questions because I'm probably the least scientific guy on the boards. I just like to vent.

Don't worry about it. I wouldn't be here if I disliked it.

*****************************************

These questions were directed to Scientific Atheist, but I'd like to answer them too.

In our evolution discussion you affirmed that God could not be ruled out of the picture. Do you also acknowledge that it is *possible* that God was present and He was the originator of

Edited May 12, 2005 by Logician

[Bread_of_Life]

You

[Bread_of_Life]

To logician:

Fair enough, I explained decoupling in a very simplistic way. Because the early universe was so hot, atoms didn't really exist as we know them, but in a state called "ions". Ionic atoms are formed when electrons are knocked off atoms (by light) making the atoms positive.

In the early universe, there was so much light, that all protons (hydrogen nuclei) found it impossible to keep any captured electrons on them, because they would be instantaneously knocked off them. What resulted is a sea of ionic atoms, and free electrons, opaque because light could not get through without hitting an electron very quickly.

Matter as we know it, in full atomic form (rather than in hydrogen plasma), could only exist once the universe got big enough so that the mean free path of light was sufficiently long so as to allow electrons to stay with nuclei and form atoms. At this stage, the plasma condensed into a sea of ordinary atomic matter (hydrogen atoms), and the universe became less and less opaque.

Unfortunately, for simplicity's sake, I stated that matter didn't really exist. Of course, it did, just not matter as we know it.

[nebula]

IMO to believe that something came from nothing is more irrational...

And yet you claim God is something that came from nothing...

We're not the ones denying faith!