Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis

[JohnL]

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TE44 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> According to the big bang theory elements and

> extreme temperatures appeared and started moving

> and this caused reactions which lead to the

> universe. Besides other things this contradicts

> Newton's first law. How did these elements appear

> and then start moving without an external force (

> an agent of change)? To believe this is to deny

> what is observable. Moreover, if you believe this

> you must also, by logic, believe that it is

> possible for a meal to appear on your table

> without anything causing it.

This is Quantum Stuff not Newtonian stuff though - and Quantum stuff in extreme conditions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

And you can't observe due to the uncertainty principle - so we're b*ggered :)

[TE44]

Davis, Sorry I am rushing out but briefly, i am not denying what is known, I am saying there is set knowns that people have different views on, how do you know what you know,there are other ways people reach what they believe to be true, as we cannot ignore what is known we cannot ignnore other ways of knowing. . I actually do apply this to my everyday life. Have not time now plus my fone is playing up again.

[TE44]

John I am not sayinv you can"t observe because of uncertainty, i am saying it is sometimes incomplete. Uncertainty is the little bit between knowing the best thing to do but behaving in a manner against that, cognitive dissonance.

[Davis]

JohnL Wrote:

> This is Quantum Stuff not Newtonian stuff though -

> and Quantum stuff in extreme conditions.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20141106-why-does

> -anything-exist-at-all

>

> And you can't observe due to the uncertainty

> principle - so we're b*ggered :)

What is it you are uncertain about John? I am certain of Newton's first law it is scientifically proven through observation. Also, according to the scientific principal it must be falsifiable which it is, yet it has not been disproved hence it is a constant, a universal law. To deny it so it fits a theory/belief of how the universe came into existence falls into cognitive dissonance on a ground scale.

It would be like someone saying (in relation to the example I gave above of the meal) that their claim the meal came about without an agent is true because their claim proves itself, despite their claim contradicting an established principal. Also, would it make they claim any stronger if they said 'you can't disprove me because you were not there when the meal came about'? Absolutely not.

Perhaps now you can begin to see why I said theories like the big bang and Darwinism rely on philosophy.

[Cardelia]

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to the big bang theory elements and

> extreme temperatures appeared and started moving

> and this caused reactions which lead to the

> universe. Besides other things this contradicts

> Newton's first law. How did these elements appear

> and then start moving without an external force (

> an agent of change)? To believe this is to deny

> what is observable. Moreover, if you believe this

> you must also, by logic, believe that it is

> possible for a meal to appear on your table

> without anything causing it.

Newton's laws are good for explaining most of the observable world around us, but they're no good for explaining something like the origin of the universe. Once you start looking at the behaviour of atoms (and smaller particles), especially under extreme conditions, you need to rely on quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics.

Modern physics left Newton's ideas behind over 100 years ago. For example, radioactive decay violates Newton's first law, yet we can see it and measure it. We even use it to power our homes. So I can deny that Newton's first law is true without my world collapsing. And I don't need to resort to a philosophy which is irrelevant to life in order to use electricity generated from nuclear power stations to make a cup of tea.

[Davis]

Cardelia Wrote:

> Newton's laws are good for explaining most of the

> observable world around us, but they're no good

> for explaining something like the origin of the

> universe. Once you start looking at the behaviour

> of atoms (and smaller particles), especially under

> extreme conditions, you need to rely on quantum

> mechanics, not classical mechanics.

>

> Modern physics left Newton's ideas behind over 100

> years ago. For example, radioactive decay violates

> Newton's first law, yet we can see it and measure

> it. We even use it to power our homes. So I can

> deny that Newton's first law is true without my

> world collapsing. And I don't need to resort to a

> philosophy which is irrelevant to life in order to

> use electricity generated from nuclear power

> stations to make a cup of tea.

Please can you cite a reference that supports your claim that radioactive decay violates Newton's first law. From my research, and I am not a specialist in this field by any account, nuclear decay does not contradict what is inferred from Newton's first law but rather his second law which relates to conservation of energy.

'In 1896, the French physicist Antoine Henri Becquerel (1852?1908) accidentally found that a uranium-rich mineral called pitchblende emits invisible, penetrating rays that can darken a photographic plate enclosed in an opaque envelope. The rays therefore carry energy; but amazingly, the pitchblende emits them continuously without any energy input. This is an apparent violation of the law of conservation of energy, one that we now understand is due to the conversion of a small amount of mass into energy, as related in Einstein?s famous equation'. Reference: https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/collegephysics/chapter/nuclear-radioactivity/

You seem to have a degree of expertise in this area, perhaps this is your field of study. Regardless, it would be very helpful to the discussion to receive your answer to the following question:

Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point it came into existence)?

[Blah Blah]

'When was the last time you saw a half human half primate in the museum?'

That is just about the most ridiculous argument for refusing Darwin's theory I have ever read. Seriously Davis, the evidence from DNA alone shows that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct in principle. He did not have the benefit of the level of science that we do, so of course made some errors in the detail and even his understanding of it, but to reject it all out of hand because of this, is just wilful ignorance. I suggest you go and speak to a geneticist and educate yourself on how genes mutate and evolve. It is an incredibly slow process (on a scale that most people find hard to grasp to be honest) that has taken billions of years. Better still, speak to those biochemists that have shown that primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units. Science is closer to the truth than you perhaps realise.

'I do not have the time to address every error in your previous post'

You haven't addressed a single thing (so I suspect you are confusing error for your opinion) and yet write that after calling out KK for being condescending! What you mean is that you do not have the hard science to challenge your pseudo science. I have had these kinds of conversations many times and it always ends the same way. A deliberate refusal to accept the real science.

I did answer your question. I pointed out to you that science does not know the beginining for sure, or why it came about. But it can use Physics to make a pretty good theory, the same physics that has given us a pretty good level of understanding of our universe so far, debunking pretty much all religious and supernatural theory that offers other explanations. That is good enough for me. So yes, I think science can, in time, explain everything.

'dbboy, I believe in a God, a Creator, who brought the universe into existence with purpose and wisdom. My belief is based on 'hard science' and objectively quantifiable evidence.'

There is no hard science of such. Where is it? Links to academic papers please. Let's get into this, because I would love to show just how unscientific any belief in creationism really is.

[TE44]

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I understand what you are saying; however, just

> because we do not know everything it then does not

> mean we have to deny what we do know.

>

> It is illogical to deny what is known based on

> what is unknown. Would you ever apply this

> principal to your daily life? I guess not, so why

> apply it to your core belief?

Davis I notice you have edited this post, which cause confusion with context for me, although I di not feel you have changed it greatly.

In everyday life there is an acknowledgement of the unknown, whether it be with conversatikn with others, looking at our assumptions or seeing something new to you. It is not a question of knowing or not knowing, it is both. I believe the idea of one or the other, has evolved into our everyday life through this quest for the ultimate answers, this is not denying the amazing discoveries in science. The law for a concept, the belief of the learned, the proof.

Edited to add other.

[Blah Blah]

'It is not a question of knowing or not knowing, it is both. I believe the idea of one or the other, has evolved into our everyday life through this quest for the ultimate answers, this is not denying the amazing discoveries in science. The law for a concept, the belief of the learned, the proof.'

Exactly that TE44. It is that quest to know what we do not know, to understand what we do not understand, that drives all discovery, science and philosophy. This is partly why religion evolved also. But there comes a point where hard science tells us otherwise on many things. Why some people are so wedded to religious fairy tales in spite of that, is a mystery.

[Davis]

I do not believe in fairy tales. My beliefs are based on reason and in this post I will present a few of my own arguments against a version of Evolution theory which is used to posit that creation appeared without an external agent i.e. a Creator. In following posts I intend to explain what I mean by a Creator and then present a rational argument based on observation that a Creator exists.

Blah Blah and others who may wish to take part in this discussion I kindly ask that you also explain your arguments and beliefs in your own words. I do not feel it is conducive to this discussion to make comments such as biologist have made discoveries in this era or this is something that physicists can explain. If you have belief for or against something, I feel it is fair to ask that you explain it in your own words. If you think my arguments below are wrong than please explain why in your own words and based on your understanding of evolution theory. If we spoke in person this would the format and I ask we replicate this here.

My understanding of Evolution theory is that organisms through random mutations and then by natural selection were able to transform from one species into another. According to this theory a particular species would develop a mutation which would give it an advantage and then this mutation would be carried to its offspring and the cycle would continue evolving in this manner. According to the theory this was a slow and long process and thus between species that would have be countless transitional forms.

My argument against Evolution theory starts from the initial premise that there is an inherent desire for life in an organism, which then leads to natural selection. The desire to live is a choice as is the desire to die. They are both possibilities. Single-celled micro-organisms or microbes in the most basic form had according to the theory the desire to live. However, the problem is, if this attribute, the desire to live, is a possibility and not inherent what gave it this attribute? It is inconceivable it gave itself this attribute in the same manner it is illogical to assume that a computer program wrote itself.

My second argument against Evolution is against the notion that random mutations over millions of years leads one species to transition into another. Mutations according to the theory are random there is no conscience mechanism deciding which mutation is advantageous. The problem with this idea is that even if a mutation is advantageous there is no biological mechanism to guarantee it will be carried on to offspring. The same way a child from parents of which one is a carrier of sickle cell thalassemia is not guaranteed to be a carry of the illness or to suffer from the illness, there is not a guarantee that a random advantageous mutation would be carried on to offspring. This can be confirmed through observation and science. For example, there is no guarantee that Usain Bolt?s children, grandchildren and so on will have an advantageous trait of being able to run fast.

Also, related to this topic of mutations is the issue of time and space. According to the theory transitions happened over millions of years that is to say a fish over the period of millions of years developed lungs. However, because these transitions would have been so minute between each generation, they would have served no advantage to the fish with the mutation and thus the concept of natural selection is not applicable. This is explicitly clear when considering the differences between birds and the reptiles they are assumed to have evolved from. Birds have different bone structures which have no advantage to land-dwelling creatures. Natural selection as catalyst of change does not work when considering these points. In relation to space i.e. geographical locations, if evolution is through random mutations how is it that creatures throughout the world, separated by land and sea, have all evolved at the same rate? If the theory of evolution were true, there would be different phases of evolution observed in different regions. However, contrary to this there are not transitional humans (or other species) to be seen even in the most remote regions of the world. Nor is there any reference to humans encountering these transitional forms in the historical record.

My third argument against Evolution theory relates to the lack of empirical evidence for what in essence is an extraordinary claim (species transforming into other species by themselves). It is worth noting that just because there are similarities in the DNA of various species this resemblance is itself not proof that they derived from each other. Rather it is proof they have similarities and it is non sequitur to assume from that they originated from each other without additional proof of how the actual transition occurred. According to the theory these transitions happened over millions of years and thus there should be billions (this is just a symbolic number) of translation forms. However, there is no empirical evidence of their existence. Also, according to the theory humans should be on a spectrum ranging from those closest to what they evolved from (namely a primate) and those who are furthest away from what they evolved from. This was the belief of Charles Darwin himself, however, there is no scientific proof to authenticate this claim. If anyone claims Evolution theory is demonstrable, they should be able to present proof of transitional forms.

[Blah Blah]

I will use scientific language if necessary, because it reflects the depth of my scientific knowledge. If you can't cope with it, then I suggest you don't get into debates on things you are not knowledgeable enough on (I note you using well worn lines paraded out by creationists all the time though). I also suggest you cease dismissing science you do not understand, while pushing fairy tales, and trying to sound clever with playground logic. You made a claim that a creator exists and you have hard science to prove it, so, academic papers please Davis. No amount of condescending long winded deflection from you changes that you have made a claim you have not as yet backed up. Hard science please.

[TE44]

Blah blah.I imagine everyone connects to the unknown in there own way. Isn't that what relion is.Stories have been a way of giving people a voice who may ofen not be heard. Not everyone uses logic myself included to connect with the unknown. Looking at herbs, you may wonder why peple knew there healing properties long ago, that science are only now able to prove,Religion saw people who were connected with plants, herbs as a threat and were frightened because they could not understand how people could know. This also has carried through the ages, but It is more than just religion that causes people to feel so threatened by one another. It is possible to hold to seperate different truths without having to understand them mechanically.

[Blah Blah]

I agree with all of that TE44, but you see, our little friend here, made a claim, that he can not back up. At the same time, he is dismissing very advanced and complex science (a level of complexity he does not want to discuss btw), because he does not understand it, for some simplistic armchair logic that he thinks disproves Evolution.

So let me see. Well funded genome research with tons of academic papers readily available. Mechanical biological developments with tons of academic papers readily available, or Davis and his armchair theories, with no academic research available. I wonder which I should believe. See the problem?

And also just to add, note how he also seeks to control the narrative. He only wants to have a discussion within the frame he creates. Start getting into real science with him and he can not cope.

[Davis]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I will use scientific language if necessary,

> because it reflects the depth of my scientific

> knowledge. If you can't cope with it, then I

> suggest you don't get into debates on things you

> are not knowledgeable enough on (I note you using

> well worn lines paraded out by creationists all

> the time though). I also suggest you cease

> dismissing science you do not understand, while

> pushing fairy tales, and trying to sound clever

> with playground logic. You made a claim that a

> creator exists and you have hard science to prove

> it, so, academic papers please Davis. No amount of

> condescending long winded deflection from you

> changes that you have made a claim you have not as

> yet backed up. Hard science please.

Blah Blah,

You have once again decided to employ your amazingly dismissive and condescending tone. A tone I am sure you have developed over many years, yet a tone I feel you would not use in face to face encounters. I have debated with scholars from various fields as well as people with no higher education and even though we disagreed there was civility and a desire to at least understand the opposing view. Unfortunately, these are qualities you lack. I am neither a scholar or a person any academic merit, but I like to read and study and discuss ideas. What are you?

I do not believe in fairy tales including Darwinism and have outlined some of my reasons above. I have presented an argument and have given you the opportunity to engage it in your own words, but alas you have thus far declined.

[TE44]

Blah blah, I type very slowly (also dodgy phone) the last posts were written and posted whilst I was typing, so i'm slighty behind ha ha.

Davis I have not read your post as it is not easy for me being someone who struggles with institutionalised learned words, I will read later. I am curious as to where these questions being discussed fit in to the here and now for you.

[JohnL]

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding of Evolution theory is that

> organisms through random mutations and then by

> natural selection were able to transform from one

> species into another. According to this theory a

> particular species would develop a mutation which

> would give it an advantage and then this mutation

> would be carried to its offspring and the cycle

> would continue evolving in this manner. According

> to the theory this was a slow and long process and

> thus between species that would have be countless

> transitional forms.

I think evolution isn't seen as totally Darwinian these days - it's more in bursts rather than continuous (punctuated equilibrium).

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/punctuated_01

Evolutionary bursts could be due to environmental changes (globally or locally) or a "breakthrough" where something changes that is of major benefit.

There's a lot of time for this to happen and a lot of time where not much happens compared to the change time - so you don't actually see a lot of transitional forms.

[JohnL]

Davis will probably think it's cheating that Science sees there's not many transitional forms in the fossil record and so looks to come up with a theory to explain that.

But that's how science works - you observe the evidence and come up with a theory to explain the evidence - you then try to prove the theory with experimentation.

[Cardelia]

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please can you cite a reference that supports your

> claim that radioactive decay violates Newton's

> first law. From my research, and I am not a

> specialist in this field by any account, nuclear

> decay does not contradict what is inferred from

> Newton's first law but rather his second law which

> relates to conservation of energy.

Imagine an atom of uranium which is placed in a perfect vacuum with no forces acting on the atom. You give the atom some momentum (for example, velocity of 1 kilometre per year) in a certain direction and leave it alone.

Now, if Newton's first law holds true, you could come back in 1 year and the uranium atom will be 1 kilometre away from the original point, still moving in the same direction. You could come back in 1000 years and the uranium atom would be 1000 kilometres from the original point, still moving in the same direction. You could come back in 1 billion years and the uranium atom would be 1 billion kilometres from the original point, still moving in the same direction. And so forth.

Except that's not what will happen.

At some point, the uranium atom will undergo a spontaneous decay process. It will emit an alpha particle and some gamma radiation. It will change itself into a thorium atom with lower energy, lower mass and a different velocity. So if you come back in 1 billion years, your uranium atom is no longer 1 billion km from the original starting point heading in the same direction. It's somewhere else, heading in a different direction at a different velocity. In fact, you don't even have a uranium atom at all. No force has caused the decay process within the atom, but a change has occurred. So you've broken Newton's first law.

> Do you agree that all which can be observed and

> measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has

> not always existed and at a certain point it came

> into existence)?

If we assume that the universe is a closed system then no, I don't agree because the first law of thermodynamics comes into play. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything which can be observed and measured has always existed in one one form or another.

[Davis]

Cardelia Wrote:

> Imagine an atom of uranium which is placed in a

> perfect vacuum with no forces acting on the atom.

> You give the atom some momentum (for example,

> velocity of 1 kilometre per year) in a certain

> direction and leave it alone.

>

> Now, if Newton's first law holds true, you could

> come back in 1 year and the uranium atom will be 1

> kilometre away from the original point, still

> moving in the same direction. You could come back

> in 1000 years and the uranium atom would be 1000

> kilometres from the original point, still moving

> in the same direction. You could come back in 1

> billion years and the uranium atom would be 1

> billion kilometres from the original point, still

> moving in the same direction. And so forth.

>

> Except that's not what will happen.

>

> At some point, the uranium atom will undergo a

> spontaneous decay process. It will emit an alpha

> particle and some gamma radiation. It will change

> itself into a thorium atom with lower energy,

> lower mass and a different velocity. So if you

> come back in 1 billion years, your uranium atom is

> no longer 1 billion km from the original starting

> point heading in the same direction. It's

> somewhere else, heading in a different direction

> at a different velocity. In fact, you don't even

> have a uranium atom at all. No force has caused

> the decay process within the atom, but a change

> has occurred. So you've broken Newton's first

> law.

>

> > Do you agree that all which can be observed and

> > measured in the universe is finite (meaning it

> has

> > not always existed and at a certain point it

> came

> > into existence)?

>

> If we assume that the universe is a closed system

> then no, I don't agree because the first law of

> thermodynamics comes into play. Energy cannot be

> created or destroyed. Everything which can be

> observed and measured has always existed in one

> one form or another.

I appreciate the explanation you gave relating to Newton's first law. From your example I understand that it is not applicable to every domain.

You said 'everything which can be observed and measured has always existed in one one form or another', from this do you mean it is infinite i.e. no beginning and no end? In short, are saying the universe is infinite?

[Blah Blah]

So still no hard evidence Davis? You know, the hard evidence YOU claimed you had, but, just as you have elsewhere, deflecting instead of producing it. And yes, I would tell you to your face that you are engaging in fairy tales over real science because that is just about the crux of it when you claim to have science that you don't. Look at how you started your engagement with me. By citing 'errors' but not bothering to address a single one of those supposed errors. You were condescending, lazy and rude.

I offered to discuss the hard science with you and you refused, with some protracted waffle that it was beyond the scope of the discussion (again condescending and rude). Well fairy tales are beyond the scope of scientific discussion aren't they?

So, are you going to provide hard science that a creator exists (your claim remember) or not? (you can admit you made that up)

My explanation of evolution is based on hard science (a universally accepted understanding validated by people far cleverer than you or I), but you don't want to have that conversation, and not willing to have that conversation, then have the nerve to say that I have offered no explanation of why I believe the science.

It seems Cardelia has taken the time to explain some physics to you. I hope you will give her and the science more respect than you seem to have for the science around evolution.

[JohnL]

I really thought we were heading towards Quantum Entanglement then :).

I love physics explained simply - I never could cope with the maths.

[Chick]

Jeez, this Davis bloke should be on the Archers arguing with Jim.

[TE44]

Cardelia, I don't fully understand your explanation but it makes sense that what is observed or measured in the context of this discussion can take another form even though it may not be measured or observed or even recognised. I'm assuming in the scientific world this is commom knowledge Newtons first law has been broken.

[snowy999]

I'm just wondering why Davis still hasn't gone out and obtained a record player so Lavender27 can play their vinyls.

[JohnL]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cardelia, I don't fully understand your

> explanation but it makes sense that what is

> observed or measured in the context of this

> discussion can take another form even though it

> may not be measured or observed or even

> recognised. I'm assuming in the scientific world

> this is commom knowledge Newtons first law has

> been broken.

Newtons Laws are all good approximations that work in "normal" circumstances.

But if for example you're travelling at say 99% of the speed of light then Einsteins laws kick in

"Isaac Newton did make one pretty big mistake, in that he believed in absolute time and space". LOL I think it was a pretty reasonable assumption.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-Isaac-Newtons-mistake-that-was-exposed-later-by-Einstein