Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

[Bob Gray]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I have heard that much of the early puberty can be attributed to better nutrition (or excess) that was not available in prior generations. I do not think all of it can be chalked up to that but it makes the impact of the other variables at least a bit less scary.

Agreed. See, we can agree on something.

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Isn't that also known in some circles as the "big bang theory"? at first there was nothing, and then BOOM we had a universe?

The "big bang theory" is merely "creationism" without a "Creator", is it not?

So, you're William Lane Craig. It all makes sense now!

To move from the ridiculous to the sublime, I never quite wrapped my head around the Cosmological Argument's obvious flaw. If the idea is that the Universe must have God as a creator because nothing can create itself, and God has no creator, then nothing can exist since something must have created God. But we exist, therefore, obviously there is something wrong with the idea that "nothing can create itself." Either it's just wrong, or it's right and it masks another truth about existence, such as the universe has no beginning, or time is a feature of the existing universe and it's meaningless to talk about "before" time, or time wraps around upon itself, or whatever.

That's the thing about religious arguments. Insofar as they purport to be about reality, they aren't, since they are all at the end of the day just ways of rationalizing an ever-less-likely assumption of a divine being. But insofar as they deal with fundamental questions like existence, causality, time, etc, they are amazingly useful since, though themselves false, they open up interesting directions for the exploration of truth. They are like Dr. Watson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

"Really, Watson, you excel yourself. I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light."

[LynahFan]

It's Wikipedia so I can just edit it to support my views.

But good to know there is other effects.

There have been recent cases of death from this in (what else?) fraternity hazing rituals. Too lazy to look up a citation.

[St. Clown]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

There have been recent cases of death from this in (what else?) fraternity hazing rituals. Too lazy to look up a citation.

There was also the infamously stupid "Hold Your Wee For A Wii" contest where the DJs were even warned by an RN that called into the show to tell them of the dangers. "Don't worry about that, we got waivers."

[Rimbaud]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

But I thought the evil western diet was killing everyone?

That's just killing everyone faster.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Agreed. See, we can agree on something.

Haha we have our moments

So, you're William Lane Craig. It all makes sense now!

To move from the ridiculous to the sublime, I never quite wrapped my head around the Cosmological Argument's obvious flaw. If the idea is that the Universe must have God as a creator because nothing can create itself, and God has no creator, then nothing can exist since something must have created God. But we exist, therefore, obviously there is something wrong with the idea that "nothing can create itself." Either it's just wrong, or it's right and it masks another truth about existence, such as the universe has no beginning, or time is a feature of the existing universe and it's meaningless to talk about "before" time, or time wraps around upon itself, or whatever.

That's the thing about religious arguments. Insofar as they purport to be about reality, they aren't, since they are all at the end of the day just ways of rationalizing an ever-less-likely assumption of a divine being. But insofar as they deal with fundamental questions like existence, causality, time, etc, they are amazingly useful since, though themselves false, they open up interesting directions for the exploration of truth. They are like Dr. Watson in "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

Oh Billy Craig. His debates are fun to watch because of the contortion he is able to do.
A good answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

LOL, no.

Creationism infers God/Gods was involved.

You may "infer" it from the term, I don't see why it is necessarily implied. Though it is a good philosophical question how something can be created without a Creator, eh?

More seriously, how can a person find the big bang theory plausible on one hand and argue strenuously against a Creator on the other?

Note that there is a significant distinction between a "Creator" and "God" -- the former can be like Johnny Appleseed, in a way, get the Process started and then move on to somewhere else, leaving it to fend for itself. I can easily accept a Creator; the idea that we have a "god" who cares about the quotidian details of my daily life? not so plausible, eh?

I am somewhat partial to the idea that human beings "created" god as an effective practical shortcut to explain why moral behavior is essential to a civilized society.

Now, unless you are truly a believer in the axiom that the only "morality" consists of not getting caught, it seems like one has to accept as a fundamental axiom that moral behavior is a necessary condition for civilization. The concept of "god" is a handy shortcut, useful even if technically not 100% accurate. Even atheists believe in right and wrong, no?

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

It's interesting that the concept of days existed prior to the creation of earth. Or did we just calculate the time it took god and attach our calendar system to it afterward?

Why did he need rest? Wouldn't being tired be a form of weakness? I don't want a weak god!

Who knows what the original language actually said? Did he "rest"? or merely set aside a day for reflection and contemplation? What Steven Covey called "sharpen the saw".

Weird how there are seven habits of highly effective people, and seven days in the week, eh?

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

More seriously, how can a person find the big bang theory plausible on one hand and argue strenuously against a Creator on the other?

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.
If you really care, watch Lawrence Kraus and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI
Or if he is a bit to abrasive, watch Sean Carroll and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ

WLC is a lazy philosopher and grossly misinterprets cosmology to advance his arguments.

[FreshFish]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

Although I find the topic fascinating, I admit it is very conceptually rigorous. Sean Carroll is probably the best at explaining it so I will leave that to him.

What I would add is that the term "nothing" really falls apart at the level of a singularity. As far as I understand, nothing was created, more transformed and there is no reason to believe this is not a natural process. Metaphors do not work because the reality of those conditions is so foreign to what we experience every day. Quantum mechanics is near impossible to comprehend largely because we evolved to experience the world in a much different way. I have yet to find a serious cosmologist who takes the cosmological argument seriously.

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I would guess it would stem from a gross misunderstanding of the big bang theory.
If you really care, watch Lawrence Kraus and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82uGzgoajI
Or if he is a bit to abrasive, watch Sean Carroll and WLC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ

WLC is a lazy philosopher and grossly misinterprets cosmology to advance his arguments.

I wasn't going to bring up Sean Carroll, but, OK, since you do...

If Fish watches Carroll he's either going to not get it and blithely dismiss him or get it and have an aneurysm and then he'll never post again. In particular, Carroll's information density disproof of any god is so jaw-droppingly slick and (insofar as I can follow the physics, which is about 2/3rds of the way there) open and shut that I would advise science-literate people who want to hold onto their faith to stay the ef away from it. Seriously, guys. You've come this far. You should go with "ignorance is bliss" and play out the string.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

I wasn't going to bring up Sean Carroll, but, OK, since you do...

If Fish watches Carroll he's either going to not get it and blithely dismiss him or get it and have an aneurysm and then he'll never post again. In particular, Carroll's information density disproof of any god is so jaw-droppingly slick and (insofar as I can follow the physics, which is about 2/3rds of the way there) open and shut that I would advise science-literate people who want to hold onto their faith to stay the ef away from it. Seriously, guys. You've come this far. You should go with "ignorance is bliss" and play out the string.

Carroll is just awesome. He is smart, his subject matter is approachable, and he comes off as a pretty nice guy while decimating apologists. He is to physics that Steve Novella is to medicine. Their combined debate over the near death experiences is pretty sweet.

I also like Daniel Dennett but he tends to stay away from the spotlight a bit more than others. I will always miss the way Hitch was able to turn a phrase, remember poetry, and be so charmingly arrogant while most likely incredibly intoxicated despite disagreeing with him on many points.

[Kepler]

Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup

Carroll is just awesome. He is smart, his subject matter is approachable, and he comes off as a pretty nice guy while decimating apologists. He is to physics that Steve Novella is to medicine. Their combined debate over the near death experiences is pretty sweet.

I also like Daniel Dennett but he tends to stay away from the spotlight a bit more than others. I will always miss the way Hitch was able to turn a phrase, remember poetry, and be so charmingly arrogant while most likely incredibly intoxicated despite disagreeing with him on many points.

I would have loved to go drinking with Hitch. I probably agreed with him about 60% on substance and 10% on tactics, but he was a pleasure to watch. And as you alluded he was the Johnny Fever of erudition -- the more he drank, the quicker, sharper, wittier he got.

[joecct]

Not necessarily, it might merely mean that I find semantic quibbles like this a bit silly: "yeah, something arose out of nothing, but dammed if I'll use the term 'creation'."

"Of course 'right and wrong' matter, even though we all agree on that, let's argue about why they matter anyway."
-- Hey, we just agreed that they do matter, is the "why" really necessary to get along?

I am reminded for some reason of a time I was approached by a Biblical literalist when I had been over-served and said something to him about an article in Paleontology Today (which as far as I know doesn't even exist). Extremists on either side of the debate take themselves too seriously IMHO, "not too much" and "not too little" is a good mid-range place to be in many cases.

(also, "creator" does not necessarily mean "god": I can plant a tree in a field and then go off and let it fend for itself afterward without ever checking in on it again).

Ah, but how did the tree/seed come to be before you planted it?