Sunday, February 3, 2013

Tonight’s Feature Presentation: Epigenetics, The Next Evolutionary Cliff

Another Darwinian Wavefunction Collapse



We’ve discussed epigenetics, those incredible genetic regulation mechanisms such as molecular barcodes stamped onto DNA, histones, those incredible DNA packaging proteins that also have their own barcodes, the different kinds of barcodes, and how these marvels have falsified so many evolutionary predictions. If it all went by too fast then maybe tonight’s Feature Presentation will help tell a thousand words. You may need to view it a few times to follow the details, but the underlying plot should be clear.

Just keep this one thing in mind as you watch. For everything you see in this animation, evolutionists have no scientific explanation how it evolved. But yet they insist that it did evolve. Get it?

Religion drives science, and it matters.

136 comments:

  1. Just keep this one thing in mind as you watch. For everything you see in this animation, evolutionists have no scientific explanation how it evolved. But yet they insist that it did evolve. Get it?

    Religion drives science, and it matters.


    Scientists insist they evolved, not because of any religious conviction, but because evolution is by far and away the most parsimonious explanation for it.

    Do you doubt it is correct? Fine - come up with a better theory! That is all you need to do. And if you can't, then stop crying foul that biologists take it as provisional fact.

    But of course, we both know you cannot come up with a better theory. Because, like all ID-ists, the theory you actually favour is not scientific (and not actually a theory either).

    Why can't even a single ID-ist step up and put their money where their mouth is? Why can't a single one actually do what would send ToE crashing down in minutes and simply outline a better theory?

    I think we all know the answer to that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ritchie, just shut the F*^& up. Jackass.

      Delete
    2. What a well-reasoned argument. I've certainly seen the error of my ways.

      Yes, let's all quietly sit and listen to Cornelius and soak up everything he says unquestioningly.

      Isn't that what one is supposed to do in church?

      Delete
    3. Ritchie

      What a well-reasoned argument.


      I think Louis is jealous of Chubby Joke G and wants the title of "Best Spokesman for ID-Creationism" for himself.

      Delete
    4. Psycho Thorton:

      I think Louis is jealous of Chubby Joke G and wants the title of "Best Spokesman for ID-Creationism" for himself.

      I'd rather be that than be a gutless, butt-kissing swine like you and your buddy Ritchie. LOL.

      Delete
    5. Oh dear, Louis, you have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, haven't you?

      Time of the month, is it?

      Delete
    6. Ritchie:
      Scientists insist they evolved, not because of any religious conviction, but because evolution is by far and away the most parsimonious explanation for it.

      Just how is the untestable "accumulations of genetic accidents" a parsimonious explanation? It can't even muster a testable hypothesis...

      Delete
    7. Just how is the untestable "accumulations of genetic accidents" a parsimonious explanation?

      "accumulations of genetic accidents" is not evolution.

      It can't even muster a testable hypothesis...

      It has 'mustered' a vast deal.

      Transitional fossils, for instance. These were predicted. And discovered. In large numbers. With rich discoveries in several lineages, including whales and humans.

      Hypothesis made. Hypothesis tested. Hypothesis verified.

      Then there is the tree of life drawn up by genetics. This had to match very closely the one drawn up by morphology. And it did.

      Hypothesis made. Hypothesis tested. Hypothesis verified.

      Then there are the hundreds of small, local hypotheses which are made by a simple extrapolation of evolution. Such as Richard Alexander in 1975 predicting the discovery of naked mole rate. Or the predicted discovery of the fused chromosomes in humans. Or the predicted discovery of Tiktaalik after Neil Shubin calculated precisely when and where such a creature was likely to be found.

      All hypotheses made, tested and verified.

      How many hypotheses has ID made... well, ever?

      Delete
    8. Ritchie:
      "accumulations of genetic accidents" is not evolution.

      The theory of evolution posits accumulations of genetic accidents as its mechanism of change. If you don't believe that it just proves your ignorance wrt the ToE

      And you need a testable hypothesis based on that mechanism.

      Delete
    9. Joe,

      And you need a testable hypothesis based on that mechanism.


      What the the testable hypothesis of the unknown mechanism of ID which converts design into material expression?

      Delete
    10. Evolutionists feel that their theory should not be criticized unless it critics come up with a "better theory".

      First, evolutionists are demanding an exemption from scrutiny and criticism that other fields of science are not afforded.

      Second, evolutionists will not allow intelligent design under any circumstances. Perhaps if the designer made a compelling physical appearance to them they may consider it, but I even wonder if that would suffice.

      Evolutionists allow no means to detect design, consider design, or evaluate the possibility of design. So, it is insincere for them to request a "better theory" because they are fundamentally opposed to it.

      Delete
    11. Joe -

      The theory of evolution posits accumulations of genetic accidents as its mechanism of change. If you don't believe that it just proves your ignorance wrt the ToE

      There is a lot more to ToE than that. This is just a snarky, dismissive abbreviation to make it sound insubstancial and improbable. You mock it because you don't WANT it to be true.

      And you need a testable hypothesis based on that mechanism.

      I echo Velikovskys. What is the mechanism and testable hypothesis thereof of ID?

      *waits with baited breath*

      Delete
    12. Neal -

      Evolutionists feel that their theory should not be criticized unless it critics come up with a "better theory".

      Not at all. Every theory in science should be freely critiqued. But it is the one and only tactic of ID of try to snipe at evolution and thus mere imply that ID is correct by default. That is all ID-ists EVER do. Because they do not actually have a working theory which produces any results of any kind.

      First, evolutionists are demanding an exemption from scrutiny...

      No we aren't.

      Second, evolutionists will not allow intelligent design under any circumstances.

      Again, wrong. There are circumstances where ID would be permissable. Namely, when it comes up with testable mechanisms and falsifiable premises. It is only banned from the lab for as long as it just says 'It was a miracle' and leaves it there.

      Perhaps if the designer made a compelling physical appearance to them they may consider it, but I even wonder if that would suffice.

      Yes, that would be a good start. Let us know when that happens, eh? I'll be here waiting with baited breath...

      Evolutionists allow no means to detect design, consider design, or evaluate the possibility of design.

      It is for the ID-ers to come up with ways of detecting design. And they have come up with nothing. At all.

      ID is not outcast because scientists refuse to accept it It is outcast because there is nothing to accept. There is simply nothing to the theory at all.

      Delete
    13. I think it's funny that evolutionist don't seem to have any clue to how designers work or any clue on how to detect design. It's like, one of the most fundamental things that we humans do on a daily bases is something which is an evolutionist can't handle. I mean, are you guys trying to be stupid? No way of detecting design? Well, using your brain is one example. You do it all the time with the world around you, it's just when you don't like the implications then it suddenly becomes so difficult! There is also the work of William Dembski but... why bother wasting words on people who don't want to use the brain God gave them?

      Delete
    14. Neal

      First, evolutionists are demanding an exemption from scrutiny and criticism that other fields of science are not afforded.


      Try telling an astronomer that what they are doing doesn't qualify as science.

      Second, evolutionists will not allow intelligent design under any circumstances. Perhaps if the designer made a compelling physical appearance to them they may consider it, but I even wonder if that would suffice.

      He would have to be reallllly old.

      Evolutionists allow no means to detect design, consider design, or evaluate the possibility of design.

      The problem is without a "means" there is nothing to not allow or evaluate.

      Delete
    15. Mofi -

      I think it's funny that evolutionist don't seem to have any clue to how designers work or any clue on how to detect design.

      Then tell us. Less of the bluster and the rhetoric - just tell us all plain and simple. How, precisely, does one detect design?

      Or are you going to be like all the other ID-ers and just fold like a house of cards?

      Delete
    16. Mofi,

      why bother wasting words on people who don't want to use the brain God gave them?


      That is called assuming your conclusion. Please explain why God cannot use a purely natural means to accomplish His Will? Is it beyond His abilities?

      Delete
    17. V: Please explain why God cannot use a purely natural means to accomplish His Will? Is it beyond His abilities?

      J: First, if by "Will" you mean free-will, it couldn't be "purely natural." Second, there is no a priori intuition that the optimal balance of ends and means a designer desires is attainable by "purely natural means" beyond some initial condition. So the question is, why would you infer that to be the case?

      Delete
    18. Jeff,


      J: First, if by "Will" you mean free-will,


      Could Will be anything but free with God?

      it couldn't be "purely natural.

      Why?

      " Second, there is no a priori intuition that the optimal balance of ends and means a designer desires is attainable by "purely natural means" beyond some initial condition.

      Not sure about a priori intuition, but since the omniscient / omnipotent designer choose to create those means it is logical that those means could be sufficent if He wished. Unless nature is beyond the power of God. As for ends, it is merely conjecture on the part of finite beings what the teleos of God is,and that as limited beings that we can even comprehend it.

      So the question is, why would you infer that to be the case?

      I don't, the question was why would Mofi infer it wasn't? That God was limited in His options to create that which He wished to create. Personally thinking that God would choose the primitive ham handed design techniques of 21st century humans seems a little self centered.

      Is it beyond the abilities of an omnipotent God to use nature as a means/ tool to accomplish that which He wishes to accomplish? Or is it necessary for God to put His thumb on the scale?

      Delete
    19. V: As for ends, it is merely conjecture on the part of finite beings what the teleos of God is,and that as limited beings that we can even comprehend it.

      J: But we have yet to be able to function without thinking in terms of ends. So it doesn't matter whether we're right or wrong. We have to think teleologically, and it works.

      V: Is it beyond the abilities of an omnipotent God to use nature as a means/ tool to accomplish that which He wishes to accomplish?

      J: That's not an issue of potency. It's an issue of logical possibility. It either is logically possible to configure some a-biological initial conditions with whatever event regularities exist and generate a cosmos like the one we think we observe, or it isn't. Power doesn't compel logical consistency.

      V: Or is it necessary for God to put His thumb on the scale?

      J: We can't prove a negative like "God can't ..." in the sense you're asking. It's an unfalsifiable claim. In short, we don't know the answer to the question. That's why specific ID views are inferential and hypothetical like all SPECIFIC causal thought.

      Delete
    20. Ritchie claims:

      "And you need a testable hypothesis based on that mechanism."

      I think that applies both ways.

      How can you test your hypothesis based on your proposed mechanism?

      Go ahead and propose an experiment to show that natural selection can enable the development of sexual reproduction.

      Or perhaps the development of birds from dinosaurs. Show us how it works by actually testing your hypothesis.

      We're waiting with baited breath!

      Delete
    21. tokyojim -

      I think that applies both ways.

      Why is it that when ID-ers are asked to present evidence, they simply shift the focus onto ToE?

      Obviously that's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer - because ID has nothing in the way of proposed mechanisms or testable hypotheses. Nothing at all. Instead all consists almost entirely of God-of-the-Gaps nitpicking at ToE and hoping to infer ID as true by default.


      How can you test your hypothesis based on your proposed mechanism?

      Go ahead and propose an experiment to show that natural selection can enable the development of sexual reproduction.

      Or perhaps the development of birds from dinosaurs. Show us how it works by actually testing your hypothesis.

      We're waiting with baited breath!


      I certainly can, and I promise I will. But on one condition - you first.

      I am rather tired of it ALWAYS being ToE under the microscope. The point I was making is that ID needs mechanisms and testable hypotheses of its own.

      So don't just do what ID-ers ALWAYS do and wriggle and deflect and try to turn the spotlight back to ToE. Present ID's case. Present the mechanisms and hypotheses that ID gives rise to. Do this and I will reciprocate.

      But you first.

      Delete
    22. Jeff,

      J: But we have yet to be able to function without thinking in terms of ends. So it doesn't matter whether we're right or wrong. We have to think teleologically, and it works.


      In for a penny in for a pound? Whether it is a practical choice or not does not mean what we perceive as the teleos of God is accurate. That was my point.

      J: That's not an issue of potency. It's an issue of logical possibility. It either is logically possible to configure some a-biological initial conditions with whatever event regularities exist and generate a cosmos like the one we think we observe, or it isn't. Power doesn't compel logical consistency.

      What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically impossible for an eternal omnipotent omniscient being ?
      Again my point is, what is the basis to assume as fact that this specific universe was the goal of God? Other than the belief that humanity is the goal of God?

      J: We can't prove a negative like "God can't ..." in the sense you're asking. It's an unfalsifiable claim. In short, we don't know the answer to the question. That's why specific ID views are inferential and hypothetical like all SPECIFIC causal thought.

      So the answer to my question is" we don't know but we have no reason to think it isn't possible", sounds reasonable. What are the specific ID inferential views?

      Delete
    23. V: Whether it is a practical choice or not does not mean what we perceive as the teleos of God is accurate. That was my point.

      J: But that's true of any view if all you mean is that inductive inferences (or any non-deductively-derived belief, for that matter) are not deductively provable from self-evident axioms. But how does that advance us one iota to knowing or believing with warrant anything specific?

      V: What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically impossible for an eternal omnipotent omniscient being ?

      J: What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically possible for an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being?

      V: Again my point is, what is the basis to assume as fact that this specific universe was the goal of God?

      J: What is the basis to assume as fact that this specific universe is not intended at all?

      V: What are the specific ID inferential views?

      J: They vary from ID'ist to ID'ist, just like naturalistic views do.

      Delete
    24. Jeff,

      J: But that's true of any view if all you mean is that inductive inferences (or any non-deductively-derived belief, for that matter) are not deductively provable from self-evident axioms.


      The question was more, can we even have inductive inferences to an eternal, omnipotent being's specific actions?

      But how does that advance us one iota to knowing or believing with warrant anything specific?

      If we logically can't infer specific actions of such a being, then it eliminates belief that we can infer specific actions as from that being from the set of logically based beliefs. That increases our knowledge at least an iota.

      What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically possible for an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being?

      Try Aquinas's Quinque Viae and Via Negativa

      What is the basis to assume as fact that this specific universe is not intended at all

      Does someone assume that as fact? Of course intention usually implys an intender.

      They vary from ID'ist to ID'ist, just like naturalistic views do

      Really,for example?.

      Delete
    25. V: The question was more, can we even have inductive inferences to an eternal, omnipotent being's specific actions?

      J: First of all, I infer eternality to bring ad-hoc hypotheses for explaining my experience to a FINITE number. That's an inductive criteria. With respect to power, I posit that required to account for my experience.

      V: If we logically can't infer specific actions of such a being,

      J: When events have no conceivable explanation that doesn't require ad-hoc hypotheses, it's not epistemologically virtuous to posit explanations that involve non-finite sets of ad-hoc hypotheses. This renders plausibility effectively zero.

      V: Try Aquinas's Quinque Viae and Via Negativa

      J: I don't have to read Aquinas to know that the only way to know that an event is explained by event regularities being applied to initial conditions is BY doing that very deductive argument. No one has does that for naturalistic UCA. SA is definitely on the table still.

      V: Really,for example?.

      J: Some believe SA and others don't. Some doubt abiogenesis is impossible and others don't. Etc.

      Delete


    26. Specific actions was the question. As for ad hoc, you still have the same number of ad hoc, it is just you have the same answer for each one.

      Which experience requires an omnipotent designer?

      When events have no conceivable explanation that doesn't require ad-hoc hypotheses, it's not epistemologically virtuous to posit explanations that involve non-finite sets of ad-hoc hypotheses. This renders plausibility effectively zero.

      In English,perhaps?

      J: I don't have to read Aquinas to know that the only way to know that an event is explained by event regularities being applied to initial conditions is BY doing that very deductive argument. No one has does that for naturalistic UCA. SA is definitely on the table still.

      The question was" J: What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically possible for an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being?", the answer was Aquinas's argument.

      As forSA. It is only on the table since it requires fewer ad hoc ,this is due only to the fact it lacks specificity. Exactly the same as an unknown designer with unknown abilities and unknown goals.

      J: Some believe SA and others don't. Some doubt abiogenesis is impossible and others don't. Etc.

      Which IDist believes that abiogenesis is possible?

      Delete
    27. V: Specific actions was the question. As for ad hoc, you still have the same number of ad hoc, it is just you have the same answer for each one.

      J: No, I posit natural and libertarian causality. I like you, want to minimize libertarian causality. But once I posit sympathetic, competent libertarian causality for the creation of the order I infer and call "the world," virtually all events prior to that creative act are NON-explanatory of my experience. Thus, they have no ad-hoc status for my explanations.

      For the atheist, deist, etc, there's no getting around an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses to explain ANYTHING.

      V: Which experience requires an omnipotent designer?

      J: All of them require a competent, sympathetic designer of the inferred order plus certain ad-hoc events if I'm trying to deal with a finite number of ad-hoc hypotheses. And I am. Once you posit an infinite set of ad-hoc hypotheses, you have an infinite set of hypotheses for which there is NO evidence.

      V: The question was" J: What do we observe that would lead us to believe that it is logically possible for an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being?", the answer was Aquinas's argument.

      J: So Aquinas observed something that implied all pre-human, biological event sequences are regular, involving no libertarian causality? What, pray tell, was that?

      V: It is only on the table since it requires fewer ad hoc ,this is due only to the fact it lacks specificity.

      J: So does teleological UCA. Naturalistically-explained UCA has yet to even be conceived of.

      V: Exactly the same as an unknown designer with unknown abilities and unknown goals.

      J: Again, the abilities and goals are posited and inferred, respectively, just like non-observable entities and properties are in physics.

      V: Which IDist believes that abiogenesis is possible?

      J: All of them that think the history of the universe up to free-will-possessing humans was entailed in the initial conditions of a big-bang. Miller and Collins are theists that seem to sympathize with that view. Paul Davies, as an agnostic, doesn't seem to rule it out. Etc.

      Delete
    28. velikovskys,

      "Please explain why God cannot use a purely natural means to accomplish His Will?"

      And if he did use purely natural means, how would it make it any less designed?

      Delete
    29. NiC

      And if he did use purely natural means, how would it make it any less designed?


      Nic, a whole lot of Christians smarter than you and I combined have come to the conclusion God used evolution over the last 3+ billion years to produce the life forms we see today. I personally have no issue with that since it allows us to explain the voluminous physical evidence without the ridiculous Creationist hand-waves.

      Is their God more powerful than your God?

      Delete
    30. T: Nic, a whole lot of Christians smarter than you and I combined have come to the conclusion God used evolution over the last 3+ billion years to produce the life forms we see today.

      J: No, they haven't "come to the conclusion," they assume it as a methodological axiom. Surely you're not so clueless as to think anyone has actually explained the history of the universe in terms of a set of event regularities applied to some definable initial conditions without having to posit tons of additional ad-hoc hypotheses.

      Delete
    31. If scientifically ignorant and pointless philosophical blithering was an Olympic sport, Liar for Jesus Jeff would sweep gold, silver, and bronze.

      Delete
    32. I was just kidding, Moronton. I realized you really ARE that clueless.

      Delete
    33. Liar for Jesus Jeff

      I was just kidding


      Ah, I see. For the last two months you've just been pretending to be a scientifically illiterate philosophy-spewing blithering idiot.

      You did one hell of a job there bro.

      Delete
    34. Nic

      And if he did use purely natural means, how would it make it any less designed?


      No it doesn't, but it would mean that naturalism would explain how things came to be in this universe.

      In other words God created naturalism which created us.

      Delete
    35. V: In other words God created naturalism which created us.

      J: Naturalism is never defined that way in the literature that I've seen. It's defined as either atheism or the denial of libertarian causality.

      Delete
    36. Nic ,

      J: Naturalism is never defined that way in the literature that I've seen. It's defined as either atheism or the denial of libertarian causality


      Using methodological naturalism does not require one to be a philosophic naturalist as evidenced by theistic evolutionists, like Collins and Miller which you seemed to idenify as IDists.

      Delete
    37. They're theists who believe certain aspects of reality uncaused by human design are designed by God. So, yeah, that makes them ID'ists. All ID'ists believe some event sequences are natural in some sense.

      Some theists believe in creatio continua where the very existence of contingent beings has to be perpetuated by divine causality. That would mean that natural event sequences in creation are mentally, but naturally, caused.

      Your view seems to have a serious problem. It seems to require that BOTH those conditions we infer are causes AND those conditions we infer are effects are empirically detectable by sense organs. But this implies mental states are not causal, since they aren't empirically detectable by sense organs. This in turn means that mental states don't affect material beings or cause other mental states. This in turn means all mental states are uncaused. This in turn means discursive reasoning is not discursive in a causal sense, but merely temporally-ordered with no causality whatsoever. This in turn means all belief is uncaused and, therefore, absolutely "blind" in every conceivable sense.

      To escape this problem, we must allow causal explanation to include as causes mental states which are NOT empirically detectable. Thus, the whole empiricism argument is irrelevant. We posit mental causation only when we have to to explain non-arbitrarily (i.e., consistently with inductive criteria) at all.

      Delete
    38. I erred in one step above. Mental states could be effects of empirically detected conditions. By why insist that causal conditions be empirically detectable but not effects? Isn't that absolutely arbitrary?

      Delete

    39. Nic,
      They're theists who believe certain aspects of reality uncaused by human design are designed by God. So, yeah, that makes them ID'ists


      Sorry. They aren't. Ken Miler was an expert witness against ID at the Dover Trial. They believe natural causes explain the diversity of life. And technically ID does not speak to the designer.


      All ID'ists believe some event sequences are natural in some sense.

      How do they decide which ones?

      Some theists believe in creatio continua where the very existence of contingent beings has to be perpetuated by divine causality. That would mean that natural event sequences in creation are mentally, but naturally, caused.

      I don't think Ken Miller is one of those. So god has to continuely manipulate natural to exercise His Will. That is pretty close to primary supernatural causation,with ll the inherent problems with that.

      Added to the problem of determining what exactly is the Will of God.

      Delete
    40. Sorry Jeff addressed the last post to Nic.

      Is this your argument?

      1 for naturalism a cause and effect has to be empirically detected by the senses.

      2 mental states cannot be empirically detected therefore they cannot be a cause or effect.

      3. This leads us to a non intuitive conclusion that mental states cannot be a cause

      4. Therefore since mental states and God are identical it is illogical to require God actions to be empirically detectable to be a cause.

      Is naturally detectable the same as empirically ? If not what is the difference?

      Delete
    41. V: Sorry. They aren't. Ken Miler was an expert witness against ID at the Dover Trial. They believe natural causes explain the diversity of life. And technically ID does not speak to the designer.

      J: ID is about what kind of relations ground inferences TO design. In that sense, it's not about who designs. But anyone who infers design using normal human grounds for such inferences is doing an ID inference. But Collins wouldn't argue that life isn't designed. He just doesn't posit divine libertarian causality prior to human existence for explaining anything biological. On the other hand, that's why he can't explain life in any sense at all.

      V: I don't think Ken Miller is one of those.

      J: Who knows? He's a Catholic. So he's all over the board in ways I can't make any sense out of. He's confused enough to think positing natural evolution somehow solves the problem of evil. He's not real bright.

      I'll address the rest tonight when I get home.

      Delete
    42. V: How do they decide which ones?

      J: It is not denied that organisms have the "appearance of design." Thus, for biology, at least, one explains what one can naturally. To the extent that natural explanation doesn't take us far (and it doesn't), we haven't YET ruled out libertarian causality for DNA sequencing, etc.

      V: Added to the problem of determining what exactly is the Will of God.

      J: Amazingly enough, religions of vary different types seem to have no problem coming to the conclusion that the golden rule is the will of God. I think there's an obvious reason for that. Otherwise, there is no rational way to adjudicate non-relativistic decisions. Relativism can be adjudicated somewhat rationally to the extent that most people aren't relativists and therefore are relatively predictable. If most people were relativists, less would be predictable simply because of the diversity of humans and, therefore, the diversity of human self-interest.

      V: Is naturally detectable the same as empirically ? If not what is the difference?

      J: Naturally detectable would mean non-voluntarily detectable. But I'm not sure what relevance that distinction has to the subject of this forum. Detection, for humans, typically has the connotation of attentiveness, which seems at least somewhat voluntary in that sense. Otherwise, the "detection" is not considered to be sufficiently careful for scientific objectivity.

      Indeed, apart from libertarianism, even "objectivity" is indistinguishable from "subjectivity." Determined beliefs can not be known to be anything other THAN beliefs. No voluntary evaluation of beliefs in terms of normative criteria (of which plausibility criteria is an aspect) is ever actually occurring if all belief is determined.

      If beliefs are not subject to normative evaluation, no one can be known to be worse in any sense for being anti-science, e.g. Yet it seems obvious that anti-ID'ists certainly think ID'ists are worse in some sense for supposedly being anti-science. Whence such normativity for atheists/deists/agnostics?

      Delete
    43. Ritchie,

      me: How can you test your hypothesis based on your proposed mechanism?

Go ahead and propose an experiment to show that natural selection can enable the development of sexual reproduction.

Or perhaps the development of birds from dinosaurs. Show us how it works by actually testing your hypothesis.

 


      Ritchie: I certainly can, and I promise I will. But on one condition - you first.

I am rather tired of it ALWAYS being ToE under the microscope. The point I was making is that ID needs mechanisms and testable hypotheses of its own.

So don't just do what ID-ers ALWAYS do and wriggle and deflect and try to turn the spotlight back to ToE. Present ID's case. Present the mechanisms and hypotheses that ID gives rise to. Do this and I will reciprocate. 

But you first.


      My reply: And Ritchie, the point I am trying to make is that neither side can do this. We are dealing with historical science here. It is unrepeatable. It is unobservable and untestable in the normal scientific sense of the word. I freely grant that ID cannot prove it’s point. What we have here are two different ways of interpreting the evidence. One uses the evolutionary paradigm and the other the design paradigm which is open intelligent input to explain the evidence.

      I happen to think that the ID explanation makes better sense of the evidence that we see – software, codes, fine-tuning, consciousness, mind, irreducibly complex machines and systems in the cell, networks, information, hardware, etc.

      Can I prove it? No. That is my opinion.

      We both have to take our interpretation by faith since we cannot “prove” it using the scientific method.

      Delete
    44. tokyojim:

      My reply: And Ritchie, the point I am trying to make is that neither side can do this. We are dealing with historical science here. It is unrepeatable. It is unobservable and untestable in the normal scientific sense of the word.

      Then you are wrong.

      Yes we are dealing with the historical past. But ToE proposes mechanisms which are not only ongoing, but observable and repeatable. We can infer that evolution happens in the here and now, and thus there is no problem supposing that it happened in the past.

      ID, by contrast, proposes nothing. No mechanisms at all. If ToE is 'just' a theory, then ID is 'not even' a theory.

      I freely grant that ID cannot prove it’s point. What we have here are two different ways of interpreting the evidence. One uses the evolutionary paradigm and the other the design paradigm which is open intelligent input to explain the evidence.

      The two are not comparable. ToE proposes mechanisms that we can and do see - mechanisms which we know do, in fact, shape life.

      ID proposes a supernatural being and no testable mechanisms by which this being operated. It is religion, not science.

      I happen to think that the ID explanation makes better sense of the evidence that we see – software, codes, fine-tuning, consciousness, mind, irreducibly complex machines and systems in the cell, networks, information, hardware, etc.

      Can I prove it? No. That is my opinion.


      Do you imagine your opinion is the equal of a scientist who studies this topic for a career - one whose very job it is to know these things?

      We both have to take our interpretation by faith since we cannot “prove” it using the scientific method.

      No, yours is a leap of pure faith. My acceptance of ToE is rational. The evidence of plentiful. The mechanisms are demonstrable. There is nothing left to reasonable doubt here.

      Delete
  2. Let's see. We've got the theory of evolution which provides a broad overarching framework for the working and history of life on Earth. It provides a huge amount of salient information including verified mechanisms, a verified timeline, and makes confirmed predictions.

    Then we get a Creationist like Cornelius Goebbels here bellyaches because the evolutionary sciences can't provided every last detail when the anti-science crappola he's pushing can't provide a single thing - no mechanism, no timeline, no predictive power. Not a single scientific answer.

    Gotta love the chutzpah of the Creationist propagandist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Resident psycho Thorton:

      no predictive power

      What an ass. The predictive power of any intelligent design is the same predictive power we see in the human designs that we observe every day. Progressive hierarchical development is a hallmark of design everywhere, which is what is observed in biological organisms.

      Hierarchy, ORfan genes, vertical + horizontal inheritance, abrupt changes in the fossil record; these are all unmistakable evidence for design and for the falsification of the entire Darwinian pile of crap. You refuse to see what's in front of your nose because you are a shameless professional jackass with a bone to pick with Christianity. That's why.

      Delete
    2. Thorton:

      Gotta love the chutzpah of the Creationist propagandist.

      Gotta love the gutlessness of the atheist propagandist.

      Delete
    3. empty bluster boy:
      We've got the theory of evolution...

      Except it is too vague to even be called a theory.

      It doesn't make any predictions based on its posited mechanism of accumulations of genetic accidents.

      It is totally useless.

      Delete
    4. Except it is too vague to even be called a theory.

      No, it's a theory. A real, bona fide scientific theory.

      http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/EvolutionScienceCriteria.htm

      ID isn't.

      Sucks to be you, eh?

      Delete
    5. It is too vague to be called a theory. Not only that it cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified, and it cannot be tested.

      It ain't science.

      Delete
    6. It is too vague to be called a theory.

      You say it is. Every scientist in the world says it isn't.

      Righto then.

      Not only that it cannot be measured, it cannot be quantified, and it cannot be tested.

      What precisely is it you want to measure, quantify and test? Be more specifically.

      It ain't science.

      Yes it is. It is consistent, useful, parsimonious, empirically testable, evidence-based, correctable, progressive and tentative. It is science.

      Unlike ID.

      Delete
  3. The problems that epigenetics presents to Darwinian processes are simply devastating. Especially devastating to the 'central dogma' (DNA makes RNA makes Proteins) of evolution:

    Does the central dogma still stand? – Koonin EV. – 23 August 2012
    Excerpt: Thus, there is non-negligible flow of information from proteins to the genome in modern cells, in a direct violation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. The prion-mediated heredity that violates the Central Dogma appears to be a specific, most radical manifestation of the widespread assimilation of protein variation into genetic variation. The epigenetic variation precedes and facilitates genetic adaptation through a general ‘look-ahead effect’ of phenotypic mutations.,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22913395

    If that was not bad enough, there is even growing evidence that 'mind' can influence epigenetic modifications to the genome:

    Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life – July 12, 2012
    Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
    If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/anxiety-may-shorten-your-cell-life/

    Genie In Your Genes – video
    http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html

    ,,, This simply completely devastating to what Darwinism presupposed:

    of related interest:

    The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

    "The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA" - May 2012 - podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-05-30T12_57_28-07_00

    Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012
    Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/epigenetics_and054731.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
      Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
      http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

      Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

      New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms - Cornelius Hunter - January 7, 2013
      Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
      These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-research-elucidates-directed.html

      Shapiro on Random Mutation:
      "What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html

      But if the vast majority of mutations are not truly random then that means neo-Darwinism has ultimate source for creativity in its RV&NS scenario.

      Delete
    2. Wow, BA77 corrects his own posts, as if the mistake would have gone noticed by anyone else.

      An astonishing implication seems to be that BA77 reads his own copy-and-pasted garbage. How can he remain sane? Oh wait.

      Delete
  4. Bornagain77,

    Would such ideas as the Inverse Quantum Zeno Effect (Aharonov, Y., Vardi, M., 1980 Meaning of an individual ‘Feynman path.’ Phys. Rev. D 21, 2235-2240.) provide some possibility for directed mutations which could answer some of the concerns regarding non-random evolution? In a paper by Cairns (Cairns et al 1988. The origin of mutants. Nature 335, 142-145.) describing directed mutations he hypothesizes on quantum mechanics being a force behind such adaptive mutations. If so, would that be consistent with ID or evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rookie mistake,never ask BA a question. The results are voluminous.

      Delete
    2. velikovskys

      Rookie mistake,never ask BA a question. The results are voluminous.


      Batspit77 must walk around all day with his sphincter clinched tighter that Chuck Norris' fist. Then whenever CH posts a new anti-evolution diatribe, BA relaxes and out gushes his usual brown torrent in waves.

      Delete
    3. Me me me, I'll answer you... On the surface the question seems excellent... could quantum mechanics be responsible for Evolution? Perhaps it can but then you would have to be able to explain where the laws of quantum theory comes from? Every law has a lawgiver, Natural selection is a non.intelligent force thus it has no ability to create any laws, If you think it does then you would also have explain how natural selection invented natural selection. Good luck with that you'll be needing allot of faith to believe it....

      Delete
    4. Andre -

      Every law has a lawgiver,

      No, you see, that's just more erroneous ID extrapolation again.

      Natural laws did not need to be made. That is like saying someone need to 'invent' mathematics. I mean, someone invented it as a human concept, but no-one needed to invent the fact that 2+2=4. That is a truth that needs no maker, no designer and no creator. Much like the laws of nature.

      Delete
    5. If maths is just a coincedence of nature, why is everything in the universe mathematically precise.... O yes now I remember, it was just lucky it turned out that way.... hahahaha more atheist comedy mixed with a dash of stupidity...

      Delete
    6. It's not coincidence. It's just brute fact. It was always true that 2+2=4. No-one needed to invent that fact. Mathematical truths did not needed creating.

      Delete
  5. Richie, I'm falling of my chair laughing at your idiocy... Laws invent themsevlves hahahahaha, you should do comedy, your damn good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are laughing because you do not understand me.

      I did not say laws invent themselves. I said some laws do not need inventing. They are simple brute facts.

      2+2=4. That is a simple, brute fact. There was never a time BEFORE this was true, followed by the invention of mathematics, after which it was true from then on. It was simply always true. It is a truth that did not need 'creating'.

      Delete
    2. Ritchie,

      "Natural laws did not need to be made."

      That is downright laughable. And you expect to be taken seriously with your arguments?

      Natural laws are those laws which govern nature, how on earth can you possibly hope to present a sound case that they did not need an originator? Did they just 'pop' into existence on their own?

      "That is like saying someone need to 'invent' mathematics. I mean, someone invented it as a human concept, but no-one needed to invent the fact that 2+2=4. That is a truth that needs no maker, no designer and no creator. Much like the laws of nature."

      Tell us Ritchie, where did the 2+2 which equals 4 come from? If there is nothing, there is nothing to add up to equal anything at all. 2 of nothing, which is nothing + 2 of nothing, which is nothing = nothing, Ritchie. Can you grasp that? Yes, even mathematical truths had to have an origin. As did the laws of nature.

      Your critical thinking is in critical condition I'm afraid. This kind of thinking is just mind boggling bad.

      Delete
    3. Nic -

      That is downright laughable. And you expect to be taken seriously with your arguments?

      Mockery is no argument.

      Natural laws are those laws which govern nature, how on earth can you possibly hope to present a sound case that they did not need an originator?

      I am at a total loss as to how you think the proposition of natural laws being created makes sense. It is like insisting beauty needs a creator - not beautiful objects, but beauty itself, as a concept.

      Is it because you are confusing them with legal laws, perhaps? Is it here that you are getting the idea that laws need to be drawn up and made? Is it the word 'law' that is throwing you?

      Tell us Ritchie, where did the 2+2 which equals 4 come from? If there is nothing, there is nothing to add up to equal anything at all.

      No, you are now talking about MATTER, not natural law. You don't actually need 4 objects for the PRINCIPLE that 2+2=4 to be correct.

      Let's take an actual natural law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Now there may have been a time before matter existed, there may have been a time before any actions could thus be taken, but the idea that there was a time before this law existed in principle is just totally asinine. The laws of motion exist whether or not there are any objects to move.

      And even if you disagree with this and claim that laws do not exist 'in potentia' (which I could at least understand), this law of motion is merely describing the way objects behave. Which is an inseperable part of them existing. So all that really needed to 'originate' were the objects themselves. Insisting on seperate origins for objects, and then the BEHAVIOUR of those objects is utterly absurd. So even here the only thing that requires an explanable origin is matter, not natural law which governs the matter.

      It seems to me that you are buried so deep inside your 'Designer' stance that you are blindly insisting absolutely everything needs to have been designed - even abstract concepts such as truth, beauty and mathematics.

      This position is deeply, deeply silly.

      Delete
    4. Ritchie,

      "Mockery is no argument."

      It is not intended to be an argument, simply an observation.

      "I am at a total loss as to how you think the proposition of natural laws being created makes sense."

      Why am I not surprised? You've demonstrated on numerous occasions your complete lack of logical reasoning.

      "It is like insisting beauty needs a creator - not beautiful objects, but beauty itself, as a concept."

      Yes, it does. If objects of beauty did not exist, the concept of beauty would not exist. Can you not follow that? No objects, therefore, no objects of beauty. No objects of beauty, no concept of beauty. As objects had to be created, the concept of beauty originated along with them.

      "Is it because you are confusing them with legal laws, perhaps?"

      Not at all. The laws of nature, by definition, exist because nature exists. The laws of nature could not exist apart from nature, therefore the laws of nature cannot logically be the source of nature.

      "No, you are now talking about MATTER, not natural law. You don't actually need 4 objects for the PRINCIPLE that 2+2=4 to be correct."

      What is matter, Ritchie?

      "but the idea that there was a time before this law existed in principle is just totally asinine. The laws of motion exist whether or not there are any objects to move."

      If there is nothing in existence, there are no laws in existence. If there is nothing in existence there is not even the existence of principles. Nothing in existence means nothing, Ritchie. The problem is you can't grasp the actual meaning of nothing being in existence.

      "Which is an inseperable part of them (objects) existing."

      Right. If objects don't exist, ie., nothing exists, the laws governing them don't exist. Do you not see you've just contradicted yourself?

      "So all that really needed to 'originate' were the objects themselves."

      Right. Once objects began to exist, laws governing them began to exist.

      "Insisting on seperate origins for objects, and then the BEHAVIOUR of those objects is utterly absurd."

      You were the one doing that by insisting that the laws of nature existed before nature as they were the source of nature. If they were the source of nature they had to pre-exist nature and therefore logically, have a separate origin. It's incredible how poor your logic really is.

      "It seems to me that you are buried so deep inside your 'Designer' stance that you are blindly insisting absolutely everything needs to have been designed - even abstract concepts such as truth, beauty and mathematics.

      This position is deeply, deeply silly."

      What's deeply, deeply silly is how blind you are to basic logic. I'll try just one more time and I will type very slowly so you can keep up.

      If nothing exists then even concepts such as truth, beauty and mathematics do not exist. Why? Because these are abstract concepts which only exist in the mind. If nothing exists, the mind does not exist. As concepts exist in the mind only, they could only exist if the mind exists.

      So, no, concepts cannot exist apart from all other existence.

      What part of that do you not grasp?

      It seems you are buried so deep in your naturalistic view you cannot see that nature and the rules that govern it, must have a source as the laws of nature cannot exist outside and independently of nature itself. If nothing exists, then nothing exists, not the laws of nature nor the concept of such laws.

      Delete
    5. Andre said:

      "Richie, I'm falling of my chair laughing at your idiocy... Laws invent themsevlves hahahahaha, you should do comedy, your damn good!"

      But the designer-god invented itself?

      Delete
    6. Nic -

      Why am I not surprised? You've demonstrated on numerous occasions your complete lack of logical reasoning.

      This is simply chest-thumping.

      If objects of beauty did not exist, the concept of beauty would not exist.

      So you are saying that the laws of nature do not exist in potentia? I disagree, but I understand thus far. But that still does not support the conclusion that natural laws need to be independently created.

      The laws of nature, by definition, exist because nature exists. The laws of nature could not exist apart from nature

      You are the one claiming it does! You are the one saying the laws of nature need an origin independent of natural matter.

      What is matter, Ritchie?

      It's stuff. Objects. Substance. Solid material that we can see and touch and point to. Things made of atoms.

      If there is nothing in existence, there are no laws in existence. If there is nothing in existence there is not even the existence of principles.

      I think this is nonsense. The absence of principles is a thoroughly absurd idea. How is that even possible? And, seperately, who says such a state, if possible, even ever existed?

      Right. If objects don't exist, ie., nothing exists, the laws governing them don't exist. Do you not see you've just contradicted yourself?

      No, I was explaining that even if you do not accept that natural laws exist in potentia, which obvioiusly you don't, then that still does not support the conclusion of natural laws having a creation seperate from matter itself.

      Right. Once objects began to exist, laws governing them began to exist.

      Well then if the laws governing the objects began to exist as an inescapable consequence of those objects existing, then we cannot point to a seperate origin for those laws, can we? The laws themselves were not actually created. Only the objects were.

      You were the one doing that by insisting that the laws of nature existed before nature as they were the source of nature.

      What? When did I say that? You are making up words to put in my mouth. I never claimed the laws of nature to be the source of anything.

      If nothing exists then even concepts such as truth, beauty and mathematics do not exist. Why? Because these are abstract concepts which only exist in the mind.

      Natural laws do not only exist in the mind.

      Besides, you are wrong with mathematics. 2+2=4. That is true. It is true whether or not it correspondes to 4 actual objects in the real world. And it is true whether or not there exists a mind to comprehend it. But that truth does not have a specific creation point in time.

      What part of that do you not grasp?

      Right, now I'LL go over this very slowly for YOUR benefit. Try to keep up.

      First we have no objects. Then, we have objects. As a consequence of existing, those objects interact in certain regular ways - that is, they obey certain laws.

      Now we can argue about whether or not those laws existed in potentia before the objects did, but actually that is besides the point. Either way, the only things which began to exist were the objects themselves. The laws do not need a creator - they exist specifically as a consequence of the objects existing. You cannot point to the origin of the objects AND THEN to the origin of the natural laws governing the objects seperately. They are one and the same. So insisting natural laws need their own creation, their own creator, is nonsense.

      Delete
    7. Ritchie

      "First we have no objects. Then, we have objects. As a consequence of existing, those objects interact in certain regular ways - that is, they obey certain laws."

      No,no,no.

      Here is a recipe for the universe. This friendly old glowing bearded man with a soft deep voice gave to me one day. I don't know why but he felt like a Father to me...anyway, here it is:

      Ingredients:

      big matzo ball of energy
      framework (space time)
      rules of energy behavior(fields)

      Preparation:

      Take a big matzo ball of energy and start expanding it. Keep pouring in framework at the same rate as the matzo ball wants to dissipate. Make sure it's not expanding perfectly in all directions.This will help later in making of bunches of little glowing spheres. Suspend gravity field for a short time so it is easier to stretch the matzo ball. Condense parts of energy into particles which will be needed later to make glowing spheres. Make sure to really pour lots of framework for a short time to flatten everything evenly. Keep pouring in framework but allow gravity to knead particles into bunches which will start glowing at a later time.

      Preparation time:

      13.7 billion years

      Delete
    8. Do you get to lick the spoon afterwards?

      Delete
    9. Ritchie,

      "simply chest-thumping."

      This is simply an observation.

      "So you are saying that the laws of nature do not exist in potentia?"

      If by the term 'potentia' you are trying to say that the laws of nature could potentially exist, but not actually exist, then no, not if there is in reality nothing in existence. The laws of nature exist in conjunction with nature.

      "You are the one claiming it does!"

      You are saying the laws of nature are the source of nature. By any logical reasoning if the laws of nature are the source of nature itself, they must exist separately from nature.

      "It's stuff. Objects. Substance. Solid material that we can see and touch and point to. Things made of atoms."

      So it's material which exists, is that right?

      "The absence of principles is a thoroughly absurd idea. How is that even possible?"

      Principles only exist if minds exist. If nothing exists, minds don't exist. If minds don't exist principles, which are a product of the mind, don't exist.

      "No, I was explaining that even if you do not accept that natural laws exist in potentia, which obvioiusly you don't, then that still does not support the conclusion of natural laws having a creation seperate from matter itself."

      No, the laws of nature don't exist apart from the existence of nature. And they don't exist in Potentia, Italy either. Well I guess they do as the city does have natural aspects.

      "Well then if the laws governing the objects began to exist as an inescapable consequence of those objects existing, then we cannot point to a seperate origin for those laws, can we? The laws themselves were not actually created. Only the objects were."

      The laws of nature came about as a consequence of the creation of nature itself. Remember, it's you who is arguing for a separate existence.

      "What? When did I say that? You are making up words to put in my mouth. I never claimed the laws of nature to be the source of anything."

      Perhaps not in those words. However, you did propose that principle: Ritchie: "Now there may have been a time before matter existed, there may have been a time before any actions could thus be taken, but the idea that there was a time before this law existed in principle is just totally asinine."

      If nothing exists, Ritchie, NOTHING exists, even principles.

      "Natural laws do not only exist in the mind."

      You bounce around like a ball. Try to stay on track. My response was not to the existence of natural law being in the mind, but of the concepts of truth and beauty.

      "Besides, you are wrong with mathematics. 2+2=4. That is true. It is true whether or not it correspondes to 4 actual objects in the real world. And it is true whether or not there exists a mind to comprehend it. But that truth does not have a specific creation point in time."

      Sure it does, with the creation of existence and time. If at one point there was nothing in existence, then logically mathematics did not exist.

      "First we have no objects. Then, we have objects. As a consequence of existing, those objects interact in certain regular ways - that is, they obey certain laws."

      Right. The laws came into existence with the objects.

      "Now we can argue about whether or not those laws existed in potentia,..."

      There is that city in Italy again. Why do you keep bringing it up? ;)

      "Either way, the only things which began to exist were the objects themselves. The laws do not need a creator - they exist specifically as a consequence of the objects existing."

      If they exist as a direct consequence of the creation of the objects, are they not then part of the creation of those objects?

      "They are one and the same."

      No, they are not. The laws governing motion are not motion itself.

      Delete
    10. Nic -

      This is simply an observation.

      "You're an idiot! I'm not insulting you, I'm just stating a fact." I grew out of doing that at school.

      You are saying the laws of nature are the source of nature.

      No I am not. I have not made that claim.

      So it's material which exists, is that right?

      If you want to put it in those terms.

      Principles only exist if minds exist.

      Nonsense. 2+2=4. That was true way before there existed a mind capable of comprehending it.

      And they don't exist in Potentia, Italy either. Well I guess they do as the city does have natural aspects.

      Cute.

      The laws of nature came about as a consequence of the creation of nature itself. Remember, it's you who is arguing for a separate existence.

      But I am not arguing for a separate CREATION. You are.

      If nothing exists, Ritchie, NOTHING exists, even principles.

      And who said such a state ever actually existed?

      Sure it does, with the creation of existence and time. If at one point there was nothing in existence, then logically mathematics did not exist.

      You are now talking about a time before time existed. This is logical nonsense. If time had a specific creation point, then there was never a time before it, was there?

      If they exist as a direct consequence of the creation of the objects, are they not then part of the creation of those objects?

      When you create an object, you do not separately create the laws which govern the way that object will interact with the world. It cannot help but interact with the world by virtue of simply existing.

      "They are one and the same."

      No, they are not. The laws governing motion are not motion itself.


      Now you've just done a complete 180 on your own position. You're saying the laws of motion exist separately to motion itself? So the laws of motion were NOT created as a consequence of moving objects first being created?

      Really, please try to make you arguments at least internally consistent.

      Delete
    11. "This is simply chest-thumping."

      Nic are you Tarzan?

      Me Sasquatch, nice to meet you.

      Delete
    12. Ritchie,

      "Now you've just done a complete 180 on your own position. You're saying the laws of motion exist separately to motion itself? So the laws of motion were NOT created as a consequence of moving objects first being created?

      Really, please try to make you arguments at least internally consistent."

      I'm not the one with the problem here. That would be you, as you demonstrate on a continual basis no ability to reason whatsoever.

      Saying the laws of motion came to be with the origin of motion, but are not motion in and of themselves is not at all inconsistent. In fact it's simple common sense.

      This is not meant to be facetious, but did you graduate from high school? Your ability to critically analyze thought and reason logically is so woeful I'm made to wonder.

      Delete
    13. Eugen,

      "Nic are you Tarzan?"

      No, I'm just extremely frustrating to evolutionists because I don't fall for their weak arguments.

      Delete
    14. Nic

      No, I'm just extremely frustrating to evolutionists because I don't fall for their weak arguments.


      No, you're frustrating because you promise to provide your ID-Creationist explanations for things like the 5 major mass extinction events in the last 500MY, and geologic features like Goosenecks State Park, and why atavistic limbs in cetaceans aren't really atavisms, then never deliver.

      In ranching country you're what's know as "all hat, no cattle".

      Delete
    15. Thorton,

      "for things like the 5 major mass extinction events in the last 500MY, and geologic features like Goosenecks State Park, and why atavistic limbs in cetaceans aren't really atavisms, then never deliver."

      Not to worry my friend, it will be delivered. I do some checking of facts before I respond. if I feel it necessary.

      "In ranching country you're what's know as "all hat, no cattle"."

      Oh don't worry, I've got lots of cattle. What I don't have is hats. I'm not long on hats.

      Working late, but must now go watch my Leafs. More Kessel trade rumours. if they do trade him i hope they can get at least one 1st round pick, but right now I doubt it.

      Take care and don't worry, I'll get your answers.

      Delete
    16. Nic

      Not to worry my friend, it will be delivered.


      I'm sure the explanations will be here by the second Tuesday of next week. :)

      I do some checking of facts before I respond. if I feel it necessary.

      LOL! So you only check facts when you feel it's necessary? That explains most of your nonsensical Creationist claims.

      Oh don't worry, I've got lots of cattle.

      Lots of cattle excrement you mean. But I understand.

      Kessel and ??? for Luongo + ??? Would you pull the trigger on that deal?

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. Nic -

      I'm not the one with the problem here. That would be you, as you demonstrate on a continual basis no ability to reason whatsoever.

      No Nic, you are just too dim to realise the error in your logic.

      Saying the laws of motion came to be with the origin of motion, but are not motion in and of themselves is not at all inconsistent. In fact it's simple common sense.

      "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." This is a law of motion. But it is just a human construct to describe how objects with motion operate. It does not exist as its own ephemeral truth which required individual creation.

      Laws of motion do not exist like legal laws. Again, you are confusing the two. There is no great cosmic book somewhere that dictates to 'Motion' itself how it may and may not operate. In nature, motion just happens. It happens in regular and predictable ways. And the only 'laws' are the ones we humans have written for ourselves to help to try to describe how motion operates.

      Delete
    20. What are Tarzan's last words?

      Which a***ole greased the vine?

      ...old joke...

      Delete
    21. Thorton,

      "LOL! So you only check facts when you feel it's necessary? That explains most of your nonsensical Creationist claims."

      You know exactly what I mean. I check things I'm not sure of. Nothing more. I've not read much on mass extinctions, but I am aware that at least one has good evidence supporting it.

      "Lots of cattle excrement you mean. But I understand."

      Well it only follows with lots of cattle, you get lots of excrement.

      "Kessel and ??? for Luongo + ??? Would you pull the trigger on that deal?"

      I don't think so.

      Delete
    22. Ritchie,

      "No Nic, you are just too dim to realise the error in your logic."

      I'm really getting bored showing you your errors in logic. I'll try one more time, but no more.

      "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." This is a law of motion. But it is just a human construct to describe how objects with motion operate. It does not exist as its own ephemeral truth which required individual creation."

      Never said it did, only that the laws of motion depend on the existence of motion. You're the one who keeps claiming such laws potentially exist before the advent of objects which move, ie before existence itself.

      "Laws of motion do not exist like legal laws. Again, you are confusing the two. There is no great cosmic book somewhere that dictates to 'Motion' itself how it may and may not operate. In nature, motion just happens. It happens in regular and predictable ways. And the only 'laws' are the ones we humans have written for ourselves to help to try to describe how motion operates."

      I never argued otherwise. Remember it was you who kept claiming the potentiality of laws governing nature, motion, etc., prior to either existing.

      Delete
    23. Nic -

      I never argued otherwise.

      Right, it appears we need to step back and examine how we got into this in the first place. Because it seems to me you have totally lost sight of that.

      The point which Andre above was trying to make was that natural laws require a law-giver. Thus we can infer God.

      I was trying to point out that this nonsense. There is no requirement for a law-giver. And this was the point you chose to jump in and carry Andre's argument for him.

      Can we, or can we not infer a cosmic law-giver from 'natural law'?

      If your answer is no, we are in agreement and it seems this whole discussion has been a waste of time.

      If your answer is yes, then you still have not explained why.

      Remember it was you who kept claiming the potentiality of laws governing nature, motion, etc., prior to either existing.

      And I stand by that. Some things are just brute facts that don't need 'creating'. The truth that 2+2=4, for example.

      Delete
  6. Ritchie:

    There was a time before the Big Bang when there were no laws of Nature. So the laws of nature had a beginning. So how do we account for that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. nat -

    There was a time before the Big Bang when there were no laws of Nature.

    Well now that's quite the statement. I don't think you're realising just how much you are asserting there.

    1) There was a time before the Big Bang
    2) There were no laws of nature before the Big Bang
    3) The laws of nature were created at (or by?) the Big Bang

    All these are very big statements. I'm not saying they are wrong, but you seem to by claiming we know them to be true. How? As Stephen Hawking points out in a Brief History of Time, we cannot extrapolate any further back than the Big Bang, so we simply do not know what was before it - or even if there was a 'before' it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The laws we are famiilar with depend on time and space to operate. There wasno time or space before the Big Bang. Hence, no laws like the ones we have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just said there WAS a time before the Big Bang. Now you're saying there was not. Which is it?

      Delete
    2. I should not have said time before the Big Bang above. I couldn't think of another term to describe what it was like. What I meant to say was that our Universe along with the laws that control it, had a beginning.

      Delete
    3. If there was no time before the Big Bang, and natural laws existed from the moment of the Big Bang, then there was never a time before natural laws existed, was there?

      Therefore, how could they be said to have a beginning?

      Delete
  9. Anyway, yhe point is that the laws of nature hada beginning, along with the Universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes you think that?

      Personally, I find the idea of the laws of nature having a beginning to be quite nonsensical. It is like insisting that 'logic' had a beginning and then asking who/what created logic. Or that 'beauty' had a beginning, so who/what created beauty?

      These questions are singularly odd. I find it remarkable anyone thinks they make much sense at all.

      Delete
  10. Nic said:

    "Natural laws are those laws which govern nature, how on earth can you possibly hope to present a sound case that they did not need an originator? Did they just 'pop' into existence on their own?"

    Nic, which "laws" govern 'the designer', and did 'the designer' need an originator or did it just 'pop' into existence on its own?

    natschuster said:

    "What I meant to say was that our Universe along with the laws that control it, had a beginning."

    If everything had a beginning, and has laws that control it, didn't 'the designer' have a beginning and aren't there laws that control it? If so, how, when, and where did 'the designer' and the laws that control it begin, and why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, we know from empirical observation that our universe follows laws, and had a beginning. We can't extrapolate from there that an entity that transcends our universe follows laws, or had a beginning. If we have to then that means that multiverse theory is automatically excluded.

      Delete
    2. The whole truth,

      "Nic, which "laws" govern 'the designer',..."

      The 'laws' which would logically govern an omnipotent being.

      "and did 'the designer' need an originator or did it just 'pop' into existence on its own?"

      The 'designer' did not come into existence. If you wish to believe otherwise you will only take yourself down the illogical, irrational and fallacious path of infinite regression. If that is the path you wish to take, have a good trip. I won't be coming with you.

      Delete
    3. Nic said:

      "By any logical reasoning if the laws of nature are the source of nature itself, they must exist separately from nature."

      And:

      "The 'laws' which would logically govern an omnipotent being."

      Where did the 'laws' that govern an omnipotent being come from?

      "The 'designer' did not come into existence. If you wish to believe otherwise you will only take yourself down the illogical, irrational and fallacious path of infinite regression."

      Why is it okay to exempt 'the designer' ("God") from coming into existence (having a beginning)? Why is it okay to claim that 'the designer' ("God") created the universe out of nothing but it's not okay to ask how, when, where, why, from what, and by whom or what 'the designer' ("God") was created? And why is it okay for you to regress to 'the designer' ("God") but it's not okay to regress even one more step to who or what designed 'the designer' ("God")?

      And one more question for now:

      What if there was/is an entity/being that designed and created the universe but it is absolutely nothing like the "God" you believe in and worship?

      Delete
    4. The whole truth,

      "Where did the 'laws' that govern an omnipotent being come from?"

      They are a natural consequence of his character.

      "Why is it okay to exempt 'the designer' ("God") from coming into existence,..."

      It's not simply a case of deciding to exempt the designer, it's a matter of philosophy and logic. If you demand an infinite regress of origin then you wind up with the logical absurdity of nothing ever beginning to exist. Logic simply demands a first cause which is itself uncaused. This has been a basic tenet of logic and philosophy from day one.

      "why is it okay for you to regress to 'the designer' ("God") but it's not okay to regress even one more step to who or what designed 'the designer' ("God")?"

      Even if one was to grant the argument of infinite regression, it would not exempt you from being responsible to the god who created you. He would be responsible to who created him. Your argument is moot as a result.

      "And one more question for now:

      What if there was/is an entity/being that designed and created the universe but it is absolutely nothing like the "God" you believe in and worship?"

      Hypothetical questions can only be answered hypothetically. So all I can say is I guess I would cross that bridge if and when I came to it.

      Delete
    5. Nic -

      If you demand an infinite regress of origin then you wind up with the logical absurdity of nothing ever beginning to exist. Logic simply demands a first cause which is itself uncaused.

      Let's grant that this is true for argument's sake...

      The earliest link we know in the chain of causes is the Big Bang.

      So if there logically has to be an uncaused first cause somewhere along the line, then what is the problem with the Big Bang being that uncaused first cause?

      Delete
    6. Me: "Where did the 'laws' that govern an omnipotent being come from?"

      Nic: "They are a natural consequence of his character."

      LOL!

      Me: "Why is it okay to exempt 'the designer' ("God") from coming into existence,..."

      Nic: "It's not simply a case of deciding to exempt the designer, it's a matter of philosophy and logic. If you demand an infinite regress of origin then you wind up with the logical absurdity of nothing ever beginning to exist. Logic simply demands a first cause which is itself uncaused. This has been a basic tenet of logic and philosophy from day one."

      Hogwash, it is simply a case of exempting 'the designer-god' because it's convenient for your fairy tale religious beliefs. And I didn't demand an infinite regression. Look again at my question directly below about "one more step".

      Me: "why is it okay for you to regress to 'the designer' ("God") but it's not okay to regress even one more step to who or what designed 'the designer' ("God")?"

      Nic: "Even if one was to grant the argument of infinite regression, it would not exempt you from being responsible to the god who created you. He would be responsible to who created him. Your argument is moot as a result."

      Speaking of moot, try reading and answering what I actually asked. And what the hell does all that "responsible" crap have to do with anything I asked?

      Me: "And one more question for now:

      What if there was/is an entity/being that designed and created the universe but it is absolutely nothing like the "God" you believe in and worship?"

      And yet another evasive response from Nic: "Hypothetical questions can only be answered hypothetically. So all I can say is I guess I would cross that bridge if and when I came to it."

      You've got dishonest-insecure-evasive-delusional-god-zombie-disorder real bad, Nic. It's treatable, and curable.

      Delete
    7. The whole truth,

      "Hogwash, it is simply a case of exempting 'the designer-god' because it's convenient for your fairy tale religious beliefs. And I didn't demand an infinite regression. Look again at my question directly below about "one more step".

      Which leads to one more step, which leads to another and another, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Result? Infinite regression. Not could at critical thought I see.

      "Speaking of moot, try reading and answering what I actually asked. And what the hell does all that "responsible" crap have to do with anything I asked?"

      Obviously you don't know the meaning of 'moot'.

      Well, I think it would be quite obvious. If a god did exist who created the universe and all that it contains, including you, I would think that would make you responsible to him.

      And yet another evasive response from Nic:

      There's nothing evasive about it at all. It only indicates you don't comprehend the nature of a hypothetical question. Your ignorance is not my problem.

      Delete
    8. Ritchie,

      "So if there logically has to be an uncaused first cause somewhere along the line, then what is the problem with the Big Bang being that uncaused first cause?"

      No problem at all, as long as you can reconcile nothing exploding and resulting in everything, which is naturally logical and literal nonsense.

      Delete
    9. Nic -

      No problem at all, as long as you can reconcile nothing exploding and resulting in everything, which is naturally logical and literal nonsense.

      "Nothing exploded" is a silly ID/Creationist soundbite.

      What we actually know about the universe was that it was once extremely dense and extremely hot - a singularity. Which began a period of rapid expansion - the Big Bang.

      Now singularites are extremely odd things. It would be foolish to think we understand them in the slightest. We don't. They break every rule in the physics book. They are total anomalies.

      So where the singularity that started the Big Bang came from, we cannot say. And we certainly cannot establish that it once never existed.

      It is, however, the first cause we can identify. And since you are adamant that there must logically be an Uncaused First Cause, then surely we can assume this singularity to be it.

      Besides, if you have no problem with the idea of an Uncaused First Cause, then how can you have a problem with the idea that something came from nothing? Aren't they basically positing the same thing? How can one be logical and the other be nonsense?

      Delete
    10. Ritchie,

      "Nothing exploded" is a silly ID/Creationist soundbite.

      What we actually know about the universe was that it was once extremely dense and extremely hot - a singularity. Which began a period of rapid expansion - the Big Bang."

      You are probably the worst logician I have ever in my life come across.

      If 'something' expanded in the big bang, then it follows 'something' had to exist. Therefore, for you to propose the big bang as the first cause, which was itself uncaused, is complete nonsense.

      "Now singularites are extremely odd things."

      Let's see some solid proof that such things even exist before we attribute the existence of the universe to one.

      "It is, however, the first cause we can identify. And since you are adamant that there must logically be an Uncaused First Cause, then surely we can assume this singularity to be it."

      How can you possibly assume 'this singularity to be it', when you can't even remotely demonstrate singularities exist? I know you find their existence handy, but I really don't see how your faith in the existence of singularities, and your eagerness to attribute the existence of the universe to their existence, is any different than my faith in God. I'm sure you think there is a world of difference. But you would be wrong.

      "Besides, if you have no problem with the idea of an Uncaused First Cause, then how can you have a problem with the idea that something came from nothing? Aren't they basically positing the same thing? How can one be logical and the other be nonsense?"

      What part of the term 'uncaused first cause' don't you understand?

      Delete
    11. Nic -

      If 'something' expanded in the big bang, then it follows 'something' had to exist.

      And what is the problem with this?

      Therefore, for you to propose the big bang as the first cause, which was itself uncaused, is complete nonsense.

      Why? You yourself stated there has to be an Uncaused First Cause somewhere down the line. Why can't the Big Bang be it?

      Let's see some solid proof that such things even exist before we attribute the existence of the universe to one.

      There are singularities at the center of black holes. And we know those exist.

      How can you possibly assume 'this singularity to be it', when you can't even remotely demonstrate singularities exist?

      It is not assumption. They are inferred through our theories of gravity and astrophysics.

      Do you really imagine your 'Goddidit' soundbite trumps EVERY theory in science?

      I know you find their existence handy, but I really don't see how your faith in the existence of singularities, and your eagerness to attribute the existence of the universe to their existence, is any different than my faith in God.

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

      I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you imagine your personal religious beliefs to be the rational equivalent to the sum total to scientific knowledge. But that is probably because you are a) extremely arrogant and/or b) extremely scientifically illiterate.

      Big Bang theory states that all the matter of the universe was once compressed into a truly tiny point. As hard as that is to fathom, Big Bang theory tells us it is so. This involves no hypothetical beings, merely scientific inference.

      Your faith in God, by contrast, involves belief in a supernatural being, not even testable in principle. It is exactly the same as believing in magic, or fairies or unicorns.

      The two are not even remotely comparable.

      What part of the term 'uncaused first cause' don't you understand?

      I understand the term perfectly. It is you who does not.

      You insist there was an Uncaused First Cause (UFC), but when I propose the universe as it, you demand to know the cause of the universe. That's a massive logic fail right there.

      The trouble is you are in a bind, and if you had the slightest grasp of logic (despite your chest-thumping claims to the contrary) you might realise it.

      You insist there was a UFC. Fine. But the earliest cause we can identify is the Big Bang. So why not just assume the Big Bang is the UFC?

      The only reason God is invoked is as a cause of the Big Bang. But why assume the Big Bang needs one?

      Delete
    12. Ritchie,

      Nic:"If 'something' expanded in the big bang, then it follows 'something' had to exist."

      "And what is the problem with this?"

      If the big bang is the origin of the universe how would something such as the singularity exist? Where was it in existence? Did it actually exist outside of existence? Or did it exist within the already existent universe?

      "Why? You yourself stated there has to be an Uncaused First Cause somewhere down the line. Why can't the Big Bang be it?"

      Because a singularity must be in existence for it to explode. If a singularity has come into existence, it must have a cause and therefore cannot be the first cause.

      "There are singularities at the center of black holes. And we know those exist."

      Do we?

      "It is not assumption. They are inferred through our theories of gravity and astrophysics."

      And an inference is factual proof?

      "Do you really imagine your 'Goddidit' soundbite trumps EVERY theory in science?"

      Not anymore than you 'evolution did it' stories.

      Nic:"I know you find their existence handy, but I really don't see how your faith in the existence of singularities, and your eagerness to attribute the existence of the universe to their existence, is any different than my faith in God."

      Ritchie: "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!"

      Glad to see you had a really convincing counter argument. Not that I expected anything more intelligent.

      "I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you imagine your personal religious beliefs to be the rational equivalent to the sum total to scientific knowledge. But that is probably because you are a) extremely arrogant and/or b) extremely scientifically illiterate."

      Whew, that's quite a long winded ad hominem.

      "Big Bang theory tells us it is so. This involves no hypothetical beings, merely scientific inference."

      Well, big bang theory is quite the authority.

      "Your faith in God, by contrast, involves belief in a supernatural being, not even testable in principle. It is exactly the same as believing in magic, or fairies or unicorns."

      To you perhaps.

      "I understand the term perfectly. It is you who does not."

      That's not what the facts show. Your next statement is proof of that.

      Ritchie:"You insist there was an Uncaused First Cause (UFC), but when I propose the universe as it, you demand to know the cause of the universe. That's a massive logic fail right there."

      The massive logic fail is on you. It's known the universe had a cause. Even you agree with that by claiming the big bang as the source. Now you're proposing the universe as the cause of itself.

      So which is it, did the big bang cause the universe or did the universe cause itself? Perhaps the universe caused the singularity to come into existence, which then exploded in the big bang, causing the universe to come into existence. This then inevitably led to the universe bringing itself into existence.

      On another thread you mentioned something about backing me into logical corners. I guess this is another example of that.

      "The trouble is you are in a bind, and if you had the slightest grasp of logic (despite your chest-thumping claims to the contrary) you might realise it."

      I refer to the above example of Ritchie's impeccable logic.

      Delete
    13. Nic -

      If the big bang is the origin of the universe how would something such as the singularity exist? Where was it in existence? Did it actually exist outside of existence? Or did it exist within the already existent universe?

      One could ask exactly the same questions of the Uncaused First Cause. How suggestive...

      Because a singularity must be in existence for it to explode. If a singularity has come into existence, it must have a cause and therefore cannot be the first cause.

      They are different things. For the singularity to 'explode' it must already have been in existence. Fair enough. But that is not to say that it must have COME INTO existence. If it was the Uncaused First Cause, maybe it never 'came into existence'.

      Do we?

      Yes. We can detect black holes by the effect they have on the surrounding space.

      And an inference is factual proof?

      No, it is an inference. And that is the best you will ever get with science. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

      Not anymore than you 'evolution did it' stories.

      The two are not even remotely comparable. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced theories in the whole of science. ID stems from a literal reading of bronze-age mythology which doesn't even qualify as a theory.

      Well, big bang theory is quite the authority.

      No-one is claiming scientific theories are inerrant. But, intellectually, they are the best we have come up with so far. And to dismiss them, not because you have any contrary evidence, but just because you don't LIKE the conclusions, is thoroughly irrational.

      To you perhaps.

      No, objectively. It has no more evidence than magic or unicorns, and therefore it has no more merit.

      It's known the universe had a cause. Even you agree with that by claiming the big bang as the source.

      I quote from you above: "a singularity must be in existence for it to explode." This is a logical contradiction to the Big Bang being the cause of the universe.

      Still want to presume to lecture me on logic?

      So which is it, did the big bang cause the universe or did the universe cause itself?

      False dichotomy. How about this for an explanation:

      The singularity always existed. Uncaused, of course. Because it was, in fact, the Uncaused First Cause. Then, the Big Bang happened, which was, after all, just the ultra-rapid start of a period of expansion.

      Now I do want to point out that this scenario is not necessarily one I believe. My point here is that this is a perfectly plausible and logical one from the conditions you yourself have set down - which still does not necessitate a God. We have an Uncaused First Cause - something which you insist must have existed. We don't have anything 'bringing itself into existence'. And we still do not need a God.

      On another thread you mentioned something about backing me into logical corners. I guess this is another example of that.

      Yes, I guess so. :D

      Delete
  11. TWT said: "If everything had a beginning, and has laws that control it, didn't 'the designer' have a beginning and aren't there laws that control it? If so, how, when, and where did 'the designer' and the laws that control it begin, and why?"

    If high priest Stephen Hawking said we cannot extrapolate back any further than the big bang, why do you expect the other camp to have to come up with an explanation of what preceded God?

    Which gives us more hope? 1) Everything that came from nothing? or 2) Everything that came from the source of love, righteousness and justice?

    I choose #2. Not only is #2 more desirable and more in accordance with what we observe, #1 is just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If high priest Stephen Hawking said we cannot extrapolate back any further than the big bang...

      ... then surely it is pointless to try to infer a cause of the Big Bang?

      Which gives us more hope?

      That is an exercise in wishful thinking. The correct answer is not necessarily 'the one that gives us more hope'.

      Not only is #2 more desirable...

      Irrelevant.

      ...and more in accordance with what we observe...

      Evidence please.

      #1 is just plain stupid.

      Is it? Quantum particles come from nothing. Is that just plain stupid?

      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

      Argument from ignorance.

      Delete
  12. "Which gives us more hope? 1) Everything that came from nothing? or 2) Everything that came from the source of love, righteousness and justice?"

    Hope for what? That your imaginary god won't burn you for eternity?

    I don't get "hope" by believing in fairy tale gods, and especially ones that are depicted as monstrous, jealous, petty, destructive, tyrannical, genocidal maniacs that don't have a clue about love, righteousness, and justice.

    What you call "hope" is actually just fear. Fear of life and fear of death. You god pushers aren't living, you're just existing. You're really no different from a person who's so afraid of snakes that they won't step out of their house, and as they imagine snakes everywhere you imagine evil demons and a demanding, punishing sky daddy everywhere. The demons and sky daddy are delusions in your paranoid mind.

    Tell me, would you be attracted to a person who tells you that you're damaged goods because of something your great, great, great, great, great, etc., grandfather and grandmother allegedly did and that you can only be their friend if you worship them, pray to them, constantly promote them, make sacrifices for them, manipulate your thoughts for them, brainwash and indoctrinate children and adults for them, rape, steal, enslave, destroy, and kill for them, and live your life for them, and if you don't that they will punish you and all of your descendants during life, and after death they will mercilessly punish everyone who doesn't kiss their ass during life, with eternal, excruciating pain in a lake of fire? If not, why are you attracted to an imaginary god that's depicted as that demanding and vicious? And is that what you call love, righteousness, and justice?

    I read something once that is short but profound:

    "A gentleman does the right thing because it's the right thing to do."

    If you do the right thing only because you fear 'the wrath of God', you're not righteous. And if you convince yourself that fear or viciousness is love, you're nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I said believing that everything comes from nothing is stupid.

    Richie pointed to: "The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129) "

    So where does the gravitational force come from? where does the electromagnetic force come from? where does the strong force come from? where does the weak force come from? sciences answer: "don't know" Bible's answer: "God spoke"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. awstar

      So where does the gravitational force come from? where does the electromagnetic force come from? where does the strong force come from? where does the weak force come from?

      I find it so strange that some people think these questions make sense. Who says gravity 'comes from' anywhere? Gravity is just a way two objects with mass interact. It is not a material object. How could it have a creation point?

      sciences answer: "don't know"

      A perfectly sensible, rational stance when evidence is absent. In fact, the ONLY sensible, rational stance.

      Bible's answer: "God spoke"

      Which, until it is supported by the slightest shred of evidence, is just a made-up answer. In science it is not good enough to just make-up answers to mysteries. You have to have some reason to think that answer is actually true, and that means evidence.

      Delete
    2. It is my umderstanding that the Dark Energy is getting stronger as the expansion rate of the Universer accelerates. This means that the net energy in the universe was not equal to zero in the past. And it will not be equal to zero in the future.

      Delete
    3. Then you understand wrong.

      As the universe continues to expand, objects get further away, and gravitational force between them gets weaker.

      Thus the effect dark energy has on us gets stronger.

      But the dark energy itself remains constant.

      Everything is relative. It is not the dark energy getting stronger, it is the universe continuing to expland.

      Delete
  14. Why is the acceleration rate increasing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does. I think this is another mystery.

      Delete
  15. The way I understand it, the vacuum energy is somehow intrinsic to volume of space time. On massive, astronomical scales it adds up to produce repulsive force ensuring gravity will never pull galaxies back together into the "big crunch". Our universe is a one time deal!

    Galactic clusters should stay together because "dark matter" helps to keep them together but the voids between clusters will get bigger in volume. Every second universe's volume increases by many thousands of cubic light years (I don't remember exact number).

    Galaxy clusters are moving away from each other because space time "prepackaged" with the vacuum energy is appearing between them. Where is it coming from? We don't know but possibly from a higher dimension because it's appearing at every point of existing space time.

    Voids are spooky places, some are huge bubbles up to billion light years in diameter. Voids are purest vacuum we can get in our universe. Each cubic meter contains only one atom and a few hundred thousand photons per second "flying" every which way. Those photons are mostly leftovers from the big bang. They are equalizing temperature i.e. transferring energy between different regions of the universe.

    If you could be placed in the middle of the void you would experience pure darkness. Galaxy clusters would be too far to see and you would be floating in absolute zero temp.- those few photons would not warm you up. There would be no features, no directions, no uniform motion that you would feel. In this reality it would be as close to nothing as it gets.

    Reminds me of going swimming far off shore. When you see your legs dangling over the deep blackness you can swim only so long before it becomes very uncomfortable and you need to climb back on the boat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eugen,

      I thought the theory goes that everything at some point in the future with be affected,The Big Rip.

      Delete
    2. "Big Rip"
      Yes, that's what's predicted. Anyway, last night was clear and not windy. I was outside observing with my daughter. It was -7C...we were frozen after half an hour.

      Delete
  16. I was under the impression that early on, the inertial explansion of the Big Bang was less than the force of gravity. This means that there was suppose that the expansion was slowing down, and there was going to be a big crunch. It also means that the net energy of the universe was not zero. But then the Dark enrgy kicked in, and it is causing the expansion to accelerate. This means, again, that the net energy isn't zero. We haoppen to be livin gat teh point where they exactly cancel. Hence omega is zero, or close to it. But this is temporary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are you getting all of this from exactly? Can you point to any sources supporting (and, hopefully, explaining) these claims?

      Delete
  17. Anyway, if one uninverse can pop out of nowwhere, as long as the total energy is zero, then we should see uninverses poping out of nowhere with net total energy of zero happening all the time. Why don't we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where in the universe does a place of 'nothingness' exist for a universe to pop out of?

      Delete
  18. Why do we need nothingness? As long as the net energy is zero then it is as if there is no violation of conservation of energy then it should be happening if it can happen. If it is natural, then it should happen more than once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know it should?

      We do not know the exact circumstances of the Big Bang. So we cannot say whether or not they should be happening all over the place all the time.

      Delete
  19. I understood Hawking's point to be that as long as the net energy value of the Universe is zero, then it can pop out of nowhere without violating the First Law of THermodynamics. That should apply anywhere in our Universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should it?

      Here's an interesting blog on the subject:

      http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/03/are-miniature-black-holes-ever/

      Delete
  20. I didn't see anything that addressed the point I was making, (unless I didn't understand it.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I thought it was a tangentally related topic. It seems, (according to this source at least) that were it not for a few inconvenient factors the universe would be full of tiny black holes - that is, singularities.

      Anyway, More in keeping with the point I was trying to make above, the Big Bang did not occur WITHIN the universe. It occurred outside of the universe. And who is to say the conditions inside the universe are as conducive to singularities as those outside it?

      Delete
  21. So are you are saying that to explain the Universe we have to go outside the laws of nature we are are familiar with?

    I understood Prof. Hawking to be saying that, if the net energy of the Universe is zero, then a Universe an pop out of nowhere without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, that is, it doesn't violate the laws of nature that we are familiar with. That being the case, we should see universes with net energies of zero popping out all the time. Virtual particles pop up all the time. This doesn't violate First Thermodynamics because the Uncertainty Principle allows them to pop up as long as they disappear before they are detected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So are you are saying that to explain the Universe we have to go outside the laws of nature we are are familiar with?

      Not quite. I am saying what happens outside the universe should not really bear much indication as to what happens inside it.

      I understood Prof. Hawking to be saying that, if the net energy of the Universe is zero, then a Universe an pop out of nowhere without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, that is, it doesn't violate the laws of nature that we are familiar with. That being the case, we should see universes with net energies of zero popping out all the time.

      Why? Who says the First Law of Thermodynamics is the only thing preventing them from doing so? Maybe there are other forces stopping this from happening.

      Delete
  22. increase of knowledge. In the coming days, I still have to continue men cashmere sweater to enrich themselves, to fight in students in the graduate design relations further between the students help each other understand everyone together to discuss and listen to different views of our better understanding of

    ReplyDelete