Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Thinking God's thoughts after Him? Or pretending God isn't there?

The typical scientist of today cannot explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution without sounding like idiots.  Or perhaps more like brainwashed automatons spitting out the same old stuff decade after decade!   I have soldiered on in the blog world for several years and have seen that the majority of Darwinists have swallowed a staggeringly improbable and increasingly debunked hypothesis whole and will not have their intellectual stomachs pumped even upon threat of death because in actuality their adherence to Darwinism is metaphysical in nature.   Science is so often not science at all, it is religion.   The religion of Anything But God is big business.  But is it in any way logical?

One of my favorite bands of my younger days was The Moody Blues.  I first heard of them as the perpetrators of a standard-issue 60's rock ballad = Go Now.  They sounded a little like Gerry and the Pacemakers meets the BeeGees back then.  They were one of the first popular progressive rock bands, however, when they began going for a symphonic/rock fusion and became one of the classic "Seeker" bands...always searching not quite finding The Answers to The Questions.    A bit like King Crimson but far more successful, they had a series of hit albums and songs in the late 60's and early 70's, such as...




Here is the remarkably difficult and simple truth...we are able to traverse three dimensions and are bounded by a fourth.  We can postulate and theorize about other dimensions to the material world in which we live.  We have.  What we cannot do is escape our materialistic prison physically.  

Herein lies the problem.  If, as the lamentably misguided Carl Sagan said, the Universe is all there was, all there is and all there will ever be then there are massive problems that strain credulity.

1)  By the laws of thermodynamics, we know that nothing is being created or destroyed.  Never have we observed things popping into existence.  Do not be fooled by the assertions of those who have studied Quantum Mechanics.   Even if a particle can seem to be two places at once, even though it may seem to react to conditions exerted upon another, the sum total of particles observed never changes.   Nothing is being created or destroyed.  Ergo, there is no natural source for existence.

2)  By these same laws, we know that the Universe is running downhill from energy into entropy.  We are heading for heat death.  We also understand that the Universe is NOT eternal but rather had a beginning and it is headed for an end.  The Universe is not eternal.   There is no material way to produce it.

3)  We have also learned that information is not produced by the material world.   There has never been a commenter who has been able to refute this and there never will be, either.   Information is intelligence transmitted/received.  Read through that post and think on it.

4)  There is no natural causation for life.   In fact you cannot find that science has a good definition of life itself for they can only describe what organisms have it and describe aspects of it but as far as knowing what life itself consists of...no natural means to produce it, no way of completely defining it down to an essence by mankind.  We know when it is present and when it is gone.

5)   There have been educated fools who have tragically tried to explain how something comes from nothing, often by first insisting that it doesn't come from nothing.   Stephen Hawking is the latest epic fail.   Read Buy The Truth's series to see what I mean...

There is only one logical conclusion, that God created all dimensions, time included, and invented the concept of a material world and then spoke it into existence.   God is supernatural and it is limiting to God to say that He "exists" outside of the natural material Universe because "exist" is a finite and temporal concept.   God transcends time and space and matter because they were His idea and He created them.   What God does is far beyond "exist" and so far beyond it that we cannot grasp the magnitude of the difference between existence and Reality. 

Man didn't invent God, as the foolish like to contend.  God revealed Himself to us and the Bible is His Word, a means of communication between a higher power outside of and beyond existence Who is too different from our temporal existence for us to grasp apart from His Word.   Can you teach algebra to your dog?   Can you teach fish how to sing Handel's Messiah?  Those things may have a tiny incredibly remote chance of happening.   That existence created itself?  No possibility at all.  God invented logic and therefore the Universe has logical laws.   But the secrets behind the logic and the very most basic and intricate ways that subatomic particles and very huge objects behave are beyond us.   

Kepler wanted to "think God's thoughts after Him" but we do in fact come to a place where we cannot pass by using our finite minds.   Those who are determined to pretend God is not there will resort to the absurdity of having an observed force of the material world CREATE the material world!?
  
Hawking's Grand Delusion parts one, two and three.  Excerpt:

"...Stephen Hawking is doubtless a very intelligent man, but in his most recent book The Grand Design (surely a title that is supposed to be ironic) he has shown that even the most intelligent of scientists can write like a fool, and this monograph will become a classic for that very reason. He followed up his inanities in an interview on Larry King Live on September 10, 2010. It is now evident to all (if anyone was hitherto in any doubt) that Hawking’s brilliance is in a very narrow field indeed, apart from which he gropes and stumbles like a drunken man. Early in his book he announces
Philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
As William Lane Craig has remarked, such a verdict is
not merely condescending, but also…outrageously naïve. The man who claims to have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it.
Indeed, Hawking and his sidekick Mlodinow proceed to show just how ignorant they are of philosophy, theology, the philosophy of science, the history of philosophy, the history of science, and general science itself. In the Larry King Live show Hawking was asked who his hero was, and why, to which he responded:
Galileo, the first modern scientist who realized the importance of observation.
Well, you can have who you like as your hero, of course, but the historical claim about Galileo is utter rot. He couldn’t hold a candle to the likes of Kepler, for one. Galileo was a second-rate scientist in the main, who continued to his dying day to deny gravitational force as constraining bodies to rotate around the sun, clinging to an Aristotelian idea that celestial bodies ‘naturally’ moved in ‘perfect’ circles because they were not acted upon by a centripetal force, and he refused to accept Kepler’s careful observations and tabulated data that planets were subject to gravitational pull and moved in ellipses. He likewise refused to believe that the sun and moon caused the tides, as Kepler showed, because he denied extraterrestrial gravity. Apart from his last work, under house arrest, on mechanics, the myth of Galileo’s supposed greatness is the deliberate invention of atheists, communists and other anti-Christians, who have cunningly warped history since the nineteenth century to promote a ‘conflict thesis’. Mighty interesting that Hawking, who has built his reputation on pushing cosmic gravity into the absurd, without observational corroboration, should have as his hero one who denied extraterrestrial gravity and who often espoused dogma over meticulous observation..."

Hawking is remarkably wrong!!!

~~~~~~~

Infinity through dark glasses

Even something as straightforward as mathematics can give us a glimpse of things our finite minds find hard to grasp—but they’re real nonetheless.

Infinity symbol
Published: 3 May 2011(GMT+10)

There are some deep issues about God, eternity and the like which, while not logical paradoxes,1 are mind-stretchingly outside of our normal experience. They include: God’s triune nature; what the spiritual realm might consist of; how He can be infinite, and yet at the same time personal; and more.

Activity outside of time

 

One could also mention the mysterious fact that God can be outside of time (as its Creator) and yet engage in activities which to us are always time-sequential. For example, John’s Gospel repeatedly indicates that there was love between the three persons of the Godhead prior to creation. But it is generally understood that, before this space-matter-time continuum was created, God was existing in a timeless eternity, mirroring an eternity yet future. Love requires some form of expression, and generally communication. Yet our experience of communication is one word after another, i.e. a sequence in time. In fact, in our time-bounded cosmos, even wordless expressions of love have a beginning and ending, both of which involve time. So how can there be love in timelessness?

But it is precisely in the field of mathematics itself, where rigorous proofs are possible, that we find evidence of an ‘irreducible complexity’ to the world.


Similar mind barriers arise, too, when we start to think deeply about the concept of ‘infinity’, even though this might appear at first glance to be much more straightforward. It includes the concepts that God is infinitely ‘old’ (eternal), infinitely knowledgeable (omniscient) and infinitely powerful (omnipotent).

It is both common and reasonable to resort to the notion that our finite minds simply can’t be expected to have the ‘processing power’ to grapple with such things, any more than a goldfish can be expected to grapple with genetic algorithms, or a cat comprehend calculus. Skeptical materialists,2 of course, will generally paint that as a copout. To them, it just shows that the concepts themselves are irrational, hence unreal.


The mysteries of modern physics

 

Increasingly, however, mankind’s God-ordained3 investigations are discovering things which show that even this present world is far more mysterious than we generally think. These include the way in which time actually flows at different speeds in different parts of a gravity field.4 Several creationist physicists have made use of this experimentally proven concept (without adjusting for it, GPS locations would drift by metres each day). Because of it, it becomes both feasible and understandable for light to have reached us from the most distant stars in a universe that is 6,000 years old (by Earth clocks).5
 
Wikipedia.org
Kurt Gödel
Kurt Gödel

Then there is the field of physics known as quantum mechanics (QM). QM is immensely successful and useful, and at the same time stunningly mysterious and counter-intuitive.6 Experiments seem to show, for example, that a single particle can go through two slits at once, provided there is no way it can be ‘observed’ to do so.

When the cleverest physicists try to make sense of it, they start to come up with notions so bizarre that one could almost question their grip on reality. In all seriousness, many of them maintain that the best way to understand what happens in QM experiments is to invoke the idea of ‘parallel universes’. This means that when something happens in this universe, all other possibilities are covered in other universes. Say for instance that you were to roll a ‘6’ on one of a pair of dice (rather than any of the other five numbers), then at that moment five alternative (‘parallel’) universes spring into existence (or have already existed among an infinity of such universes). That way, all of the other five numbers can come up, too—one in each universe.

That interpretation of QM is, perhaps surprisingly, fairly popular among physicists. It might be easy to dismiss it as being fairly obviously irrational. But there is no doubt that the things this idea is trying to explain include some really weird stuff. Like the observation that a particle widely separated from its ‘twin’ is instantly affected by something that happens to the other particle—regardless how far apart.

Meaning in mathematics?

 

Despite the weirdness of the world such things reveal, optimists might hope that some future theory could unify all these phenomena.7 They would like to be able to reduce everything to a much simpler set of mathematical expressions. This quest and its link to deeper meaning was parodied around 1980 in the science/philosophy spoof series The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The universe’s ultimate supercomputer was assigned the task of finding the meaning of “life, the universe and everything”. After countless eons of number-crunching, the answer emerged as ‘42’.

Radar Youtube Intrusion:  



Now back to our article:

Even given our limitations, our finite minds can, it seems, use the tools of mathematics to confirm that there are things that, though real, are out of our conceptual reach.


But it is precisely in the field of mathematics itself, where rigorous proofs are possible, that we find evidence of an ‘irreducible complexity’ to the world. This evidence stands in bold defiance of all of our efforts to make the world understandable to our minds. The mathematician Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem famously proved that it was impossible for mathematics (or any other system8) to formally prove or understand itself within its own rules.9
 
It’s as if Gödel was formalizing the idea expressed in Ecclesiastes 3:11b:
… he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
This is often thought to refer to our hunger to understand things, especially the deep timeless truths of the way the world is and operates. It is God, the preacher says, who has placed this quest for knowledge into the hearts of humanity. But He has done things in such a way that no person is able to find out everything about His works from beginning to end. Some things are going to remain forever out of reach.

Mathematics and infinity 

 

Wikipedia.org
George Cantor
George Cantor 
At least, we might have thought, mathematics has a straightforward way of handling infinity. Start counting 1,2,3,4 … and so on, and it’s not hard to see that the number you could reach is infinitely large, i.e. the number of possible numbers is ‘infinity’. There’s even a mathematical symbol for it, ∞. So this seems to offer hope that we can at least begin to comprehend the infinite characteristics of God.

But here, too, it’s more complicated than that. It turns out that mathematics reveals not just the reality of infinity, but even deeper (or greater, or higher if you like) infinities—even though that hardly seems possible at first glance. How can it do that? In all those numbers you can count, there are ‘sets’ of numbers. For example, all the even numbers, or all numbers divisible by 8, and so on. The number of such possible sets can be shown to also be ‘infinity’. But mathematician George Cantor formally proved that this ‘infinity’ is actually greater than the first ‘infinity’ mentioned above. And that’s not the end of it; by looking at this infinite number of sets, there is a higher infinity again above that. In other words, there is a ladder, or infinite hierarchy, of infinities. And above and beyond that still, mathematicians are catching glimpses of something so high above this ‘infinity of infinities’ that they themselves are saying that it will probably never be approachable by the normal laws of mathematics.10
 
Contemplating all this should make even the most hardened materialist pause and draw breath. Even given our limitations, our finite minds can, it seems, use the tools of mathematics to confirm that there are things that, though real, are out of our conceptual reach. In this way, we are allowed at least a very tiny glimpse into some of the eternal and unsearchable depths of God and the world He made. But no more than a glimpse; it’s as if we have discovered a sign saying, ‘There are wondrous things beyond this point, but for you it’s this far, and no farther for now.’

As the Apostle Paul put it, talking about our present existence, before we are enlightened in that new creation: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Corinthians 13:12). How tremendous that we can, right now, through Christ, truly know the infinite-personal Creator God. We can know the One who knows all about all of these things—and all about each one of us—already.

Related articles

 

Further reading

References

  1. Logical paradoxes (e.g. questions of whether God can create a married bachelor, or make a rock too heavy for Him to lift) are not mysteries potentially capable of resolution by a greater mind, but can be dismissed as meaningless non-issues/absurdities. See also If God can do anything, then can He make a being more powerful than Himself? What does God’s omnipotence really mean? Return to text.
  2. Those who believe that matter/energy is the only reality—there is no supernatural. Return to text.
  3. Genesis 1:28—the Dominion Mandate. Return to text.
  4. Predicted and explained by Einstein’s General Relativity (GR). Return to text.
  5. See Hartnett, J., Starlight, Time, and the New Physics, Creation Book Publishers, 2007; and Humphreys, R., Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994, which both have models based on time dilation (both at creation.com/store). Return to text.
  6. Einstein himself always had difficulty with QM, which is notoriously resistant to reconciling with GR. Return to text.
  7. In fact, the search is on for such a TOE (theory of everything). It is meant to unite QM and GR. So far, rather than heading in the direction of simplicity, it has only succeeded in throwing up further bizarre notions such as string theory. See Bates, G., Is string the next big thing?, Creation 30(2):32–34, 2008. Return to text.
  8. Of equal or greater complexity to arithmetic. The theorem is also commonly stated as that there are true statements in the system that are not provable from the axioms. Return to text.
  9. Elwes, R., It doesn’t add up, New Scientist 2773:34–38, 14 August 2010; p. 36. It has been taken to mean that perhaps our brains are not capable of fully understanding themselves, i.e. limits to the neuroscientific endeavour. Return to text.
  10. Ref. 9, p. 38, A ladder of infinities. Return to text.




Actually, God is The Answer! Do you have the ability to understand? Or will you be defiantly questioning until your dying day?

42 comments:

radar said...

Alex says that "The Dolphins had a higher porpoise!"

Jon Woolf said...

The typical scientist of today cannot explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution without sounding like idiots.

A subject on which you're clearly an expert.

By the laws of thermodynamics, we know that nothing is being created or destroyed. Never have we observed things popping into existence.

Speak for yourself.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, within the limits of the uncertainty principle. Quantum physics says that the First Law is not absolute -- that if it was absolute, then matter would not exist. Much of atomic physics depends on the action "virtual exchange particles," which are by definition particles whose existence violates the First Law.

The Universe is not eternal. There is no material way to produce it.

That we know of.

Yet.

We have also learned that information is not produced by the material world.

Except when it is, which it is all the time.

When the cleverest physicists try to make sense of it, they start to come up with notions so bizarre that one could almost question their grip on reality.

Well, of course. I told you that Coyote just loves messing with our heads. QM and its cousins quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics are just a few examples of this. What we poor limited humans call 'logic' and 'reason' just don't work at the subatomic level. You can't interpret QM using conventional standards. You can only understand it using its own standards.

Anonymous said...

"We also understand that the Universe is NOT eternal but rather had a beginning and it is headed for an end."

This is just full-on speculation.

And that's where your whole line of reasoning breaks down.

radar said...

Those who do not believe the laws of thermodynamics apply are revealed to be rather unscientific. QM doesn't falsify thermodynamics nor does it destroy relativity.

All conclusions about the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of time and matter and life must needs include hypothesis and cannot be proved by any currently known method. The question is rather whether the hypothesis is logical and best fits the evidence.

As to whether the Universe is eternal or not, you either believe the tried and tested laws like thermodynamics and biogenesis or you trust in Coyote. The Universe has a start according to the evidence, thus precluding it from being eternal.

creeper said...

"Those who do not believe the laws of thermodynamics apply are revealed to be rather unscientific"

Only creationists are doing that with their special pleading. Evolutionists, for lack of a better word, aren't.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"All conclusions about the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of time and matter and life must needs include hypothesis and cannot be proved by any currently known method. The question is rather whether the hypothesis is logical and best fits the evidence."

A hypothesis that posits that the Universe was created 6,000 years old doesn't fit the evidence, so out with it.

creeper said...

"As to whether the Universe is eternal or not, you either believe the tried and tested laws like thermodynamics and biogenesis or you trust in Coyote."

If you want to claim that the law of biogenesis is tested, you shouldn't forget the footnote that the impossibility of abiogenesis by natural means has never been tested. You're engaging in (and most likely have fallen for) a little sleight of hand here.

As for the laws of thermodynamics, they tell us that there is no beginning of the Universe.

"The Universe has a start according to the evidence, thus precluding it from being eternal."

What evidence would that be? I suspect some sloppy thinking is going on here.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

"QM doesn't falsify thermodynamics nor does it destroy relativity."

I never said it did, grasshopper. It does, however, falsify the foolishly absolute strawman version of thermo that you and your fellow creationists cling to.

See, there's this thing called "the uncertainty principle" in QM, which (among other things) says that you can't be watching a subatomic particle all the time. In particular, you can't maintain a continuous measurement of a particle's energy content. You can only measure it at discrete points in time. It has to revert to its original state each time you observe it (which has some interesting implications in itself), but in-between observations, that particle can do anything it bloody well likes. Including breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

Physicists have demonstrated that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces all function via the exchange of virtual particles -- particles that exist within the time/space uncertainty aspect of the uncertainty principle. The existence of a virtual particle violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, but we never see the violation because we never see the virtual particle thanks to the uncertainty principle. No uncertainty principle = no atomic nuclei, no atoms, and no solid matter.

Anonymous said...

"All conclusions about the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of time and matter and life must needs include hypothesis and cannot be proved by any currently known method."

Out of these, the only one we know had a beginning is life.

radar said...

So sad, the brainwashed assertions. The average scientist/commenter doesn't know the history of science very well or the history of philosophy, seems unwilling or unable to comprehend the concept of the law of biogenesis or the precepts of thermodynamics, information theory or the scientific method.

No life has ever been observed to appear from non-life under any circumstances.

No information has been observed to arise from naturalistic sources ever.

The laws of thermodynamics have never been broken under observation.

Macroevolution has never been observed to occur.

The very backbone of Darwinism and all the basic premises of the same are based entirely upon supposition and do not match the evidence. The evidence clearly points to a Universe with a beginning and an end. Organisms are obviously designed and obviously packed with specific, intentional information that allows for redundancies and contingencies. There are insurmountable chemical and molecular barriers to life forming naturally even if the components could be formed and they cannot.

Clearly Darwinism is about as anti-science as one can get. Clearly most of the commenters do not know much about the subjects we discuss as they assert all sorts of nonsense. Otherwise they would at least admit the facts above and try to reason their way out of the logic puzzle they are in rather than simply pretending facts are not facts.

Anonymous said...

"The typical scientist of today cannot explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution without sounding like idiots."

Symbiotic relationships are easily explained in terms of evolution. Interesting qualifier: "without sounding like idiots". I guess you had to put that in to avoid coming up with an actual argument.

Jon Woolf said...

[yawn]

"No life has ever been observed to appear from non-life under any circumstances."

There are a lot of circumstances we've never had a chance to observe.

"No information has been observed to arise from naturalistic sources ever."

When a tracker 'reads' a track and gets information about the animal (or machine) that left it, where did that information come from?

"The laws of thermodynamics have never been broken under observation."

But they're broken all the time when we're not looking.

"Macroevolution has never been observed to occur."

Under what definition of 'macroevolution'?

creeper said...

"When a tracker 'reads' a track and gets information about the animal (or machine) that left it, where did that information come from?"

Ditto for tree rings and ice core layers...

"The laws of thermodynamics have never been broken under observation."

Exactly. Not even when animals reproduce, with variation. Ergo evolution is not in violation of the laws of thermodynamics either.

"Macroevolution has never been observed to occur."

"Under what definition of 'macroevolution'?"

I think it's more the definition of "observation" that's at issue. We can observe macroevolution in the fossil record, for example.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"The typical scientist of today cannot explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution without sounding like idiots."

Note that this actually means "without sounding like idiots to Radar".

Given Radar's track record of misunderstanding and misrepresenting science (witness his claims re. bacteria...) this isn't much of a statement.

Yes, scientists today can explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution.

And yes, Radar can read the science and think it sounds like they're idiots.

And that's a very different thing from those scientists actually being idiots, or even being wrong.

-- creeper

radar said...

""Under what definition of 'macroevolution'?"

I think it's more the definition of "observation" that's at issue. We can observe macroevolution in the fossil record, for example.

-- creeper"

No, you cannot. You interpret the fossil record. Observation happens when a process is happening. Macroevolution has never been observed.

radar said...

"Given Radar's track record of misunderstanding and misrepresenting science (witness his claims re. bacteria...) this isn't much of a statement.

Yes, scientists today can explain symbiotic amphibian/algae in terms of evolution.

And yes, Radar can read the science and think it sounds like they're idiots.

And that's a very different thing from those scientists actually being idiots, or even being wrong.

-- creeper"

Seeing as how your attempts to explain science have been consistently epic fails, why would anyone believe what you say?

radar said...

Woolf, So you believe in this Coyote rather than God? That would explain a lot of things like being happily ignorant of thermodynamics and information theory and biogenesis. You think problems to be solved are just Coyote messing with our minds? Now THAT is an interesting way to do science.

Your characterization of thermodynamics is completely wrong. Not just energy, but matter, is neither created nor destroyed. QM doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics although it puzzles everyone because it often appears to violate laws of science and yet, when you do the calculations, it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, MASSIVE fail!

You truly are hilarious. Keep on going!

Anonymous said...

Radar to creeper,

"Seeing as how your attempts to explain science have been consistently epic fails, why would anyone believe what you say?"

Um, in whose opinion, other than yours (and perhaps hb), have these attempts to explain science been "epic fails"? Most of your commenters agree wholeheartedly with creeper's explanations. In fact, almost all of us would likely describe your own failings against "Darwinism" as being "epic fails".

This is how I picture Radar as he wrote the above responses to creeper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
(Michael Scott "No God No" Office clip)

Similarly, in terms of The Office analogies, I would also say that if Radar found himself in a bunker with Osama, Hitler and Darwin, he'd definitely shoot Darwin twice.

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf, So you believe in this Coyote rather than God?"

Well now, I wouldn't say that. Although I'll admit that the tales of Coyote and his brethren Tricksters are much more fun to read than anything in the Bible. And often somewhat more believable. If there are gods Out There, then I think they're probably more of Coyote's type than your god's type. The Universe is an exercise in absurdity -- what could be more appropriate than absurd deities?

Radar: "Not just energy, but matter, is neither created nor destroyed."

[snork]

Look up pair production, then get back to me. See also fission, fusion, and matter-antimatter annihilation.

Please, Radar, can't you at least make it difficult to show how wrong you are?

creeper said...

"No, you cannot. You interpret the fossil record."

That's right. We interpret the observations. We can see the remains of different types of organisms in different layers in the fossil record. We can apply scientific principles from different fields of science to draw conclusions about the age (both relative and absolute) of those layers. This allows us to deduce that certain organisms lived before and after certain other organisms. When we look at the sum total of the finds, we can deduce that organisms lived on Earth in a certain sequence over time. We can track the features of those organisms changing over time. And that is how we can observe macroevolution having taken place in the finds.

You can say "it's just an interpretation", but so far, no other interpretation of the evidence has been found, not by YECers, not by anyone. How do YECers explain radiometric data? They can't. How do YECers explain the particular sequence in which fossils are found in the fossil record? They can't.

So when you say that it's just an interpretation, what you're leaving out is this: "it's the only interpretation so far that fits all the evidence, and no other interpretation has yet been presented."

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Observation happens when a process is happening."

That's what I meant when I said I thought it was the definition of "observation" that was at issue.

This is nonsense, Radar. Observation happens when something is observed, but we can observe things that allow us to make deductions about things that have already happened.

Take tree rings. We can observe the tree rings when we cut down the tree; we don't observe the tree rings while they are being created. And yet the tree rings allow us to make deductions in hindsight.

"Macroevolution has never been observed."

Wrong. It has even been observed while it was happening. You've even blogged about a particular experiment that was an example of that.

(Cue Radar misrepresenting a number of scientific terms, in this case 'speciation' and 'macroevolution'.)

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Seeing as how your attempts to explain science have been consistently epic fails, why would anyone believe what you say?"

Interesting. I could point some readers here to threads where I make certain points of science and logic absolutely crystal clear to you, and you refuse to listen. Some examples:

1. Your claim about the prison population rested on a colossal logic error, and you consistently failed to grasp what I was even talking about, even though it was presented in extremely basic language and concepts. (Anybody who'd like to see examples of this, do a search for "Timbuktu" on this blog.)

2. Your claim that the fact that bacteria didn't turn into something other than bacteria in a limited scientific experiment was supposed to be a falsification of the theory of evolution.

And in general you routinely run away from questions that make you uncomfortable or attempt to belittle them.

Now, I'll grant you that I've failed in swaying you, but that was hardly due to a lack of facts being presented to you, nor was it due to you having rebutted any of them. Instead, you simply stuck your fingers in your ears.

I think that that is probably clear to all your regular readers on both sides of this divide.

But here's what I don't get... how is your obtuseness supposed to put my credibility in a bad light?

Seems to me that somebody who fails to grasp something as simple as the fallacy of division or who - after years of blogging on scienceish subjects - can't grasp some of the basic concepts that he's arguing against - that's the person that's shedding credibility.

-- creeper

radar said...

Woolf, you continue to pretend to answer the information question by pretending a paw print is information. No, it isn't, that is actually so wrong but then I think you know it and you are loathe to consider the truth.

Creeper, on the other hand, I just think you just don't know what you are talking about so you parrot others.

It astounds me that anyone would twist the concept of observation so willingly and expect others to believe it?

Oh, I would love for Woolf to demonstrate a violation of thermodynamics, because his QM referrences do not qualify.

radar said...

This one comment thread is going to give me at least one blogpost, easily. Wow.

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf, you continue to pretend to answer the information question by pretending a paw print is information."

Are you saying it isn't? A paw print can tell me what type of animal made it, its size, and its direction of travel. Several prints in a single trail can reveal the speed of travel and something about its likely purpose. And sometimes more.

As for violations of thermodynamics: as I said, look up the uncertainty principle and how it affects the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. None of those forces would work at all if the First Law of Thermodynamics was a rigid, unbreakable rule.

You're way out of your depth here, Radar.

creeper said...

"Creeper, on the other hand, I just think you just don't know what you are talking about so you parrot others."

1. Who do you think I'm parroting?

2. You are aware that about 5-10% (rough guess) of your blog is your own words... and the rest (90-95%) is "parroting others" - aren't you?

"It astounds me that anyone would twist the concept of observation so willingly and expect others to believe it?"

Derision is not an argument. What do you disagree with and why?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Woolf, you continue to pretend to answer the information question by pretending a paw print is information. No, it isn't, that is actually so wrong but then I think you know it and you are loathe to consider the truth."

Before you deride Jon, define information IN YOUR OWN WORDS if you can.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"This one comment thread is going to give me at least one blogpost, easily. Wow."

A casual perusal of any old creationist website gives you some article you can copy for a blogpost, so this isn't really saying much.

-- creeper

radar said...

Describe information in my own words?

http://sportsradar.blogspot.com/

creeper said...

Ah yes, the infamous "censorship post".

The definition of information offered there happens not to be in your own words, but in the words of Dictionary.com, and it includes this:

"knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc."

So how does that contradict Jon's example of the paw print?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar, why cant you just define information, right here, in this thread? Note that even when creeper asked for a "definition" you turned around and attempted to provide a "description". Not the same thing at all. Define information in your own words, I dare you.

It's just so funny that you're actually holding up your censorship post as if it means anything, once you deleted and disabled comments. It's a completely artificial "last word" and you know it.

Anyway, the real reason I wanted to throw down a comment today was to apologize for blowing the Office reference in my comment above. I'm on a roll here lately, first I screw up the spelling of Bill Maher's last name (a pretty minor error that Radar felt the need to point out multiple times for some reason) and now this. Anyway, it should have read,

"Similarly, in terms of The Office analogies, I would also say that if Radar found himself in a bunker with Osama, Hitler and Darwin, with a gun and only two bullets, he'd definitely shoot Darwin twice."

There, I feel better now.

- Canucklehead.

Oh and not that it matters one iota, but kudos to Jon and creeper for all their recent posts. I strongly believe that you guys actually flip the script on this blog, in that your thoughtful and educated comments end up making this site into a great example of the utter failings of YEC, ID, and creationism in general. Even Lista tried to pile on but was scared away by all the knowledge you were dropping on him. So, with that, please keep up the good work gents.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my bad, it appears that Lista is still at it. Even after claiming to be utterly bored with the discussion. And apparently he's a she.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/04/atheism-irrational-faith-recapitulation.html

It's just so funny to me that people like Lista and Radar, who are clueless when it comes to the modern theory of evolution (because flat out they refuse to read anything that hasn't been approved by their creationist masters) actually put themselves out there as legitimate critics. It's just straw-man after straw-man, and logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I wonder if Lista was indoctrinated as a child or if she was a scumbag and hit rock-bottom and then clung to Xianity, like Radar.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

"creationist masters" again? Do you have "darwinist masters", Canucklehead? Is that why you keep saying the same stuff over and over.

My information post is a comprehensive resource that includes long lists of comments by such as Canucklehead on each individual post linked and also provides an overview and even a bit of history of the information question here on this blog.

Canucklehead probably doesn't even know much about evolution at all and he certainly appears to be ignorant of ID and creationism so he resorts to throwing stones. It is because I will not waste time answering the same questions over and over again that I made the Ultimate Information Post and have set it up to be an online resource.

Were I in a bunker with Darwin, Hitler and Osama I would leave before the stench of rotting flesh overwhelmed my nose. They are all dead. I would, however, kill off their belief system in this order:

Islam
Darwinism
Fascism

Islam has been killing people long before Darwin and Marx and Nietzsche and Malthus were born, so it would go first.

Darwinism is a necessary foundation for Hitler's Aryanism/Superman teachings, so of course I would take out Darwin before Hitler so that no Hitler would appear in the first place. But I really think we need to appreciate the full team of players:

Uniformitarianists (now debunked)

Darwinists (debunked by evidence although not yet killed off philosophically)

Malthusian alarmists have segued nicely into climate alarmists and joined with radical greenies. (All completely full of govno but unfortunately still influential)

Eugenicists and racists (mostly the racists hide behind another nameplate and eugenicists largely concentrate on abortion now)

Atheopaths (God-haters. Good numbers of them in all of the above groups)

Brainwashed "nice" people (Those who don't give much thought to what they are taught)

Socialists and Communists = collectivists (a curse on society that always leads to tyranny and the loss of individual rights and freedoms)

Fools and Pagans (Those dedicated to worship themselves and/or nature)

Scammers (Like Al Gore, who probably doesn't believe his own hogwash but it has made him rich and given him a couple of nice things to put on one of his mantles)

radar said...

Woolf doesn't understand the uncertainty principle. It doesn't claim that particles break any laws of thermodynamics but rather something more interesting - that particles can be any spin and be traversing several paths at any one time UNLESS THEY ARE OBSERVED at which point they settle on one spin and one direction. QM is actually pretty crazy stuff but no one in the field is specifying that QM defies thermodynamics. There is no violation of thermodynamics because particles do not "disappear" and "reappear" they simply exist in different places at different times. This only makes sense if there is some intelligence underlying the functionality of all of the temporal world and QM has taken us to the area where we begin to become unable to comprehend a higher intellect.

Biogenesis has been tested so many times and is always proven to be true. Scientists have been scrambling to figure out a way to "help" nature produce life from non-life (abiogenesis) unsuccessfully for many decades. Sounds like tested and failed to me.

Anonymous said...

"Darwinism is a necessary foundation for Hitler's Aryanism/Superman teachings, so of course I would take out Darwin before Hitler so that no Hitler would appear in the first place."

ROFLMA!!

This is getting better and better by the minute.
You really missed a career as a comedian, Radar.

anonymouse said...

"Socialists and Communists = collectivists (a curse on society that always leads to tyranny and the loss of individual rights and freedoms)"

So, when can we expect western Europe to descend into tyranny?

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf doesn't understand the uncertainty principle. It doesn't claim that particles break any laws of thermodynamics"

Well, someone certainly doesn't understand the uncertainty principle, but who that is remains to be seen.

Actually, no it doesn't. It's Radar.

"that particles can be any spin and be traversing several paths at any one time UNLESS THEY ARE OBSERVED at which point they settle on one spin and one direction."

What you're talking about here is "Schrodinger wavefunction" type uncertainty, as made famous by a certain cat. Schrodinger uncertainty means you can't know a particle's state until you measure it. But that's not what physicists mean when they talk about the Uncertainty Principle, also known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because Werner Heisenberg was the guy who first figured it out.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that there will always be some uncertainty in our knowledge of a particle's status. We can measure any one aspect of a particle as closely as we wish, but only at the expense of accuracy in one or more other aspects. And in any case, we can never, ever assume anything about a particle's state in between observations. Among other things, we can't assume we know anything about a particle's energy level when we aren't looking at it. This is 'energy-time' uncertainty, and it's the kind I was referring to.

[continued...]

Jon Woolf said...

Unfortunately, this isn't something that can be easily explained in a Blogspot comment. It's just too complicated, and it requires some equations and diagrams. The short and ugly version is that thanks to energy-time uncertainty, a particle can 'break' the law of conservation of energy any time it likes, to any degree it likes, as long as the violation ends before it can be observed. One way that a particle can do this is to emit another particle - one that it doesn't actually have the energy to emit. The emitted particle is then a "virtual" particle (as opposed to a "real" particle, one that can be observed). The virtual particle can go anywhere and do anything, even emit other virtual particles, as long as it gets back to the source particle before the uncertainty 'time limit' expires.

Now, the faster a virtual particle can travel, the farther it can get within that time limit. Photons, traveling at the speed of light, have a large range. Other particles are slower and have shorter ranges. The more massive the particle, the shorter its range. It's been demonstrated (don't ask me how, it takes a lot more knowledge of physics than I have to explain it) that certain virtual particles are vital to the action of the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. The strong nuclear force holds atomic nuclei larger than hydrogen-1 together; the weak nuclear force makes atoms possible; and the electromagnetic force produces ... well, electromagnetism. The weak force and electromagnetism together also account for most of chemistry. Thus: if the law of conservation of energy was rigid, virtual particles couldn't exist. If virtual particles didn't exist, then those three forces wouldn't exist. No complex nuclei, no atoms, no molecules. No planets. No stars. No us.

radar said...

Woolf, it is good to have you speaking real science for once and actually discussing the issue. In point of fact some scientists are looking at electromagnetism theory as being superior to relativity theory in the light of the behavior seen in subatomic particles. No matter how you spin it (pun intended) we never observe thermodynamics laws being violated. That remains true. Theorizing about how they might be violated and observing the violation are two different things.

Actually relativity when tied to the concept of a Big Bang is becoming Ptolemaic rather than real observed science, with so much posited that is not seen. Electromagnetic theory may be eventually a better explanation when it matures. QM is not likely to be completely explicable in my lifetime or yours. But it is fascinating.

creeper said...

"Biogenesis has been tested so many times and is always proven to be true."

And water always flows downhill. Every time I pour water out of a bucket, it flows downhill. Without exception. This confirms without a doubt that water can never rise by natural means.

Right?

Wrong.

"Scientists have been scrambling to figure out a way to "help" nature produce life from non-life (abiogenesis) unsuccessfully for many decades. Sounds like tested and failed to me."

So when Edison had failed to make a lightbulb 500 times in a row, was it proven that it was impossible to make a lightbulb?

You see, in a scientific context, to "test and fail" is not just to try something X number of times and then give up, but to make a specific, falsifiable, testable prediction and then see whether that prediction holds true. The results of the test may be inconclusive or yield interesting information for further research, but in order for them to fail (and thus falsify the hypothesis), the testable, falsifiable prediction must have been shown not to occur under the specified circumstances.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Darwinism is a necessary foundation for Hitler's Aryanism/Superman teachings,"

Hardly. Racial intolerance, genocide, tribalism and cultural chauvinism existed long before Hitler and Darwin. Heck, you can find good examples of it in the Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy).

"so of course I would take out Darwin before Hitler so that no Hitler would appear in the first place."

Hitler relied on Darwin's teachings so much that he included them in the list of books to be banned and burned, so your reasoning in this aspect continues to be an exaggeration at best and delusional at worst.

"Woolf, it is good to have you speaking real science for once and actually discussing the issue."

Oh, the irony... how many times have you run away from attempts to involve you in a discussion of real science to blather on about worldviews and evil atheists and so on? Here are some topics you've run away from: dating methods, ice core layers, dendrochronology, genetic algorithms, information (even stooping to censorship on that one). Nice that you now think it's good to "actually discuss the issue". Perhaps you should do the same.

"No matter how you spin it (pun intended) we never observe thermodynamics laws being violated. That remains true. Theorizing about how they might be violated and observing the violation are two different things."

The laws of thermodynamics are certainly not violated when it comes to reproduction with variation, which is why repeated claims by creationists that the theory of evolution is in violation of the 2nd LOT are just plain wrong.

-- creeper