Search This Blog

Monday, July 04, 2011

My beliefs restated clearly...Darwinism or Evolution is unscientific and unsatisfactory.

One of the commenters directed me to a technical paper dealing with motility systems found in bacteria.  The point of the paper was to hypothesize that there could be a plausible way that one of the less sophisticated systems could have developed into the rotary flagellum of e. coli.  It was a tedious read but I was willing to see what was said.   I then realized what I was seeing.  It was like a local junk yard I use when I need a part that is not vital, like maybe a rotor for a used car or even a real spare tire instead of that ridiculous donut manufacturers give you now.  They buy cars that still run.  When they are worth it, they spiff them up and sell them in front of the junkyard.   Right inside the gates of the junkyard there are the better junk vehicles, the kind that people drove in (right now you drive it in, they pay you a minimum of $300.00) that can be cannibalized nicely.  Farther back the cars are the ones there longer and are missing good portions of their original equipment.  Even farther back is the real junker section, that have been forklifted back because there isn't much left.  Near the back are some hulks that will be fed into the compacter and recycled.  They have a great couple of big forklifts that they use to move automobiles farther and farther back until they are no longer more than scrap metal.

I realized I was seeing Darwinists try to suggest that the junkers were able to become the used cars that would become a new car!   There is no system close enough to the very complex rotary flagellum system of the e. coli to get there in one or two mythical evolutionary jumps.  It would require a large number of new components and the instructions for those components including the on-the-fly replacement and repair mechanism of the system to suddenly appear.   Another hopeful-monster-leap of Darwinist faith unsupported by evidence.   No Darwinist has made any headway on this problem or for that matter the ATP synthase system or DNA or the "spark of life" or any of the fundamental problems facing their mythology, which is why the things they concentrate upon are simply propaganda only believed because it has been said over and over and very irrelevant side issues I like to call rabbit trails.

Modern society takes words and twists their meanings so that they confuse and confound people and attack the fundamental beliefs of mankind by changing definitions.

Natural Selection was and is a component of Creationism and is no help to Darwinists.
Gay used to mean "happy and joyful" and now it means you are a homosexual.
Liberal used to mean that you were kind to others and would share from your abundance.  Now it means you take what well-off people and corporations own away from them and take the ambition of poor people from them by giving them what they have not earned in stealing from those who have.
Science used to be the study of the world using the methods developed and perfected by Creationists, but now it is better described as only part investigation and part indoctrination as the "methodological naturalists" have infected pure science with their religious beliefs while claiming they are not religious.   Hypocrisy!

Speaking of hypocrisy, how about the long months of commenters raking me over the coals about an equation presented by Dr. John Hartnett when it turned out that they were wrong and didn't understand the concepts represented by the equation.  I wonder if they even now understand the concepts Hartnett wanted to present?   Well, I did some careful studying of the Hartnett ideas and realized he was now presenting a form of Carmelian science as formulated by Moshe Carmeli.   Go to the bottom to see a recent post made in 2010 on this particular subject.

I have been researching the Carmelian model of the Universe, which is a five-dimensional model of the Universe in which the fabric of space is stretched out (God states that He stretches space) so that, while less than around 7,000 years have passed on Earth the expansion of space has caused the light to appear to be billions of years old.  We can see the red-shift of stars and galaxies that tell us that the Universe is expanding away from Earth and that evidence suggests that the expansion is accelerating!  I now understand what Dr. John Hartnett was trying to explain.  Dr. Russell Humphreys now proposes a somewhat simpler model for the Universe that does explain the Pioneer anomaly precisely and also gives us a young Earth and a old Space in comparison.   Relativity Theory caused science to understand that time is not the same everywhere in every situation but is actually a variable.  In normal dimensions we cannot manipulate time but when we understand that space is not a vacuum but actually is built upon a kind of fabric not part of a four-dimensional world we see why all objects in space could be moving away from us and also we can explain the massive amounts of energy and mass "missing" from Big Bang equations.  "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are better explained as fudge factors that are input into the BB concept to make up for mass and energy not detected.

Natural selection was first identified by Creationists who proposed the process as a feature of the preservation of the created kinds. Blyth was the man who named the process and he saw it as a design feature. Charles Darwin eventually borrowed it and sought to use it as an agent to change one KIND to another KIND, which has never been observed.

Mutations are the popular means Darwinists claim save the day and cause organisms to evolve. But the problem is that mutation is a negative force that breaks things rather than makes things. Those few mutations that give an organism a selective advantage in special situations also makes the organism less likely to survive in normal situations. Thus, whenever a mutation is passed on through unusual circumstances that particular organism is less robust and less likely to live on.

Furthermore, Haldane's Dilemma is, to put it simply, that like a clock running down our genomes are collecting mutations and copying errors and transpositions that will eventually take us and all creatures to extinction. Just as the clock will run down if not rewound, organisms collect errors and despite the robust systems designed into the organisms to allow for speciation eventually there will be too many.

So, we know that the organism is remarkably complex. People have about 100 trillion cells and we have about ten microorganisms of various kinds in us or on us for every cell. Each cell is a marvel of hardware, software and operating systems with a massive amount of information held within the DNA of the organism.

The cell contains meta information to direct the reproductive process so that, when a new creature is "built" it will be built on the framework of the mother and the assembly instructions will take data from both male and female but are designed to make another of what those creatures are. Horse-kinds will mate with other horse-kinds only and will only produce a horse-kind of offspring. Simpler organisms will still build on the template of the original every time.

Organisms have rich genetic codes that allow for many variations. We see that there are ecosystems based on sunlight-power but there are also ecosystems powered by sulpher and methane on ocean floors where light is not involved at all. So on land and for most of the life at sea photosynthesis in plants provides the energy that is transmitted to the vegetarian animals who are then eaten by carnivores and carrion-eaters. All are then eaten and broken down by smaller carrion eaters, microorganisms and the destructive action of undirected sunlight and wind and other entropic activity.

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are also so fundamentally different that no one can imagine intelligently how one could evolve into another. There are so many forms of eyes found in nature that if evolution were true they would have had to have evolved independently at least ten times.

But back to the cell, with 3 gigs of information in DNA and absolutely no material source for information available. Information is not material in form or substance and yet it exists. It is the transmission of intelligence from a thinking being to another being or into a system to cause it to operate. Only a Creator logically can do this and therefore anyone who is metaphysically opposed to a God must argue against all evidence for a natural cause for things.

But where did the Universe come from? Investigate the Big Bang and the math and observed Universe doesn't work. All they can confidently say is that the Universe had a starting point.

Where does information come from? Where does matter and time come from? Where does life come from? Science has not been able to segregate and identify a substance called "life." The components of DNA cannot form naturally and in fact there are hard chemical barriers that preclude the building blocks of DNA from forming and existing in this natural world without help. Ask any microbiologist how hard it is to get all right-handed or left-handed amino acids because when they are produced they are racemic.
They must pay a lab to do it for them.

In the 19th Century most atheistic scientists decided the Universe had existed forever and that the rock layers had been laid down uniformly over many millions of years. Now we know the Universe had a beginning and the rock layers are catastrophic, jumbled, twisted and full of anomalies and mysteries that only a Flood scenario with a following ice age can begin to explain. They thought the cell was made of some goo call protoplasm. They did not absorb the proof that life cannot form spontaneously.
 
Darwinists have renamed spontaneous generation "chemical evolution" to throw off students. They hide behind a Big Bang knowing the perceived mass and energy of the Universe doesn't fit the scenario. They don't explain that Hubble's discovery of red-shifts in all stars and galaxies means the Earth is in the center of the Universe because they do not want you to know that the Earth is special. Fine-tuning of the Universe, the Solar System and the Earth and the laws of the Universe allow for life with no room for any but the tiniest of variables, otherwise life would not exist.

What a Coyne will do is critique the strawman by criticizing creation when it is the sin of man that brought in the deterioration of a perfect world.   Creationists not only do not argue with change over time, it is part of the model of the preservation of kind and why, after the Ark, life could explode all over the planet with wonderful diversity after the Flood.  It is also why the last layers of fossils are different than the lower layers, since the top layers are from the dynamic and dangerous post-Flood Ice Age world of mudrock and glaciation and glacier lakes and huge lakes breaking free to remake the surface of the Earth and leaving their mark on every inhabited continent.  Evolution tries to argue that change over time is proof of kind changing to other kinds but in fact this is never seen and no means to do it has been presented.   Remember that in the real world breaking things is not how we make things.  Design and purpose and intelligence is involved in every system mankind makes.   We see that organisms are more intricately designed than what mankind makes and have sophistication we are trying to mimic.  


What a Coyne will do is try to murk up the waters so that the mind cannot clearly see a wondrous creation that could not just *poof* into existence without a First Cause, a Creator.  We were designed perfectly in a perfect world and we were given free will. We chose to disobey, we then brought death and deterioration upon the entire Universe by that choice and thus the need for Jesus the Savior because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. It all hangs together. Creation, sin, deterioration and either salvation or damnation and it is still a choice given by God to man. What will you choose?

~~~~~~~~~

Cosmological relativity

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science (down from a denial of service attack at this time?  Cached copy)

Jump to: navigation, search
Hubble Ultra Deep Field
 
Cosmological relativity is an extension of the principles of Special and General Relativity to cosmological scales. Developed by Dr Moshe Carmeli, this theory is a combination of Einstein's original special and general relativity; however its starting point is the expansion of the Universe and not the propagation of light. It has profound results for cosmology in general and in particular Young Earth Creation cosmology. So far this theory fits all experimental findings.

Contents

[hide]

Cosmic Time

Cosmic time is the time that the universe would need to expand from a zero size point for a given red shift. In the Big Bang cosmology it would be the time since the Big Bang. In any cosmology that starts with the universe as larger than a point, the universe would actually be younger than cosmic time.



  • t = Cosmic time.
  • z= Red Shift.
  • τ = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
According to Cosmological Relativity τ is constant for all space and time such that at any place in the Universe and at any time in its history an observer would measure the same Current cosmic time. Also like Einsteinian Relativity the laws of nature are the same for all space and time. The result is that there is no absolute cosmic time; instead it is relative to the time and place of the observer just like velocity in Special relativity. Also like velocity in Special relativity cosmic time does not simply add from one observer to another. Instead cosmic time is added by the following formula:


  • t = Cosmic time.
  • τ = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
The key to Cosmological Relativity is that there is no absolute cosmic time, although any observer at any point in space and at any time will see τ = 13.56 Gyr.

5D cosmology

Cosmological relativity’s line element for an expanding Universe in negligible gravity is:

ds2 = τ22 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 )
  • τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
    • H0 = Hubble’s constant.
  • ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
  • x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.
This is similar to the Special relativity line element.

ds2 = c2dt2 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 )
  • t = time.
  • c = the speed of light.
  • x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.
When time is added to Cosmological relativity’s line element we get:

ds2 = τ22 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 ) + c2dt2
  • τ = H0-1 = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr.
    • H0 = Hubble’s constant.
  • ν = Is the space velocity at a given point in space.
  • t = time.
  • c = the speed of light.
  • x,y,z = Normal 3d spatial dimensions.

The result is a theory of 5 dimensions.
  • 1 of time.
  • 1 of spatial expansion velocity.
  • 3 normal spatial dimensions.

Special Relativity

Cosmological Special Relativity has much in common with Einstein’s Special relativity. Both theories deal with the special case of no gravity forming the basis for the more general concept. The main difference is that cosmic time (t) replaces velocity (v) as the critical quantity and observed cosmic time (τ= 13.56 Gyr) replaces the velocity of light (c) as the constant. Both theories have essentially the same formulae, but Cosmological Special Relativity substitutes ”t” for “v” and “τ” for “c”.

In Cosmological Special Relativity τ = H0-1 = 13.56 Gyr, where H0 = Hubble’s constant.
Thus both theories have similar transformations between reference frames.




  • Cosmological Special Relativity
Thus both theories have similar formulae for relative mass. (m)


  • Cosmological Special Relativity
Similar formulae for relative length. (L)


  • Cosmological Special Relativity.
It is in the area of time (t) and velocity (v) that the two theories are the most different, since they basically switch places. However, in Cosmological Special Relativity, the velocity referred to is the expansion of the universe and not the independent motion of the object.


  • Cosmological Special Relativity.
In Cosmological Special Relativity we get an added relationship for the acceleration (a) of the expansion of the universe.

Cosmological Special Relativity also has relativistic formulae for the universes’ density (ρ) and temperature (T).




Even though both the universe's density (ρ) and its temperature (T) are shown to be larger in the past, it seems likely that these are purely relativistic affects and that at those times the measured values would be what they are today.

Cosmological Special Relativity and Special relativity are not exclusive but work together, each being most significant under the right circumstances. Special relativity as v approaches c and Cosmological Special Relativity as t approaches τ.

General Relativity

Cosmological General Relativity, like Einstein’s General relativity, deals with the general case where gravity is present.

4D

In its 4D form of space-velocity, Cosmological General Relativity gives only the state of the universe in an instant of time.

While in Cosmological Special Relativity τ = H0-1, when gravity is considered as it is in Cosmological General Relativity, τ = h-1, and its relationship H0 becomes:
HoCGR.PNG
  • Ωmmc = Cosmological General Relativity’s ratio of the mass density of the universe and the mass density that would result in a constant expansion rate.
  • ρc = 3h2/8πG = 3/8πGτ2 = Cosmological General Relativity’s mass density at which a constant expansion rate occurs.
  • ρm = measured mass density of the universe.
  • z = ν /c = redshift.
  • h = τ-1 = 72.17 km / s Mpc
  • τ = Observed Cosmic time = 13.58 Gyr.
  • G = Gravitational Constant
According to Cosmological General Relativity, the presence of gravity resulting from matter and energy reduces the vacuum pressure that tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. This vacuum pressure (p) is denoted by:


As a result, the value of Ωm affects the expansion of the universe:
Ωm > 1
  • This results in a decelerating expansion.
Ωm = 1
  • This results in a constant expansion.
Ωm < 1
  • This results in an accelerating expansion.
  • Ωm = 0.245
When this is applied to the unbounded universe of the Big bang, the result is that for the first 5.08 Gyr after the Big bang there would be a decelerating expansion. At this point the expansion becomes constant for a brief time and then starts to accelerate as it is today.

Next we have ΩT which denotes the curvature of space on cosmic scales. The difference between ΩT and Ωm is ΩΛ. Such that:
ΩT = Ωm + ΩΛ
Now ΩΛ = (H0 / h)2 = 0.764
The result is: ΩT = Ωm + ΩΛ = 0.245 + 0.764 = 1.009 ≈ 1
This shows that the universe is flat ( Euclidean ) on a large scale

5D

When the time dimension is added to Cosmological General Relativity, the result is a 5D theory that reproduces all of the results of General Relativity with additional effects that solve a number of problems in cosmology. It results in a 5D space – time – velocity manifold that is an extension of General Relativity for cosmology.

Accelerating expansion

While the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe was a surprise to most scientists, it was actually predicted by Cosmological General Relativity. This means that Cosmological General Relativity has made a successful prediction which is important to any scientific theory. The success of this prediction should have brought attention to Cosmological Relativity, but instead current theory was simply patched with a mysterious unobserved substance called dark energy.

Galactic Rotation

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). *From: Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
In this diagram “A” is the typical rotation curve of a spiral galaxy as predicted by the established principle of gravitational mechanics. However “B” is what is actually observed.

Dr. John G. Hartnett has shown that Cosmological General Relativity naturally produces the observed curve “B”. It is a result of adding the extra velocity. As a result the rotation curve of spiral galaxies is exactly what Cosmological General Relativity says they should be.

Here is yet another case where Cosmological Relativity is shown to fit reality better than current theory. Such results are strong evidence in support of the theory.

This is a good example of how the general scientific community has to be dragged kicking and screaming to radically new concepts. Cosmological Relativity fits the data so well that it deserve serious consideration but the general scientific community prefers to keep patching existing theory.

Dark Matter

Cosmological Relativity successfully accounts for two phenomena that cosmologists have often invoked so called dark matter to explain: the rotational curves of spiral galaxies and gravitational lensing. The result is that Cosmological Relativity essentially eliminates any need for so called dark matter.

Dark Energy

Cosmological Relativity totally eliminates the need for dark energy since the accelerating expansion is an intrinsic part of its 5D space – time – velocity manifold.

Bounded Universe

Dr. John G. Hartnett has applied Cosmological relativity to a bounded universe. Under General relativity the gravity potential of a bounded universe would induce a large scale curvature to space for which there is no evidence. He found that, due to the accelerating expansion, Cosmological relativity would eliminate this curvature, making space as flat as it would be in an unbounded universe. This would be true as long as the radius ( r ) was at least cτ.
  • Infinity > r ≥ cτ
He showed that observations are consistent with a bounded universe inside a white hole with our galaxy at or near the center. This is not to be confused with Dr HumphreysWhite hole cosmology since in Hartnett's model the universe is still inside the white hole’s event horizon. However there are similarities in the two cosmologies.

Young Earth Cosmology

Dr. John G. Hartnett has shown that Cosmological relativity is observationally consistent with a finite bounded universe. He has since shown that the 5D Cosmological relativistic line element shows that the universe is young by Earth clocks and that light from the most distant stars could have arrived at the Earth within the Creation week.

5D line element

ds2 = τ22 - ( dx2 + dy2 + dz2 ) + c2dt2
Starting with this line element, Hartnett shows that the gamma functions of both Special relativity (λE)and Cosmological Special relativity (λc) can each be derived.
When deriving the gamma function of Special relativity the result is:
Gfe.PNG
This shows that Special relativistic affects are greatly affected by the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. In fact as /dt approaches 0 it becomes:
Gfe1.PNG
This is the standard Special relativistic gamma function.

The result is that Special relativity is most accurate when the universe’s expansion is not accelerating. This suggests that today the universe either expanding at a constant rate or not at all.

When deriving the gamma function of Cosmological Special relativity the result is:
Gfc.PNG
This shows that Cosmological Special relativistic effects are greatly affected by the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. In fact as /dt get larger it becomes:
Gfc1.PNG
This is the standard Cosmological Special relativistic gamma function. Based on the above 5D line element, a = 0 the Cosmological Special relativistic gamma function would not be in effect and the Special relativistic gamma function would function in its original form.

The result is that Cosmological Special relativity is most accurate when the universe’s expansion is accelerating very fast. This suggests that in the past the universe had a period of rapidly accelerating expansion.

Combined, these results show that at some time in the past the universe experienced a rapidly accelerating expansion but that today the expansion is either constant or has stopped. It also tilts the observational evidence from being neutral towards favoring a bounded over an unbounded universe. Such a rapidly accelerating expansion would have left clear observational evidence in an unbounded universe because, without a center, time dilation would not make local expansion rates seem slower than would be seen at the center. The time dilation effect at the center relative to any distance from the center would be:
Tc1.PNG
  • dt = time at the center.
  • dT= time at point commoving with the expansion
With a velocity v = 0 the relationship becomes:
Tc2.PNG
  • dt = time at the center.
  • dT= time at point commoving with the expansion.
Observation shows that in a bounded universe the Earth would be near the center. So based on the Biblical account, it is likely that the Earth was at the center of the expansion.

Since the rapid acceleration of the universe’s expansion has stopped, Earth’s time is now approximately the same as time in the rest of the universe, thus there is no blue shift as would be expected as a result of time dilation.

It is theorized that during the first few days of creation the universe had a period of rapidly accelerating expansion, resulting in a high degree of time dilation on Earth. This concept is similar to Dr HumphreysWhite hole cosmology but it lacks the gravitational distortion of a massive white hole.

One way light travel time to Earth

Hartnett has worked out a relationship between the distance from Earth and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe in the form of an exponential function which demonstrates that the one way light travel time to Earth could easily have been no more than a few days in Earth time and even possibly less than one day. The exact time depends on the exact acceleration rate.
Tc3.PNG
  • τ = Observed Cosmic time = 13.56 Gyr
  • c = Speed of light.
  • r = The distance from the center.
  • t =The one way light travel time to Earth in Earth time.
  • η = A proportionality constant.
The following graph shows the results for various distances (r) with η set to two different values.
Tc4.PNG
Note that at η = 1013 that the light even from 13.56 billion ly would have reached Earth in about a day.
While these results are not exact they do show that Cosmological relativity in a bounded universe can get even the most distant star light possible to Earth within the creation week. The result is that Hartnett’s cosmology is a viable young Earth cosmology.

Conclusion

While Cosmological relativity is not yet generally accepted, it is a viable theory of physics that has already been shown to naturally explain several problems in cosmology, including some it was not developed to explain.

It also results in a viable young Earth cosmology when applied to a bounded universe.

Related References

Dr. Moshe Carmeli
Dr. John G. Hartnett
Carmeli & Hartnett

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you've read the paper and have no argument against the bacterial flagellum being reducible, i.e. consisting of smaller functional parts, is that right?

All you have is some blanket argument from incredulity that completely ignores what the theory of evolution says?

Duly noted.

Oh Really O'Reilly said...

Science has not been able to segregate and identify a substance called "life."

See, it's statements like this that make you lose so much credibility. Why would "life" be a substance?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"All they can confidently say is that the Universe had a starting point."

Not really. All we can say with relative confidence is that the universe once had less entropy.

AmericanVet said...

None of the systems in the paper was close enough to the system to be able to "hop" over to become the system and some may be deteriorations from a more complex system in the past.

I didn't say I think life is a substance, I am saying a naturalistic materialist needs to identify a material called "life" for it to have a material beginning, capiche?

Catch up, even the Hawkings of the world believe the Universe had a beginning. If you want to say anything about the Universe confidently, you can only address what is testable now and these discussions require presuppositions to even try to test the evidence. If the Universe has more entropy and less energy and we see that this is a fixed inescapable law in the material world then the material world had a beginning.

Anonymous said...

"None of the systems in the paper was close enough to the system to be able to "hop" over to become the system"

Really. So what distance were they from the system, and what is the maximum distance they can be "away from the system" to "hop" over "to become the system"?

You're proposing pseudo-science at its finest. Seriously, Radar, your mental process here is pretty transparent. The content of the paper is obviously way out of your league (and there's no shame in that...), but you feel compelled to have a strong opinion about it because you feel it threatens your worldview.

It's clear that you don't have a solid response to the subject at hand, so why even bother with such a limp made-up objection?

"and some may be deteriorations from a more complex system in the past."

And if they are... so?

"I didn't say I think life is a substance,"

O'Reilly didn't say you did.

"I am saying a naturalistic materialist needs to identify a material called "life" for it to have a material beginning, capiche?"

Why would they have to identify a material? No scientist today is claiming that life is a material or a substance.

Scientists can simply identify a material process, which is what life is.

"Catch up, even the Hawkings of the world believe the Universe had a beginning."

Ah. And now compare "believe the Universe had a beginning" and the earlier statement "All we can say with relative confidence is that the universe once had less entropy". Do you notice a crucial difference between those statements?

"If you want to say anything about the Universe confidently, you can only address what is testable now"

Exactly. The above statement did that.

"and these discussions require presuppositions to even try to test the evidence."

Well, yes, there are a number of presuppositions that we all agree on in science. They're not really controversial.

"If the Universe has more entropy and less energy and we see that this is a fixed inescapable law in the material world then the material world had a beginning."

No, then the material world had less entropy. "The material world had a beginning" is already speculation.

Anonymous said...

"None of the systems in the paper was close enough to the system to be able to "hop" over to become the system"

Interesting claim that you, a non-scientist, just made up from scratch there. Yeeaaah, that's it.

So tell us, how close do the systems need to be to the system so that they can hop over and become the system? What's an optimal distance, and what distance do these poor suckers have to contend with that prevents them from "hopping" over?

Seriously, Radar, now you're just coming up with pure pseudo-science. Your mental process is so transparent here. You think that the outcome of this discussion has an impact on your worldview, so you already have the outcome: "must disagree with paper". But the problem is, you have no ammo, no way to show how the paper is wrong, so you just mutter something about "systems being close enough", a statement that's not based on any science whatsoever, and you hope the problem will go away.

"and some may be deteriorations from a more complex system in the past."

And if they are... so what?

Anonymous said...

"I didn't say I think life is a substance,"

And O'Reilly didn't say that you said that.

"I am saying a naturalistic materialist needs to identify a material called "life" for it to have a material beginning, capiche?"

No capiche. Why would a naturalistic materialist need to identify a material called "life"?

All he has to do is identify is identify a material process, since that's what life is.

You're so hung up on the materials themselves (and weight, for some reason - like with your bizarre information arguments) that you're ignoring other factors.

Anonymous said...

"Catch up, even the Hawkings of the world believe the Universe had a beginning."

No need to catch up with you when you're behind me. Look at these two statements and see if you can spot a crucial difference: "believe the Universe had a beginning" and "All we can say with relative confidence is that the universe once had less entropy". I've even highlighted it for you.

"If you want to say anything about the Universe confidently, you can only address what is testable now"

Indeed, which is what the above statement did.

"and these discussions require presuppositions to even try to test the evidence."

Well, yes, science requires some presuppositions, but they're not exactly controversial.

"If the Universe has more entropy and less energy and we see that this is a fixed inescapable law in the material world then the material world had a beginning."

No, then the material world had less entropy in the past. "The material world had a beginning" is already speculation.

AmericanVet said...

Bizzare arguments? Look, if you are going to limit the world to the natural materialistic only, then everything has to have a material cause and be of material substance.

If you want to be technical, I think therefore I am is a presumption.

Anonymous said...

"Bizzare arguments?"

Yep, your information arguments have been pretty bizarre. If it doesn't weigh anything, then naturalistic materialism can't explain it - that's pretty out there.

"Look, if you are going to limit the world to the natural materialistic only, then everything has to have a material cause and be of material substance."

You're ignoring arrangement and process, both of which are certainly material in nature.

A hard drive that features a ton of information versus one that features a bunch of random bits will weigh the same. The difference - as I'm sure you know - lies in the arrangement of the matter, e.g. the arrangement of magnetic particles or microscopic holes on a CD or DVD.

A living body and a dead body (immediately after death) weigh about the same. The same molecules are in place. What's different? The interdependent processes of the different organs: the lungs taking in air, providing oxygen to the blood, the heart circulating the blood etc. Disrupt the flow of these processes and they can no longer support each other, causing them to fail one by one; that's when life ceases.

It's a naturalistic, materialistic description of life that doesn't require a "substance called life".

I don't see why this should be so difficult.

Jon Woolf said...

"I then realized what I was seeing."

Yes: something written at a level that is far beyond your comprehension. It takes a great deal of learning to be able to read and understand a journal-quality paper. You can't even read "rocks for jocks" level earth science -- what makes you think you can read and understand a journal paper?

Case in point: Haldane's Dilemma. You said:

"Furthermore, Haldane's Dilemma is, to put it simply, that like a clock running down our genomes are collecting mutations and copying errors and transpositions that will eventually take us and all creatures to extinction."

That is not Haldane's Dilemma. Haldane's Dilemma is this: when Haldane attempted to mathematically model the evolutionary process using a certain set of assumptions, his results said that it would take too long to for the process to produce noticeable improvements. He said at the time that his conclusions were probably wrong, although he did not know why they were wrong. Subsequent investigations and calculations have proven that he was, in fact, very wrong. Beneficial traits can appear and become fixed in a population much faster than Haldane's initial results said they could.

"Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are also so fundamentally different that no one can imagine intelligently how one could evolve into another."

No one except a lot of biologists who have looked at both prokaryotes and eukaryotes in detail, and understand that a eukaryotic cell is descended from a symbiosis between several types of prokaryotic cells.

"There are so many forms of eyes found in nature that if evolution were true they would have had to have evolved independently at least ten times."

And this is a problem because ...?