Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Well, I'm always happy for "happy oughts," tpaine. And three is a good number. So I will take these "happy -T-houghts" to my slumber this evening, thinking of you in good will....
So there'd better be one, or else...
Why do you think this is a valid argument?
I'll interject myself in your dialogue once more, as this is a common misconception.
The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life, and certainly not the Origin of the universe. You might rightly counter that an Origin of Life, and ultimately, and Origin of the Universe are necessary precursors for the Theory of Evolution to have anything on which to work....
But here's the rub; the Theory of Evolution is NOT contigent upon how the first life originated, nor how the Universe got started. Regardless of how those two phenomona occurred, it is of no more concern to the Theory of Evolution than how moisture originated is to Meteorology: we can predict the weather regardless of the mechanism of how water came into existence. Similarly, the Theory of Evolution doesn't care what the mechanism is by which life originate or how the Universe started; it is operative regardless of those mechanisms.
Origin of Life is a viable scientific question; science has lots of hypotheses about how it could have occurred naturally ("Abiogenesis"), but none have as yet risen to the level of being accepted as a scientific theory.
The Origin of the Universe falls under Cosmology, and the most widely accepted theory, the hot, Inflationary "Big Bang" is based upon a model that starts with an quantum fluctuation from which the entire spacetime fabric, and it's contents, derives. As with many quantum mechancial events, there is no "cause," just as there is no cause that determines when a particular radioactive atomic nuclei will decay, though the decay of a large number of nuclei obeys very predictable statistical rules.
Lastly, anticipating another question: "where did all the energy of the Big Bang come from?" keep in mind the Big Bang Model is perfectly consistent with the total NET energy of the Universe being zero, so there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy incurred in the formation of the Universe.
Caveat: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Cosmologist; nor do I play one on TV.
Well, no, because inanimate objects can play the role of a quantum mechanical observer just as well as a conscious entity. Single atoms of impurities can be enough to cause decoherence in sensitive enough quantum devices, which is to say, in the right situation an atom can be a QM "observer".
Rocha has told me he disagrees.
With what does he disagree?
Why stop there, and not with "where did God come from", or go further and ask, "why is there something and not just nothing?" At some level, the question is necessarily unanswerable, so our inability to answer "where did the Big Bang come from" is no more of a philosophical disadvantage for physics than is faced by any other school.
Or, possibly more cogently, "How did the energy necessary for the BB to occur organize itself?"
I think that's less cogent, because energy is something that exists in the universe. Energy conservation is a consequence of the temporal homogeneity of space, which is something that is a consequence of (and subsequent to) the Big Bang. It didn't obviously have to be that way; until recently one of the most promising cosmological models called for an vacuum with significant inhomogeneities (the so-called "cosmic string" models).
I admit I don't know if there are superior beings. -- You pretend to know, not me.
but the Declaration of Independence and again the basis of our justice system stems from a belief in God. Otherwise the only justice is force.
You have demonstrated no basis in fact for that opinion, imo. - I have never seen anyone do so. Why don't you write out your ideas on the subject & post an article?
What I forgot to mention in my previous post is that this sounds as if we should keep our mouths shut if we ever find out that a god does not exist (assuming arguendo that this is possible).
Thus, an "observer" is a sufficient, but not necessary condition to cause the quantum state to collapse to a specific value. OTOH, an "interaction" (detection) is BOTH necessary and sufficient.
But when speaking of evolution via random mutation, the replication process is already in place. Origin of life arguments don't apply to probability of novel innovation via mutation.
My additional two points are not an argument against your position:
1. Observation: I suspect current research will show that the seeding for natural selection was more often opportunistic than random. The difference has to do with the capability of the genetic code to self-organize and thus, adapt. I truly believe we are only beginning to discover the algorithmic power of the genetic code.
2. Hypothesis: I assert that an algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. On a prior post I included two methods of falsification: that such algorithms or information content do not exist - or that such algorithms or information content can arise from null. These apply only to origins (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.) and not to any subsequent events, such as stellar or biological evolution whether or not algorithmic in themselves.
How so, Physicist? Please detail this process for me. For I am still at a loss to understand (after having heard your "explanation") how it is possible to attribute consciousness to an atom. Is this what you mean to say? If so, then what principle endues a lowly atom with consciousness?
Any principle you name only strengthens the argument, IMHO, that it is consciousness alone that can embue reality with its truth. If you want to recruit atoms as "conscious," and therefore able to be willing partners in the constitution of reality, then -- O.K. That's fine with me. I'd just love to see your evidence.
BTW, it's great to see you again.
It doesn't matter what you understand. You have mistated the Second Law. If that's your understanding, you are merely incorrect.
Thank you also for sharing the views of ICR and the other quotations! Hugs!
... or the Seven Ted Holden Clones....(Wheezy, Sneezy, Droopy, .....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.