Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Here's the evolutionary answer, from The Evolution of Man by Wilhelm Boelsche...
"For we find the instructive law on the resemblances of the youthful forms to their ancestors gives us a very satisfactory clue to our original ancestor: the body of the human being in the mother's womb is also, in its first stages, covered with thick woolly hair. Even the face is covered just as we see it to-day in the case of the adult gibbon, and only the inner surfaces of the hands and feet are left free. Evidently these free places were uncovered, even in the ancestor which this human embryo copies for a short time. This Esau-like covering of the human being does not disappear until immediately before birth, and in a few exceptional cases, this covering has even been retained during life. This is the origin of the renowned men with dog faces."
You're one of them. Insisting that nothing in science is true, is the quintessence of anti-science kookery.
Because they have read some Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins books. That makes them special. That makes them more than just barfers of left-wing anti-God propaganda. That makes them (gosh!) scientists. We must now worship these anonymous posters and thank them for all the gifts they have bestowed upon civilization. They are, after all, the walking, talking, breathing embodiments of the Deity of Science.
This is an old story that is part and parcel of Monism, a favorite philosophy of evolutionists, designed to replace Christianity. See here: Evolution of Mind. And this too: Bathybius.
You got that right.
The Catholic church spends a lot of time studying claims for miracles and doesn't seem to find many that are instantly recognized.
And here’s another bump!
The 'frame of reference' would be information density.
Is it that of the localized particle, whose trajectory has been calculated as the sum of an infinite number of virtual histories (from its point of view, so to speak), which converts to a finite quantity?
Here is an example. Lets say the path of a single wavefunction is partially blocked by the letter A. Theoretically that single wavefunction now contains the history of that path. In theory the wavefunction contains the history of everything in in its path. The trick would be to extract the information without collapsing the wavefunction. This was the heart of Penroses Microtube theory, it didn't work, but the idea is interesting.
It seems clear to me that, on the above assumptions, the "frame of reference" of the localized particle, having been "reduced" to the finite, is ever much less than that of the total configuration space. Yet the local particle is part of that configuration space.
Now we are back to "time" for a wavefuntion that is traveling at the speed of light. The speed of light is the one invariant. If we are looking for God, this is where it will be found.
Therefore, it seems clear to me that the frame of reference we need to understand these phenomena is that of the entire configuration space. Certainly this is "larger" (or "higher") than that of the local particle's reference frame.
A wavefunction is not local (Einsteins spooky action at a distance). Time is local (frame of reference). A wavefunctions only constraint seems to be the speed of light event horizon. Many of the distant stars Hubble sees are already beyond the event horizon.
But these models give us no way to understand such widespread biological phenomena as consciousness, self-direction, intelligence, even the idea of information — let alone explain the process by which life comes into existence. And so we are questioning those models....
Questioning is good : ) It seems to me that the ID theory makes those questions meaningless. If we are created, then we are like Data the android on Star Trek. There is no self-direction or intelligence (separate from the creator).
I happen to believe that all three of your statements are false. Maybe we'll get around to them one at a time, in due course.
I am looking forward to that : )
Actually the CMB measurements, and astronomical observations point to an expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe. The fact that we can't see beyond our event horizon doesn't mean space and time is finite.
You're lying about what I post, and playing silly word games. Do you think that advances your cause any?
This is the definition that I post, showing your deliberate misrepresentation.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. SourceFor the lurkers, the source is a CalTech physics website so this definition is not exactly fringe material.
Oh please. That's not "the evolutionary answer"--that's one crank's century-old fever dream. "Bölsche, Wilhelm...had no scientific training but an enthusiasm for Darwinism, positivism, and determinism, which he conceived as the basis for a new harmonious, non-religious, scientific world....Bölsche had not the mental equipment for a profound work on this subject..."
Maybe Truth isn’t what Evolution “Science” is about, but it’s what the real science seeks. If your claims aren’t about what is true, than they are false!
“2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
God will clean house in good time.
Read the definition I posted, and read for content this time.
It does not say that the opposite of true is false; it says truth can defined in many ways, often loosely, and is best not used in physics (and I added, in science).
A scientific theory is not proclaimed as truth, Truth, or TRVTH. It is proclaimed as the current best explanation for a given set of facts. That is why, when new facts arise, a theory can be modified or even partially discarded--because it was never proclaimed as truth, Truth, or even TRVTH.
But this does not make it false, and to claim such is to engage in sophomoric word play.
“Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Careful, big C. Teh Man has his eye on you.
Again, the big bang theory, which has stood the test of time, rests on two theoretical pillars: general relativity and the cosmological principle. Space/time is finite, it had a real beginning, it expands and indeed as you say it is accelerating:
The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation but none have succeeded.
…
One of the profound observations of the 20th century is that the universe is expanding. This expansion implies the universe was smaller, denser and hotter in the distant past. When the visible universe was half its present size, the density of matter was eight times higher and the cosmic microwave background was twice as hot. When the visible universe was one hundredth of its present size, the cosmic microwave background was a hundred times hotter (273 degrees above absolute zero or 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at which water freezes to form ice on the Earth's surface). In addition to this cosmic microwave background radiation, the early universe was filled with hot hydrogen gas with a density of about 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter. When the visible universe was only one hundred millionth its present size, its temperature was 273 million degrees above absolute zero and the density of matter was comparable to the density of air at the Earth's surface. At these high temperatures, the hydrogen was completely ionized into free protons and electrons.
Since the universe was so very hot through most of its early history, there were no atoms in the early universe, only free electrons and nuclei. (Nuclei are made of neutrons and protons). The cosmic microwave background photons easily scatter off of electrons. Thus, photons wandered through the early universe, just as optical light wanders through a dense fog. This process of multiple scattering produces what is called a thermal or blackbody spectrum of photons. According to the Big Bang theory, the frequency spectrum of the CMB should have this blackbody form. This was indeed measured with tremendous accuracy by the FIRAS experiment on NASA's COBE satellite.
Eternal cosmologies need not assume a first cause or accident, but they shift the burden of explanation into the infinite past. Although every event might be explicable by earlier events and causal laws, eternal cosmologies cannot even address why a temporally infinite cosmos exists and why it is the way it is. And there might be even deeper problems. Because we are able to assign a symbol to represent 'infinity' and can manipulate such a symbol according to specified rules, one might assume that corresponding infinite entities (e.g. particles or universes) exist. But the actual (i.e. realized in contrast to potential or conceptual) physical (in contrast to the mathematical) infinite has been criticized vehemently, being non constructible, implying contradictions, etc. (cf Hilbert 1964, p. 136, Spitzer 2000, Stoeger, Ellis & Kirchner 2004, ch 5). If this would be correct it should also apply to an infinite past. (A future-eternal cosmos might be less problematic if it is viewed as an unfolding, unbounded, i.e. only potential one.) This is a controversial issue, but it might be seen as another motivation to search for alternatives to past-eternal cosmologies.
Initial cosmologies, on the other hand, run into deep metaphysical troubles to explain how something could come out of nothing and why there is something rather than nothing at all (cf. Nozick 1981). Even the theological doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not start with nothing but at all but with something that is God, so the principle "ex nihilo nihil fit" still holds.
From Webster’s:
Truth:
...(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true...
...4 capitalized Christian Science : god — in truth : in accordance with fact....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth
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.