Posted on 01/28/2005 6:50:34 AM PST by Heartlander
If one states ‘nature must have and can only do it’ this is a dogmatic position that does nothing for science. ID has been used throughout history and naturalism is a recent occurrence that has caused this either/or event
I only hope that you did not miss the point entirely…
The creation of life was before my time. I suspect it was there all along.
Which point(s)? Most of the remarks were appropriate to an undergrad physics prep class.
this post intentionally left non-blank.
I'll have to look into Count Korzybski.
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent IDist. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics is well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.
Personally, I like the 'I/we don't know' position.
So do I, but unfortunately the current position is ‘nature did it’.
Wouldn't they be excommunicated for heresy? I believe it's better to preserve their anonymity.
And unfortunately it seems to be human nature to demand an explanation (knowledge) rather than just say and accept 'I don't know'.
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed.Absolute bull.
it requires a conscious observer
I admit, I'm not up on my physics, and maybe I'm just stating a something already well known, but doesn't this turn Heisenberg on his head. Now instead of the observer just affecting the observation the observer is required for what is observed to occur.
I find it hard to argue with that logic…
Let’s try this:
1. Had the rate of expansion of the big bang been different, no life would have been possible. A reduction by one part in a million million would have led to collapse before the temperatures could fall below ten thousand degrees. An early increase by one part in a million would have prevented the growth of galaxies, stars, and planets.
2. The material of the observable universe is isotropic (evenly distributed) to an accuracy of 0. 1 percent. Such an accuracy is antecedently improbable and slight variations would rule out life.
3. Had the values of the gravitational constant, the strong force constant (the force binding protons and neutrons in the nucleus), the weak force (the force responsible for many nuclear processes [e.g., the transmutation of neutrons into protons]), and the electromagnetic force been slightly greater or smaller, no life would have been possible.
4. In the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.
5. The random coalescing of several unrelated factors necessary for life someplace in the universe is highly improbable. This can be seen by examining the factors on earth necessary for life. The point is not, however, that it is amazing that these factors came together on earth instead of somewhere else. Rather, it is amazing that they came together anywhere, and earth is used to illustrate the factors necessary. Had the ratio of carbon to oxygen been slightly different, no life could have formed. If the mass of a proton were increased by 0.2 percent, hydrogen would be unstable and life would not have formed. For life to form, the temperature range is only 1-2 percent of the total temperature range, and earth obtains this range by being the correct distance from the sun, just the right size, with the right rotational speed, with a special atmosphere which protects earth and evens out temperature extremes. In addition, the planet which had these factors just happened to contain the proper amount of metals (especially iron), radioactive elements to provide the right heat source, and water-forming compounds. Perhaps the proper temperature range could be obtained in another way. But earth shows how delicate and multifaceted are the independent factors involved in maintaining the correct temperature for life. 3
6. The chance formation of life from nonlife (abiogenesis) has been estimated at around 1 x 1040,000 Thus, the probability of life forming anywhere in the cosmos is miniscule. Furthermore, in the process of reacting in some prebiotic chemical soup, the reactants often need to be isolated from their environment at just the right time and reintroduced at just the right time for the reaction to continue. This is achieved in the lab by investigator interference, but it is difficult to conceive of a mechanism to do this in nature and to do it at just the right time.
Every time light interacts with matter (that is, act like a photon and not a wave), the wave function collapses.
A consciousness is of course not required. The Holy Warrior nutcases just shrug and go on to the next bad penny.
Try letting science be science and religion be religion. Hello?
Statistics are seductive and science, however precise, is imprecise. Beware of what you don't know. Faith and knowledge are two different things.
The odds of a creationist accurately modeling anything for the purposes of computing odds a are estimated (by me) at 1 in 10^^googolplex.
BTW, 1 x 1040,000 is just 1040,000. That makes no sense as odds or as a probability. Did you mean one in 1040,000? Or one in 10 to the 1040,000 power? Or 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power?
"Well, how about THIS ONE then?"
</Creationist_mode>
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.