hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[WildTurkey]

She's trying to help.

No problem. You were recommending that I should just move on concerning the other guy. I was just saying that I had moved on.

[Junior]

Rekramecalp.

[JohnnyM]

so you are saying life can be sustained on the Earth without the Sun?

JM

[billyboyjohn]

-- "With our analogy, I am not saying that 2 + 2 = 5, but that 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5. "



It may be bigger than we can ever conceive of
..

April 12, 2004, London

An article in The Economist re quantum computing says that:

•Subatomic particles can have more than one value at the same time
•Having more than one value (like being 0 and 1 simultaneously) is
called "superposition"
•Qubits (quantum computing bits) can be in four different states at once.
•Quantum Dots are confined clouds of electrons
•Superposition is NOT simple
•When things that have superposition interact with the "classical"
world, the larger world, they become "decoherent"
•Decoherence can be combated using bang-bang pulses. This also helps
maintain entanglement.
•Quantum computing has a tolerance for faults caused by spontaneous emissions.

[RobRoy]

Your 946 was disgustingly well worded. I feel that way partly because I already believed and agree with much of what you said, and partly because you brought up reasonable perspective and conclusions I had not yet thought about. 8^>

I'm also embarrassed that I have not yet read "The Abolition of Man" yet.

[RobRoy]

>> 200? Bah. Things just start heating up around post 500.<<

Heh, heh. That's how I got in! 8^>

Yikes! I'm still here!

Must...leave...keyboard...

[general_re]

Good deal.

[WildTurkey]

so you are saying life can be sustained on the Earth without the Sun?

(if this comes up twice I apologize - FR hung and I reloaded the page two times to check)

Do you doubt God's power to create a cosmic light powerful enough to sustain life on earth?

Actually, I am just relaying the premises of Dr. Brown but I do agree, if his premise is correct, it could sustain life on earth.

[billyboyjohn]

"what about the warmth of the Sun? Life on this planet cannot exist without the Sun, or are you saying it can? "

---

Noreen Noonan, in charge of NASA's Planetary Advisory Committee, mentions that certain extremophiles, by which she means fringe bacteria, microorganisms and viruses, thrive on highly radioactive environments. One would have thought that radiation in high doses would kill off anything, but just like some extremophiles can survive the high temperatures around deep sea thermal vents, others derive energy from radiation.
 
This is all relevant to Noonan, who is both aware of organisms that might be brought back to earth and survive in hostile environments but also of Earthly organisms that won't be killed by being exposed to the extremes of space travel- and thus would contaminate other worlds.
It seems all life was previously thought to fall into two categories. Bacteria, and everything else. Now there is a third category into which these weird organisms fall.

Archea are cells that don't have a nucleus. Their DNA are somewhat free floating. The extremophiles fall into this category. (Eukaryotes includes us, plants, algae and bunny rabbits- it's a big category)

[grey_whiskers]

Lord Eddington stated; If your theory contradicts the Second Law I can offer you no hope." ]I'll take Eddington over Asimov]

You mean the law that states,
"A robot must obey orders given to it by humans unless doing so would contradict the 1st law" ??

Oh, sorry, I've been reading I, Robot again. ;-)

[grey_whiskers]

How about "magnitude of delta-S" ? ;-)

[JohnnyM]

" I believe Adam was banished from the spiritual realm to occupy a mortal body in the physical realm so that he would experience death and decay as punishment for disobediently obtaining the knowledge of good and evil which was established in Day 1."

I'm also worried about this statement. There is no Biblical support for such a claim, plus it also leaves out the whole issue of Eve in the story of the Fall. Jesus tells us in heaven that there is no marriage and Galatians states that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Assuming you meant Eve to be in the picture, why would God create a "woman" for Adam in this spiritual realm to be a helper/wife, when Scripture speaks to the opposite.

JM

[grey_whiskers]

With our analogy, I am not saying that 2 + 2 = 5, but that 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5.

Well, since you bring it up, 3 > 2 except for unusually large values of 2 :-)

[bvw]

I answered you. Some cups can't hold the water poured in them.

[Heartlander]

Can science study anything that isn't a natural occurrance? Can you point to anything in physics, biology, astronomy, geology, or chemistry that isn't the result of assuming that phenomena are regular?

Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, the first organism and DNA, consciousness from mindlessness… and I will say again that it is only recently in the history of science that ID has been excluded.

But you are missing the bigger picture here… if “natural” science is now proclaiming itself as the ultimate truth, than what is wrong with what Dawkins’ is saying, “Catholic morality demands the presence of a great gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.” Dawkins goes on to say:

“There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.”

So lets be blunt and honest here, natural science is claiming to be the “only” truth and claiming to trump religion in areas of religion (soul, morality, miracles). There are some who think that raising children to be Christian is a form of brainwashing that intrudes on “natural” science (I would say there are some here on this forum that feel this way). Now natural science has apparently made some strange bedfellows as well:

I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.

Ah yes, the ˜obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church” that is bantered around on this forum by those who hold their natural science dear. How often is a link to the Pope’s statement posted by people who aren’t even Christian to actual Christians to imply in some bizarre way, ‘See, these people are stupid but you are real stupid’? Come on, let’s be honest here. How about Pi and the Bible? How about those who say that only an incompetent designer (God) would do it that way and then praise nature and evolution as a beautiful designer?

Religion and science are separate? Really? It seems science has bullied religion into some obscure place in society and now pokes at it for fun. The God gene - memes - The Tower of Babel - etc… How often do we see Bible verses quoted by atheists here to ridicule Christians yet if a Christian quotes Darwin they are immediately labeled dishonest and the atheists interprets the Darwinian scripture as only ‘they’ can do…

The term ˜creationist” is thrown around not as some useful label but as an insult. If you believe you are the result of intelligence rather than mindless mechanisms then you are ‘called’ a creationist. But what does it actually mean for science to proclaim that there is no intelligence behind our existence? It seems current science has created an either/or situation. It seems that you are either a creationist (if you see any intelligent agent acting at any time) or an atheist (if you believe no intelligent force ever acted). You might say, “Ah, but I believe the intelligent force behind our existence will always be invisible to us’. Fine, but evolution states that it never had a target and we are a transitional species just like all life. Or again, as Dawkins states, “Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection of an immortal soul in the timeline is an anti-evolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.” Who are you to intrude into the domain of science? Science tells you who you are – you are a creationist (and all that implies). Dawkins, being the intellectually fulfilled atheist, is being honest in regard to current science. Heaven forbid you actually believe some miracle from the Bible – this goes against the teachings of current science and is blasphemy.

Look, I love science but we all know it is wrong about many things just look at history but I see intelligence behind our existence. So now the big question: “What do we do and how do we find common ground?”

[bvw]

Let's get something straight here -- there is NO propaganda. The way the world is and the Holy Scripture are compatible -- the world, in a way exists for us to resolve how that is so. The problem may be that your own understanding of what Truth is that Scripture is flawed, poisoned or not fully developed. The last is always true, but we have the world and time and each other to help develop it.

The flaws and poisons -- those are harder to recifity. Especillay when you make demands that have no reality in them -- that poison is something YOU have to work through. What demands? For one that your understanding of Genesis is so perfect that anything contrary to IT -- your understanding, not the Genesis text itself -- is untruthful.

There are those who want Truth's head on a silver platter, apple in mouth served up neat and clean. Or served up certified and hygienic in refereed scientific journals, reciped repeatedly by cookbook experiment, preserved in aether-like systems of logic, model and formulae, held in dark complex secret lingua dear to a priestly elite in some haven of high clerics, catalogued into well-researched taxonomies, or argued politely according to Hoyle on forums of the intellect. Truth defies all that. These are tools, man as toolmaker and baker, fine and dandy. but the tools oft get the best of man's intent and make very job that a nail before the hammer held, whether a nail and beam is or is not -- the hammer will be used, damn the plaster.

[js1138]

Can you point to anything in physics, biology, astronomy, geology, or chemistry that isn't the result of assuming that phenomena are regular?

Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, the first organism and DNA, consciousness from mindlessness…

I didn't express myself clearly. I meant can you point to any important discoveries in physics, biology, astronomy, geology, or chemistry that isn't the result of assuming that phenomena are regular?

The Big Bang theory is absolutely the result of following natural phenomena to their conclusion. The theory has nothing to say about the earliest moments.

The anthropic principle is not a scientific theory, nor does it explain anything. Why are your legs exactly long enough to reach the ground?

Science has not explained first life, nor consciousness.

Now tell me what ID is contributing to science. What discoveries or useful products are the result of assuming that living things are designed? What data does ID have that isn't the product of mainstream research?

[betty boop]

For though the fame motive plays a big role, at root, the morals debate is driving much of this too.

Oh, I do agree with you there gobucks!

At bottom, "all morality is," is a specification of what is the best way to reconcile the apparent "conflicts" that obtain between God and man, society, and the world -- "world" here being understood, not only as planet Terra or the solar system, but of the entire physical universe altogether. This would be the "material picture." But the animating principle of the universe, it seems to me, comes from God and man, and tends to get externalized in societies. This principle is immaterial in nature. So are Life and consciousness — and all the works derived by humans from same, in the sciences, in literature, in the arts; not to mention the great religions, my own confession being Christian.

Now folks will say, I'm sure, that to make such a sweeping statement is to endue humanity with a significance which it does not deserve. All I can say in reply to that is: The Holy Scriptures advise us otherwise.

And this "fame thing" is a pernicious influence on society, if you were to ask me. I won't say it is necessarily "immoral" in principle; but I would suggest that it is thorough-goingly amoral. And not only that, but a complete waste of time to the extent that it refuses to engage the really serious things of life and the world, from the standpoint both of "the performer," and (worse) the audience.

Thus, to me, it represents a lack of seriousness wherever it may be found, exemplified and amplified by our wonderful "Mainstream Media." And may I also take a moment to thank Academe while I'm at it?

Not!!!

Oh, well. For what it's worth, gobucks. Thanks so much for writing!

[Heartlander]

You missed the big picture. Again, ID has been part of science as a given – it is only in recent scientific history that it has been excluded (and without sufficient cause IMHO) Biology currently looks at organisms as designed and this is productive.

[betty boop]

You left out all the lies and the false-science promoted by the anti-evolutionists.

That's a pretty sweeping statement, WildTurkey. Could you help me narrow it down a little bit? Just give me an example or two, and I'll go chase it (them) down. Then we can compare notes. If there's evil to be found there, why, we can just root it out together.