Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Exactly, and conversely even non-materialistic science doesn't pretend to come close on defining let alone assuming what is or isn't God, of God, etc.
For someone who "isn't stating they shouldn't even try", you seem to have lots of arguments against the attempt.
I believe this and the considerable built in redundancy (also discussed in part 2) might go a long way to explain why frogs do not evolve into giraffes.(3) Error tolerance
Living things tolerate errors remarkably well. Evolutionists use this property to argue that since life is error tolerant, then it could have arisen in an error tolerant (sloppy, haphazard, inefficient, mutation-ridden) stepwise, Darwinian manner. This fallaciously assumes that error tolerance is an intermediate step between non-functionality and functionality, but it is not. Error-tolerant systems are very much more complex than error-intolerant systems.
The computer industry provides an excellent illustration of this principle. Word-processing software of thirty years ago produced very similar results as today, but with very much shorter software codes. Today’s error-tolerant software that detects, interprets and corrects errors as you type, requires far more code, far greater programming skills, and far more computer memory and processing power, than the earlier models. Error tolerance is therefore not a sign of error-prone evolution, but a sign of advanced engineering design.
As I showed in Part I of this article, the reason that organisms tolerate errors is because they have the most wonderful repair and maintenance mechanisms built-in by design!
You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration.Jack London, The Iron Heel
No, it doesn't.
Even if the number for acceleration equals one, the units are still m/s/s.
Mass is simply mass. Force is mass times distance per time squared.
The units don't work.
I forgot to ping you to post 365.
One more for your library.
[[For someone who “isn’t stating they shouldn’t even try”, you seem to have lots of arguments against the attempt.]]
And why shouldn’t I if hte evidence demands that we argue against it? Arguing against somethign isn’t a demand or statement that hte somethign should not still be pursued if they so choose to-
Now you’re bringing out the big guns. Jack London now instead of Heinlein.
Look out bvw.
Enter the class clown- the feller intent on derailing discussions with absolute nonsense-
Care to weigh in on hte paper being discussed? Care to do so without ranting about Creationists and ID proponents? If so, welcome, if not- then have fun stomping your foot per usual
Then what exactly is the point of arguing against it?
“C2 is just a constant,..”. No, it’s not just a constant, it is a set constant with a value attached to it, the speed of light in a vacuum. You’re going to change it to “1”?
So far you’ve been wrong in all the replies you’ve sent me,
I’ve no more time to correct your errors when, with a tiny bit of research, you could do so.
But I will leave this,
“Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer, “v”, is the same after it emits the energy as it was before, the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes. Evidently, the mass changes by L/c2 - by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn’t seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c2, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains.
If we go back to Einstein’s first paper on relativity, we find that the speed “c” is involved, not because we considered light instead of some other energy form, but because “c” is the speed at which time becomes, in a sense, equivalent to space, as the preceding article in this series illustrates. The fact that “c” is also the speed of light in a vacuum is coincidental. We would have found the same relation between mass and energy even if we had considered energy emitted in a form other than light, although it might have made the math more difficult.
Interestingly enough, Einstein first expressed his conclusion in about the same way we did above, without actually using the equation “E=mc2”. He only expressed the result that way later on.
Prepared by Dr. William Watson, Physicist
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer, “v”, is the same after it emits the energy as it was before, the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes. Evidently, the mass changes by L/c2 - by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn’t seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c2, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains.
If we go back to Einstein’s first paper on relativity, we find that the speed “c” is involved, not because we considered light instead of some other energy form, but because “c” is the speed at which time becomes, in a sense, equivalent to space, as the preceding article in this series illustrates. The fact that “c” is also the speed of light in a vacuum is coincidental. We would have found the same relation between mass and energy even if we had considered energy emitted in a form other than light, although it might have made the math more difficult.
Interestingly enough, Einstein first expressed his conclusion in about the same way we did above, without actually using the equation “E=mc2”. He only expressed the result that way later on.
Prepared by Dr. William Watson, Physicist
DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information
[[Then what exactly is the point of arguing against it?]]
let’s stick to hte issues, eh?
I think the first question to ask, and to focus on, is: Is it possible for dirty chemicals to produce pure sugars, amino acids, nucleotides, and polymers, protiens and DNA? Is there some refining system in nature that can produce these chemically pure elements which are essential for life, and hwich show chemical purity when examined??
“One more for your library.”Is it outrageous?
And Williams asserts that it can't, without any evidence beyond analogy to nonbiological objects. That's one of the big issues I have with the article.
I’ve not read Polanyi’s paper- so I don’t know if htis is true, or if Polanyi did at soem point admit htis, only to later say differently?
The paper is here. I don't see anywhere he says it's impossible. He does say, "It appears, then, that DNA evokes the ontogenesis of higher levels, rather than determining these levels. And it would follow that the emergence of the kind of hierarchy I have defined here can be only evoked, and not determined, by atomic or molecular accidents. However, this question cannot be argued here." He doesn't address how this ability to evoke might come about.
Not the same difference at all. Nobody would argue that a child doesn't use metainfo during language acquisition, whether it's inborn or supplied by the people around him. But I've never heard anyone argue that complex, nested grammar had to exist first in order for words to give rise to language, historically speaking.
[[And Williams asserts that it can’t, without any evidence beyond analogy to nonbiological objects.]]
As I said awhile ago, I wish that there were a part 3 with more evidnec,e however, it isn’t a problem that htere is a lack of evidnece IF soemthing being proposed is reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, we’re talking abotu somethign that has only just a few issues that rely on reasonable analogies, whereas Macroevltuion has a great many issues that rely on unreasonable assumptions and analogies.
Let me ask this: What is the difference between a mental aberration and an observation? As it was turned out in Jack's own life as full as any actively engaged observer, his final observations went beyond the artificial limits the of "this is the way is should be" of Marx and Darwin, and finally came close to engaging the world on it's own terms. Reality has a purpose!
Science proceeds faster in sanity with that purpose, than the morose and slow process of insanity in denying a purpose.
[[But I’ve never heard anyone argue that complex, nested grammar had to exist first in order for words to give rise to language, historically speaking. ]]
The issue is that polanyi is using a non living system to describe living systems and how they must have coem about naturally. As well, while the Grammar didn’t need to exist in order for words to come about, the species did have metainfo already established that was able to make sense of language and to understand how to use it. The child learnign to speak also has the metainfo present to make sense of the sounds they hear, and to organize them into useful meanings. You and polanyi are assuming that the grammar and language are the metainfo, when in reality, the metainfo is what allows us to utilize those three steps- The steps of livign organisms however are much more complex than language- so it’s really not valid to try to claim three steps of language represent livign system hiararchy’s
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.