I can prove God exists

[numinus]

This is the immutable truth, derived from what? A book? What ensures that this is "the book" which contains the truth, why not the koran, why not the bagagavita, why not David Koresh's orations? You're using a book which has no more "proof" of being factual than any other religious text, as the basis of this conclusion, your conclusion is not based upon logic, its based on your upbringing, your environment (obviously a christian one). How does this make sense, even when according to your rules? One ignores the evidence of different higher powers, evidence that is AS FACTUAL as the bible, such as the koran and bagavagita (hindu), And ignore them, for the bible. HOW numunis, is this a valid line of reasoning, you have 3 very major, very concise manuals on spiritual development and belief, yet you believe only one, on what basis? It was the one you were first exposed to. Nothing more, nothing less, that is laughable.

Did I say it comes from a book? Do you even know how to read?

This truth comes from the OPERATION OF LOGIC. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and logic can arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION.

 

[numinus]

not exactly, but i think trying to explain such things will fall on deaf ears.

It will arrive with no effect on dull minds, more like it. And so, dull minds can only laugh out loud and pretend it is something other than what it is - dull.

lol, and the tachyon, well, it's a theory from the 60s and has been pretty much walked away from. FTL speed of information is purely impossible, that is as it is. FTL travel, isn't really the issue, save that transmission
information isn't contained within the particle/etc (although none exist ) information, since this would violate causality. anyhow, this is niether here nor there, since most physicists don't really consider tachyons in any form.

You are not aware that the leading cosmological model today, derived from alan guth's inflation, suggests precisely the VARIANCE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT???

Why am I not surprised?

Don't berate yourself too much though. The ability to understand higher math and physics is a genetic predisposition.

Science finds no issue postulating anything, as long as their is logical reason and evidence for postulation. PhD has no basis in whether its accepted or otherwise. Infinity as you describe it is not the same as the mathmatic infinity, per se. for example,

Then you have no idea whatsoever, in the field of theoretical physics. There are countless subjects of research that are accepted by DEFAULT.

Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate

That is full, this is full
From the full, the full is subtracted
When the full is taken from the full
The full still will remain.

The idea here is that, you cannot subtract nor add to true infinity, well, you can, but it still remains infinity, Inf. + 1 = Inf. no more, no less, as these concepts do not apply to infinity, it is as it is a special quantity (bounding), with no variance in "size" (length, range, etc) no matter how much you add or remove. Inf + Inf. = Inf. It is but a small bit of poetic mathmatic poetry from (c)400bc indian text, that adequately describes true infinity. Which gets to another point; Infinity is not always true. They use infinity to describe many "types" of infinity. a distinction can be made between the countless infinities, and innumerable and endless, unlimited infinities, as well as between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities. It all depends on the situation it describes. Infinity is an expression of mathematics. None of this really has anything to do with an argument around god, no one says infinity cannot exist, however its existence is unconfirmable. You're trying to argue something of dogmatic quantity using scientific quantifiers, this is like portioning food based on its weight on a scale that lists troy ounces, and trying to say its an ounce.

Infinity conforms with both the cardinality and ordinality in the real number system. It is as real as the real number system itself, and your attempt to define it through poetry is nothing short of laughable. Try googling transcendental numbers to see what I mean.

The problem is, infinity is a well defined quantifier / bound, to use this well defined concept one must use it in applications that also follow the same rule, you're not postulating infinity, you're using a word you heard and feel it best describes something you in truth have no idea about, ie God, how do you know God, talked to him? Seen Him? Smelled Him? Felt His warm hands on your Buttocks? Heard him screaming at you for just not getting it? No, everything you "know" of god came from a book, which is a collection of "empiric" evidence collected by people who stated thing which have not been empirically reproduced at any point since. That's it, a book, that people wrote, and translated, and wrote some more, and returned to another language, just to retranslate it. This is not evidence of anything, I'll concede one thing, there are things we don't understand, I say to continue our search for knowledge, you on the otherhand postulate WE DO understand WHY, and we simply disregard anything empiric that may weaken that argument.

What is this??? Real is what you can percieve with your senses???? No two individuals would ever 'percieve' an external object EXACTLY THE SAME. An apple, for instance, would vary in color, smell, texture, taste, etc as there are individuals who 'percieve' the apple. And for someone, who hasn't seen an apple, any description of its sensory qualities would be entirely meaningless.

Logic and math on the other hand, would arrive at EXACTLY the same conclusions, would operate within EXACTLY the same rules, and would have EXACTLY the same properties, regardless of ANY sensory perception.

The only way that this cannot be is if one is talking to a mind that is hopelessly ignorant. Someone who pretends to debate on mathematical concepts without knowing that mathematical truths are NON-DEBATEABLE.

Excrement? I see, nothing like the pseudo-science you spit out, right? I mean, my education and understanding of the sciences mean nothing I'm sure, your warping of well ingrained and standard scientific practices and observations to suit your will, shall be disregarded, since that's A-Ok.....right? lol...lame argument.

And what have I said that you think is psuedo-science, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Also...."Infinite density" that you described, isn't in true infinity. However to make sense of extreme densities, they use infinity because this defines the bounds of the density as being more than the current for all intents and purposes. However as the series of

as shown, converges to a real value X.

This is infinity, however, X shows that sum of the infinite series is a real number, which means that it is not TRUE infinity. So don't gimme that...because your derivation of the nature of infinity is flawed.

You need to stop this nonsense before you bust an artery or something.

The infinite density comes from cramming all the mass of the universe into a single, non-spatial point - hence the term SINGULARITY.

It comes from the relativistic phenomenon of LENGTH CONTRACTION that occur when something travels at the speed of light or in the presence of an infinite gravitational field. All mathematical equations break down when it approaches this simply because of HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY. The lower limit of all OBSERVEABLE PHENOMENON is related to planck's constant.

Now, it might be difficult for you to comprehend a space-time singularity in terms other than poetry, so you just have to take my word for it - ALL VALID PHYSICAL COSMOLOGICAL MODEL TODAY RESTS ON THIS SINGULARITY I AM REFERING TO.

 

[r0beph]

You need to stop this nonsense before you bust an artery or something.

it's not my nonsense, I'm versed enough in physics to understand this stuff, you however are making some serious mistakes in understanding

The infinite density comes from cramming all the mass of the universe into a single, non-spatial point - hence the term SINGULARITY.

That isn't what it is, I'm sorry, it simply is not. A singularity occurs when spacetime is infinitely curved (gravity is an effect we define as the curvature of spacetime) This has nothing to do with infinite density...lol. What you're saying is blatantly false, the density cannot become infinite because density, rather, mass is a finite variable, as per thermodynamics conservation. Let me break that one down real quick. If I have an object (Y) of infinite mass, and I remove X amount of mass, [(Y)-(X)=Inf.] For example, (Y) MUST BE Inf. (X) = 10 (it's arbitrary, you can choose any number), however it is, we have created mass, a clear violation. The singularity is due to Lorentz Contractions (or as you said, Length Contractions)this is due to the curvature of spacetime in accordance with gravity, causing acceleration, and thus speed, and thus contraction (to the external stationary observer).

A singularity isn't all that "strange" in contemplating, You have the schawzschild radius, for example, the sun, has about a 3km S.R., if the mass of the sun was reduced to >3km, we have a black hole, cool huh? The funny thing is, unlike your assumption, I have to point out that a schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to the mass of the object, again, infinite mass would result in an infinite schwarzsfield radius, which observably NOT the case.

It comes from the relativistic phenomenon of LENGTH CONTRACTION that occur when something travels at the speed of light or in the presence of an infinite gravitational field. All mathematical equations break down when it approaches this simply because of HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY.

woah there tito, you're mixing quantum physics and general relativity, that's a no no, one of the biggest problems today is trying to tie the two theories into one (you've surely heard the term unified relativity, that's what that calls for, it hasn't happened..) HUP is quantum Physics, space time curvature is General Relativity. (See quantum physics doesn't need gravity, cos in particle physics, in most areas, gravity makes no difference)

The lower limit of all OBSERVEABLE PHENOMENON is related to planck's constant.

It's Planck's Constant = 6.62606896(~33) (10^-34(J·s)) the smallest? no. not really. Planck's is used to measure quanta; BUT WAIT,THERE'S MORE!
You have Dirac's Constant, which is smaller by a factor of 2(pi), I'll save you the actual equation, you can look it up. It also measures quantization, oooh, which is a phenomena...

Now, it might be difficult for you to comprehend a space-time singularity in terms other than poetry, so you just have to take my word for it - ALL VALID PHYSICAL COSMOLOGICAL MODEL TODAY RESTS ON THIS SINGULARITY I AM REFERING TO.

Not really.

 

[numinus]

it's not my nonsense, I'm versed enough in physics to understand this stuff, you however are making some serious mistakes in understanding

Apparently nott.

That isn't what it is, I'm sorry, it simply is not. A singularity occurs when spacetime is infinitely curved (gravity is an effect we define as the curvature of spacetime) This has nothing to do with infinite density...lol.

Nonsense.

From wiki:

"A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become INFINTE. Such quantities include the curvature of spacetime or the density of matter. More accurately, a spacetime with a singularity contains geodesics which cannot be completed in a smooth manner. The limit of such a geodesic is the singularity."

Are you still inclined to debate an EXPLICIT mathematical description? Do you have ample background on differential geometry to discuss geodesics with me?

What you're saying is blatantly false, the density cannot become infinite because density, rather, mass is a finite variable, as per thermodynamics conservation.

LMAO.

density = mass/volume

In a spatial singularity, linear measure in ALL directions are contracted to 0 - which in geometry, means a dimensionless POINT, or (if you are inclined to think in terms of differential geometry) infinitely curved space. From the equation above, DENSITY APPROACHES INFINITY AS VOLUME APPROACHES ZERO.

You don't know jack ****.

Let me break that one down real quick. If I have an object (Y) of infinite mass, and I remove X amount of mass, [(Y)-(X)=Inf.] For example, (Y) MUST BE Inf. (X) = 10 (it's arbitrary, you can choose any number), however it is, we have created mass, a clear violation.

The singularity is due to Lorentz Contractions (or as you said, Length Contractions)this is due to the curvature of spacetime in accordance with gravity, causing acceleration, and thus speed, and thus contraction (to the external stationary observer).

You are patently confused.

The lorentz factor figures in SPECIAL RELATIVITY. The lorentz factor (gamma) = 1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2 where v=the velocity and c is the absolute speed of light in vacuum. In special relativity, the expression for the lorentz invariant quantities of energy, mass, length and time DOES NOT INVOLVE GRAVITY.

The curvature of space-time is expressed in einstein's field equation (efe) as a result of GENERAL RELATIVITY.

A singularity isn't all that "strange" in contemplating, You have the schawzschild radius, for example, the sun, has about a 3km S.R., if the mass of the sun was reduced to >3km, we have a black hole, cool huh? The funny thing is, unlike your assumption, I have to point out that a schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to the mass of the object, again, infinite mass would result in an infinite schwarzsfield radius, which observably NOT the case.

Correct. The geodesic is smooth for a schwarzchild singularity at the EVENT HORIZON.

However, what do you suppose happens at the CENTER of a schwarzchild singularity, hmmm?

woah there tito, you're mixing quantum physics and general relativity, that's a no no, one of the biggest problems today is trying to tie the two theories into one (you've surely heard the term unified relativity, that's what that calls for, it hasn't happened..) HUP is quantum Physics, space time curvature is General Relativity. (See quantum physics doesn't need gravity, cos in particle physics, in most areas, gravity makes no difference)

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

Matter and energy are quantized. They behave as particles with velocity - hence quantum mechanics. Any particle in an inertial reference frame is SUBJECT to length contraction. That is why the experimental confirmation of length contraction in SPECIAL RELATIVITY comes from radioactive particles from space.

Gravity, however, is not quantized. It does not have a fundamental, indivisible unit nor does it behave as a particle.

Capice?

It's Planck's Constant = 6.62606896(~33) (10^-34(J·s)) the smallest? no. not really. Planck's is used to measure quanta; BUT WAIT,THERE'S MORE!
You have Dirac's Constant, which is smaller by a factor of 2(pi), I'll save you the actual equation, you can look it up. It also measures quantization, oooh, which is a phenomena...

LMAO. You are merely cutting and pasting without understanding. Only a buffoon does that.

From wiki:

The Dirac constant or the "reduced Planck constant", , differs only from the Planck constant by a factor of 2π. The Planck constant is stated in SI units of measurement, joules per hertz, or joules per (cycle per second), while the Dirac constant is the same value stated in joules per (radian per second).

In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrödinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.

Not really.

LMAO some more. Again, from wiki:

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.

Now, unless you are suggesting a cosmology that did not come from a big bang, I'd say you have thoroughly made a fool of yourself.

 

[r0beph]

I had replied to your last post, and accidentally closed my firefox tab... ack.


let me try again, I'll cover the basics.

First, mass never is infinite. a/0 is NOT "infinity" per se. the math behind division by zero is a kooky bit. Depending on your setting, the definition changes. In normal real numerics, a/o is meaningless, its not infinity, it's simply, nonsense. It can also be the "not a number" number, in other mathematic settings. It can appear to be infinite, such as in limits, it'd obviously try to run off your graph forever, but, alas, it doesn't really work that way. Of course you'll happily suffice with mathematic reasoning from 1500 years ago to supplement your skewed view.

You have two notes here in the beginning. First, you say a singularity has infinite mass and gravity, yet you follow up saying, density is infinite, as shown by m/v, yet, what is m/v? Inf./0? You're mixing things up and making a real mess here bud, sorry, but you're way off base.

As for Lorentz and his contraction. You say it's not related to gravity (although in your originally you DID say this ) But I'll bite. ---

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.


As for Planck, yeah, both mean pretty much the same thing, however, dirac's is still smaller numerically , which is about as important to this conversation as you even bringing up planck, which was totally misplaced in your original post anyhow.


as for the cosmological singularity of the big bang, yeah we can't go back beyond the point where matter is compressed within planck's length, simply because it's surmised at this point, relativity fails and quantum physics comes into full effect, and since relativity and quantum physics is NOT unified (as I stated) Relativity fails :-D...

I'm not sure why you continue the attacks, calling me stupid doesn't make you anymore right, and you simply aren't right. I've not cut and pasted anything to be honest, search for any bit of any of my posts and you'll find that rarely will any of it pop up anywhere in google, You try to make things fuzzy with incomplete knowledge of how things work, your physics suck, plain and simple, horribly, stop trying.

 

[numinus]

I had replied to your last post, and accidentally closed my firefox tab... ack.


let me try again, I'll cover the basics.

First, mass never is infinite. a/0 is NOT "infinity" per se. the math behind division by zero is a kooky bit. Depending on your setting, the definition changes. In normal real numerics, a/o is meaningless, its not infinity, it's simply, nonsense. It can also be the "not a number" number, in other mathematic settings. It can appear to be infinite, such as in limits, it'd obviously try to run off your graph forever, but, alas, it doesn't really work that way. Of course you'll happily suffice with mathematic reasoning from 1500 years ago to supplement your skewed view.

You have two notes here in the beginning. First, you say a singularity has infinite mass and gravity, yet you follow up saying, density is infinite, as shown by m/v, yet, what is m/v? Inf./0? You're mixing things up and making a real mess here bud, sorry, but you're way off base.

Nonsense.

First, you must understand the relationship between a mathematical concept and the physical phenomenon it is supposed to portray. For instance, a negative quantity in a mathematical equation corresponds to a particular direction of say, a vector quantity. Changing mathematical sign conventions do not change the scientific law in any fundamental way. Are you with me so far?

The physical interpretation of a singularity - the situation when mathematical equations for the gravitational field becomes infinite - is a phenomenon where ALL RATIONAL PHYSICAL LAWS BREAK DOWN. And when the laws of physics no longer applies (having no physically measureable quantity) only means that such a PHENOMENON IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF INQUIRY.

Now, if the PHYSICAL LAWS NO LONGER APPLY, how in hell can you assert that the conservation of mass and energy is being followed, eh? And is not that the jist of all this argument - THAT FROM A PHYSICALLY IRRATIONAL SINGULARITY TO A PHYSICALLY RATIONAL UNIVERSE NECESSARILY DESCRIBES AN ACT OF CREATION.

As for Lorentz and his contraction. You say it's not related to gravity (although in your originally you DID say this ) But I'll bite. ---

I did no such thing. You were the one who equated lorentz contraction to length contraction - which is obviously false to anyone who is familiar with the mathematical derivation of the lorentz factor.

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.

LMAO.

Such verbosity to cover an obvious lapse in facts. The lorentz factor describes the length contraction in SPECIAL RELATIVITY. If you are talking about gravity and the curvature of space, then that is clearly about GENERAL RELATIVITY, hence does not involve LORENTZ ANYTHING.

However, the phenomenon of length contraction occurs in both special and general relativity (using DIFFERENT derivations and mathematical expression) according to the equivalence principle.

As for Planck, yeah, both mean pretty much the same thing, however, dirac's is still smaller numerically , which is about as important to this conversation as you even bringing up planck, which was totally misplaced in your original post anyhow.

Good god, you are ignorant!

2.54 cm = 1 inch - refers to the SAME PHYSICAL LENGTH even if they are 'numerically' different. That is the essence of conversion factors, isn't it? That no matter what unit measure you are inclined to use, you will arrive at something that is EXACTLY THE SAME.

LMAO till I pee in my pants.

as for the cosmological singularity of the big bang, yeah we can't go back beyond the point where matter is compressed within planck's length, simply because it's surmised at this point, relativity fails and quantum physics comes into full effect, and since relativity and quantum physics is NOT unified (as I stated) Relativity fails :-D...

What ignorant nonsense.

Particles, whether quanta of energy or matter behaves according to relativity. What the absence of a unifying theory simply means is that gravity does not exist as quanta. Something that does not exist as quanta couldn't possibly follow quantum mechanical laws, could it? That does not mean that PARTICLES are NOT subject to the laws described in general relativity.

I'm not sure why you continue the attacks, calling me stupid doesn't make you anymore right, and you simply aren't right. I've not cut and pasted anything to be honest, search for any bit of any of my posts and you'll find that rarely will any of it pop up anywhere in google, You try to make things fuzzy with incomplete knowledge of how things work, your physics suck, plain and simple, horribly, stop trying.

I do not presume to call you anything other than what your posts logically suggests. Quite frankly, it suggests an utter ignorance on the present subject matter.

 

[numinus]

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.

It pains me to point out the ignorance in your post, but I'm compelled, lest anyone is dumb enough to believe it.

Gravity can NEVER be defined as acceleration, whether you are talking of newtonian or einsteinian mechanics. From newton's laws :

FG = -GMm/r^2 = ma.

Notice that in the absence of a mass affected by gravity, the expression becomes undefined:

a = (-GMm/r^2)/m = (-GMm/r^2)x(1/m), undefined for m=0.

But we know gravity is there even in the absence of a mass accelerating under its influence, no? And so, there is an inherent limitation in thinking gravity as a form of acceleration. Rather, einstein viewed it as a tendency to curve spacetime, which in no way, is fatal to newton's assertions.

And so, a clear distinction is made between gravity and the force or acceleration due to gravity.

 

[r0beph]

.....Of course there is a distinction, however, for my argument it suffices. I said CAN be, not that it "IS." You're a real piece of work, and I giggle when I read your posts...then I feel bad.

 

[numinus]

.....Of course there is a distinction, however, for my argument it suffices. I said CAN be, not that it "IS." You're a real piece of work, and I giggle when I read your posts...then I feel bad.

Unfortunately, it does not suffice.

Thinking of gravity as an acceleration DOES NOT demonstrate curvature of spacetime - which you state in the first 2 sentences of that particular paragraph. What you demonstrated is an apparent contradiction. Newton's laws occur in EUCLIDEAN SPACE. Einstein's relativity - in NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE.

Please stop saving face and own up to your errors.

 

[invest07]

rObeph

I have done some research on your concept that mutations are not really random. You seem to be referring to the hypothesis of “Directed Mutation”. I found a very succinct definition of directed mutation and it’s implications (the underlines are mine):

"The phenomenon of directed (adaptive) mutations has kept the attention of biologists for several years. It contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology. According to the phenomena, directed mutations arise not as a result of a blind variation on the genetical level and consequent selection (as the paradigm insists), but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole. However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified." --Vasily V. Ogryzko, NIH Bethesda Maryland

It (Directed mutation) “contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology.”

Are you and coyote really prepared to go here? Directed mutation, which is still unproven and rejected by most Macroegans, has the potential to upset the entire apple cart upon which the hypothesis of Macroevolution so precariously rests.

“but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole“ I warn you that you don’t yet know what lies down the DM road and this statement sounds a lot like ID to me.

“However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified.". Are you really prepared to throw most of accepted Macroevolutionary theory out the door when the mechanism for DM is still unknown? And what is your plan if the only plausible explanation of DM should turn out to be ID? At this point in time, you really don't know what is ahead on this road.

One of the papers of J Cairns introduced DM to the world of Darwininian biology. And even he has serious doubts. "Mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their utility" -- J. Cairns.

“There exists no acceptable mechanism by which a life form can steer its own evolutionary way; that is, shape its own genome. What besides natural selection can do this?”
From Science Frontiers #75, MAY-JUN 1991. © 1991-2000 William R. Corliss

"The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."
A.S. Moffat in American Scientist.

DM, which is unproven, has no mechanism and is flat out rejected by most in the MacroE world, has the potential to destroy the precious “Tree of Life” you Darwinistas love so much. It may mean that I have more in common with alligators or brown pelicans than humans from Canada or Europe. I mean we have all been exposed to the same Florida heat, climate and disease for several generations. And, if this is true, who is the parent? Did one of my ancestors give birth to the first gator or was it the other way around?

Are you really prepared to tear down the "Tree of Life"? Are you really prepared to stuff most of Macroevolutionary theory into the trash can?

I ask you again, are you really prepared to go there?

I have a name for coyote's unnamed force. Why don't we call it the Tinkerbell force? When we can't explain something with science we can always use pixie dust.

Even if DM should prove to be true, it still doesn't answer the question of "How did all those 6 billion complex chemicals get into the right order and right slot?"

I'm sticking with my version. The possible combinations of all those 6 billion complex chemicals is such an astronomically huge number (4 raised to the 6 billionth power) that even with a boost from DM, it still is unrealistic. There has not been enough time. No where near enough time. Not enough time by a factor of billions and trillions of years.

And do you have an answer for my original premise? Can you point out even one code or language that you can positively demonstrate arose without intelligence?

 

[invest07]

9sublime

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

 

[invest07]

coyote
"Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order."
I explained these in my first post. These are examples of patterns are not designs or codes/languages.

""No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.".
The entropy of a closed system does decrease and that is the point of the 2cd law of thermodynamics. The total amount of energy remains constant but the amount of energy which is availably to perform useful work diminishes. That is one definition of entropy. The 2cd law of thermodynamics has been mistated in your statement form Talk Origins.

Life is a net consumer of energy because life increases entropy. Life consumes useful energy and returns less useful energy than it consumes to the universe. The total energy does not change, only the useful energy dimishes and unuseful energy slowly increases.

The overall direction of the universe is winding down. And increasing entropy is the reason. As stars burn out, they are moving from a higher order of complexity to a lower. If you believe the Big Bang, then entropy was at it's lowest level 1 second after the singularity exploded and has been increasing ever since.

Regardless of how you Darwinistas spin entropy, increasing complexity over time violates the law of entropy. The entire universe is going the other way.

 

[invest07]

questerr
"I have a question about you assessment of evolution violating thermodynamics (if it really did, don't you think all physicists would reject evolution?) and life being asystem that is always in a state of declining energy: It what you say is the case, wouldn't the birth of new life violate thermodynamics? Wouldn't growth violate thermodynamics?"

Many physicists do reject evolution.
dissentfromdarwi.orgn and doctorsdissentingdarwin have seceral hundred people of science who reject Macroevolution.
And if you ever get the chance to ask a physicist about this, they will say there are no known exceptions to the 2cd Law.

A new life being born does not violate the 2cd Law. The 2cd law requires decreasing complexity, over time. Macroe evolution re

 

[invest07]

coyote
Here is the actual wording of the 2cd Law. It is quite different than the wording used by Talk Origins.
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

Notice that the starting energy is ALWAYS the highest and that entropy is a measure of disorder.