Evolution VS. Creationism

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

I think that maybe what wisdumn was so ineptly trying to ask was, how does the purposeful evolutionry process arise if there is no purpose in a universe that's ruled by chaos and random chance.

 

The classical counter-answer to that loaded question is

Ah, I don't know which "classics" you listen to, but it is obviously not classic physics.

 

Until it is established that it IS purposeful, any attempt to answer RE a "purposeful evolutionary process" is bogus.

 

However you are welcome to ramble on with bogus answers as you wish.

A common definition for the preferred theory is the most accurate reflection of nature, in the least number of possible steps. The preferred theory can only be more complex if it is more accurate than another similar reflection.

And it can only be more accurate than another similar reflection if it uses the common definition for the prefered theory.

 

OK, there I completed the otherwise assumed circle in your failed attempt at logic.

Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.

Ah yes, that nasty ole 2nd Law eh! Gotta love how easy it is to throw that into a discussion and pretend it is relevant, while sounding SO technically competent. It's got such a nice Scientific mantra about it! Something that was developed around the time of the US Civil war. Held with religious conviction by those wishing to pretend that science disproves science.

 

But this is the 21St century. In the LAST century, at the BEGINNING of the 20th Century, Planck established that Boltzmann's equations for the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics - entropy- could not be held with absolute certainty. It has been relegated to only proven closed systems.

 

Please PROVE that the universe is a CLOSED system. Or try to catch up to the last 100 years of knowledge.

 

Thanks

[island]

FT wrote:

 

As many times as I have posted the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant", you should have caught on by now.

 

"Ignorant" is merely lacking in knowledge. It can be corrected by access to the specific knowledge needed. "Stupid" is when you have access to the knowedge and can't comprehend.

 

I prefer "willful ignorance", to "stupid". To me, stupid implies that someone can't learn, which is different from ignorant.

 

Willful ignorance is like when someone won't except that it will always requre a leap of faith to say that a supernatural entitiy is calling nature's shots, because it can't be proven no matter what angle you approach it from.

 

If a scientist were to see Gabriel fly across the sky in a flaming chariot while blowing his trumpet... then (s)he'd be obliged to conclude that there is some natural explanation, like a hoax or failing that... some alien life form of higher technological capability.

 

Angels ain't in the vocabulary of nature...

[island]

Just an FYI to anyone that is interested, but FreeThinker is apparently completely ignorant of the fact taht mainstream physics is not the same thing as cutting edge theory.

 

This is a very common mistake of popularized physics readers, having little to do with the way that mainstream physics is actually done.

 

He is also expressing all of the classical symptoms of a willfully ignorant Chaosionist fanatic.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

The classical counter-answer to that loaded question is that there are an infinite number of possible universes, and so one of them had to be like ours, incuding humans and the evolutionary process, but that requires a leap in complexity beyond our observable universe,

Originally posted by: island

I have a very high level of empirically supported confidence that our universe came into being by way of the Big Bang, and before you ask what existed before the big bang...

{...}

Our universe came into being by of the same mechanism... as did the one before that and that and that... and...

The contradictions are way too obvious to even bother pointing them out!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

I prefer "willful ignorance", to "stupid". To me, stupid implies that someone can't learn, which is different from ignorant.

Comprehension a serious problem for you? I WROTE and you QUOTED

"Stupid" is when you have access to the knowedge and can't comprehend"

[island]

FT said:

prove that the universe is closed

 

The universe is closed...

 

Quoting from Ned Wright's site at ucla.edu:

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

">http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

</a>

Recently two different groups have measured the apparent brightness of supernovae with redshifts near z = 1. Based on this data the old idea of a cosmological constant is making a comeback.

 

Einstein Static Cosmology

Einstein's original cosmological model was a static, homogeneous model with spherical geometry. The gravitational effect of matter caused an acceleration in this model which Einstein did not want, since at the time the Universe was not known to be expanding. Thus Einstein introduced a cosmological constant into his equations for General Relativity. This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.

 

Why does the cosmological constant behave this way?

 

This term acts like a vacuum energy density, an idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle physics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the inflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang proposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the inflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a negative pressure because:

 

The vacuum energy density must be constant because there is nothing for it to depend on.

If a piston capping a cylinder of vacuum is pulled out, producing more vacuum, the vacuum within the cylinder then has more energy which must have been supplied by a force pulling on the piston.

If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to push the piston out.

 

 

You don't have to "add" energy externally, you can increase negative pressure via compression, condensation, aka, "rarefaction".

 

If, as with Einstein's model, the negative pressure component reflects -rho and gravitational curvature, then negative mass-energy must necessarily be expressed via negative density, as well. In order to make a real massive particle from this energy, you must condense enough of it over a finite region of space to achieve positve mass, density and curvature.

 

In Einstein's static model, if you condense vaccum energy, then you necessarily increase negative energy and pressure, as well, by way of rarefaction, so the vaccum necessarily expands during pair production.

 

 

Somebody dropped the ball when they leaped to conclude that an expanding universe will necessarily run-away

 

 

Again, quoting Ned, the physicist:

 

Einstein's Greatest Blunder

However, there is a basic flaw in this Einstein static model: it is unstable - like a pencil balanced on its point. For imagine that the Universe grew slightly: say by 1 part per million in size. Then the vacuum energy density stays the same, but the matter energy density goes down by 3 parts per million. This gives a net negative gravitational acceleration, which makes the Universe grow even more! If instead the Universe shrank slightly, one gets a net positive gravitational acceleration, which makes it shrink more! Any small deviation gets magnified, and the model is fundamentally flawed.

 

In addition to this flaw of instability, the static model's premise of a static Universe was shown by Hubble to be incorrect. This led Einstein to refer to the cosmological constant as his greatest blunder, and to drop it from his equations.

 

But it still exists as a possibility...

 

-- a coefficient that should be determined from observations or fundamental theory.

 

 

Indeed.

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalt

[island]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: island

 

I prefer "willful ignorance", to "stupid". To me, stupid implies that someone can't learn, which is different from ignorant.

 

Comprehension a serious problem for you? I WROTE and you QUOTED

 

"Stupid" is when you have access to the knowedge and can't comprehend"

 

My mistake. Are you capable of admitting one?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

Just an FYI to anyone that is interested, but FreeThinker is apparently completely ignorant of the fact taht mainstream physics is not the same thing as cutting edge theory.

 

This is a very common mistake of popularized physics readers, having little to do with the way that mainstream physics is actually done.

I love reading your stuff. It is so creative. Not much consistancy. But your a wordsmith.

 

In the above, you state that

 

I am ignorant of "cutting edge theory" NOT being the same as "mainstream physics". And further that "cutting edge theory" is PART OF "mainstream physics'.

 

???

 

So which is which?

 

Gotta love it! Your convolutions are so extremely well constructed!

He is also expressing all of the classical symptoms of a willfully ignorant Chaosionist fanatic.

A Google of Chaosionist shows:

 

"Results 1 - 10 of about 30 English pages for Chaosionist

 

EVERY ONE OF THEM is connected to a post from:

 

"island April 26, 2004, 7:52 am"

 

Keep going. Only a couple million more usages of the word and you may get it into Websters!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

My mistake. Are you capable of admitting one?

I have every time someone was capable of showing thaT I made one.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

FT said:

 

prove that the universe is closed

 

The universe is closed...

 

Quoting from Ned Wright's site at ucla.edu:

NOTHING in that post shows the universe to be CLOSED.

 

It merely addresses whether it is EXPANDING or not and/ or how.

 

Learn the difference and then we'll talk.

[island]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: island

He is also expressing all of the classical symptoms of a willfully ignorant Chaosionist fanatic.

 

A Google of Chaosionist shows:

 

"Results 1 - 10 of about 30 English pages for Chaosionist

 

EVERY ONE OF THEM is connected to a post from:

 

"island April 26, 2004, 7:52 am"

 

 

That's because I coined the term after arguing with willfully ignorant evolutionists that refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that an expanding entropic universe expresses a clearly defined purpose...

 

... that was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang... (or the great unfolding of stringy horsemanure, if you prefer)

 

[edit to add and tone down]

I should have also pointed out that real scientist/physicists do not dispute the plausibility of any of my proposition, only fanatics do, as this is proven by way of the many conversations that I've had with them concerning the subject, which are linked throughout my website for anyone that's REALLY interested in anything more than their own personal ego. A rare breed, indeed!

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/Contents.html

">http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/Contents.html

</a>

 

... making it FUNDAMENTAL to all things...[/b]

 

LOL@HeWhoDoesn'tKnow that Einstein's static universe was closed... and yes, this is clearly defined in Ned Wright's site...

 

I'm done with this clown

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: island

LOL... what idiot doesn't know that Einstein's static universe was closed?

I'm done with this fool

This is the type of comments that will let you be done with all of us. Consider yourself warned,.... it is a discussion, let's keep it professional if not friendly.

[island]

You're right, and I've already beat you to it, actually, but uh... take a look at FT's method and tone as compared to mine, in general, before you assume that I wasn't highly insulted, first...

 

That kind of willful ignorance is highly insulting to me... but I don't carry it far once that monster has reared its ugly head, so like I said... I'm done with him and you don't have worry further.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

i asked simple no, make that very easily understood questioning. other people seemed to get it but if it's stupid questioning to you, and if my intelligence is inferior to yours, then what could i possibly learn from someone as brilliant as you at my inferior level.

 

Come on, Wiz. Your question was badly phrased and not in any way as simple as you wish it to be. Both FT and I are trying hard to show you why. Could you perhaps take a look at your question and ask -

 

"does evolution require a creator"

 

which is something which is possible to discuss.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: island

The classical counter-answer to that loaded question is that there are an infinite number of possible universes, and so one of them had to be like ours, incuding humans and the evolutionary process (...)

 

Island, this is not a "classical" counter-answer. The multiverse theory is fairly new and still bold. To use it one would either have to know the Anthropic Principle, have read Martin Rees or be quite up-to-date on cosmology.

 

PS: I want to thank Tormod for linking my site in a couple of different places here, although it is misrepresented in the ToE section now that it is finally complete and free from anything that isn't empirically defined.

 

Anyway, thanks again.

 

No problem, if I linked to it it is probably good. If you have alternative suggestions for where it would belong let me know.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: island

I should have also pointed out that real scientist/physicists do not dispute the plausibility of any of my proposition, only fanatics do, as this is proven by way of the many conversations that I've had with them concerning the subject, which are linked throughout my website for anyone that's REALLY interested in anything more than their own personal ego. A rare breed, indeed!

 

I just posted in another thread that the moment a scientist stops using the scientific method, he ceases to be a scientist. Using the scientfic method implies fallacy. There is no such thing as a non-disputable theory.

 

I'm done with this clown

 

One more shot like this and you're gone. Wouldn't it be REALLY STUPID to be banned from a popular science forum because of breaking the forum rules instead of having your theories discussed?

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

this is a question for anyone willing to give me some logical,reasonable, or scientific proof. if creation(or invention ) did not happen, then would someone please explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way. how can we come up with music,fashion,religion,theology,science,humor,belief,disbelief,intelligence,stupidity,or any of the many attributes that are found in humans, i mean how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities without there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us? this is a question so feel free to give me some proofs as to how these things are possible.

 

" if creation"or (invention) did not happen, then would someone PLEASE explain to me how we are able to be inspired in any kind of way?" / here i am not implying there is a creator, i'm asking IF there is not a creator, then to explain how we are inspired. ---- then i ask----

"how do we come equipped with this knowledge and these abilities WITHOUT there being a bigger and intelligent source to give them to us?" / again we see that in this question that i am in no way asking anyone to assume there is a creator, i'm asking to be shown how these things happen without a creator. c'mon guys, is this really that difficult of a question to answer? you've spent more time explaining to me that my questioning is wrong, it's so simple a 5 yr. old, no wait, a 4 yr. old could understand it. explain how there is NOT a creator, you do not need to assume there isone because i already believe there is and you(the opposing argument) believe there is not so i don't ask or need you to assume there is a creator, you already don't assume that.