Yes.

Paul said,

Over billions of years, the very specific laws of physics and chemistry, at the sub-atomic, atomic and molecular level remain contant – they are not random chaos by any means. Over billions of years, random motions of atoms and molecules, acting under very specific fixed laws governing their interactions, with energy inputs mediated by sun and tide and wind and vulcanism and lightning, cause different atoms and molecules to combine in ways which remain governed by the fixed specific laws of physics and chemistry – not random chaos.

In light of this response, I find it quite ironic that Paul has accused me of using a “straw man” argument.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that the universe at present contains sufficient ORDER for it to host physical laws that provide predictable results.

But that does not say anything about the existence of Chaos as a reliable mathematical model.

“Randomness” is simply the measured amount of uncertainty in a mathematical system.

This is the heart and soul of Darwinism: that random chemical processes within an otherwise closed and orderly system will — over TIME — eventuate in a self-replicating chemical machine we call life.

The trouble with this model is that our current understanding of Chaos does not permit such a complex molecule as DNA to emerge “randomly” over the time allowed — within a period of two billion years or so from the formation of the Earth 5 billions years ago.

Mathematically, it’s practically impossible for a DNA molecule to have emerged “randomly” from known physical laws within that range of time.

Oh well. It’s that darned Anthropic Principle again.

What to do, what to do?

Perhaps you need a dose of whatever I’m smoking in order to understand the implications of this (old and repeatable) experiment.

To quote from the short film above,

“the conclusion is inescapable: the single election [being fired at the double slit] leaves as a particle, becomes a wave of potentials, goes through both slits, and interferes with itself to hit the wall like a particle. Mathematically it is even stranger: it goes through both slits, and it goes through neither. It goes through just one, and it goes through just the other. All of these possibilities are in superposition with each other.”

Paz me zee roach. Darwin ist tot.

Light photons (perceived as coming at us from all directions at once, here at the center of the Universe) are actually standing still…while we are moving (or inflating) in all directions (simultaneously), at the speed of light. That makes sense to you? No wonder Tipler makes sense to you.

I want a sample of whatever you’re smoking or injecting.

Nor can I see what this has to do with religion or evolution or intelligent design creationism.

Two words: cop-out.

For my money, I would bet that light (photons) are not moving relative to us. Instead, we observers are moving – or rather, inflating – relative to light.

That would mean that light is a static entity that does not MOVE at all relative to us.

What is LIGHT, anyway?

Light is divisible to an observable ray (that is, half-wave, half-object) that we call a PHOTON.

From our point of view, photons are singular observable units of light that are moving relative to us and to each other.

Relative to LIGHT – which is constant in time and space – we human observers are massive objects experiencing a gravity-conquering expansion. Thus we observe ourselves living within the controlled bounds of mass and gravity here on Earth. Through the effects of gravity, this mass offers short-term relative compression against the all-powerful Inflation that we observe occurring in the outer reaches of the universe.

But this Inflation is universal, and Hubble’s Expansion of the universe is pervasive from atoms to galaxies, not withstanding the short-term effects of gravity.

From our vantage point, the universe seems to expand when we observe its far-away edges. But here in the CENTER of the Expansion, we feel safe observing this Inflation within the comfortable realm of our massive blue Earth. And light itself appears to move away from us in all directions – and always at the same relative speed.

But if – as I propose – light is NOT moving in either time or space, then its apparent expansion (ie., its light cone) is actually a measure of our relative movement in reference to IT.

Macro observations of the universe confirm that the universe is expanding.

Micro observations of light show us that light ALSO expands – and forms a light cone over time.

When we ‘observe’ a photon, we determine its exact position in time and space relative to any other photon. Thus the Double Slit Experiment confirms that observation of said photon changes its outcome. (When the particle is NOT observed, it reverts to a set of many possible outcomes. That is, it becomes a WAVE. When the particle IS observed, it takes on a definite position in time and space – which makes it a particle.)

Observation of the particle determines its relative size and allows us to confirm its relative expansion via its light cone.

When we do not observe the particle, not only do we not know its relative SIZE, we do not really know for sure if it is expanding or contracting – and by extension, we are not able to observe whether we ourselves are moving forward in time (inflating) or moving backwards in time (deflating).

Thus, in my opinion, Inflation and Contraction are subject to the Full Anthropic Principal.

But perhaps you would rather talk about 4000 BC?

Yay verily.

I have no opinion. I am neither a physicist nor a philosopher.

Nor can I see what this has to do with religion or evoltion or intelligent design creationism.

I don’t recall saying I think Multiple Universes are impossible. The concept is a staple of science fiction, from “Star Trek” to Heinlein’s “Number of the Beast” and “Job” to Poul Anderson’s “Time Patrol” and other stories.

I don’t think you will see much in there about 10,000BC, but you’re welcome to argue it if you think it will help your position.

So… you think Multiple Universes are impossible… “science fiction”? Defying Occam’s Razor, is it?

What does Occam’s Razor say about the Double Slit experiment?

The Multiverse is well accepted in Cosmology. Richard Feynman thought it was the case. Ditto John Wheeler, David Deutsch, Stephen Hawking, and more leading cosmologists than not. But you say it’s “science fiction”.

Believe as you will. And yet it moves.

THis starts off sounding you’re referring to the Yahweh / Jehovah God of Genesis. It almost sounds like you’re advocating Young Earth Creationism – 4004 BC and all that.

Mike says “The lines are between those who believe in God ? those who assume that Teleology is the explicit background condition of the universe ? and those who believe that uncharted Random Chaos is the First Cause and the Last Cause.”

That’s not a fair statement, and I’m sure you know it isn’t. From where I stand, teleology is closely related to reading chicken entrails – but then I’ve never taken a formal philosophy course.

Your bogus strawman “uncharted Random Chaos” is impossible. It would imply that the physical constants of the universe are randomly variable, which would mean nothing would work, nothing would be repeatable, nothing would last. That’s simply not the way things are.

Over billions of years, the very specific laws of physics and chemistry, at the sub-atomic, atomic and molecular level remain contant – they are not random chaos by any means. Over billions of years, random motions of atoms and molecules, acting under very specific fixed laws governing their interactions, with energy inputs mediated by sun and tide and wind and vulcanism and lightning, cause different atoms and molecules to combine in ways which remain governed by the fixed specific laws of physics and chemistry – not random chaos.

Randomly and occasionally, a unique concatenation of atoms and molecules arise which are capable of doing something never done before, of agglomerating differently in a way that lets them store energy. Over the millions of square miles of the earth’s surface, over billions of years, an invisibly small group of molecules did something that had not been done before – it became life. Granted, the chances of this happening were not one in a billion or a trillion but much less likely than that. And yet life happened.

Or do you simply think God waved his magic wand and said “Presto – here’s the Earth and Adam and all that.”

We’ve talked about “The Omega Point Theory” here before. I like time travel science fiction, too. If you’ve found your God there, I’m happy for you.

But if you’ve ever heard of Occam’s Razor, I think my fairy tale makes more sense than yours.

So which side are you on? Do you believe in Chaos or do you believe in Order?

It seems to be a question that defines your very relationship with the world you inhabit.

But if you want a “materialist” explanation for things, The Omega Point Theory is a peer-reviewed proof for the existence of God by anyone’s definition.

Many unimaginative scientists dismiss The Omega Point Theory as requiring too many improbable conditions to be true.

But of course, the Many Worlds Interpretation of the universe has become an increasingly convincing model for top scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics.

If Many Worlds is the true condition of the universe, then — in some universes — all of Tipler’s conditions for the OPT would be true. Thus it seems obvious that Tipler’s Theory is plausible in some parts of the Multiverse.

The Omega PointTheory assumes that God (the Omega Point) will emerge as a Final Nexus of the Mulitverse. This Super-Intelligent Being would be “conscious” as-it-were of all possible universes.

In other words, if Tipler’s OPT is true, then God is “Aware” of our universe just as He is Aware of all possible universes in the Multiverse.

If the Multiverse is true, then the OPT is true.

If the OPT is True, than God is True epistemologically.

Delicious irony.

How fitting those words are for today’s arch-Darwinists who refuse to acknowledge the simple idea that Randomness is not itself a Cause.

MP3 | quote page

Planet of the Apes (1968)

There’s that vaunted scientific “open mind” again.

That’s true. That’s another illustration of the “Omphalos” hypothesis, sometimes called “Last Thursdayism” (”the world might as well have been created last Thursday.” – or five minutes ago – prove I’m wrong.) – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

“Mike” said: “You are here because you want to defend the honor of fair Science from the ravishes of those filthy “Creationists”. Is that about it?”

That’s certainly not the way I would put it. I would rather live in the 21st century than the Bronze Age, and I thereby choose my belief systems accordingly.

But I am amused that you sit at your computer, putting your support for miracles onto the internet; you probably drive a car and watch a television; you possibly have scars of medical procedures on your body (everybody has at least one such, by the way); you possibly have in your lifetime taken a pill or an injection or two that has made you well or even saved your life; you drink clean water and eat healthy food (except for the occasional Twinkie) – and you rail against 21st century materialism. Don’t you find that the least bit hypocritical?

Can you prove that life began according to the miracles of creationism? Or panspermia? (Tell me you’re nor serious!) What PROVABLE alternative hypothesis do you offer to the beginnings of life?

You are here because you want to defend the honor of fair Science from the ravishes of those filthy “Creationists”. Is that about it?

Your problem is that you are trying to prove that all swan’s are white (that Randomness is the First and Only Cause), without first attempting to falsify the claim, and denying without proof that black swans might exist.

I have no idea if Aliens Done It. Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle seem to think so. That’s good enough for me to say it’s possible.

The Alien Theory is not impossible.

And the Anthropic Principle punches big gapping holes in Darwinian Randomness.

Darwin. Ist. Tot.

As the philosophers say, ITATWD*

Will the alien sludge that first made the gross error of making life – by accident I’m sure, please raise a tentacle, or bubble or something. We won’t sluice you away. Promise. We just want to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Just look at what has happened since!

*(Its Turtles all the way down).

Can you prove that life began according to the miracles of creationism? Or panspermia? (Tell me you’re nor serious!) What PROVABLE alternative hypothesis do you offer to the beginnings of life?

Seriously, read Neil Shubin’s book, Your Inner Fish (see comment #1 above). It explains a lot of this.

“Mike” repeats: “Darwin ist tot.” Okay, okay, I’ve already admitted that Darwin is dead. Thank you for remembering. If Darwin wasn’t dead, he would be 199 years old today. That alone would make him famous.

If you’ve never been to Antarctica , why do you BELIEVE it exists? Perhaps “Antarctica” (or “Hoboken”) is just an elaborate hoax.

False analogy. It is within my capacity to PROVE to that Antarctica exists by visiting it.

You cannot prove that life began according to “Darwinian” — that is, RANDOM — processes.

No proof. Not even a THEORY.

Not a shred of evidence whatsoever.

You appeal to ignorance.

You are credulous. You are a true believer and defender of your faith.

Aliens did it.

Darwin ist tot.

That’s disappointing that they have an old discredited definition. Try a more thorough discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis – “…the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied, and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C ), iron and sulfur points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.”

(The article also points out at the top: “This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth.

So let’s stick with the more modern definition, please.

If you’ve never been to Antarctica , why do you BELIEVE it exists? Perhaps “Antarctica” (or “Hoboken”) is just an elaborate hoax.

Do you BELIEVE the Holocaust took place? Were you there?

Do you BELIEVE the sun is the center of our solar system, or do you BELIEVE that the earth does not move and everything revolves around it? What evidence do you have that you have produced yourself to prove or disprove geocentrism or heliocentrism?

Or are you willing to BELIEVE what a whole bunch of other people have said and written?

Do you BELIEVE that 100000037 and 100000039 are both prime numbers? Or do you BELIEVE what other people have calculated. If you haven’t worked it out for yourself, how can you be sure?

Do you BELIEVE in magnetism? Or electrons? Or quarks?

Golden calves need not be declared dead. They are dead. And to their graves they drag their devotees in misery believing but one more sacrifice will appease their god. The concern is not that materialism will not survive humanity, but that humanity will not survive materialism.

The central dogma of self-pronounced atheistic science is that “Material IS.” Brief bouts of hormonal proxies of transcendental joy notwithstanding, the dimensions of the prison is knowable. The question is never asked within this church, that should those dimensions exceed every possible cardinality, what then can it possibly mean to know them? Alas, every religion as practiced–being the product of men–burns heretics. But, having peeked at ever so slender a sliver of light from the visage of God, some are charged to endure that far more meager fire. That, and not 4004 B.C., is the meaning of the article.

It bears shouting from the highest mountaintops, that while the intricacies of abiogenesis may yield an epic script, and that the spires of modern science are testament to the power of materialism, power still corrupts. One more time, please …

“The question that IDers and Scientists have to resolve in oreder to find common ground is just HOW God uses mechanisms like evolution and quarks… The WHY is unlikely to be answered by scientists.”

Or at least scientists who don’t believe the question exists.

That’s right aliens did it. What an interesting way to say that it is far beyond our reach to determine the origin of life, so we’ll blame some one else.

Still, the question remains (just not on this planet), “What is the origin of life?” If not here, whereever.

Complexity actually changes based on knowlege.

so to assert complexity and lack of understanding as a proof of design, is a empty and false argument

it says nothing as to whether things are designed or not… but it DOES sucker people into taking a side in an ideological (religious) battle, in which the more powerful political group can force in some way the silence of the other.

its a power issue, not a design issue.

pretty much all the arguments will end up going the way of the feminist equality argument is going once we KNOW more.

its sadly ironically humourous in the great goof sort of way that everyone is getting caught up in a over inflated argument that is based on asmimovs assertion that any technology or science sufficiently advanced will appear as magic.

basically you have two groups and the majority of arguiers are not people who are part of the core knowlege or details, but every thing else.

what was the saying?

americans dont think they have opininos and ideas….

same here