Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PZ Myers defends ID-Friendly University Course!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jerry Coyne has infiltrated a heretofore secret ID operation at Ball State University. Since the secret is now out and in the hands of the Darwinists, I may as well report on it.

Ball State University, in Muncie, Indiana, is a public university (i.e., part of the state university system).

The course is taught by Eric Hedin, an assistant professor at Ball State’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. In one of its guises it’s an “honors” course, “Inquiries in the Physical Sciences,” which fulfills the science requirement for students as part of the University Core Curriculum:

Science Course at Ball State University

Look at the ID sympathetic bibliography:
Bibliography of the Syllabus

Coyne sounds the battle cry:

This has to stop, for Hedin’s course, and the University’s defense of it, violate the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“freedom of religion”) and which has been so interpreted by the courts. It’s religion taught as science in a public university, and it’s not only wrong but illegal. I have tried approaching the University administration, and have been rebuffed.

This will now go to the lawyers.

But PZ disagrees and defends the constitutional right for the course to exist:

No, sorry, not right — academic freedom is the issue here, and professors have to have the right to teach unpopular, controversial issues, even from an ignorant perspective. The first amendment does not apply; this is not a course students are required to take, and it’s at a university, which students are not required to attend. It’s completely different from a public primary or secondary school.

I have to disagree with Jerry Coyne

I thought I might never ever say this, but may the Intelligent Designer bless you PZ!

HT: WT Bridgman

Comments
Goodnight Axel.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
Phineas- I'm sorry I think I've misunderstood. My original point was that QET wasn't a real thing, there's a hypothesis but there's no evidence that it's actually possible. It must therefore be regarded as not possible for the time being. "Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter into information" is a completely accurate statement of current knowledge. I don't think an unsupported hypothesis makes BA partially correct -- that'd be like saying "Primordial Soup" abiogenesis is partially correct. Frankly, by stating that "energy-information equivalence" is a proven fact and using it to justify other assertions, I think he's taking liberties with the the truth. kairosfocus- I'm not quite certain I implied an "infinite regress of definitions." You guys have a whole internal vocabulary for this stuff.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Must go the noo. Tomorrow.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
That's very comical, sigaba, if I may say so. We'd be in a bad way, indeed, if our knowledge depended on formal definitions! When did you start relying on a definition of the mind to have a good idea of what it was? Just think of it as a thinking mechanism. Don't worry about cogs and levers and springs.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
S: There are various approaches to definition, and one of them fits right in with science: ostensive, by example. Indeed, arguably this is prior to precising definition, which seeks to more precisely define borders. We are not locked up to your implied infinite regress of definitions. and we can identify intelligence and volition, thence onward mind, adequately for relevant purposes. KFkairosfocus
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
sigaba:
The sentence states that Quantum Teleportation was confirmed, not Quantum Energy Teleportation.
Right. I pointed out this distinction in my post and even highlighted it with bold face. The reason I did so was in response to your claim:
Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter...into information.
Based on the article you linked, it would appear that at least part of your statement, above, is incorrect.
That’s why the article ends with the rather clear statement:
Experimental verification of the teleportation has not been achieved yet.
In context, was it not clear to you that the teleportation it is talking about is only the teleportation of energy?Phinehas
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Right, but without a formal definition of the mind, how can you make any objective statements about it? I mean, you're the one that said that QM "proves" that the mind is prior to matter -- how can it do that without a formal definition of mind?sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
I'm not holding my breath.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
You will wait a very long time indeed, longer than the age of the universe, for a formal definition of mind, which would acceptable to an atheist 'scientist'.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
I see in your post#42, a series of evasions. Of course you will never get a classical definition. You cannot take neolithic tools to operate the Hadron Collider at CERNE and record the data output. Mathematics and concepts would be the only appropriate means of investigating and coming to some sort of working understanding (which they have) of quantum mechanics, so your evasions are errors of category. You exhibit a quite fundamental repugnance for the direction in which QM has been moving and must continue to move; but you must get over it.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Phineas: The sentence states that Quantum Teleportation was confirmed, not Quantum Energy Teleportation. Those references are to papers of people who used QT to transmit information -- you following quote is from the account of the hypothesis, not something anyone has actually done. That's why the article ends with the rather clear statement:
Experimental verification of the teleportation has not been achieved yet.
As I said.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
What do you mean by "mind precedes matter"? Bornagain linked to many things but the interpretation of QM of privileging consciousness over material reality is not a generally accepted interpretation, and at best is just an interpretation and may not be physical. QM "proves" mathematical relationships between different, quite abstract, properties, which we try to describe but which probably have no relatable analogue to our experience. I don't think QM "proves" that the mind is prior to matter in any sort of systematic way; not least because it has no formal definition of mind. Further, if QM had supernatural implications (as BA's Electron video described), I don't know if we can say this would make the mind supernatural. We don't really have much evidence that quantum-mechanical effects influence the brain or vice versa, there have been proposals but no evidence.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
sigaba:
Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter or energy into information; it’s been suggested that it may be possible but it’s never been experimentally verified.
From your own wikipedia link (which was concerned specifically with quantum energy teleportation).
The idea is a continuation of quantum teleportation which was originally proposed by C.H. Bennett, et al. in 1993[16] and experimentally confirmed by various experiments in the following years.[17][18][19] Protocols of the quantum teleportation transfer quantum information, but cannot teleport energy itself.
It appears you are wrong on matter. And later in the wikipedia entry.
However, if information about a local zero-point fluctuation, which carries a portion of the zero-point energy, is obtained by a measurement of a distant subsystem via ground-state entanglement, the energy becomes available, and can be extracted by a local operation dependent on the information.
The clear implication is that information would be primary in energy transfer, just like it is in the transfer of matter, and this is BA's point.Phinehas
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
sigaba, forget about information for the present. Naturalism is demolished by the various proofs in QM that mind precedes matter. Bornagain has summarized it, in his #18. The proofs are not controversial - just not accepted, though I'm right now looking for the tread where a materialist guru admitted what I had indicated here in a post last week, namely that QM renders controversy over the whole question of the age of the earth, for instance, fatuous - that empirically-established fact of mind being prior to matter.Axel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Maybe you're saving both of us some time.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
sigaba, you are so far off base in you premises, I'm not going to waste my time.bornagain77
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
None of your links say this. Go to them, half of them are just verbatim copies of what you put up the first time. Quantum teleportation does not transmute matter or energy into information; it's been suggested that it may be possible but it's never been experimentally verified. Even if it were true, I don't understand how this relates to naturalism. I can grant you you're right for the sake of argument but I can't see how it makes a difference.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
sigaba you erroneously claimed a bunch of unsupported premises, among which,,, "your citations don’t support the idea that mass-energy and information are interchangeable." sigaba, I strongly suggest you have at least a clue about what you are commenting on before you start spouting a bunch of nonsense like you just did,,, notes How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862 The Origins of Quantum Teleportation - Charles Bennett - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZvkPgy7-Y Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011 Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Information in a Photon - Robert W. Boyd - 2010 Excerpt: By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited. http://www.pqeconference.com/pqe2011/abstractd/013.pdf Information In Photon – Robert W. Boyd – slides from presentation (slide 17) http://www.quantumphotonics.uottawa.ca/assets/pdf/Boyd-Como-InPho.pdf Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,, http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.htmlbornagain77
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
I'm not sure naturalism makes any "predictions," it's a philosophy, people like Dawkins make it effectively into a kind of religion. Philosophies can never be proven wrong. I also don't believe this account of naturalism is accurate. Naturalism is the belief that all that exists in the universe is matter, energy and physical laws, and that no supernatural force intervenes. I don't see how the equivalence of mass and energy conflicts with this, as long as the exchange happens according to physical laws. I don't know what you mean by "reduced to information," your citations don't support the idea that mass-energy and information are interchangeable. Matter and energy are not quantum states and are not transferred or converted by quantum teleportation. Your quote from an IBM research page ("destroyed in the process"), in context, is actually taken from a description of a science fiction teleportation machine. I don't think you have any basis to claim that "information" in classical information theory is related to consciousness, your cited works don't support the thesis.sigaba
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Re your the except, below, from your post #18, Philip: ' Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter? Excerpt: “Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. It’s not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with ‘matter’ in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various ‘conservation laws’ of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter/anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do. Also, Einstein’s equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d.....0724a.html Yet somehow, serendipitously, shortly after the big bang, and in the nucleosynthesis of stars, all the pieces of the puzzle spontaneously fell together to get these complex atoms to form spontaneously from energy (at least according to atheistic naturalists it was spontaneous): Big Bang After its (The Big Bangs) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang The Elements: Forged in Stars – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_59-07_00' ---------------------------------- 'As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. -Max PlanckAxel
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
dgosse: 1. There is a God. 2. There is not a God. Which of the above is more concerned with God's existence? Which is more about God than the other? Which sentence has more religious content?Phinehas
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
PS: In that context, it is possible for a state to erect a quasi-establishment of an ideology or a movement (and in particular in our day, evolutionary materialist scientistic radical secularism is such an ideology and activist driven movement), or the like. And such is as dangerous as ever was religious establishment int eh days of absolute kings.kairosfocus
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
DG: To that, we must add that religions can be non-theistic, and that ideologies and philosophies or even movements and world pictures that do not amount to as much organised thought or institutionalisation can be functional equivalents thereto. Nor should we leave off cases were there are sad cases of people who worship at the altar of money or pleasures, or that of their own egos. And, I cannot ever leave off the idolatry of political messiahs. KFkairosfocus
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Here are my references for the claim that "information reduces to consciousness":
The argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Leggett’s Inequalities, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice; Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries; ) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit The Galileo Affair and Life/Consciousness as the true “Center of the Universe” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
Of related note: The following site is very interesting to the subject of consciousness preceding 'material' reality:
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white Please note in the preceding interactive graph that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle; Further notes and references are here:
The 'Top Down' Theistic Structure Of The Universe and Of The Human Body https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NhA4hiQnYiyCTiqG5GelcSJjy69e1DT3OHpqlx6rACs/edit
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. MercyMe - You Are I Am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JI4CPfuLW0
bornagain77
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
Here are my references for the claim that "energy and mass both reduce to information":
Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862 Unconditional Quantum Teleportation – abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5389/706.abstract
It is also very interesting to note that the quantum state of a photon is actually defined as 'infinite information' in its uncollapsed quantum wave state:
Quantum Computing - Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf
As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting 'material' reality, as we experience it at its most foundational level, is 'information'.
"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
bornagain77
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
sigaba you ask,,
How does Quantum Mechanics unequivocally contradict Naturalism?
Well for starters sigaba, Materialism/Naturalism predicted that the basis of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space. Yet, Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -
Double-slit experiment Excerpt: (Though normally done with photons) The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment The Electron - The Supernatural Basis of Reality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5312315/ The 'Uncertain' Non-Particle Basis Of Material Reality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172
As well, Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness was an 'emergent property' of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality. Theism predicted consciousness preceded material reality and therefore consciousness should have a 'special' position within material reality. Yet, Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. ,,In fact, much contrary to what materialism/naturalism had predicted, the correct structure of reality is now found by modern science to be the inverse of what materialism/naturalism had predicted:
1. material particles (mass) normally reduces to energy (e=mc^2) 2. energy and mass both reduce to information (quantum teleportation) 3. information reduces to consciousness (geometric centrality of conscious observation in universe dictates that consciousness must precede quantum wave collapse to its single bit state)
Here are my references for the claim that mass “normally reduces” to energy: The reduction of matter to energy is comparatively easy to accomplish as is demonstrated by nuclear/atomic bombs:
Atomic Bomb Explosion – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI *6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb *4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce of mass *1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs
Whereas to convert energy to matter is a much more difficult proposition: ,,, it is important to note that a 'simple' atom is certainly not 'simple':
Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy - June 2010 Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. "The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today's supercomputers," explains Yakovlev. http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html
And constructing a new atom from raw energy is certainly far more difficult than just adding enough raw energy to the mix:
Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter? Excerpt: "Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. It’s not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with ‘matter’ in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various ‘conservation laws’ of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter/anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do. Also, Einstein’s equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html
Yet somehow, serendipitously, shortly after the big bang, and in the nucleosynthesis of stars, all the pieces of the puzzle spontaneously fell together to get these complex atoms to form spontaneously from energy (at least according to atheistic naturalists it was spontaneous):
Big Bang After its (The Big Bangs) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang The Elements: Forged in Stars – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-21T14_43_59-07_00
bornagain77
May 2, 2013
May
05
May
2
02
2013
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
What is religion? I'm rather fond of this definition from dictionary.com religion noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.dgosse
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
How does Quantum Mechanics unequivocally contradict Naturalism? I know it contradicts determinism, I'm not sure I follow...sigaba
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
A good analogy for the plight of the Materialist caused by QM, seems to me to be a footballer (soccer-player) who has been 'nutmegged' (ball passed through his legs) - inevitably very embarrassing - has spun round and is hopelessly racing back to retrieve the ball, and prevent the attacking team from scoring.Axel
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
What is it about, Naturalism? No. Materialism? No. Deism via QM? Yes! Even in its mystery, its paradoxes, QM points to the unknowable by the analytical intelligence. Dummies!Axel
May 1, 2013
May
05
May
1
01
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply