Evidence of Decay is Evidence of Progress?

_{Gil Dodgen

May 13, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s called entropy, and it applies to everything. If you’re a pianist and don’t practice on a regular basis you don’t stay the same, you get worse, and it takes extra discipline, effort, and dedication to get better.

Natural selection is a buffer against decay that is constantly operating in nature. Natural selection throws out bad stuff in a competitive environment but has no creative powers. Since decay is the norm, and random errors, statistically speaking, essentially always result in decay, a creature living underground will lose its eyes because the informational cost of producing eyes is high.

Thus, a crippled, decayed creature in a pathologically hostile environment will have a survival advantage. This is devolution, not evolution.

This phenomenon is not only logically obvious, but Michael Behe and others have demonstrated that such is empirically the case.

Belief in the infinitely creative powers of natural selection is illogical, empirically falsified, and essentially represents, in my view, a cult-like mindset.

When evidence of decay is presented as evidence of progress, one must wonder what is going on in the minds of such people.

Comments

The first part of this video has an example of artificially introduced entropy; THIRD DAY - YOU ARE MINE - LIVE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plwpdgae6UI This is a short video that clearly shows what entropy/noise looks like to information; Random Mutations Destroy Information - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023143/ This also may be of interest as to illustrating one strict constraint for 'evolvability'; Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5457552/bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

BA77:
I don’t know Mung. Entropy has been called the ‘second LAW of thermodynamics’ since it was developed in the 18th century, and yet you declare it is not a law and then tell me to do some research on the second law and then speak. Mung, you really impress me with some of your insights sometimes, but other times, and this is one of those other times, you really do seem like you have no clue what in the world you are talking about.
No, entropy is not called the ‘second law of thermodynamics’. The second law of thermo is a law about entropy, but it is not the only law about entropy (the third law of thermo is an obvious example), and it's not just about entropy (for example, it can also be formulated as a law about free energy). Entropy is not a law, tendency, or state. It is a property like mass, volume, density, or temperature (although it's generally harder to measure than any of those).Gordon Davisson_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

bornagain77:
Mung, here is a good video that may give you some better understanding:

This video file is a 62 minute seminar by Thomas Kindell, which was recorded during the Seattle Creation Conference
I'm not going to watch an hour long video. What does he say that's relevant to this discussion and where in the video does he say it?Mung_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen: Belief in the infinitely creative powers of natural selection is illogical, empirically falsified, and essentially represents, in my view, a cult-like mindset. They unwittingly imbue a euphemistic term with an "active" power which at bottom is really just "passive" criteria. "Natural Selection" is merely a euphemism for a dead-or-alive outcome imposed on whatever was able to reproduce previously and whatever fails to reproduce again. Reproduction takes place at several successive levels (genomic, cellular, organism and population) and Natural Selection euphemistically "filters out" failures and "filters in" successes at each level. The reasons for failure are numerous and varied, but the reasons for success are essentially two: lesser environmental pressure or greater fitness. Natural Selection does not destroy, create or modify the reasons for failure or success. Natural Selection is like nature's "Quality Control"; it doesn't make or break anything, it only 'reports' anything reproduced and surviving a previous step as qualified for the next step. Anything that died isn't even evaluated having already been "selected out". Natural Selection is not active; it is a passive after-the-fact consequence of life or death, it is the effect, it is *not* the cause of life or death itself. Natural Selection doesn't create; rather mutations/variations and reproduction do that, nor does Natural Selection eliminate, as death in all its manifestations does that. Natural Selection is merely the euphemism assigned to the consequential result of surviving or dying. As Darwnists often confuse cause with effect in their search for cause, and are notoriously imprecise in their "theories", it is not surprising they mistake the effect or results of selection with the cause and means of selection.Charles_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

To build up the physics background at 101 level, I suggest Schiller’s Motion Mountain.
awesome. thanks.Mung_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

What is natural selection? Natural selection is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable variation. Differential reproduction just means that some will (may) out-reproduce others. And if that differential reproduction is due to some heritable variation then you have natural selection. The heritable variation doesn't even have to be genetic as behavioral characteristics can be passed down also. And all of that depends on the environment as what is beneficial or working good enough in one environment may not be beneficial nor working good enough in another environment. And that brings us to another point- whatever works "good enough" gets kept as natural selection basically eliminates that which doesn't work good enough. Does natural selection have a direction? Only if survivability is a direction.Joseph_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Mung, so now you deny the 'observed fact' of the expansion of the universe, throughout its cosmic history, as well as you deny the 'observed fact' of entropy through that same cosmic history. And Mung, exactly why am I suppose to take your 'gut feeling' over observed fact when it comes to dealing with science???bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.htmlbornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

BA77:
Mung, for me the most common sense proof of Entropy, besides the fact that we all grow old and die, is that all things in the universe are headed for thermodynamic equilibrium, is the fact that the universe is expanding. i.e. is the fact that the universe is ‘spreading out’ equally in all places
More silliness. So the universe is expanding, like a gas, to fill the available volume?Mung_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

BA77: 'Entropy is the tendency of things to decay in this universe' Mung: 'No, it isn’t.' BA77 ' …and is considered by many to be the MOST irrefutable law of science;' Mung; 'Entropy is not a law.' Mung, If you are not denying the reality of entropy, in the preceding statements, then please tell me exactly what in blue blazes you are doing???bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

BA77:
Mung since you don’t believe in Entropy.
This is just silly.Mung_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Well DrBOT, seeing as you are not so confident as to say information can be generated so as to prove OOL feasible, perhaps you can falsify this null hypothesis which I listed earlier with your comrades computer program; The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.htmlbornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

ba77. We were discussing evolution, not OOL. How are those portable goalposts holding up, they certainly do a lot of traveling ;)DrBot_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

DrBOT, if you really are so confident that you, and your comrades, are reflecting reality and are actually generating prescriptive information over and above what was already present, instead of playing games with smoke and mirrors, then by-golly submit the computer program for a 1 million dollar prize!!!! "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s). http://lifeorigin.info/bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

All of this research is a form of artificial selection, not natural selection. Choice for potential function at decision nodes, prior to the realization of that function, is always artificial, never natural.
Yes, and random mutations are also artificial when generated in an artificial system. Weather in a weather simulator is artificial - does the simulation reflect reality? A simulation of erosion is not real - it is artificial erosion. And whilst I'm at it:
The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution.
the solution? There are often many solutions, and sometimes none - not all GA's find a solution, and many find solutions that were unexpected - take a look at the work on evolvable hardware.DrBot_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

further notes of related interest; The immune system is a comparable situation to what neo-Darwinists are trying to claim for DESIGNED computer programs that hill climb to a predetermined goal; Falk’s fallacy - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/falks-falacy/ Response to Kathryn Applegate - Caroline Crocker PhD.- cell biologist and immunologist - October 2010 Excerpt: Diversity of antibodies generated by B cells is due to deliberate, cell-engineered changes in the DNA sequence, not random mutations. In fact, I have never before heard the process whereby functional antibodies are formed (before they encounter antigen) described as mutation. And it is well-known that the appearance of functionality as a result of a mistake-mutation is extremely rare. Of course, after encountering antigen the hypervariable regions of the antibody DNA do undergo somatic hypermutation, but again this is in particular places and is controlled by enzymes.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/comments-on-kathryn-applegate%E2%80%99s-may-posts-on-biologos/#more-15176 Generation of Antibody Diversity is Unlike Darwinian Evolution - microbiologist Don Ewert - November 2010 Excerpt: The evidence from decades of research reveals a complex network of highly regulated processes of gene expression that leave very little to chance, but permit the generation of receptor diversity without damaging the function of the immunoglobulin protein or doing damage to other sites in the genome. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/response_to_edward_max_on_talk040661.html "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

What would be surprising DrBOT is if the operating system of the computer program which was designed to ‘evolve’ the code, was itself opened up to the random mutation, natural selection process. DrBOT, how far do you think the program would get if it actually reflected reality like that???
Yes, that would be surprising and I don't think it would get very far! I'm not sure why you think that would reflect reality though? As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not mutate at random - if they did the universe would break!DrBot_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

What would be surprising DrBOT is if the operating system of the computer program which was designed to 'evolve' the code, was itself opened up to the random mutation, natural selection process. DrBOT, how far do you think the program would get if it actually reflected reality like that???bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

DrBOT, excerpt from your article: 'In this arrangement, the host PC begins the run by creating the initial random population (with the XC6216 waiting). Then, for generation 0 (and each succeeding generation), the PC creates the necessary configuration bits to enable the XC6216 to measure the fitness of the first individual program in the population (with the XC6216 waiting). Thereafter, the XC6216 measures the fitness of one individual. Note that the PC can simultaneously prepare the configuration bits for the next individual in the population and poll to see if the XC6216 is finished. After the fitness of all individuals in the current generation of the population is measured, the genetic operations (reproduction, crossover, and mutation) are performed (with the XC6216 waiting). This arrangement is beneficial because the computational burden of creating the initial random population and of performing the genetic operations is small in comparison with the fitness measurement task.' and the problem with that DrBOT is,,, Constraints vs. Controls - Abel - 2010 Excerpt: Classic examples of the above confusion are found in the faulty-inference conclusions drawn from many so-called “directed evolution,” “evolutionary algorithm,” and computer-programmed “computational evolutionary” experimentation. All of this research is a form of artificial selection, not natural selection. Choice for potential function at decision nodes, prior to the realization of that function, is always artificial, never natural. http://www.bentham.org/open/tocsj/articles/V004/14TOCSJ.pdf Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism - Dembski - Marks - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: The effectiveness of a given algorithm can be measured by the active information introduced to the search. We illustrate this by identifying sources of active information in Avida, a software program designed to search for logic functions using nand gates. Avida uses stair step active information by rewarding logic functions using a smaller number of nands to construct functions requiring more. Removing stair steps deteriorates Avida’s performance while removing deleterious instructions improves it. http://evoinfo.org/publications/evolutionary-synthesis-of-nand-logic-avida/ The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity - David L. Abel Excerpt: "To stem the growing swell of Intelligent Design intrusions, it is imperative that we provide stand-alone natural process evidence of non trivial self-organization at the edge of chaos. We must demonstrate on sound scientific grounds the formal capabilities of naturally-occurring physicodynamic complexity. Evolutionary algorithms, for example, must be stripped of all artificial selection and the purposeful steering of iterations toward desired products. The latter intrusions into natural process clearly violate sound evolution theory." http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin - the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation - as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems. Watson R.A. - 2006 - Compositional Evolution - MIT Press - Pg. 272 In the following podcast, Robert Marks gives a very informative talk as to the strict limits we can expect from any evolutionary computer program: Darwin as the Pinball Wizard: Talking Probability with Robert Marks - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/03/darwin_as_the_pinball_wizard_t.html Here are a few quotes from Robert Marks from the preceding podcast, as well as link to further quotes by Dr. Marks: * [Computer] programs to demonstrate Darwinian evolution are akin to a pinball machine. The steel ball bounces around differently every time but eventually falls down the little hole behind the flippers. * It's a lot easier to play pinball than it is to make a pinball machine. * Computer programs, including all of the models of Darwinian evolution of which I am aware, perform the way their programmers intended. Doing so requires the programmer infuse information about the program's goal. You can't write a good program without [doing so]. Robert J. Marks II - Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Marks_II Signature In The Cell - Review Excerpt: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these (evolutionary) algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed to do that. What would be surprising is if the program didn't converge on the solution. That would reflect badly on the skill of the programmer. Everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill-the information input. There are no mysterious outputs. Software Engineer - quoted to Stephen Meyer http://www.scribd.com/full/29346507?access_key=key-1ysrgwzxhb18zn6dtju0bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Efficient Evolution of Machine Code for CISC Architectures using Blocks and Homologous Crossover. Peter Nordin, Wolfgang Banzhaf and Frank Francone This chapter describes recent advances in genetic programming of machine code. Evolutionary program induction of binary machine code is one of the fastest1 GP methods and the most well studiedlinear approach. The technique has previously been known as Compiling Genetic Programming System (CGPS) but to avoid confusion with methods using an actual compiler and to separate the system from the method, the name has been changed to Automatic Induction of Machine Code with Genetic Programming (AIM-GP). AIM-GP stores individuals as a linear string of native binary machine code, which is directly executed by the processor. The absence of an interpreter and complex memory handling allows increased speed of several orders of magnitudes. AIM-GP has so far been applied to processors with a fixed instruction length (RISC) using integer arithmetics. This chapter describes several new advances to the AIM-GP method which are important for the applicability of the technique. Such advances include enabling the induction of code for CISC processors such as the most widespread computer architecture INTEL x86 as well as JAVA and many embedded processors. The new technique also makes AIM-GP more portable in general and simplifies the adaptation to any processor architecture. Other additions include the use of floating point instructions, control flow instructions, ADFs and new genetic operators e.g. aligned homologous crossover. We also discuss the benefits and drawbacks of register machine GP versus tree-based GP. This chapter is meant to be a directed towards the practitioner, who wants to extend AIM-GP to new architectures and application domains.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.9589&rep=rep1&type=pdfDrBot_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Mung, You are basically making the same exact claim that neo-Darwinists make if you think 'non-crashed' computer programs can evolve into better computer programs, moreover, as SCheesman pointed out in the fatal flaw of your software analogy, no one has ever seen a computer program write even a single piece of programming code (prescriptive information) Natural Selection, Genetic Mutations and Information - EXPELLED http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840/ --------------- Dr. David Berlinski: Accounting for Variations (Clip 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Mung: I'll say it a different way. Not a single piece of code you have ever produced was obtained by the random mutation of a previous piece of code. I can say that with absolute certainty. How can you even speak of code "evolving" into something more useful or complex (or "fit") by that process, given your own experience writing it?SCheesman_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Mung - sorry I just came upon this thread. I am also a software developer, and came upon your comment:
But it’s obvious that a running program has more opportunity to complete than a non-running program. So if these programs were ‘evolving’ by duplicating themselves and competing for processing power, which program would have more opportunities to evolve? The program that crashed, or the program that did not crash?
This, in a nutshell sums up the whole problem with explaining evolution as the result of selecting beneficial mutations. Software does not "evolve" itself unless it is carefully designed to do so, and then only in a tightly bound scope. Introduce any sort of mutation and it won't even compile, let alone do something new and useful that would give it a global advantage over the previous version. The universe is not large enough, nor time long enough for one programme to evolve a better one by random substitution of code primitives. This is why you design code, instead of closing your eyes and pecking keys at random, then opening them to pick out version that runs better. Doesn't happen. Won't happen.SCheesman_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Folks: As a 101 on entropy and related topics in the context of ID issues, you may consider reading here. Note too, the discussion in the ID foundation series here at UD. To build up the physics background at 101 level, I suggest Schiller's Motion Mountain. I point to his vol I, chs on the specific topic. The secret to how entropy can be reduced locally while organisation is built up, is that we have directed energy conversion devices that do work according to a program. That allows entropy to be exported to the environment as energy and materials waste -- ever wondered why power plants have cooling systems and why cities have junkyards, or why houses have bathrooms? Cf the way cells are set up as self-replicating entities and how there is a bodybuilding program that moves zygotes to complete functioning organisms. Beyond that, entropy is a quantity [or, these days, a cluster of 3 - 4 dozen more or less related quantities: TYPE-X entropy . . . where TYPE_X is a name or a group of names as a rule] and the second law discusses how it tends to increase, with stat mech providing the statistical underpinnings. Fundamentally, once there is some freedom for systems to spontaneously develop at micro-levels, they tend to move towards states where energy and mass are in clusters of microstates that have the biggest relative statistical weight. To stop that from happening in something like a living system, there is complex functional organisation that creates metabolic and self-replicating processes. These are of course highly unusual and specific, often algorithm-effecting structures. The best, empirically warranted explanation for such is design. GEM of TKI (FWIW, Applied Physicist)kairosfocus_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Mung, for me the most common sense proof of Entropy, besides the fact that we all grow old and die, is that all things in the universe are headed for thermodynamic equilibrium, is the fact that the universe is expanding. i.e. is the fact that the universe is 'spreading out' equally in all places; Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – expanding 4D space/time – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/CMB_Timeline.jpg In fact the accelerating 'cosmic inflation' of the universe, if unchecked in its present course, is hypothesized to do the following,,, Big Rip Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip i.e. Entropic decay towards thermodynamic equilibrium seems to be tied semi-directly to the rate of the expansion of the universe,,, But as Christians we have a promised hope for a 'new' future,,, Revelation 21:1-4 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” of related interest: A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 ------------ The Way - Fastball - music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4193448/bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

It has always seems to me that people (in general, and irrespective of their stance about Darwinism) are frequently using terms like 'order' (and 'disorder') and 'entropy' equivocally. For instance, 'order' (and 'disorder') is used, frequently simultaneously, to denote two very opposite states or conditions: living systems are 'orderly' and crystals are 'orderly' (maximally so, in fact), yet is not a crystal about as opposite from a living system as one can get?Ilion_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

Mung: "I’ve come to be among those who do not feel a need to absolve God of being the author of “evil.” Am I alone?" Nope. And, for the record, God does not shy from taking the responsibility.Ilion_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT}

Mung: "Historically, has Christianity ever been seen to be in opposition to an eternal universe?" But, of course. How can you not know this. Would not an "eternal universe" be one that is not caused? Christianity has always said that "the universe" is caused; is this not equivalent to saying that "the universe" is not eternal? At the same time, looking at the question for a different perspective, there is no such thing as "the universe" (which is why I keep putting the term in quote marks). The concept 'the universe' is just that, a concept; it is not a concrete physically-existing thing. To speak of "the universe" as though it were an actual entity is like speaking of 'humanity' as though it were an actual entity.Ilion_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Mung: "I’ll probably never understand how Darwin’s theory ever came to be interpreted as a theory which excludes design." Because that was the whole point from the start.Ilion_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

correction; so that THINGS like broken eggs put themselves back together again,,,bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply