Leyden and Teixeira: Political “Civil War” Coming Because of Global Warming

_{Cornelius Hunter
April 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently tweeted that Peter Leyden’s and Ruy Teixeira’s article, “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War,” is a “Great read.” The article both urges and forecasts a blue-state takeover of America where our current political divide gives way to a Democrat dominion. This new “Civil War” is to begin this year and, like the last one will have an economic cause. Unfortunately, the thinking of Leyden and Teixeira is steeped in scientific ignorance which drives their thesis. Read more

Comments

as to this Cambrian claim from my previous paper,
Mountains Drive Evolution – 2015 Excerpt: Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change,” Large explained. “Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.” Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions. The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537
Is this associated ice age:
The second ice age, and possibly most severe, is estimated to have occurred from 720 to 635 Ma (million years) ago,[2] in the Neoproterozoic Era, and it has been suggested that it produced a second[4] "Snowball Earth", in which the Earth iced over completely. It has been suggested also that the end of this second cold period[4] was responsible for the subsequent Cambrian Explosion, a time of rapid diversification of multicelled life during the Cambrian Period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation#Descriptions
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Bs77,
So you also claim that liquid water alone, minus freezing and expansion...
Wait. Hold the buses. Who said anything about ignoring freezing and thawing cycles? Freezing and thawing are great ways to break up rock. Surely you are not equating this simple physical phenomenon with glaciation?Allan Keith_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith,
In spite of the thousands of papers suggesting otherwise.
So you also claim that liquid water alone, minus freezing and expansion and Glaciation, is sufficient in and of itself to provide the necessary nutrient rich soil for life in a timely geologic fashion. (I never claimed that liquid water cannot provide some negligible amount of erosion to rocks and boulders). Moreover, you claimed to have 'thousands of papers' that can prove this point that freezing and expansion and glaciation, are for all intents and purposes, from what Bob (and now you) claim, is negligible. Really??? Thousands of peer reviewed papers that prove freezing and expansion and glaciation, are for all intents and purposes negligible??? "Thousands of papers"???? REALLY???? Are you serious and are you a betting man??? Okie Dokie, I'll bite, please show me your "Thousands of (peer reviewed) papers" that prove freezing and expansion and glaciation, are, for all intents and purposes, negligible as to providing necessary nutrients in a timely manner ('timely' manner geologically speaking of course.) I've already listed my peer reviewed paper that shows mountain building, erosion, nutrient cycle, and life, are tightly correlated. Could you answer a personal question before you go looking for those 'thousands of peer reviewed papers' that disprove my point'? Are you on drugs, perhaps hallucinogenics?? Here is another article from Hugh Ross that people can read while they wait on you to produce your 'thousands of papers' that prove my point wrong:
Another Reason to Thank God for the Ice Age Cycle BY HUGH ROSS - JULY 18, 2016 Excerpt: In my new book, Improbable Planet, I list and describe 11 different reasons why a human civilization sustaining billions of humans would be impossible if it were not for our living at the end of a highly fine-tuned ice age cycle. Now, a scientific research team has discovered a twelfth reason.1 An especially strong ice age cycle, like the one we are in now, generates many large gravel-bed river floodplains, which prove to be ecological bonanzas.,,, http://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2016/07/18/another-reason-to-thank-god-for-the-ice-age-cycle
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

I must say, this has been freaking hilarious. Watching bs77 trying to claim that glaciers are necessary for eroding rock into soil. In spite of the thousands of papers suggesting otherwise. True, glaciers have been and continue to be important. But to suggest that water can’t do this in the absence of glaciers is just monumentally stupid. I live in Canada. Igneous rock. Acted on by water, flowing, freezing, thawing and flowing again can do wonders. Add to this the action of lichens and mosses, plant roots, and animal shit, and you end up with very fertile soil. And not a glacier within a thousand miles.Allan Keith_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Environmentalist nuts have proven almost as dangerous as atheist nuts. Of course, there's a lot of overlap with the two.Jammer_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

LarTanner, instead of falsely accusing me of "Wonderful conspirorizing" that 'must sound rapturous from the pulpit' perhaps you might want to actually put forth a testable 'mathematical' theory of Darwinian evolution that can be potentially falsified by experimentation. You know like, for instance, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and err, Intelligent Design have rigorously testable, and potentially falsifiable, theories?? It is one thing to falsely attack a man with ad hominem, it is quite another to actually defend the vacuous theory of Darwinian evolution that is, by all rights, more properly classified as an unfalsifiable pseudoscience rather than a real science.
Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology - video https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
But then again, when stuck in the position of trying to defend the scientifically indefensible, I guess attacking the man instead of the science is all you really got left isn't it??? :) You then stated:
Can you stick to one field and present data? This might be a welcome change.
I have already presented data, primarily from Hugh Ross, that falsified Bob's contention that liquid water alone was sufficient to provide nutrients to the plains. He refused to either read the links and/or watch the video, or to acknowledge the falsification of his claim. I then posted a link, from Darwinian researchers no less, that more clearly falsified Bob's claim for a longer periods of time. A study that also found that “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions (for nutrient dispersal) you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.”:
water cycle https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg Mountains Drive Evolution – 2015 Evolution has been driven by huge swings in oceanic nutrient levels, a paper in Gondwana Research argues, and these in turn are driven by cycles of mountain building. The authors matched three of the Earth’s mass extinctions to periods of nutrient deficiency, while the periods in which the oceans were richest also saw the greatest flowering of new lifeforms, on land as well as in water. “Nutrient trace elements such as copper, zinc, phosphorus, cobalt and selenium are vital for life and are critical building blocks for evolutionary change,” said the University of Tasmania’s Professor Ross Large. When the seas are rich with nutrients, plankton blooms; Large suspects that the extra food supply leads to flowering up the food chain. “Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change,” Large explained. “Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans.” Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions. The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative. One obstacle to establishing connections, the paper notes, is that, “The nutrient trace element composition of the paleo-ocean cannot be measured directly.” However, a team led by Large collected 4000 pyrites from black shales worldwide. The pyrites hold a record of molybdenum, selenium, cadmium and thallium concentrations when they were laid down. While not all of these elements are important for life, they correlate with harder-to-measure phosphorus concentration, which certainly is. Based on this data, Large and his coauthors interpreted cycles of nutrient availability over the last 700 million years, peaking first 550–560 million years ago, and then several times thereafter. The shales can be dated using rhenium-osmium isotope analysis and the layer in which they were found, with more recent deposits dated by fossils at the same level. “There were times when nutrient levels dropped lower than anyone expected,” Large told IFLS. These coincided with the end-Ordovician, late Devonian and Triassic-Jurassic extinction events. “We don’t match the other two, but that is ok because we already have good explanations for those, with the asteroid responsible for killing the dinosaurs and the end-Permian event convincingly linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia.” Large told IFLS that today “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537
Surely you guys don't think fellow Darwinists are biased do you? Moreover, not only was Bob's claim falsified, but a very anthropocentric friendly condition of 'we are at the top of a cycle,, the best conditions you can imagine' for nutrient dispersal was also found. A finding that fits VERY well into Dr. Ross's overriding Thesis.
Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014) https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097
You guys may, once again, refuse to accept falsification (what else is new with Darwinists?), but I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader will clearly see who is being forthright with the evidence and who is, basically, blowing smoke.bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

As far as emulating California, let's not. "Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?" http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.htmljstanley01_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

BA77, That's a wonderful melange of extracted quotes, all pretty much unrelated, from different fields. Wonderful conspirorizing. It all must sound rapturous from the pulpit. Can you stick to one field and present data? This might be a welcome change.LarTanner_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Another, somewhat esoteric, falsification of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution comes from the nature of mathematics itself. Although it is almost universally acknowledged that mathematics exists in some transcendent “Platonic” realm, and although every purported theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the existence of anything beyond the material realm.
What is the difference between naturalism and materialism? Excerpt: Naturalism is the view that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena/laws. Naturalists either assert that there is no supernatural (or metaphysical) existence, or that if there is, it has no impact on our physical world.,,, Materialism is the related view that all existence is matter, that only matter is real, and so that the world is just physical. It simply describes a view on the nature of the universe, while the different branches of Naturalism focus on applications of effectively the same view. Thus, the difference between the two is the purpose of the definition – materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2406/what-is-the-difference-between-naturalism-and-materialism
Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is falsified as being a scientific theory since it denies the very reality of the one thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.
Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
Another somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution comes from population genetics itself. Donald Hoffman has shown, through numerous computer simulations of Darwinian evolution, that if Darwinian evolution were in fact true then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
Yet, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion
Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim that it is a scientific theory. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. per mind unleashed
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Therefore, Darwinian evolution is falsified once again since observation of reality is experimentally found to be far more reliable of reality than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. As Richard Feynman stated:
The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Besides conscious observation becoming illusory and unreliable if Darwinian evolution were true, many other things also become illusory too. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real, such as ‘personhood’ and morality.
Basically the atheist claims he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear, and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/#comment-655355
Thus, the final somewhat esoteric falsification of Darwinian evolution is the fact that Darwinists have lost any coherent basis for defining reality and are, in fact, adrift in a world of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab onto.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

You tell him LarTanner! Atheists never 'win or lose' a scientific argument. They just ignore any and all countervailing scientific evidence. Which, given the pseudoscientific nature of Darwinism, ignoring any and all falsifying evidence is pretty much the core doctrine to their theory. :)
Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience (Popper and Lakatos) - March 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/coursera-vid-by-darwinism-is-wrong-prof-banned-from-youtube/#comment-655046
Since falsifiability/testability (Popper) is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, I want to delve a little more into falsifiability/testability. The main reason that Darwinism fails the falsification/testability criteria for science is because there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the universe for mathematicians to ever build a rigorously testable mathematical model upon.
Laws of science 1 Conservation laws 1.1 Conservation and symmetry 1.2 Continuity and transfer 2 Laws of classical mechanics 2.1 Principle of least action 3 Laws of gravitation and relativity 3.1 Modern laws 3.2 Classical laws 4 Thermodynamics 5 Electromagnetism 6 Photonics 7 Laws of quantum mechanics 8 Radiation laws 9 Laws of chemistry 10 Geophysical laws per wikipedia
As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. per theedge
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached. And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science. Moreover, both of Charles Darwin’s ‘vague’, i.e. 'un-mathematical', criteria that he set forth for falsification of his theory have been met by Behe, Axe, and by Meyer. And yet, unsurprisingly, Darwinists STILL refused to accept those empirical falsifications of their theory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ohia-only-human-intelligence-allowed/#comment-655865
But to go further in falsifying Darwinism, since Darwinism is based on reductive materialism then Darwinism makes some very specific predictions. And those specific predictions, that are based on the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought, have now been experimentally falsified. First off, Darwinists hold that the particular form that any organism may take is reducible to the material particulars of that organism. In particular, Darwinists now hold that mutations to DNA are the primary means by which ‘transformation of forms’, i.e. macro-evolution, occurs. This ‘prediction’ inherent to the reductive materialism of Darwinism has now been shown to be false by several lines of evidence.
Darwinism vs Biological Form – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
Moreover, the failure of reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than DNA itself. In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Godel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.” http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
To state what should be glaringly obvious, since the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian evolution can never explain how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality. In fact, such speculations, as the preceding article highlights, are now proved to be false and Darwinism is therefore now falsified. Another specific prediction of the reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian thought is that the information in life is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. (Darwinists use to claim that the information in life was merely a ‘metaphor’, and that life was just basically ‘complicated chemistry’ but now, since information is found to be so integral to life, Darwinists now mainly claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis.) Yet immaterial information is now shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.
Information is physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) – video https://youtu.be/H35I83y5Uro
A distinct immaterial entity that has, of all things, a ‘thermodynamic content’
Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency – Lisa Zyga – January 19, 2018 Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine’s efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,, per physorg
The coup de grace for demonstrating that immaterial information is its own distinct physical entity, separate from matter and energy, is Quantum Teleportation:
Quantum Teleportation Enters the Real World – September 19, 2016 Excerpt: Two separate teams of scientists have taken quantum teleportation from the lab into the real world. Researchers working in Calgary, Canada and Hefei, China, used existing fiber optics networks to transmit small units of information across cities via quantum entanglement — Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance.”,,, This isn’t teleportation in the “Star Trek” sense — the photons aren’t disappearing from one place and appearing in another. Instead, it’s the information that’s being teleported through quantum entanglement.,,, ,,, it is only the information that gets teleported from one place to another. per discovermagazine
In fact, quantum information, of which classical information is a subset, is now found in molecular biology in every DNA, protein, etc,, molecule of life.
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
Quantum information simply is not reducible to materialistic explanations. Period! As the following article states, “entangled objects (i.e. material particles) do not cause each other to behave the way they do.
Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. per physorg
Thus Darwinism is now experimentally falsified in its claim that information is ’emergent’ from a material basis.bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Bob is relegated to being an imp, that is how Bob is losingET_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

@34-
You are losing the argument, Bob
(1) If that's what you think, then you don't see what's actually happening (2) In any case, it's curious that you frame the exchange in terms of winning/losingLarTanner_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

water cycle https://water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/watercycle-usgs-poster.jpg Mountains Drive Evolution - 2015 Evolution has been driven by huge swings in oceanic nutrient levels, a paper in Gondwana Research argues, and these in turn are driven by cycles of mountain building. The authors matched three of the Earth's mass extinctions to periods of nutrient deficiency, while the periods in which the oceans were richest also saw the greatest flowering of new lifeforms, on land as well as in water. "Nutrient trace elements such as copper, zinc, phosphorus, cobalt and selenium are vital for life and are critical building blocks for evolutionary change," said the University of Tasmania's Professor Ross Large. When the seas are rich with nutrients, plankton blooms; Large suspects that the extra food supply leads to flowering up the food chain. "Nutrients in the oceans ultimately come from weathering and erosion of rocks on the continents. Weathering breaks down the minerals in the rocks and releases the nutrient trace elements, which are the key to life and evolutionary change," Large explained. "Thus when weathering and erosion rates increase for extended periods, more nutrients are supplied to the oceans." Erosion rates peak during, and shortly after, mountain-building events. Mountain ranges large enough to change the oceans result from tectonic collisions. The Cambrian explosion of multicellular life has been linked to a period of increased erosion previously, but associations with subsequent events have been speculative. One obstacle to establishing connections, the paper notes, is that, “The nutrient trace element composition of the paleo-ocean cannot be measured directly.” However, a team led by Large collected 4000 pyrites from black shales worldwide. The pyrites hold a record of molybdenum, selenium, cadmium and thallium concentrations when they were laid down. While not all of these elements are important for life, they correlate with harder-to-measure phosphorus concentration, which certainly is. Based on this data, Large and his coauthors interpreted cycles of nutrient availability over the last 700 million years, peaking first 550–560 million years ago, and then several times thereafter. The shales can be dated using rhenium-osmium isotope analysis and the layer in which they were found, with more recent deposits dated by fossils at the same level. “There were times when nutrient levels dropped lower than anyone expected,” Large told IFLS. These coincided with the end-Ordovician, late Devonian and Triassic-Jurassic extinction events. “We don't match the other two, but that is ok because we already have good explanations for those, with the asteroid responsible for killing the dinosaurs and the end-Permian event convincingly linked to massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia.” Large told IFLS that today “we are at the top of a cycle, the best conditions you can imagine. That is why humans evolved. We are in a phase of collision and rifting, and still feeling the effects of India colliding with Asia to create the Himalayas.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X15001537
And there you have it, optimal nutrients created humans! :) But then again, a person such as Michael Denton, who holds a anthropocentric view, would beg to differ, And would say that it is further evidence that the cosmos, and earth in particular, are and were designed specifically with humans in Mind..
The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis - Michael J. Denton - February 25, 2013 Summary (page 11) Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive. It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.1/BIO-C.2013.1
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

You are losing the argument, Bob...again. But keep trying.Truth Will Set You Free_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

So water rushing over nutrient rich sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon and UK and then creating valleys out of sedimentary rocks tells us how those nutrient rich sedimentary rocks were formed in the first place? Really??? Where did the nutrient rich sedimentary rock come from in the first place? Your claim is that liquid water can do the trick all by itself. Without freezing and expansion and glacial erosion. You are wrong! A little science 101 for you:
Water Breaks Down Rocks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwT1e8R4hz0
as to: So what glaciers were there in Australia?
The Last Ice Age in Australia The technique of 'exposure dating' is a new tool which has revolutionised the way we study the history of glaciers and ice sheets. ANU scientists are using this technique to take a fresh look at the history of glaciation and climate change in Australia. By directly dating glacial debris and eroded bedrock, the timing of the advance and retreat of the ice (a sensitive indicator of climate) can be determined with unprecedented reliability.,,, It transpires that there was not just one but at least four major advances of glacier ice during the last 70,000 years. The coldest part of the last ice age was 20,000-22,000 years ago and only lasted a few thousand years. http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/ice_age
Apparently you still think that nutrient rich farmland can appear out of nowhere when you go on to state:
And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin?
Again, nutrient rich soil just does not 'randomly' and magically appear out of nowhere.,,, read the material provided.
several major ice sheets covered the mountains and surrounding regions of the Andes in South America, the Sierra Nevada and Sierra Madre in North America, the Alps and the Caucasus in Europe, Kilimanjaro and the Atlas in Africa, the Japanese Alps, the Altai and the Tien Shan in Central Asia, the Zagros in Western Asia, Taiwan, and the mountainous regions of New Guinea. https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/
as to:
Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.
If your parents taught you that nutrient rich sedimentary soils can be created from mountains, boulders and rocks by liquid water alone, then you can file that teaching in with what they taught you about Santa Clause. Moreover, as an atheist, Water is certainly not your friend
Water, Ultimate Giver of Life, Points to Intelligent Design – (Michael Denton 2017) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2i0g1sL-X4 Multiple ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html Water's remarkable capabilities - December 2010 - Peer Reviewed Excerpt: All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. ... Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html Water's quantum weirdness makes life possible - October 2011 Excerpt: WATER'S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,, They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore. We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.900-waters-quantum-weirdness-makes-life-possible.html Water Is 'Designer Fluid' That Helps Proteins Change Shape - 2008 Excerpt: "When bound to proteins, water molecules participate in a carefully choreographed ballet that permits the proteins to fold into their functional, native states. This delicate dance is essential to life." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806113314.htm
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Bob:
It’s how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example.
Question-beggingET_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine.
It's not just me who claims that. People who study rivers do too. It's how the Grand Canyon was formed, for example. Most of the valleys in the UK were also formed by rivers, not glaciers.
And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life.
Necessary? Really? So what glaciers were there in Australia? And how come the Nile Delta is so fertile? Or the Congo basin? Both of my parents taught geography, so I literally learned this stuff at their knee.Bob O'H_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Bob you made an unsubstantiated claim that 'farming is possible without erosion from glaciers'. You claim liquid water by itself can erode the rocks just fine. You do realize that it is the freezing and expansion of water that breaks up nutrient bearing rocks into suitable farming land do you not? Liquid water by itself will certainly not do just fine. And you do realize that the grinding, pulverizing, action of glaciers on the nutrient bearing rocks of entire mountains is also a necessary part of this process for providing land areas that are rich in nutrients that can host plant life. Ross goes into much more detail of ice ages throughout the entire history of earth and how they have, crucially, enabled habitats suitable for plant life. I, again. suggest you watch the video and read the books and links I have provided. You arguments are, basically, based on 'self-assured' ignorance. And again, you, in typical 'bob and weave' fashion, failed to answer the much more important questions that are now on the table: At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind? And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Yes, Bob, the earth was intelligently designed and rivers are part of that. Do you have a point? Glaciers bring water where there aren't rivers. Read "The Privileged Planet"ET_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

ba77 - Actually, farming is possible without erosion from glaciers: rivers do the job nicely. Look at the Nile, for example. Or the area around the Tigris and Euphrates. Or, in North America, look at the Mississippi. Or the Murray-Darling in Australia. Liquid water erodes, and this provides nutrients that are washed downstream. Seriously, read up about the Nile and its annual floods.Bob O'H_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Funny, it is a 'non-point' precisely because it is a 'non-point'. i.e. you are making up your own criteria so as to dodge what constitutes a valid point. You stated:
I don’t understand why, if an ice age was so necessary, civilisation developed in an area that was little affected by glaciation. The plains of the Levant aren’t glacial.
Yet the word 'plains' is mentioned in the first three points that Dr. Ross named:
Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains. Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains. Melting glaciers water the plains. Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes. Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions. Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources. Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration. Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery. https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/
Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Or did you just completely ignore the article that I have cited twice now because of what can be termed 'willful blindness' on your part? Perhaps you think farming is possible without the necessary nutrients that were supplied by the erosion processes of glaciation on the nutrient bearing rocks, (or perhaps you think the necessary nutrients 'randomly' appeared out of nowhere), or perhaps you think that farming can occur without an adequate supply of water,,, but, if so, I know many farmers, around where I live, that would certainly like to give you an education on how many factors it takes to successfully farm. And again, it is also a 'non-point' because of the fact that it is clearly you using your usual tactic of 'bobbing and weaving' so as to avoid the meatier issue that is now on the table. Namely, At what point is it fair (for you the atheist) to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind? And if you will never allow any scientific evidence to ever change your mind, then what is the point of me, or anybody else on UD, trying to pretend that you are anything other than insincere?bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

bs77 - I see. So it's a non-point that the argument for the importance of ice ages on civilisation makes no sense at all? The "Glaciers therefore God" argument looks absurd. That does not necessarily mean that it is absurd, but if you're seriously going to advance it as an argument, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to actually defend it, rather than try to change the subject. So, once again, if an ice age was so necessary for civilisation, why did it develop in an area that was little affected by glaciation?Bob O'H_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, you didn't answer the honest question I asked, but tried to, once again, dodge the main issue with essentially a non-point,, so again,,
"At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?"
If not any of the evidence that Ross and Metaxas listed for a habitable planet, well then advances in quantum biology reveal that your very own material body, and how it developed from a single cell to the trillions upon trillions of cells that is now your material body, is not the result of 'random forces'?
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
And advances in quantum mechanics also now reveal that your very own mind is not the result of natural laws but is integral to quantum mechanics at a very foundational level
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4 “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
So again, At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind?bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Wow. That's some list. I don't understand why, if an ice age was so necessary, civilisation developed in an area that was little affected by glaciation. The plains of the Levant aren't glacial.Bob O'H_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

as to:
"What specific pieces of terraforming were needed? And what evidence is there that this is what God, specifically, intended?"
The 'good reasons' for the ice ages were already listed,,,
In the following video, around the 35 minute mark, Hugh Ross covers ice ages, as well as many other factors, that were necessary to produce a habitat that is suitable for a technology advanced civilization to exist on earth: Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014) https://youtu.be/n2Y496NYnm8?t=2097 Of related note is this article: Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity Table 1: Ice Age Cycle Benefits for Humanity Melting ice fields brought nutrient-rich alluvial silt to the plains. Wind-blown dust delivered other nutrients to the plains. Melting glaciers water the plains. Ice field and glacier retreat formed millions of lakes. Formations of lakes and connecting rivers transformed barren deserts into productive land regions. Geological relief yielded abundant hydropower resources. Retreating ice sheets formed land bridges warm enough to facilitate human migration. Glacial retreat formed many safe harbors. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers formed rich ore deposits. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers made possible enhanced abundance of plants and animals during the warm interglacial episodes. Retreating ice sheets, ice fields, and glaciers created spectacular scenery. https://ses.edu/ice-age-is-ideal-for-humanity/
Might I also suggest that you read Hugh Ross's fairly recent book,,
Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894
,,, and also read this pdf for a more complete list of 'terraforming' features,,
Part 4. Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales For the Features Required by Advanced Life by Hugh Ross http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part4_ver2.pdf
On atheism, as you yourself tried to imply, there simply should have been no good reasons for God allowing ice ages.
"If God has been keeping the climate stable, how do you explain the ice ages?" - Bob (and weave)
I merely pointed out that you were wrong in what you were trying to imply. If you read Dr. Ross's book or go though Dr. Ross's pdf list you will find many more 'amazing coincidences upon amazing coincidences' that 'just so happened' to be beneficial for humans. Might I ask you a honest question? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Or is that simply a question that you will never ask yourself? i.e. Is it simply a matter that there is no amount of scientific evidence that will ever make you change your mind? If so, that is called dogmatism not honest inquiry.
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone? - By ERIC METAXAS - Dec. 24, 2014 Excerpt: Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life —every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being? http://inters.org/files/metaxas-science-increasingly.pdf Eric Metaxas - Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po
bornagain77_{April 12, 2018
April
04
Apr
12
12
2018
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

And I was just pointing out that there are good reasons for the ice ages, (part of the terraforming of the earth to make a suitable habitat for advanced human civilization),
What specific pieces of terraforming were needed? And what evidence is there that this is what God, specifically, intended? (of course, if by "advanced civilisation" you mean Norway, then you might have a point. :-))Bob O'H_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

TWSYF @ 1, As long as we are so entertained and distracted by Hollywood and the media, I'm not sure we're up for a civil war...wars aren't fun, and we Americans are all about having fun these days...sadly.EDTA_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

"... while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” To be fair to the liberal Anglicans, natural selection IS an instrument of God's design. In a fallen and still falling world, it preserves a species, stabilising it around its norms, eliminating the outliers. It is one of life's wonderful ironies that natural selection would prevent evolution occurring, were evolution possible.ScuzzaMan_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

"I was just pointing out that it isn’t so stable." And I was just pointing out that there are good reasons for the ice ages, (part of the terraforming of the earth to make a suitable habitat for advanced human civilization), and I also just pointed out that, on atheism, there is no reason to presuppose the earth's climate to have been, as the researchers themselves admit, 'surprisingly stable' to allow life to exist on it for 4 billion years. The multiple factors that allow life to exist on earth within this universe are literally balanced within a knife's edge limit of tolerance of the variance allowed for the climate so that life may continue to exist on earth. That the climate of earth varies within that knife's edge limit for tolerance, without ever going over that tolerance for what is allowed for life to continue to exist on earth, for 4 billion years no less, is nothing short of miraculous. Moreover, photosynthetic life appearing on earth as soon as water appeared on earth 4 billion years ago, is something else that should have caused great 'surprise' for the atheist. But alas, like everything else, atheists basically ignored the Theistic implications and said, "life spontaneously originating must be easy since it appeared so quickly on the primordial earth".,,, Funny that no one can ever seem to catch life 'spontaneously originating' now. :)
Origin of Life: An Inside Story - Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016 Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated… So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal. You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“ James Tour – leading Chemist https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/origin-of-life-professor-james-tour-points-the-way-forward-for-intelligent-design/
My main point, none of this is expected on atheistic presuppositions whereas Theists would expect as such. Take away from it what you will, but, as a Christian Theist, I am more than comforted by what the science reveals.bornagain77_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Bob, what are you talking about now? Where did bornagain77 claim to know the mind of God by saying that he had kept the climate stable?ET_{April 11, 2018
April
04
Apr
11
11
2018
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next