Should we call the Pauli Exclusion Principle quantum fine-tuning?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 29, 2019

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design}

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

An astrophysicist explains:

If we didn’t have the Pauli Exclusion Principle to prevent multiple fermions from having the same quantum state, our Universe would be extremely different. Every atom would have almost identical properties to hydrogen, making the possible structures we could form extremely simplistic. White dwarf stars and neutron stars, held up in our Universe by the degeneracy pressure provided by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, would collapse into black holes. And, most horrifically, carbon-based organic compounds — the building blocks of all life as we know it — would be an impossibility for us.Ethan Siegel, “This Little-Known Quantum Rule Makes Our Existence Possible” at Forbes

Paging Hugh Ross… 😉

See also: Fungus found that can oxidize gold

Rob Sheldon: Researchers Showed That The Carbon State Of The Universe IS Fine-Tuned

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

As William Lane Craig quipped, " if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.”
“In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.” - William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA
Along that same line:
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest logicians to have ever lived.
Thus, as far as science itself is concerned, your starting atheistic presupposition that life should be fairly common in this universe is all but falsified. Whereas the Theistic presupposition that the earth is unique in this universe in its ability to host life is strongly supported by the scientific evidence that we now have available to us:
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
Thus Seversky you have literally ZERO scientific evidence supporting your starting atheistic position that life should be fairly common in this universe, whereas, once again, the Christian Theist can appeal directly to the scientific evidence itself to support his position that the earth is extremely unique in this universe in its ability to support life. Yet Seversky, since you are a dogmatic atheist who could care less about what the scientific evidence itself actually says, what do you do? Well just like Darwin himself did in his book "Origin", since you cannot appeal to actual scientific evidence to support your position, you have appealed, in post 14, to bad Theological argumentation about how you personally prefer God to have created the universe. In fact, on four separate occasions in post you state, "Would you, as a Creator," allow such and such. In case you have not noticed Seversky, that is NOT a scientific argument in support of your atheistic position but is a Theological argument! Moreover, this type of theological argumentation is a self refuting argument for you, a dogmatic atheist, to make. In short, Theology itself, not scientific evidence, is essential to your argument. In fact, without "God-talk" your argument collapses in on itself since you have ZERO scientific evidence supporting your claim. As Cornelius van Til quipped, the atheist is "like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face."
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter Photo – an atheist contemplating his 'mind' http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
Seversky, your appeal to bad Theological argumentation, instead of any substantiating scientific evidence that your atheistic position is actually true, is not surprising. From Darwin onward, Atheists have constantly relied on bad Theological argumentation to try to make their case:
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html
For someone, such as yourself, who supposedly toes the methodological naturalism party line, (a position in which an appeal to God is forbidden), to say this rampant abuse of Theological argumentation in order to support atheism is cheating would be an understatement. But alas, since atheistic metaphysics is completely insane as a worldview, I guess railing against how God actually created the universe and how much better you would have created the earth and the universe if you were God, is all you, a dogmatic atheist who could care less about truth and actual scientific evidence, have got left.
"Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics. It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to our culture and to our souls" - AN ATHEIST ARGUES AGAINST REASON And thinks it is the reasonable thing to do MICHAEL EGNOR MAY 24, 2019
bornagain77_{June 1, 2019
June
06
Jun
1
01
2019
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky, you conceded that some “vast super-intelligence” could possibly be behind the fine-tuning of the universe, and also basically conceded that “our little Garden of Eden” is very rare in this universe. But then you, in a direct contradiction in logic, claimed “that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.” To remind you of what your atheistic position actually holds, the position of atheists is that life is NOT special on the earth. In fact, sans Carl Sagan, SETI, and NASA's exoplanet exploration, atheists presuppose that planets that are able to host life should be fairly common in this universe. But that is not what we have found. It turns out that planets that are able to host life are exceedingly rare in this universe.
The Privileged Planet – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7 "If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances." Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000) Still Taking Aim at Eric Metaxas, the Media Underestimate the Degree to which Physicists See Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - January 13, 2015 Excerpt: "Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe." London astrobiologist - David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional -- and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/still_taking_ai092671.html Search for signs of alien civilisations in 100,000 galaxies has turned up nothing - 12 MAY 2015 Excerpt: "Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien civilisation using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own purposes," said Wright. "That's interesting because these galaxies are billions of years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been filled with alien civilisations, if they exist. Either they don't exist, or they don't yet use enough energy for us to recognise them." This is the dilemma at the heart of the Fermi Paradox. Logically, there have been plenty of opportunities for life to occur around the Universe, so where are all the aliens? http://www.sciencealert.com/search-for-signs-of-advanced-civilisation-in-100-000-galaxies-has-turned-up-nothing Why so many ‘Earth-like’ planets wind up being bogus - Terrence McCoy - January 7, 2015 Excerpt: In June 2011, after several promising planets either proved to be figments or balls of heat and radiation, Harvard astrophysicist Howard Smith said we’re alone in the universe. “We have found that most other planets and solar systems are wildly different from our own,” he said. “They are very hostile to life as we know it…. Extrasolar systems are far more diverse than we expected, and that means very few are likely to support life.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/07/why-so-many-earth-like-planets-wind-up-being-bogus/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3 (Our) Rare Solar System Gets Rarer - Hugh Ross - November 5, 2018 Excerpt: Astronomers have detected and measured the mass and/or orbital features of 3,869 planets in 2,887 planetary systems beyond the solar system.1 This ranks as a staggering rate of discovery, given that the first confirmed detection of a planet orbiting another hydrogen-fusion-burning star was as recent as 1995.2 What do the characteristics of these systems reveal about potential habitability for advanced life?,,, How many of the known multiple-planet systems exhibit these life-essential features? The answer for the 638 known multi-planet exoplanetary systems is zero.13 How about the known exoplanetary systems where only one planet has been discovered? Of these 2,249 systems, they either lack a cold Jupiter closer than 14 times Earth’s distance from the Sun or the planet they contain possesses characteristics that would rule out the possible existence of another planet in the system capable of sustaining advanced life. The presumption back in 1995 was that astronomers would find many exoplanetary systems where the probability of advanced life possibly existing in that system would be greater than zero. More than twenty-three years later, with a database of 2,888 planetary systems and 3,877 planets, only one planetary system and only one planet possess the characteristics that the possible existence of advanced life needs. It requires little effort to discern the identity of that single planetary system and single planet. https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2018/11/05/rare-solar-system-gets-rarer Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Presents The Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home – 2017 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNPSZwxEFME Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf
,,, And that is just the probability of getting a life supporting planet in the universe,,, that does not even take into account the probability against 'simple' life appearing on that life supporting planet or against advanced life forms accidentally evolving from that 'simple' life on that life supporting planet,,
DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
Moreover, that is just simple life. When we factor in the existence of intelligent life, i.e. ourselves, the odds get even worse for atheists
16 Steps to Generating Advanced Life | Dr Hugh Ross - July 13, 2017 Excerpt: Naturalists, materialists, deists, and most theistic evolutionists would answer that the chemicals on early Earth spontaneously self-assembled into a simple cell that was able to reproduce. From there, the cell’s daughters evolved to produce all the life-forms that have ever existed throughout the past 3.8 billion years. Such a history requires that life make at least 16 transitional steps in order to generate advanced life-forms.,,, ,,, Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala notes that, from a Darwinian perspective, each step is highly improbable. Taking into account just a few of these steps, Ayala determined that the probability of intelligent life arising from bacteria to be less than one chance in 10^1,000,000.(1) Physicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculated the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.(2) To get a feel for how miniscule this probability is, it is roughly equivalent to someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where that individual purchases just one lottery ticket each time. Realistically, this probability is indistinguishable from someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where the individual purchases no tickets at all. https://bcooper.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/16-steps-to-generating-advanced-life-dr-hugh-ross/ "In another book I wrote with Fuz, Who Was Adam?, we describe calculations done by evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala and by astrophysicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler for the probability that a bacterium would evolve under ideal natural conditions—given the presumption that the mechanisms for natural biological evolution are both effective and rapid. They determine that probability to be no more than 10-24,000,000. The bottom line is that rather than the probability for extraterrestrial intelligent life being 1 as Aczel claims, very conservatively from a naturalistic perspective it is much less than 10^500 + 22 -1054 -100,000,000,000 -24,000,000. That is, it is less than 10-100,024,000,532. In longhand notation it would be 0.00 … 001 with 100,024,000,531 zeros (100 billion, 24 million, 5 hundred and thirty-one zeros) between the decimal point and the 1. That longhand notation of the probability would fill over 20,000 complete Bibles. - Hugh Ross- Does the Probability for ETI = 1?
bornagain77_{June 1, 2019
June
06
Jun
1
01
2019
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Sev@14, I agree that the idea of the universe being finely tuned for us. You can’t even say that about earth. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tornados hurricanes, plagued, etc. The most that can be said is that earth is adequate for the survival of life as we know it. But, given that there is life here, it would have to be.Brother Brian_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 10
And yet, the evidence that Seversky himself cited in post 2 for his claim that it is absurd to believe that “it was all fine-tuned for us” is the fact life here on earth is “not exactly a bed of roses” and moreover that the universe, beyond “our little Garden of Eden”, is very hostile to life. How Seversky can possibly take this as evidence that the universe is not “fine-tuned for us” I have no idea. Welcome to the insane world of atheistic metaphysics. Seversky basically concedes some “vast super-intelligence” could possibly be behind the fine-tuning of the universe, and also basically concedes that “our little Garden of Eden” is very rare in this universe, and yet, in a direct contradiction in logic, he holds “that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.”
Would you, as a Creator, place your most cherished creation on a planet that is periodically in the path of flares of intense radiation erupting from the parent star. Why would you fine-tune your Universe to do that? Would you, as a Creator, site that planet in a solar system filled with high-velocity debris, ranging from specks of dust to huge planet-killing asteroids? Why would you fine-tune your Universe to do that? Would you, as a Creator, place that solar system in a galaxy where stars explode into supernovae periodically, the radiation from which, if close enough, would wipe your creation from the surface of the planet? Why would you fine-tune your Universe to do that? Would you, as a Creator, populate your Universe with black holes that could easily suck your creation's entire solar system into oblivion? Why would you fine-tune your Universe to do that? The fact is that the reality of the Universe we observe is seriously at odds with the notion of a Creator who wants to provide the best for the creatures He supposedly loves and cherishes. Once again, the Universe may have been fine-tuned but it doesn't look like it was for our benefit.Seversky_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

Seversky, if ever there were an exercise in superficial theological and philosophical flatulence, your post is it. Get back to me when you have some real scientific evidence to support your position instead of just you passing the bad gas of your own personal atheistic opinions.bornagain77_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 4
Apparently Seversky presupposes that the entire universe, including the earth, should be a virtual heavenly paradise for life.
No, I accept the Universe as it is. I am no longer a Christian who believes that I am the pinnacle of my "loving" God's creation who must reconcile that belief with living in a "created" Universe which is somewhat less than an ideal habitat for creatures like us. Indeed, one might also be tempted to wonder if God had some other favored race in mind when He designed the place, not us.
Yet no Theist has ever claimed that the universe, or the earth in particular, is a heavenly paradise for life
That would be a bit difficult given the way the Universe appears to be.
m, and Christianity in particular, has always claimed that we live in a fallen world that is subjected to death and decay. In fact, Christianity in particular is vitally dependent on us living in a fallen world. i.e. Christ could hardly be miraculously resurrected from the dead if death were not, in fact, a pervasive facet of this universe in the first place.
Yes, the whole "fallen world" thing is one way out of the dilemma, I suppose. Except it raises more questions than it answers. Why were Adam and Eve forbidden to eat the fruit? What was wrong with them knowing the difference between Good and Evil? And we are talking about an all-powerful and all-knowing God here. If he wanted them to be immune to the blandishments of talking snakes, why didn't He design them that way? He had the knowledge. He had the power. So He had the choice. If they fell from grace it was because that's the way He designed them to behave. And if they behaved the way He designed them to behave, how could He punish them? Worse than that, He didn't just punish them, He inflicted it on all their descendants in perpetuity. Where is the justice in punishing the descendants of an offender for an offense that they didn't commit because it happened before they were born? This whole Fall thing is incoherent nonsense. As for the resurrection, Jesus as the Son of God is immortal by definition. He cannot be destroyed. If He survived the death of his physical body it was because, dare I say it, that was His nature. And if you accept as true what Christianity teaches about the nature of Christ then there was no miracle. That was just an immortal deity doing His thing.
Moreover, exactly how is Seversky able to judge that we live in a less than perfect world in the first place?
I see terrible crimes, diseases, famine, tornadoes, earthquakes, acts of terrorism, TV reality show hosts in the White House. What more do you need?
The ability of Seversky’s immaterial mind to be able to judge that we live in a less than perfect world in the first place is in and of itself self-refuting to Seversky’s atheistic materialism. As C S Lewis pointed out,,, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
I'm pretty sure even C S Lewis knew it was a bad idea to walk in front of a speeding bus. He didn't need an omniscient God to tell him.
Really??? And other than your self-refuting apriori aesthetic preference for living in a heavenly paradise, what actual physical scientific evidence do you have that humans are not ‘special’ in this universe?
What do you mean by "special"? How do you know we are? What's the evidence? Let me also note that you and I have very different standards of what constitute powerful lines of evidence. Cosmic curiosities and coincidences are certainly intriguing but do not rise to the standard of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator.Seversky_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179 Supplemental notes defending the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/viruses-devolve/#comment-674732
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Thus, Seversky's argument that it is absurd to believe "that it was all fine-tuned for us" in now contradicted by several lines of powerful scientific evidence. ,, Seversky may, philosophically, not like the scientific findings one bit, but his refusal to accept the scientific findings is not the Christian's problem. It is Seversky's own psychological problem that he has brought on himself by his refusal to humble himself before God. Indeed, that he has brought on himself by his open hostility towards God and even his open hostility towards Christians, (a irrational hostility towards God and Christians which he has openly voiced many times here on UD). But alas, regardless of whatever faux moral outrage Seversky tries to falsely imagine against God (and Christians), the scientific evidence could care less about Seversky's faux moral outrage and, on the other hand, the Christian can take great comfort that the findings of modern science have confirmed his most basic beliefs that Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation and that the universe, and our life in it, is not without any real meaning and/or significance as the atheist falsely holds to be true.. Verse:
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
bornagain77_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Seversky states that
"I have no problem with the concept of some vast super-intelligence which dwarfs us here on our little planet."
Yet he does have a problem with the suggestion,,,,
"that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.”
And yet, the evidence that Seversky himself cited in post 2 for his claim that it is absurd to believe that "it was all fine-tuned for us" is the fact life here on earth is "not exactly a bed of roses" and moreover that the universe, beyond "our little Garden of Eden", is very hostile to life. How Seversky can possibly take this as evidence that the universe is not "fine-tuned for us" I have no idea. Welcome to the insane world of atheistic metaphysics. Seversky basically concedes some "vast super-intelligence" could possibly be behind the fine-tuning of the universe, and also basically concedes that "our little Garden of Eden" is very rare in this universe, and yet, in a direct contradiction in logic, he holds "that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.” How someone can possibly get from the fact that the ability of the earth to host life in this universe is extremely rare to the conclusion "that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face”, I have no 'earthly' idea. But apparently in atheistic metaphysics such a direct contradiction in logic is readily accepted, even embraced, without a bat of an eyelid. Of course, those of us who demand that arguments from atheists at least be coherent in their logic are under no obligation to accept such a blatant contradiction in logic on Seversky's part and, in fact, will reject Seversky's argument because it is logically self-refuting. Moreover, besides the fact that the earth is shown to be extremely rare in its ability to host life in this universe,,,
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Presents The Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home – 2017 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNPSZwxEFME
Moreover, besides the fact that the earth is shown to be extremely rare in its ability to host life in this universe, another much more compelling piece of evidence that highlights just how unique our solar system and earth are in this universe are the anomalies that are now found in the “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” (CMBR).
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007 The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf Here is the actual graph of the alignment from the Huterer 2007 paper (worth a thousand words): http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/16/14/18/96/axis_o10.jpg Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB – 2010 Excerpt Our studies (see [14]) indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox, or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane: the alignments of the quadrupole and octopole planes with the equinox/ecliptic/dipole directions are much more significant than those for the Galactic plane. Moreover, it is remarkably curious that it is precisely the ecliptic alignment that has been found on somewhat smaller scales using the power spectrum analyses of statistical isotropy, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/847541/
The preceding article was written before the Planck data (with WMAP & COBE data), but the ‘multipoles’ were later verified by Planck data. At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
“Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832
Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’, that line up with the earth and solar system, were found, via ‘averaging out’, in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists presupposed, but was purposely intended from the start of the universe. Moreover, as was mentioned previously, contrary to the popularly held belief that the Copernican principle has rendered any belief in the special status of the earth in this universe, and for humanity in particular, null and void,,, contrary to that popular belief, the fact of the matter is that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful and accurately verified theories ever in the history of science, have themselves now overturned the Copernican principle and/or the principle of mediocrity as being a valid principle in science. Moreover, by allowing agent causality back into the picture of modern physics, as quantum physics itself now demands with the closing of the free will loop-hole by Anton Zielinger and company, and as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then a empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
(April 2019) Overturning the Copernican principle Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of evidence, that overturns the Copernican principle and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730 I will reiterate my case for Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the correct solution for the much sought after “Theory of Everything”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671692
bornagain77_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

hazel:
That is a nice short succinct statement that I agree with 100%
So you don't like science and the inferences it generates. Got itET_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

seversky:
My position is that we have no answers to the questions of why there is anything at all and why what does exist is the way that it is.
So your side is all about ignorance. Got it.
They are the most profound mysteries, which are not answered by postulating a creator God or Intelligent Designer.
That is your ignorant opinion. Why should anyone listen to you? We posit an Intelligent Designer due to our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships in accordance with science. What do you have beyond denial of that?
But, so far, I’m seeing a lot of speculation but nothing that is particularly persuasive, not that my opinion counts for much.
LoL! Your entire position is based on ignorance and the speculation from that.ET_{May 31, 2019
May
05
May
31
31
2019
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Sev writes,
My position is that we have no answers to the questions of why there is anything at all and why what does exist is the way that it is. They are the most profound mysteries, which are not answered by postulating a creator God or Intelligent Designer.
That is a nice short succinct statement that I agree with 100%, FTR.hazel_{May 30, 2019
May
05
May
30
30
2019
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Hgp @ 3
Hello Seversky @2
Hi
You misunderstand the claim of “Fine-tuning” as it is used by those who make that claim. They do not claim, that the universe is fine-tuned “for us human beings”. Also they don’t claim that the universe is “fine-tuned to contain life everywhere within the universe”. They claim, that no life at all would be possible anywhere in the universe, if the constants of the physical laws and the initial conditions weren’t fine-tuned. Having a universe that exists for any sensible length of time is only one condition among many
I am probably not as well-versed in fine-tuning theory as you. That said, I do allow that many in the science community, like Fred Hoyle, look at various physical phenomena and have a hard time believing that such things could have come about accidentally. They think the whole thing looks rigged, that some intelligent agency must have been behind it, even if they don't think that intelligent agent was necessarily the Christian God. However, if you have been here long enough, you will know that the Intelligent Design/Creationist community do take fine-tuning to be evidence of their God's handiwork and, for me, that view runs straight into the objections I raised. My position is that we have no answers to the questions of why there is anything at all and why what does exist is the way that it is. They are the most profound mysteries, which are not answered by postulating a creator God or Intelligent Designer. As a long-time Trekkie, I have no problem with the concept of some vast super-intelligence which dwarfs us here on our little planet. The aforementioned Fred Hoyle even touched on it in his science-fiction novel The Black Cloud. But, so far, I'm seeing a lot of speculation but nothing that is particularly persuasive, not that my opinion counts for much.Seversky_{May 30, 2019
May
05
May
30
30
2019
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Seversky:
It may well be that this Universe could not exist if the values of certain fundamental constants were to fluctuate by even a small amount but to suggest that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.
LoL! Was that supposed to be an argument? That is absurd on its face. :razz:ET_{May 30, 2019
May
05
May
30
30
2019
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Seversky states,
"So here we are, living in a thin film of atmosphere surrounding a small, rocky planet, shielded from the worst effects of solar and cosmic radiation by a magnetic field. Even here, it’s not exactly a bed of roses what with earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires to name but a few.. But step outside our little Garden of Eden without extraordinary protective measures and you will find yourself dead in short order. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of this unimaginably vast Universe is relentlessly hostile to life such as ourselves. It may well be that this Universe could not exist if the values of certain fundamental constants were to fluctuate by even a small amount but to suggest that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face."
Apparently Seversky presupposes that the entire universe, including the earth, should be a virtual heavenly paradise for life. Yet no Theist has ever claimed that the universe, or the earth in particular, is a heavenly paradise for life. Theism, and Christianity in particular, has always claimed that we live in a fallen world that is subjected to death and decay. In fact, Christianity in particular is vitally dependent on us living in a fallen world. i.e. Christ could hardly be miraculously resurrected from the dead if death were not, in fact, a pervasive facet of this universe in the first place. Moreover, exactly how is Seversky able to judge that we live in a less than perfect world in the first place? The ability of Seversky's immaterial mind to be able to judge that we live in a less than perfect world in the first place is in and of itself self-refuting to Seversky's atheistic materialism. As C S Lewis pointed out,,, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,, ,,, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.
As to this claim from Seversky in particular,
",,, to suggest that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face."
Really??? And other than your self-refuting apriori aesthetic preference for living in a heavenly paradise, what actual physical scientific evidence do you have that humans are not 'special' in this universe? In the recent past, you, as an atheist, could have appealled to the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of mediocrity to say humanity had no significance in this universe. But now both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science, have now overturned the Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of mediocrity.
(April 2019) Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of evidence (from General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), that overturns the Copernican principle (and/or the Principle of Mediocrity), and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730
Moreover, to put a cherry on top of the cake, Robin Collins, building off the work of Gonzalez, predicted and confirmed that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is such “as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/uses-and-misuses-of-the-anthropic-principle/#comment-674228 Moreover, on top of all that, Chemistry itself reveals "fine-tuning which (is) clearly for advanced being like ourselves."
Dr. Michael Denton Interview Excerpt Question 14: 14. Q: ,,,you also detail that nature isn’t fine-tuned for just any kind of life, but life specifically like human life. Would you expound on this for our readers? A: there are certain elements of the fine-tuning which are clearly for advanced being like ourselves. We are warm-blooded, terrestrial aerobes; we use oxidation to get energy, we’re warm-blooded and we breathe air. We get our oxygen from the air. First of all, a warm-blooded organism needs to maintain a constant temperature. To do that we are massively assisted by the high specific heat of water, which buffers our body against rapid changes in temperature. In getting rid of excess heat, we utilize the evaporative cooling of water. That’s why dog’s pant, we sweat, etc. Warm-blooded organisms have to get rid of excess heat, and the evaporative cooling of water is the only way you’ve really got to get rid of heat when the temperature reaches close to body temperature. When it’s hot you can’t radiate off body heat to the environment. These critical thermal properties are obviously of great utility to air breathing, warm-blooded organisms like our self. But what relevance do they have to an extremophile living in the deep ocean, or a cold-blooded fish living in the sea? It’s obvious that these are elements of fitness in nature which seem to be of great and specific utility to beings like us, and very little utility to a lot of other organisms. Of course it is the case that they are playing a role in maintaining the constancy of global climate, the physical and chemical constancy of the hydrosphere and so forth. No doubt the evaporative cooling of water plays a big role in climatic amelioration; it transfers heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes and this is of utility for all life on earth. But definitely water’s thermal properties seem particularly fit for advanced organisms of biology close to our own. And even the freezing of water from the top down rather than the bottom up, which conserves large bodies of fresh water on the earth, is again relevant to large organisms. Bacterial cells can withstand quite well periodically freezing. And for unicellular organisms living in the hot sub surface rocks its pretty well irrelevant. In other words the top down freezing and the consequent preservation of liquid water is of much more utility for a large organism, but of far less relevance for microbial life. Or consider the generation and utilization of oxygen. We use oxygen, but many organisms don’t use oxygen; for a lot of organisms it’s a poison. So how do we get our oxygen? When we look at the conditions in the universe for photosynthesis, we find a magical collusion between of all sorts of different elements of fitness. First of all the atmospheric gases let through visual light which has got the right energy for biochemistry, for photosynthesis. And what are the gases in the atmosphere that let through the light? Well, carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen, and nitrogen. And what are the basic reactants which are involved in photosynthesis? Well, oxygen, water, and CO2. The same compounds that let through the light are also the main ‘players’ in photosynthesis. And then you might wonder what about the harmful radiations? UV, Gamma rays, microwaves? Well to begin with the sun only puts out most of its electromagnetic radian energy in the visual region (light) and near infrared (heat) and puts out very little in the dangerous regions (UV’s, gamma rays, X-rays etc.). And wonder on wonder, the atmospheric gases absorb all these harmful radiations. And so on and on and on, one anthropocentric biofriendly coincidence after another. And what provides the necessary warmth for photosynthesis, indeed for all life on earth. What keeps the average temperature of the earth above freezing? Well water vapor and carbon dioxide. If it wasn’t for water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth would be -33 centigrade. Now when you consider all these factors necessary for the generation of oxygen via photosynthesis knowing that not all organisms use oxygen implying that all these coincidences are irrelevant to the vast majority of all species (most of the biomass on the planet may well be anaerobic unicellular life occupying the hot deep biosphere in the sub surface rocks) never use oxygen, its clear that the special fitness of nature for oxygen utilization is for us. http://successfulstudent.org/dr-michael-denton-interview/ The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis - Michael J. Denton - February 25, 2013 Excerpt page 6: Water The fitness of the thermal properties of water for life were first discussed by Whewell in his Bridgewater Treatise [47], and later touched on by Wallace [2: ch. 7]. In The Fitness, Henderson pointed out that water’s high thermal capacity assists in the maintenance of a constant body temperature in warm-blooded organisms [3: p. 89], while its high evaporative cooling greatly assists terrestrial warm-blooded organisms in losing heat when the ambient temperature approaches 38°C. As he put it: "In an animal like man, whose metabolism is very intense, heat is a most prominent excretory product, which has constantly to be eliminated in great amounts, and to this end only three important means are available: conduction, radiation and the evaporation of water ... At a low temperature there is little evaporation of water, but at body temperature or above there can be no loss of heat at all by conduction and radiation, and the whole burden is therefore thrown on evaporation. [3: p. 102;]",,, 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 Privileged Species – video (2015) https://youtu.be/VoI2ms5UHWg
Thus Seversky, not only is your philosophical basis of atheistic materialism self refuting of your claim that humanity is not 'special' in this universe, (i.e. CS Lewis), but the current state of scientific evidence itself, from our most powerful theories ever in the history of science, refutes your claim that humanity is not special in this universe. Moreover Seversky, before you trying to undermine Theism by any means you can possibly find, I suggest that you should first seriously look at the foundations of your own atheistic worldview and see how utterly incoherent it is a rational worldview: Simply put, atheistic materialism is completely insane!
May 2019 - ‘What in blue blazes does biology have to do with Darwinian evolution in the first place?” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinian-jerry-coyne-vents-his-spleen-at-darwin-doubting-yale-computer-scientist/#comment-677158
bornagain77_{May 30, 2019
May
05
May
30
30
2019
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Hello Seversky @2 You misunderstand the claim of "Fine-tuning" as it is used by those who make that claim. They do not claim, that the universe is fine-tuned "for us human beings". Also they don't claim that the universe is "fine-tuned to contain life everywhere within the universe". They claim, that no life at all would be possible anywhere in the universe, if the constants of the physical laws and the initial conditions weren't fine-tuned. Having a universe that exists for any sensible length of time is only one condition among many. You should read a good book about what fine-tuning is about, preferably by someone who doesn't get it wrong. I recommend "A fortunate universe" by Lewis and Barnes. BTW in pages245ss it discusses more or less your point asking "how can the universe be fine-tuned, if it is mostly inhospitable to life?" Your contribution would be a lot better if it would incorporate answers to the points raised in that discussion. One point is "a universe full of life from end to end is impossible (for involved reasons discussed fully in the book)". As it is you come off as someone quite uninformed about the problem discussed.hgp_{May 30, 2019
May
05
May
30
30
2019
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

So here we are, living in a thin film of atmosphere surrounding a small, rocky planet, shielded from the worst effects of solar and cosmic radiation by a magnetic field. Even here, it's not exactly a bed of roses what with earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires to name but a few.. But step outside our little Garden of Eden without extraordinary protective measures and you will find yourself dead in short order. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of this unimaginably vast Universe is relentlessly hostile to life such as ourselves. It may well be that this Universe could not exist if the values of certain fundamental constants were to fluctuate by even a small amount but to suggest that it was all fine-tuned for us is absurd on its face.Seversky_{May 29, 2019
May
05
May
29
29
2019
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

This quote from the article,,,
This Little-Known Quantum Rule (Pauli Exclusion Principle) Makes Our Existence Possible - Ethan Siegel - May 28, 2019 Excerpt: No two elements, no matter how similar, will be the same in terms of the structures they form. This is the root of why we have so many possibilities for how many different types of molecules and complex structures that we can form with just a few simple raw ingredients. Each new electron that we add has to have different quantum numbers than all the electrons before it, which alters how that atom will interact with everything else. The net result is that each individual atom offers a myriad of possibilities when combining with any other atom to form a chemical or biological compound. There is no limit to the possible combinations that atoms can come together in; while certain configurations are certainly more energetically favorable than others, a variety of energy conditions exist in nature, paving the way to form compounds that even the cleverest of humans would have difficulty imagining. But the only reason that atoms behave this way, and that there are so many wondrous compounds that we can form by combining them, is that we cannot put an arbitrary number of electrons into the same quantum state. Electrons are fermions, and Pauli's underappreciated quantum rule prevents any two identical fermions from having the same exact quantum numbers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/28/this-little-known-quantum-rule-makes-our-existence-possible/#2ad2b8c83b24
,,, is very similar to this quote,,,
Super-Saturated Chemistry - Marc Henry - Professor of Chemistry, Materials Science and Quantum Physics – Dec. 2016 Excerpt: Physics claims to be the unique science of matter. All of the other sciences, physicists believe, are special cases of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is this position of presumptive supremacy that drives the quest for a Theory of Everything.,,, Yet quantum mechanics cannot explain the periodic table of elements.,,, Even though Schrödinger’s equation gives a good account of simple systems, no inference is possible to more complex systems. An additional inductive step is necessary.12 With multi-electron systems, approximations must be made and validated by comparison with experiment, not through theory.13 It is a quite remarkable form of empirical mathematics. The quantities that interest chemists do not appear in Schrödinger’s equation,,, ,,,, The chemist is an artist of sorts, close in his own way to the mathematician, who is also able to create his own objects.3 Only their tools differ. Chemical activity produces about one million new molecules every year. In 1984, there were about ten million molecules; in 2015, one hundred million.4 http://inference-review.com/article/super-saturated-chemistry
Moreover, the quote I highlighted from the article in the OP, adds further weight to the following article,,, "In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics', 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: Gödel 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
And herein lies the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists, i.e. for Darwinists, the architectural plans and/or blueprints for how any given organism might achieve its basic biological form is simply not reducible to DNA or to any other material particulars within biology that they might wish to invoke.
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
Also of related interest, Wolfgang Pauli, for whom the Pauli exclusion principle is named after, had this to say about Darwinian evolution,,, "While they (Darwinian biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'”
“As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.” (p. 27) “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” - Wolfgang Pauli - Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher - (pp. 27-28) - 2006 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c374/50c4ef317ac03685450b6dce4acff47295fa.pdf
Too funny, according to Pauli, although Darwinists deny miracles happen, mathematically speaking Darwinists are still very much reliant on miracles after all.
Cartoon - "I think you should be more explicit here in step two." https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/e7/54/d6e754d24aaef324c1595e68583ace7a.png
Verse:
Psalm 139:13-14 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
bornagain77_{May 29, 2019
May
05
May
29
29
2019
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply