Entropy Human evolution Intelligent Design

Surprise, surprise, the aging process is irreversible

Spread the love

It’s nice to know that the entropy is good for something:

Backed by governments, business, academics and investors in an industry worth $110bn (£82.5bn) – and estimated to be worth $610bn by 2025 – scientists have spent decades attempting to harness the power of genomics and artificial intelligence to find a way to prevent or even reverse ageing.

But an unprecedented study has now confirmed that we probably cannot slow the rate at which we get older because of biological constraints.

The study, by an international collaboration of scientists from 14 countries and including experts from the University of Oxford, set out to test the “invariant rate of ageing” hypothesis, which says that a species has a relatively fixed rate of ageing from adulthood.

“Our findings support the theory that, rather than slowing down death, more people are living much longer due to a reduction in mortality at younger ages,” said José Manuel Aburto from Oxford’s Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science, who analysed age-specific birth and death data spanning centuries and continents.

Amelia Hill, “Ageing process is unstoppable, finds unprecedented study” at The Guardian

For sure. Declines in deaths from traffic accidents — to take one example — will lead to an older average age in a population. Prevent a war and you have more old codgers around decades later. Prevent teen suicides and the same thing happens. But those people aren’t aging more slowly. They’re aging at the same rate because they are alive.

Note: The researchers found it was the same story with primate apes.

That said, there may be a kind of blip in human longevity, not fully understood, between 105 and 110 years of age. But by the time you are there, you have already broken all the rules.

17 Replies to “Surprise, surprise, the aging process is irreversible

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Why would this mean that we couldn’t figure out a way to stop or slow down the aging process though

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Absolutely, and the sooner the better!

  3. 3
    Sandy says:

    AaronS1978
    Why would this mean that we couldn’t figure out a way to stop or slow down the aging process though

    What for? God made a mistake starting aging clock and you want to teach Him how should had done ? :)) Your grandfather Adam started aging timer and nobody can stop it.

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    You want to live forever on _this_ planet???? I’d go bonkers even living another 100 years!

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Aaron states: “Why would this mean that we couldn’t figure out a way to stop or slow down the aging process though”

    Seversky, seeing his opportunity to create mischief, jumps in and states, “Absolutely, and the sooner the better!”

    Small problem with Aaron’s, Seversky’s, (and Ponce de Leon’s), long sought after, and mythical, ‘fountain of youth’. Growing old and dying is literally built into the fabric of the universe.

    It is called Entropy.

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    Entropy is, by far, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the universe. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    And Entropy is indeed the primary reason why people, (and all other life in the universe), grow old and eventually die.

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    Genetic Entropy – Down Not Up – Dr. John Sanford – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0
    Notes from Dr. John Sanford’s preceding video:
    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

    Simply put, the belief in the mythical ‘fountain of youth’ contradicts the second law of thermodynamics and, as Eddington himself stated, “if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it (but) to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    – Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science

    There simply is no escaping entropic decay, (i.e. growing old and dying), as long as we live in the temporal time of this universe. Indeed, the entire universe itself is headed for entropic ‘heat death’.

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.
    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/p.....uture.html

    But all hope is not lost. As Sir William Thomson himself stated, “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’…. Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Verses:

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Romans 8:19-21
    The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.…

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    EDTA/4

    You want to live forever on _this_ planet???? I’d go bonkers even living another 100 years!

    But there’s so much still to see and do, so many books still to read, so many places to go, even travel into space. Another 100 years would do very nicely, thank you. Another two or three hundred years and I might be around to see the first warp-driven starship!

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/5

    Small problem with Aaron’s, Seversky’s, (and Ponce de Leon’s), long sought after, and mythical, ‘fountain of youth’. Growing old and dying is literally built into the fabric of the universe.

    Pretty miserable piece of design, then, if you ask me.

  8. 8
    EDTA says:

    Sev,
    >”But there’s so much still to see and do, so many books still to read,…”

    I love books too. But if I read for another 100 years, and theism was not the case, then my brain turns back to dust whether I read 5000 books or 5000000. No net difference in the end.

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    Ugh….. BA77
    Nope I’m not looking for the fountain of youth nooooor do I think it possible to escape entropy

    Why I asked the question I did was because I couldn’t figure out how this study proves that it can’t be done

    The reduction of mortality of people at a younger age doesn’t prove to there is no way to live longer by other means due to entropy

    All it means is that people are living longer because more people are alive to do it

    I’m just trying to see how this relates to entropy or proves that entropy will foil all the temps cheating death and stop growing old

    I agree we are meant to die and I would hate to have people like Hitler live forever because I’m sure Sev would love to live eternally under the tyranny of an eternal dictator

    In my personal perspective I think there’s a cleverness to death because it comes for everybody and it plays no favorites but it allows things to change For better or for worse but never forever

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    Now I might be mistaken but I raise issue with this because of the conclusion drawn from it

    Because it turns out that the mortality rate in younger people is less they conclude that aging is inevitable and is fixed in species

    This seems like you have to play “6 ways to relate anything” to draw this conclusion

    Now if they had concluded that our perceptions that people were living longer due to being more advanced and eating right was actually wrong I would agree with that

    So no one take what I asked in 1 like a form of scientism, false confidence in a human endeavor, or blind hubris that science will over come all

    It’s not

    I honestly want to know how they jumped to that conclusion from what they studied

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, when shown, via the second law, that his belief in the mythical ‘fountain of youth’ is a figment of his imagination, and not missing a beat, immediately resorts to bad Theological argumentation.

    “Pretty miserable piece of design, then, if you ask me.”

    Please note that Seversky is not arguing, via science, that the 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe is not designed, (since obviously such an incomprehensible, and astonishing, level of fine-tuning must be the product of exquisite design), but Seversky is instead claiming that it is a “Pretty miserable piece of design”, which basically boils down to this type of faulty theological argumentation,,,

    “atheists have their theology, which is basically: “God, if he existed, wouldn’t do it this way (because) if I were God, I wouldn’t (do it that way).”
    – David Klinghoffer

    And resorting to such faulty theological argumentation, instead of any actual science, has been the primary modus operandi of Darwinian atheists ever since Darwin first wrote his book, and such faulty theological argumentation is still present in Darwinian literature today.

    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/2.....46391.html

    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/2.....89971.html

    Of course, as is fairly obvious, the atheist’s argument from evil and/or imperfection, i.e. “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way”, has a rather glaring fatal flaw within it.

    Namely, it assumes a ‘immaterial’ standard of perfection and/or goodness that has been departed from.

    As C.S. Lewis, (a former atheist), put the fatal flaw in the atheist’s argument from evil and/or argument from imperfection, “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?”

    “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.- pp. 38-39.

    Simply put, in order for the atheist’s argument from evil and/or imperfection to work, the atheist is forced to assume the objective existence of a standard of perfection and goodness that has been departed from. In short, the atheist is forced to assume the objective existence of God in order for his argument against God to ‘seemingly’ work.. i.e. It is a self-refuting argument!

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood – 2016
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE, (the argument from evil), grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist/

    Thus, in their “Argument from Evil” atheists have, apparently unbeknownst to themselves, conceded the existence of an objective, even perfect, moral standard to judge by and have, once again, inadvertently conceded the existence of God.

    Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must hold to be true for his argument from evil to even work, then God necessarily exists!

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    As Michael Egnor states in the following article, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    And as Cornelius van Til put the self-refuting position that atheists find themselves in in regards to their ‘argument from evil’, “A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee.”

    “The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ.”
    – Cornelius Van Til, The Case for Calvinism p.147-148

    In short, without God the place that Atheists are arguing from simply does not exist.

    Moreover, besides inadvertently assuming the existence of God in their argument from evil, the atheist also assumes that there can be no greater purpose for allowing suffering to exist. i.e. He assumes, “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    Yet the atheist’s claim that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good” is directly refuted in Christian theology by what is termed the “Beatific Vision” of heaven:. In which it is held that suffering is allowed, (somewhat like a child learning to play the violin), in order to eventually bring about a much greater good.

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    Thus, although the atheist assumes that no greater good can possibly come about by allowing suffering to exist in this world, that assumption is easily refuted by the very fact that greater goods come about for us all the time by we ourselves enduring suffering for a short time. i.e. We all sacrifice of ourselves all the time in order achieve greater goods in our own lives.

    Moreover, it is not as if we do not have any scientific evidence for the existence of heaven, i.e. of a ‘perfect’ paradise that exists above this temporal realm.

    As I pointed out last week in the “Do Any Dogs Go To Heaven?” thread, the Christian Theist can appeal directly to Special Relativity, one of our most powerful theories in science, in order to support his belief in the physical reality of a ‘higher’, heavenly, dimension that exists above this temporal realm.

    Posts 7 and 8
    Excerpt: ,,, In fact, the higher dimensional nature of special relativity was a discovery that was made by one of Einstein math professors in 1908 prior to Einstein’s elucidation of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity in 1915. (In fact, in 1916 Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski),,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/at-mind-matters-news-do-any-dogs-go-to-heaven-if-so-why/#comment-732631

    Verse:

    Matthew 6:31-33
    “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

  12. 12
  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/11

    Seversky, when shown, via the second law, that his belief in the mythical ‘fountain of youth’ is a figment of his imagination, and not missing a beat, immediately resorts to bad Theological argumentation.

    I don’t believe in a fountain of youth. It would be nice if there was one but this Universe doesn’t seem to be arranged to keep me happy so I’ll just have to live with it.

    Please note that Seversky is not arguing, via science, that the 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe is not designed, (since obviously such an incomprehensible, and astonishing, level of fine-tuning must be the product of exquisite design), but Seversky is instead claiming that it is a “Pretty miserable piece of design”, which basically boils down to this type of faulty theological argumentation,,,

    Do you ever actually examine your arguments? You and John Sanford are pointing to entropy and arguing it is proof of design. You’re saying that life and this Universe have a built-in, delayed-action, self-destruct process. Now tell my why in Mog’s name any designer would do such a thing. Because if it is there as a result of design then, yes, it is a pretty miserable thing to do.

    As C.S. Lewis, (a former atheist), put the fatal flaw in the atheist’s argument from evil and/or argument from imperfection, “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?”

    And my answer to Lewis and anyone else who makes this ridiculous comment is, are you really telling me that you would have no idea what is cruel and unjust, good or evil unless your God told you? You could look at a child being tortured and murdered and, if your God has not told you it’s wrong, you would just stand there scratching your head and wonder what all the fuss was about?

    Simply put, in order for the atheist’s argument from evil and/or imperfection to work, the atheist is forced to assume the objective existence of a standard of perfection and goodness that has been departed from. In short, the atheist is forced to assume the objective existence of God in order for his argument against God to ‘seemingly’ work.. i.e. It is a self-refuting argument!

    If your God can work out what’s good and evil on His own then why can’t we?

    Yet the atheist’s claim that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good” is directly refuted in Christian theology by what is termed the “Beatific Vision” of heaven:. In which it is held that suffering is allowed, (somewhat like a child learning to play the violin), in order to eventually bring about a much greater good.

    Yes, we have to put in long hours of practice to learn how to play the violin. But wouldn’t it be better if, like in The Matrix, we could just plug ourselves into a violin-playing program and instantly become expert fiddlers? Would that be beyond you God’s powers?

    Human beings sometimes have to accept the existence of suffering because we don’t have the power to do otherwise. Your God does.

    In the early days of surgery, the best that could be done to alleviate the patient’s pain was to give them a few slugs of whisky and something to bite on. Since then, we’ve developed a range of effective anesthetics to suppress pain. When we have the knowledge and power to do better, we do. We don’t just brush it off with something about suffering being good for the soul.

    Your God is all-knowing and all-powerful. It doesn’t make sense to say He couldn’t arrange things so that there was no suffering. If suffering exists then He wants it that way, if He exists.

  14. 14
    Yarrgonaut says:

    Bornagain77,
    I don’t think the Christian idea and indeterminate longevity are opposed at all. For example we see in Isaiah 65:20 “Never again will there be in it
    an infant who lives but a few days,
    or an old man who does not live out his years;
    the one who dies at a hundred
    will be thought a mere child;
    the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
    will be considered accursed.”

    This is of course describing the “Kingdom of God”, but depending upon one’s eschatology, we could expect more or less of a move in that direction. As an amillennialist personally, I think the idea jives with much of what we should expect from a Christian future. Contrarily, I find that the importance of entropy in the systematic nature of the universe means that you’d have some genuine theological dilemmas if you were to try and posit entropy as a result of the Fall. Rather I think the introduced problem from a theological perspective should be a missing of the mark, or a failure to have a balance between designed order and chaos (entropy). A narrow path to life that is off kilter.

    I actually think anti-aging research would be a useful pursuit for Intelligent Design. Though it’s probably necessary to form some hypothetical questions:

    To what extent – if any – is the breakdown and death of an organism part of it’s original design? (My hypothesis – it isn’t a part of it’s ordered process, only adaptions to it could be.)

    What role to ordered systems play in the prevention of aging and death, and how can these be adapted to benefit the populace? (We are aware after all that the germline is immortal otherwise none of us would be here.)

    What was the intended role of activity and consumption, and how can humanity benefit from the foods and activities we were meant to eat and perform? (For example fruits and vegetables, our intended food supply produce antioxidants and have many health promoting compounds, many which treat a myriad of ailments.) This of course takes the assumption that purpose directed activity – doing what we were intended will be better for us. (This takes us to some degree in an alternative health direction rather than a pro-pharmaceutical direction). (To be more specific, I find that there are a myriad of positive health effects of the plant Turmeric. Could there be some design or intention in its medicinal properties? If so, what specifically might they be?)

    How can behavior in line with our purpose (telos) in these senses promote well-being both mental and physical?

    Seversky,
    >>>
    “And my answer to Lewis and anyone else who makes this ridiculous comment is, are you really telling me that you would have no idea what is cruel and unjust, good or evil unless your God told you? You could look at a child being tortured and murdered and, if your God has not told you it’s wrong, you would just stand there scratching your head and wonder what all the fuss was about?”
    >>>

    That sounds all righteous and noble at first, but the reality of human nature is a lot darker than you think. It was Christianity that was responsible for the end of the gladiatorial games in Rome wherein people would not just stand and scratch their heads. They would cheer over torture, murder, public rapes (sometimes by animals) and little children being brutalized and molested. Christians were often criticized for not taking part in the games and opposing them.

    There are a confluence of factors in human psychology, but what is very clear is that without some exterior reference point for ethics, societies and individuals alike meander into dark places.

    I think we can see it happening already in the breakdown of civility in the West.
    >>>
    “If your God can work out what’s good and evil on His own then why can’t we?
    >>>
    Are you a moral realist? Because if you were a relativist, there really wouldn’t be anything to work out. Morals wouldn’t be discovered they’d be dictated by whatever was in cultural vogue. If you’re a moral realist, what’s your basis?
    >>>
    “Human beings sometimes have to accept the existence of suffering because we don’t have the power to do otherwise. Your God does.”
    >>>
    Have you ever read Martin Luther King’s discussion of the Problem of Evil? You might want to check it out.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Yarrgonaut while I agree with your rebuttal of Seversky’s, (as usual), self-refuting claims, I disagree that you have found a workaround for the ‘problem’ of entropy.

    And while you are certainly correct in your overall premise that living a Christian lifestyle can significantly extend our lives beyond the life expectancy of those who are atheistic in their beliefs,

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Can Religion Extend Your Life? – By Chuck Dinerstein — June 16, 2018
    Excerpt: The researcher’s regression analysis suggested that the effect of volunteering and participation accounted for 20% or 1 year of the impact, while religious affiliation accounted for the remaining four years or 80%.
    https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/16/can-religion-extend-your-life-13092

    And while you are also certainly correct that “anti-aging research would be a useful pursuit for Intelligent Design”, you are incorrect to downplay just how far reaching entropy actually is as to being the primary cause of aging and death in this universe.

    Specifically, Genetic Entropy, i.e. the buildup of ‘slightly deleterious mutations’ in the genome, while it may be slowed down and somewhat mitigated by healthy lifestyle choices, cannot be stopped.

    Dr. John Sanford has done yeoman’s work in demonstrating the fact that genome degradation, i.e. Genetic Entropy, is a reality that cannot be stopped by any known naturalistic process.

    Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH (National Institute for Health): Genetic Entropy – (Human Genetic Degeneration) Can Genome Degradation be Stopped? (Short answer, NO!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mfn2upw-O8

    John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) – Down, Not Up – 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....L0#t=1040s
    Notes from John Sanford’s preceding video:
    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Of note: Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

    Dr. John Sanford – Links to Selected Papers
    https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information?
    Excerpt Abstract:
    Most deleterious mutations have very slight effects on total fitness, and it has become clear that below a certain fitness effect threshold, such low-impact mutations fail to respond to natural selection. The existence of such a selection threshold suggests that many low-impact deleterious mutations should accumulate continuously, resulting in relentless erosion of genetic information.,,,
    Excerpt Conclusion:
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process. Even apart from numerical simulation, it would seem readily obvious that the following factors should interfere with selection effectiveness and thereby increase the threshold for selection: (a) large functional genome size; (b) high mutation rate; (c) significant environmental variance; (d) randomness in the selection process; (e) extensive linkage; and (f) small or fragmented popula-tions. These factors are characteristic of all higher life forms [14] and should therefore be included in any future analyses. Our numerical simulation program incorporates all these factors, and suggests that the threshold for selection break-down should be very substantial for most eukaryotic species. As stated by Keightley and Eyre-Walker “How humans and related species evade the effects of mutation load on an evolutionary time scale is also an open question”
    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010

    And here is a link to the mutation database that confirms, in over the top fashion, Sanford’s observation that the human genome is in the grip of relentless genomic degradation,

    The Human Gene Mutation Database
    The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease.
    Deleterious Mutation total (as of June 29. 2021) – 306,768
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also interesting to note that Dr. Michael Behe, especially since the publication of his latest book, “Darwin Devolves”, has now joined Dr. John Sanford and now holds that persistent genomic degradation is a reality, by showing that even ‘helpful’ mutations, which we once thought were beneficial, “degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent,,”.

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,,
    The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,,
    I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Michael Behe – Darwin Devolves – 2019 video
    – Eric Metaxas interviews biochemist Michael Behe on “the new science about DNA that challenges evolution” as told in Behe’s book, DARWIN DEVOLVES.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNe-syuDJBg

    Darwin Devolves – book
    Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.
    https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617

    Entropy is, scientifically speaking, simply a far bigger problem, in regards to growing old and dying, than you implied in your post Yarrgonaut.

    Indeed, you really did not even challenge the science behind what I was saying about entropy being the primary cause of growing old and dying in this universe, but you only referred to eating right, i.e. ‘the plant Turmeric’, to somewhat mitigate the effects of entropy.

    In fact, your main objection to entropy was not even a scientific objection at all, but was instead a Theological objection,

    Specifically Yarrgonaut you claimed that,

    I find that the importance of entropy in the systematic nature of the universe means that you’d have some genuine theological dilemmas if you were to try and posit entropy as a result of the Fall.

    I think, (and correct me if I am wrong), that you are referring to the fact that, since entropy is the primary reason why things grow old and die in this universe, and since death did not ‘enter the world’ until the fall of man, then having entropy around before the fall of man would, on the face of it, seemingly create an irresolvable theological dilemma for the Christian.

    And indeed, death preceding the fall is one of the main reasons that Young Earth Creationists give for rejecting an Old Earth view of Creation.

    Yet, Dr. William Dembski addressed that supposedly irresolvable ‘theological dilemma’ of death preceding the fall in his book “The End of Christianity”.

    Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski – Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011).
    Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity” is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,,
    http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdf

    As the preceding article explained, Dr. Dembski holds that since Christ’s crucifixion worked both forward and backwards in time, saving both us who came after it, and also saving “many saints who had fallen asleep” before it,,,

    Matthew 27: 51-54
    At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.
    When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and said, “Truly this was the Son of God.”

    Dr. Dembski holds that since Christ’s crucifixion worked both forward and backwards in time, then the effects of the fall also reached both forward in time as well as backwards in time.

    And although many people may strenuously object that ‘backwards in time’ causation is ludicrous and is impossible, advances in quantum mechanics shows us that ‘backwards in time’ causation is a reality and thus quantum mechanics itself, our most powerful theory in science, now offers us a solution, even a ‘mechanism’, for ‘backwards in time’ causation so as to provide the Christian with a resolution to this seemingly irresolvable ‘Theological dilemma’ of death preceding the fall of man.

    Specifically, in recent experiments in quantum mechanics, it is now found that “quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    And as the following 2017 article states, “a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.”

    Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past
    July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html

    And to drive the point further home, in the following 2018 article Professor Crull provocatively states “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,,
    Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,,
    The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.
    https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, on top of that, recent experiments in quantum mechanics have also now shown that “entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Thus, scientifically speaking, and as far as entropy and quantum mechanics are concerned, death preceding the fall is not such an insurmountable difficulty as it would appear to be at first glance.

    Indeed, one could almost argue that, scientifically speaking, death preceding the fall is almost to be expected as far as quantum mechanics itself is concerned.

    Of supplemental note, while I usually (just) argue that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides the correct reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity, what I very rarely point out in that argument is that there is a profound ‘entropic divide’ between special relativity and general relativity.

    You see, in the attempt to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, we find that we are, in fact, dealing with two very different types, and/or qualities, of entropy.

    Specifically, in Special Relativity, (which can be ‘unified’ with quantum mechanics via Quantum Electrodynamics), we are dealing with the extremely orderly 1 in 10^10^123 entropy that is associated with the creation of the universe, i.e. associated with the initial creation of light.

    “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
    – Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    Whereas, in General Relativity, (which cannot be unified with quantum mechanics), we are, in fact, ultimately dealing with the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy associated with Black Holes.

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    – Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476

    And thus, since the entropy associated with special relativity is extremely orderly, i.e. 1 in 10^10^123, and yet the entropy associated with General Relativity, via black holes, is found to be ‘infinitely destructive’, then I hold that those two profoundly different qualities of entropy to be a fairly obvious theoretical reason, (besides the ‘infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for why Quantum Electrodynamics, (i.e Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity), will never be successfully unified with General Relativity into a purely mathematical theory of everything.

    In regards to gravity, (general relativity), being dealt with in the Shroud of Turin, the following article 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.’

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. 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. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    https://academicjournals.org/journal/SRE/article-full-text-pdf/CC774D029455

    And in the following video, Isabel Piczek states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’

    “When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
    Isabel Piczek –
    Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains the ‘event horizon’ on the Shroud of Turin) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ru3_TWuiY

    Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics, (Quantum Electrodynamics), itself 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.

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

    Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

    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 only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as is now empirically warranted with the closing of the ‘freedom-of-choice’ loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Video and Verses

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Romans 8:19-21
    The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.…

Leave a Reply