We are told: The recipe for the origin of life has been revised

_{News
April 29, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life}

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

The proposed revision is a tweak on RNA world:

Recently, Nobel laureate Jack Szostak’s lab made serious headway in answering the life origin question by publishing the first recipe for making a spontaneously self-reproducing gene in a 2020 Journal of the American Chemical Society paper…
These observations together point to a chemically functional role of ANAs [arabinonucleic acids] that would significantly increase the rate of RNA synthesis and stability in the environment of a primordial Earth. Szostak’s unusual addition to his recipe likely became the “secret ingredient” to making the most plausible RNA-filled gazpacho to date. And with that, the scientific debate around the origins of life on Earth keeps on simmering.
Lauren Gandy, “Scientists have revised the recipe for the first gene and the origin of life” at Massive Science

Scientists revising their origin of life theories is—in the present climate—somewhat like fiction writers revising their novels. Nothing in the world wrong with it. But let’s be clear what level of real-world information we are talking about.

See also: Astonishing! Astrophysicist determines that the odds are against a random origin of life. One might ask why he thinks that “science” must find a random origin for life. Who decided that life originated randomly? What if it did not? Is science still committed to finding a random origin?

and

Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

Comments

Seversky then tries to play off the fact that mass is now found NOT to be an intrinsic property of material particles by saying,
Sorry, but there is nothing in the explanation of mass as interactions between a particle and a Higgs field causes a problem for atheism or materialism. It’s just a different account of the underlying nature of physical (material) reality.
First, it is quite disingenuous for Seversky to not admit that mass being shown to be separate from material particles is quite a blow against atheistic materialism since atheistic materialism originally held that gravity was an intrinsic property of material particles. Secondly, 'fields' are not material particles but are to be considered quite distinct from material particles. Thus it is disingenuous for Seversky to insinuate that the fields are, more or less, just material particles. The most that Seversky can now say it that now material particles are "really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself", which is a far cry from what atheistic materialism originally postulated. As John Wheeler noted
"I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself. Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.
Then Seversky gets to Black holes and claims
BA77: Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains Sev: No, the mass of any matter falling into a black hole is added to the mass of the hole itself. That is how black holes can grow. This is now thought to be offset by the black hole bleeding energy (or mass) into the surrounding space through the emission of Hawking radiation through the interaction of the black hole’s event horizon with the “quantum foam” around it.
And there you have it folks, naked, unashamed, dogmatism in the face of contradictory evidence. The material particle 'disappears' in the singularity of a black hole and yet the gravity remains, and yet Seversky, because of his dogmatic commitment to atheism no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, resolutely refuses to believe that gravity can exist in the absence of material particles. Whatever Seversky is doing on this site, he is certainly not doing science. Seversky, after giving us a crystal clear example of intellect blinded by dogmatism, goes on to state
BA77: If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy. Sev: And I, as an atheist materialist, would suggest that the reason that you and your fellows partake so copiously of the “opium of the people” is that you cannot contemplate the bleak prospect of a Godless reality where atheists can.
Seversky may claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true, but, as with practically everything else that Seversky says, that claim is a lie. Seversky, nor any other atheist, lives his life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true. In the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to live their life as if atheistic materialism were actually true.
Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.” An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.” One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.” Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Thus Seversky's claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true is simply a false claim. As the following article notes, "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."
The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
After his false claim that he can live consistently as it atheistic materialism were actually true, Seversky offers the 'friendly' suggestion that we Christians ought to kill ourselves so as to get to heaven quicker,
I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this “vale of tears”? Why not move on?
But alas, the Christian knows that there is a purpose for this life and thus the Christian can live his life perfectly consistently here on this earth knowing full well that it is not meaningless but that there is a reason for why he is here. Whereas Atheists, on the other hand, since they believe their lives are objectively meaningless, have no objective purpose for living and thus, as a consequence. have a much higher rate of suicides than Christians do:
“There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3] https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide
Verse:
JOHN 10:10 The thief cometh not but to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
bornagain77_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

at 54, In response to,
Seversky gave no example of a ‘purely materialistic’ theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are ‘purely materialistic’.
Seversky states,
Find one that isn’t.
I did. Since you provided no example, I gave the most famous example from the history of science. Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
So, since he gave no examples, let’s take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is ‘purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.
To which Severky responded,
Good example. Show me gravity in the absence of material mass.
I did. To repeat.
SINGULARITIES Excerpt: In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is “the point where all laws of physics break down”. Current theory suggests that, as an object falls into a black hole and approaches the singularity at the center, it will become stretched out or “spaghettified” due to the increasing differential in gravitational attraction on different parts of it, before presumably losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
As should be needless to say, Seversky has more than a small problem with his claim that gravity is a ‘purely materialistic’ theory since gravity, via black holes, is shown to exist whilst the material particles themselves are ‘losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity’ at the singularity of a black hole. I quoted Newton from his book Principia.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM. http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
To which I observed,,
After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation is ‘purely materialistic’ I have no idea.
To which Seversky responded,
After reading that, all I see in that florid prose is a statement of his belief in God as the Creator of all things, not a statement of his theory of gravity or any other physical theory.
Au Contraire Seversky. Newton's 'florid prose' was the conclusion of his scientific investigation. Newton, in what has been termed the 'first major unification in physics', postulated that "the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth's surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth",,
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton's realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth's surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena. https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
Newton's postulation that "the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth's surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth", did not arise out of thin air, and especially did not arise from atheistic materialism, but arose from his belief in God. As Paul Davies commented, "Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
And as Einstein himself noted, (if atheistic materialism were true), "a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands."
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
And it was not just Newton, but it was all the Christian founders of modern science who held this view. As Paul Davies further noted, “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
“All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.” – Paul Davies http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
Thus Newton's quote from Principia was hardly 'florid prose' on his part. He postulated that if God created the universe then there should universal laws that govern the universe. From that postulation he, via empirical science, discovered the law of Gravity. Thus his 'florid prose' was actually the result of empirical science. i.e. He hypothesized, He experimentally confirmed. Then he concluded what the results meant, "This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,," i.e. Newton made that statement as a result of the observational science, not in spite of the science as Seversky seems bent on believing. I further stated
But, from the ‘purely materialistic’ perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?
To which Seversky responded,
I freely admit I have no idea why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. Neither do you or anyone else. As I’ve noted before, “Goddidit” is a suggestion of “who” not “how”.
Actually Seversky, since Seversky is a causal agent himself, does understand the basics of 'how' Goddidit.
A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf
In fact, the denial of the reality of agent causality and/or free will is the main and primary thing that drives atheistic materialism into catastrophic epistemological failure. For instance, since Seversky refuses to recognize agent causality as a valid form of causation, then Seversky is forced to claim that the laws of physics are writing his posts for him instead of he himself writing his own posts
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism Paul Nelson - September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, "We cannot know that a mind caused x," laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. "That’s crazy," you reply, "I certainly did write my email." Okay, then — to what does the pronoun "I" in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/
Seversky's denial of the reality of his own agent causality is simply insane.bornagain77_{May 2, 2020
May
05
May
2
02
2020
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

A similar question can been asked of atheists. (Assuming you didn’t ask what I think you asked) Why do they even care that religious people have a belief in God. People like Richard Dockins make it a goal in life to spread atheism like a religion, as if it’s helping anybody. More redundantly, is the lion share of these types of atheists believe everything is determined and nobody has a choice in the decision they make This reality alone makes every effort to prove that they are right utterly worthless and a colossal waste of time So why must you convince everybody that you’re right? That somehow you know the truth about reality that no one else really does and no one else is willing to contemplate but you If there is no meaning to life, if there really is no god, then why do you care than anybody else believes in it? They also don’t have a choice like you don’t in not believing in god The only thing that ever pops in my head is the fear of being wrong. And the comfort of not being alone I don’t proselytize my belief nor do I force it down anybody’s throat But it has been my life’s experience that the only three groups of people I’ve ever made me miserable and have attacked me on my beliefs Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, and a specific type of atheist I like to call the anti-theist And of all three the rudest, most persistent, and obnoxious one has been the anti-theist The one of the three that has no meaning in life and believes no one has free will Lastly, if I’m wrong, I have nothing to lose nor will I ever know I was wrong. You also won’t be able to say “I told you so” nor will you ever know you were right either You will know if you were wrong though Whether you believe in it or not Now I just wanna be clear did you just ask the believers why they don’t kill themselves? If you did that shows a whole level of misunderstanding that you have for almost all religions Furthermore if you believe this world is a veil of tears, why do you bother with any of this? Stop wasting time making enemies on this site, and go make some friends. You have a very limited time on this planet, this horrible veil of tears, so go do something positive, before it gets swallowed up by your oblivion.AaronS1978_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 44
If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy.
And I, as an atheist materialist, would suggest that the reason that you and your fellows partake so copiously of the "opium of the people" is that you cannot contemplate the bleak prospect of a Godless reality where atheists can. I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this "vale of tears"? Why not move on?Seversky_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 43
Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not bad enough for Seversky’s atheistic materialism, mass is now shown to not even be an intrinsic property of material particles themselves, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism, but mass is ‘given’ to material particles via interactions with the Higgs field:
Sorry, but there is nothing in the explanation of mass as interactions between a particle and a Higgs field causes a problem for atheism or materialism. It's just a different account of the underlying nature of physical (material) reality.
Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains
No, the mass of any matter falling into a black hole is added to the mass of the hole itself. That is how black holes can grow. This is now thought to be offset by the black hole bleeding energy (or mass) into the surrounding space through the emission of Hawking radiation through the interaction of the black hole's event horizon with the "quantum foam" around it.Seversky_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 42
Seversky gave no example of a ‘purely materialistic’ theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are ‘purely materialistic’.
Find one that isn't. All you need to do is show a term for divine intervention or supernatural agency - "Here there be dragons" - in any of their theories. Don't waste your time, though, you won't find any. Whatever their personal religious beliefs or metaphysical musings, their actual theories were firmly anchored in observable, material reality.
So, since he gave no examples, let’s take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is ‘purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.
Good example. Show me gravity in the absence of material mass.
After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation is ‘purely materialistic’ I have no idea.
After reading that, all I see in that florid prose is a statement of his belief in God as the Creator of all things, not a statement of his theory of gravity or any other physical theory. Another point is that this is a fine example of how religious belief can stultify science. Here is one of the most powerful scientific intellects of all time who described the nature of gravity and formulated the classic laws of motion. Yet when it comes to the nature of the God he worships and how He accomplished His creations, the driving curiosity, the obsessive thirst for knowledge are abruptly switched off. If that isn't a science-killer, I don't know what is.
Perhaps Seversky, whom has accomplished nothing is science that I am aware of, just thinks that Newton, whom many consider the greatest scientist to have ever lived, was just colossally mistaken in his belief that universal gravitation was evidence for God almighty?
I am no more of a scientist than you are and have never claimed to be. And, yes, Newton might have been colossally mistaken in his belief that gravity is evidence for the existence of God. He wasn't always right. Look at the time he spent on occult studies.
But, from the ‘purely materialistic’ perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?
I freely admit I have no idea why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. Neither do you or anyone else. As I've noted before, "Goddidit" is a suggestion of "who" not "how".Seversky_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Sev @ 52, Do we need an exhaustive definition of God? All we can ever come up with (because we are finite beings with finite brains) is an approximation anyway. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. (Yes, people spend time attributing various things to God, and because they come from different vantage points, they come up with different things. Then they disagree. That just means they went too far, not that God doesn't exist.)EDTA_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 38
And I can’t help but feel that when someone rebuttals ken ham, it is similar to making your own definition of God, rebuttal it, and then declaring that you were right all along It’s not exactly the same but it does share the same validity, which is none at all
Everyone has their own definition of God. They are not all the same. How do you choose between them? Is there any way? If not, then all you can do is look at the logical inconsistencies within and between them. I think my definition is the right one. You might disagree and insist that yours is the right one. There is no way to decide that I can see.Seversky_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

@OLV NiceAaronS1978_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. ;) BTW, the term "appendix" does not seem to appear in this 2019 paper even once. Hmm... The gut in Parkinson’s disease: Bottom-up, top-down, or neither? (2019)
in addition to gut-brain pathways, the brain-to-gut communication may also be involved in Parkinson's disease pathophysiology. In this mini-review, we describe the strengths and limitations of the existing studies on the gut-brain axis in experimental models of parkinsonism and discuss an alternative hypothesis in which the central and enteric nervous system would evolve separately during disease progression.
OLV_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. ;) The Appendix in Parkinson’s Disease: From Vestigial Remnant to Vital Organ?
the appendix offers an appealing gateway to access the immune system, microbiome, and ?-syn pathology within the intestine to benefit the development of a new generation of the therapies for PD that extend beyond the brain.
OLV_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. ;) The immunological functions of the Appendix: An example of redundancy? (2018)
Biological redundancy ensures robustness in living organisms at several levels, from genes to organs.

In this review, we explore the concept of redundancy and robustness through an analysis of the caecal appendix, an organ that is often considered to be a redundant remnant of evolution. However, phylogenic data show that the Appendix was selected during evolution and is unlikely to disappear once it appeared. In humans, it is highly conserved and malformations are extremely rare, suggesting a role for that structure. The Appendix could perform a dual role. First, it is a concentrate of lymphoid tissue resembling Peyer’s patches and is the primary site for immunoglobulin A production which is crucial to regulate the density and quality of the intestinal flora. Second, given its shape and position, the Appendix could be a unique niche for commensal bacteria in the body. It is extremely rich in biofilms that continuously shed bacteria into the intestinal lumen. The Appendix contains a microbiota as diverse as that found in the colon and could replenish the large intestine with healthy flora after a diarrhea episode. In conditions of modern medicine hygiene, and people live healthy without their appendix. However, several reports suggest that the effects of appendectomy could be subtler and associated with the development of inflammatory conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), heart disease but also in less expected disorders such as Parkinson’s disease. Lack of an Appendix also predicts a worsen outcome for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, which is the first nosocomial infection in hospitals. Here, we review the literature and in combination with our own data, we suggest that the Appendix might be redundant in its immunological function but unique as a reservoir of microbiota.
OLV_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. ;) Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors (2013)
Although the cecal appendix has been widely viewed as a vestige with no known function or a remnant of a formerly utilized digestive organ, the evolutionary history of this anatomical structure is currently unresolved.

Substantial evidence supports the view that the cecal appendix is an immune structure primarily functioning as a safe-house for beneficial bacteria, and comes from a range of disciplines, including medicine, epidemiology, immunology, and microbiology

Given all of the information available, a new working hypothesis might be developed in which the appendix has evolved as a microbial safe-house under selection pressure from gastrointestinal pathogens potentially transmitted via a range of mechanisms rather than via a single mechanism dominated by a particular dietary or social factor.
OLV_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @17, Buddy, you have opened a can of worms for the Darwinian evolution. That's not nice. :) Oh, well. Too late now. :)OLV_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

BA77, Very informative contributions, as usual. Thanks.jawa_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

In fact, via Einstein's general relativity, gravity is no longer thought of to be a 'force' arising from material particles themselves, but is thought to be a curvature of space time itself. Moreover, this curved space time is 'higher dimensional'
Spacetime Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Minkowski's geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein's development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,, Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski's geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
That 'higher dimensional' geometry would be found to be our best description of gravity is, to put it mildly, unexpected for atheistic materialism. Whereas, on the other hand, these higher dimensional 4-D spacetimes that undergird both special relativity and general relativity are extremely comforting to overall Christian concerns.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo March 2020 what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDE is, needless to say, (very) powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension. I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-behe-muses-on-design-and-covid-19/#comment-695282
Thus in conclusion, Seversky's oft repeated false claim that, "the actual theories proposed by these men, (i.e. the Christian founders of modern science), were purely materialistic", is a patently false claim. Universal gravity itself, which was discovered by Newton, is certainly not a "purely materialistic" theory. In fact, when looking at the scientific details of what we now know to be true about gravity, we find that Newton's theory of universal gravitation more strongly supports Christian Theism now than it ever did when Newton first, unambiguously, claimed that gravity supported belief in Christian Theism. i.e. belief that "The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;" If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Here is a video that goes over the 'Privileged Planet' thesis,
The Privileged Planet – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8
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.”
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability - Robin Collins - March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Examples of fine - tuning for discoverability.,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ...the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti - matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near - optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists -- to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon - baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
Moreover, besides gravity being set up in such a way, via the inverse square law, so as to allow us to, fairly easily, discover it, and then to make further scientific discoveries from it, gravity is also fine-tuned to an astonishing 1 part in 10^40.
“Or, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had not been precisely balanced to 1 part in 10^40 then we would have no stars of the right size to support life. We need both fast burning large stars to produce the essential elements for life’s chemistry and planet formation as well as long burning small stars to burn long enough to provide planetary systems habitable for life.” “Or, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had not been precisely balanced to 1 part in 10^40 then we would have no stars of the right size to support life. We need both fast burning large stars to produce the essential elements for life’s chemistry and planet formation as well as long burning small stars to burn long enough to provide planetary systems habitable for life.” John_a_designer - UD Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) – (27:32 minute mark) video - LEE STROBEL - The Case for a Creator Full documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ajqH4y8G0MI#t=1652
At the 4:45 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Bruce comments that varying the gravitational constant by just one inch, on an imaginary ruler that stretched across the entire universe, would either increase or decrease our weight by a trillion fold:
Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 Dr Bruce Gordon - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko
Like the inverse square law, the 1 in 10^40 fine tuning of gravity certainly gives all appearances of being just a 'little too neat'. Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not bad enough for Seversky's atheistic materialism, mass is now shown to not even be an intrinsic property of material particles themselves, as would be presupposed within Seversky's atheistic materialism, but mass is 'given' to material particles via interactions with the Higgs field:
39:00 minute mark: “Mass turns out not to be an intrinsic property of matter either” (mass is a phenomenological artifact of field interactions, i.e. specifically ‘otherwise massless particles’ interacting with the Higg’s field) – Bruce Gordon: – The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon https://youtu.be/wk-UO81HmO4?t=2344 Focus: Nobel Prize—Why Particles Have Mass - October 11, 2013 Excerpt: Subsequent work showed that the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism (or “Higgs mechanism,” for short) could give mass not only to weak particles, but also to electrons, quarks, and other fundamental particles. The more strongly a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the more massive it is. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/111
Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky's atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains
SINGULARITIES Excerpt: In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down". Current theory suggests that, as an object falls into a black hole and approaches the singularity at the center, it will become stretched out or “spaghettified” due to the increasing differential in gravitational attraction on different parts of it, before presumably losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html
As should be needless to say, Seversky has more than a small problem with his claim that gravity is a 'purely materialistic' theory since gravity, via black holes, is shown to exist whilst the material particles themselves 'completely disappear' at the singularity of a black hole.bornagain77_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 35 reiterates his false claim that,
the actual theories proposed by these men, (i.e. the Christian founders of modern science), were purely materialistic.
Seversky gave no example of a 'purely materialistic' theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are 'purely materialistic'. So, since he gave no examples, let's take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is 'purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.
Newton publicized his Theory of Universal Gravitation in the 1680s. It basically set forth the idea that gravity was a predictable force that acts on all matter in the universe, and is a function of both mass and distance. The theory states that each particle of matter attracts every other particle (for instance, the particles of "Earth" and the particles of "you") with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question2321.htm
Here is what Newton himself said about his supposedly 'purely materialistic' Theory of Universal Gravitation in his book Principia,
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: Sir Isaac Newton - Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM. http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation is 'purely materialistic' I have no idea. Newton himself, as the above quote makes abundantly clear, certainly did not see his theory as being 'purely materialistic' but saw universal gravitation as clear cut evidence for God's providence and sovereignty over the entire universe. As Stephen D. Snobelen noted, "for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural (experimental) philosophy, but rather are integral to it."
Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion - Stephen D. Snobelen Excerpt: At this point Newton launches into a majestic description of the God he found in Nature and Scripture. This Being, Newton begins, “rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator”. Then follows an account of God’s eternity and omnipresence that is shot through with biblical language. Newton’s God is sovereign over time and space. This twofold sovereignty, Newton suggests, ultimately underpins all things in time and space: “All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and will of a necessarily existing being”. … At the end of the explicitly theological section of the General Scholium Newton writes: “This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy” (changed to “natural philosophy” in the 1726 third edition of the Principia). Thus for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural philosophy, but rather are integral to it. [Snobelen] https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-in-science-religion-and-society.pdf
Perhaps Seversky, whom has accomplished nothing is science that I am aware of, just thinks that Newton, whom many consider the greatest scientist to have ever lived, was just colossally mistaken in his belief that universal gravitation was evidence for God almighty? Yet Seversky provided, and can provide, no evidence that Newton's universal gravitation is a 'purely materialistic' theory. When examining the details of universal gravitation, we find that gravity is far from being a 'purely materialistic' theory. For instance, the inverse square law.
"When Isaac Newton realized that the acceleration of the Moon as it orbited around the Earth could be related to the acceleration of an apple as it fell to the ground, it was the first time that two seemingly unrelated physical phenomena had been “unified”. The quest to unify all the forces of nature is one that still keeps physicists busy today. Newton showed that the gravitational attraction between two point bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: F = GMm/r2, where F is the force, G is Newton’s gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between them.,,, ,,, in the limit of low velocities and weak gravitational fields, Einstein’s theory still predicts that the gravitational force between two point objects obeys an inverse-square law." https://physicsworld.com/a/testing-the-gravitational-inverse-square-law/
But, from the 'purely materialistic' perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?
"Newton proposed that Gravitational force is inversely proportional to the Square of the distance between two masses (Inverse Square Law). For an orderly, designed universe, this makes sense – why wouldn’t it be something nice and even, like the square of the distance? For someone who believes in a random universe though – why the Square? Why not r ^ 2.148273.. or r ^ 1.932157.. The universe is full of nice, neat relationships like this, at very fundamental levels – moreso than not. I find the ability of the atheist to accept so many coincidences nothing short of astonishing." drc466 - UD blogger Designer gravity - Don DeYoung The force F between two masses m1 and m2, when separated by a distance r, can be written as F = (G m1 m2)/r2 Where G is the gravitational constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish in 1798.(1) This equation shows that gravity decreases as the separation distance, r, between two objects becomes large but never quite reaches zero. The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.’2 http://creation.com/gravity-the-mystery-force
It certainly seems that the inverse square law is just a little too neat, and simple, to be a accident. It seems apparent that the inverse square law was 'set up' for man to be able to, fairly easily, discover it. In regards to being 'set up' for discovery, the inverse square law also plays out in the 'perfect' solar eclipses that we observe here on earth.
the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between the two bodies. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 92.96 million miles. The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 238,900 miles, or 0.2389 million miles. https://www.quora.com/The-Sun-has-stronger-gravity-than-the-Moon-yet-it-is-the-Moons-gravitational-pull-that-causes-tides-What-could-be-the-reason-for-this
And 92.96 divided by .2389 equals 389.117. Thus,
At this particular moment in Earth’s history – although the sun’s diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – the sun is also about 400 times farther away. So the sun and moon appear nearly the same size as seen from Earth. And that’s why we on Earth can sometimes witness that most amazing of spectacles, a total eclipse of the sun.
Moreover, the amazing coincidence of perfect solar eclipses, which is an outplaying of the inverse square law. has allowed us to make further scientific discoveries:
The Illuminating Power of Eclipses - 2017 Excerpt: The invention of the spectroscope in the mid-19th century brought new solar discoveries. A glass prism splits light into a rainbow of colors emitted by specific atoms and molecules — bar codes, in a way, that identify the elements making the light. In 1868, a French scientist, Pierre Janssen, traveled to India to view an eclipse through a spectroscope. The sun’s prominences, he concluded, are largely made of hot hydrogen gas. But a bright yellow line seen through the spectroscope, initially thought to be an identifier of sodium, did not match the wavelength of sodium. That signified the discovery of helium, the universe’s second most common element. It would not be found on Earth for another 13 years.,,, Einstein’s ideas set the stage for the most famous eclipse experiment of all time, in 1919, during which Sir Arthur Eddington observed the bending of starlight around the sun. The findings verified the theory’s predictions. Solar eclipses have been used not just to deduce what is going on in the solar system but also to study Earth.,,, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/science/eclipse-discoveries-science.html
So it certainly seems readily apparent that the laws of the universe, particularly the inverse square law, is set up in such a way so as to allow us to, number one, discover it, and number 2, make further scientific discoveries, via 'perfect eclipses' about the universe from the earth. This thesis, i.e. that the earth is 'privileged' in order to enable humans to make scientific discoveries, has been more fully developed by Gonzalez and Richards,
The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards – Privileged Planet The Privileged Planet - The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.” “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.” “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.” - Guillermo Gonzalez - Astronomer http://books.google.com/books?id=lMdwFWZ00GQC&pg=PT28#v=onepage&q&f=false
bornagain77_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

The losers @ talk origins don't have anything to account for any appendix. They cannot even account for the organisms who have one. Evos have no idea what is vestigial and what is not. All they have is speculation based on the assumption.ET_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Martin_r, Have you heard anything on Dr Jack Szostak being a strong candidate to receive the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize? Is it possible that Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether to split the prize between Dr Lee Cronin, Dr Jack Szostak and Dr Craig Venter? Tough call, isn't it? They all seem to have narrowed down the task, right? ;) As far as you understand it, what is the explanation for the multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution? BTW, -off topic- the JHU website on CoViD-19 seems to show your country doing much better than most countries. Did I read the right information? How did you guys do it?jawa_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Martin_r, Good contributions -as usual- @13, @14 & @17. Thanks.jawa_{May 1, 2020
May
05
May
1
01
2020
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

@ Seversky 36 I think you just inadvertently supported exactly what I was talking about https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/72762/immunology-study-suggests-appendix-has-use-after-all https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130130021.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm I’m just saying, by the way I don’t pay attention to anything Ken Ham says. Like this old dusted stuff you sited from 23 years ago. (Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland, 1997. Your appendix: It’s there for a reason. Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):41-43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp) And I can’t help but feel that when someone rebuttals ken ham, it is similar to making your own definition of God, rebuttal it, and then declaring that you were right all along It’s not exactly the same but it does share the same validity, which is none at allAaronS1978_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

. Others here have already sufficiently addressed JVL's and Ed's "objections" re: ID science. I would just like to point out that while these two guys posture about science, neither of them has even a leg to stand on. They've both (very clearly) run screaming from scientific evidence and reasoning -- i.e. the successful predictions, the unambiguous descriptions recorded in the literature, and the documented history of science itself that points unmistakably to intelligence. Here are just two examples: Here is Ed: Mr Duck And here is JVL: Mr. Hot Potato Neither of them will engage earnestly in the science and reasoning already in the literature (for half a century or more). Their objections above not only miss the mark from a logical perspective, but they are hypocritical as well.Upright BiPed_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 30
For years the appendix was thought of as useless and it was settled science. It was the Darwinian perspective that put it in the useless category and then settled the science. It, amongst many other organs is a perfect example of the thing both Ed and Seversky are accusing religious people of. It’s actually quite fallacious to make that statement
From the TalkOrigins Archive:
Claim CB360.1:

The human appendix is not really vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system. Its lymphoid follicles produce antibodies. Source: Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland, 1997. Your appendix: It's there for a reason. Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):41-43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp Response: 1. Vestigial does not mean functionless. The appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. Since it does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system, no matter what other functions it may have. 2. The human appendix may not be functional. Its absence causes no known harmful effects (other than surgical complications from removing it). When it is present, there is a 7 percent lifetime risk of acute appendicitis, which is usually fatal without modern surgical techniques (Hardin 1999). 3. Co-opting a part for an entirely different function, such as turning part of the intestines into part of the lymphatic system, is entirely compatible with, and even expected from, evolution. However, it argues against design because it rarely occurs with known (human) designs, and it invalidates design arguments, such as irreducible complexity.
In addition:
The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix

However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.
Seversky_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 29
That is a false claim. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
C S Lewis's speculative claim about why men became scientific carries no more weight than any other and doesn't answer my claim that, whatever their religious beliefs, the actual theories proposed by these men were purely materialistic.Seversky_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Ed George:
My point was not that ID can’t follow their conclusions (ie. the detection of design in nature) with the obvious next levels of research, just that they don’t.
You have no idea what the obvious next levels of research are.
Why is ID reluctant to hypothesize what these were and devise tests to demonstrate them?
Most likely because it is beyond our capacity to reproduce. But we have tests that are used to determine if design exists. What does your side have beyond liars and bluffers such as yourself?
Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study.
The alleged best evidence for macroevolution doesn't include a mechanism. No one uses the concept of blind watchmaker evolution for anything. All you have are speculations based on the assumption. At least ID's concept of evolution by ,means of design is used with genetic algorithms. ID is both useful and being used. Blind watchmaker evolution? Still waiting...ET_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Yes, everyone is having fun hammering on ID using an argument that they think is a slam dunk. A few points in response. JVL, >You cannot get design in nature without a designer and a method of implementation. So . . . - As others are pointing out, you can infer design before moving on to other inquiries. - When discussing the origin of anything, there are tighter limits on discovery than there are for talking about an on-going process. This applies to things like what was there before the Big Bang. People can hypothesize all day long, but we cannot reach back there to test any of those hypotheses. Empirical science stopper? Pretty much, yes. We'll just have to explore other aspects of cosmology or explore it theoretically. With ID, we can investigate other aspects, such as the paper (Marks was one of the authors?) on comparing nested hierarchies to other arrangements of living things, genetically speaking. (Doggonit, I can't find the link or the PDF...BA77?) In IDs case, for the theist, God's interaction with matter may have been of a miraculous nature, and we cannot explore that. That does not mean the inference is incorrect. >Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day As I've pointed out before, if there are 1/1000th as many ID researchers as evo's, I wouldn't expect ID papers every day. That also does not mean the inference to design is incorrect. EG, >Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study. Biologists are studying an on-going process. Of course they proceed that way. But they can't test the past in the same manner, and simply cooking chemicals looking for life to begin won't prove that it happened that way. It won't even shed light on how likely or unlikely it was, because there is improvement being poured into each successive experiment. Perhaps we're actually agreeing here: The paradigm you limit yourselves to carries with it the advantage that everything you want/need is available to you all the time. That's not the case for ID + theism. But that goes nowhere in proving that you are correct in your choice of paradigm.EDTA_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

@31 Fair enough, that’s not unreasonable to ask I think there’s a poor back-and-forth between the two ideas ID and DE Personally I think both are more world views and science can be interpreted to support both Now I might get crucified by both groups when I say this but, they are planning on testing Panpsychism, which, well is kind of testing for intelligent design. I’m waving my flag of neutrality here please everybody don’t jump down my throat now that I’ve said thatAaronS1978_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978
Now do Darwinians do it all the time, no they don’t. So I’d appreciate it if that argument of “God did it!” Now we don’t have to do more science” would be dropped because it’s false and the other perspective is just as guilty
My point was not that ID can’t follow their conclusions (ie. the detection of design in nature) with the obvious next levels of research, just that they don’t. Even if the designer is outside the universe, which is not a requirement of ID, it must interact with our universe at some level. It must have applied some physical processes to realize it’s design. Why is ID reluctant to hypothesize what these were and devise tests to demonstrate them? Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study. I can appreciate the annoyance of ID proponents at the ‘God-did-it’ retort (I try to avoid using it), but their reluctance/refusal to take their “science” to the next logical step invites this comment.Ed George_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

@17 Martin_r Yes I am. That’s why I mentioned it For years the appendix was thought of as useless and it was settled science. It was the Darwinian perspective that put it in the useless category and then settled the science. It, amongst many other organs is a perfect example of the thing both Ed and Seversky are accusing religious people of. It’s actually quite fallacious to make that statement It annoys me because it’s not close to the actual truth, and that accusation is often levied by people that just blindly hate religion, to try to Reinforce why religion shouldn’t be part of science Now do Darwinians do it all the time, no they don’t. So I’d appreciate it if that argument of “God did it!” Now we don’t have to do more science” would be dropped because it’s false and the other perspective is just as guilty I mean we literally have multiple physical examples of people saying it’s a useless organ because of evolution and nobody looks into it until years later (maybe) and then it turns out that assumption was false Thank you for at least talking about Jack SzostakAaronS1978_{April 30, 2020
April
04
Apr
30
30
2020
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply