Christmas gift Dr. Mike has been waiting for for 50 years

Merry Christmas all. There is something that is a matter of public knowledge, but something not talked about too much because it affects the parties involved. I feel a little freer to hint at it now because of some developments in the news regarding a particular institution. First, I made an indirect mention of my educational background and thus an institutional affiliation here: Reflections of the Whiting School Class of 2013. But that didn't stop Dr. Mike for insisting I didn't know high school physics because I didn't answer his question about scaled up objects with charge mass ratios of electrons and protons. I didn't answer because Dr. Mike's question made no sense, as I pointed out in the OP:

1. if they were made of electrons and protons, such objects would explode even before they were brought into 1 meter distance, it didn't make sense unless of course God kept them from exploding :shock: 2. if they were hypothetical elementary particles, then that would require a miracle too since 1 kg "proton" would be astronomically larger in mass than the Higgs Boson (aka God particle). :shock: These were super-God particles. That didn't make sense either!

No wonder no one bothered to answer Dr. Mike. It was a stupid question because it was based on stupid assumptions. But he used the non-answers by creationists for 50 years as some sort of reinforcement of his belief all creationists are scientifically illiterate. Many creationists are scientifically illiterate but so are many Darwinists. But what about creationists like John Hartnett, Richard Smalley (Nobel Prize in Chemistry), and Henry Schaeffer? If Dr. Mike started talking about ionization energies and Van der Waals forces, etc. he would have actually made more sense, but he went on and on with his Chewbacca-like thought experiments involving super-God particles, which ironically would have to have been made by God! Dr. Mike tried to use these hypothetical super God-particles as some sort of critique of the Sakur-Tetrode equation and non-evolution of 747s in a junk yard. It's not a good critique of the Sakur-Tetrode equation and it actually strengthens the creationist argument that 747s in junk yard won't evolve and thus illustrates why biological organisms won't evolve. (The 747's analogy was an illustration put forward by atheist "creationist" Fred Hoyle). So Dr. Mike kept insisting despite my educational background that I couldn't do high school physics. I tried not to say too much because I do fumble with the basics all too frequently and I have struggled as a student. I was embarrassed to mention any educational background because I do fumble with basic concepts. But sometimes its not because I might not understand the material, but sometimes its the way a Darwinist poses the question to me. Further, for scheduling reasons, I never got a graduate level course on Electro Magnetic theory. I sort of had to self-teach to be able to pass Plasma and Solid State Physics. So Dr. Mike was actually hitting a weak spot for me, and it looked superficially like he was making a case for my stupidity when in fact Dr. Mike was saying things that made no sense like Johnny Cochran making a Chewbacca argument. Hence, I made a Chewbacca response to Dr. Mike's Chewbacca question. To this day, I still fumble on some basic questions in physics and cosmology, heck even basic arithmetic and algebra from time to time. But there are ID proponents and creationists affiliated with the same institution where I learned a little about science, such as: Ben Carson and James Gills and Paul McHugh and Lee Spetner and Christian Anfinsen Now go over to a comment at skeptical zone by Olegt: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=1049&cpage=2#comment-15141 The comment showed a disagreement between Dr. Mike and Olegt. Dr. Mike was actually insisting on something that is not a universally accepted definition of entropy, and in as backhanded a way as possible Olegt was actually defending my insistence that "entropy is not solely about energy" whereas Dr. Mike kept saying, "if it's not about energy, it's not about entropy." But that is somewhat beside the point, follow the link to "basic illustration" in that comment. Do you get it? It is a matter of public record at ATBC that Darwinsits badgered Olegt to get me tossed out of school. He refused to get involved. At Pandas thumb, they actively plotted to write letters to my professors, but they failed to get me ousted. I've been a little oblique in what I'm trying to say in this comment, but maybe some of you will put 2 and 2 together and understand why I have tried to maintain cordial relationships with members of TheSkepticalZone. I'm returning a favor of collegiality extended to me. :wink: Merry Christmas all. scordova

Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!” Dr. David Berlinski Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859." … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ "On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-8/ Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html "For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians bornagain77

Dear Mike, Is it hard for you to find mathematicians who don't believe in evolution? I suggest if this task is a tough one, you just should lock yourself in your room with bags of food that have already been opened for you, and refuse to even ask yourself a single question, because any thing you attempt to solve beyond this is only going to be increasingly more difficult. phoodoo

What is not needed here is someone from the UD crowd to do this inane high school physics problem. ( Although thanks for doing it Sal, I did not check the solution but it looked correct ). What is needed instead is a Dr. of Psychology to explain why Dr. Mike feels it necessary to believe such nonsense about his opponents. Does Darwinism stand on such shaky ground that he must make up nonsense? One wonders. JDH

SC: Happy Christmas. I guess you have more patience than I with this sort of arrogance and projection of the Dawkins "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" stereotype. Dr Elzinga full well knows or should full well know that any number of practitioners in the pure and applied sciences, engineering and medicine as well as associated education [at secondary and tertiary level up to and including full professorships] who hold undergraduate and graduate degrees, research fellowships, professional society memberships and various state or board licences are Creationists, Design theorists, or supporters of such views. Fritz Schaeffer, Sandford [gene gun inventor], and many others come to mind. Until his career was assassinated at behest of atheists, Guillerno Gonzalez was a pioneer of exoplanet research. As to the sort of silly calculation Elzinga demanded, he full well knows that thought models are often used in physics to illustrate the force of a point. And there is a conceptual error in it: the issue is not the inner dynamics of an atom -- which as an inherently quantum system cannot truly be represented by a classical calculation [remember, the Rutherford "planetary orbit" type model raised the issue of the orbiting electrons being necessarily accelerated and thus as RF oscillators, emitting EM waves and spiralling into the nucleus, hence the Bohr hypothesis of 1913 IIRC] -- but instead the stochastic interactions between components at atomic-molecular level. Hoyle (who as a Nobel equivalent prize holding astrophysicist knew a thing or two about thermodynamics) was giving a rhetorical flourish. If anything, a more serious analysis would raise the issue of components at the scale of Brownian Motion capable particles, which from Einstein's famous analysis of 1905, effectively participate as giant molecules, but are visible through a light microscope. That is why, years ago, I scaled Hoyle's jumbo down to a micro-jet containing micro-parts of about a micron scale. A million such particles [roughly the order of magnitude for parts to build an aircraft], if injected into a 1 cu m vat, will indubitably participate in the molecular agitation and would naturally undergo diffusion across a grid of 10^18 spatial cells of 1 micron scale, for convenience. From this, it is obvious that the number of possible configs for the parts is beyond astronomical, and that the FSCO/I criterion of specified complexity to assemble a flyable microjet is easily met. We already know that from simply analysing the vastly smaller config space for 500 coins capable of being configured in H/T arrays, and simply extending the same to 1,000 coins. I suggest to Elzinga et al that L K Nash's analysis in his first chapter or so of his wonderful little introduction to statistical thermodynamics published by Addison Wesley ever so many years ago now, is an excellent place to begin reading and comparing notes. For, surprise -- not, he starts his analysis from an array of coins, developing the concept of the dominant cluster from the binomial analysis. (BTW: The Binomial theorem was a significant focus in A Level Math way back when, and if I were to go back to teaching A level physics, I would use Nash as a guide for the introduction to the stat thermo-D component. And BTW, J Perrin's 1909 empirical rough determination of the Avogadro constant at 6.5 - 7.2 *10^23 particles/mole by using closely sized particles of gamboge suspended in the water of a microscope slide and analysed using the Boltzmann height distribution relationship and Brownian motion kinetics, would be a great way to motivate all of these considerations. He refocussed a microscope at different known levels in the suspension of particles in the 0.1 mm or so thick fluid and counted, deducing the height distribution in a gravity field. The exercise can also be used to get a value of k. All of this being a good empirical determination of how the statistical processes and atomic-molecular picture play out empirically.) Now, if our solar system or the observed cosmos were converted into such vats, interacting at Brownian motion rates [or even ionic chem rxn rates ~ 10^-14s] the lifespan of these systems to date would not come near being able to sample a ratio of one straw to a cubical haystack as thick as our barred spiral galaxy at its 1,000 LY central bulge. So, there is no good reason to imagine that diffusion would be spontaneously unwoven just once across a solar system or observed cosmos scale ensemble -- and I am deliberately appealing here to Gibbs' approach -- to simply clump the parts, much less configure them into a flyable jumbo jet just once. And, it would be in principle feasible to formulate expressions for entropy that show that the number of possible states would be such that the scattered at random cluster would utterly dominate the clumped ones which in turn dominate the functionally configured ones. So, to go from scattered to clumped to configured states would require falls in entropy of the parts, but it would be unreasonable to imagine that such would be spontaneously paid for by say shining warming sunlight on the vats or stirring them or heating them over a low fire. Such stirring etc can be used to address concerns that particles may settle out under a height distribution. As my thought exercise envisioned, one could inject nano-robots. Clumping nanobots, in principle, could clump the parts, in effect being a C21 update to Maxwell's demon. Configuring nanobots could then identify, catalogue, arrange [in effect lay out a proper warehouse] and configure the parts to flyable form in accord with a blueprint. Or, we could have more complex nanobots that clump, catalogue and configure all at once. (And of course, to protect from spontaneous drifting apart, some sort of protective membrane or wall with gating and control would be a major asset.) Where of course there would be compensating rises in disorder that naturally occur as Szilard long ago analysed. Plainly, my outlined example is analogous to Boeing at work vs a tornado at work at one scale, and at the other, diffusion and raw energy injections being contrasted with a nanobot army at work following a plan. The application to spontaneous vs the observed shepherded, controlled assembly of key components of a living cell is obvious. And I am sure there is no objection to the idea that such forces as I have described are relevant to Darwin's warm little pond or the like proposed OOL environment. And, the import of that relevance is patent, there is no reasonable basis for confidently asserting the spontaneous assembly of key components of life into functional forms that would exceed the complexity of the imagined micro-jet. Not, with chirality issues, cross-reaction issues, the endothermic nature of ever so many of the relevant reactions, the problem of disintegration based on the simple presence of water molecules capable of breaking bonds, and more. Much more. No wonder spontaneous OOL studies are in such a state of chaos as is notorious, after 80 years of serious effort since Oparin. Anyway, happy Christmas to one and all. KF kairosfocus

Sorry @bornagain77n I forgot a link that didnt get put in my post here it is. http://reptileevolution.com/index.htm Jaceli123

Who is this Dr Mike that I should give a crap? Happy Christmas

He's a scientist and science teacher. Actually, he's quite brilliant like many of the Darwinsits professors I studied under. We would get along OK if it weren't for creationism. He's quite brilliant, but like Nick Matzke and others, we see what happens to them when they will go down to any depths of illogic to defend Darwinism. He's the one who gave me free lessons in statistical mechanics last year. I actually was incredibly appreciative of the time he and Olegt devoted to explaining concepts to me like the Loiuville theorem. I accepted his exercise to learn statistical mechanics. It was actually a good one for anyone wanting to see whether it is a good idea to use the 2nd law in favor of ID: Concept test attempt 1: Basic Statistical Mechanics and Concept test amendments: Purcell Pound Hey, I had to matriculate through secular schools under the tutelage of Darwinists. I had to find something redeeming in the experience, otherwise I'd have flunked. I'd thoroughly enjoy learning pure physics from Dr. Mike, but at this point he hates me too much because I'm a creationist, I'm one of "them". As a result, he has to perpetuate the narrative that I'm so dumb I can't do high school physics. Ok, maybe I can't sometimes, especially in mechanics problems involving yo-yo's sliding on ice. scordova

Who is this Dr Mike that I should give a crap? Happy Christmas CentralScrutinizer

Jaceli123, word to the wise, Sal is a bit touchy about going OT on his threads, as he likes to stay focused specifically on the topic he brought up. thus, with that in mind, I will briefly state (and state no more), that the site you linked to is a joke. Just glancing the site over for a few seconds, I immediately saw two fossils that I know for certain had been fraudulently misrepresented by Darwinists. bornagain77

Just once we would like to see a glimmer of an ID/creationist comprehending enough basic science to justify using marbles, Scrabble letters, coin flips, junkyard parts, battle ship parts, and ideal gases of other inert objects as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules. Can YOU do that simple high school physics/chemistry calculation? Will you word-game it; or simply avoid it?

I didn't avoid it. The numbers are there for all to see in the OP. You may have thought it would have discredited the creationist/Fred Hoyle illustration for using electrostatically inert objects. If anything, Dr. Mike, your arguments showed the creationists were only wrong to the extent tornadoes are too tame a metaphor when maybe an atomic explosion here and there could have been more appropriate. :-) You've given the creationists a Christmas gift with your illustration. Thank you. scordova

Hey guys I'm confused about the reptile to mammal evolution still im sorry for changing the subject like this but I came across a fossil called Diarthrognathus which is claimed by evolutionist to have mammal and reptile jaw bone and heres a website with this clam oh and merry christmas and happy holidays! http://www.transitionalfossils.com Jaceli123

Dr. Mike wrote: ideal gases of other inert objects as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules.

Actually Dr. Mike unwittingly strengthened the argument of tornadoes in junkyards because the tornado is modeled as approximately a gas of electrostatically neutral billiard balls in the creationist and Fred Hoyle illustrations. Dr. Mike's illustration was meant to portray what happens when we add the fact that atoms are not electrostatically neutral billiard balls, but a collection of charged elementary particles. Well, this improvement to the accuracy of the model only showed the creationists and Fred Hoyle were understating their arguments, not overstating them. This actually shows the creationists and Fred Hoyle were generous to suggest a tornado instead of an atomic explosion. Not only did the 747 emerge from the junkyard, it managed to navigate through the winds of disorganizing interactions due to intermolecular (not just thermal) interactions. Dr. Mike isn't just going ballistic on creationists but on anyone who dares use the idealization of gases as electrostatically neutral billiard balls. The Sakur-Tetrode equation in statistical mechanics and thermodynamics basically models gases as electrostatically neutral billiard balls. I referenced Sakur-Tetrode in this essay: A Designed Objects Entropy Must Increase for Its Complexity to Increase. Dr. Mike went ballistic that I referenced the Sakur-Tetrode equation in my essay. He might as well go ballistic for much of the physics industry because Sakur-Tetrode is a pedagogical staple in many thermodynamic and statistical mechanics textbooks! I was tempted to tell Dr. Mike:

Sakur-Tetrode is an idealization of monoatomic gases. It obviously won't hold down to absolute zero because the gases will undergo phase change into liquid and even solids as it is cooled. It's just an approximation. You need to chill, bro...

Don't blame creationists for using ideal gases of inert billiard balls since it is common practice in science to model many gases in this way. The result is Dr. Mike is the one looking a little eccentric. PS Here is a high school AP description of intermolecular interactions: Intermolecular Forces and Phases scordova

Merry Christmas to you to Sal, and to everyone. Dr. Craig was in the giving spirit to atheists as well this season: A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists By William Lane Craig http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/13/christmas-gift-for-atheists-five-reasons-why-god-exists/ Music and Verse: THE GREATEST GIFT - Yancy http://www.worshiphousemedia.com/worship-tracks/22345/The-Greatest-Gift Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. bornagain77