The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[MrCynical]

Qunatum mechanics principles not only make the existence of life more likely they generally make the existence of life elsewhere to be almost inevitable.

Can you explain this please? Is this just on the principle that if all kinds of energies are quantised into levels there is more chance of the necessary values for life than if you had an unquantised setup where an energy could take any value?

conveniently QM says matter can spontaneously come into existence

Does it?! I must have slept through that bit of the quantum mechanics lectures. Again could use an explanation, or at least a pointer at which bit of quatum theory says this.

M theory explains what caused the universe to exist. But then M theory is an extension of string theory and we all know how much scientific evidence there is for either

I know I don't understand much of either string or M theory, but these both still require some pre existence, even if it's only the set of rules and dimensions they use? (In the case of string theory this is M theory?) As you point out there is basically no evidence for either.

If that's true then the universe could be destroyed by another universe

By universe I refer to everything that exists. Suggestions involving other universes and multiverses merely shift the problem to where those came from.

In conclusion No one knows what caused the universes creation if indeed there was a cause or rules or whatever. Probably never will for sure but it's here it's queer and it's not gonna go away, it'll eventually be a sea of fundemental particles such as photons which will eventually attenuate into virtually nothing, and then I'd imagine the whole process will happen again

It certainly seems likely that the origin of the universe may not be determined for a great length of time if ever.

 

[Sidhe]

Can you explain this please? Is this just on the principle that if all kinds of energies are quantised into levels there is more chance of the necessary values for life than if you had an unquantised setup where an energy could take any value?

Precisely



Does it?! I must have slept through that bit of the quantum mechanics lectures. Again could use an explanation, or at least a pointer at which bit of quatum theory says this.

See below

I know I don't understand much of either string or M theory, but these both still require some pre existence, even if it's only the set of rules and dimensions they use? (In the case of string theory this is M theory?) As you point out there is basically no evidence for either.

Exactly

By universe I refer to everything that exists. Suggestions involving other universes and multiverses merely shift the problem to where those came from.

No I mean another universes coming into existence in ours

It certainly seems likely that the origin of the universe may not be determined for a great length of time if ever.

I don't think it's necessary for physics anyway

Bold added by me

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501213

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/7/1/105

http://www.energyscience.org.uk/2000/es2002.html

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/challengetophysics121001.htm

I suggest you pay more attention in class

So take that idea a level deeper. Physicists now believe that the vacuum of space is, paradoxically, not vacuous at all. It seethes with energy, in the form of "virtual particles" constantly flitting in and out of existence. So perhaps, Dr. Volovik suggests, even laws now considered fundamental emerged from this constant subatomic buzz.

 

[classical_hero]

as the others have said: conditions are totally different on earth now.

btw, this is also the answer to the idiotic claim that since left-and right-spiralling molecules are created 50:50 in lab settings, and life is built from one type, someone must have created life.
Why?

Well, oncee you have ONE SINGLE LIVING ORGANISM in the 'primordial soup', what's it gonna do? Live: consume, replicate, consume, replicate...... basically, eat all the non-living stuff there. So, whicher makes it to life first, right or left, will eat the other half, alonjg with the 99,9999999% of its own type that didn't make it.

But this goes against uniformity. Anyway that is just speculation because we have not observed this and thus this goes against the title of the thread, because it is not empirical evidence and as such it should be ignored as science, this "primordial soup" idea, since it is not scientific, but guesswork at best.

 

[classical_hero]

Life may arise in other ways at other times given other environments. On this planet, based on our best analysis of the current data, yes, life here seemed to only arise in an environment that basically no longer exists on earth.

That is exactly what we say, because according to the Bible, the old earth was destroyed by flood and thus this world that we live in is completely different from the world pre flood.

 

[Sidhe]

The flood probably is a reference to the isthmus of the black sea breaking, since the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat(Northern Turkey) it ties in nicely with the biblical reference in geological time and biblical time, and makes sense. Since everyone in the community living in the basin would of probably been drowned, why not assume everyone was, allbeit nonsense.

 

[Xenocrates]

I suggest you pay more attention in class

I suggest people pay less attention in class!

Schoolbooks abound with theories that are examinable; they have nice graphs attached that need to be labelled, simplistic formulae and language that needs to be remembered. I reckon that the spread of theories is directly linked to how examinable they are.

So work it out for yourselves.

I found this link on the BBC about Jurassic beaver (don't get excited!):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4748058.stm

While I am convinced of evolution (obviously....) there is much that we don't yet know and every time we overstate our confidence and get it wrong the force of ID gets stronger. Besides which, it's extremely demotivating to the students, especially the boys, when we give the impression that we know all that there is to know and there is no space for them to explore and no questions for them to answer.

 

[Leifmk]

The flood probably is a reference to the isthmus of the black sea breaking, since the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat(Northern Turkey) it ties in nicely with the biblical reference in geological time and biblical time, and makes sense. Since everyone in the community living in the basin would of probably been drowned, why not assume everyone was, allbeit nonsense.

Terribly unlikely.

For one thing, the Black Sea flooding happened well over seven thousand years ago, which is an awfully long time in terms of oral history.

For another, this flooding also took quite a while to complete. There was a smaller sea there already; the influx of water would have caused its level to rise at most about 30 cm per day. Yes, a considerable area was permanently submerged, but it took a year or three to happen and anyone living there could escape to higher ground on foot, walking very slowly.

 

[Sidhe]

In conjunction with the effect of huge volumes of water there would have been huge localised rainfall around the area. This would make it seem that the world was slowly flooding. Noah did not build his ark in 3 minutes it took months and months, gathering every single animal would also take months and months. I say that it could be true and since Noah could of existed in 5000BC i say the story was passed down through the years untill it was recorded in the Bible.

I'm not syaing it's a 100% fact but it's a good viable hypothesis

 

[Xenocrates]

The creationists opnce proposed a vapour canopy to explain why the Earth could flood globally. This begs the question where the hell did all the water go? G.K. Chesterton wrote that Noah, while eating with his wife commented that he didn't care where the water went as long as it didn't get into the wine! Pretty funny I thought!

I suspect that there is some connection between Atlantis and the biblical flood. More than that I can't say.

 

[Perfection]

But this goes against uniformity.

Unifromity is not a universally held principle among evolutionists. There is an importatn role to catastrophe in evolutionary biology.

Anyway that is just speculation because we have not observed this and thus this goes against the title of the thread, because it is not empirical evidence and as such it should be ignored as science, this "primordial soup" idea, since it is not scientific, but guesswork at best.

Abiogenesis is scientific, however it is not a coherant scientific theory like evolution. Abiogenesis referes to a series of naturalistic ideas used to explain the emergence of life. These ideas are incomplete and have much competition among themsleves. How they are scientific lies in the fact that they are investigatable by empirical methology and are consistant with the naturalistic assumption and other scientific thoeries. Indeed some abiogenic ideas already have a fair amount of credence to them and can be stated as fairly reliable thories. It's just that the overall abiognesis filed of study is far from complete.

 

[Sidhe]

The creationists opnce proposed a vapour canopy to explain why the Earth could flood globally. This begs the question where the hell did all the water go? G.K. Chesterton wrote that Noah, while eating with his wife commented that he didn't care where the water went as long as it didn't get into the wine! Pretty funny I thought!

I suspect that there is some connection between Atlantis and the biblical flood. More than that I can't say.

ah noah you old drunk, just goes to show even a drunken devotee is still a devotee

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That is exactly what we say, because according to the Bible, the old earth was destroyed by flood and thus this world that we live in is completely different from the world pre flood.

Scientific evidence to support your statements would always be welcomed.

How come there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood? How could two of every species possibly fit onto one wooden boat along with 40 days food and water? Where would the water for a global flood come from? Even if you melted the icecaps, which there is no evidence of, the water level worldwide would rise about 400 feet. How can this be explained? The great flood is one of the scientifically weakest fables in the bible, and one of the easiest to disprove.

It's nice to lob out statements, but saying XXX because it is "according to the Bible" isn't scientific or what this thread is about. If you want to open a thread about christian stories such the ark and the great flood that may be a more appropriate place for exact details.

BTW don't even most christians now accept that the bible was incorrect on this and that the flood was not truly worldwide but was a more localized event?

 

[carlosMM]

But this goes against uniformity. Anyway that is just speculation because we have not observed this and thus this goes against the title of the thread, because it is not empirical evidence and as such it should be ignored as science, this "primordial soup" idea, since it is not scientific, but guesswork at best.

this is hilarious - a creationist who refuses solid proof, but prefers hearsay, calling 'uniformity' on me!

What do you think this 'uniformity' means?
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the 'Synthetic Theory of Evolution' instead of using terms that have been out of favor for alomst 100 years

and, btw:
How are lab tests for very specific temp/chemicals/pressure settings not 'empirical'?

Sorry, but you ar clueless as to what research into abiogenesis is doing and has been doing in the last 20 years. Read up on it (oh, btw, Quasar, how come you do not ask for the title of the book I recommend????? Prefer to NOT see the evidence? And same goes for you, CH).


btw, where's that elusive thread where you showed Darwin plagiated all his work? Still no linky? How come?

 

[Quasar1011]

Be very careful about what is said, UV radiation was obviously increased, noone disputes that. The real question is was it enough to prevent life, I have not seen that demonstrated.

But if UV radiation was much stronger in the past, and most UV radiation was the detrimental long-wave type, wouldn't that lessen the chances of amino acids forming and reaching the conditions necessary for abiogenesis?

 

[Quasar1011]

...as to what research into abiogenesis is doing and has been doing in the last 20 years. Read up on it (oh, btw, Quasar, how come you do not ask for the title of the book I recommend?????

Alrighty, what is the title?

How come there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood?

You can't be serious. The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood.

The flood carved out the Grand Canyon. A lot of water in a little time, not a little water in a lot of time. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens in Washington State erupted. By 1982, a natural dam had blocked the Toutle River. An earthquake that year dislodged the dam, forming a new canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, within days! Multiply that volume of water by 40, and you could get the Grand Canyon in months or years, not millennia.

How old does this canyon look?

 

[Quasar1011]

conveniently QM says matter can spontaneously come into existence

Does it?! I must have slept through that bit of the quantum mechanics lectures. Again could use an explanation, or at least a pointer at which bit of quatum theory says this.

Actually, QM does say that matter can pop into existence from nothingness; but, it must also pop back out of existence within milliseconds. String theory solves this, by allowing the matter to exist in other dimensions. A rotating string, or "brane" (short for membrane), could exist mostly in other dimensions, but very briefly pop into our 3-dimensional part of the universe. This discovery means that somehow, travel between dimensions cannot be ruled out. And the Bible describes episodes of traveling between dimensions.

 

[Perfection]

But if UV radiation was much stronger in the past, and most UV radiation was the detrimental long-wave type, wouldn't that lessen the chances of amino acids forming and reaching the conditions necessary for abiogenesis?

Yes, but the question remains does this effect on the amino acids make a significant change in the chance. Lowering the chance insignificantly certainly is an option. I've seen no reason to think that the lowering of the chances of proeducing life by this phenemenon is significant.

You can't be serious. The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood.

No, they best explination is geological uplift

The flood carved out the Grand Canyon. A lot of water in a little time, not a little water in a lot of time. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens in Washington State erupted. By 1982, a natural dam had blocked the Toutle River. An earthquake that year dislodged the dam, forming a new canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, within days! Multiply that volume of water by 40, and you could get the Grand Canyon in months or years, not millennia.

How old does this canyon look?

Comparisons between the two are silly, really.

Here's a link that debunks it nice and concisely:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.


The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.


The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.


The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

 

[Quasar1011]

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

The fact the stuck out most in my mind in meteorology school, was this: if you double the amount of volume in a stream, the force of the water increases by 64 times!

You wouldn't need 100,000 times the water to form the Grand Canyon.

No, they best explination is geological uplift.

Have you studied the Lewis Overthrust in Montana?

 

[Perfection]

Actually, QM does say that matter can pop into existence from nothingness; but, it must also pop back out of existence within milliseconds. String theory solves this, by allowing the matter to exist in other dimensions. A rotating string, or "brane" (short for membrane), could exist mostly in other dimensions, but very briefly pop into our 3-dimensional part of the universe. This discovery means that somehow, travel between dimensions cannot be ruled out. And the Bible describes episodes of traveling between dimensions.

I have not heard this accounting of virtual particles before, can you give me the source?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

You can't be serious. The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood.

The flood carved out the Grand Canyon. A lot of water in a little time, not a little water in a lot of time. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens in Washington State erupted. By 1982, a natural dam had blocked the Toutle River. An earthquake that year dislodged the dam, forming a new canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, within days! Multiply that volume of water by 40, and you could get the Grand Canyon in months or years, not millennia.

How old does this canyon look?

You're actually kidding right?

Erosion is not evidence of a worldwide flood. The Grand Canyon formed over a very long period of time (thousands of years). Look at any Grand Canyon website and it will explain how erosion works.

Fossils on mountaintops is not evidence of a worldwide flood, only evidence of plate tectonics in action. Plates push against each other and mountain ranges rise. 40 days underwater wouldn't be long enough to leave the millions of years of fossil record that are found on mountains anyway. Look at any plate tectonics website and it will explain how mountains rise.

May I suggest you get yourself a high school textbook from a library as these very basic concepts are there for you to read and learn about.


EDIT - Quasar, May I ask for some scientific-based links to back up your statement "The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood." as I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.