Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Roger Ramjets]

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism

Stephen Hawking is very smart guy who knows a lot about physics - that is all. Nobody crowned him Grand Poobah except you.

states, (The Grand Design):

"Because there is a Law such as Gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

When was it ever proved right?

Proofs are for mathematics and formal logic. Hawking's theories may never be 'proved' right. Eventually we may determine that they are a valid interpretation of how the Universe works - or not. But we won't just sit back and decide that because Stephen Hawking had an idea it must be the final word.

"Create itself" That means it Existed PRIOR to it's Existence. ahhh, to call this Incoherent Absurdity is insulting to Incoherent Absurdity.

The English language is insufficient to accurately describe scientific concepts (only math can do that), so any words used may appear incoherent if you take them literally.

has the Laws of Motion ever CAUSED a Billiard Ball to roll across a table?

No, the Laws of Motion describe how a billiard ball rolls across a table. But since they describe a property of the Universe, we can say that <that property> 'causes' the ball to roll. And we call that property 'the Laws of Motion'.

But what is it that really causes the ball the move? We don't know - and we don't care. We have discovered that a particular set of mathematical formulas describe it, and that is all. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental property of the Universe, and is caused by nothing. Or perhaps we will discover that it is 'caused' by even more fundamental 'laws' (described by their own mathematical formulas).

You may think that describing everything with math is unsatisfactory, but it is the only 'language' we have that is precise enough to do the job. Any attempt to use ordinary words as a replacement is bound to come unstuck. So you can play as many word games as you like, but it won't change the science because it is not built on words!

 

[ehcks]

Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

A line segment is perfectly capable of having an end without a beginning, or a beginning without an end, depending on which way you look at it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If evolution wasn't true, why did the creator create so much evidence for it?

Because he is The Trickster. Just like He created the Universe 6,000 years ago, complete with starlight that appears to be billions of years old - to trick us into believing that He doesn't exist!

But some of us managed to see through His ruse. You see, about 2,000 years ago, a very smart guy by the name of Jesus (the Stephen Hawking of his day) figured out that he was God, and then started talking to Himself. The rest is history...

 

[tsig]

There are no figures of speech or analogies on Daniel's home planet. He actually thinks that "buy" in the context of an argument implies a purchase.

EDIT: Also, Daniel, for someone being such a stickler for language, your usage of the begging the question fallacy is not even close to its actual meaning. It has nothing to do with "Where did X come from?"

? Please sir, can you spare a dime?

Begging the question.

 

[tsig]

He's talking about science, not 'Danielscience'.








The Theory of Evolution, of course. You know; actual science.

D'science = I can't believe it.

 

[tsig]

I'm obviously missing the profundity of your question as on the face of it this seems trivial.

'Rules' are the descriptions we give to the physical interactions of things. No intelligence is implicated in a rock rolling down a hill. The rock nor the hill need to know about gravity in order for the rules to be followed.

The intelligence is human intelligence recognizing the rules. He is looking at a mirror and calling it god.

 

[tsig]

…of course they do. But that wasn’t the point...and if you look back, that is also not how it is represented.

“Reality follows the laws of physics.”

That is how it is represented. It is ass-backwards of course, but that doesn’t seem to stop just about everyone (including innumerable scientists) from describing it thus.

…but, as I said, that’s not the point. The point is…only a complete idiot could fail to note the immeasurable range and application of these ‘laws’. They describe and predict just about everything…from the smallest to the largest…with almost infinite precision and accuracy.

…and not only does nobody know why, or how…nobody has a clue!

And the ONLY reason no-one asks the question “do we create these laws, or do we discover them?”…is also because nobody has a clue how to answer it.

We certainly cannot definitively say that the laws do not exist (or that there is not some fundamental and explicit relationship between the laws and reality). In fact…all the available evidence (see above) suggests the exact opposite. Not to mention…is any scientist with a gram of intelligence going to argue that it’s all merely a grand coincidence?

Not bloody likely!

…but despite the massive amount of circumstantial evidence, there is no empirical evidence. Nobody has ever either located a ‘law’ of physics or even begun to explain the relationship between neural and cognitive activity (…how the ‘laws’ are created by physics).

There are really only two simple conclusions to be drawn from all this. One…the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that rules are somehow fundamental to the existence and function of reality.

…and rules invariably implicate intelligence. Intelligence on the scale of a universe implicates you-know-what!

The second conclusion is that there is an indisputable empirical relationship between ‘physical’ reality and the conceptual reality we call these laws. Whether anyone will ever be able to accurately adjudicate it is unanswerable…but the relationship does exist. IOW…some day it might be possible to determine what manner of physical reality specifically generates what manner of law. Of course, a rabbit hole immediately appears since physical reality itself is described by …laws. Maybe by then some manner of new paradigm will have introduced itself (…or Itself).




The question of whether the rules are discovered or created is probably the biggest there is. You just don’t hear about it cause no one has a clue either how to answer it or what the answer may be.

You're 200 years late.

 

[Daniel]

The fact that you claim something so ridiculous is proof that you have never reviewed the scientific literature.

Really? How so?

Stephen Hawking was never crowned anything. He is not the grand Poobah of Science.

No surely not.

Most scientists do their work without referring to Stephen Hawking in any way. He doesn't deal with every aspect of science, let alone physics.

I never said they did; Ergo....Straw Man Fallacy. Please try and focus on the actual Arguments presented instead of the one's you conjure. Thanks in advance.

When I was a physicist employed working on technology, I never used anything that Hawking wrote.

So??

I don't know anything for sure, except that yo are full of bunk.

How so...? Do you have anything more than your opinion?

Hawking is an atheist. Many of the hypotheses that he presents contradicts the existence of a personal god or Gods.

Define Atheist....?


I have never seen one actual "Scientific Hypothesis" from him; In fact, I don't think he knows what it is. Do you??

What is a Scientific Hypothesis?? List the Characteristics then provide an Example of one...?

He is a popular popular physicist who presents interesting physical hypotheses to the public. He has skill in mathematics and physical theory.

He held the same "Chair" as Sir Isaac Newton for ~ 20 years.

Hawking's main specialization is general relativity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Some of his hypotheses involve cosmology, which is the state of the universe a very long time ago.

"his hypotheses involve cosmology??" This is tantamount to Light holding Darkness.

Cosmology isn't Science...

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

His statement about the universe coming into existence from nothing does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics.

So "Na'ahh" is your retort? How Scientific of you. Doesn't 1LOT state: Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create Matter/Energy??

The universe coming into existence is not the same as matter and energy coming into existence.

Well isn't the Universe: Matter/Energy, Space and Time ?

So you're saying "The Universe" (Matter/Energy/Space/Time) coming into existence, is not the same as Matter and Energy coming into Existence, eh?

Have you heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Please reconcile your primary school trainwreck here...?

According to his theory, the appearance of positive energy is balanced by the appearance of negative energy in equal amounts. The two quantities, positive and negative, cancel each other out. Given this cancellation, the universe contains the same TOTAL amount of energy at all times. Thus, the TOTAL remains balanced at all times.

1. Are you saying this is a "Scientific Theory"?? List the Scientific Hypotheses that SUPPORT IT....?

2. Positive and Negative Energy??

Define Energy....?

Lets see the 'calculations'.....? Post ALL the Positive Energy in the Universe and Source, THEN... ALL the Negative Energy and Source...? Then Reconcile for us...?

This is not a physical hypothesis that I would swear to.

It's not a Scientific Hypothesis, PERIOD. It's Blind Conjecture...he's a Philosopher (like Darwin) with a Calculator.

I can assert that his work doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics as tested repeatedly by scientists on earth and space.

You assert, eh? They TESTED Something from Nothing ?? Please show and CITE your Reference....?

However, his theory does fit some of the observations of the large scale structure of the universe.

I have a similar 'theory'... there's burn marks on my garage wall: 'Theory'...Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons exist. Fits the Observations

Keep ranting! Rudeness is more reliable than mathematics when it comes to physical reality!

It's not RUDE. You're misapplying your frustrations. It's this scenario...

A Neurosurgical Candidate applying for a Neurosurgical Position blurts out during an interview: "What's A Cerebellum??"....then when the Head of Neurosurgery physically throws him out of the office and laughs @ him, the candidate runs down to Resource Management and complains how rudely he was treated and files a harassment complaint.


regards

 

[tsig]

I'm obviously missing the profundity of your question as on the face of it this seems trivial.

'Rules' are the descriptions we give to the physical interactions of things. No intelligence is implicated in a rock rolling down a hill. The rock nor the hill need to know about gravity in order for the rules to be followed.

The question is so profound it plumbs the depth of sense and transcends the bounds of logic, it touches on whimsy and flirts with imagination while doubting everything but his own infallible opinion.

 

[tsig]

What caused your god?

The fear of being alone in a vast impersonal universe.

 

[tsig]

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

"Because there is a Law such as Gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."




When was it ever proved right?

"Create itself" That means it Existed PRIOR to it's Existence. ahhh, to call this Incoherent Absurdity is insulting to Incoherent Absurdity.

He didn't even say GRAVITY, he said because there is a "Law of Gravity". Oh my, ahhh, aren't Scientific Laws immaterial descriptions of what we observe? How can a Scientific Law exist without existence of the thing that's being described and the one describing it?

I suggest he embark on 13th Century Alchemy...the tenets are more sound.

Also, has the Laws of Motion ever CAUSED a Billiard Ball to roll across a table?

And, don't you have to have @ least 2 masses for gravity? Where'd he get the masses...from nothing?


regards

Argument by Belittlement, I've seen it before but never so exclusively.

You need another note on that guitar.

 

[Daniel]

Hawking's theories may never be 'proved' right.

Huh?? To be a Scientific Theory in the FIRST PLACE...it has to be CONFIRMED/VALIDATED via Hypothesis TESTING.

You're substituting the word 'theory/theories' for Blind Speculative Conjectures...then calling it "Science"! rotflol. THEN...

Charge me with playing word games!

No, the Laws of Motion describe how a billiard ball rolls across a table. But since they describe a property of the Universe, we can say that <that property> 'causes' the ball to roll. And we call that property 'the Laws of Motion'.

This is ABSURD!! Take the next 3 days off....then quit.

But what is it that really causes the ball the move? We don't know - and we don't care. We have discovered that a particular set of mathematical formulas describe it, and that is all. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental property of the Universe, and is caused by nothing. Or perhaps we will discover that it is 'caused' by even more fundamental 'laws' (described by their own mathematical formulas).

Really?? Provide the mathematical formula for Natural Selection....?


regards

 

[Daniel]

The fear of being alone in a vast impersonal universe.

It appears you haven't thought this through (shocking I know). It's exactly the Opposite:

You say that, Theists (Christians) are just scared/fearful of what's gonna happen after we die so we conjure "Comfort", Right?

Well Materialists think that when they die...."That's IT". If it's the end of Consciousness, then what is there to FEAR ? Absolutely Nothing.

If Consciousness doesn't end (Christian View) experiences will continue in some form, it MOST ASSUREDLY will lead to FEAR, even the most devout Christian (we are all merely human).

So upon further inspection, it is the Materialists/Realists.... that are Fearful and searching for "Comfort".


regards

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Really?? Provide the mathematical formula for Natural Selection....?

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(population_genetics)

 

[rwguinn]

Huh?? To be a Scientific Theory in the FIRST PLACE...it has to be CONFIRMED/VALIDATED via Hypothesis TESTING.

You're substituting the word 'theory/theories' for Blind Speculative Conjectures...then calling it "Science"! rotflol. THEN...

Scientific theories change with new evidence. All the evidence, so far, confirms the scientific theories (or laws) we currently use.
They must also be falsifiable, for example, the TOE goes to heck in a handbasket the minute somebody finds human remains immediately proximate to dinosaur remains, or dinosaur remains with knife marks on the bones..

Charge me with playing word games!

absolutely. You accept as true things you observe (God, whatever) and totally reject things observed by others which you don't understand.

This is ABSURD!! Take the next 3 days off....then quit.





Really?? Provide the mathematical formula for Natural Selection....?


regards

oh, it's out there. Look up Gregor Mendel

 

[MikeG]

.......oh, it's out there. Look up Gregor Mendel

As an aside, I've visited the monastery in Bruno, Czech republic, where he did all the experiments, surveyed the base of the greenhouse where he grew his famous bean plants, and gone inside his incredible bee hive. I didn't know until I went that he was actually far more interested in bees than botany, and spent years doing all sorts of science around their behaviour. Fascinating and unforgettable experience. To think that he worked out how inheritance worked with no comprehension of genes, and without having communicated with Darwin, (who was, I think, unaware of Mendel's great works despite being contemporaneous with him).

 

[Minoosh]

To both Daniel and his challengers ... has Daniel presented his views in a positive sense, or do these pages mainly consist of his contention that so-called experts are wrong, therefore he is right?

I don't know enough about the young-earth creationists to know how they explain fossils of creatures no longer extant. Were dinosaurs on the ark with Noah or were they all killed in the flood? Were they created on the same day as all the other animals but somehow fell out of favor with the creator?

From what I have read so far I am not sure Daniel is a young-earth creationist. Are you, Daniel? How old do you think Earth is?

 

[steenkh]

Stephen Hawking the Crowned Grand Poobah of Science and the Pinnacle of Intellectual Atheistic Elitism states, (The Grand Design):

Your ad hom is duly noted.

When was it ever proved right?

It is not. It is a scientific hypothesis that does not contradict any known laws of physics. Please notice: no supernatural beings, and no special pleading.

"Create itself" That means it Existed PRIOR to it's Existence. ahhh, to call this Incoherent Absurdity is insulting to Incoherent Absurdity.

Are you a biblical literalist? That could explain why think expressions have to be taken literally.

He didn't even say GRAVITY, he said because there is a "Law of Gravity". Oh my, ahhh, aren't Scientific Laws immaterial descriptions of what we observe? How can a Scientific Law exist without existence of the thing that's being described and the one describing it?

You are taking things too literally. Look at his argument instead. I bet you have not even been reading it.

I suggest he embark on 13th Century Alchemy...the tenets are more sound.

Sneering is not helping you at all.

Also, has the Laws of Motion ever CAUSED a Billiard Ball to roll across a table?

You seem to have gone into a rut.

And, don't you have to have @ least 2 masses for gravity? Where'd he get the masses...from nothing?

I was right: it was your own choice to quote him, but you did not even read him.

 

[MikeG]

To both Daniel and his challengers ... has Daniel presented his views in a positive sense, or do these pages mainly consist of his contention that so-called experts are wrong, therefore he is right?

I don't know enough about the young-earth creationists to know how they explain fossils of creatures no longer extant. Were dinosaurs on the ark with Noah or were they all killed in the flood? Were they created on the same day as all the other animals but somehow fell out of favor with the creator?

From what I have read so far I am not sure Daniel is a young-earth creationist. Are you, Daniel? How old do you think Earth is?

Nah, god created the fossils at the same time as he created all the layers in the the ice caps, all the layers of seasonally deposited mud at the bottom of lakes, all the billions of tons of erosional material deposited as alluvium in river deltas, and of course all the trees with x number of annual growth rings, all the layered geology, and all the secret little clues in our DNA about our ancestry........and he did all this because he loves us and wanted to trick us just for fun so that we'd love him even more.

Obviously.

 

[jimbob]

To both Daniel and his challengers ... has Daniel presented his views in a positive sense, or do these pages mainly consist of his contention that so-called experts are wrong, therefore he is right?

I don't know enough about the young-earth creationists to know how they explain fossils of creatures no longer extant. Were dinosaurs on the ark with Noah or were they all killed in the flood? Were they created on the same day as all the other animals but somehow fell out of favor with the creator?

From what I have read so far I am not sure Daniel is a young-earth creationist. Are you, Daniel? How old do you think Earth is?

Nothing but sophistry and word games. It hasn't advanced as far as that.

I'm just going to point and laugh