Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
>>Hello Mark I've been away in Scotland for a few days but I'm back. So much to reply to - Ill try and focus.<<
Were you 'hunting'? :) (sorry couldn't resist). Yes you must 'think' in order to write or use an information code. Because information and codes don't happen by random chance over billions of years, they involve purpose and intelligence. But you will disagree of course, is your mind made up? Yes you believe those 'complex' letters in sentences just form naturally and get better and clearer. How you can blindly insist 'codes of information' occur without intelligence is beyond me.
>>1) To try and distil this - I (continue) to disagree with your views on the physics of entropy. Why? - although you start on safe ground regarding 'increasing disorder' - you extend this one dimensional physical model by metaphor and sound bites (of dubious origin) - to encompass what are interacting yet orthogonal concepts. The end result is that the mathematical basis of thermodynamics is warped into your one dimensional system with words like 'complexity', 'order', 'intricate' stapled to the 'up' end and 'disorder', 'simplicity' and 'chaos' pinned to the 'down' end. This is more an arguement from thesarus, not physics.<<
'Try and focus', you started emails with a contradiction. Evolution theory depends on things being in order, not chaos or disorder. You define 'complexity' to mean 'disorder' (mixed-sand/jumbled numbers), that's flawed. Books don't write themselves, their complex information doesn't develop from the ink and paper. Information NEVER occurs by random chance or from disorder. Pages of jumbled letters and words are useless and never fix themselves.
There is no way blind forces of physics can account for design evident every where. As Dr Werner Gitt, (Institute of Physics) states, "one thing is absolutely scientifically sure, information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information, and ultimately information is the result of intelligence..... A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) …It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required... There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this" (W. Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, p.64–7. 79).
>>hope reading somethings about chaos has made you appreciate the dangers of pinning physics to oversimplified models. Even if you do not see the intelectual links - of spontaneously emerging complexity from simple systems – to volutionary biology.<<
Your 'model' argues 'complexity' means 'chaos'. Disorder can only be the final end product of entropy. Any 'emerging' of complexity from 'simple systems' means those systems must be programmed to use energy to produce complexity. Such as the programmers in a living cell or living body. That cell or body must have the information programmed into it already in order to go contrary to the 2nd law.
>>2) Just because scientist Dr.X says phenomenon Y has 'order and complexity' in the same sentance does little to prove they are synonymous. If they said newcastle is 'north and west' - we would not assume the two are identical.<<
I question your definitions and show the words are often used "in the same sentence". You have not shown otherwise. Scientists don't often use 'complexity' to mean disorder or chaos.
>>3) Paragraph 5.9 is a gem. i) is 'the scientist' in the paragraph claiming that evolution is contrary to the 1st law of thermodynamics(!). I'll email dawkins for you but I don't remember claims over the creation of matter or energy. ii) Evolution does not suggest a universal increase in order. Only local temporary increases (total being a decrease) - they are not prohibited. <<
Evolution demands a 'universal increase in order' and complexity in all things. Be it living or matter. Evolution is contrary to every law of physics. It requires the laws of the universe to make themselves naturally, chemicals to form themselves, all things must naturally increase in order and complexity. But we don't see that happening at all. Over time all complex 'systems' run down and die. Over time information is lost, not added. Time destroys information. That's why mutations occur, they are a loss/corruption of information. We never see new information added to the DNA for new structures and functions - which would be an increase of order and complexity.
Even the atheist Dawkins admits, ‘there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over’. (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, WW Norton, NY, USA, p.115, 1986). The fact is, there has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.
>>iii) Does the 2nd law have exceptions? Well I can think of 3 exceptions a) physics: pre-'big bang' space-time is likely to have very different properties. b) religion: the existance of God. c) religion: God's actions in setting up the primeaval universe. If you feel it necessary to add 'evolution' to that list you'll make it 2 all.<<
Evolution doesn't require 3 exceptions it requires a constant stream, observable and proven. The transfer of energy always obeys two fundamental principles known as thermodynamics - 1st law and 2nd law. There are no exceptions (ie a cooler body never transfers heat to a warmer body. You can't build a perpetual motion machine, energy can only be partially converted etc). But is God still creating? Not according to the bible (Heb.4:4,10) or the 1st & 2nd law.
We can only go by what we see and know. Real science only deals with things observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, checking and doing it again. But "Darwinian evolution cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" (D.B. Kitts PhD (zoology) School of Geology and Geophysics, "Paleontology and evolutionary theory", vol.28, Sept.1974 p466).
>>4) section 5.15 - be fair you have to admit I was right about the chaotic geometry of the cardiac impulse. A lot of physical systems manifest chaotic 'pink noise' like this such as ocean waves or genomic DNA.<<
The studies indicate the cardiac impulse is not the kind of chaos the word implies. As Ary Goldberger of Harvard Medical School said, what was believed to be chaos in the heart was found to be necessary. So instead or disorder there is order and complexity. But, Chaos theory is still no help for evolution. It doesn't explain how disordered chemicals could have assembled themselves into the first self-reproducing machine, in opposition to the relentless tendency to universal disorder. "Living things... are characterized by truly complex, information-bearing structures, whose properties are not intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances of which they are constructed; they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell. This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes do not write programs." And DNA? "No scientific evidence has shown the slightest chance of one code mutating to another" (p20 J.J Grebe 'DNA Complexity Points to Divine Design'. Vol.3 San Diego CSRC 1973).
>>5) So digging down here I get the impression that a central concept that keeps our views mutually exclusive surround the nature of 'proof'. You can accept the bible as absolute proof of a concept and then work back to fill in the details. Is this fair assesment? This is reminisent of Descartes - didn't he go down a line of sceptisim only to swerve towards superstition when he realised that physical reality offered no gauruntee of truth. Still he was probably afraid of being tortured by the church - along with the horrors of existential doubt.<<
The nature of proof is simply this. Evolution has no 'proof' but missing 'proof'. It's unreasonable, unbelievable and unconvincing. There should be millions of transitional forms between species. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. Since Darwin the history of evolution theory is FILL of FAKE discoveries that promised the missing link but NEVER delivered [Consider E.Haeckel]. Numerous claims of "clear evidence" all fail under examination. Remember "Pithecanthropus Erectus" - "Heidelberg Man" - "Lucy" - "Neandlberg Man" - "Putdown Man" - "Little Foot" - "Swanscombe" - "Hisperopithectus" - "Hesperopithecus" or "Zinjanthropus"? [all FAKE].
If it’s a universal law of nature, why have we not found one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? etc Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ‘missing links’ haven't. I’m surprised you have no knowledge of this.
The bible however, is genuine and has been carefully and critically examined yet dependable. Its proven true prophetically, geographically and historically with an accuracy superior to the records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Go by what is fair and true. Don't trust a theory which is in crisis, rejected by scientists and lacks evidence. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than God.
Modern science is based on scientists who accepted the bible as absolute 'truth'. Charles Babbage ... Computer science. Operations research. Actuarial tables. Robert Boyle ... Chemistry. Gas dynamics. Boyle's Law. Wernher Von Braun ... Rocket scientist (Apollo Moon Mission). George Washington Carver ... Agricultural chemistry. (Teacher Iowa State College, Tuskegee Institute Alabama) Georges Cuvier ... Vertebrate palaeontology. Comparative anatomy. Leonhard Euler …Calculus of partial differentials - Fluid flow equations. Conic sections Network theory. (Prof. Mathematics Prof. Physics) Michael Faraday ... Electric generator - Transformer. Field theory.... (A list of 40 other names mentioned). And today, there's more scientists than I can mention.
>>You assumed that I was taking Wikipedia as proof (rather than just a neutral-ish location were maths was illustrated - as it can't be easily emailed or attatched). No, I would happily say I'm keeping concepts under review. Actually between the two of us who do you think is most dogmatic about their position? Me with my 'I read this and had a think' approach or your 'my God told me'.<<
But you took Wikipedia 'as proof' to fool me. Taking your 'maths' and science from there lacks creditability. Expected me to believe it. You rejected school science about "entropy" and 2nd law calling that a "100" years old "straw version". And Wikipedia was proof information arises "from disorder" from there you claimed, "We learn information….increases". So you posted your "formula" as a mathematical fact I was supposed to accept it as modern science. Yet they, "CANNOT guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information". So what scientific qualification have you?
>>I've already modified my understanding of complexity from the extra reading I've been doing. (Don't worry Mark its not an 'into agreement' kind of shift.) Have you noticed how Christians all (nominally) use the bible but don't agree?<<
The theory of evolution is so plastic it automatically modifies to fit any evidence. Have you noticed the evidence is always made to fit 'into agreement'?
As for disagreement about the bible, the fault is not with the bible but men. At least the bible can be studied, tested, put into practice. As for evolution, the evolutionist says, "Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" Why? Because, "Its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test".
>>In science if you get the wrong ideas your experiments don't work and you change your assumptions. In religion if you get your 'bible-derived' info wrong a) you won't know, b) you'll only find out in the 'after-life' c) it'll be too late and d) the consequences are dire.<<
You still confuse science with the philosophy of evolution. They are very different. Evolution it's based on 'assumptions', there are no 'experiments' that 'work' to test it, it gives the 'wrong ideas' and wrongly called 'science'. Yet even real science doesn't deal with ethical issues, it can't prove kindness is better than hate. The truth better than lies, or human life is more valuable than animals.
I would give up the religion of evolution if I were you. You need to be born again. Get in contact with your Creator for a personal relationship with Him. Allow Him to prove His reality as He has with me. The Bible clearly describes why you have a problem with God and how to get right with Him. Even a young lad can understand the bible, read it to be wise and find meaning to life.
We all need a spiritual birth (not religion). I realize many have made Christianity into religion. But true Christianity is not a religion. Religion attempts to reach up to God, Christianity is God reaching down to man. Religion is man’s ultimate search for God; Christianity is God’s search for man. True Christianity is a relationship, a focus on One Person.
>>You have extensive experience of christadelphians, do you not wonder why they are going wrong? reading the same bible aren't they. But no devil, no trinity, no hell, no holy spirit(?). Are they stupid? (a Christadelphian with an Maths MA from Oxford taught me about space-time when I was a teenager (hello to J.L. if he reads this)) Are they evil, or just unlucky?<<
You know little about them. They 'are going wrong' because they twist the bible to fit their belief, as evolutionists with the evidence of science. Their prophet is followed more than scripture. They never differ from his belief, as the followers of Darwin who follow him regardless of real science. They can read the bible all their life yet fail to understand the truth. Why be silent when people are deceived? Christadelphianism and evolutionism as similar. Both are convinced they are right, they never question or disagree with the official dogma.
They are not 'evil' but deceived, a spiritual problem. The existence of evil is another proof of God's existence. Evolution has no explanation for evil. Deny God's existence and you have no way to show your judgments about the existence of evil are meaningful – which is precisely what the unbelieving worldview is unable to do. The unbeliever's definition of 'good' and 'evil' are subjective and his morality ultimately relative.
If 'good' is what gains public approval, then it is ultimately just an opinion. Without an absolute authority who has the right to determine 'good' and 'evil' (right/wrong), then what is 'good' is just subjective. As you said, who determines whose definition of 'good' (or truth) is correct ultimately? Yes evolution has a problem, with no answers. I'm amazed you assume there is right and wrong, when evolutionism is void of such concepts.
>>Have you notice how men our age tend to strap explosives on their bodies and detonate them in crowded areas. Many Muslims do this convinced that Allah has provided proof of their faith……they will explain to you their absolute faith in the proof provided by their holy texts or oral traditions. Are they right?<<
So in the end, you are still telling me, there is nothing absolutely 'right' or wrong. I say, they are absolutely wrong. If, as evolution teaches, there is nothing absolutely wrong, then what they do means nothing. It's all just part of the millions of years of death, suffering and pain. Why are you complaining? I say they are wrong, but can only be wrong because there is a God.
Evolutionism and Islam are similar, death is welcomed. In evolution, murder, hate and aggression are the eggshells without which men would not have developed. The means whereby one species develops into another [Hitler had the idea]. Evolution is not wonderful, it's gruesome. The way of "development" entailed an appalling measure of pain and sorrow. Death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles.
Biologist H.Mohr states, "If there were no death, then no life would have existed. There is no other way around this axiom of evolutionary theory" [Human Evolution Heren Text 1983 p12].
Islam like evolutionism, says none should disagree with their belief system. Both have fanatics convinced are they right. Both have a deity that is cold and distant. In a recent book Cornelius Hunter argues powerfully that Darwin was really trying to distance God from natural evil, by removing Him from having anything to do with His creation. Just as Allah is always away some where else.
This is all totally contrary to the bible's testimony about God and creation. The Bible teaches about a God of love for whom death and suffering were not a part of His original creation. Evil and death came into this world because of man's rejection of God. “When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. His sin spread death throughout the world, so everything began to grow old and die, for all sinned” (Rom.5:12). Now because of sin, man is confused about God, life, himself, right and wrong, and his neighbor.
>>"You will disagree. And I have no doubt that your mind is made-up and no one can change it. You will be close-minded when others would see the light. You will refuse to see while others would be willing to see [2 Cor.4:4]. Those who find security in a false system fail to see the truth. Facts and truth make no difference to them." (Mark Purchase) This includes you too mate.<<
So not accepting evolution means I'm close-minded like cults? Really? But those outside cults are not fooled and can see the truth. The cultist has more in common with evolutionist. Particularly their teachers who are committed in blind faith regardless of facts or truth. Their minds are 'made-up and no one can change" it. Isn't that just like you?
I'm prepared to read and study what you post and read widely. But it doesn't matter who I quote and what I say, "your mind is made up and no one can change it. You continue to defend evolution regardless of fact or truth.
I explained the 2nd Law and you won't accept it. You insist it increases information for evolution. I explained the cell was to complex to occur by chance, (major flaw in evolutionism) yet you ignore it and argue 2 billion years will solve the problem. Many points I make you ignore. You are not open minded, ready to 'think' and learn. Facts and truth made no difference. Why aren't you prepared to stand up for truth? What's wrong with admitting evolution has serious problems?
>>The logical approach to understanding reality is to be sceptical, experimental and (if possible) objective. A <<
And this is exactly what you are NOT doing on the subject of evolution. But keep 'thinking' and asking questions.