Re: Richard Dawkins
- From: "Jong Kim" <rhl71@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:07:42 -0700
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f45tbc02bgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
natural."
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives
the correct view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's
famous "soup in a flask" experiment.
Pasteur did not attempt and could not attempt to study abiogenesis over
extended periods of time. He proved that life does not arise in a
matter of days or weeks from non-life, but this does not prove that
no self-replicating molecules could emerge over billions of years.
Note that this has nothing to do with evolution or "darwinism", since
evolution starts with the premise that self-replicating systems already
exist and describes how they are modified. Abiogenesis describes
possible chemical and physical route by which molecular systems might
self-organize and become capable of autonomous self-replication.
So, yet another chestnut of creationist stupidity has been shot down
in flames.
Not so. Here's more evidence that Art Bulla is right, namely James Clerk
Maxwell's comments on natural molecular Evolution vs. divine work of
Creation:
"No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of
molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the
molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.
None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began,
have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule.
We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules
or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call
Atoms and molecules did not always exist.
Maxwell didn't know this.
Pertaining to molecules (and therefore atoms also), coarse matter and not
aether, Maxwell said in Sept. 1873, "matter cannot be eternal and
self-existent".
While Maxwell was talking only about molecules, it is true that at the time
of his 1873 discourse, atomic isotopes were unknown. There's also
a connection between some isotopes and radioactivity.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/isotopes/index.html
Isotopes
Atoms of the same element can have different numbers of neutrons;
the different possible versions of each element are called isotopes.
....
How many isotopes can one element have? Can an atom have just any number of
neutrons?
No; there are "preferred" combinations of neutrons and protons, at which the
forces holding nuclei together seem to balance best. Light elements tend to
have about as many neutrons as protons; heavy elements apparently need more
neutrons than protons in order to stick together. Atoms with a few too many
neutrons, or not quite enough, can sometimes exist for a while, but they're
unstable.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unstable." Do atoms just fall apart if they
don't have the right number of neutrons?
Well, yes, in a way. Unstable atoms are radioactive: their nuclei change or
decay by spitting out radiation, in the form of particles or electromagnetic
waves.
[end of Isotope Q&A]
So, the very existence of atomic isotopes has a pattern and a hidden
order to it, that it isn't of random variety. I suspect that any possible
arrangement of matter can be mathematically described by applying
the universal principle of stationary action, or metaphysically
(spiritually)
speaking, the Law of Economy of Heaven. That, the nature of unstable
or radioactive isotopes may be viewed in terms of maximal and/or
'saddle point' mathematical functions concerning atomic energies over
time, i.e. the Lagrangian-Hamiltonian calculus of variations.
Let me requote Maxwell from his Sept. 1873 Discourse on Molecules,
for he said concerning the coarser, atomic-molecular matter (not aether):
.... matter cannot be eternal and self-existent ... It is only when we
contemplate, not matter in itself, but the form in which it actually exists,
that our mind finds something on which it can lay hold.
....
But that there should be exactly so much matter and no more in every
molecule of hydrogen is a fact of a very different order. We have here
a particular distribution of matter-a collocation-to use the expression of
Dr. Chalmers, of things which we have no difficulty in imagining to have
been arranged otherwise.
===
collocation, n.
placing together or side by side.
===
The form and dimensions of the orbits of the planets, for instance, are not
determined by any law of nature, but depend upon a particular collocation of
matter. The same is the case with respect to the size of the earth, from
which the standard of what is called the metrical system has been derived.
http://www.sonnetsoftware.com/bio/maxbio.pdf
"Natural causes, as we know, are at work, which tend to modify,
if they do not at length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions
of the earth and the whole solar system."
~~both quotes are of James Clerk Maxwell (Discourse on Molecules, Sept.
1873)
Incidentally, the second quote shows that just by considering the second
law, Maxwell unknowingly had accounted for the subsequent discovery of
decaying or unstable isotopes, though he also said that "the molecule is
incapable of ... decay."
Consider an example. Tritium is a naturally occuring radioactive isotope of
the hydrogen atom, and at standard temperature and pressure, it exists as
gas molecule, T2, which decays with a half-life of more than 12 years.
Considering all these things, the origins of unstable isotopes also lie in
the Creation works of the Supreme Beings, even the Almighty Eloheim.
Whatever the Lord God originally organized out of the aether, some of the
created atoms and molecules naturally decay (I believe this is
mathematically describable by the action principle), due to interactions
with cosmic rays, etc., into other atoms, such as the natural decay of
tritium into helium-3. Tritium itself naturally originates from atmospheric
nitrogen gas naturally bombarded by cosmic rays, specifically from nitrogen
interaction with high-energy neutron. And, tritiated water, T2O, naturally
occurs in minute quantities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
The low-energy beta radiation from tritium cannot penetrate human skin, so
tritium is only dangerous if inhaled or ingested.
===
If the concentration of ingested tritiated water is sufficiently high. The
conclusion is inescapable, that these random processes of natural decay,
though they be changes, are not conducive to biological and physical
systems, that theistic Evolution is an erroneous notion as much as any other
kind of natural Evolution. If there is any 'evolution' of anything at all,
it is not by natural means wherein no God or man (i.e., no manufacturer) is
involved. As Art Bulla asked, If Evolution is true, why is there death
(decay, disorganization)? Unto biological Evolutionists that redefine to
suit their a priori demands, something about successfully passing on the
genes for natural selection (something to that effect, a set of vague,
unproven ideas), I say that there aren't more phenotype possibilities,
unless there has been hybridization. I've recently learned that biological
Evolutionists consider the fruitful organisms that arise from hybridizations
to be 'observed' speciation. Insane, and they claim this is science.
===
Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight
Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
This article is reprinted from an interview with Citizen Magazine,
January 1992.
Phillip Johnson has been a law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley for more than 20 years. As an academic lawyer, one of Johnson's
specialties is "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the
assumptions that lie behind those arguments." A few years ago he began to
suspect that Darwinism, far from being an objective fact, was little more
than a philosophical position dressed up as science--and poor science at
that. Wanting to see whether his initial impression was correct, Johnson
decided to take a closer look at the arguments, evidence and assumptions
underlying contemporary Darwinism. The result of his investigation is Darwin
on Trial, a controversial new book that challenges not only Darwinism but
the philosophical mindset that sustains it.
....
What was it that initially made you suspect that Darwinism was more
philosophy than hard science?
....
Another tip-off was the sharp contrast I noticed between the extremely
dogmatic tone that Darwinists use when addressing the general public and the
occasional frank acknowledgments, in scientific circles, of serious problems
with the theory. For example, I would read Stephen Jay Gould telling the
scientific world that Darwinism was effectively dead as a theory. And then
in the popular literature, I would read Gould and other scientific writers
saying that Darwinism was fundamentally healthy, and that scientists had the
remaining problems well under control. There was a contradiction here, and
it looked as though there was an effort to keep the outside world from
becoming aware of the serious intellectual difficulties.
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=1037
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.116, Brigham Young, February 27, 1853:
The principle of separation, or disorganization, is as much an eternal
principle, as much a truth, as that of organization. Both always did and
will exist. Can I point out to you the difference in these principles, and
show clearly and satisfactorily the benefit, the propriety, and the
necessity of acting upon one, any more than the other? I will try in my own
way, as briefly as I can. It is plain to me, but can you understand it?
In the first place, matter is eternal. The principle of annihilation, of
striking out of existence anything that has existed, or had a being, so as
to leave an empty space which that thing occupied, is false, there is no
such principle in all the eternities. What does exist? Matter is eternal.
We grow our wheat, our fruit, and our animals. There they are organized,
they increase and grow; but, after a while, they decay, dissolve, become
disorganized, and return to their mother earth. No matter by what process,
these are the revolutions which they undergo; but the elements of the
particles of which they were composed, still do, always have, and always
will exist, and through this principle of change, we have an eternal
increase.
116 And behold, this hath been done on other worlds which have been created
by the Power of the Most High and organized from the chaotic element.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 5:116
12 For the foundation of matter, is it not spirit, saith the Lord God?
13 And all things are spiritual in nature, even unto me, saith the Lord God
of Enoch and Moses.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 20:12-13
Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, Pgs. 223 - 225, John Taylor, May 6, 1870:
It is vanity, puerility and weakness for men to attempt to gainsay the
designs of God, or to boast of their own intelligence. What do they know?
Why, they discovered awhile ago that there is such a thing as electricity.
Who made that electricity? Did man? Did he originate and place it among
the nature's forces? Did it proceed from the acumen of man's intelligence
and his expansive mind? No, it always existed, and the man who discovered
it--a little smarter than his fellows--only found out one of the laws of
nature that emanated from and originated with God. It is just so with
steam--the properties which render it so useful in subserving man's purposes
always existed, but man discovered them; if there had been no God to make
these properties, no one could have found them out. It is so with the
various gases and their properties, with minerals--their attractions and
repulsions--they originated with God; man is incompetent to form anything of
the kind. So we might go on through all man's boasted achievements; they
amount to no more than the discovery of some of the active or latent laws of
nature, not comprehended by men generally, but discovered by some who
consider themselves, and they no doubt are, smarter than their fellows.
Where, then, is the boasted intelligence of man? Science reveals the beauty
and harmony of the world material; it unveils to us ten thousand mysteries
in the kingdom of nature, and shows that all forms of life through fire and
analogous decay are returned again to its bosom. It unfolds to us the
mysteries of cloud and rains, dew and frost, growth and decay, and reveals
the operation of those silent irresistible forces which give vitality to the
world. It reveals to us the more wonderful operations of distant orbs and
their relations to the forces of nature. It also reveals another grand
principle, that the laws of nature are immutable and unchangeable as are
all the works of God. Those principles and powers and forces have undergone
no
change since they were first organized, or, if changed, they have returned
again to the original elements from which they were derived. ... Yet men
will boast that they know things independent of God, whereas unless they had
been aided by the Spirit of the Lord, and unless the principles had existed
they never could have been found out, for no man could have originated them
himself. All that man has ever done, with all his boasted intelligence, has
been simply to develop or find out a few of the common principles of nature
that always have existed, and always will exist, for these things and every
principle of nature are eternal. The Gospel is also eternal. ... If we can
understand so
imperfectly the laws of nature with which we are surrounded, with the
privileges of seeing, feeling, comparing and analyzing, what do we know of
things beyond our vision, hearing, or comprehension? ... History points out
what has transpired in relation to the nations of the earth and to men who
have lived upon it, but who can penetrate into the future? Man is an
immortal being: he is destined to live in time and
throughout all eternity. He possesses not only a body, but a soul that will
exist while "life or thought or being lasts, or immortality endures." Who
can tell in relation to this future? Who can tell things pertaining to our
heavenly existence, or the object God had in view for creating this and
other worlds, and the destiny of the human family? No man, except God
reveals it to him. What has been and still is the position of the world in
relation to these things? It has been governed by every kind of dogma and
theory of religion. "Isms" of every kind have prevailed in
turn--polytheism, infidelity, Christianity in its ten thousand forms, and
every kind of theory and dogma that the human imagination could invent.
Such contrarities show definitely and positively that men, by wisdom,
cannot find out God. And Christianity, at the present time, is no more
enlightened than other systems have been. What does the Christian world
know about God? Nothing; ... Oh, fools! What do they know about the truth?
No more than a child about its hand. They are imbecile and ignorant and in
the dark, and the greatest difficulty in the matter is--they are fools and
don't know it.
He lived in the 19th century.
You live in the 21st.
4 ... the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be
increased.
(Old Testament | Daniel 12:4)
If the cosmic background radiation isn't
the high energy radiation of the Big Bang
redshifted to microwave frequency, and thus
an indication of early conditions that
preclude atoms and molecules existing,
what do you think it is?
Please present your answer in the form of
a scientifically-precise alternative model
to the Big Bang's model.
The non-uniformity of the microwave cosmic background radiation intensities
detected by the NASA COBE satellite (last year, Smoot and Mather won the
Physics Nobel for this work, though not for the right reasons) confirms the
position of both Dayton Miller (his empirical conclusion based on his
interferometer data) and Maurice Allais (his empirical conclusion based on
his paraconical pendulum data) that the aether is anisotropic in nature. But
the Big Bang model is a theory of atomic-molecular Evolution, in violation
of the second law of thermodynamics.
"Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that
it is impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform
any part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing
heat to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature."
~~James Clerk Maxwell (Theory of Heat, 1871)
"Natural causes, as we know, are at work, which tend to modify,
if they do not at length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions
of the earth and the whole solar system."
~~James Clerk Maxwell (Discourse on Molecules, Sept. 1873)
James Clerk Maxwell's unabridged electrodynamics (all 20 equations in
quaternion notation, not the 4 equations in vector notation and the
corresponding "free space" assumption presented in today's textbooks) posits
the existence of electromagnetic waves that are longitudinal, as well as the
familiar transverse EM waves. This has been observed not only by Nikola
Tesla but also by more 'acceptable' physicists (though Isaac Newton was the
real mad scientist, as well as a homosexual, not the eccentric Nikola
Tesla):
"Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", co-authored by
C. Monstein and J.P. Wesley and published in Europhysics Letters, 59 (4),
pp. 514-520 (2002)
http://saturn.ethz.ch/papers/monstein/7210.pdf
That aether is anisotropic in nature and that the coarser, atomic-molecular
matter consist of various arrangements of the same have been confirmed to me
by shedding of the *Light* of the Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly
revelator of the Father and the Son. (I testify that true theology, or the
Religion/Gospel of Jesus Christ, circumscribes natural philosophy and any
other field of inquiry, indeed all of life itself.)
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855:
"There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them
understanding," and many who do not hold the Priesthood have ideas which are
really true, yet they are not always certain whether they are true or not.
isotropy, n.
(Physics) Uniformity of physical properties in all directions in
a body; absence of all kinds of polarity; specifically, equal
elasticity in all directions.
Mathematically speaking, to say that the aether is isotropic means there is
true vacuum, or absolute nothingness, or "free space" as stated in EM
sections of physics textbooks. No aether at all. (How do you prove that
there is nothing, btw?)
"Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself
out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limits of our thinking faculties
when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and
self-existent it must have been created. [360] It is only when we
contemplate, not matter in itself, but the form in which it actually exists,
that our mind finds something on which it can lay hold. That matter,
as such, should have certain fundamental properties,-that it should exist
in space and be capable of motion, that its motion should be persistent,
and so on,-are truths which may, for anything we know, be of the kind
which metaphysicians call necessary. We may use our knowledge of such
truths for purposes of deduction, but we have no data for speculating as
to their origin."
~~James Clerk Maxwell (Sept. 1873, Discourse on Molecules)
In as much as the dark matter/quantum foam concept is added, the Big Bang
theory
is somewhat a step in the right direction, but because the model as a whole
violates
the second law and does not apply the complete Maxwell electrodynamics, it
amounts
to useless speculation, not science but false, dogmatic religion. Big Bang
is a type of Evolution theory, one attempt to explain what supposedly
happened before biological Evolution.
"Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order."
~~Maurice Allais, noted physicist and 1988 Nobel Laureate for Economics
Science (About the Aether Concept, 2003)
You've got a degree in physics.
Use it.
John Taylor Gatto (The Underground History of American Education):
Oriental Pedagogy
The ideal of a leveling Oriental pedagogy expressed through government
schooling was promoted by Jacobin orators of the French National Convention
in the early 1790s, the commencement years of our own republic. The notion
of forced schooling was irresistible to French radicals, an enthusiasm whose
foundation had been laid in preceding centuries by utopian writers like
Harrington (Oceania), More (Utopia), Bacon (New Atlantis), Campanella (City
of the Sun), and in other speculative fantasy embracing the fate of
children. Cultivating a collective social organism was considered the
ingredient missing from feudal society, an ingredient which would allow the
West the harmony and stability of the East.
Utopian schooling is never about learning in the traditional sense; it's
about the transformation of human nature. The core of the difference between
Occident and Orient lies in the power relationship between privileged and
ordinary, and in respective outlooks on human nature. In the West, a
metaphorical table is spread by society; the student decides how much to
eat; in the East, the teacher makes that decision. The Chinese character for
school shows a passive child with adult hands pouring knowledge into his
empty head.
To mandate outcomes centrally would be a major step in the destruction of
Western identity. Management by objectives, whatever those objectives might
be, is a technique of corporate subordination, not of education. Like
Alfred's, Charlemagne's awareness of Asia was sharpened in mortal combat.
He was the first secular Western potentate to beat the drum for secular
schooling. It was easy to ignore Plato's gloomy forecast that however
attractive utopia appears in imagination, human nature will not live easily
with the degree of synthetic constraint it requires.
Pink Floyd:
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It's all right we told you what to dream.
Pink Floyd:
We don't need no education.
We don't need no thought control.
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Teachers leave them kids alone.
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
.
- References:
- Re: Richard Dawkins
- From: Jong Kim
- Re: Richard Dawkins
- Prev by Date: Age of Enlightenment
- Next by Date: Re: Two Interesting Sites Of Note
- Previous by thread: Re: Richard Dawkins
- Next by thread: Re: Richard Dawkins
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
