Still haven't finished the books, 'The Information'.. etc. Just had cataract surgery.. but I did have a long drawn out series of conversations on Twitter.. My handle @MikeBravoYanky lots of flack but over a 1000 page reviews of my blog.. with no substantive counter arguments to date.
However in the course of the discussion re 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 'SLOT' as I apply it to the creation of DNA.. I had a question about photosynthesis.. Actually a comment from one who said the SLOT does not apply to open systems such as life on earth. To which I replied "Show me one where it doesn't work".. To which they replied "Photosynthesis". Well to get an evolutionist reference (one of theirs) I had Brian Cox "Wonders of Life" on hand.. page 108 'The Origin of Life's Order'..
He states.. my words in [...]
"The" [SLOT] "which states that entropy (disorder) must always... stay constant or increase in any natural process, applies strictly to the whole Universe, and not just a part of the Universe, unless that part is totally isolated from everything else - which is in practice ... impossible."
So agreeing with my opponent.. BUT then he goes on to say..
"To be specific when we consider the thermodynamics of photosynthesis, we must consider both the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing energy released as heat during the chemical reaction, as well as the carbon dioxide, water and glucose. If we do that, we will find the entropy of the whole system, including incoming photons (sun)... and all the outgoing photons (heat), will indeed rise."
So contrary to what he said.. the SLOT does apply to life subsystems like photosynthesis and can be demonstrated to do so!
Am I missing something here..
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
2.8 The Big Picture
In Ch 8 - 'God in Retreat', p245 of Robert Winston's "the story of god" under "Creation: what, where and how?"..
"Did God do something unique - not merely make matter, but create 'something out of nothing'? Humans are capable of making things, but, according to Jewish tradition, only God can create. In Hebrew there are various verbs meaning to 'make', but in Genesis, one verb describes specifically what God did: bara - 'he created'."
Now it appears that Mr Winston is a 'practising' Jew or sufficiently so to be a 'member' of a synagog adhering to the rules of the sabbath. So in this part of the book 'God' gets capitalised. He actually means God.. and "bara" means create from nothing. Which all allows for 'God' to have the hypothetical role of fundamental originator of everything.. without too much controversy. Thus introducing Ralph Cudworth Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge University.. as a "great hero of mine".. he says (p268)
"His contribution was to suggest that there was a plastic nature to the universe: God set things in motion, but thereafter the universe behaved according to its own laws. This view influenced Spinoza and the nineteenth-century philosophers, and in reality is not so very different from that held by many religious people today."
And so to quote Brian Cox "Wonders of Life" p9 Introduction..
"As someone who thinks about religion very little I reject the label atheist because defining me in terms of the things I don't believe would require an infinite list of nouns - I see no necessity contradiction between religion and science. By which I mean if I were a deist, I would claim no better example of the skill and ingenuity of The Creator than in the laws of nature that allowed for the magnificent story of the origin and evolution of life on Earth, and their overwhelmingly beautiful expression in our tree of life. I am not a deist... I simply don't know"
So there it is, the Jew and the none deist, in agreement with the atheist, telling everyone else what sort of 'god' you may have if you want to be in the club!
No wonder deists (majority of world population) have a problem..
"Did God do something unique - not merely make matter, but create 'something out of nothing'? Humans are capable of making things, but, according to Jewish tradition, only God can create. In Hebrew there are various verbs meaning to 'make', but in Genesis, one verb describes specifically what God did: bara - 'he created'."
Now it appears that Mr Winston is a 'practising' Jew or sufficiently so to be a 'member' of a synagog adhering to the rules of the sabbath. So in this part of the book 'God' gets capitalised. He actually means God.. and "bara" means create from nothing. Which all allows for 'God' to have the hypothetical role of fundamental originator of everything.. without too much controversy. Thus introducing Ralph Cudworth Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge University.. as a "great hero of mine".. he says (p268)
"His contribution was to suggest that there was a plastic nature to the universe: God set things in motion, but thereafter the universe behaved according to its own laws. This view influenced Spinoza and the nineteenth-century philosophers, and in reality is not so very different from that held by many religious people today."
And so to quote Brian Cox "Wonders of Life" p9 Introduction..
"As someone who thinks about religion very little I reject the label atheist because defining me in terms of the things I don't believe would require an infinite list of nouns - I see no necessity contradiction between religion and science. By which I mean if I were a deist, I would claim no better example of the skill and ingenuity of The Creator than in the laws of nature that allowed for the magnificent story of the origin and evolution of life on Earth, and their overwhelmingly beautiful expression in our tree of life. I am not a deist... I simply don't know"
So there it is, the Jew and the none deist, in agreement with the atheist, telling everyone else what sort of 'god' you may have if you want to be in the club!
No wonder deists (majority of world population) have a problem..
2.7 The Big Picture
Just reading 'The Information" James Gleick, "the story of god" Robert Winston, "Darwin's Angel" John Cornwell and "Wonders of Life" Brian Cox.. That's a fair bit for me with a cataract operation due soon. I get very tired eyes etc.. However I simply have to get a couple of quotes out of my system..
You may recall my falsification of the algorithm of Evolution is a mathematical 'proof' the object of which is to discern 'truth'.. Ok Robert Winston "the story of god" p281.. (bold my emphasis)
"In the rarefied world of quantum physics, which investigates the properties of matter, researchers are continually confronted with findings that shake their conceptions of reality. Can you believe, for example, that it is possible for an object to be in two places at once? That a particle can can exist without having any mass itself but, at the same time, can give mass to other particles? That light can behave like a wave and also as a particle? I find these concepts hard to grapple with, but I am compelled to accept them because the maths they are based on works. It is the same maths that permits me to fly to Los Angeles, and to listen to my personal CD player. Science can involve an act of faith - but it is a faith that's qualified, a faith that rests upon certain other things that I know, rather than just believe, to be true."
Not only is the aim of the exercise 'truth'.. but a certain amount of 'faith' even 'belief' is involved and accepted.. All that is required is the maths to back it up.
I could give you a summary of the maths which permits Robert Winston to fly to Los Angeles.. but in this context I wish to point to what I did in 'The God Law', also possibly "shaking conception of reality" for some.. is also based on "known" and very well established maths and physics..
All the best for the new year..
You may recall my falsification of the algorithm of Evolution is a mathematical 'proof' the object of which is to discern 'truth'.. Ok Robert Winston "the story of god" p281.. (bold my emphasis)
"In the rarefied world of quantum physics, which investigates the properties of matter, researchers are continually confronted with findings that shake their conceptions of reality. Can you believe, for example, that it is possible for an object to be in two places at once? That a particle can can exist without having any mass itself but, at the same time, can give mass to other particles? That light can behave like a wave and also as a particle? I find these concepts hard to grapple with, but I am compelled to accept them because the maths they are based on works. It is the same maths that permits me to fly to Los Angeles, and to listen to my personal CD player. Science can involve an act of faith - but it is a faith that's qualified, a faith that rests upon certain other things that I know, rather than just believe, to be true."
Not only is the aim of the exercise 'truth'.. but a certain amount of 'faith' even 'belief' is involved and accepted.. All that is required is the maths to back it up.
I could give you a summary of the maths which permits Robert Winston to fly to Los Angeles.. but in this context I wish to point to what I did in 'The God Law', also possibly "shaking conception of reality" for some.. is also based on "known" and very well established maths and physics..
All the best for the new year..
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
2.6 The Big Picture
I am trying to keep subtopics together.. not easy in a blog.. The idea behind 'The Big Picture' is to give some idea of the scope of the problem of missing information.
I recently discovered the TED "ideas worth sharing" series of 18min Utube presentations.. I would love to do one.. but I am not famous.
Two which caught my attention.. Ken Robinson - 'How Schools Kill Creativity' and David Christian - 'The history of the World in 18 minutes'. The former is revealing of a serious problem in our education 'system' about which, by its very nature, it is oblivious and is doing harm to some.
David Christian's presentation highlights the problem of missing information most conveniently. It can best be described as a fast sweeping panorama of the state of modern scientific 'BELIEF'. He presents certain discoveries as evidence but very little substance. The ear catching thing for me was his introductory video illustrating most admirably 'The Second Law of Thermodynamics'. He even states the problem.. How does COMPLEXITY arise in a system ruled by a principle of increasing disorder (opposite of complexity implied). Well the first observation to be made (he, following modern science) omits any attempt to define complexity.. Allowing assumptions to be made which cannot be tested.
The second outstanding omission is, by modern scientific 'guesswork' about 1000 to 10,000 universes in size.! The statement that the whole universe (one only implied) was all that the primordial singularity comprised. As discussed previously this universe is actually postulated to be an error.. the ashes left over from the actual creation of a system 1000 to 10000 times our universe. Why.. because according to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy conversion to mass must always produce equal amounts of both matter and antimatter (order).. which subsequently collide and annihilate each other in their rush to return to pure energy (disorder).
The sweeping unstated assumption that the universe is an error in the First Law of Thermodynamics is not just monstrous pseudo science of the highest order it is deception.
You may appreciate my problem.. That's just the first few minutes of his presentation!!
I need a whole book..
I recently discovered the TED "ideas worth sharing" series of 18min Utube presentations.. I would love to do one.. but I am not famous.
Two which caught my attention.. Ken Robinson - 'How Schools Kill Creativity' and David Christian - 'The history of the World in 18 minutes'. The former is revealing of a serious problem in our education 'system' about which, by its very nature, it is oblivious and is doing harm to some.
David Christian's presentation highlights the problem of missing information most conveniently. It can best be described as a fast sweeping panorama of the state of modern scientific 'BELIEF'. He presents certain discoveries as evidence but very little substance. The ear catching thing for me was his introductory video illustrating most admirably 'The Second Law of Thermodynamics'. He even states the problem.. How does COMPLEXITY arise in a system ruled by a principle of increasing disorder (opposite of complexity implied). Well the first observation to be made (he, following modern science) omits any attempt to define complexity.. Allowing assumptions to be made which cannot be tested.
The second outstanding omission is, by modern scientific 'guesswork' about 1000 to 10,000 universes in size.! The statement that the whole universe (one only implied) was all that the primordial singularity comprised. As discussed previously this universe is actually postulated to be an error.. the ashes left over from the actual creation of a system 1000 to 10000 times our universe. Why.. because according to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy conversion to mass must always produce equal amounts of both matter and antimatter (order).. which subsequently collide and annihilate each other in their rush to return to pure energy (disorder).
The sweeping unstated assumption that the universe is an error in the First Law of Thermodynamics is not just monstrous pseudo science of the highest order it is deception.
You may appreciate my problem.. That's just the first few minutes of his presentation!!
I need a whole book..
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
2.5 The Big Picture
I need to put another authoritative figure behind what I have just said.. During the second world war, 1944, Erwin Schrodinger wrote "What is Life" in which he discussed the complexity of life at its most basic level ie molecules and the concept of negative entropy or (negentropy). Remember at that time they had not discovered DNA and could only speculate as to what was happening at the molecular level. I won't go into detail now but you should instantly note the two words COMPLEXITY and negative ENTROPY as being in my 'infamous' list.
Well in connection with concepts of God in that book toward the end Schrodinger concludes "WE ARE GOD".. you see the point. There is no doubt about the position, its either some transcendent infinite mind or its ME.. that is my only real option. This is the choice we all make every moment of our lives. Its precisely why I must answer the question what does the physical evidence around me actually say and what does it mean.
He was quite correct in his perception of the problem of 'life from nature'. Life is an extremely low entropy state of matter, highly organized (ordered). He was also well aware of the power of the Second Law (increasing entropy => disorder). A most formidable challenge to any theory of natural evolution of life. So what does he come up with negative entropy or 'negentropy'. Simply put living things eat and by eating stuff with a lower entropy relative to the surroundings all living creatures process that food effectively extracting low entropy components which contribute directly allowing growth, repair, reproduction and evolution through minute change. All quoted today by R Dawkins etc.. Only one problem IT'S WRONG!
Digestion pulls food proteins apart, destroying the original order so individual amino acids can be reused in a new order (new proteins). None of the original order is preserved much less used.
got to go.. regards
Well in connection with concepts of God in that book toward the end Schrodinger concludes "WE ARE GOD".. you see the point. There is no doubt about the position, its either some transcendent infinite mind or its ME.. that is my only real option. This is the choice we all make every moment of our lives. Its precisely why I must answer the question what does the physical evidence around me actually say and what does it mean.
He was quite correct in his perception of the problem of 'life from nature'. Life is an extremely low entropy state of matter, highly organized (ordered). He was also well aware of the power of the Second Law (increasing entropy => disorder). A most formidable challenge to any theory of natural evolution of life. So what does he come up with negative entropy or 'negentropy'. Simply put living things eat and by eating stuff with a lower entropy relative to the surroundings all living creatures process that food effectively extracting low entropy components which contribute directly allowing growth, repair, reproduction and evolution through minute change. All quoted today by R Dawkins etc.. Only one problem IT'S WRONG!
Digestion pulls food proteins apart, destroying the original order so individual amino acids can be reused in a new order (new proteins). None of the original order is preserved much less used.
got to go.. regards
Monday, 27 October 2014
2.4 The Big Picture
To get to the nub of this sub-topic I need to finish reading James Gleick "The Information".. although a convinced naturalist he does his homework. But I am going through hell.. a painful 'interlude'. I mentioned a court case with CASA.. I am manually transcribing 10 days of court recording to text. It takes a week to do one day and it is personally distressing.. someone lied and got away with it.. I am appealing the adverse finding of forgery! I won the charge of 'reckless'.
I just realised what it means in this context. I am here trying to talk about deep truth's to which I have become privy by virtue of my 'faith' position.. specifically conclusions not based on belief (religious).
Think of the drama movies.. 'Heat', 'The Bourn series' 'Those Inglorious Bastards' etc, the 'good' tough or gifted guy gets hammered by an evil bad bunch but by super cunning, ability and luck blows the opposition away. Its in your face stuff but it feels good. Deep emotion stirring drama' hooks into your natural sense of justice.. (actually justice doesn't come from nature)
Desperate people actually do murder, payback and suicide.. Why, because 'I must do something' if I think there's no one else! In my dark moments I've had thoughts of blowing away that liar. BUT I know I don't have to.. because my FAITH POSITION is REAL. I have peace, joy and hope in my life because I know I am NOT the JUDGE I am not alone. Civilisation fails when people think 'I am the judge', that's playing God! The only choice we have about God is not his existence but who is going to play him?
Its not just definitions of words that's missing.. Its the understanding of knowledge, the times and ourselves. But if we don't answer the question who is God correctly.. we disable our faculty of 'knowing'. That's what Job 28:20-28 means.
I hope your getting this.
I just realised what it means in this context. I am here trying to talk about deep truth's to which I have become privy by virtue of my 'faith' position.. specifically conclusions not based on belief (religious).
Think of the drama movies.. 'Heat', 'The Bourn series' 'Those Inglorious Bastards' etc, the 'good' tough or gifted guy gets hammered by an evil bad bunch but by super cunning, ability and luck blows the opposition away. Its in your face stuff but it feels good. Deep emotion stirring drama' hooks into your natural sense of justice.. (actually justice doesn't come from nature)
Desperate people actually do murder, payback and suicide.. Why, because 'I must do something' if I think there's no one else! In my dark moments I've had thoughts of blowing away that liar. BUT I know I don't have to.. because my FAITH POSITION is REAL. I have peace, joy and hope in my life because I know I am NOT the JUDGE I am not alone. Civilisation fails when people think 'I am the judge', that's playing God! The only choice we have about God is not his existence but who is going to play him?
Its not just definitions of words that's missing.. Its the understanding of knowledge, the times and ourselves. But if we don't answer the question who is God correctly.. we disable our faculty of 'knowing'. That's what Job 28:20-28 means.
I hope your getting this.
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
2.3 The Big Picture
To continue with 'authority' for my argument..
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)