Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory

tejretics
Posts: 6,724
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 4:15:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?

Thank you for posting the links, Tej.

Speculation on the relationship of life to entropy dates back to Boltzmann in 1875 [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. It has long been thought likely that the order life seems to produce is likely to come at the cost of greater disorder, however the complexities of biological processes can make it hard to understand the relationship to entropy of the system as a whole.

In this respect, the first paper offers a detailed alternative conjecture on abiogenesis, explaining how conditions created by entropic bias might have helped overcome some statistical hurdles currently being explored by biologists, while the second appears to offer an attempt to handle entropy statistically in self-replicating organisms.

I felt that some of the language introducing the first article in particular, was ill-chosen (e.g. 'entropic imperative'), and that sort of language isn't reflected in the later exposition.

I don't think there's really a case to argue that life appeared as a 'solution' to maximising entropy. I think it'd be fairer to say that growing entropy can manifest in multiple ways chemically and physically, some of which might at times create a bias toward life.

The difference is nuanced, but important, since Creationism is already feeding on its own ignorance and confusion. One doesn't need to add to it unintentionally. :)

Beyond that, I don't have the expertise to judge the viability of the mechanisms themselves. Like all conjectures, they need to go through experiment and expert analysis. It's not for me to prognosticate on what the outcome of that process might be.

Still, interesting stuff. Again, thank you for posting, Tej.
tejretics
Posts: 6,724
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:48:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 4:15:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?

Thank you for posting the links, Tej.

Speculation on the relationship of life to entropy dates back to Boltzmann in 1875 [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. It has long been thought likely that the order life seems to produce is likely to come at the cost of greater disorder, however the complexities of biological processes can make it hard to understand the relationship to entropy of the system as a whole.

Entropy isn't really disorder. "Disorder" seems subjective. Entropy is, rather, the measure of energy escaping into more microstates, thus reducing energy concentration in individual molecules.


In this respect, the first paper offers a detailed alternative conjecture on abiogenesis, explaining how conditions created by entropic bias might have helped overcome some statistical hurdles currently being explored by biologists, while the second appears to offer an attempt to handle entropy statistically in self-replicating organisms.

I felt that some of the language introducing the first article in particular, was ill-chosen (e.g. 'entropic imperative'), and that sort of language isn't reflected in the later exposition.

I don't think there's really a case to argue that life appeared as a 'solution' to maximising entropy. I think it'd be fairer to say that growing entropy can manifest in multiple ways chemically and physically, some of which might at times create a bias toward life.

That is the theory, pretty much.


The difference is nuanced, but important, since Creationism is already feeding on its own ignorance and confusion. One doesn't need to add to it unintentionally. :)

Beyond that, I don't have the expertise to judge the viability of the mechanisms themselves. Like all conjectures, they need to go through experiment and expert analysis. It's not for me to prognosticate on what the outcome of that process might be.

Still, interesting stuff. Again, thank you for posting, Tej.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 7:27:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 5:48:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/13/2015 4:15:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Speculation on the relationship of life to entropy dates back to Boltzmann in 1875 [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. It has long been thought likely that the order life seems to produce is likely to come at the cost of greater disorder, however the complexities of biological processes can make it hard to understand the relationship to entropy of the system as a whole.
Entropy isn't really disorder. "Disorder" seems subjective. Entropy is, rather, the measure of energy escaping into more microstates, thus reducing energy concentration in individual molecules.

The energy dispersal account is correct,, but 'disorder' is a very old term associated with entropy, Tej. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] It was introduced by Clausius in 1862, and picked up by Boltzmann, and has some relevance to long-term debates about how (apparently) orderly life can emerge from soup; and how an (apparently) orderly universe emerges with the capacity for order to decay in the first place, which is why I thought it might be interesting to inject.

The term was used throughout much of the 20th century for teaching entropy. It's not subjective, but can be confusing due to micro/macro issues. The energy dispersal account is arguably less confusing (and I understand modern texts now prefer it), but 'disorder' is legit, and has some convenient historical connections with the term 'entropy' in information theory too. :)
dee-em
Posts: 7,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2017 12:30:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 1/6/2017 11:41:19 PM, Michaelian wrote:
I would appreciate comments on (and I will be very happy to discuss ) my new book at;
https://www.createspace.com...

Hi Karo and welcome to the (sometime) science forum. Is your book suitable for the science literate layman or is it too technical for people not in the field?
Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.
ANON_TacTiX
Posts: 658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2017 3:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?

Sounds interesting. I'll have to check out those studies later, when I have some time to read through them.
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:39:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?

I think, firstly, that it's not a theory. Merely a hypothesis.

I also think that science is now no closer to figuring out how Abiogenesis came about than they were fifty years ago. So they keep adding new hypotheses, none of them any more intriguing then their predecessors. I hear they are now considering Panspermia! This is a sure sign that they haven't a clue and all is fair game, even this bit from Scientology. LOL.

Until science is able to detect the fact that God drives evolution, and not random genetic mutations, and that God also orchestrated Abiogenesis, look for them to continue to add fancy Sounding hypotheses like this one, which, btw, just means the world was a warmer and more nutrient rich place back then than now.
Thermodynamic dissipation my butt. That's funny! Is that like sanitation engineering?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 1:38:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/26/2017 12:39:10 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?


I think, firstly, that it's not a theory. Merely a hypothesis.

I also think that science is now no closer to figuring out how Abiogenesis came about than they were fifty years ago. So they keep adding new hypotheses, none of them any more intriguing then their predecessors. I hear they are now considering Panspermia! This is a sure sign that they haven't a clue and all is fair game, even this bit from Scientology. LOL.

Until science is able to detect the fact that God drives evolution, and not random genetic mutations, and that God also orchestrated Abiogenesis

How does God do that exactly? Please show your findings to the Nobel Institute to claim your prize.

, look for them to continue to add fancy Sounding hypotheses like this one, which, btw, just means the world was a warmer and more nutrient rich place back then than now.
Thermodynamic dissipation my butt. That's funny! Is that like sanitation engineering?

Look for religious trolls who don't understand the science they deny.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
matt8800
Posts: 2,615
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 2:18:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2015 9:29:38 AM, tejretics wrote:
The thermodynamic dissipation theory is the hypothesis that life arose abiotically because of low-entropy conditions on Earth and high-energy concentration in molecules and photons (UV). Biotic molecules can "filter" UV to turn it into infrared radiation, thus increasing entropy state in photons, and can also act as a catalyst for compounds necessary to ensure high-entropy states via Second Law of Thermodynamics. So life arose via abiogenesis to 'relieve' Earth of this 'thermodynamic stress'.

Michaelian 2011 [http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...] and England 2013 [http://www.englandlab.com...] are great studies on it.

Thoughts?

Yes, Ive read the first article. Years ago, I noticed that the financial markets move in fractal patterns based on Fibonacci ratios. I suspected it might be related to the way crystals form and stumbled upon Self Organization Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Then I had the idea that Self Organization played a part in abiogenesis. I googled it and found that paper. Very interesting stuff and a solid theory in my opinion.

BTW, if anyone knows an AI scientist, I have an idea for an algorithm that would make market predictions in a specific market based on probability using data from all correlated markets :)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?

Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.
I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic. But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.
On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 1:17:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?

You're calling Dr. Sheldrake a moron? Really? The man is a Cambridge pH.D and was once on the shortlist for the Nobel prize for plant genetics work that basically rescued India from crop famine.
Which of his hypotheses do you think are illogical or just plain wacky? I am assuming you have resd him, and are not just denigrating him on hearsay. So slow me to discuss which of his ideas you think relegate him to moronic status?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 1:17:07 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?

You're calling Dr. Sheldrake a moron? Really? The man is a Cambridge pH.D and was once on the shortlist for the Nobel prize for plant genetics work that basically rescued India from crop famine.
Which of his hypotheses do you think are illogical or just plain wacky? I am assuming you have resd him, and are not just denigrating him on hearsay. So slow me to discuss which of his ideas you think relegate him to moronic status?

" Animal telepathy is a consequence of the way that animal groups are organized by what I call morphic fields. Morphic resonance is primarily to do with an influence from the past, whereas telepathy occurs in the present and depends on the bonds between members of the group. For example, when a dog is strongly bonded to its owner, this bond persists even when the owner is far away and is, I think, the basis of telepathic communication. I see telepathy as a normal, not paranormal, means of communication between members of animal groups.

Morphic resonance involves the transfer of information across space and time. It might be possible to develop information-transfer systems, with a global memory, which would work without all the normal paraphernalia of satellites, wires, booster stations etc. I have already designed experiments in which a pin code could be transmitted from London to New York without any conventional means of communicatio
n
" ~ Sheldrake

Hilarious stuff.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,844
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 6:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 5:11:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/29/2017 1:17:07 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?

You're calling Dr. Sheldrake a moron? Really? The man is a Cambridge pH.D and was once on the shortlist for the Nobel prize for plant genetics work that basically rescued India from crop famine.
Which of his hypotheses do you think are illogical or just plain wacky? I am assuming you have resd him, and are not just denigrating him on hearsay. So slow me to discuss which of his ideas you think relegate him to moronic status?

" Animal telepathy is a consequence of the way that animal groups are organized by what I call morphic fields. Morphic resonance is primarily to do with an influence from the past, whereas telepathy occurs in the present and depends on the bonds between members of the group. For example, when a dog is strongly bonded to its owner, this bond persists even when the owner is far away and is, I think, the basis of telepathic communication. I see telepathy as a normal, not paranormal, means of communication between members of animal groups.

Morphic resonance involves the transfer of information across space and time. It might be possible to develop information-transfer systems, with a global memory, which would work without all the normal paraphernalia of satellites, wires, booster stations etc. I have already designed experiments in which a pin code could be transmitted from London to New York without any conventional means of communicatio
n
" ~ Sheldrake

Hilarious stuff.

From the air head who claims Newton's law of gravitation has NOT been falsified!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 6:46:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 6:12:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 1/29/2017 5:11:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/29/2017 1:17:07 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?

You're calling Dr. Sheldrake a moron? Really? The man is a Cambridge pH.D and was once on the shortlist for the Nobel prize for plant genetics work that basically rescued India from crop famine.
Which of his hypotheses do you think are illogical or just plain wacky? I am assuming you have resd him, and are not just denigrating him on hearsay. So slow me to discuss which of his ideas you think relegate him to moronic status?

" Animal telepathy is a consequence of the way that animal groups are organized by what I call morphic fields. Morphic resonance is primarily to do with an influence from the past, whereas telepathy occurs in the present and depends on the bonds between members of the group. For example, when a dog is strongly bonded to its owner, this bond persists even when the owner is far away and is, I think, the basis of telepathic communication. I see telepathy as a normal, not paranormal, means of communication between members of animal groups.

Morphic resonance involves the transfer of information across space and time. It might be possible to develop information-transfer systems, with a global memory, which would work without all the normal paraphernalia of satellites, wires, booster stations etc. I have already designed experiments in which a pin code could be transmitted from London to New York without any conventional means of communicatio
n
" ~ Sheldrake

Hilarious stuff.

From the air head who claims Newton's law of gravitation has NOT been falsified!

Yet, it hasn't.

Wait a mo... wasn't it you who also supported the loon; Sheldrake?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
keithprosser
Posts: 3,427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 7:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 6:46:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/29/2017 6:12:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
From the air head who claims Newton's law of gravitation has NOT been falsified!

Yet, it hasn't.

Well let's take a step back. Newtons law is F=(m1xm2)/(rxr). That law has a physical interpretation in terms of a "gravitational field" which is proportional to the masses and falls away inversely proportionally the area the sphere based on their separation. Newton never tried to explain the origin or nature of the gravitational force (he didn't predict the Higgs field!!) Newton just gave us the equation to work out the strength of the force, and it was implicit that the force acted instantaneously.

GR is very different. There is no force at all. Mass distorts the geometry of space time and there is no instantaneous action at a distance. The formula for GR is hard to write without greek letters, unfortunately! And the physicla interpretation is also completely different from Newton's.

So neither Newton's law nor the model it was based on is correct. If you use the formula it will not always get the right value of the 'force' and image of a force acting intstanteneously action over a distance isn't true. But it is a useful approximation because it is easy to calculate with and easy to visualise and - except in extreme circumstances - it is not so far off the truth.

GR is probably more nearly correct (ie nearer to describing physical reality), but it is harder to calculate with and much harder to visualise. It is almost certainly not absolutely correct because it predicts (eg) actual infinities at the heart of black holes and most people don't think actual infinities are physically possible. So it likely that there is a still better equation and associated physical model waiting to be discovered, hopefully one compatible with QM, which GR is not.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 10:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 7:32:40 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/29/2017 6:46:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/29/2017 6:12:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
From the air head who claims Newton's law of gravitation has NOT been falsified!

Yet, it hasn't.

Well let's take a step back. Newtons law is F=(m1xm2)/(rxr). That law has a physical interpretation in terms of a "gravitational field" which is proportional to the masses and falls away inversely proportionally the area the sphere based on their separation. Newton never tried to explain the origin or nature of the gravitational force (he didn't predict the Higgs field!!) Newton just gave us the equation to work out the strength of the force, and it was implicit that the force acted instantaneously.

GR is very different. There is no force at all. Mass distorts the geometry of space time and there is no instantaneous action at a distance. The formula for GR is hard to write without greek letters, unfortunately! And the physicla interpretation is also completely different from Newton's.

Of course, there were two and quarter centuries of observations and experiments completed between the Principia and Relativity. Had Newton been able to take advantage of that information, he may have formed his physical interpretation closer to Einsteins.

It was Einsteins thought experiment with the elevator that made him realize acceleration and gravity were indistinguishable. No such things existed in Newtons time to form such an experiment. It was thought space and time were absolute values.

This one idea allowed Einstein to use the concept of a reference frame, showing that contrary to Newton, all objects are in free fall with no external forces acting upon them and that the surface of the Earth is constantly accelerating up towards them rather than the Earth pulling down on them. This is the reference frame a parachutist observes as they are in free fall, viewing the Earths surface rushing towards them.

All of this and much more were available to Einstein while Newton struggled with the information that was only available at that time. Yet, his simple equations are astoundingly accurate enough to send probes to other planets.

So neither Newton's law nor the model it was based on is correct. If you use the formula it will not always get the right value of the 'force' and image of a force acting intstanteneously action over a distance isn't true. But it is a useful approximation because it is easy to calculate with and easy to visualise and - except in extreme circumstances - it is not so far off the truth.

GR is probably more nearly correct (ie nearer to describing physical reality), but it is harder to calculate with and much harder to visualise. It is almost certainly not absolutely correct because it predicts (eg) actual infinities at the heart of black holes and most people don't think actual infinities are physically possible. So it likely that there is a still better equation and associated physical model waiting to be discovered, hopefully one compatible with QM, which GR is not.

While it's true the derivatives of GR point out a singularity, that just means that area is undefined mathematically, and because we can't observe it, undefined physically. But if there are still a few properties left over from matter in a singularity, (mass being an important property) surely there will still be some volume of matter, even though the math falls off to the infinite.

And, maybe GR will never marry with QM, and maybe GR won't completely explain galaxy rotation, perhaps there may be three distinct equations and physical interpretations of how gravity interacts with all three phenomena, but that doesn't mean one falsifies the other.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 5:11:08 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/29/2017 1:17:07 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 4:32:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 1:31:27 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:42:39 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/28/2017 12:32:21 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/27/2017 5:06:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/26/2017 1:34:08 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:45:18 AM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Oh....Along the lines of my last post,




https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That guy is just another religious troll who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.



But wait........There's more!!!!!!!!



LOL





https://www.trueorigin.org...

This is a much better written article, and even thought Bergman's PhD came from an unaccredited, defunct university, he is still one of the few intelligent creationists, but unfortunately is still a creationist, hence his opinions are based on his beliefs, which is why he had to go to court as he was refused tenure on the grounds of his ridiculous religious beliefs.

And, while it is a difficult slog through the article, I'm sure the article was presented by another creationist who doesn't understand a word of it, right Unterseeboot?



Speak for yourself. I'll put myself up against anybody here insofar as science chops are concerned. Any hard science you want to discuss at length, please jumpmif you feel froggy. You would do well not to underestimate the new guy. I will also be happy to engage in a formal debate with you on any hard science topic. You choose. We will let the viewers decide on who wins. Let me know, genius.

Then, why did you offer creationist bs instead of science?

Because I do not view my opinion on how the universe as well as life on Earth began as Creationist BS. Rather, I personally am a proponent of something called Deistic Evolution. In which a non personal, Intelligent Crestive Deistic Force used the known, tangible, and proven machinations and processes of science and nature. I believe as well that Evolution was driven by this Dynamic, in lieu of blind and random genetic mutations that were then selectively adapted by their host organisms.

Yet, what you believe cannot be substantiated in any way, there is no indication whatsoever of any kind of intelligent force in nature, quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, you're free to believe such a delusion, but it has no bearing on reality or science. It is quite unscientific and largely based on myths and superstitions.

I was initially...all during college...an atheist materialist on this topic.

LOL. You were never an atheist. Christian college?

But I have since changed my mind after more research into the area, while discovering that science has never sufficiently explained how random mutations can yield such optimal results. All they harp about is time time time.

Optimal results? Obviously, you have no clue what evolution is saying, but yes, there are explanations based on hard evidence regarding mutations and how natural selection works. No harping required, other than what you're offering.

On the matter or Abiogenesis, science is further inmthe dark, really having not a clue. They have learned really zilch since Miller Urey some 60 years ago. I have also witnessed some experiments in biology and botany which made a strong case for an intelligent field or memory paradigm at work. Similar to what a Biologist named Rupert Sheldrake has posited. IOW...I have seen the evidence for a metaphysical intelligence increase while the argument for pure unguided materialism has decreased.

Sheldrake? LOL Now I know you have no clue if you follow that moron.

There's another believer here who follows Sheldrake, and we haven't seen him in a while. Would that be you under a new userid?

You're calling Dr. Sheldrake a moron? Really? The man is a Cambridge pH.D and was once on the shortlist for the Nobel prize for plant genetics work that basically rescued India from crop famine.
Which of his hypotheses do you think are illogical or just plain wacky? I am assuming you have resd him, and are not just denigrating him on hearsay. So slow me to discuss which of his ideas you think relegate him to moronic status?

" Animal telepathy is a consequence of the way that animal groups are organized by what I call morphic fields. Morphic resonance is primarily to do with an influence from the past, whereas telepathy occurs in the present and depends on the bonds between members of the group. For example, when a dog is strongly bonded to its owner, this bond persists even when the owner is far away and is, I think, the basis of telepathic communication. I see telepathy as a normal, not paranormal, means of communication between members of animal groups.

Morphic resonance involves the transfer of information across space and time. It might be possible to develop information-transfer systems, with a global memory, which would work without all the normal paraphernalia of satellites, wires, booster stations etc. I have already designed experiments in which a pin code could be transmitted from London to New York without any conventional means of communicatio
n
" ~ Sheldrake

Hilarious stuff.

Hilarious that it's all true and many other people have replicated some of his experiments with both animals and growing crystals. I myself did the salt crystal experiment in a college chemistry class and the results confirmed RS's theory.
I have also seen morphic fields at work in the forest, during an invasive pest attack when I did a summer internship with the National Forest Service in Idaho.
So you never answered if you have read his books personally, or just heard some more the flack he gets from materialists and then parroted that and pasted some quotes from abstracts on RS. I am guessing the latter, some you did not weigh in with a personal opinion on him that showed any insight to his theories.
Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2017 11:22:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:

" Animal telepathy is a consequence of the way that animal groups are organized by what I call morphic fields. Morphic resonance is primarily to do with an influence from the past, whereas telepathy occurs in the present and depends on the bonds between members of the group. For example, when a dog is strongly bonded to its owner, this bond persists even when the owner is far away and is, I think, the basis of telepathic communication. I see telepathy as a normal, not paranormal, means of communication between members of animal groups.

Morphic resonance involves the transfer of information across space and time. It might be possible to develop information-transfer systems, with a global memory, which would work without all the normal paraphernalia of satellites, wires, booster stations etc. I have already designed experiments in which a pin code could be transmitted from London to New York without any conventional means of communicatio
n
" ~ Sheldrake

Hilarious stuff.


Hilarious that it's all true and many other people have replicated some of his experiments with both animals and growing crystals. I myself did the salt crystal experiment in a college chemistry class and the results confirmed RS's theory.
I have also seen morphic fields at work in the forest, during an invasive pest attack when I did a summer internship with the National Forest Service in Idaho.

Hahahahaha! You're either a terrible liar or you were smoking something special.


So you never answered if you have read his books personally, or just heard some more the flack he gets from materialists and then parroted that and pasted some quotes from abstracts on RS. I am guessing the latter, some you did not weigh in with a personal opinion on him that showed any insight to his theories.

I read his claims, but saw nothing to substantiate them, Sheldrake admits his evidence is all circumstantial. He's a loon.

Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?

A rueful laugh? Hahahahahaha!

Morphic fields detected empirically? Hahahahahahaha!
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
keithprosser
Posts: 3,427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2017 6:45:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?

I think the difference is that the reason that the 88% of the universe was undetected is that the effect of that 88% was quite subtle - so spot it you need huge telescopes and computers to crunch the numbers. The possibilty of noticing dark matter and dark energy didn't exist until a decade or so ago, after which it was discovered and verifed very quickly.

The effects of morphic fields, however, are supposed to be readily detectable using little or no technology - they could (I suppose) have been noticed and verified any time since the ancient greeks. But the 'evidence' for morphic fields is on par with the evidence for the effect of breaking a mirror on luck - essentially anecdotal folk tales.

Unlike dark matter, if morphic fields existed, they'd be obvious to everyone. It is very unlikely that something that could have been noticed any time since the stone age is suddenly going to be revealed in the next few years.
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2017 5:49:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/30/2017 6:45:02 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?

I think the difference is that the reason that the 88% of the universe was undetected is that the effect of that 88% was quite subtle - so spot it you need huge telescopes and computers to crunch the numbers. The possibilty of noticing dark matter and dark energy didn't exist until a decade or so ago, after which it was discovered and verifed very quickly.

The effects of morphic fields, however, are supposed to be readily detectable using little or no technology - they could (I suppose) have been noticed and verified any time since the ancient greeks. But the 'evidence' for morphic fields is on par with the evidence for the effect of breaking a mirror on luck - essentially anecdotal folk tales.

Unlike dark matter, if morphic fields existed, they'd be obvious to everyone. It is very unlikely that something that could have been noticed any time since the stone age is suddenly going to be revealed in the next few years.

I agree with most of your post, except for the last part about morphic fields being obvious to everyone. I think that yeah, people see the RESULTS of morphic fields, the actions and workings of them, but just do not understand that they are seeing them, and not something purely materialistic. For example, one of RS's examples of morphic resonance at work is when birds are flying in formation. And then they, as a group, suddenly change their course, all in unison and together, as if the entire flight, the group, were one solid object?
Well, RS claims--and I have seen this too in videos--that you can slow down the vids to a frame-by-frame speed, and see that this direction is no the result of a lead bird(s) cueing the rest to turn. That instead, they all turn simultaneously, without having to communicate with each other, as they are all enmeshed in a MP. And another RS example of fields is how trees in a forest will communicate with others miles away when they are being attacked by some invasive pest. They trees miles away sometimes, will begin to emit a chemical in their systems that will effectively repel these pests. Mind you these trees are NOT connected by root systems.
So sure, people see the birds, maybe even read about those trees, but do not understand that MP's are the causes for these actions.
FWIW I think we humans used to be far more in tune with the MP's, but modern technology and a change from, first, a hunter-gather life and then later the shift from an agrarian one, has somewhat denigrated our capabilities to detect and even use these fields.
keithprosser
Posts: 3,427
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2017 6:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/30/2017 5:49:02 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
...For example, one of RS's examples of morphic resonance at work is when birds are flying in formation. And then they, as a group, suddenly change their course, all in unison and together, as if the entire flight, the group, were one solid object?

I agree that the sight of a murmuration of starlings is amazing, but the last thing they resemble is a 'solid object'!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 5,967
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2017 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/30/2017 5:49:02 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/30/2017 6:45:02 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?

I think the difference is that the reason that the 88% of the universe was undetected is that the effect of that 88% was quite subtle - so spot it you need huge telescopes and computers to crunch the numbers. The possibilty of noticing dark matter and dark energy didn't exist until a decade or so ago, after which it was discovered and verifed very quickly.

The effects of morphic fields, however, are supposed to be readily detectable using little or no technology - they could (I suppose) have been noticed and verified any time since the ancient greeks. But the 'evidence' for morphic fields is on par with the evidence for the effect of breaking a mirror on luck - essentially anecdotal folk tales.

Unlike dark matter, if morphic fields existed, they'd be obvious to everyone. It is very unlikely that something that could have been noticed any time since the stone age is suddenly going to be revealed in the next few years.

I agree with most of your post, except for the last part about morphic fields being obvious to everyone. I think that yeah, people see the RESULTS of morphic fields, the actions and workings of them, but just do not understand that they are seeing them, and not something purely materialistic. For example, one of RS's examples of morphic resonance at work is when birds are flying in formation.

I think it's just that all the birds have the same flight algorithms. It's like watching traffic on a highway - all the cars do the same thing because we're all following the same rules - speed limit, lane markings, spacing, etc. It's kind of like fractals - a few simple rules, multiplied, can make interesting patterns.
This space for rent.
Unterseeboot
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2017 6:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 1/30/2017 6:07:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/30/2017 5:49:02 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
At 1/30/2017 6:45:02 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/29/2017 11:01:41 PM, Unterseeboot wrote:
Up until a decade or so ago you would have laughed if somebody told you that we would soon NOT know what 88% of the universe is made of. In the near future when morphic fields are detected empirically, your laugh will be rueful one, eh?

I think the difference is that the reason that the 88% of the universe was undetected is that the effect of that 88% was quite subtle - so spot it you need huge telescopes and computers to crunch the numbers. The possibilty of noticing dark matter and dark energy didn't exist until a decade or so ago, after which it was discovered and verifed very quickly.

The effects of morphic fields, however, are supposed to be readily detectable using little or no technology - they could (I suppose) have been noticed and verified any time since the ancient greeks. But the 'evidence' for morphic fields is on par with the evidence for the effect of breaking a mirror on luck - essentially anecdotal folk tales.

Unlike dark matter, if morphic fields existed, they'd be obvious to everyone. It is very unlikely that something that could have been noticed any time since the stone age is suddenly going to be revealed in the next few years.

I agree with most of your post, except for the last part about morphic fields being obvious to everyone. I think that yeah, people see the RESULTS of morphic fields, the actions and workings of them, but just do not understand that they are seeing them, and not something purely materialistic. For example, one of RS's examples of morphic resonance at work is when birds are flying in formation.

I think it's just that all the birds have the same flight algorithms. It's like watching traffic on a highway - all the cars do the same thing because we're all following the same rules - speed limit, lane markings, spacing, etc. It's kind of like fractals - a few simple rules, multiplied, can make interesting patterns.

But those birds are not entrapped in lanes and roads and don't have traffic lights and signs as do cars.

Put us drivers in an open sky (yikes!) and I do not think you would witness anything close to the order of those birds in sync. LOL