Send a Message
to THEMAYAN

Comments

106

Joined

Jun 9, 2012

Badges

THEMAYAN Profile

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

Your very welcome, but to be honest, spending all that time and energy pushing down on H and A keys doesn't sound that pleasant to me. A little creepy yes. Pleasant no. Now picturing Steven Hawkings as a truck driver. Now thats funny. No but seriously, I am really laughing right now, and to prove it, Ill raise you a haha to infinite. Try topping that..... and you better not say infinite+one. You just got to love silly season.  (Jun 21, 2012 | post #211)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

No I'm not appealing to authority. However I am appealing to observable and quantifiable empirical data. Yeah I already answered the theory part several times. Sorry, but I got tired of repeating myself. If your truly concerned then go back and read my former post again and again until you get it. I have already heard your neo Darwinian mantra. Natural selection, mutation and other. You dont even know how to explain the theory that you profess to believe in any detail, but I cant really blame you because there are no detailed accounts of evolution through any neo Darwinist means, and in the end, all you are left with is reciting a mantra. I didn't realize I was YEC because I have always thought the earth was a lot older than 6 thousand years, but thanks for letting me know. You learn something new everyday. I mean only you, a complete stranger could know what I Believe more than I do. You must be related to Silvia Brown. Can you predict the future too? Who will be the next president? I'm curious to know.  (Jun 21, 2012 | post #210)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

left out..........26. white dwarf binaries&#8232 ; if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry 
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
 if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production&#82 32;if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass 
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form 
if smaller: no galaxies would form 28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe 
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible 
if smaller: same result 29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe 
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable 
if larger: same result 30. mass of the neutrino 
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense 31. big bang ripples 
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly 
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form 32. size of the relativistic dilation factor 
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly&#8232 ;if larger: same result 33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle&#823 2; if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable 
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable 34. cosmological constant 
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #201)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

CONT....References 1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc. 2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16. 3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30. 4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203. 5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243. 6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9. 7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200. 8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27. 9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233. 10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83. 11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc. 12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483. 13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52. 14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116. 15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175. 16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface. 17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57 18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263. 19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167. 20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223. 21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254. 22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992). 23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64. 24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276. 25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com 26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version). 27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #200)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

CONT...... 26. white dwarf binaries&#8232 ; if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry 
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
 if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production&#82 32;if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass 
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form 
if smaller: no galaxies would form 28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe 
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible 
if smaller: same result 29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe 
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable 
if larger: same result 30. mass of the neutrino 
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense 31. big bang ripples 
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly 
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form 32. size of the relativistic dilation factor 
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly&#8232 ;if larger: same result 33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle&#823 2; if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable 
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable 34. cosmological constant 
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #199)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

CONT...12. age of the universe 
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
 if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed 13. initial uniformity of radiation 
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed 
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space 14. average distance between galaxies&#8232 ; if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material&#8232 ; if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit 15. density of galaxy cluster
 if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
 if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material 16. average distance between stars 
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
 if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life 17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
 if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields 
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun 18. decay rate of protons
 if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation 
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio 
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life 
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life 20. ground state energy level for 4He 
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life 
if smaller: same as above 21. decay rate of 8Be
 if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars 
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry 22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass 
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements&#8232 ;if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes 23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons& #8232;if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation 
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation 24. polarity of the water molecule 
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
 if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 25. supernovae eruptions 
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet 
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #198)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

CONT......5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant&#8232 ;if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support 
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements 6. ratio of electron to proton mass 
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry 
if smaller: same as above 7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons&#823 2;if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation 
if smaller: same as above 8. expansion rate of the universe&#8232 ; if larger: no galaxies would form
 if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed 9. entropy level of the universe&#8232 ; if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies 
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form 10. mass density of the universe 
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form 
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements 11. velocity of light 
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #197)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

You cannot calculate the probability of a unique event that has already occurred" OK Fair enough now offer the data this makes this principle of your a known one. I.e., what theory or principle is this premise based under/ what statistical theorem holds to this premise? I have made the question very clear. Now can you please provided the verifiable data? I am not smart enough to calculate this equation alone. I can only go by the calculations that have been determined by these same scientist which have also come to these same calculations independently, and which are well known among physicist and cosmologist. I have already spoken of Penrose and given link several times. In addition I will post the ratios involving the cosmological and Hubbell constants below and how an extremely conservative number is used to do this. Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe Parameter Max. Deviation Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37 Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40 Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55 Mass of Universe1 1:10^59 Cosmological Constant 1:10^120 These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. 1. Strong nuclear force constant 
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry&#823 2;if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry 2. weak nuclear force constant 
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible 
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible 3. gravitational force constant 
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry 
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form 4. electromagnetic force constant&#8232 ; if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission 
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #196)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

Ok let me correct that again. That last re was intended for NUGGIN  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #190)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

Let me correct that terrible misspelling. It should have read........The fact that I even have to put Steven in front of the name Hawkings only demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #189)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

If world renowned theoretic physicist Steven Hawkings has become a truck driver then it would surprise the hell out of me since he has been in a wheel chair for over forty years. The fact that I even have to put Steven in front of than me Hawkings only demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. This is not the opinion of one man and according to Paul Davies there is now general agreement among physicists and cosmologists. I posted several times that I can cite the calculations involved and this does not even take into consideration Roger Penrose calculation concerning the probabilities of the initial conditions happening by chance which again he puts at 1 10^10^(123. If you had even a simple background in math you would be bale to appreciate the odds involved and the implications of the numbers cited. "You can not determine the probability of something occurring if there is even one variable in the equation which is unknown" This not based on one equation but on a host of many different cosmological and Hubbel constants that are known and have been known for a while. Hey listen, if you think that all these cosmologist and physicist are wrong concerning a quantifiable and empirical observation. One that even the militant atheist Richard Dawkins admits is a tough nut to crack and calls the best evidence of a designer. Then you can also write a paper and submit it for peer review. In fact you have every right to question and be skeptical of any scientific construct or theory, and I encourage you to do so. We know of one type of life intelligent life and we know that without these exquisite ratios and parameters, we could not exist. You can believe in reptilians, grey's or any type of little green men that you like, but again we are dealing with observable data, and not assumptions or extrapolations such as the outdated Drake equation or the many assumptions of the equally outdated neo Darwinian synthesis.  (Jun 20, 2012 | post #188)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

Yeah great comeback. Thanks for demonstrating what you considered a detailed response. You nor anyone else has cited one piece of data to make your case. You have demonstrated nothing.  (Jun 19, 2012 | post #179)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

Your claim is that molecules can never form into a higher state of order. We pointed out that you are wrong" I challenged you to cite when I ever used those word, but you could not. You seem to be making this stuff up or your reading what you want to read without. It was never said that way, and you pointed out nothing. You have still offered no example of anything coming into higher order on its own. Show me how (physics and chemistry) alone a can account for your potato from scratch without pre existing genetic information? And you cannot even offer testable evidence for how physics and chemistry alone can account for that genetic information itself. You have provided nothing. Where is the data? Do you understand the difference between data and talk? I dont think you do.  (Jun 18, 2012 | post #161)

Evolution Debate

Intelligent design

No my friend. I think it is you who doesn't understand, and your lack of addressing the finer points and instead trying to accuse me of ignorance is a telling signe.  (Jun 18, 2012 | post #159)