Posts Tagged ‘Origins Science’

0229538ed7285dac9c0b927e8813775686e36c0a3c66685dafb0a0132f84c945

I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says about religion, but the author makes some good points. Science has its problems.

“The technical triumph of the Human Genome Project led to big surprises. There are far fewer human genes than anticipated, a mere 23,000 instead of 100,000. Sea urchins have about 26,000 and rice plants 38,000. Attempts to predict characteristics such as height have shown that genes account for only about 5 percent of the variation from person to person, instead of the 80 percent expected. Unbounded confidence has given way to the “missing heritability problem.” Meanwhile, investors in genomics and biotechnology have lost many billions of dollars. A recent report by the Harvard Business School on the biotechnology industry revealed that “only a tiny fraction of companies had ever made a profit” and showed how promises of breakthroughs have failed over and over again.

Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem.” It is hard because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, the experience of redness is not accounted for.

In physics, too, the problems are multiplying. Since the beginning of the 21st century, it has become apparent that known kinds of matter and energy make up only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy.” The nature of 96 percent of physical reality is literally obscure.

Contemporary theoretical physics is dominated by superstring and M theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, which remain untestable. The multiverse theory, which asserts that there are trillions of universes besides our own, is popular among cosmologists in the absence of any experimental evidence. These are interesting speculations, but they are not hard science. They are a shaky foundation for the materialist claim that everything can be explained in terms of physics.”

— Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

via Dr Rupert Sheldrake: Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion.

simul iustus et peccator,  

Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

 

English: The axes span ~60 order of magnitude (logarithmic scale)! The upper limit is provided by Planck scale, lower limit is from dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry by quantum chromodynamics. The right panel shows a zoom-in of the small box. The lines show the limits of 9 life-permitting criteria: 1. Above this blue line, there is only one stable element, which has the chemistry of helium with no known stable chemical compounds 2. Below this blue line, the only stable element consists of a single particle, which can combine with a positron to produce an element with the chemistry of hydrogen. A handful of chemical reactions are possible, with their most complex product being an analogue of H2 3. Above this green curve, neutrons in nuclei decay, so that hydrogen is the only stable element 4. Below this green curve, protons in nuclei decay, so that any atoms that formed would disintegrate into a cloud of neutrons 5. Above this violet line, deuteron is strongly unstable. Stellar nucleosynthesis would fail 6. Below this light blue curve, isolated protons are unstable, leaving no hydrogen left over from the early universe to power long-lived stars and play crucial role in organic chemistry 7. Below this dark violet curve, the diproton is stable. Protons can fuse to helium-2 via a very fast electromagnetic reaction, rather than the much slower, weak nuclear pp-chain 8. Above this orange line, the production of deuterium in stars absorbs energy rather than releasing it. 9. Below this red line, a proton in a nucleus can capture an orbiting electron and become a neutron. Atoms are unstable 10. The red arrow points the region potentially suitable for complex life (small green region with light green dot)

 

The theist begins with the first five words of the Bible, and sees the universe as a wonderful handiwork of an infinite God. The atheist begins with…anything but the first five words of the Bible. 

Which is more reasonable:

  1. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of a Designer, or
  2. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of nothing?

 

“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

 

— Robert Jastrow, agnostic astronomer, author of God and the Astronomers

via URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

English: WMAP observes the first light of the ...

“Evidence #2: The origin of the universe

1. The progress of science has shown that the entire physical universe came into being out of nothing (= “the big bang”). It also shows that the cause of this creation event is non-physical and non-temporal. The cause is supernatural.

  • Atheism prefers an eternal universe, to get around the problem of a Creator having to create the universe.
  • Discovery #1: Observations of galaxies moving away from one another confirms that the universe expanded from a single point.
  • Discovery #2: Measurements of the cosmic background radiation confirms that the universe exploding into being.
  • Discovery #3: Predictions of elemental abundances prove that the universe is not eternal.
  • Discovery #4:The atheism-friendly steady-state model and oscillating model were both falsified by the evidence.
  • And there were other discoveries as well, mentioned in the lecture.

The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a hyper-universe outside of ours, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.”

via Walter Bradley: three scientific evidences that point to a designed universe | Wintery Knight.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams

Rossville, GA