Zimmer vs. Wieland

Why would Dr. Wieland assume that pro-science writers have not actually read any creationist writings? It is my experience that it is the creationist writers who seem to be unaware of what evolutionary biology, etc., etc. actually has to say.

--
Anti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"

"Why would Dr. Wieland assume that pro-science writers have not actually read any creationist writings?"

lol. because he disagrees with him, that's why.

it is the only tool creationists can use; make their readers assume that science is "ignorant" of their claims.

it basically takes the obvious from one side, and attempts to use it disengenuously.

sir_toejam,

Yeah, no knowledgeable person ever accused the "professional" young-earth creationists of steadfast intellectual honesty. My question was a bit rhetorical.

Anyone who has spent as much as an hour dealing with creationism has undoubtely heard the "its only microevolution" bit. Indeed, I knew that is what the creationists would say about Mr. Zimmer's article by the time it was clear what the article was about.

--
Anti-spam: Replace "user" with "harlequin2"

ah, i guess i accuse myself of being a bit dense

*hangs head*

:)

"Funniest comment in Wieland's article: the suggestion that Zimmer should have "checked this website [AiG] first". Yeah, and maybe he should have also visited the circus and consulted a few dancing monkeys, too."

What's so funny about it? If you argue about what creationists think, it makes perfect sense to check the places where they state it. If Zimmer had been arguing about circuses, visiting one would have been useful too.

What I did find amusing was the warning you get if you click on the link to Zimmer's article from AIG. Do they really think their readers are so stupid they don't realise they are going to a page outside AIG?

"This is typical."

But very deliberate and calculated.

The American "love affair" with anti-intellectualism should never be underestimated. Thinking is also hard work that might in the case of science require---gasp---math! It is so much easier to simply--yawn--believe warm fuzzy (except for maybe Job) stories. The task of enlightenment is formidable.

Loren Eiseley wrote:

"Man's whole history is one of transcendence and self-examination, which has led him to angelic heights of sacrifice as well as into the bleakest regions of despair. The future is not truly fixed but the world arena is smoking with the caldrons of those who would create tomorrow by evoking, rather than exorcising, the stalking ghosts of the past."

When will we ever learn?

Thomas, I find that idea part of the problem. We usually aren't arguing about what creationists think -- we're instead talking about science. Zimmer's original article was entirely about the evolutionary science behind AIDS research; why should he have been expected to waste his time with the weebly rantings of uninformed idiots?

Zimmer refers to the way the AIDS virus is mutating and changing. Is it evolving? It depends on one's definition of evolution.

— Wieland

If it means 'change', then the answer is 'yes, by definition'. What the reader is presumably intended to glean from this further example of evolutionary equivocation is something like this: 'Wow, I've just seen that evolution [meaning change] is a fact, so that means that if evolution [meaning goo-to-you and everything else over millions of years] is a fact, then I guess frogs really can turn into princes in time.'

many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this 'evolution', then imply that the GTE (General Theory of Evolution*) is thereby proven... *This 'General Theory of Evolution' (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution). The key issue is the type of change required --- to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA 'letters' of even the 'simplest' self-reproducing organism to three billion 'letters' (stored in each human cell nucleus).

the weebly rantings of uninformed idiots?

— Paul

Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by numerous examples. Organized systems cannot

why not?

Zimmer's original article was entirely about the evolutionary science behind AIDS research; why should he have been expected to waste his time with the weebly rantings of uninformed idiots?

— PZ Myers

Why would Dr. Wieland assume that pro-science writers have not actually read any creationist writings?

Could someone provide examples of research that has originated from ID-based theory?

why not?

— Cleek

This type of organization is not obtainable without insight, and insight always requires intelligence. There is no way that these parts could be assembled in such a manner without insight.

The argument from incredulity is rarely presented more directly.

Yet again we see the creationist in action. I've spoken to a number of these people, including one prominent British creationist, and the genuine overiding belief is that they in some way matter. That they have something meaningful to contribute. That a controversy exists.

Such delusion, alongside their startling cognitive ability to simply ignore uncomfortable data, makes me fairly convinced (though I'm no expert in such matters) that a large number of creationists are mentally ill.

Charlie's analogy of a leap acorss a 50 foot gap is fallacious since evolution does not claim a single leap. Rather than using the metaphor of a leap, one should envision a bridge metaphor.

Sigh...

Mark: "Could someone provide examples of research that has originated from ID-based theory?"

David Heddle: "Astronomer Fred Hoyle used anthropic arguments to predict that an excited carbon nucleus has an excited energy level at around 7.7 MeV."

Now that's potentially interesting. Can you direct me to where I can read about this? The question I'll be trying to answer is "Does using anthropic arguments equate to origination from ID-theory?"

Charlie's analogy of a leap acorss a 50 foot gap is fallacious since evolution does not claim a single leap. Rather than using the metaphor of a leap, one should envision a bridge metaphor. Sigh . . .

— PvM

Organization is a much different structure in which something is made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions of the system.

The bottom-up approach consisting in exploiting various forms of self-ordering of natural building blocks gains importance in many technological areas. Due to a large variety of building blocks, chemical reactions and obtainable architectures, polymers represent a particularly rich field where self-organization can be exploited to obtain materials with new properties. http://www.imc.cas.cz/sympo/45micros.html

Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by numerous examples. Organized systems cannot.

Saying "This type of organization is not obtainable without insight" is like saying "The earth does not spin." That is, a flat declarative statement. How about the voluminous evidence that such organization is not only obtainable but inevitable without insight, even greater than the evidence that the earth spins? So what? Charlie has stated his belief.

From either of these declarations, other things must logically follow. The sun MUST go around the earth, which MUST be flat. There MUST be a designer, and this designer MUST be intelligent (as Charlie understands the term). And generally, those who start from axioms-of-preference point to the subsequent logic and argue that there are no logical errors. They're right -- logical inference is quite independent of accurate axioms.

And so Charlie looks at solid ground and sees a 50-foot gap. His faith requires that the gap exist, and so it exists. The Believers simply cannot grasp that SAYING something is true doesn't make it true. Faith works that way; why can't science?

But you can't build a bridge across a crevasse unless you are already on the other side so you have a point of attachment.

Eh, it wasn't really an anthropic argument that Fred Hoyle made, merely an observational one. Since there is an awful lot of carbon in the universe, he reasoned, nucleosynthesis of carbon must be relatively easy. One way for it to be easy would be if the energy was such that the triple-alpha process would work. He checked it, and the energy level was close to his prediction.

The only way anthropy comes into it is that we need carbon to live, so if there were less carbon in the universe, we probably wouldn't exist. At least not in this form; maybe there'd be some other useful but exotic chemistry made less exotic by the change in carbon's energy that would give rise to life in some form.

Anthropic proponents have picked up on the triple-alpha as an example of the Anthropic Principle

Eh, it wasn't really an anthropic argument that Fred Hoyle made, merely an observational one. Since there is an awful lot of carbon in the universe, he reasoned, nucleosynthesis of carbon must be relatively easy. One way for it to be easy would be if the energy was such that the triple-alpha process would work. He checked it, and the energy level was close to his prediction.

The only way anthropy comes into it is that we need carbon to live, so if there were less carbon in the universe, we probably wouldn't exist. At least not in this form; maybe there'd be some other useful but exotic chemistry made less exotic by the change in carbon's energy that would give rise to life in some form.

Anthropic proponents have picked up on the triple-alpha as an example of the Anthropic Principle, but I don't know that Hoyle particularly liked the idea.

So you're saying that polymers aren't the result of organization?

— Glen Davidson

The IDer has to make improper distinctions between words, for he cannot show the difference between organization and ordering. There can be some difference in meaning between the two words, but any break is as artificial as is the assumption that organization has to be the result of "intelligence".

Saying "This type of organization is not obtainable without insight" is like saying "The earth does not spin." That is, a flat declarative statement. How about the voluminous evidence that such organization is not only obtainable but inevitable without insight, even greater than the evidence that the earth spins? So what? Charlie has stated his belief.

— Flint

The Believers simply cannot grasp that SAYING something is true doesn't make it true.

Which shows the analogy is flawed.

— DaveL

I took great pains to distinguish the difference between order and organization

--Charles before-- "Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by numerous examples. Organized systems cannot."

--Glen before-- "Why of course I organized myself through intelligence when I developed from a zygote. I'm pretty proud of how intelligent I was then."

"I was defending the importance of incredulity in making judgements."

Incedulity is important for raising questions, not answering them. It is not a good debate tactic to state an incredulity, sit back, and pretend that you are the all-knowing person who's "lightbulb moment" deserves special attention.

Why don't you try going out there and DOING something about it.

Until then, incredulity won't do too well against actual evidence, that just happens to have the support of (by and large) the entire scientific community.

So, let's practice... If you think it is incredulous that the entire scientific community believes in "macroevolution," then please prove us wrong.

Don't just throw out an hypothesis, define your own terms, and then stick your head in the sand, declaring victory for the ignorant and ignorance for truth.

Stayed away from the above response, I see.

— Glen Davidson

You didn't intelligently design yourself during development any more than the car designed and built itself in the automated factory.

Incedulity is important for raising questions, not answering them. It is not a good debate tactic to state an incredulity, sit back, and pretend that you are the all-knowing person who's "lightbulb moment" deserves special attention.

— Jeebus

Do you think that these cars are building themselves, without any intelligent input?

You didn't intelligently design yourself during development any more than the car designed and built itself in the automated factory. The intelligence was already present, and came from outside the system.

So Charlie, how is it that biologists, physicists, molecular biologists, etc, fail to appreciate your ideas? You've explained your basic ideas 1000 times. Why do you think they can't understand it? Surely you have some belief about why this is.

The analogy is stunningly simple and compelling.

Living systems can be thought of as complex machines. All complex machines for which we know the origins were designed and built - ultimately - by humans (though perhaps indirectly, using robots as intermediaries). Ergo: living systems must have been designed and built by humans.

"In the real world, 2 + 2 might equal 42"

This seems like a very strong argument based on classic
scientific works of Douglas Adams. The H2G2 principle
has been extended to a General theory here.

As I understand developmental biology, not all of the processes are directed by genes (the putative "intelligence" that is "designing" the fetus from the inside out). Some processes are in fact essentially Darwinian, the result of random occurrences being acted upon by selection. One example is the "competition" between two "X" chromosomes in a human female--only one expresses, and which of the two original Xs expresses is a matter of competition. Also, I believe a similar process is involved in the formation of fingers and toes, in which an essentially unguided selection process helps differentiate between the digits and the spaces between the digits. Forgive me if my science is a little off--I am not scientist, just an interested layperson. A real scientist could, I'm sure, correct my perceptions. But from what I understand, in some sense it's Darwinian action all the way down.

Eh, it wasn't really an anthropic argument that Fred Hoyle made

Living systems can be thought of as complex machines. All complex machines for which we know the origins were designed and built - ultimately - by humans (though perhaps indirectly, using robots as intermediaries). Ergo: living systems must have been designed and built by humans.

— Russell

Living systems can be thought of as complex machines. All complex machines for which we know the origins are made of metal, plastic and glass. Ergo: living systems are made of metal, plastic and glass.

, I believe a similar process is involved in the formation of fingers and toes, in which an essentially unguided selection process helps differentiate between the digits and the spaces between the digits.

So Charlie, how is it that biologists, physicists, molecular biologists, etc, fail to appreciate your ideas? You've explained your basic ideas 1000 times. Why do you think they can't understand it? Surely you have some belief about why this is.

— steve

Charlie W:

You said "A is a subset of B; every B has the property P; therefore, A has the property P."

Russell said "Let's assume that A is a subset of B; every B has the property P, AND ALSO the property Q; therefore, A has both properties P and Q."

You counter that "A is a subset of B; every B (except any A) has the property R; therefore, A has the property R."

It's not very hard to see where your reasoning is unsound.

By the way, even your first reasoning is easily shown to be flawed: you define A as a subset of B based on ONE definition of B, but then attribute property P to B based on ANOTHER definition of B, WITHOUT showing that both definitions of B actually generate the same set B.

Of course, you will not recognize your elementary equivocation. The problem is all yours.

I really like the "leaping across a crevasse" metaphor, except I would make it a blind jumper. It is an appropriate metaphor for the issues that evolution must address. How does evolution address leaping across a large crevasse? I know of two ways.

First, evolution states that the large crevasse is an illusion. There were really many smaller crevasses that evolution jumped across easily, we just can not see them anymore. (They are simply missing from the fossil record.)

Second, evolution states that as each small leap is made, genetic bridges are made across these small crevasses forming large bridges. These large bridges then can be used to jump across large crevasses.(The Theory of Co-Option)

Charlie Wagner, don't you think evolutionists are imaginative? I find the explanations very imaginative, not very scientific, as they are not observed in real time or tested, but very imaginative.

Mr. Wagner, you've just proposed that scientists are repressing their resistance to Darwin because they fear political persecution. Besides this being grossly proposterous, you did not answer Steve's question despite quoting his very poignant question in your reply.
Your credibility as a theorist, in my eyes at least, has sunk below the threshold of interesting and has descended into the domain of quasi-theistic junk lacking all fecundity or benefit to society.

That's a very nicely organized response, AN. It's like the LSAT all over again.

The problem is all yours.

— nominee

therefore the analogy succeeds in proportion to its ability to persuade.

Your credibility as a theorist, in my eyes at least, has sunk below the threshold of interesting and has descended into the domain of quasi-theistic junk lacking all fecundity or benefit to society.

— HPLC_Sean

Charlie Wagner:I think that large numbers of them do appreciate the inadequacy of the darwinian mechanism

From Charlie's high school paper:

"I'm sorry to report that not one of them provides any evidence, either observational or experimental that demonstrates that random, accidental events can ever accumulate in such a way as to result in the appearance of complex, highly organized and integrated structures, processes and systems"

far be it from me to correct ALL the innacuracies in your term paper. Let me just deal with this one, which i see as a very common misunderstanding among high school students with no background in evolutionary theory:

randomness is only propsed to act on genetic mutation (it is not the only proposed mechanism, BTW). It does not act as a selective agent, by definition.

so, while you can have random mutations in a genome, selection then acts on the resulting phenotypes in an entirely NON-random fashion.

clearer?

mutation=random
selection=nonrandom

okeedokee?

the analogy succeeds in proportion to its ability to persuade.

In my second example, it can clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that living orgaanisms are not made of metal, plastic and glass.

You must assess for yourself the degree of similarity between the comparators and make your judgement. If you are not persuaded, so be it. But you can't change the analogy itself.   I'm comparing living organisms with complex, highly organized machines. I'm suggesting that if complex, highly organized machines are the product of intelligent design, then living organisms, due to their similarities with complex, highly organized machines must have similar requirements.

the creationist evades the key points, makes up false assertions about the data, references out-of-date creationist misinterpretations, and flings out non sequiturs wildly.

"Now look at the creationists, Wagner, Davison, and Heddle, here in these comments. They haven't even touched Zimmer's argument about the utility of evolution in research and instead are doing exactly as I described. QED"

Point taken.

so remind us as to what the point is of even having a discussion on this topic to begin with?

It's useful for pointing out the vacuity of the creationist position.

... and for keeping what is taught to rational, impressionable young skeptics within the realm of science!

PZ,

As usual, you are full of wind, piss, and excitement. All I did was answer a request for an example. Is that what you described?

The only thing that you have demonstrated is, as you alluded to, your ability to talk (and only talk) about science.

It's useful for pointing out the vacuity of the creationist position.

otherwise you are guilty of Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

— Frank Schmidt

But you can't build a bridge across a crevasse unless you are already on the other side so you have a point of attachment.

Actually, you can and they have.

Your assumption that that living systems were not designed and built by humans - though I think a good one, because the humans are not known to overlap the origin of living systems in time - seems on less solid ground than an assumption that living systems were not designed and built by an entity not known to even exist anywhere in space or time.

— Russell

Charlie W:

No, you propose an analogy that breaks down in the first term, as you haven't shown that "complex machines" are "intelligently designed", precisely because you included "living systems" in your definition.

In other words, any time you try to expand the definition of "complex machines" to include "living systems", by that very act you break down your analogy.

On the other hand, everybody knows that you are not to be bothered to think clearly through your arguments; they only need to sound convincing to yourself, and never mind that people trained in formal thinking find them flawed.

Now, go back to the drawing board and try to improve your analogy, for instance by showing us why property "P" (i.e., being intelligently designed") shouldn't also imply property "Q" (i.e., being designed by human beings). It's easy, really: just cough up an intelligent designer that is not a human being.

The anthropic principle has nothing to do with ID since it doesn't say anything about causality. It's just the observation that we exist, so the universe must be such that we *can* exist. That's not saying that the universe was created in order that we might exist.

The reason the anthropic principle is used the way it's used is because we know more about our own existence than we do about the properties of the universe.

Actually I rather like Charlie Wagner's parable of the crevasse. If you saw a friend waving to you from the other side, you'd most likely conjecture that he or she had found their own way up, or around. If you were curious, you might investigate ways in which they could have done this, and might learn something interesting or even useful in the process. If on the other hand you said "it's evidently too wide to jump, so some other unknown agency must be involved", well that's an extraordinary claim which would require extra-ordinary evidence. How do you like those apples .. no sorry that's somebody else. Anyway, our ID friends really do need to spend more time on finding their evidence.

"I plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court"

the court was out on this long ago. now you are just asking the scraps of your arguments not be eaten by the wolves.

...and the wolves apparently find your scraps awfully tasty.

;)

Your assumption that that living systems were not designed and built by humans - though I think a good one, because the humans are not known to overlap the origin of living systems in time - seems on less solid ground than an assumption that living systems were not designed and built by an entity not known to even exist anywhere in space or time.

— Russell

We cannot make the assumtion that human intelligence is the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

Zimmer's original article was entirely about the evolutionary science behind AIDS research; why should he have been expected to waste his time with the weebly rantings of uninformed idiots?

— Myers

Zimmer's original article was entirely about the evolutionary science behind AIDS research; why should he have been expected to waste his time with the weebly rantings of uninformed idiots?

— Myers

Is there, according to ID, any possibility of process that would generate GREATER intelligence than it requires to run? This is what really peeves me. If there is some "ultimate intelligence" that doesn't require an explanation, why would OUR own intelligence require one? Or is there an infinite regression of more-and-more intelligent beings? Or did some prior high intelligence emerge by some "natural" means (where by "natural" I mean natural for it, it might look quite supernatural to us), and if so, why could it and couldn't we (arguably simpler cases)?

Anti-Christian film at COSI* is propaganda *[the local science museum] ...the COSI Columbus evolutionism movie Volcanoes of the Deep Sea is anti-Christian from its foundational assumptions. Evolutionism is described by recognized authorities both within and outside its ranks as a religious position at odds with any orthodox belief in Christ.... The only way evolutionism could have any scientific standing is upon the presupposition there is no God. Either a great intelligence generated us in a process our far-weaker minds would rightly call miraculous, or we made ourselves purely by the will of rocks and dirt, mere mindless minerals, as is the belief of Darwin's disciples. .... Any self-proclaimed Christian who simultaneously promotes evolutionist teachings is deluded, lying or of unsound mental faculties in the areas of reason and logic. ... COSI is not a real science museum, as it promotes the faith position of evolutionism with our tax dollars. (Atheists should support their own indoctrination centers just as other faith groups are forced to do, by the way.) People should be more informed on this fundamental area of origins and what assumptions support or destroy a Christian worldview... QUENTIN L.F. PATCH

David, I think I stand by my comment. I think Stenger and others are claiming the discovery of the triple-alpha process as a support for the Anthropic Principle retroactively. Unless Hoyle invented the Anthropic Principle a couple of decades early, I don't believe he was thinking anthropically at the time. The link you gave doesn't actually say so, as far as I can tell.

But I could be wrong, the last Hoyle I read was "A for Andromeda".

To paraphrase Kant: A machine is a functional unity such that its parts exist for each other in context of a particular activity or set of activities. In contrast, an organism is simultaneosly a functional unity AND a structural unity, in which the parts exist FOR and BY MEANS OF themselves. Or, in Kauffman's parlance, an organism is different because it can act on its own behalf. Now, again I ask, "MUST" anything that appears highly organized be attributed to an intelligent designer?

— P Mihalakos

Any machine, whether it is a living organism or a human designed and built machine has the absolute requirement of intelligent input. There are no exceptions.

It doesn't make a bit of difference whether a living organism can reproduce itself.

Why doesn't it matter? It's an example of how such "machines" can come into existence without intelligent input. It's happening all the time around you. What intelligent input is required to turn an egg into a chicken?

All of the parts have functions that not only support the other functions, but ultimately support the overall function of the device.

Oh really?

There's an old psychology experiment that goes something like this.

You are placed in a room with two strings hanging down from the ceiling. Your task, using a pair of pliers, is to tie them together. But they are far enough apart that you can't hold on to one string and grab the other.

It's an experiment, but it's really a lesson in Taoism. The name is not the thing.

You are placed in a room with two strings hanging down from the ceiling.

— boronx

What intelligent input is required to turn an egg into a chicken?

— boronx

"The genome is similar to a computer algorithm and is the product of intelligence just as surely as the computers in the factory"

actually, a typical genome (the genome? WTH does that mean?) is not very similar to a computer algorithm (er, you mean program? algorithms are mathematical constructs that have nothing to do with computers, per say) at all.

can you demonstrate, with actual knowledge of how base sequences are arranged, how a typical genome (shit, pick any one you like, it doesn't have to be a complete one, but it has to be a REAL set of sequences, not an imaginary one) is anything like a computer program (again, please compare the code from a REAL computer program, not an imaginary construct)?

once you have done that, I'll believe your responses to have a bit more credibility.

cheers

In typical computers, the instructions have to be executed in a particular sequence (aside from occasional jumps). Ergo, haphazard changes to instructions are most likely going to break something.

In DNA, as I understand it, there is no order of execution of the "instructions" as such. Perhaps a much better analogy might be a recipe rather than a program: a list of ingredients, perhaps with timing and quantity indicators. And with recipes, a haphazard change might break something, but OTOH sometimes it might just change a proportion of one of the ingredients. (And perhaps a proportion in some body part of the resulting organism.)

Henry

"In DNA, as I understand it, there is no order of execution of the "instructions" as such"

much closer to the observed reality, certainly.

I hate to be a parrot, but there is actually a very good primer about this over at the talk.origins site.

Where the genes ultimately came from is not now within the realm of science to determine.

— Wanger

Well, I would tie one string to the pliers and swing it like a pendulum to bring the string closer to the other one. Nothing mystical about that. But how does that relate to my statement and what does it have to do with Taoism?

A things function is merely what people have figured out what to do with it.

It's possible to build design a decent mouse trap without even conceiving the possiblity of trapping mice. It's possible to bridge a chasm without seeing the other side or even knowing there's a chasm there, or even understanding the concept of a bridge.

A thing is not defined by it's function any more than it's defined by it's name.

"proto-chicken"

I've heard those things are a bit stringy. Will they still taste the same fried?

Will they still taste the same fried?

If the IDers are right, it tasted exactly the same.

hmm, then i have a question

Does the fact that so many things taste like chicken when fried imply common descent, or design?

I submit for your amusment, the following:

http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume4/v4i4/chicken.htm

damn, isn't the internet a wonderful thing?

cheers

the author, at the end postulates:

Are millipedes ten times tastier than centipedes?

one thing i can tell you for sure, millipedes DON'T taste like chicken. They are plumb awful tasting, no matter how you slice em.

In fact, most are toxic. so don't try this experiment at home!

In fact, most are toxic. so don't try this experiment at home!

Oh, no worries.

Of course, this argument rests on the hearsay evidence that humans themselves have a "pork-like" flavor.

When you get down to the meat of the matter, the guy chickens out.

heh, indeed.

http://www.rotten.com/library/death/cannibalism/

Welcome back Charlie, It has been what, about mid Feb that since you had and real amount of posting here?!

For those that are wondering Charlies position let me give you a summary

1. Charlie Wagner believes that the Universe is infinitely old.

While at a basic level this is not at odds with some current models his beliefs differs in that he believes the universe is infinitely old AND has been in a form that supports life, as we know it, the entire time. I'll let David Heddle try to explain to Charlie why this view of the universe doesn't fit with the data we see.

2. Charlie Wagner believes that life has always existed.

Just as there is no starting point to the universe there was no starting point to life. It has just always been here.

3. Charlie Wagner's mysterious life is completely natural in nature.

Yet it could not have evolved itself...but then again it never needed to because it was always around.

4. Charlie Wagner's mysterious life is bound to our space/time.

It does not travel to other space/times, universes.

5. Charlie has no concept of self organisation and emergent properties.

Everything in Charlie's universe has to be pre-programmed.

I hope this helps those that are new to Charlie's postings. As per normal crackpots he can never recognise any flaws with his hypothesis. For example the foundation of his claim, that the universe is infinitely old in the form that we see today, is highly flawed on the order of CW saying 1=∞. While the universe may be infinitely old it has not been a state that is conducive to life that entire time and has gone through drastic changes during this entire time.

Well, I have to say, Charlie's nutty ideas are more entertaining than that tired old ID-Creationist rubbish.

Is Charlie's universe infinite in space also?

Welcome back Charlie, It has been what, about mid Feb that since you had and real amount of posting here?!

— Wayne Francis

       It started just after midnight, Monday February 14th. First came the shortness of breath, followed in moments by the rales. I woke up Gail and informed her of what was happening. She wasn't even out of bed when the gurgling started. My breaths became shorter and shorter.       I knew I was in a world of shit.        I threw on my shoes and a jacket and headed for the car. By the time I got there it was painfully obvious that I had only minutes before my window of life would close completely, perhaps forever. North Shore-Long Island Jewish hospital (the *good* hospital) was 20 minutes away. Fortunately, I was less than a mile from the Nassau University Medical Center (the county hospital). Gail dialed 911 while I struggled to keep breathing. I was literally drowning in my own body fluids.        The cops were there in minutes. I was unconscious when I arrived at the hospital and the doctors were fast, efficient, and very young! I thought to myself, "I hope they know what they're doing..." But I knew right away that I wasn't going to die. I watched intently as they went about their business, like they had done it a thousand times before. Not like on ER! No shouting, no rushing, no emotion. The breathing tube was inserted, the IV installed, the Foley in place, the respirator hooked up. It was only a matter of minutes. This is all still clear in my consciousness. After all, I was standing right there watching them the whole time.        I began to notice that the room was getting very bright, like someone had opened the window and the warm sunlight was streaming in. It got so bright that I could no longer see anyone in the room. I began to walk towards the one figure I could still see, down the corridor in front of me. As I approached, the figure did not become clearer, but more amorphous. A great wave swept over me, a sensation of complete peace, joy and contentment. As I approached the figure, it stepped aside and I looked into the beyond.        I saw a young man nervously trying to get up the courage to ask a pretty girl on a date. I saw an old man, sitting quietly in front of his beloved wife's casket, his head buried in his hands. I saw a young father, scolding his son for writing on the wall with a crayon. I saw a soldier, pinned down in a trench, praying to God that he would live to see his daughter get married. I saw my mother, walking across the street in Brooklyn to the neighborhood hospital, where she would give me life. I tried to understand what I was seeing.       And then, God spoke to me.       "This thing you call time, is an artifact, composed of eidetic simulacra. Imagine that you are wandering over the surface of the earth for all eternity. Every point on the earth's surface exists simultaneously, even though you are not present at all locations. So it is with time. Every point exists simultaneously, even though you are not there. The human mind creates beginnings and ends. There is no past, no present, no future. It's all the same thing. Every moment, every event, every joy, every tragedy exists simultaneously. Only in your world, your mind, your reality is time linear, with beginnings and ends."        I pondered this for a while, trying to absorb this simple yet profound truth. Then I spoke to God.       "I want to go back. Send me back to Afghanistan. I'll assemble an army, I'll hunt down Osama bin Laden and convince him of the error of his ways. I'll teach him about love and tolerance and humanity. I'll save all those innocent people."        But God said no. "You'll strike up a conversation with him. He'll try to convince you that his actions are justified. You'll listen and be convinced. You'll join his cause and become an Ayatollah like Cat Stevens and move to Iran."        "Send me back. Send me back to Memphis. I'll find Elvis, I'll take away his drugs. I'll tell him that we love him. I know that he will listen".       But God said no. "You'll ask him if you can ride in his plane, come to Graceland and eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches. You'll fall in love with his daughter and want to marry her."       I sensed that I was losing and that I would soon be beaten. I tried one last time. "Send me back to Calvary. I'll talk to the Romans and convince them not to kill Jesus. If they don't listen, I'll help him escape, hide him in the desert. If they hurt him, I'll treat his wounds, nurse him back to health, follow his teachings."       But again, God said no. "You would listen to his teachings, but you would not follow them. You would call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the precept 'Resist not evil: but whoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also', but you would make war on innocent women and children for the flimsiest of reasons. You would call yourself a Christian and you would claim to follow the example of Jesus to 'judge not, lest ye be judged', yet you would be filled with moral indignation and self righteousness and permit envy and hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. You would believe in your heart that 'if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast, and give to the poor', yet you would allow children in poor countries to go to sleep hungry, perhaps to die of malnutrition while you gather up to yourself great wealth, far beyond your simple needs."       God continued on. "I will not send you back in time because time belongs only to me. This is why I am who I am and you are who you are. All you have is now. That is the difference between us. Eternity belongs to me and I reserve it for myself. It is, you might say, the one real advantage that I have over you. You cannot change what you call the past and you cannot affect what you call the future. Now belongs to you. Do you want it?        "Yes I do."       I turned slowly and began to walk back down the corridor. The bright light began to fade until it became almost impossible to see anything. Soon it was totally dark. I heard a voice calling my name and I slowly opened my eyes. It was Gail, standing at the side of my bed.

Well, I have to say, Charlie's nutty ideas are more entertaining than that tired old ID-Creationist rubbish.

— NelC

sorry, my sympathies regarding your illness are overwhelmed by my amusement at your logic.

please forgive me.

cheers

Re "Is Charlie's universe infinite in space also?"

I'd rather wonder if the actual space is infinite or not, and if current theory says one way or the other.

Henry

Hmmm... There was some talk about the universe having shape of Poincare dodecahedron (which is quite strange creature derived from 120-cell, one of 6 regular polytopes in four dimensions), but I don't think it panned up.

Basically, the standard Einstein theory is that if the average density of universe is lesser or equal to the critical density, then it's infinite. That does not actually follow (you can easily think up finite universes with zero or even negative curvature), but it's the most simple assumption.

However, it seems clear that the universe is BIG enough that its finiteness/infiniteness doesn't have a large impact on us right now.

this kinda argument shouldn't be debated online because most religious people have no idea what internet is yet.

Marek14,

Re "Basically, the standard Einstein theory is that if the average density of universe is lesser or equal to the critical density, then it's infinite. That does not actually follow (you can easily think up finite universes with zero or even negative curvature), but it's the most simple assumption."

Yes, but that prediction was made before somebody invented dark energy, whatever that is. Does it still apply when that dark energy stuff is included?

---

Pope 3rd,

Re "this kinda argument shouldn't be debated online because most religious people have no idea what internet is yet."

Well, since biological evolution is science, not religion, that shouldn't really matter.

Henry

I have no idea. I thought dark energy only affects the expansion, not the shape, but I'm no expert.

Oh, my! We now have both an intelligent designer and an intelligent organizer! I wonder if these are manifestations of the same god or if they're different dieties?

Marek14,
Re "I thought dark energy only affects the expansion, not the shape,"

That's exactly why I have to wonder about it. I figure that per GR, a space dense enough to collapse due to gravity would be finite. But what about one that used to be dense enough for gravity to collapse it eventually (therefore finite) but which got pushed over the "edge", so to speak, by dark energy acceleration. Would it jump from finite to infinite, or would it stay finite but simply keep expanding?

Henry

I think it would stay finite. It's a question of curvature. I don't think you can have an infinite universe with positive curvature. (But you can have finite universe with zero or negative curvature. You may imagine such an universe as infinite space, built up of identical "universes" repeating ad infinitum. That's a pretty wacky idea, it will help considering representation of torus as rectangle with identified opposite edges first :) )

Too bad there isn't a way for me to charge you for this ;-)

— Charlie Wagner