cypress

We have no clear idea how either universe might arise and therefore we simply do not know which model is simpler. Occam's Razor favors the more parsimonious explanation, not the one with fewer or simpler assumptions. It's not the same thing. False. Fine tuning makes no assumption of the number of universes. The configuration of this universe also does not depend on the presence of other universes. Since we know of no naturalist mechanism to generate alternate physical parameters, it is irrational to presume there is a mechanism. Your argument also employs a double standard. When it comes to a creator you have argued that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss the notion despite the reality that there is evidence of design in nature. Here there is no evidence for your model, not even a sliver of evidence to indicate there are infinite universes with different physical parameters and laws and yet you want me to consider it. In addition, it is an illogical premise for many reasons including that by your scenario, there should exist a universe the same as ours except that the me in that universe happens to agree with you and beats his head on the concrete daily. You have a prior commitment and it drives your sense of logic. I submit that you are not a good arbiter of what makes more sense. It is a crazy notion to suggest otherwise. Sure there are many constants that can be varied, but there are about 20 that if varied by as little as 1 in 10^15 (some much less) would make life impossible. A full discussion of this is not possible here. The reality that the universe is fine tuned has been known for 35 years or more. The counter arguments all seem to be metaphysical as opposed to scientific. Now you are creatively changing the traditional definition of evidence. It is evidence. One can choose to accept it or reject it. Clearly you have rejected it. I accept it as evidence and use it to shape my conclusions. I know of many people who also accept it as evidence but find other factors override this evidence and they still reject the idea of a creator. Nor do I. Indeed. But for now it is sufficient that there is evidence that the universe and life in it is a product of a intentional acts of design, while there is no evidence that either occurred or could have occurred naturally. Things may change, new evidence may come forward but for now the evidence is tipping in favor of a creator. Reviewed and published studies I assume. On what topic precisely? No a deistic universe would still exhibit markers of intentional design as would the progression of its development. Over the past 400 years testing has been done. No physical sign of the common ideas of gods has been noted. Please note that I have only stated there is evidence for a creator of this universe and life in it. On a final point, I note that QM uncertainty makes it impossible for us to distinguish the difference between an improbable event and a miracle. False. There is no indication that a universe would look this way had it occurred naturally. We simply don't know what a natural universe would look like and we don't know how it would arrive at the state it might. The same argument applies to a hypothetical creator. All we know is that universe is the way it is and it exhibits markers of a designed activity. I have stated it the way I did to avoid a tautology. Your argument that assuming multiple universes negates fine tuning is a form of tautology. I find this paragraph laughable. Models exist that allow people to claim the universe could have arisen naturally. Some are quite interesting. However every model I've seen simply pushes the question of a creator one step back. None of them eliminate the need for a creator. Thus far it is turtles all the way down.

rules of science can help us with the existence of werewolves and vampires because the hypothesis that they exist leads to a prediction that would place them in our realm and thus we would expect regular observation. Likewise science can help with certain hypotheses regarding gods if those hypotheses put these gods in our realm. On the other hand science must be silent about the possible existence of an intelligent agent external to this universe that is hypothesized to have caused this universe except perhaps that science study may well be able to identify clear markers of designing activity and infer that the universe was designed. It would depend on what predictions we should expect. If we should expect nothing as a consequence of it being true relative to it being false then no conclusion is possible and it would not be reasonable. I disagree. There is a plethora of evidence that the universe was a carefully planned event. The reality that the physical constance are fine tuned and work in concert to produce a world conducive to life is an example. False. There are a number of peer reviewed studies and observations including fine tuning and the list is growing. Many people would prefer to dictate how their god should behave. I don't know of any evidence that mater and energy alone is capable of causing the universe as we know it. Not a single sliver. I consider those who have decided there is no creator to be the ones who have deluded themselves. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I would suggest you brush up on chemical reaction kinetics. Please note that my degree and my occupation involves substantial study and practical application of this topic. Though chemical reactions do involve a significant degree of deterministic behavior based on physical laws, it also involves a high degree of stochastic characteristics as well. This is particularly true with bimolecular systems unaided by protein enzymes. Sorry you are incorrect. Yes the numbers I provided grant a copious supply of every precursor known. That is an understatement. I don't think you are correct. Do you have a citation that nucleotides other than adenine form in pre-biotic conditions? No it does not. Please provide a reference that supports this statement that pre-biotic lipid vesicles accumulate nucleotides in realistic situations. Nonsense. Only after an RNA chain is specifically designed and constructed does it self catalyze. Please cite a study that shows that short random RNA polymers self catalyze. More nonsense. Only carefully constructed non-random RNA perform such functions. Citations please. It is a just so story. Completely void of observable evidence. I'm sorry, it sounds fascinating but it is presumption not reality. Without a mechanism to manage the sequence of polymerization, it has been conclusively demonstrated that RNA bases polymerize randomly if at all. The number of functional self replicating RNA strands relative to the set of possible combinations is estimated on the order of 1 in 10^60. Chance based on browian motion is the only way to evaluate chemical reaction kinetics when multiple reactants are involved with bonding energies nearly equal as in this case and the set of possible outcomes is greater than one. My logic might be flawed although you have not yet demonstrated that, but your proposed process is in fact deeply flawed. I don't think anybody has shown that it is certainly possible for complex systems to originate from simple systems. As a point of fact, shannon entropy and molecular entropy are both violated by this process unless more complex systems are engaged to accomplish such a task. Its a very poor example of complexity as it relates to DNA. The mandelbrot set is very simple when viewed by traditional measures of information content. However DNA is billions of times more complex. Except you are wrong on this point as well. By what measure do we claim that the mandelbrot set is complex? It can be compressed to fewer than 20 bytes of information. Your description does not account for the physical constants. Your model is incomplete and therefore we cannot say what was created and we cannot say what was possible at the time. When I note that the physical constants are fined tuned to support life, I don't make any assumption about the source or timing. I simply note that they indeed are fine tuned. Currently when we note such unlikely coincidences upon examination, we find that intent/purpose was the cause. We don't currently know of any case where very high complexity and function in concert have a deterministic and/or random cause. Perhaps you can cite one.

While it is clear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, It is not clear that global warming (i.e. an increase in the average surface temperature relative to a longer term mean) has as a root cause greenhouse gases. They are (though as swansont corrected it is the fourth power of temperature difference). The key is that since the energy flux of re-radiation is a function of temperature differences, if the temperature of the atmosphere were constant and equal to the surface temperature, then there would be no variable impact, but since the temperature profile is not constant, one must adjust for convective and conductive heat loss from CO2 to other molecules and differentiate over the temperature profile. This is not an easy thing to model over the air column. However reasonable estimates appear to fall into the range of 0.3 - 1.1 degrees for a doubling in CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm and up to 1.4 for 700 ppm. If this were accurate and the only effect, then AGW would be a non-issue. I suspect that you still don't quite understand the issue. Yes, I too am a skeptic and this is exactly my thought on the topic. Review of the empirical data indicates recent warming but all but somewhere between 0.0 and 0.4 of it can be accounted for by natural causes observed in operation during historical periods of increased temperatures. This is a far cry from the 1.5 degrees C predicted by the IPCC models. These models are used to derive the estimates the warming alarmists cite. I believe the models are incorrect.

Do they? In your example you assume that different causal modes can have the same result, but I object to that assumption and previously have asked for a real example of natural causes (deterministic and random) producing an outcome that has elements of design or intentional/purposed choices. At this point your claim that either explanation is possible is a tautology that only follows from your assumption. Again you call on the same assumption that you would have to demonstrate first before w accept the conclusion. It is unknown how life arose from non-life so we can't say if implying life was designed is stupid or not. For the record, I am not making any implication about the origin of life, though it does contain many elements only found in things that are known to have been designed. This is why it is critical for you and sisyphus to show that deterministic and random processes are capable of mimicking design in order to offer the human brain and mind as something capable of generating purposed choice as deterministic and random causation. That would depend entirely on your metaphysical view and the assumptions that follow from it. Current interpretation that is favored by the majority is that free will is a fundamental mode of causation at the same level as deterministic and random cause. I have asked that someone demonstrate that free will is not fundamental and instead is a combination of and therefore can be reduced to determinism and randomness but I realize that this demonstration cannot be done. This is exactly what we would predict if indeed free will/intent is fundamental.

Interesting topic and questions. Forgive me in advance for any misunderstandings as this area is not something I know a great deal about, but still it is intriguing so I thought I would participate. One aspect of the description of a deterministic model which, as you described, removes the probability aspect of our current model of entropy but I wonder if it doesn't just recast it. Even in a deterministic model, many processes should be irreversible. Is it possible that we simply misunderstand the fundamental aspect of entropy? Is it possible that entropy is a directional vector that defines or determines the events as opposed to statistical? I guess I am attempting to retain entropy in the deterministic concept. As far as your follow on questions regarding QM, there seems to be much about our quantum physical model that remains incomplete but I am not seeing how reformulating the statistical model of entropy improves the situation and I don't understand how entropy can be fundamental as the first paper argued. Even if it is correct that gravitational effects do follow from entropy, we still seem to lack a causal reason that it should be that way so in my thinking, it does not yet follow that entropy is fundamental.

Proteins are constructed and generally folded in the cell aided by various molecular machines to form the intended configurations. Without support of systems that can reproduce the effects of these molecular machines, it is rarely possible to restore the proteins after being denatured.

In your previous post you said you "were not following me" As I review all your previous responses I find that doubtful. You seem to be following just fine, but hold to an opinion that is at the very least incomplete. This seems incorrect. A choice that involves intent is certainly not random since it is driven by intent to accomplish a purpose. While it may be predictable by prior circumstance (though even this is doubtful), we would have to trace the entire line of prior circumstances back to the root causes because any prior circumstance that also involved purposed choice represents another event with the same question so we would have to first evaluate this circumstance. Only after all of these prior choices have been recursively examined, can we evaluate if this is actually a deterministic cause. Uniform experience informs us this is not the case. Designed systems are one outcome of intent with choice. Yet we have no examples of any system that have the characteristics of design but are known to be derived solely from deterministic and random causes. We don't know the original cause of life on earth and therefore don't know the original cause of the brain and mind. Because it is unknown, we cannot currently reduce it to deterministic and random causes so it has the same issue as I described above. Your challenge is to provide an example that has, as its root causes, only known deterministic and random events with no intentional choice involved in the entire path. If you can do this then I would agree you are correct in your assertion that choice can be derived by a combination of deterministic and random causes.

Coincides with their escalating problems with the universal healthcare program.

Interesting article. Is there any indication that this same protein is used by other organisms? One would suppose something like this should be conserved.

I didn't see anything in Spyman's newest post that has not already been discussed. The expansion rates cited by Bear Key are indeed based on assumptions. It is not established by fact and therefore my statement that the expansion rates remain unclear is correct. Spyman is unable to demonstrate that my claim is wrong and prefers to discuss non issues about the relative merits of alternatives. I have no obligation to present a superior idea as it is sufficient for my claim to show that my claim as stated is accurate since it does not include any statement about the accuracy or superiority of alternatives. One assumption is that the universe appears uniform regardless of the observation point from within the universe. Another is that our observation point is not fundamentally different than any other. The model has evolved over time to fit the data and will continue to do so. It is not a coincidence that the model fits since it is molded to fit. Nothing wrong with tweaking a model, but let's not over sell it as if it were perfect out of the box and perfectly fits every new piece of data ever obtained. You and I both know there remain a number of unresolved issues. Contrary to Spyman's accusations, my purpose is not to tear down this model. It is simply to remind less informed readers that these ideas including the one Bear's Key offered are ideas and may or may not be correct. The model of the universe is not fully understood and it does not make sense to pretend it is.

I read the entire OP through twice and still I don't see how it addresses the fundamental issue raised by Behe that there is no natural mechanism offered that at the molecular level accounts for the similarities described in the compiled summaries and more importantly no mechanism the describes how these molecular systems that he defines as having irreducible complexity actually formed in a stepwise fashion. Do we suppose that the modern protein systems were derived from a common form of these similar components found in other biological systems by known processes or do we know they are related? If so, how do we know? Have we conducted experiments that confirm that the presumed processes actually occur? It seems to me that citing similarities only confirms that some proteins with different functions have some sequence similarity. Several explanations for these similarities are possible.

It's not word twisting. You are talking at cross purposes. I don't think you care to address my claim directly. You seem more interested in a different aspect of the argument that I don't dispute. To answer your question, we cannot assess the accuracy of the claims made by the scientific community on these points because the accuracy of the claims that one model is consistent while others are not, depend entirely on the assumptions being made and we cannot validate assumptions. They are by definition without evidence. Assumptions cannot be tested and since Bear's Key claim depended on the assumptions along with the claim that alternate ideas are wrong (Change the assumptions and the discontinuities with the alternates go away). The point is that it is not wrong, rather it is unknown. No, I'm just supporting the reasons why I took exception to bear's key claim about the expansion rate of the universe. It is true that Bear's Key expansion rate is dependent on assumptions and therefore we don' know if it is correct or not. Just as your favored model is dependent on assumptions, so too are the alternatives. It is pointless to argue which one is superior. The debate will deteriorate to which assumptions people favor. for my purpose, it is sufficient that there are alternatives and they are also held together by assumption. Please go back and see my original post and try to stay focused on the purpose of it.

On the other hand, since it is self evident that this capability involves choice with purpose/intent thus it is neither. Intent is a well defined tradition of our legal system and pretending not to understand it is a very transparent trick. Indeed it would but would it have ability to exhibit forethought, intent, planning or purpose? Of course not. Only by eliminating intentional planned activity from the equation. Please devise a way for deterministic and random processes working together to exhibit clear characteristics of design. You don't really expect me to believe that you don't understand. The "purpose" of your statement is both clear and obvious.

No, sorry scientific consensus of an idea based on assumptions that cannot be validated does not constitute a fact. It may be a minor point to some, but in context of my original claim in this post that Bear's Key assertion that distances between objects in the universe are increasing faster than [2 times] the speed of light and thus the universe is expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light is supported by supposition as opposed to fact. It is not relevant to the argument that these ideas are mainstream or popular. The question is, is it factually correct and the answer is we don't know. You complain that I have supported nothing, but I have offered alternate ideas that are consistent with observation that have a different set of invalidated assumptions that also happen not to be a popular just now. I have meet the requirement of what is needed to support my contention that Bear's Key assertions are not established fact. The alternatives are readily available on the web as is copious documentation supporting the reality of these assumptions and the myriad of unanswered questions confirming the status of "scientific consensus" as speculation. You took exception to my claim but you have not shown that the consensus model is factually accurate, a necessary condition for you to back you claim that I am wrong. In summary, we don't know just as I said in the beginning.

Separation of trace hydrocarbons from water by membranes has not been commercially successful primarily because the oil and grease quickly plugs nearly all suitable membrane material. Other techniques including coalescing filters, hydrocyclones, floatation cells, and multimedia filters all work much better.

I think it goes to show you that editorialists and producers of documentaries can cherry pick to emphasize particular points if they care to. Does not make the argument correct.

You got it. The general case goes like this: d(6) - d(5) = (1/2)*a*(6^2 - 5^2) so (66*2)/(36-25) = a or a = 12 then use the same formula to solve for d(7)-d(6)

You can make a scale with a lever and fulcrum and a known weight that you can position to make it balance with the desired weight. Use the formula distance * weight on each side of the fulcrum to position the fulcrum for the desired amount. If more precision is required include the weight of the lever by including the unit weight of the lever * 1/2 the distance squared on each side.

I, like you, have lots of questions with no answers that I don't ask.... Guess it is because I don't want to take the time to hear and discuss the answer, or maybe I don't want to make myself appear weak of vulnerable. Interesting points you raise.

Your friend may well be correct, but knowing the answer isn't going to help you understand the concept is it? Though you have stumbled onto something by noting your friends answer is the average of the speed between 5 and 6 seconds divided by the average of the time between 5 and 6 seconds, but my question to you is why did this method work for this problem? Will this method work in the general case, and if not, what cases will this work for? The equation you proposed is the general case and it is correct that you can/should use it. Think more about what the equation means and see if you can answer your question about what values of t to use. Notice how many unknowns you have compared to the known(s) you have and perhaps you can rearrange the formula to reduce it to solve for a.

Perhaps your questions are due to the fact that the controversy regarding AGW revolve around the several complex climatic influences as opposed to the simple physical property of one minor component of our atmosphere. Though some might have you believe that the radiative property of CO2 is the linchpin of the controversy, but it is not. I don't know of any serious argument against the idea that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared radiation. However you are correct that one must address the key issue which is the degree of impact to climate that does occur with any change in CO2 concentration. CO2 does absorb a limited range of infrared frequencies. It is quite proficient at absorbing and then reradiating the frequencies in proportion to the ratio of the cube of the absolute temperature so that in the atmosphere a percentage of the outgoing radiation is captured and warms the atmosphere above the temperature it would otherwise be if all other factors were independent. No serious skeptic would argue differently. Is it significant enough, acting alone, not including any follow on effects to raise the temperature by more that one degree centigrade if CO2 concentration were raised from the apparent recent historical mean of 280 ppm to just over 700 ppm? No. Skeptics and most informed proponents alike agree on this point also. The simple absorption characteristics of CO2 in air mixtures is known. The impact it has in the dynamic atmospheric column is not understood and has not been confirmed by experimentation or observation, though order of magnitude impacts have been estimated and observed. The results are widely distributed, it does not kill off the argument because it is not a significant enough quantity to cause an issue without postulating follow on effects. Because if they did, they would properly be labeled a fool. It does but this reality is a completely different question than what change in absorption occurs with a change in concentration from 280 ppm to the 400 ppm we are now approaching or the 560 - 700 ppm some estimate we could reach by the end of this century. An even more focused question is what impact would that change have on global surface temperature. This question is proving to be very difficult to answer. There will always be some on both sides looking to profit from controversy. I am not sure that a conspiracy is involved.

Can I assume since you asked for one that you currently have none.... I can't in good conscience do your homework for you so... Think about what it means to be in error. Namely something went wrong that caused an incorrect result. What important things can go wrong with a pipet?

I don't know of any reasonable estimates being one in a billion. The highest probability estimates for the modern scenarios have it at well under 10^400, and no wonder. Simple replicating biomolecular systems have been been studied for some time now and the common element is that they require a substantial infusion coherent stored information defining a working structure from among the countless alternatives. The probability of obtaining a working structure by any mechanism is the basis of the estimate. Estimates of the number of atoms in the universe are about 10^81 so the opportunities to search the set of workable structures isn't worth discussing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Its likely that some scientist hold this particular position, but it does not seem to follow rules of science. Since the cause of the universe remains out of reach to scientific discovery at this time, science properly done is silent on the existence of a creator. However, contrary to your assertion, there actually is a fair amount of evidence that indicates the necessity of a creator for both the universe and life in it. Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the existence of this evidence.

The drop would cause condensation. You can confirm this by looking at the partial pressures of the various constituents of humid air. In general,one would have to have very low starting pressures (less than 1*10^-9 atm) in order to prevent condensation until near absolute zero.

You could, but it would be a circular argument since common ancestry is based on presupposition as opposed to established scientific fact. Common ancestry is an attractive narrative, but it is not established by the traditional rules of scientific discovery. If true, it would be a codependent series of historical singularities. Such things seem intractable to scientific discovery except perhaps by comparison to alternatives. Common ancestry is arrived at by noting similarities between organisms and ignoring or explaining away differences that don't fit the model. Humans are quite good at placing things in categories whether they fit or not. It can be a form of conformational bias. The idea of common ancestry does not seem to be falsifiable either. How would one go about falsifying the speculation? To be falsifiable there must be an alternative, either one that is still in play or ones that have been tested and falsified. If no alternatives have seriously been considered then the speculation is more likely a metaphysical belief as opposed to a scientific proposition. Is there any good reason why alternatives should not be considered? I think it is far better to acknowledge that we don't know and are still looking. To say it is almost certain implies knowledge we don't have.