Dennisg

Thanks people for your imput - its just a thought and not a perfect one at that

What is of interest to me is that this is a completely negative result – science is in effect denying the possibility of its own existence. There must be some significance to this that goes beyond petty issues.

Cool. Perhaps gravity is the memory that things have of being once one. Thanks for your reply but I don't think you get the point.

No. The existence of the universe is itself unscientific because it came into being though the appearance of incomprehensible amounts of energy and matter from nothing and nowhere. According to science matter must come from something – it cannot simply suddenly appear. If even a small amount of matter should likewise appear today science would be unable to explain it and it would be considered a miracle. The principles and laws of science cannot explain how matter can be created from nothing. But still science does not consider existence of the universe a miracle. The laws of physics that scientists believe in rule out the universe’s existence. Scientists believe in a system of thought that denies the very existence of the world they live in.

One point here is that the current definition breaks down with circles where d = planks length because r no longer exists.

This answer is based on the assumption that there is no limit to "smallness" Since the plank length is that limit then Euclidian geometry needs to be updated.

Please back this assertion with some evidence.

. Because of uncertainty at the plank scale it definitely couldn't be defined as a hexagon - a proto circle would be more apt. What this shows is that pi in not one mumber but depends an scale. At our scale the differences are so small the we cannot measure them. Hey don't rock the boat - you might fall off.

A circle with a diameter = 2plank lengths can have only 6 points that define its circumance. A straight line drawn through any of these points (tangent) will only intersect one point – therefore the line between any two points is curved. One can then can calculate the area of the “circle” by calculating the area of the 6 “triangles” and then calculate pi = A/r squared. not really - just pushing things.

You keep making that assertion but - for the love of Godel - based on what?

I wouldn't say that pi is "just one number" because at the plank lenght scale pi is close to 3.0 Having an absolute limit on how small things can get does change things - don't you think so?

This assumes that shape of the outside of the circle is perfectly round. While pi applies to space, seems to be independent to the number of dimensions, that is the pi of two dimensions is the same as the pi of three dimensions. This seems logical enough but it does some something about pi itself. What about pi in four dimensions – would the features of four dimensional space alter pi?

If Newton had devised a theory of Gravity that was partly wrong and as a result 100 million people lost their lives – then Newton would be responsible. The “Evolutionary” ideas of survival of the fittest and chance have indeed led to the loss of at least 100 million lives. But somehow evolutionists are careful not to take any responsibility. They can’t be blamed for gravity and so they can’t be blamed to what they got wrong about evolution. Frankly this kind of reasoning disgusts me.

Gravity is not a social world view - evolution is.

God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.' Gen 3:3 As you can see it does say what I said it said.

As Maggie used to say "There are no popluations only individuals". God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.' Please don't pretend to be an expert. In the future prehaps you will be explaining your ideas to them. My main point really is that Darwin's idea of transformation was a really good one. But his ideas of "survival of the fittest" and "chance" were bad and have produced many negative social outcomes. Mature people should be able to discuss these sorts of things and take responsibility for mistakes.

I guess I would go for the old 2% inspiration and 98% sweat formula. At some point Darwin had an “eureka!” moment and things jelled. Many innovations can be traced to some kind of inspiration. Experience tends to confirm our prejudices because of our human bias. Revelation is like a thunder bolt out of the blues that blows us out of the rut that we are in and opens new possibilities to our thinking.

iNow you are reacting to what you don't like in my posts - I really am not here to argue. Exactly right - these are, for me, interesting ideas - worth thinking about and further investigation. I think that Evolution today is science but . . . . according to Godel’s incompleteness theorems, science is not reality. Simply put its like “reality” is a curved line and we as humans can only think in straight lines. At best our theories are tangent to reality for a period of time and then digress as new information is uncovered. Rational human thought is sequential and pretty much follows a straight line. Reality is sometimes non sequential and often follows a curved line. Because of the limitations with our thinking theories that are closest to reality are counterintuitive to our minds – Quantum Mechanics is an example of this. Compared to Quantum Mechanics the Theory of Evolution is a pretty easy pill to swallow – which all by itself raises some doubts about it. In 150 years people will view today's evolution just as we view Darwin's today This question is off topic but please allow me to respond to it in passing. While Jesus had no children he is the transforming agent when people become Christians. This makes him by far the most successful person to have changed the identity of humanity. When someone becomes a Christian they are embarking on a process of being born again. Billions of people have done just this. And so from Darwin's point of view Jesus would be the prototype of the new man.

______________ I'm not worried. What I find really interesting is the parts of the Christian idea of transformation that Darwin left alone has led to real discovery. The parts that he meddled with ie "God" and "survival of the fittest" form the basis for some very negative social dogmas. The world would be better if he hadn't made these changes. Eugenics For more details on this topic, see Eugenics. Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869.[141] In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian.[142] Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates.[143] In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics.[144] In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws,[145] then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.[V] Social Darwinism For more details on this topic, see Social Darwinism. The ideas of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer which applied ideas of evolution and “survival of the fittest” to societies, nations and businesses became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, and were used to defend various, sometimes contradictory, ideological perspectives including laissez-faire economics,[146] colonialism,[147] racism and imperialism.[147] The term “Social Darwinism” originated around the 1890s, but became popular as a derogatory term in the 1940s with Richard Hofstadter’s critique of laissez-faire conservatism.[148] The concepts predate Darwin’s publication of the Origin in 1859:[147][149] Malthus died in 1834[150] and Spencer published his books on economics in 1851 and on evolution in 1855.[151] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature,[152] and that sympathy should be extended to all races and nations.[153][VI]

Basically, the idea is that Darwin’s theory was culturally bounded. Both Darwin’s theory and Christianity are about the transformation of one species into another. For Christianity it is the creation of the new man. Darwin’s scenario begins with one member being different at birth. This follows Christianity as Jesus was different – being conceived by the Holy Spirit. In Evolution this “mutation” gives the individual an advantage in survival. Having been raised from the dead proves that Jesus was a survivor. Finally in evolution members of a species are not like this new individual may become “extinct”. This too follows the Christianity in that those who do not accept Jesus are lost. Please note that none of these ideas are self evident in the natural world. They are read into it by Darwin’s preconceived ideas. Evolution is Christianity in disguise. It is Christianity without God and with the survival of the fittest in place of the redemption of the unfit. Darwin’s “evolution” wasn’t a new idea or a revelation he just took from what he knew and changed it to suit himself and applied it to the natural world.

No because there is no evidence that Darwin was influenced by Islamic thought patterns. Darwin trained for the Christain ministry his subconscious would have these structures inbeded.

What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution? Darwin got some of his information from observations – but he did not observe evolution. The observations that Darwin made had many gaps. And when there are gaps then something known as the “Closure Principle” kicks into action. The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it. In the case of Darwin the familiar pattern was that of Christianity. One of the problems that Darwin had was there wasn’t any mathematical framework to test his overall theory and to toy around with to test other possibilities. The problem with basing a theory on observations without a mathematical foundation can be seen by doing the following thought experiment: Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine has features that are not present on the real cup. And the real cup has features that are not present on the cup I imagine. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation. Observations always leave gaps and the unconscious mind always fills those gaps to make sense of the world. In Darwin’s case the gaps were many and large and he filled them with the Christian scenario.

Evolution like many stories follows a variation of the “Redeemer Scenario” - which is the most prevalent archtypes in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted and don't even notice it. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. In Darwin's thought it is the changed member that leads the way to survival.

Sorry, but for me the topic here is "Where did Darwin Get His Ideas" and then perhaps to a much lesser extent what evolution is today. My point is that Darwin built his theory on a Christian Framework. I would guess that he did this unconsciously. His basic theory follows the Christian or “redeemer” scenario with a few changes as noted above.

I would disagree based on the number of political movements that have risen up from Darwin's thinking. This is not true of gravity of relativity.