• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theory of Darwin is not local. What does it mean?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The ToE is associated with Darwin. Darwin demonstrated one of its major mechanisms. But biology has progressed far beyond Darwin's wildest imagination. Biology is not 'Darwinism' any more than astronomy is 'Copernicanism' or anatomy 'Galenism'.
"Darwinism" isn't a worldview, it's a mechanism.
Are we talking about evolution (change) or the origin of life?

I'm not following. "Non-creationism?" "Local theory?" "Luck?" You'll have to explain these. Natural selection, however, selects, it's not 'luck'.
Life appeared almost as soon as conditions on early Earth stabilized enough to support it, suggesting that it's pretty easily generated.

This is gobbledygook. I'm not following at all. You seem to be saying physics is unnatural and that magic is natural.
Please expand on this "non-creationism," "non-local theory" and "inertial physical systems."
How do you come to that conclusion? What biochemistry? We can't currently replicate the entire process, so the whole idea is absurd?
It wasn't that long ago that there were no flying machines. Did that make the idea of flight wrong?

And don't get me started on this ridiculous idea of invisible words and pictures flying through the air to far away receivers...:rolleyes:

Why must life be "born" fully fledged? We've seen various components of life emerge naturally. True, we have not yet seen something clearly 'alive' created. So what? The laboratory of early earth ran biillions of expriments daily. We've only tried a few. Yet you conclude the whole enterprise is impossible?

Life exists, so it's clearly possible. Are you seriously proposing that magic poofing is more believable than well known. observable chemical processes?
What's any of this have to do with Darwin?
You don't understand biology. Complexity doesn't necessarily increase survival chances. Simplicity has worked for billions of years, while most large, complex organisms that have ever existed are now extinct. Moreover, evolution doesn't necessarily increase complexity. Sometimes it simplifies.
The file is an anti science screed. It's nonsense. Where did you find it?
Is there some creationist in this section, who can give me like?
Your problem with me, that I do not like Darwin.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Conservation of Information and God
Dmitri Martila
Institute of Theoretical Physics, Tartu University,
4 Tähe Street, 51010 Tartu, Estonia∗
(Dated: April 17, 2020)
Abstract
This short note is written for the forum “ReligionForums”. It is argumented, that the Science
must co-operate with religion. Yes, there are many religions, but they share at least one truth, which is: “God’s Name is God.”
∗Electronic address: [email protected]

1
Common human got to know about conservation of information first hand from the problem. The problem was found by Dr. Steven Hawking. The problem was called “information loss paradox in Black Holes”. Yes, to my calculations, the Black Hole is really a hole in spacetime, so the event horizon is the edge of our reality, and falling matter [which carries information] simply vanishes into Absolute Nothing.

In Quantum Mechanics, the Law of Conservation of Information is known. The amount
of information that is recorded in the [wave function of the] nature does not change over time.

This means that all of Shakespeare’s poems could be read before the poet’s birth, if we were there with the necessary devices “readers of information”.
But if we had read his poems before Shakespeare’s birth, then we would have destroyed the poet by this act of reading, there would never have been such a Shakespeare with his poems. But then we would not be able to read this information about Shakespeare. Way out of this contradiction: we cannot read information about poems before the birth of the poet. So, the poet is the source of poems.

The amount of information that is available on the Internet and libraries exponentially
increases. Therefore, in addition to the purely natural law of conservation of information, there must be observers who are the source of information. Therefore, life with its DNA helix [the genetic code] could not have arisen without the participation of the Highest Observer– God. This means that the probability of Abiogenesis (it is the occurrence of life from inanimate matter without the participation of God or aliens) is exactly zero. This is stated by the established laws of our world.

And think for yourself, if you take 50 canned goods and pass a current of 1000 volts
through them for a second, you can be sure that no living biological cell is born in any
can [during one minute of experiment]. Therefore, the probability of abiogenesis (inside a tin can for a minute) is less than 1 out of 50. The same must be seen from Miller’s type experiments, where under the most favourable conditions during the century-long course of the experiments, the protein life did not arise; and the 120 year long experiments on colonies of rapidly replicating bacteria did not give any transition from one kind (bacteria) to another kind (hare, monkey, man, etc.) even under radiation. Therefore, the probability of Darwin’s Evolution Theory is exactly zero, judging by the laws and experiments.

Same tells us the absolute sterile cosmos: it is the Fermi Paradox. It is called a paradox,
2
because observed fact [no sign of life in cosmos] contradicts the Darwin’s magic. If Darwin’s Theory were in fact a theory and not a magic, then there would be no talk of miraculous luck to produce life [and no talk of Multiverse either], but there were be straightforward mechanism to produce life: we would be able to get a child from disordered mud by applying high voltage any time we need one.

Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say “Darwinian Theory of Evolution” but simply “Theory of Evolution”], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term “non-Creationism” below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it
so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: ”physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant”; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.
From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of
life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different “blocks of life”, but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least – there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates
organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.​

You did not show your math...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

izzy88

Active Member
Your problem remains what it has always been. To be blunt, you cannot put together anything but the simplest of sentences before your inability to write any thing longer or more complex in intelligible English betrays you.

For me, it is not a question of liking you or not. It is not a question of respecting you or not. It is not a question of agreeing with you or not, although, to be frank, I find very little, no matter the topic, to agree with you on. For me, it is primarily a growing unwillingness to be an accomplice in your assault on the English language.

I think it's pretty obvious that English is not this person's native language. Even if it was, though, you really don't come off well here.

Refute bad arguments all you want, but personal insults are just childish.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Your problem remains what it has always been. To be blunt, you cannot put together anything but the simplest of sentences before your inability to write any thing longer or more complex in intelligible English betrays you.

For me, it is not a question of liking you or not. It is not a question of respecting you or not. It is not a question of agreeing with you or not, although, to be frank, I find very little, no matter the topic, to agree with you on. For me, it is primarily a growing unwillingness to be an accomplice in your assault on the English language.
Was the speech of Messiah Jesus better one?
 

izzy88

Active Member
Thank you, brother in arms. Could you tell me some other forum, where the creationists are?

You're very welcome.

I'd check out Reddit, if you haven't yet. They have forums for pretty much everything, probably even one dedicated entirely to Eastern Orthodoxy.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

I read the article you linked. Did you?

First the article you submitted starts out wrong with this false statement!
" Yes, there are many religions, but they share at least one truth, which is: “God’s Name is God.”"

Then it just goes downhill.

"The amount of information that is available on the Internet and libraries exponentially increases. Therefore, in addition to the purely natural law of conservation of information, there must be observers who are the source of information. Therefore, life with its DNA helix [the genetic code] could not have arisen without the participation of the Highest Observer – God"
This is total nonsense. The process of Evolution created humans and then humans created god for everything they could not explain or control. Then people who do not take the time to understand the theory of evolution make false claims that only a "higher intelligence" (referencing a god that is human like in thinking) must have done it.

"This means that the probability of Abiogenesis (it is the occurrence of life from inanimate matter without the participation of God or aliens) is exactly zero. This is stated by the established laws of our world"
A statement by someone with a limited understanding of science and math. After mentioning quantum mechanics earlier the author should have known that the probability is not zero.

"And think for yourself, if you take 50 canned goods and pass a current of 1000 volts through them for a second, you can be sure that no living biological cell is born in any can [during one minute of experiment]."
I don't know what to say about this gibberish and absolutely know idea why the author said it.
"Therefore, the probability of abiogenesis (inside a tin can for a minute) is less than 1 out of 50"
Oh that made everything clearer.

"the 120 year long experiments on colonies of rapidly replicating bacteria did not give any transition from one kind (bacteria) to another kind (hare, monkey, man, etc.) even under radiation. Therefore, the probability of Darwin’s Evolution Theory is exactly zero, judging by the laws and experiments"
I must be behind the times but exactly who has conducted this 120 year long experiment on bacteria? Not sure what judging but the laws and experiments means but this authors arguments is the only think that adds up to zero.

"If Darwin’s Theory were in fact a theory and not a magic, then there would be no talk of miraculous luck to produce life [and no talk of Multiverse either], but there were be straightforward mechanism to produce life: we would be able to get a child from disordered mud by applying high voltage any time we need one."
Not sure what this person was smoking when they wrote this one but it is obvious the author has never read any of Darwin's books nor has a clue about the theory of evolution. His words speak for themselves about the authors ignorance.

"The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: ”physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant”; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes"
Somebody help me. I cannot understand the enough to even make a comment.

"there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable."
The author is now utterly confused. Someone should explain to the author that there is no Theory of Darwin it is called the Theory of Evolution.

Try finding an author that actually understands science much less the theory of evolution.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
"The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: ”physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant”; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes"
Somebody help me. I cannot understand the enough to even make a comment.
Thank you. Is it really the problem of mine, that my native language is not English? I think, my other problems are way bigger than my English skills. Look how Dr. Steven Hawking has written in "Grand Design": "because there are laws like gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing". Is Steven's idea more clear than my text?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is there some creationist in this section, who can give me like?
Your problem with me, that I do not like Darwin.
LOL! You don't like Darwin? What did Darwin ever do to you?

Seriously, though, what possible beef could you have with a 19th century naturalist?
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.

One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.

From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.

And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.

More in the file attached. Please read and comment.

Again, it is NOT the Theory of Evolution. It is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

Well before Darwin, there were a number of theories offered to the extent that life has the tendency to change, but this guy comes along and everyone pretends his theory came out of nowhere.

Evolution Theories Before Darwin

This proposal to label things as diametric extremes is ignorant. There are Christians that believe in what is know as Theistic Evolution, you know. You have an idea that you think is new, but actually came from centuries before.

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia

That idea is that religion and science have always been in conflict. That's nonsense. Read some history.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say ``Darwinian Theory of Evolution'' but simply ``Theory of Evolution''], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term ``non-Creationism'' below.
Abiogenesis is a unique and independent concept regarding the origination of life. Evolution is the changes in existing populations of living things over time and the theory of evolution explains the known evidence that describes those changes.

Darwin was not the first to propose a theory to explain evolution, but he was the first to publicize a mechanism. Additionally, he presented a large volume of evidence to support his argument. Since Darwin's time, much information has been accumulated and synthesized into the body of Darwin's original thesis.
One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: "physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant"; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.
You lost me here. I do not follow your point and am not sure what it is.
From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different ``blocks of life'', but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.
What is suitable for the origin of life? Are you claiming to know the conditions necessary for life to form?
And last, not least -- there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.
Increasing complexity is not a claim of the theory of evolution. Increasing complexity is a consequence of evolution and not a requirement. Parasites often exhibit a decrease in complexity compared to their ancestral origins.
More in the file attached. Please read and comment.
Sorry, I have yet to read it. Yet.
 

Double Fine

From parts unknown
Hello and Welcome. You still listening to Mike Batio and his amazing guitar skills?

OMG Another member of the old crew! How are ya, buddy?

Haha, oh yes, Batio. No, I am upset with them. A few years ago they supposedly reformed Nitro and got a few great guys together. In short, the new Nitro didn't land well for me. Yes, nobody can touch him with speed, but he needs a come-to-jesus moment with regards to not shredding all the time.

I am not leaving you empty handed, oh no. Let your boy hook you up to some tunes!

Cheers man, good to see ya

 
Top