Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.

The first law refers to a CLOSED or ADIABATIC SYSTEM. It says nothing about an open system. It also says nothing about infinity.

Closed systems have barrier walls - energy cannot come in or go out of the system. An open system is diffusive. It can be in contact with other open systems. There is no barrier wall.

Go get a physics book.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The first law refers to a CLOSED or ADIABATIC SYSTEM. It says nothing about an open system. It also says nothing about infinity.

Closed systems have barrier walls - energy cannot come in or go out of the system. An open system is diffusive. It can be in contact with other open systems. There is no barrier wall.

Yet you're implying that this energy came from another system... Any energy that would have came externally would also be subject to the same law that it had to have come from something. Something exists. Therefore something always existed. This always existent Being is the One you try to ignore by warping logic.

Go get a physics book.

Still not sure why you're hung up on me being illiterate, is it simply because I don't believe the same as you? Regardless, I would suggest Einstein and Infeld's "the evolution of physics". E=mc^2 indicates that all mass is super dense energy... more proof that mass/matter is not the root of existence.

a reply to: cooperton

Yet you're implying that this energy came from another system... Any energy that would have came externally would also be subject to the same law that it had to have come from something. Something exists. Therefore something always existed. This always existent Being is the One you try to ignore by warping logic.

Jeez man, go get a physics book.

a reply to: cooperton

Still not sure why you're hung up on me being illiterate, is it simply because I don't believe the same as you? Regardless, I would suggest Einstein and Infeld's "the evolution of physics". E=mc^2 indicates that all mass is super dense energy... more proof that mass/matter is not the root of existence.

It says nothing of the sort. Go get a physics book.

originally posted by: Phantom423

E=mc^2 does not mean mass is super dense energy. Go get a physics book.

Ugh, you are a lead weight.

E = mc^2
(Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.)

In other words, all mass is very dense energy.

for example, 1kg holds 90,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy


You blindly refuting this proven physical law just for the sake of disagreeing with me and calling me ignorant is a very psychological unhealthy habit you exhibit.

a reply to: cooperton

Go get a math book along with the physics book.

a reply to: cooperton

And stop eating all that dinosaur meat - it's loaded with hormones and bad stuff.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Go get a math book along with the physics book.

Ahh perfect, math. Another proof of intelligence in the universe. Surely we can all agree only intelligent beings create math! (unless you want to continue to purposefully befuddle simple logic?) all physical laws are proof of this Intelligence that uses mathematically predictable formulas to maintain the creation, i.e. gravity, thermodynamics, kinetics, etc. Mathematics is also Plato's main proof of absolute truth which was his notion of God.

Yet you will try to twist such simple logic because it disagrees with your theory that we came from meaninglessness.

a reply to: cooperton

Mathematics is not a crystal ball. Derivations suggest what might be. But until the equations are proven by experiment, they are nothing but a lot of numbers on a piece of paper. Think Einstein's theory of relativity.

That's why THEORETICAL physics is called THEORETICAL. Jeez, get a few books.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's why THEORETICAL physics is called THEORETICAL. Jeez, get a few books.

You're no lead weight, you're a Bohrium weight on Jupiter.

E = mc^2 is not theoretical, it is a law proven by countless experimentation:

Link

again, you are only disagreeing with this proven law because you don't want to face the reality of its conclusions

a reply to: cooperton

Mathematics is also Plato's main proof of absolute truth which was his notion of God.

Plato's argument was ontological, not mathematical. Look it up.

a reply to: cooperton

You might want to refer to the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Maybe you can figure something out. Not very hopeful, but......

Something that resembles a moral argument for God's existence, or at least an argument from value, can be found in the fourth of Thomas Aquinas's “Five Ways” (Aquinas 1265–1274, I, 1, 3). Aquinas there begins with the claim that among beings who possess such qualities as “good, true, and noble” there are gradations. Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble. In effect Aquinas is claiming that when we “grade” things in this way we are, at least implicitly, comparing them to some absolute standard. Aquinas believes this standard cannot be merely “ideal” or “hypothetical,” and thus this gradation is only possible if there is some being which has this quality to a “maximum” extent: “so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. Ii.” Aquinas goes on to affirm that this being which provides the standard is also the cause or explanation of the existence of these qualities, and such a cause must be God. Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers. For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home.

plato.stanford.edu...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You might want to refer to the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Maybe you can figure something out. Not very hopeful, but......

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if your superiority complex has totally taken over your body. Seriously, check your self, you act like anyone who disagrees with you is retarded.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Plato's argument was ontological, not mathematical. Look it up.

So you must not have read Plato. In Meno (sections 81E-85D), he uses a mathematical proof as a foundation for absolute truths and how we come to know them.

a reply to: cooperton

It was a geometry problem he posed to the boy. Not a proof of God(s).
Get a book.

a reply to: cooperton

The difference between a philosopher and a mathematician:

My aim here will be to argue that since both the method and the epistemological faculty used by the mathematician are distinct from those of the philosopher, then so too must be their objects. From a methodological standpoint, I will show that the mathematician uses the hypothetical method and travels downward from an hypothesis to a conclusion, the philosopher, on the other hand, uses the dialectical method to first travel upward from a

con't

hypothesis to a first principle and then travels downward from a first principle to a conclusion. I will further show that as a result of these methodological differences, from an epistemological standpoint, since their epistemic faculties are distinct so again must be their objects. Mathematical objects are to be taken as objects of thought and philosophical objects as objects of understanding (or, later, objects of knowledge). Bringing these two standpoints together, I will argue that mathematical objects, as things

philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Get a book.

I find it hilarious that someone starred your post that said:

Plato's argument was ontological, not mathematical. Look it up.

And then two posts later you admitted that Plato did use a mathematical proof.

It was a geometry problem he posed to the boy.

They also starred your post where you said E=mc^2 was theoretical, despite it being a proven law. The evolutionist train will star anything for another evolutionist, no matter how wrong it may be. Such is the nature of the cult, and the reason for its fraudulent perpetuity.

a reply to: cooperton

Read it again.

a reply to: cooperton

As this examination of the central tenets of Traditional Theism demonstrates, a challenge exists in the effort to integrate the worldviews of Traditional Theism and Platonism. In summary, Platonists contend that abstract objects are uncreated, whereas Traditional Theists argue that God created all reality; Platonists believe that abstract objects exist necessarily, whereas Traditional Theists contend that God alone is necessarily extant; Platonists propose that abstract objects are eternal, whereas Traditional Theists believe that God alone is eternal. With these contrasts in mind, we turn now to consider specific problems said to emerge from them.

www.iep.utm.edu...

The argument is about ABSTRACT objects. Numbers are abstract but can also be an object. Plato's discussion on the subject was NOT about a formula for proof of god. It was about differentiating between the abstract and the real.

So unless you can come up with an algorithm derived by Plato, his argument was strictly ontological. Thanks.

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong again:

The equation e=mc^2 is part of a theory, called the Theory of Special Relativity. The reason why it's called a theory is because in science, a theory is a body of statements or principles which have explanatory power. The equation is derived from certain key assumptions assumed to be true in Special Relativity, such as the speed of light is constant for all moving frames. A scientific law is a single statement or equation that's used as a starting point in the development of a more general theory. An example would be Newton's Law of Gravitation, which says that for any two bodies with mass, the force of attraction is proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance separating them. Unlike the equation, E = mc^2, it is not derived, but given as a posited statement. So, for these reasons, the equation E=mc^2 is neither a theory nor a scientific law.

a reply to: cooperton

Why don't you give up already.

^You lost the dinosaur bone argument
^You lost the C14 argument
^You lost the Plato argument
^You lost the e=mc2 argument

I know that you're desperate to get validation for your work, but from my point of view, and from the point of view of any professional scientist, it just isn't going to happen. Pick another topic. And this time, get some quality books and do some real research before you start writing.