An Ether-Based Creation Model

My question is which Star Trek series you had worked on as Techno-Babble Specialist.At least starting with TNG, when screenwriters wrote scripts for a Star Trek episodes, they would mark up the script with the places for the techno-babble specialist to insert the appropriate techno-babble.They did a good job of it. As an engineer, I found that I could follow the engineering techno-babble and it made sense or was at least coherent. My dermatologist was a sci-fi fan so I asked her about their medical techno-babble and she attested to its quality. Even though they did play far too fast-and-loose with DNA.Better than always saying "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow".Edited by dwise1, : punctuation correction

Well, we are still in the ZOOMbie Apocalypse.

Time to brush the dust off this bit of haggadah (ie, teaching by telling a story):

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

​

(reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)

---

 
An example of the difference between hand-waving and doing the math is arch-creationist Kent Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim:

quote:

---

All you got to do is step outside and look up. Obviously the Sun is burning. It's losing 5 million tons every second. You can't just keep losing 5 million tons a second, pretty soon you start to lose weight. And so the Sun is losing this mass -- 5 million tons every second -- which means it used to be larger. And it used to be more massive. If you increase the mass of the Sun, going backwards in time for several billion years, you start to create a problem with the gravitational balance between the earth and the Sun. It's going to suck the earth in and destroy everything.

---

But if you do the math, you get entirely different results than from Mr. Hovind's hand-waving. The total amount of mass lost, while being astronomical (7.88923×10²³ tonnes), is only 1/10,000th the total mass of the sun (1.98855×10²⁷ tonnes), which is a few hundredths of one percent. If we were to replace that lost mass to arrive at the mass of the ancient sun 5 billion years ago, the solar gravity then would be so minimally greater that it would have "sucked the earth in" by only about 40,000 miles and would have had no noticeable effect on the sun's size.BTW, in later videos Kent Hovind is seen admonishing his audience to never do the math nor listen to anyone who has done the math. Three guesses why. Do the math!

On CompuServe around 1990 I knew the only honest YEC I know of, Merle. Instead of pulling all those dishonest tricks, he would actually try to answer questions. Including doing the research needed to answer those questions honestly. Within a year he was no longer on the YEC side but rather was arguing against YEC claims. Hence my contention that honest creationists do no last long.In his own account, it was the university library that turned him. While researching a creationist claim that transitional fossils do not exist, he found himself staring at aisle after aisle of scientific journals filled with detailed descriptions of one transitional fossil after another after another, etc. From his Did we evolve?:

quote:

---

Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

​

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

​

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

​

. . .

​

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

​

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

​

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.

---

There's lots more to Merle's account, including meeting Jim who tried to lead him into ID. Merle found that ID didn't work either. 
To quote Jewish wisdom from "Sayings of the Fathers" (Pirke Avoth):

quote:

---

The more learning, the more life.

---

The classic cartoon shows a scientist reviewing another scientist's work on the chalk board. On the left are the premises and on the left are the results, but in the middle it just says in large letters: "Something happens."The reviewer suggests: "I think that part needs to be developed more." (or "That part needs more work." ... it's been more than 3 decades since I last saw it)

It's like my Lindy Hop instructor pointed out to us while we were watching a video of Al and Leon doing their version of the Shim Sham. The footwork is the most important part of that kind of dancing, but at one point one of them starts doing jazz hands. Our instructor told us he was doing that to distract the audience away from watching his feet because he was messing up his footwork.In science and engineering (my old job), the details and the math are the most important part. Instead, the pseudoscience and quasiscience crowds give us a lot of handwaving, their attempts to cover up the fact that they haven't worked out any of the details nor done the math yet ... and very likely will never be able to. In the case of Kent Hovind, his handwaving includes explicitly forbidding his audience to ever do the math or listen to anyone who has done the math (in ref to his solar mass loss claim). 
ABE:
Not the video we were watching, but here's Al & Leon doing their Shim Sham: Edited by dwise1, : ABE

The old not-using-https trick! Third time we've fallen for it this month!That cartoon's site is not secure and so is rejected by this forum's software. If anyone is interested, they can click on that link I just created in the qs box. It's the decades-old classic contrasting the Scientific Method and the Creationist Method:
Science teacher: "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?"
Creationist: "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?" The way that we often describe how something works is by personifying it, anthropomorphizing. Basically, we create a kind of metaphor for the process in question. Like describing how water always tries to seek its own level. The water is not actually trying anything, but that metaphor still serves to describe and teach about what's happening.The point is that using such metaphors can be useful, but we must always keep in mind that what those metaphors seem to imply, that natural processes would have human motivations, is not true. We make use of the metaphors while keeping mind that we must not carry them too far. The same with analogies, only much more so.The problem is when someone uses such metaphors to develop an idea without doing the necessary work (AKA "without doing the math"). The danger with that is the strong likelihood of leading oneself astray.It can be a fine line and one in which it can be difficult to tell if the other person has fallen for it or not.

Yes, because that was all answered CENTURIES AGO in CALCULUS!!! Newton (Sir Isaac, One Each), late 1600's, who basically invented Calculus in order to properly explain what he was learning about how the universe actually worked.You don't even know any CALCULUS? You have no clue whatsoever what an actual singularity is? And you have the hubris to pontificate to US about it?What a complete farking icehole you are! (Quick! Name that movie! It's your only chance at Redemption.)The ultimate mathematical singularity (since you are parading about the name of mathematics while knowing ABSOLUTE NOTHING ABOUT IT!) is division by zero -- there's even a t-shirt: "It's all fun and games until somebody divides by zero." Practically ALL of calculus centers around what happens NOT at the point of dividing by zero, but rather analyzing what happens AS YOU APPROACH DIVIDING BY ZERO. That's called "limits" the most boring yet fundamental part of learning Calculus. THAT is paradoxically when mathematics starts to get really interesting. My father-in-law with a BS in Math would say that you don't even begin to learn any math until you have learned Calculus. So obviously YOU (personally) have never learned any math, so whoever died and made YOU the Pontiff of Mathematics? 
So then to your fake argument about "t=0". That's like dividing by zero. A non-argument that is meaningless, like any argument about any singularity.But rather, what happens as you approach that singularity? -- BTW, what happens as you approach a singularity from the left of from the right can be very different -- but then your intellect is already far too challenged. Oh, that can be so very meaningful.But you wipe away any meaningful discussion by focusing solely on the singularity itself instead of what happens as you approach that singularity.What a farking icehole you reveal yourself to be!Edited by dwise1, : Further ellucidation for the terminally and willfully studid

My primary concern is for the truth. I always try to speak the truth regardless of my degree of drunkenness (I offer apologies all around for all such transgressions). My intent is always towards the actual facts.It is normally the ideas, not the person that must be addressed. But when the person himself is at fault, then, yes, it sadly must become about the person. A huge problem with any attempt at "marrying science and religion/Bible" which requires a view of religion and the Bible which agrees with reality (reality being the science part) is that reality must always have the final word in the matter. If your only purpose is to subvert science in favor of sectarian religious beliefs that are so clearly contrary to fact (which is the only purpose of so many creationists and "apologists"), then do please kindly FUCK THE FUCK OFF, YOU FUCKIING IDIOTS!!!!Viewed properly, there is absolutely no conflict between evolution and belief in God as the Creator. None whatsoever. The "creation/evolution controversy" exists only within the creationist mind (if I may speak so broadly as to endow them with the power of thought).If you disagree, then do please explain it to me. That is something that I've never seen happen. Ever. Edited by dwise1, : a bit more clarification and exposition in the second part

They have an Oracle now? I thought that was just in database systems.By analogy, look at one of the Republican idiots in Congress. He brought in a snowball as "proof" that there's no such thing as Global Warming. Such a complete and total idiot! Who does he have to tie his shoes every morning?What an entire overall system does is not necessarily reflected on all levels within that system.For example, in cooking we make heavy use of phase changes. You're boiling something in water. What is its temperature? 100°C (212°F for the slow ones). The boiling point of water. Pump more heat into that system and it doesn't get any hotter, but rather it just boils away faster. Same thing with the other very common phase change, ice water. As long as there's still ice in that water, it won't get any warmer but rather will stay at the freezing point of water.BTW, that's why you have to measure the temperature of the oil you're deep frying with, because oil's boiling point is much higher so you cannot use it. That's also why you have to be so careful when distilling booze: the poisonous alcohol boils off before the potable alcohol does, so you make sure to not plug in that hose until it smells right (saw that on "Chug" regarding making Schnapps, which is no longer on Netflix). That is also why the sun is only "burning hydrogen", because its core is being kept at the temperature for hydrogen fusion and cannot yet creep up to the temperatures needed for helium fusion.But if you stick a thermometer into ice water, you will most likely not read 0°C (again, 32°F for the unenlightened) but rather something a bit higher. What the entire system is doing is not found faithfully replicated at all levels. While the entire system of that container of ice water remains at the freezing point of water, there are still localized isolated pockets of water which are doing their own thing. That is why when you are doing that experiment you need to keep stirring the ice water (boiling water tends to stir itself). That is also why a calorimeter (burns food stuffs to measure how many calories they contain based on how much that raises the temperature of water) includes some way to keep mixing the water being measured.Similarly we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics which creationist infamously get wrong all the time (when Drs Gish and Henry Morris spoke at the USGS in the early 70's, most of the conversations afterwards were the actual scientists trying to explain to G&M what they didn't understand about thermodynamics -- Never say that creationists never learn, because Gish & Morris did learn to never ever talk with any scientists again). While the entropy of a closed system does increase overall, there are still localized open systems within that overall closed system where entropy decreases. None of which disproves thermodynamics in the least.So while the universe as a whole is expanding, you will still experience localized collisions due to gravitation and other causes. No cause for any confusion unless you're a mindless literalist.

We need to cut him a bit of slack for not having skedaddled yet. Without an internet protocol for transmitting smell, he can't hear the tar being heated up (I'm not sure whether one could catch the smell of the feathers, but the smell of the hot tar should be unmistakable).

But isn't the ultimate solution to reverse the polarity of the neutron stream?

And above all, ye canna' mix matter and antimatter cold.

Whom are you going to trust with this stuff? An MD or the Doctor?

Oh, he's advanced it far beyond that point. He's up to multiplying and dividing by one, AKA "unity." The only reason he's stuck there is because he cannot figure out how to expand "unity" into massive quantities of word salad.