sysvr4

The author of the series is apparently unfamiliar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Having some passing familiarity with the author of the article my guess would be that he is more familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and other aspects of quantum physics than you are. Feel free to prove me wrong and explain why and how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle invalidates the article. I have little interest in engaging in Ad Hominem debate. Sorry, I thought after your ad hominem comment about the author that it was something you were interested in. Ad hominem requires an argument be made against the person irrespective of their reasoning. I disagree with the content of the article and therefore question the author's knowledge of relevent subjects based on an objective observation. This is not ad hominem.

The author of the series is apparently unfamiliar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Having some passing familiarity with the author of the article my guess would be that he is more familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and other aspects of quantum physics than you are. Feel free to prove me wrong and explain why and how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle invalidates the article. I have little interest in engaging in Ad Hominem debate.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events." This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications.

Really? How are they insufficient? Following these rules has led to vaccinations, atom smashers, successfully landing man on the Moon and bringing him safely home, etc., etc., etc. So I'm not following your train of thought. Please explain. And what is the "large picture" you speak of? Thanks! The "large picture" is the multiverse. The macroscopically significant is insignificant relative to infinity.

The rules are a discovery to how things work, and they are used to conduct further experiments, sent satellites to other planets, and everything else scientists do. If the universe isn't ordered by these "rules" then none of these would work. Really, I don't see how one can argue that these "rules" are not there? It's not that the "rules" aren't there, it's that they are insufficient. They are a vey small part of a very large picture.

I am interested in your ideas regarding universal order and uniformity, if you could expound upon them further.

The Lord doesn't DO chaos....chaos is the purview of satan. Everything the Lord does is according to His plan. One cannot plan unpredictability?

No...you're looking at that logic from the perspective of a mortal. God isn't subject to the boundaries of our understanding. Indeed not. God is entitled to as chaotic a reality as He likes.

Allow me to explain the concept more simply: The mathematical model presented is an array of infinite scope and density, the values of which are implicitly random. This represents an infinite multiverse. Because the (matrix) of hypothetical values is so large, any patterns or apparent "logic" that one may observe are necessarily insignificant given the scope of the set. The point is thus: Intelligent design cannot be proven or even rationally implied based on random data.

I once heard a particularly religious mathematician speaking of the certainty of intelligent design, citing repetition of the apparently rational, predictable patterns observed in nature which, by definition, couldn't be created by the processes of arbitrary chaos. Consider the following: Imagine a hypothetical universe expressed as a multi-dimensional array, infinite in scope and density. Within the array patterns observed would necessarily be unpredictable, non-indicative anomalies of the scope of the array and therefore insignificant.

The author of the series is apparently unfamiliar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You know . . . making your case for there being no such thing as "indescribable" would be more fruitful if your word usage was a bit more describable themselves.... I'm sorry,but... what? It means reading your sentence was like reading: "All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous." Or I feel like the boy in the cap in the comic at the top of the page. Your analogy is misleading. I refrain from the use of unnecessarily obscure or arcane terminology.

Maybe by your standards, but who are you anyway...you only have breath in you nostrils? If you had any form of relationship with the Father you would fear what you post against Him. But then again, I am sure you were there when He laid the foundations of the earth? Or maybe you alone can do all things and no plan of yours can be thwarted? Or maybe by your reasoning you could explain how to call forth the dawn and set the stars in their places as well as calling them each by name? What are their names, surely you yourself are indescribable and can refute the will of the Father who is? You got nothing else to do today little buddy? I don't understand; the question was entirely secular in nature.

You know . . . making your case for there being no such thing as "indescribable" would be more fruitful if your word usage was a bit more describable themselves.... I'm sorry,but... what?

Is it possible for something to be indescribable? Surely it is more accurate to say that irrational presumptions of accuracy in traditional thought merely result in a lack of appropriate contemplation or research.

I agree, and that would be in line with the bible's aging too. Why do you agree that it would be in line with the Bible's aging? For that matter, what is the Bible's aging?

So. . .it took even longer for light from distant stars to reach earth? I'm not seeing how that helps a young earth view. When we talk about the speed of light we're talking about the value "c" which stands for the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course you can slow down light by passing it through a medium (although, technically the actual speed of photons doesn't change, they just spend a bit more time being absorbed and re-emitted by particles within that medium) but you can't speed light up past c. And yes, that's the same "c" which appears in E=mc^2 which means that if you increase the speed of light you increase the amount of energy released in subatomic reactions like nuclear decay. So if you increased the speed of light to a million times faster than its present speed (which would be necessary to get all that light from stars millions of light years away to earth within a few thousand years) you would increase the energy released from these reactions by a quadrillion times. Enjoy your molten earth. Indeed it doesn't help the young Earth argument. I am significantly in favor of the presumption of the infinite multiverse. The Earth may be billions of years old or may have developed in the previous microsecond, either way, it's all only superficially interesting to me.

Aside from the fact that every observable indicator shows the speed of light in a vacuum to be constant? I'd say the ramification on the energy output of stars is pretty drastic, not to mention devastating to life on earth, if you start tinkering with the speed of light

The view that the universe is old relies on things actually being what they look like - so light from distant stars, as an example, doesn't just look like it took hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to travel the distance between a star and our eyeballs but actually did take that much time to travel that far. So. . .unless god is trying to trick us and created a false history things actually are what they are. This concept can be applied equally to the age of the earth. why would you presume that light has always traveled at the same speed? This is actually a somewhat valid question; the macroscopic speed of light may be less than c, given various media.

Speaking in the strictest sense of the word "Christian" and referencing the Bible (KJV), the guarantee of salvation has nothing to do with denominations or doctrinal beliefs: Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Ask how one can prove anything beyond subjective truth.

Is gravity the force that drives the rotation? What is the reasoning that supports your assertion? Maybe "sustains" is a better word than "drives". Inertia is what keeps everything from suddenly slowing down, but gravity is what keeps objects in a spiral galaxy from just shooting off into space. The more mass you have the more gravity you generate, the bigger the effect. Obviously the center of a galaxy is going to generate more gravity because it has more mass, just like our sun generates more gravity than earth because it has more mass. In this sense gravity "drives" the motion of a spiral galaxy by keeping everything spinning. So, orbit?

Is gravity the force that drives the rotation? What is the reasoning that supports your assertion?

I guess that would depend on how it is used. In today's society, postmodernism, truth by those who are postmodern is held as relative, meaning that my truth is for me and your truth is for you, both are true to each of us, making it relative to who we are and what we believe. Wouldn't that necessarily exclude the "you" as a matter of purely subjective perception?

A spiral galaxy consists of a spiraling disc of dust, gas, and stars orbiting a central "bulge" with a much denser concentration of dust, gas, and stars. Galaxies are pretty much just clumped up groups of stuff and as more stuff clumps together it generates more gravity pulling more and more stuff in towards itself. The center of the a spiral galaxy contains a huge amount of material and, in some cases, possibly even a really big black hole. The gravity generated by all this mass "pulls" on the surrounding matter making it spin. Think of it as a glorified solar system. The AIG article you're quoting from is citing Russel Humphreys very problematic assertion that "Stars closer to the center of a spiral galaxy orbit the galaxy faster than stars farther away. Over many millions of years, the difference in orbital rates should wind the spiral tighter and tighter. We do not see any evidence for this in galaxies of different ages.