Remember
Scientism is a faith-based belief system
answer to the ultimate question:
Ethan Siegel Big Think 08/16/25
"Questions about our origins, biologically, chemically, and cosmically, are the most profound ones we can ask. Here are today’s best answers."
"For countless generations, these questions powered the thoughts of poets, philosophers, and theologians,
but today, we have meaningful answers provided by our scientific endeavors. Although there are still gaps in what we know,
and plenty of room for surprises, we’ve come incredibly far in pursuit of the answers to the ultimate questions. Here’s where we are today."
"For millennia, we had only stories
to be our guide:
mythologies
and untested,
unsubstantiated ideas
that sprung forth
from human imagination."
(Opps, Remember that, as it will most certainly
come back and bite Mr Seigel in the ass here in a few.)
"However, the enterprise of science has, for the first time in the history of our species, brought to us compelling, fact-based answers to many of these questions that enable us to make sense not just of nature, but of the story for how we came to be. Biologically, chemically, and physically,
(There are simply no:
"Biological, chemical
or physical" processes
that generate the information
we know that life requires.
Opps agian Ethan).
"advances in the 19th, 20th, and now 21st centuries have enabled us to weave together a rich tapestry that finally answers the question so many of us have wondered for so long: “Where do we come from?”
(Ethan?
Dude?
Are they just making you
write these these days?
See:
Thursday, July 31, 2025
07/29/25
Not even close to:
"finally answers the question...
“Where do we come from?”
as the information
we know is needed for life
is in no way explained by science.
Neither its creation
nor its implementation
into every cell
of every living thing
(That processes oxygen,
kinda a requirement yo.)
that has ever existed
the only place we know of
that has life.
"Here’s where we are today, right up to the frontiers of what’s currently known."
"Biologically, we are the descendants of a continuous,
unbroken chain of organisms
that go back approximately four billion years."
(They just make shit up!
And then have the nerve to talk about:
"untested,
unsubstantiated ideas
that sprung forth
from human imagination"
??????????
Like what?
"Biologically, we are the descendants of a continuous,
unbroken chain of organisms
that go back approximately four billion years."
That statement so blatantly
contradicts the fossil record
as to be considered ridiculous.
So Ethan?
(And I do love ya, I really do)
but here we go again my brother,
same response as last time:
Thursday, July 31, 2025
Absolute falsehood #1
and the Big Bloom discredits that,
Reference:
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Dangerous False Prophet Alert #3
These people are on the defensive these days
and for obvious reasons.
Maybe they should take their own advice:
"YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THE WORLD
BY BEING AN EXTREMEIST."
THIS is what the fossil record shows:
And its not just the
Cambrian explosion,
its the "Big Bloom"
"There were two similar explosions in the evolution of land plants: after a cryptic history beginning about 450 million years ago, land plants underwent a uniquely rapid adaptive radiation during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago. Furthermore, angiosperms (flowering plants) originated and rapidly diversified during the Cretaceous period.
(Big Bloom")
and the mammalian radiation as well.
"Perhaps the most familiar example of an evolutionary radiation is that of placental mammals immediately after the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous, about 66 million years ago. At that time, the placental mammals were mostly small, insect-eating animals similar in size and shape to modern shrews. By the Eocene (58–37 million years ago), they had evolved into such diverse forms as bats, whales, and horses.
Other familiar radiations include the Avalon Explosion, the Cambrian Explosion, the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event, the Carboniferous-Earliest Permian Biodiversification Event, the Mesozoic–Cenozoic Radiation, the radiation of land plants after their colonisation of land, the Cretaceous radiation of angiosperms, and the diversification of insects, a radiation that has continued almost unabated since the Devonian, 400 million years ago."
These all happened
very abruptly
(by geologic standards)
and with no fossil record
leading up to them.
So how is this:
IT'S NOT EVEN WITHIN THE RANGE
OF BEING POSSIBLE
LIKE IT IS BEING PRESENTED
IN THIS ARTICLE.
"For millennia, we had only stories to be our guide: mythologies and untested, unsubstantiated ideas that sprung forth from human imagination."
I told ya it was gonna bite him in the ass :-)
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.)
"You are the child of your parents: a genetic mother and father, each of whom contributed 50% of your genetic material.
That genetic material contains an enormous amount of information within it,
telling your body what proteins and enzymes to produce, how to configure them together, and where and when to activate a variety of responses."
(Ethan?
Yu are not a Biologist.
I dont go to a plumber to get my beard trimmed.
How about we let the biologist
blab about life's beginnings
instead of a Cosmologist huh?
What would be the harm?
You see boys and girls
Biologist don't get excited
about exoplanets!
And its for a reason!
Because they know how difficult it is to produce life,
since they are the ones trying to recreate it in the lab
and just cant.
Ethan and his ilk?
Are still stuck in the out dated mindset
their faith-based belief system
imposes on them apparently.
Here is what Ethan or most biologist
will not tell you:
Information theory
DEMANDS
that information always comes
from an out side source.
Always.
No exceptions.
Do you really think Ethan Seigel
and others don't know this?
Or are they not telling you
what they know on purpose
to promote an agenda?
Which option seems more likely?
Hard drives don't put the computer operating system on themselves.
Paper doesn't pick up a pencil and just start writing things down.
Or chalkboards do the same with chalk.
Or palettes with paintbrushes
or cave paintings pick up
whatever they were made with.
It doesn't ever happen.
EVER.
ANYWHERE.
Okay?
So information always comes from
an outside source.
Also?
It is never the result of a random process.
NEVER.
It is always the result of a sentient, conscious intellect,
a brain has to pre-plan it, organize it, and systemize it.
Try conveying a message to somebody
(information)
without pre-planning it, organizing it, and systemizing it.
You cant do it.
Why?
Because randomness
and information
are 100% exact opposites.
And these brainiacs just can not or will not get it through their heads, that all life
(till proven otherwise)
requires information
therefore, it can not ever be
the result of a random process.
If you don't have the information?
Then you will never have the:
"telling your body what proteins and enzymes to produce, how to configure them together, and where and when to activate a variety of responses"
and therefore you will never have life.
Its pretty simple,
INFORAMTION
is the most necessary
of all the components of life
and it can never be
the result of random processes
chemical, biological,
physical, geological etc.
You can have every a bazillion earths
with just the right conditions
and if you don't have the information from an outside source?
A brain? That can, pre-plan, pre-organize etc?
Then no life.
It is really that simple,
no matter what these cult memebers say.)
"Your genetics explains nearly everything about your body, from your eye color to the types of red blood cells you produce to whether you have a deviated septum in your nose or not. Your mother and father, in turn, are descended from their genetic parents — your grandparents — who were in turn descended from your great-grandparents, and so on."
(Hey?
Ethan? Buddy?
We know
life comes from life.
Its so simple.)
"It turns out that as we go back, and back, and back still further, we find that organisms change over very long periods of time, evolving in the process."
(Simply put?
There isn't enough time
for all the complexity we see
to develop.
So sorry, try again.
Ethan dude?
Get a biologist for a friend or something
cause its just to easy to sit here
and rip apart everything you are saying.
This is straight up dogma from your cult not:
"meaningful answers provided by our scientific endeavors"
to quote our own words earlier.)
"This evolution is driven by
a combination of random mutations and natural selection,..."
That is the very definition of Neo-darwinism
and the biologist have already
largely abandoned that (along with Darwinism obviously)
in favor of
Extended Evolutionary synthesis.
Apparently the cosmologist didnt get the memo.
One of these days they are going to figure it out:
Information is the opposite
of randomness. Therefore
life cant be created by random processes.
Also?
Mutations continued over a period of time destroy life,
not adapt it and
"a combination of random mutations and natural selection"
never produces enough...
drum roll please...
INFORMATION
to create new life.
Seriously dude, find a biologist friend on social media or something cause if you keep putting this nonsense out here?
Im just gonna keep just annihilating it.
But in the mean time?
Thanks for letting me enlighten a lot of people on the way!)
"where the organisms that are most fit for survival, and most adaptable to the changes that occur in their conditions and environment, are the ones who aren’t selected against, and whose lineages continue."
No problem with
adaptation through natural selection
that we can observe,
its when you start trying to say that
it can create new life
is where the problem is.)
"But at some point, back in the environment of our newly formed planet, we weren’t teeming with life at all. At some point, a living organism emerged on Earth for the first time. It’s possible that an outside-the-box idea, panspermia, is correct, and that the life that exists here on Earth was brought here, cosmically, from some elsewhere in space where life arose naturally from non-life."
(All panspermia does is move the problem of the information that is needed for life to a different location, and then somehow it has to get on a comet or an asteroid, or a piece of dust somehow, survive the harsh conditions of space, (radiation, solar winds, extreme temps), then survive entry through our atmosphere, survive an impact somehow and then all life we see comes from that?
YOU GOTTA BE AS STUPID AS THE ROCKS
YOU ARE SAYING LIFE COULD COME FROM
TO BELEIEVE THAT NONSENSE.
"For millennia, we had only stories to be our guide: mythologies and untested, unsubstantiated ideas that sprung forth from human imagination."
I told ya it was gonna bite him in the ass :-)
The only reason panspermia is even a thing is because the guy that found the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, knew that there was to much information in it to have occurred naturally, he knew that much information had to have come from a form of intelligence and being an atheist? He just made that shit up as a work around.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going." Francis Crick, Life Itself, p 88.
And you are going to present panspermia here as:
"possibly correct".
Adhere to the dogma of your cult much?)
"Nevertheless, at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge from non-life."
Thats the one statement
that just crawled under my skin,
Thats the whole reason
for this stern rebuttal.
Ethan?
You wanna talk about:
"For millennia, we had only stories to be our guide: mythologies and untested, unsubstantiated ideas that sprung forth from human imagination."
??????????
Then how bout we apply that statement to:
"Nevertheless, at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge from non-life."
??????????
Where is the evidence?
This is supposed to be science right?
"today, we have meaningful answers
provided by our scientific endeavors."
Where is the observation then?
Who ever saw it?
Who ever measured it?
And
here is one that just throws em all
kinds of out of kilter:
Well then, if that is the case?
Then why aren't we seeing it
just repeat over and over?
Thats not even an answer,
let alone a scientific one.
Here is what my
(and everybody else who has ever lived)
"scientific endeavors"
based on
HUMANITYS
combined
experience and observation says:
"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE."
It is all everybody
who has ever lived
has ever seen
or experienced.
So I got all of humanity's combined observations
and experiences to support what I am saying.
What evidence or observation
do you have that supports:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge
from non-life"
????????????
Nothin.
Not one single thread of evidence to point to.
Zilch, nada, nothing.
All of humanity's combined observations and experiences
vs.
NOTHING
and you wanna blab about:
"today, we have meaningful answers
provided by our scientific endeavors"
and
"For millennia, we had only stories to be our guide: mythologies and untested, unsubstantiated ideas that sprung forth from human imagination."
Ethan buddy?
Stick to studding the starts
cause this is nothing but worthless drivel and will be continuously exposed as such and like I said earlier, thanks for the opportunity to do so so that others might be informed.
"MORE YET!" :-).
You bet there is more.
We got more historical evidence
first hand witnesses, written accounts
some even outside the bible
(Josephus etc)
of a man being resurrected from the dead
2000 years ago in Judea
than you got for:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge
from non-life"
and again
you have the nerve to contend:
"we have meaningful answers
provided by our scientific endeavors"
Well, where are they at?
Cause:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge from non-life"
aint based on any of
"our scientific endeavors"
But is rather the product of a
faulty, cultic, elitist belief system
whos time is clearly up.
Dont try and disguise your religion
as science and force it down others throats
cause it aint even close.
I honestly cant believe
you are still writing this garbage.
Were gonna have middle schoolers
debunking this nonsense here in a minute
that is how easy it is to do.
And?
"MORE YET!" :-).
Lets just say:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge
from non-life"
that its true.
Lets just say that is correct.
Two questions:
1) What created the information
we know is needed for life?
2) What was the mechanism by which it put itself into every living thing that has processed oxygen the only place we know has life.
I aint fuckin done either,
you gonna keep writing nonsense?
Im just gonna keep ripping it to shreds:
Another question,
and I love this one,
talk about throwing them for a loop,
How did all
all decide together
all at once to make life?
(Thats an original thought BTW
given to me
by the Holy Spirit
just for the express purpose
of debunking this garbage.
I love it,
they aint ready for that,
not at all.)
Checkmate.
Thanks for coming.
Drive home safely.
Just like with the example given about information 17 different quantum fields all working together at the same exact time could not be a random process
GET OUT OF THE CULT
OR ITS GOING TO COST YOU
YOUR SOULS ETERNITY.
You can not make what you are saying
(any of em, not just Ethan)
make any sense.
Not logically, scientifically, or evidentiary.
So I reiterate:
CHECKMATE!)
"It is presently unknown exactly how that happened, and what came first:
the structure of the cell, separating a potential organism’s insides from the outside environment,
(Oh that's a good one
How did that happen?
How did the cell
on its own
during it's
"evolution"
from whatever it "evolved" from,
how did it know,
and it would have had
to have known
ahead of time somehow
what to keep in
and what to let out?
Cell membranes got brains do they?
Interesting.
Biologist cant even answer that.
No clue.
None, nada, zero.
Never heard of anybody writing a paper
about the evolution of the cell membrane.
I got a postulate about that,
and notice I didnt call it a theory.
The reason nobody is researching the "evolution" of a cell membrane is because its a foregone conclusion it will never be figured out, kinda like the source of the genetic information and the process by which it gets into the cell. Same exact thing.
Ethan buddy?
Look at your world.
I hope you make a wise
informed choice here soon
about your souls conscious energy.
Because its gonna reside somewhere
eternally.
(Unless your creator destroys it.)
"a string of nucleic acids
that encoded information,
enabling reproduction,"
But the acids don't create the information.
That always has to come from an outside source,
so where did it come from?
And how did it get there?)
"Although we aren’t certain of the pathway
that it took, life did emerge from raw,
non-living ingredients in the distant past."
Thats just not science.
Thats what the cult members of scientism
have passed down as science, but there is not a single shred of scientific evidence supporting that assertion.
NONE.
IT IS INDICATIVE
OF THE CENTRAL DOGMA
OF SCIENTISM:
"ANYTHING BUT GOD."
That simply dismisses
what all of humanity
has ever seen and experienced
which is:
"Life always comes
from things that are
already living."
Every single cell
that has ever existed
came from another cell.
Let that sink in for a minute
So what you are saying is just not based of the scientific evidence we have, and is in fact based on
"A faith based belief system"
Well let me tell ya something Ethan Siegel,
my faith based belief system about a man dying on a cross and being resurrected because he was the human embodiment of the owner of the life force
has far more evidence supporting it
than yours does sir.)
"Asserting that a “divine spark” is needed for life to arise is a classic “God-of-the-gaps” argument,
much?
No it is not,
its based on what every single person
who has ever lived
has seen and experienced
"life comes from life"
so where is the gap?)
"but asserting that we know exactly how life arose from non-life is also a fallacy."
(It simply cant.
Thats why there is no evidence for it.
None.
It didn't.
It doesn't.
Because it cant.
Things that aren't living
simply can not produce
the information needed
for life.
I aint even gonna get started
about intellectual capacity etc.)
Im telling ya, fifth graders
are gonna be spouting this off
here before to long.
This is what I want taught in Sunday school.
Seriously.
These people with this nonsense are a doomed bunch of ass-clowns. Better recognize this crap dont add up to didly squat or go straight to hell forever, your choice, but you are not making any sense at all Ethan and you are most definitely not providing
"meaningful answers
provided by our scientific endeavors"
but rather are espousing a faith based belief system that there is simply
no scientific evidence for.
NONE.
Where is the evidence?
"Well it just has to ne this way
cause there cant be a God."
Hardly qualifies as science.
And I know you know that.)
"Therefore, chemically, at some point in the past, whether on Earth or elsewhere, a metabolism-having, replicating organism emerged, creating an origin point for life."
(Dude?
Take some biology classes.
No chemical processes
create enough information
on their own
to create new life.
Every cell that has ever existed
on this earth
is the direct result
of a previous cell.
See how hard that was?
And that is what
"scientific observation"
shows us.
You and your ilk
are just making crap.
Its complete nonsense.
Science contradicts it
and we see right through it.
You wouldnt be writing this
if the walls weren't closing in
on this erroneous, not factually,
or evidentiary based
belief system of scientism.)
"the diverse forms of life emerged from a chaotic process that would not be exactly repeated even if we rewound and re-ran the clock trillions of times."
(Chaos, does not and in fact can not create the information needed for life. Information is never the result of a chaotic process, it is always organized and pre-planned.)
"Once Earth was created, life emerged on it shortly thereafter. Whether it was rooted in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA), or a peptide-based nucleic acid (PNA), at some point in the past, a molecule formed that encoded the production of a protein or enzyme that could metabolize energy, and that was capable of replicating and reproducing itself: a vital step toward modern, living organisms. But in order for those molecules to form, precursor molecules needed to exist: things like amino acids, sugars, phosphorus-based groups, and so on. These, in turn, required a slate of raw atomic ingredients, including:
hydrogen,
carbon,
nitrogen,
oxygen,
phosphorus,
sulfur,
calcium,
sodium,
potassium,
magnesium,
chlorine,
and much more."
(Without the information we know is needed
from an outside source?
NO LIFE!)
"you need the right chemical reactions
to kick off
to create a living creature from non-life
(One more time
go talk to a biologist
THERE IS NO
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL
OR GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES
that create enough information
to create new life.
And even if it did?
Then why did it stop?
Why don't we see it recurring?
Or?
Then why cant we reproduce it?)
And now we are going to get more into Ethan's wheelhouse so to speak:)
"You need stars to make the raw ingredients to have planets; you need a late-forming star with enough heavy elements in it to make a rocky planet with the right ingredients for life; you need the right chemical reactions to kick off to create a living creature from non-life;
(Dude please go see a evolutionary molecular biologist, Chemical reactions will never give you the needed information to create life from nonlife.)
"then you need the right conditions for life to survive and thrive over geological timescales, under the pressures of natural selection, to create the diversity of life we find on Earth today, including human beings."
"But in order for this to occur, you need to make stars for the very first time, and that requires a set of ingredients and conditions, too."
(Oh please explain to me where the initial conditions for the universe came from, cant wait to hear this :-), and when you're done with that please explain the initial conditions that set up the natural laws that govern the universe, (thats right two different sets of initial conditions) where did those come from etc...cant wait...)
"You need neutral atoms, and in particular large numbers of hydrogen atoms, and that’s ok: they were formed in the early stages of the hot Big Bang. But you also need a non-uniform Universe: one with overdense regions that would gravitationally attract more and more matter into them, until enough matter had gathered that stars would form for the very first time. Under the laws of general relativity,"
(Where did that come from?
Laws require a law-giver yo.)
"based on the initial fluctuations we see in the cosmic microwave background, that’s precisely what our Universe gives us: a set of conditions and ingredients that enable the formation of stars, for the first time, from a pristine collection of neutral atoms."
(See above about initial conditions.
Notice Ethan nor anybody else
trys to explain how they were formed
or where they came from.)
"Although we have yet to find the first stars, representing a “missing link” in cosmic evolution, scientists can be certain they existed: in between the massive galaxies spotted by JWST and the neutral atoms formed way back at the epoch of the cosmic microwave background."
(No problem with any of that.
None.)
"Nevertheless, we continue in our quest for the ultimate cosmic origin. Those stars must have formed from neutral atoms, and in the framework of the Big Bang — and validated by observations for 60 years, and counting — neutral atoms can only form when the Universe cools from a hot, dense, plasma state (where all of the atomic components are ionized) to a less hot, less dense state where neutral atoms are stable. In the aftermath of such a transition, a background of low-energy remnant radiation would be emitted omnidirectionally, persisting even until the present day. It was the detection of that remnant primeval radiation, now known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB), that sealed the deal for the Big Bang."
(Beginnings have causes.
Pretty simple.
We live in a causal universe
everything that happens
has a cause behind it
Everything.
To postulate that the causal universe
that obviously had a beginning
doesn't need a cause?
Pretty faulty logic.
And bad logic
never results in good science.)
"At some point, even though we don’t know how, more matter was created than antimatter, leading to our matter-dominated Universe today."
(According to the laws of physics
That unbalance should have never happened and the universe should not be here.
Matter and Antimatter should have existed in an equilibrium, canceling each other out, but that's not what happened:
Theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.)
"...we do know that the hot Big Bang, even at its hottest, wasn’t the very beginning of everything. Instead, the conditions that the Big Bang was born with:
perfect spatial flatness,
a lack of leftover, high-energy relics,
with a maximum temperature well below that of the Planck scale,
with the same temperatures and densities everywhere and in all directions,
with tiny, 1-part-in-30,000 overdensities and underdensities superimposed atop them on all scales,
including on super-horizon scales,
are exactly the conditions that a phase of cosmic inflation, predating and setting up the Big Bang, would have predicted."
(So what set up the conditions
for the cosmic inflation then?
Circular reasoning much?
It's theorized to have been
"an inflation field"
(one thats no longer in existence
and with no left over relics
from its demise how convenient.)
So where did that come from?
What set that up?
What was it's:
"initial conditions"?
Bad logic etc...
And which version of "cosmic inflation"
cause theres more models than you can shake a stick at, so it just becomes a catch-all for everything:
"Our model predicted blah blah blah..."
Well, its kinda what you would expect when you got a kizillion different models, duh...)
"Before the Big Bang, the Universe wasn’t dominated by matter or radiation, but by energy inherent to space itself, in a phase known as cosmic inflation."
(It would have taken time
to create the energy would it not?
Time has a physical component to it.
(Space aint just space
its time as well.
Hence, space-time)
When you look back through space
you are looking back through time.
It's a continuum.
They can not exist separate from one another.
Time space energy and matter all
have to come forth together,
as none of them can exist without the other.
Kinda like DNA and proteins.
You cant have one without the other
but I digress...:-)
"And this, at last, is where our knowledge comes to an end: not with a gap, but rather with a cliff of ignorance. Inflation, by its very nature, is a period where there was an incredible amount of energy locked up in the fabric of empty space itself. In this state, space expands at a relentless, exponential pace, doubling in size in all three dimensions in just a tiny fraction of a second, and then doubling again and again and again with each subsequent fraction of a second that elapses.
"However, because our observable Universe is of a finite size, this means that only the final small fraction-of-a-second of inflation leaves any imprint on our Universe; it’s from that brief epoch that we’ve been able to determine that inflation occurred at all. For everything that came before it, including:
answers to the question of how long inflation endured,
answers to the question of whether inflation was eternal
or whether it started from some pre-inflationary conditions,
what those pre-inflationary conditions were,
and whether there was an ultimate beginning to, say,
what we think of as the fundamental entities of
space, time, and the laws of physics that govern them,
we simply have no information,
only speculations.
(Oh you mean speculations like:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge
from non-life"
And just gotta point out
there is a book being proven true right now
right in front of our eyes that says:
Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He has made everything beautiful in its time.
Also He has put eternity in their hearts, (mans)
except that no one can find out the work
that God does from beginning to end"
Eternity being:
blank, dark, empty,
unknown, ignorance etc.
"but rather with a cliff of ignorance)
"Science, remember,
doesn’t give us the ultimate answers to our inquiries,
it simply gives us
the best approximation of reality,
given our current state of knowledge,
that is consistent with
all the evidence we’ve collected
to this point.
(Ethan?
what you have presented here
is in no way even close to:
"the best approximation of reality,
given our current state of knowledge,
that is consistent with
all the evidence we’ve collected
to this point"
You deliberately left out a ton of evidence
(that has been collected to this point)
that is being deliberately ignored by the
societal priest of our age,
the practitioners
of the exclusive, elitist cult of scientism
some of which are listed below:
Life requires information.
Information always has
an outside source.
Information is never the result
of a random, or a chemical,
or a biological, or a physical,
or a geologic process.
It is always, everywhere we have ever seen it
has been a direct result of
a sentient, conscious intellect.
Deliberately leaving out
knowledge
that is consistent
with all the evidence
that has been collected
to this point?
Like:
Life comes from life.
Its what all of humanity
has ever seen
or experienced
Thats just not science.
Thats pushing the
faith-based belief system
of a cult.)
"We’ve come incredibly far in our quest to make sense of the Universe, and while there are still open questions that science is pursuing, the broad strokes — plus a great many details — of “where we come from” are finally known."
The most essential ingredient
needed for life
is information,
which is always the result of a brain
and neither
you, nor any of you kind
have done anything to demonstrate
where it came from
or how it got imbedded in living things.
So no
"the broad strokes of
“where we come from”
are finally known."
Not as you presented them here
they're not.
Not even close.
I used to be a proponent
of inflationary cosmology
till I realized its just stupid lol
and there is just no need for it.
All it does is explain things
that just dont need any explanation.
Is the inflationary Universe a scientific theory?
Sabine Hossenfelder bigthink.com 10/06/17
(Shit is outdated yo!
Big time.)
"We are made from stretched quantum fluctuations. At least that’s cosmologists’ currently most popular explanation. According to their theory, the history of our existence began billions of years ago with a — now absent — field that propelled the universe into a phase of rapid expansion called “inflation.” When inflation ended, the field decayed and its energy was converted into radiation and particles which are still around today."
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics."
(Opps.)
"In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:"
(Really?
You mean uncritical believers as in:
"Nevertheless, at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge from non-life."
without as much as even
a single shred of evidence
to support it?
Interesting.)
“The cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.”
"...inflation is not even a scientific theory:
“Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
(Like thats gonna stop em lol.
See:
"at some point
in cosmic history,
life did emerge from non-life."
without as much as even
a single shred of evidence
to support it?"
"The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models, and they are — as the philosophers say — severely underdetermined. This means if one extrapolates the models that fit current data to regimes which are still untested, the result is ambiguous. Different models lead to very different predictions for not-yet made observations."
("life did emerge from non-life.")
Presently, it is therefore utterly pointless to twiddle with the details of inflation because there are literally infinitely many models that one can think up, giving rise to infinitely many different “predictions.”
"...their SciAm piece focus on inflation’s failure to solve the problems it was meant to solve. However, this criticism is off-target because the problems that inflation was meant to solve aren’t problems to begin with."
I’m serious. Let’s look at those one by one:
(This is just great lol.
It shows you the overthinking these brainiacs
put into their nonsense,
solving problems
that didnt even exist to begin with)
"1. The Monopole Problem:
Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem.” If the early universe underwent a phase-transition, for example because the symmetry of grand unification was broken — then topological defects, like monopoles, should have been produced abundantly. We do not, however, see any of them. Inflation dilutes the density of monopoles (and other worries) so that it’s unlikely we’ll ever encounter one.
But a plausible explanation for why we don’t see
any monopoles is that there aren’t any."
(I mean literally that simple.)
2. The Flatness Problem
The flatness problem is a finetuning problem. The universe currently seems to be almost flat, or if it has any spatial curvature, that curvature must be very small. The curvature contribution to the dynamics of the universe however increases in relevance relative to that of matter. This means if the curvature is small today, it must have been even smaller in the past. Inflation serves to make any initial curvature contribution smaller by something like 100 orders of magnitude or so.
This is supposed to be an explanation, but it doesn’t explain anything,"
( I got another postulate on this subject,
it goes like this:
Isaiah 34:4
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
Revelation 6:14
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.)
3. The Horizon Problem
The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost the exact same temperature in all directions. The problem is, if you trace back the origin of the background radiation without inflation, then you find that the radiation that reached us from different directions was never in causal contact with each other. Why then does it have the same temperature in all directions?
"The horizon problem asks “why this initial condition” for the universe. This question is justified if an initial condition is complicated in the sense of requiring a lot of information. But a homogeneous temperature isn’t complicated. It’s dramatically easy. And not only isn’t there much to explain, inflation doesn’t even answer the question “why this initial condition” because it still needs an initial condition. It’s just a different initial condition. It’s not any simpler and it doesn’t explain anything."
And there ya go, there's just no need for cosmic inflation.
I bought into it as a way to explain light on day 1
(The glow from the heat of the rapid expansion)
and on day 4 (star formation) in Genesis.
The light on day one being from a photon that is created when matter and antimatter destroy each other makes much more sense, as the electromagnetic spectrum would have had to have been in place to give us the atoms which give us everything else.
Speaking of which lol
(and Ethan and others
you might wanna take note of this)
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
somebody please shut this guy up
about Theology.
Nachmanides
1194–1270
"...was a leading medieval Jewish scholar, Catalan rabbi, philosopher, physician, kabbalist, and biblical commentator. He was raised, studied, and lived for most of his life in Girona, Catalonia. He is also considered to be an important figure in the re-establishment of the Jewish community in Jerusalem following its destruction by the Crusaders in 1099."
Reached the same exact conclusions
as our current Cosmologist
just by a careful critical examination
of the Book of Genesis
(aided by the spirit, I am sure)
close to 800 years ago,
before telescopes."
"His commentary on the creation of the world
describes the heavens and the earth
being created out of a noncorporeal substance:
"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."
Explanation/translation?
God created the stuff,
that he ended up
making the stuff with.
And its exactly how it happened!"
So Ethan Siegel
In summary then:
(values)
Good day sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment