ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, January 04, 2015

The shills of anti-GamerGate

The media never bothers to look close enough at the situation to observe that a considerable amount of the objectionable behavior of #GamerGate is actually the work of anti-GamerGate shills trying to make #GamerGate look bad:
Leader ID 036072 01/02/15 No. 170287

So guy how many trannys have we helped drive to commit suicide? I think we should really focus on Brianna Wu. She is the head of the anti gamer cobra. She offs herself and the rest of the freaks will follow suit. 


A few hours later....


Leader ID 036072 01/02/15 No. 170532
>>170287

I can't do this anymore.

I'm making myself sick with the comments I'm making in this thread. I honestly feel sick to my stomach. Transexuals don't deserve to be bullied. Anyone who might have followed this tread please don't do anything.

I just want you guys to stop harassing my friend Zoe and my friends at ghazi. I figured helping you guys look bad would help stop you. Please just stop bothering my friends and I truly apologize for the awful things i said about trans people. Can someone tell me how to delete this thread?
Remember, for rabbits, it is always about the appearance rather than the substance, and victory is synonymous with positive PR. Of course, it's usually not hard to spot these provocateurs, since they are too solipsistic to effectively emulate their opponent's patterns of thought and speech.

The idea that Brianna Wu is the head of anything was sufficient to expose this shill even before her confession. No doubt AC will be amused by the evidence of a rabbit accidentally overstimulating her own amygdala.

Notice how the rabbit apologizes for her violation of warren dogma, but not for the deceit she practiced upon everyone. Rabbits feel literally no shame about lying, nor do they feel any obligation to tell the truth. Never, ever forget that.

Labels: ,

88 Comments:

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 12:09 PM  

Is it in the same category as lesbians intentionally injuring themselves so they can claim that they were attacked by homophobes?

Anonymous H2 January 04, 2015 12:13 PM  

The best part will be when a future rabbit comes across her first post out of context and tries to get her in trouble for it.

Ask not for whom the pinkshirts come
Crawling on hand and knee.
A-slavering from their forked tongues
They come, they come for thee!


Blogger JG January 04, 2015 12:15 PM  

Hm, I was thinking to myself, 'good for her for apologizing', but you're right - she wasn't apologizing for her actual misdeeds.

Blogger RandalThorn January 04, 2015 12:43 PM  

Vox, like you said, their Master/father IS the king of lies, truth is as alien to them as the color red is to a man born blind, maybe even more.

Anonymous Daniel January 04, 2015 12:50 PM  

Pro Tip: GamerGate never refers to ourselves as "guys."

It's "dudebros." Always "dudebros."

Anonymous maniacprovost January 04, 2015 12:54 PM  

It would indeed be comical to find the identity of the perpetrator and shame her for transphobia.

Anonymous Daniel January 04, 2015 12:54 PM  

Is it in the same category as lesbians intentionally injuring themselves

No. It is in the same category as a lesbian posing as straight and inciting suicide among homosexuals. At least those who fake injuries only falsely accuse others of a crime. Those who incite hardcore harassment target a victim.

Blogger YIH January 04, 2015 1:11 PM  

Here's the archived thread of the one in the screenshot.
Note: the archive does not include the 24-bit poster ID number, but everything else is there.

Blogger YIH January 04, 2015 1:28 PM  

BTW, In 8chan's /gamergate/ board ''Leader'' is merely the default 'name'. Board owners can change ''Anonymous'' to any word.

OpenID simplytimothy January 04, 2015 1:30 PM  

Off-Topic: If I am reading both correctly, this http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/01/was-time-faster-in-the-past-a-new-alternate-theory-of-dark-energy-1.html appears to support Stickwick's six-days creation hypothesis

Blogger Incognito January 04, 2015 1:38 PM  

I can't decide whether my favourite part is that someone who supposedly wants to dive transsexuals to commit suicide still "respects their pronouns," or whether it's that the apology is all about what the poster said about trans people and not about lying in a deliberate effort to make others look bad.

Anonymous Michael January 04, 2015 2:17 PM  

Well, that's really low, but we've come to expect this sort of behavior from the SJW/cultural Marxists, or "rabbits" if you prefer. One of their favorite tactics is to intentionally do something awful out in the open while impersonating a group or individual they're looking to falsely attribute blame to (or entrap). I've seen if before on forums and whatnot and they're always exposed by other people who are well aware of the pathetic game they're playing. They use lies and deception, just like Satan.

Anonymous H2 January 04, 2015 2:21 PM  

@simplytimothy

That six day creation hypotheses is indeed interesting. I'd like someone with more knowledge in physics and cosmology to comment on it.

Blogger Nate January 04, 2015 2:24 PM  

"That six day creation hypotheses is indeed interesting. I'd like someone with more knowledge in physics and cosmology to comment on it."

you mean besides the physicist with a PhD that came up with it?

Blogger bob k. mando January 04, 2015 2:25 PM  

http://www.reaxxion.com/3720/totalbiscuit-is-sent-death-wish-by-anti-gamergate-for-promoting-charity

Anonymous Daniel January 04, 2015 2:29 PM  

Impeccable timing, Nate. That made me laugh.

Anonymous Michael January 04, 2015 2:46 PM  

Off-topic (or maybe not...)

The city of Detroit is preparing new projects where people can live in shipping containers.

See? Marxism works.

Anonymous Michael January 04, 2015 3:02 PM  

bob k. mando, that article's a real eye-opener. Everyone should read it.

However, IMO, the most impressive find was in the comments section where someone posted this YouTube video + playlist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3nXvScRazg&list=PLy_SfTLZIqngFWROaZbErTuy1LEt80jpA#t=42

Blogger Mekadave January 04, 2015 3:47 PM  

Off-topic (or maybe not...)

The city of Detroit is preparing new projects where people can live in shipping containers.

See? Marxism works.


I bet they got the idea from the I, Robot movie. :-p

Blogger Mekadave January 04, 2015 3:51 PM  

Speaking of shills for Anti-GG, look who FINALLY came out with a book! Our old buddy Damien! (Apologies if this was already discussed and I missed it). I looked at the preview. It was as bad as you might think.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R521Q8Q/



Anonymous Will January 04, 2015 3:57 PM  

Antifeminism is the first world problem of first world problems.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 4:23 PM  

Speaking of shills for Anti-GG, look who FINALLY came out with a book! Our old buddy Damien!

A girl named Fred. Wasn't there a song that had something to do with that?

Oh right, this was what it was.

I guess Damien really didn't know what her name was...

OpenID simplytimothy January 04, 2015 4:25 PM  

@H2

Dr. Sarah Salviander comments here at Vox Popoli from time-to-time under the nom-de-popoli stickwick.

Anonymous Daniel January 04, 2015 4:39 PM  

The city of Detroit is preparing new projects where people can live in shipping containers.

Hey, that's just one shipment away from off-shoring our surplus labor!

Anonymous Stickwick January 04, 2015 5:09 PM  

simplytimothy: If I am reading both correctly, this ... appears to support Stickwick's six-days creation hypothesis

Very interesting find! The gist of it seems to be that time dilation due to relative speed is directional, which kind of blows me away. If it's true (and the article says that there is evidence to support this), then it does support the literal six days = billions of years hypothesis. (Long story short: Genesis 1 describes six literal 24-hour days from God's frame of reference, which are then perceived as billions of years from our earthly frame of reference.) By the way, this is not my idea, but was presented by Dr. Gerald Schroeder in his book The Science of God. I've merely adapted it and expanded on it.

Anonymous Anon January 04, 2015 5:13 PM  

"The gist of it seems to be that time dilation due to relative speed is directional, which kind of blows me away."

Sounds like what was happening in the movie Interstellar.

Anonymous maniacprovost January 04, 2015 5:45 PM  

That would fix the twin paradox.

Blogger bob k. mando January 04, 2015 5:48 PM  

Mekadave January 04, 2015 3:51 PM
Speaking of shills for Anti-GG, look who FINALLY came out with a book! Our old buddy Damien! ... It was as bad as you might think.



i only have one thing to quote:
"Print Length: 62 pages
A minuscule collection of teeny weeny stories by Damien Walter. "


how many years, Damien? and you've got 62 pages? sounds like you're working harder than Squalzi, and he bleeds onto the page for us.


Stickwick January 04, 2015 5:09 PM
Genesis 1 describes six literal 24-hour days from God's frame of reference, which are then perceived as billions of years from our earthly frame of reference.



*shrugs*

i've asked before:
Of how many dimensions is God?

in Einsteinian space, Time is the fourth dimension.

even if you limit God to four dimensions ... shouldn't he be fully mobile through all four? wouldn't this explain 2 Peter 3:8?

Anonymous Rapid Offensive Unit January 04, 2015 6:51 PM  

I'm having different kind of problem. I actually really want to drive freaks like Brianna Wu to suicide... but how the hell to do that without making #gamergate look bad?

Even most of #gg supporters accept that whole transexualism nonsense. It's a mad world.

Anonymous fish January 04, 2015 7:09 PM  

A minuscule collection of teeny weeny stories by Damien Walter.

Follow on twitter: @damiengwalter

CONTAINS ADULT THEMES


Tiny Weenie.....? More than we want to know Damien.....but aren't really surprised about!

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 7:10 PM  

I actually really want to drive freaks like Brianna Wu to suicide... but how the hell to do that without making #gamergate look bad?

At the risk of being morbid, simply wait. It's something like a 40% suicide rate for transexuals.

Anonymous Apollo January 04, 2015 7:27 PM  

I love how the responses to the OP in the screenshot all mentioned that the comment was a false flag. The rabbits are starting to overuse this technique.

Gawker interns back in the office. LOL!

Anonymous The other skeptic January 04, 2015 7:39 PM  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R521Q8Q/

I think Damien misspelled Wanker.

Blogger tweell January 04, 2015 8:04 PM  

And we expect what from the media? Journalism? Reporting? They're socialists with bylines.

Anonymous Giuseppe January 04, 2015 8:19 PM  

Damn-one's book:
On first reading the description I thought: Oh, this sounds like Damien going over his failed attempts at sex. Then I took a look inside and read the introduction.
Nailed it in one.
What a little bitch.

Anonymous tiredofitall January 04, 2015 8:26 PM  

"They use lies and deception, just like Satan." - Michael

Except it's a profoundly retarded version of Satan.

Blogger Pravda Zvíťazí January 04, 2015 9:04 PM  

@Daniel "It's 'dudebros.' Always 'dudebros.'"

I don't get how Scalzi et al. even view that as an insult. I guess it might be an affront to some of the older or more established gentlemen among us' dignity, but, personally, the term just brings on a warm cloud of college nostalgia. Since they are all about appeals to the feels, they should do a better job of targeting the right one.

"[T]hey are too solipsistic to effectively emulate their opponent's patterns of thought and speech." -- That pretty much explains it.


Anonymous Harold January 04, 2015 9:15 PM  

Converting shippping containers into cheap housing has been a trendy idea amongst swpl types for a long time now.

Anonymous H2 January 04, 2015 9:21 PM  

Ok you all got me. I should've clarified that I wanted people here to comment on the theory because I have a cursory education in physics and cosmology so I don't know how on point Stickwick's blog was. I will go check out The Science of God, thank you.

Anonymous Stickwick January 04, 2015 9:59 PM  

Anon: Sounds like what was happening in the movie Interstellar.

Very similar, except in Interstellar the time dilation is due to the gravity of a supermassive black hole, which has always been assumed to be directional, i.e. time only gets stretched out for the person deeper in the gravitational field of the black hole. Time dilation due to relative speeds has, to my knowledge, always been assumed to be reciprocal, which means that each observer sees time dilated for the other person. If it's indeed directional, that's pretty astounding.

maniacprovost: That would fix the twin paradox.

This one always trips people up, including me. The resolution to the twin paradox is that one of the twins is not always in an inertial frame of reference, i.e. he accelerates, so that makes the time dilation directional.

bob k. mando: i've asked before: Of how many dimensions is God? ... even if you limit God to four dimensions ... shouldn't he be fully mobile through all four? wouldn't this explain 2 Peter 3:8?

That passage, which echoes Psalm 90, is a key factor in reconciling six days with billions of years. God transcends the universe, so he necessarily views the universe in its entirety. Schroeder chose a physical frame of reference within the universe that's consistent with this view. Relativity is a notoriously difficult subject, which is why Schroeder spends a lot of time explaining it in his book. If you look at my slideshow, which I think simplytimothy linked to above, I try to explain it in the simplest terms possible. Hugh Ross, also a Christian astrophysicist, has an extra-dimensional model for God that I have not yet studied. I think it's presented in his book Beyond the Cosmos.

Blogger D. Lane January 04, 2015 10:34 PM  

They use lies and deception, just like Satan.

Making a comparison to Satan gives them significantly more credit than they are due. Satan's lies and deceptions are calculated exploitations of the human condition. Rabbit lies and deceptions are based entirely off of the rabbit's own feelings and insecurities.

It is the difference between a master of manipulation and a legion of toddlers who seek to modify your behavior by throwing blocks (and the occasional rattle) at everybody, only to point to you when an authority figure strolls in to see what all the fuss is about. At best, they are playpen bullies.

Blogger Student in Blue January 04, 2015 11:14 PM  

It is the difference between a master of manipulation and a legion of toddlers who seek to modify your behavior by throwing blocks (and the occasional rattle) at everybody, only to point to you when an authority figure strolls in to see what all the fuss is about. At best, they are playpen bullies.

Same tactics and same quality of thought, yes, but just as middle-school bullying can drive a kid to suicide, "playpen bullies" can likewise be quite deleterious.

Blogger bob k. mando January 05, 2015 12:47 AM  

Stickwick January 04, 2015 9:59 PM
That passage, which echoes Psalm 90, is a key factor in reconciling six days with billions of years


does he understand that this ( extra-dimensionality ) may also explain the God-the-Father / God-the-Son paradox?

too whit: Jesus would be the +3 dimensional ( or however you want to characterize normal humans ) cross section that God had/will extrude into our Einsteinian 4d world.

Anonymous Discard January 05, 2015 4:04 AM  

This country is awash in empty shipping containers because we don't make much high value stuff and fill them and send them back. Most go back empty, but there's never any urgency, so they accumulate on this side of the Pacific. We do send them full of electronic junk for recycling, and I have seen containers filled with hay for export to Japan, as fodder for beef cattle. Fucking hay.

Anonymous Dikaios Rik January 05, 2015 7:49 AM  

Rapid Offensive Unit January 04, 2015 6:51 PM
[...]

Even most of #gg supporters accept that whole transexualism nonsense. It's a mad world.


I think it prudent to remember that this majority is ultimately still leftist. Until they wake up and discover that it is precisely their system of morality (or lack of an objective one) which birthed SJWs, they are not friends or allies; our goals merely align with theirs temporarily.

Anonymous Michael January 05, 2015 7:55 AM  

Daniel, "Hey, that's just one shipment away from off-shoring our surplus labor!"

Oh, I'm sure that if the authorities wanted they could bring in a forklift and make off with the "property" for unpaid bills (or maybe even suspicion of a crime).

Even living in a dank, unkempt shack has greater appeal than living in one of those sardine cans. Granted it's a step up from living in a cardboard box on the street, but really, it's still dehumanizing, as though someone at city hall (invariably Marxist) saw a picture of a shanty town from a third-world country and thought it was a good, cost-efficient idea. There's already hundreds of vacant homes throughout Detroit and yet they intend to demolish them. Why?

Anonymous p-dawg January 05, 2015 9:38 AM  

I always found it humorous - people who believe that a being could create the cosmos - the entire universe itself, but couldn't do it in the time frame He said He did it in. Look, if a being can do things that I don't understand, I don't have the hubris to assume I can understand the methods used, either. Why do you? Either believe the guy, or call Him a liar, but to do both at the same time - that's crazy.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 05, 2015 10:53 AM  

Anti-GG is a joke. For all the hullaballoo and appearances on SWPL central the comedy cuckhold channel what has come of it but yet more cleavage from Kate Upton in her game commercial.

I would not be surprised to find a serious amount of hate for the young buxom lass and her funny commercials. The anti GG types don't need a firing squad they need a faceful of Upton's breasts.

Anonymous Michael January 05, 2015 11:49 AM  

p-dawg, yeah, I don't get that either. It's written that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh - it clearly delineates the passing of a day as the Sun rising and setting.

Besides, you know that people are working off a faulty premise because they're applying the billions of years-old age of universe, which is derived from evolutionary theory (i.e. a thoroughly unproven, non-observable and non-replicable hypothesis), retroactively, trying to make it compatible with the Word of God.

Anonymous clk January 05, 2015 12:14 PM  

" ...people who believe that a being could create the cosmos - the entire universe itself, but couldn't do it in the time frame He said He did it in

There is no better way to understand the Creator than understanding the Creation which is why science, when practiced honestly and allowed to go where it goes without bias, is the best way to know God ... but I cringe every time some tries to shoe horn what we find in science into a biblical interpretation... its just another bias warping true knowledge.

Look .. I am a Christain (RCC), I know the bible and read it quite regularly - its a great source of inspiration and comfort but my faith doesn't not depend of the truth of a 6 day creation story, a 7000 year young earth or a great flood destroying the whole world. God never intended the BIble to be a science text -- if he had, it would have been incomprehensible (and thus useless) unti the last 100 years.. which clearly is not the intention.

The natural world is pretty increbible and I honestly beleive you limiting the ability of God if you insist on subscribing to the descriptions defined in the Bible. A 16 billion year creation of a complex universe system starting a big bang is far more glorious and God like than what is decribed in the Bible.

IMHO

Anonymous Stickwick January 05, 2015 1:14 PM  

Michael: p-dawg, yeah, I don't get that either. It's written that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh - it clearly delineates the passing of a day as the Sun rising and setting.

The Sun did not exist on the first day, so how could it have been the passing of a day as the Sun rising and setting? Schroeder points out that the proper Hebrew interpretation of "and there was an evening and a morning" was "and there was chaos and order," meaning that each day Creation moved in the direction of more order. Not that that should be taken to mean that the Genesis days aren't 24-hour days. Schroeder claims that a Genesis day is, in fact, a literal 24-hour day, but from God's perspective, not ours.

Besides, you know that people are working off a faulty premise because they're applying the billions of years-old age of universe, which is derived from evolutionary theory (i.e. a thoroughly unproven, non-observable and non-replicable hypothesis), retroactively, trying to make it compatible with the Word of God.

It was NOT derived from evolutionary theory. It came first from Einstein's general relativity field equations, which, when solved for various cosmological models, predict a billions year-old universe. This was later supported by Hubble's observations of galaxies receding at great velocities, which, if worked backwards, gives billions of years for their travel time. Since then, there have many, very well-established lines of evidence supporting billions of years for the age of the universe. The Darwinists, who have proven they can't do math, latched onto the billions of years -- because, to dimwits, billions sounds like a very, very long time -- thinking this would support TENS. But it turns out what they really needed was a de facto eternity for their evolutionary model to work. Physicists and mathematicians have been telling Darwinists for years that their math is all wrong.

clk: A 16 billion year creation of a complex universe system starting a big bang is far more glorious and God like than what is decribed in the Bible.

It's currently 14 billion years. In any case, that is precisely what is described in the Bible.

...my faith doesn't not depend of the truth of a 6 day creation story, a 7000 year young earth or a great flood destroying the whole world.

Then what do you believe was the point of the creation story? How do you know what in the Bible is to be taken as literal truth and what is not?

God never intended the BIble to be a science text -- if he had, it would have been incomprehensible (and thus useless) unti the last 100 years.. which clearly is not the intention.

Now who's limiting the ability of God? This is where the utter genius and beauty of Genesis is revealed. King Solomon once said that a word well-spoken is like an apple of gold in a bowl of silver. The silver bowl is the superficial understanding of Genesis, understood by a pre-scientific audience; its beauty is beheld from a distance. But when you look closer, inside the bowl, you realize that the far more beautiful apple of gold is the deeper understanding of Genesis intended for an audience with far greater understanding of God's Creation. I'm continually blown away by the realization that the wisdom of the Bible is revealed to be deeper and greater just at the time when we need it to be. Ancient people had no need to understand that the universe is billions of years old or that quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter or that photons broke free when electrons combined with protons, and so on. All they needed to know was that God alone did it, and he did it in six days. Nevertheless, all of this cosmological science was all right there in Genesis, ready to be revealed when we needed to understand how it fits into God's Creation. We can only guess what's in there for an audience thousands of years from now.

Blogger RandalThorn January 05, 2015 1:29 PM  

Stickwick, I am by no means an expert, and you are not an evolutionary biologist, but can you point me to the correct answer when someone uses the fruit flies and peppermoth evolution as a direct proof about TE(m)NS?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous p-dawg January 05, 2015 1:41 PM  

@RandalThorn: I'm not a degreed physicist, and you didn't ask me anyway, but my response would be this: When they can evolve a fruit fly into a new species, and not a mutated fruit fly, then we can talk. But until then, they're just conflating micro- and macro-evolution.

Anonymous p-dawg January 05, 2015 1:43 PM  

@clk: If the Scripture doesn't include scientific questions/answers, please then explain the questions the Creator asked Job. We cannot answer them all, but we have managed to answer a few in 5k years, such as "by what means is the light apportioned (separated)?" The answer to which is "by passing it through a prism".
That's one - there are several others. Your turn.

Blogger Cee January 05, 2015 2:00 PM  

Stickwick, I am by no means an expert, and you are not an evolutionary biologist, but can you point me to the correct answer when someone uses the fruit flies and peppermoth evolution as a direct proof about TE(m)NS?
Peppermoth "evolution" wasn't. The black phase dominated until reforms reduced air pollution and the tree bark the moths hung out on became mostly white again, at which point the white phase came back in force. Shifts in the prevalence of color phase due to changes in prevailing conditions is surely natural selection, but the white and black phases both existed before any changes happened in their environment, and continued to exist after, so it's hard to parlay that into support for TENS other than to say "oh look, natural selection happened!".

Blogger bob k. mando January 05, 2015 2:27 PM  

Discard January 05, 2015 4:04 AM
This country is awash in empty shipping containers because we don't make much high value stuff and fill them and send them back.



no. EVERY country is awash in Chinese shipping containers because the Chi-com government figured out that by subsidizing the containers they could use their low labor costs to steal manufacturing from the Western nations.

http://www.honestthings.blogspot.com/
"It says that the cost of the container in China is $2500. That's nuts. The raw steel, alone, is $2000, probably more like $2300 counting a 15% wastage in cutting it to the sizes needed."


this is also why other low-labor nations have NOT succeeded in cannibalizing China's market share as Chinese labor prices have gone up. a very important conundrum to get your head around if you want to understand international trade ...



Stickwick January 05, 2015 1:14 PM
meaning that each day Creation moved in the direction of more order.


this is another problem i have with modern physics; their terming of increasing entropy as increasing 'disorder'.

what is entropy? aside from being the Arrow of Time, in functional terms it means the degeneration of Energy into Mass.

m == E / c^2 being just as mathematically 'true' as E == m * c^2

now, which is more "chaotic"?

the postulated energy maelstrom of the Big Bang, who's energy concentrations and interactions were so extreme that our Mathematics doesn't even work?

or the postulated Heat Death ( all energy degenerated into mass ) of the far future where nothing changes and everything rests at near Absolute Zero temperatures?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos?s=t

in modern Physics parlance, the origin point of the Big Bang would have been the time of 'maximum order / information' and all transitions since then have been towards more 'chaos'.

i expect having this argument with a Mathematician / Physicist would be much like arguing with an Engineer about whether or not 'motor' can be used to refer to an internal combustion engine ...

or arguing with a lawyer about whether or not the 10th Amendment actually means what it actually says ...



Stickwick January 05, 2015 1:14 PM
you realize that the far more beautiful apple of gold is the deeper understanding of Genesis intended for an audience with far greater understanding of God's Creation.



oh, you dirty, dirty Gnostic. :3



p-dawg January 05, 2015 1:41 PM
But until then, they're just conflating micro- and macro-evolution.


don't even give them that much.

they're doing basic animal husbandry, something men have been doing for at least ten thousand years.

how the heck else do you think you get a Chinese Crested and Saint Bernard, both descended from wolves?

Anonymous Stickwick January 05, 2015 2:43 PM  

RandalThorn: Stickwick, I am by no means an expert, and you are not an evolutionary biologist, but can you point me to the correct answer when someone uses the fruit flies and peppermoth evolution as a direct proof about TE(m)NS?

You can point out that they're playing a shell game. There are five different phenomena that people can be referring to when they use the word "evolution": microevolution, speciation, macroevolution, chemical evolution, and microbial evolution. There is good evidence for microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution -- I think speciation is what you see with generations of fruit flies. But what happens is that you get dishonest (or ignorant) people claiming that this is proof of macroevolution. It's not. Dr. Fuz Rana, a Christian apologist and biologist with Reasons to Believe, has a brief article on this here. Hope that helps.

Anonymous Stickwick January 05, 2015 2:46 PM  

bob, I'll try to comment on entropy later this evening when I have more time.

Blogger bob k. mando January 05, 2015 2:58 PM  

much appreciated.

even if i don't wind up agreeing with you, it will be helpful to get a fuller understanding of what Physicists think they're saying when they use the terms.

Anonymous mistaben January 05, 2015 7:17 PM  

I read the Kipreos paper on Absolute Simultaneity Theory. It took me a bit to get used to the idea of objects in free-fall orbit (like GPS satellites) being in an inertial reference frame, but it makes sense.

The theory certainly has the Universal Time Dilation implications Stickwick and others have brought up. More on that in a moment. Also, the z-dependent corrections to distance moduli and to redshift itself result in a linear relationship between z_TC and m-M_TC, thus negating the problem that is viewed as the primary evidence for Hubble expansion acceleration (at least for z<1.4)!

Stickwick, this linearization may suggest that your tables on pp. 107-8 of your presentation needs some slight editing!

Anonymous Anon January 05, 2015 10:07 PM  

"bob, I'll try to comment on entropy later this evening when I have more time. "

Lol. Or when there is enough time dilation ;-)

Anonymous clk January 05, 2015 10:59 PM  

First .. thank very much for taking the time to reply .. and so nicely as well

Below are my comments.

SW ... "It's currently 14 billion years. In any case, that is precisely what is described in the Bible. ".

I am not too worried about 14 vs 16 either other than its its a long long time .. not 6 earth days as portrayed in the OT ... now we can pull physics trick and say that 1 God day = 2.3E9 earth days but that changing the rules.

SW...":Then what do you believe was the point of the creation story? How do you know what in the Bible is to be taken as literal truth and what is not? "

The point the creation story is that everything comes from God, that he is the source of all things and that there is a beginning and an end to all things. Ultimately the bible describes what our relationship should be with God. IMHO quite easy to tell where in the bible the speaker is being literal vs figurative.

SW... "now who's limiting the ability of God? "..

I have to admire your love of God. Genesis may or may not apply as you describe but only because its so generalized and broad that it can apply to anything.... "In the beginning, there was nothing, then I added wheat, water, flour, and yeast, I let it rise for 6 days and behold I had bread... and it was good..."


Blogger bob k. mando January 05, 2015 11:39 PM  

Anon January 05, 2015 10:07 PM
Lol. Or when there is enough time dilation ;-)


yeah, as i remember Stickwick keeps an Entropy Engine ( youngling, not quite the same thing as yuengling ) at home.

i thought she went to work to rest up ...

Anonymous Michael January 06, 2015 10:07 AM  

Stickwick, "The Sun did not exist on the first day, so how could it have been the passing of a day as the Sun rising and setting? Schroeder points out that the proper Hebrew interpretation of "and there was an evening and a morning" was "and there was chaos and order," meaning that each day Creation moved in the direction of more order. Not that that should be taken to mean that the Genesis days aren't 24-hour days. Schroeder claims that a Genesis day is, in fact, a literal 24-hour day, but from God's perspective, not ours."

On the contrary, I think it's man trying to impose limitations upon God by restricting everything He does to the laws of His own creation. It says in the Bible that God first separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the dark "night" and that He put lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night. I believe the earth (and conversely the universe) was given the appearance of being much older than it actually is.

"It was NOT derived from evolutionary theory. It came first from Einstein's general relativity field equations, which, when solved for various cosmological models, predict a billions year-old universe. This was later supported by Hubble's observations of galaxies receding at great velocities, which, if worked backwards, gives billions of years for their travel time. Since then, there have many, very well-established lines of evidence supporting billions of years for the age of the universe. The Darwinists, who have proven they can't do math, latched onto the billions of years -- because, to dimwits, billions sounds like a very, very long time -- thinking this would support TENS. But it turns out what they really needed was a de facto eternity for their evolutionary model to work. Physicists and mathematicians have been telling Darwinists for years that their math is all wrong."

Whatever the case, my point stands: people want to apply science to Scripture in order to reinterpret God's Word to satisfy their hypothesis.

Anonymous Steve January 06, 2015 11:10 AM  

"So guy how many trannys have we helped drive to commit suicide?"

Rather like saying "How many oceans have we helped drive to ebb and flow"?

A "tranny" is a euphemism for a mentally-ill faggot in a dress most of the time. When you're ill enough in your mind to cut your own dick off and live out a truncated stereotype of femininity you don't exactly need a push to snuff yourself.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that 9 out of 10 of these sick self-mutilators kill themselves anyway,there's nothing that anyone does to make it happen or contribute to it.

And also,there's no such thing as a "transexual". It's impossible to transcend sexuality or the sexuality that we are born with. That's why these nutcases end up offing themselves after spending a small fortune on hormones and plastic surgery.

"Transexuality" is actually offensively and virulently sexist.

Imagine what leftists would say if a White man darkened his skin to a coffee-brown,took testosterone to deepen his voice, had his nostrils and lips enlarged,started drinking malt liquor and eating fried chicken and watermelons and expressed a newfound interest in professional basketball and ran around saying "Wair da wyte wimminz at" while claiming to be a "trans-racial individual".

That person would be considered out of his mind and completely racist,even by leftists,who think it's possible to change from a man into a woman by putting on a dress.

Anonymous Stickwick January 06, 2015 1:14 PM  

bob k. mando: this is another problem i have with modern physics; their terming of increasing entropy as increasing 'disorder'. what is entropy?

There are two different issues here: the increasing entropy (disorder) of a system and the increasing complexity of a system. This is obscured by language, so let me try to sort it out.

Schroeder points out that the root word for "evening" means "disorder, mixture, chaos" and that the root word for "morning" means "orderly, discernible." The passages in Genesis that conclude each day, "and it was evening and it was morning an [Nth] day," are properly translated as "and it was disorder and it was orderly an [Nth] day," meaning that with each creation day the universe is becoming more orderly. As I said, this is confusing to anyone with knowledge of physics, because we have the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any closed system tends towards increasing disorder. In fact, if we plot the entropy of the universe as a function of time, we get a monotonically increasing function that maxes out at some time in the far, far future. But this is merely a problem of word choice. The Bible chose the words order and disorder to describe a progression in the natural history of the universe long before there were any physicists. And consider that there are strong allusions to the pervasive law of decay in the Bible, so the Bible is very clear that there is such a thing as entropy -- the universe was designed to run down eventually. But it was also designed to become increasingly more complex, and I think that word with its modern physical connotations is more consistent with the intent of Genesis 1.

We have what's called "emergent complexity," which turns out to be a difficult thing to define precisely, but I think physicist Sean Carroll captures its essence when he says it's a measure of a system's "interestingness." The universe has certainly gone in the direction of more interesting with time, as it moved from a near-uniform sea of energy to a soup of quarks and gluons to the first stars in elegant spiral galaxies to planets to the highly complex life on one (and maybe only one) very special planet. All the while, entropy is increasing monotonically. Complexity, however, does not increase monotonically, but rather increases to a maximum and then decreases until it reaches zero at the same time the universe reaches maximum entropy. And this is a big mystery, as far as physicists and philosophers are concerned. The mystery isn't why complexity is low at the beginning and at the "end," but why it reaches a maximum in between. Maybe there is a natural explanation, but it's worth noting that, as with the second law of thermodynamics, the Bible told us about it long before there were any physicists.

Anonymous Stickwick January 06, 2015 1:45 PM  

mistaben: Stickwick, this linearization may suggest that your tables on pp. 107-8 of your presentation needs some slight editing!

If it's true, then, yes, it'll require some minor modification. The idea is compelling, but I'll wait to see if it pans out.

bob k. mando: yeah, as i remember Stickwick keeps an Entropy Engine ( youngling, not quite the same thing as yuengling ) at home. i thought she went to work to rest up ...

I've been calling her Destructo-Baby, but Entropy Engine is more clever. Although, now with my time extremely limited, I've become FAR more productive, i.e. entropy-reversing, than I've ever been. In the time since EE appeared on the spacetime continuum one year ago, I've published a curriculum and a journal paper, completed the analysis for another paper, wrote an enormous grant proposal, nearly finished writing a book, taught a physics lab, designed a card game, and lost 20 lbs. And I did all of this working part-time, so I could spend as much time at home with EE as possible. Children are blessings from God in more ways than one. :^)

Anonymous Stickwick January 06, 2015 2:01 PM  

clk: I am not too worried about 14 vs 16 either other than its its a long long time

Nor should you be; I'm only pointing out this is the current best measurement of the age.

.. not 6 earth days as portrayed in the OT ... now we can pull physics trick and say that 1 God day = 2.3E9 earth days but that changing the rules.

It's oh-so-clever, my friend, but it's no trick. The gist is that, due to the relativistic nature of time, you must always establish from whose frame of reference a phenomenon is being described, because the flow of time is never the same for any two observers anywhere in (or out) of the universe. This is referenced in Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3:8, and reinforced by many, many experiments all supporting exactly what Einstein predicted. Now, all signs point to Genesis being described solely from God's point of view, not ours. So, the Genesis days are indeed six literal 24-hour days, but only from God's view of time; when viewed from our perspective on Earth, we must perceive billions of years. For a discussion on how this works, I urge you to either read Schroeder's book, The Science of God, or go through my slide presentation on it.

IMHO quite easy to tell where in the bible the speaker is being literal vs figurative.

I agree that it's often easy to tell the difference, but in this case I think you have committed an error. Genesis 1 is literal.

Genesis may or may not apply as you describe but only because its so generalized and broad that it can apply to anything.... "In the beginning, there was nothing, then I added wheat, water, flour, and yeast, I let it rise for 6 days and behold I had bread... and it was good…"

It's not general; it's highly specific. I urge you to read my article here, where I go through each of the 26 scientifically-testable statements made in Genesis 1. As a scientist, I went from atheist to apologetic Christian on the basis of what I learned about Genesis. It's so mind-blowingly specific and accurate, that I could only conclude that its author was given divine revelation.

Michael: I believe the earth (and conversely the universe) was given the appearance of being much older than it actually is.

For what purpose?

Whatever the case, my point stands: people want to apply science to Scripture in order to reinterpret God's Word to satisfy their hypothesis.

No, that's not at all what's going on. There is a notion in reformed theology, expressed in the Belgic Confession many centuries ago, that tells us that God has revealed himself in two books -- the Book of Scripture (God's written word; special revelation) and the Book of Nature (God's natural world; general revelation) -- and that it is incumbent on us to put the two together in order to understand our Creator as fully as possible. (Kenneth Samples talks about the two books of revelation here.) This is not an extra-biblical notion, as the Bible is explicit about it (see Psalm 19 and Romans 1). Why else do you think most of the great scientists of the early modern scientific era were Christian? The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, was a profoundly Christian man who believed that his scientific work was a form of true worship. Most scientists of his era believed that. These were not men who believed, as many do today, that you must deliberately ignore knowledge of God's creation in order to be a person of faith. It's a great tragedy that the Enemy has so turned us against a very important aspect of God's revelation.

Blogger SirHamster January 06, 2015 10:36 PM  

I believe the earth (and conversely the universe) was given the appearance of being much older than it actually is.


I think a better way of putting it is that we don't actually know what "older" is. 6k years is plenty old, and we have no idea what a universe that is 6M or 6B or 14B years old should look like.

Blogger IM2L844 January 07, 2015 12:34 PM  

A relevant quote from Gerald L. Schroeder:

"Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.

The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years.
"

Anonymous Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM  

bob k. mando: I would say that this translation is as likely to be an attempt to mold the words to a preconceived hypothesis as it is to be correct.

You have to understand the worldview from which Schroeder approaches this. In addition to being a physicist, he's a Jewish theologian living in Israel and steeped in his religious tradition. He tells us that over 2,000 years ago, before humans knew anything about modern science, the Talmud very explicitly said that Genesis 1 is "presented in a manner that conceals information." The great commentators believed that, and if you want to be utterly blown away, just read what Nahmanides and Maimonides somehow figured out from reading Genesis hundreds of years ago. So, the point here is to look for deeper wisdom in Genesis, not to try to retrofit a bunch of stuff onto it.

Schroeder draws our attention to subtle (and not so subtle) clues as to the deeper wisdom. The first is that the passage of time in Genesis is clearly distinct from that of the rest of the Bible. Blocks of events are described and then followed by a statement that a day has passed. By contrast, later, once the narrative of the Bible shifts to the human perspective, the flow of time is intimately connected to earthly events. So distinct is Genesis time from time in the rest of the Bible that the Jewish calendar excludes the first six days. And then we have the fact that, for the first three days, the Sun isn't even mentioned. What defines evening and morning in terms of an Earth day if there is no Sun? Evening and morning must have deeper meaning in this context.

IF the Hebrew roots are to be taken to mean ‘chaos’ and ‘order’
THEN the ( a ) verse would read “And the chaos and the order were the fourth day.”
A literal understanding of which would mean that creation was cycling back and forth between Order and Chaos. Something akin to a “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back” creation theory with every ‘Day’ descending into Chaos and then being reset to Order for the new ‘Day’.


I think you're reading too much into this. It's a simply-stated reminder that each day is progressing toward more complexity.

Extinction events?

What about them?

Your hypothesis is a possible reading of the text BUT would not likely be accepted by an unfriendly ( atheist ) audience.

It's unfortunate, but then again who cares? Very little in the way of Christian apologetics is accepted by an atheist audience, even (and especially) when it makes the most sense. Hasn't Vox repeatedly explained how Christianity is the only worldview that explains evil? And, yet, we've seen the contortions atheists will go through to avoid accepting it.

I'm not sure what Schroeder's ultimate goal or hope is with the books he writes, other than to share the truth; personally, my primary goal as an apologist is to help my fellow Christians make sense of modern science in terms of their religious beliefs, and to help them resist atheist attacks. My secondary goal is to help seekers overcome any scientific obstacles they might have to believing in God and accepting Christ. I would be delighted if I ended up converting any atheists, or at least undermining their godless view of the universe, but it's only a tertiary goal.

Anonymous Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:34 PM  

this is what I was expecting. You aren’t grasping that I’m complaining that you ( physicists ) are inverting the meaning of order / disorder == chaos.
The homogenous, unchanging mass resting at Absolute Zero at the ‘End of the Universe’ will be PERFECTLY ORDERLY, according to the dictionary.


No, it will be perfectly disordered.

I want you to try an exercise. Look at this image* and classify each glass according to which has the most entropy, i.e. disorder.

Done? Okay…

I bet most laymen, including you, would classify the middle glass as the most disordered, followed by the first glass, and with the last one as the most ordered. The correct answer is that entropy increases from left to right. The most ordered glass is the one on the left with the milk and the coffee completely separate. The most disordered glass is the one on the right with the milk and coffee completely mixed.

In order to understand this better, here's another example. If your kid has a bunch of dirty clothes in his room, which scenario is most likely to get him yelled at by Mom: all of the dirty clothes in the hamper, some of the clothes in the hamper and the rest strewn about the room, or all of the clothes strewn evenly all over his room? The last one, of course, and that's because his room is at maximum disorder (although, knowing most moms, the second scenario wouldn't make her happy, either, unless the kid was in the process of putting the rest of the clothes in the hamper). This is also why we have garbage cans in public -- nobody considers garbage strewn evenly all over the place as more ordered. It's no different with the milk and coffee, it's just that we're not always accustomed to thinking of an aesthetically even distribution as being disordered. But if you think about it in terms of clothes on the floor or garbage all over the place, then it's not so hard to understand an even distribution as a state of disorder.

The important thing to remember here is that entropy is defined in terms of equilibrium. A system that is in perfect equilibrium -- that is, unchanging -- is at maximum entropy. This is what physicists mean by disorder. A system that is at maximum disorder is in perfect equilibrium, because whatever energy it has is useless; it is no longer dynamic, and it won't change; it's effectively dead. That describes the third glass, the one in which the milk and coffee are completely mixed, and it describes the homogenous, unchanging mass resting at absolute zero at the 'end of the universe.'

Blessings to you and yours. I hope Loki and Sigyn are enjoying life as much as you are.

Thanks. I hope they are, too, but frankly I'm a little concerned about them. Loki's last blog post mentioned Sigyn was struggling with depression, and we hear so little from them these days. I've been praying for them. Maybe if someone knows how to contact them, we could see how they're doing.

[* Borrowed from an article by Scott Aaronson: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762]

Anonymous Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:37 PM  

Actually, now that I look at that image again, it looks more like Kahlua and cream than coffee and milk.

Blogger bob k. mando January 07, 2015 11:59 PM  

Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
the Talmud very explicitly said


the Talmud also very explicitly says some very nasty things about Goyim ... in explicit opposition to the lesson of Jonah.

and Kabbalists are the Jewish version of Gnostics. ( i was joking when i threw off that 'dirty, dirty Gnostic line ... but it appears i was much closer to the mark than i was intending :grin: )

not that i'm going to assert that everything the Talmud and Kabbalists say is wrong ... but i'm certainly not going to just take their word for it.

for someone who really likes Kabbalah, you might want to try reading some Alan Moore. he's a practicing witch. or Madonna, she likes Kabbalah as well. whether she's a real practicing witch or not i don't know, but i think we can all agree that, euphemistically, she's also a witch.


Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
I think you're reading too much into this. It's a simply-stated reminder that each day is progressing toward more complexity.


*shrugs*

it's what the text says. in the absence of your hypothesis, it's how i would interpret it given your new definitions of 'night' and 'day'.

you are a priori discounting the straightforward reading because you've already got a destination you want to get too.



Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
What about them?


i'm offering a possible solution to the conundrum.

things like the Oxygen Catastrophe or Chicxulub might map to the Chaos / Night that begins each Jewish day of Creation.



Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
Very little in the way of Christian apologetics is accepted by an atheist audience


except you're basing this on Talmudic apologetics, not ( necessarily ) Christian apologetics.

and a Christian who accepts *all* Talmudic apologetics ... doesn't believe that Jesus was a Messiah?

i trust you see the theological problem.


Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
I bet most laymen, including you


you'd be wrong. but then, i'm weird.


Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:29 PM
The correct answer is that entropy increases from left to right.


i agree with Asimov that by putting energy into a system, one can drive a localized increase in complexity ( that's his justification for Evolution being possible ).

the corollary being that one could reduce complexity in that same system by subtracting energy.

what is entropy? wouldn't "Subtraction of Energy ( conversion to Mass ) from the system *as a whole*" be a valid definition?

so far as your photo is concerned, the glass at the far right is a completely homogenous, undifferentiated mass with ( theoretically ) no energy gradient. no matter where you go in the Mass ... there you are. within this closed system, it's all the same.

ie - incapable of change without external energy.

ie - perfectly static, perfectly homogenized and thus ... perfectly orderly?

yes, i know, this is exactly where we reach the impasse.


Stickwick January 07, 2015 5:34 PM
The important thing to remember here is that entropy is defined in terms of equilibrium


conditionally agree.

you earlier asserted that the Big Bang was an undifferentiated mass of energy at the very beginning.

ie - in perfect equilibrium ... until Spacial Expansion permitted Energy Density to decrease to the point that Vacuums ( energy differentials ) could exist.

ie - if i use your strict definition of Entropy as Equilibrium ... the Universe starts in a disorder ( Entropy ) of Energy and ends in a disorder ( Entropy ) of Mass.

somewhat odd, don't you think?

Anonymous rho January 08, 2015 2:13 AM  

So, the Genesis days are indeed six literal 24-hour days, but only from God's view of time; when viewed from our perspective on Earth, we must perceive billions of years.

Why 24 hour days? The days weren't 24 hours long in the far past, and won't be 24 hours in the far future, if we know anything about orbital mechanics.

I personally dislike extracting too many specifics from a few passages. You don't have to take an all-or-nothing attitude reading Scripture. Genesis may have some allegory, and Luke may have some history; you don't have to make Luke allegory and Genesis historical.

If you prefer total Biblical inerrancy, then there are some folks around here who need to brush up on their cheek-turning and brother-loving.

Blogger IM2L844 January 08, 2015 10:53 AM  

my primary goal as an apologist is to help my fellow Christians make sense of modern science in terms of their religious beliefs...

Looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Do you have another book in the works? I would really like to read it.

Anonymous Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM  

bob k. mando: the Talmud also very explicitly says some very nasty things about Goyim ... in explicit opposition to the lesson of Jonah.

Irrelevant to the point. You suggested that Schroeder was trying to shoehorn or retrofit something onto Genesis in order to make it consistent with science, and I refuted that by pointing out that this is the tradition from which Schroeder is approaching Genesis: there is much more to Genesis than an initial reading would suggest. I would say there's good evidence for this merely on the basis of what the great commentators elicited from Genesis hundreds of years ago.

BTW, I've never claimed to "really like kabbalah" or even know very much about it. But to attempt to impugn it on the basis of Madonna being a practitioner is as legitimate as trying to impugn Martin Luther on the basis of Joel Osteen's books.

you are a priori discounting the straightforward reading because you've already got a destination you want to get too.

I had no destination I wanted to get to when I first read Genesis and Schroeder's book. I was coming out of atheism at the time, and reading Schroeder's book rather skeptically, but so compelling was his argument that by the end of Chapter 4, I had become a believer in the God of the Bible. Now, I happen to think the straightforward reading of "and there was an evening and a morning" is also legitimate. Again, that is the genius of Genesis. It is correct on the superficial, straightforward level, but it's also correct at the much deeper level.

except you're basing this on Talmudic apologetics, not ( necessarily ) Christian apologetics.

LOL. Just because the Talmud had some astounding insights doesn't mean it has the copyright on them.

and a Christian who accepts *all* Talmudic apologetics ... doesn't believe that Jesus was a Messiah?

Who said anything about accepting all of the Talmud?

i agree with Asimov that by putting energy into a system, one can drive a localized increase in complexity ( that's his justification for Evolution being possible ).

Yes, and a localized decrease in entropy, as long as that energy is usable. But then that wouldn't be a closed system.

the corollary being that one could reduce complexity in that same system by subtracting energy.

Not necessarily. All you'd have to do is take whatever energy is in the system and make some of it useless. Transform it into heat or noise or something like that.

ie - perfectly static, perfectly homogenized and thus ... perfectly orderly?

No, it has no order at all. Physicists have it right; this is entirely a problem of your own peculiar way of thinking. Here's another way to think of it. As a function of equilibrium, entropy is statistical -- the more probable a system's current state, the more entropy the system has; conversely, the more improbable a system's current state, the more ordered it is. For any system, but particularly for large systems, non-dynamic and perfectly homogenous is the most probable state.

you earlier asserted that the Big Bang was an undifferentiated mass of energy at the very beginning.

ie - in perfect equilibrium ... until Spacial Expansion permitted Energy Density to decrease to the point that Vacuums ( energy differentials ) could exist.


"Mass of energy" is a peculiar way to state it, since "mass" has a very specific meaning in physics; an undifferentiated sea of energy is a better way to put it. In any case, it was not completely undifferentiated, as there were quantum ripples in the sea of energy, and it was out of those ripples that large-scale structure was formed. Nevertheless, we infer that the universe initially had low entropy, since it has clearly, obviously, undeniably evolved with time, and was therefore in a highly unstable state of non-equilibrium to begin with. As to why it had low entropy to begin with? It's a big, whopping mystery in physics.

Anonymous Stickwick January 08, 2015 10:18 PM  

rho: Why 24 hour days? The days weren't 24 hours long in the far past, and won't be 24 hours in the far future, if we know anything about orbital mechanics.

Because, 24 hours is the length of a day when Adam appears. The far past is irrelevant to the day-to-day lives of humans, and the far future is likely to be, as well.

IM2L844: Looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Maybe; maybe not. I'm finding young Christians, particularly high school and college students, are quite interested in reconciling science with faith. And they are the ones most in need of help, since they are the ones humanists mostly go after.

Do you have another book in the works? I would really like to read it.

Yes, I'm almost done with the first book in what I hope will be a series of manuals for how Christians can defend themselves against atheist attacks. The first book will address scientific arguments.

Blogger bob k. mando January 10, 2015 12:56 AM  

Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
Who said anything about accepting all of the Talmud?



nobody. but you just tried to bait and switch me into accepting Talmudic apologistics as 'Christian', when they are no such thing. all i was doing was pointing out why Christians will, of necessity, reject *at least* some points of Talmudic doctrine.

i already stated that i was willing to listen to them in spite of their origin. just don't try to tell me that they are something that they are not.

i'm not attacking you about this, i'm pointing out areas of slop in your argument that need to be cleaned up. no Christian who is paying attention will let you get away with that switch and all it will get you from and agnostic / atheist is derision.

IF you are speaking to Jew THEN make a big deal out of it.

if speaking to a Christian, it's perfectly fine to mention it. just don't slip up and refer to it as "Christian Apologetics".

it's interesting as a preface for all nonbelievers but not in any way authoritative TO THEM and should not be included as a major portion of your evidence TO THEM.



Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
But to attempt to impugn it on the basis of Madonna being a practitioner



you just tried to claim the authority of an 'ancient tradition'. fine, i rebut your claims of ancient authority with examples of modern witchcraft ( i should think 'Satanic' goes without saying ) and a ditzy bimbo.

can we now dispense with the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy and proceed to the evidence?



Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
All you'd have to do is take whatever energy is in the system and make some of it useless. Transform it into heat or noise or something like that.


iow, the standard Entropy that's happening all the time. i thought that went without saying and was only pointing out the corollary to Asimov's concept because i never hear anybody talk about it.

if you want to continue with the picking of nits, "heat" is a form of energy. meaning that your statement "Transform it into heat" translates as "Transform ( Energy) into ( Energy )".

which, of course, you can do. but without 2nd Thermo wouldn't subtract anything. which leaves us right back at Entropy ... which i didn't think needed mentioning.



Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
Physicists have it right; this is entirely a problem of your own peculiar way of thinking.


my own peculiar way of thinking having the distinct disadvantage of ... conforming to the peculiar way dictionaries define the word ( especially before modern physics came along and redefined the Universe as beginning in Order ).

which is more "chaotic"? this-
http://hill.areavoices.com/files/2010/10/storm1.jpg

or this?
http://delislephotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/asc_1881.jpg

now, which one is more 'energetic'? exactly so. no normal person, describing their everyday experiences, would refer to a tableau in which NOTHING IS HAPPENING as "Chaotic". they would, instead, call it "Calm" and "Orderly". in the everyday world, "Chaos" requires ... "Energy". just look to your Entropy Engine for illustration ...

you have to get a degree in Physics to look at it your way. ;-P

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/chaos

Blogger bob k. mando January 10, 2015 12:57 AM  

Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
as there were quantum ripples in the sea of energy


you're saying that there will be no 'quantum ripples' at the end of the universe?

i would have thought Vacuum Energy would preclude the elimination of Quantum activity, even at the Heat Death.

oh, that's an idea. as i understand it, Vacuum Energy is thought to be a constant ( ignoring the Vacuum Catastrophe ) per volume unit of Space.

as the Universe expands it gains volume units ...

therefore, Spacial Inflation also inflates ( vacuum ) Energy within the Universe? that seems odd ... where would that Energy be coming from?


Stickwick January 08, 2015 5:55 PM
Nevertheless, we infer that the universe initially had low entropy


of course it did.

i was merely commenting on your attempt equate Entropy to an equilibrium state.

equilibrium may be *an aspect* of Entropy, but it can't be the sum total of it. otherwise you wind up with Entropy of Energy >> Entropy of Mass, as i pointed out. that's why i said, "conditionally agree."

the 'destabilizing act' to the Equilibrium of Energy being Cosmic Inflation. because, as i've always seen it presented, quantum ripples notwithstanding, you can't get Energy variation until Space expands and allows Energy a place to dissipate TOO.

is this wrong?

Blogger IM2L844 January 10, 2015 11:30 AM  

The first book will address scientific arguments.

I hope it has a chapter addressing mysteries and apparent paradoxes.

Anonymous Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:10 PM  

bob k. mando: but you just tried to bait and switch me into accepting Talmudic apologistics as 'Christian', when they are no such thing. all i was doing was pointing out why Christians will, of necessity, reject *at least* some points of Talmudic doctrine. ... can we now dispense with the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy and proceed to the evidence?

It was neither bait and switch nor an appeal to authority. The notion that Genesis conceals deeper wisdom is either true or it isn't, and its truth doesn't depend on who said it first or on any tradition's authority. I believe it's true for one reason and one reason alone: the simple fact that, based on this notion, the great commentators gleaned some extraordinary insights about nature from Genesis that are otherwise totally inexplicable. If you like, I can quote some of these for you and perhaps you'll be as impressed as I was.

Now, as Christians, Genesis is as much our book as it is the kabbalists', and so anything that justifies Genesis is legitimately Christian apologetics. And I'll point out that over the years I've given lectures that include this topic at several Christian venues, and have yet to receive any pushback on it.

Anonymous Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:13 PM  

if you want to continue with the picking of nits, "heat" is a form of energy. meaning that your statement "Transform it into heat" translates as "Transform ( Energy) into ( Energy )". … which, of course, you can do. but without 2nd Thermo wouldn't subtract anything. which leaves us right back at Entropy ... which i didn't think needed mentioning.

You don't have to subtract energy in order to increase entropy. All that matters is how much of the energy in a system is usable, i.e. whether it can be used to perform work. When energy is transformed in a way that renders it unusable for performing work, that means the entropy of the system has increased.

my own peculiar way of thinking having the distinct disadvantage of ... conforming to the peculiar way dictionaries define the word ( especially before modern physics came along and redefined the Universe as beginning in Order ).

I've had this discussion with other non-physicists, and you are the only one who seems to have a problem with it.

The problem is, you seem to equate order with calmness, but the two are not equivalent. The dictionary sez that order is "the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method." This is entirely consistent with the way physicists use the word. You are locked in a cognitive box in which you insist that the arrangement must be homogeneous and calm; if you were able to free yourself from that box, you would see that a dynamic system is more orderly than a system in equilibrium. The reason, as I explained before, is that entropy has to do with probability, which is why physicists sometimes equate the multiplicity of a system to its entropy. If there are lots of different ways to arrive at a particular state -- if its multiplicity is high -- then that's a high-entropy state for the simple reason that it's much more likely to occur than a state for which there is, say, only one or two ways to arrive at it. Think about it this way, if you look at a system and think, it's unlikely I'd find it in this state on its own, then it's highly ordered and has low entropy. For example, when I was a kid and fell for the old "52-card pickup" game, the cards were strewn pretty evenly all over the place. That's a disordered, high entropy system. By contrast, in the moments before the "game," the cards were arranged neatly into a deck. That was a highly ordered and low entropy state. With your strange definition, the former would be more ordered than the latter, which makes no sense.

Anonymous Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:23 PM  

you're saying that there will be no 'quantum ripples' at the end of the universe? ... i would have thought Vacuum Energy would preclude the elimination of Quantum activity, even at the Heat Death.

No, I'm not saying there will be no quantum ripples at the end of the universe. AFAIK, there will always be fluctuations in the vacuum energy.

i was merely commenting on your attempt equate Entropy to an equilibrium state. ... equilibrium may be *an aspect* of Entropy, but it can't be the sum total of it. otherwise you wind up with Entropy of Energy >> Entropy of Mass, as i pointed out. that's why i said, "conditionally agree."

I wouldn't put it that way. Entropy is not the sum total of the second law of thermodynamics, but equilibrium is a fundamental and inseparable aspect of entropy. A mathematical expression for entropy is S = k ln W, where k is Boltzmann's constant and ln W is the natural log of the multiplicity, i.e. the number of different ways in which a system can exist. A system is in equilibrium when it's in its most probable state, i.e. when the multiplicity is at its maximum.

quantum ripples notwithstanding, you can't get Energy variation until Space expands and allows Energy a place to dissipate TOO.

Correct. The low entropy state of the beginning of the universe is in comparison with what comes after, when space expands and allows entropy to increase.

Anonymous Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:26 PM  

IM2L844: I hope it has a chapter addressing mysteries and apparent paradoxes.

Oh, yes. Though Schroeder and Hugh Ross address many of those in their books.

Blogger bob k. mando January 14, 2015 3:52 PM  

Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:10 PM
If you like, I can quote some of these for you and perhaps you'll be as impressed as I was.


that would be relevant, yes.



Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:13 PM
I've had this discussion with other non-physicists, and you are the only one who seems to have a problem with it.


this could be because -
a - i've always been extremely high functioning in Language Skills ( usually, far in advance of my teachers ), and understand the nuance where others will cede the point because they don't
b - i may be better at arguing myself into a false justification

note that Therapeutic Psychology has been trapped in Freud's Oedipus Complex since Sigmund popularized the talking cure.

in spite of the fact that Freud's interpretation of Oedipus is diametrically opposed to the meaning of everything that happens within that story ( Oedipus did everything he could to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother ).

do you think that Freud made a mistake when he inverted Oedipus? or do you think that he saw an opportunity to manipulate people by getting them to accept a lie?

Vox has had to come to a similar realization wrt the Econ theories that he spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of his life studying.

i'm not saying that Physics fits this pattern. but the pattern makes me leery when i find subject matter that seems to be following the game plan.


Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:13 PM
The dictionary sez


that for thousands of years of human history, the Universe was thought to have originated in Chaos.

then, physicists changed the meaning of the word and now assert that the Universe began in Order and that Chaos will be it's end.

why was this inversion of terms necessary?

to put this in terms of Christian Apologetics, how do the final prophecies of Revelation not constitute Order?



Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:10 PM
And I'll point out that over the years I've given lectures that include this topic at several Christian venues, and have yet to receive any pushback on it.



likely because to most, 'kabbalah' is just a funny sounding word.

whereas, i've had some previous experience with it's explication. to say that it is "non-biblical" is ... a bit of an understatement.

this is not to say that it's necessarily anti-biblical ...



Stickwick January 13, 2015 5:23 PM
but equilibrium is a fundamental and inseparable aspect of entropy.


i already said that i was happy considering equilibrium to be an "aspect of". but there must be *other* differentiating factors or the term 'Entropy' is rendered near meaningless by your own Cosmology.


got to go. will try to return to this later.

Anonymous IM2L844 January 15, 2015 9:17 AM  

All this talk about entropy has me thinking about how the formation of z8 GND 5296 reconciles with the estimated epoch of reionization window, among other things. Do you and your colleagues think reionization may have occurred more quickly than previously thought, Stickwick, or am I unnecessarily conflating things?

Blogger IM2L844 January 19, 2015 2:28 PM  

Never mind. Google showed me the way.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts