End of Year

Question for Physicist Stephen Hawking

Physicist and author Stephen Hawking says that no God was required to make the universe. Stephen, please give a scientific explanation for how your computer came to be without referring to any outside source of power or design such as “man.”

Your answer must be confined to natural causes within the elements of the machine. You can refer to physical forces like inertia, gravity, centrifugal force, etc., even though it could be argued that even they need a designer! If you choose to involve long time periods for your explanation, then also please factor in the disintegration and natural decomposition of the various materials in the computer as well.

The finished computer only needs to be loaded with software for solitaire, not any other programs (to save you lots of time!).

To assist you, start with gold, silver and copper wire already the right diameter and already insulated and on a spool. As an added bonus, all the plastic parts for the keys are supplied and the case is already in the right size and shape, too. What a bonus that is! Ready … set … GO!

While we wait in vain, I’d recommend that Stephen and everyone else admit the obvious: there was a Designer of this universe. He did it for a reason and left behind a record of who He is, what He wants from us and even provided a way to be forgiven when we break His laws. Read “How to be Saved.”

,

Leave43 Responses to testQuestion for Physicist Stephen Hawking

  1. Jay Liemowitz November 9, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    Kent, this is so silly I hardly know where to start the analysis.

    We know how computers are made; we can see them being built or we can even buy the parts and build them ourselves. To exclude “man” as a possible explanation of computers is akin to excluding gravity from our explanation of the earths revolution around the sun.

    On the other hand, we can’t witness Gods creating universes. We don’t see Gods forming planets, or men out of dust. We see natural processes and natural forces directing the universe. To attribute the cause of the universe to natural forces is analogous to attributing computers to man; that is, it’s closer to what we observe than what you’re proposing.

    You can argue that Hawking is wrong with his conclusions, and perhaps he is. But to draw these goofy analogies does less to support your claim than if you just asserted it blindly.

  2. Geno Castagnoli November 9, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    Playing Devil’s Advocate here:
    The entire argument from design has a fatal flaw.

    We know computers were designed, built, and programmed by humans because we directly observe those processes taking place today. (I’ve designed a fair share of computer circuits and written a number of programs myself.)

    On the other hand, we do not observe universes being designed or “built” today. In fact, we know of only one universe.

    Using the “747 in a junk yard” analogy. I guarantee I can walk thru that junk yard and with 99% accuracy tell what has been designed (by humans) from what has not. But the criteria I would use are completely different from what the design advocates claim they use to determine “design.” For example, I would consider the shape and surface of the object as well as whether or not I know of similar objects being designed by humans today. In other words, simplicity rather than complexity would be my guide.

    The ID crowd claims they have detected “design” in the universe and especially in life. However, their test criteria have not been established as being reliable nor have they been shown to be able to differentiate between that which is the result of intelligence and that which is the result of natural processes. Once they are able to do that, I’m on board with them.

  3. Mike Ayala November 9, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    Hi Dr. Hovind,

    “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

    If anybody has a problem with that, they need to talk to God about it.

    God Bless and protect you.

    Mike Ayala

  4. Charles Haley November 9, 2010 at 11:05 am #

    It is so obvious. God created my computer

  5. Justin November 9, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    Wouldn’t evolution say that intelligence is the result of natural processes? So, how would an evolutionist distinguish what is something done by intelligence or a natural process?

    Simplicity does not seem to be a very good indicator of intelligence. A 3 year old makes a simple mark on a piece of paper. Not very intelligent. If the box of crayons fell onto the piece of paper it would make more complex markings. How would you know the difference between a twig and a toothpick? The simple form of a toothpick requires a complex machine to create. Though a thorn or small twig can serve the same function. Both are simple. One is in nature, the other is in your grocery store.

    The form does not tell us as much about the intelligence of the “designer” as does the function. When you see simple things like thorns that have the function of prohibiting certain creatures from destroying the plant then you could attribute a certain amount of understanding to its originator. The present state of nature (including man) would necessitate a large amount of prior intelligence to settle on the large number of simple interrelating systems that currently exist in nature. The definition of complex is not the parts themselves (junk yards) but their intricate interconnectedness. A toothpick is simple, but a house built out of toothpicks is complex.

    Evolution says that natural selection is that intelligent process. Yet, natural selection has been shown not to be intelligent at all. Real intelligence is what you find in the kind humanity expresses when it becomes aware and reasons, understands, creates, and communicates. Natural selection is not an entity it is a process. It does not have that intelligence, nor does anything that is evolved from non-intelligence.

  6. John Bebbington November 9, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Firstly, Kent, “centrifugal force” certainly does not need a designer because it does not exists as any competent high school science teacher well knows.

    Secondly, natural laws are not laws in the legal sense but descriptions of how nature works. Indeed, quantum physics shows us that particles do not act individually in compliance with fixed laws but only in a statistical fashion. That is, they do not follow a precise behaviour but their average behaviour seems to indicate a fixed law. It is rather akin to observing that the vehicular speed limit as a law of nature is, say, 63 mph by measuring the average speed of a large number of cars passing by a fixed point (notwithstanding that the legal speed limit is 60 mph). However randomly matter acts it still acts in a statistically predictable matter.

    Indeed, we cannot predict when radio-active particles will decay since they do so in random fashion. It is only their statistical decay rate we can predict with relatively close accuracy. Remember, it is YECs who try to get around the problem of distant starlight by postulating c-decay. When it comes to a young creation they prefer inconstancy rather than permanence in the acting out of “God’s laws”.

    Thirdly, what causes black holes? Gods or naturally occurring processes? How would an intelligent being inside a black hole explain his universe when he could not receive information and therefore have no knowledge of what was happening outside the limits of his universe. For want of a better explanation he may think a god created his strange world but we know different because we can see its formation from the outside.

    Lastly, why is Kent insistent that our current universe did not have an unintelligent source of initiating power? I’m the product of an unintelligent sperm and an equally unintelligent egg whose external source of power and energy is an unintelligent sun. Self-replication in a hostile environment is a marvellous and powerful phenomenon.

    P.S. Hi, Geno. Long time no speak. I’ve been lurking for some time and admiring your valiant efforts at bringing rationality to these various discussions. Regards, Samphire.

  7. H. Bosma November 9, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    Fatal flaw in your reasoning Kent.

    We can point out natural processes which are able to form the universe and everything in it. A computer cannot be formed by naturals processes.

  8. John Bebbington November 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm #

    Mike,

    “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

    Which God would that be? Your Jehovah or your Elohim. Is the Muslim a fool for saying that there is a God but his name is Allah?

    I don’t know whether there is a God or not but in what way would this universe be one jot different if God had taken himself off to another universe 13 billion years ago and not returned?

    Outside of religion (of which there have been many down the ages and all having different gods) name one natural process which requires the constant surveillance of an involved god.

  9. John Bebbington November 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    Justin said: “Evolution says that natural selection is that intelligent process”

    No. “Evolution” by which I assume you mean “evolutionary theory” says no such thing. Natural selection has no end in view whatsoever and therefore intelligence is irrelevant. The winds blow the sand without any thought for the subsequent sand dune, the river estuary will not fully damn the river, over time the glacier will create a new landscape. All this without design or intention. But, unlike the inanimate, the living, self-replicating organism can build from generation to generation upon its previous successes simply by virtue of its ability to survive.

    “Yet, natural selection has been shown not to be intelligent at all. Real intelligence is what you find in the kind humanity expresses when it becomes aware and reasons, understands, creates, and communicates.”

    My dog is aware, reasons, understands and communicates. I’m not sure about creating, though. So did my dog not evolve?

    “Natural selection is not an entity it is a process. It does not have that intelligence, nor does anything that is evolved from non-intelligence.”

    Upon what evidence other than your own self-conviction do you make such an assertion?

  10. Emily G. November 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    I guess it won’t be long before we know that there is a God or not. Many of us might see His coming. It’s NEAR! It will be too late for you people to get to know Him then. I suggest you step down from your super intelligent posts or beliefs and try the simplicity that God offers! Try God and you will see how good He is! I would love for you to not miss out on His great mercy, still available for you today. Take a minute and re-examine yourself. If you think you know 50% of everything, God might exist in the 50% you don’t know. I know He was, He is and He will come soon! Be ready for the Lord Jesus Christ!

  11. Dunce Ler November 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    Religion and Science work quite well together. Religion was once the wrench in the gear of scientific progress, now religion is just the fly in the ear of science. Without the just-so dogma of religion the scientists would have that little bit less of a motivation to slap us with the truth of reality. You and your thoughts are no longer relevant. Obsolete, I’d say.

  12. Michael Encke November 9, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Y’all are pretty funny!

    Nice way to completely get off topic of his argument.

    If we see the complexity of a computer and know that it did not and cannot be developed by natural processes how could we possibly say that Man did not have a creator. This is the same watchmaker argument that Creation has had for over 100 years and still there is no answer.

    The best answer to it I have seen is that we don’t see those things get designed so we cannot conclude that they are designed. This is foolishness at it worst. I have not seen a computer factory, yet I know this computer was designed. I have not seen a money printing factory yet I know my cash was designed. The complex item itself is proof of a designer.

    Stop trying to argue that this does not prove anything, you will only do it to your hurt. It will not effect us if you choose to resist God, it will not hurt Him. It will only hurt you because you will die in your sins. Turn to Him while you still have time. Do not be like the fool who says tomorrow I will, today is the day of salvation.

    Trust in the LORD, He is faithful. Then you will see how real he is, just as I did.

  13. Geno Castagnoli November 9, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “You can refer to physical forces like inertia, gravity, centrifugal force, etc.”

    John Bebbington said:
    “Firstly, Kent, “centrifugal force” certainly does not need a designer because it does not exists as any competent high school science teacher well knows.”

    ####
    Geno comments:
    Actually, centrifugal force describes the effect of inertia on a rotating object and is generally considered a force… though it is sometimes called a “false force” because it does not actually exist. (See Wikipedia) A Google search for “centrifugal force” gets this from the Physics Department at the University of Virginia:
    “An object traveling in a circle behaves as if it is experiencing an outward force. This force is known as the centrifugal force. It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated.”

    So, whether or not “centrifugal force” is real may be debated to a certain extent. On the other hand, “inertia” is absolutely NOT a force at all…. as any competent high school science teacher should know, inertia is basically the subject of Newton’s First Law of motion.
    #####

    John wrote:
    P.S. Hi, Geno. Long time no speak.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    Hi John. Long time no…. um ….. see (?).

  14. Kenneth Tyner November 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    Here we go again:

    Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed.
    Therefore, functioning systems are intelligently designed.

    Functioning systems are intelligently designed.
    Living systems are functioning systems.
    Therefore, living systems are intelligently designed.

    Functioning systems are the key to understanding intelligence behind design. What is a system?

    Main Entry:system

    1 : a group of units so combined as to form a whole and to operate in unison
    2 : the body as a functioning whole; also : a group of bodily organs (as the nervous system) that together carry on some vital function
    3 : a definite scheme or method of procedure or classification
    4 : regular method or order

    Many modern products such as toys, buildings, cameras, cars, clothes, pacemakers or mobile phones contain intelligent functionality. Such intelligent products are able to adjust to the needs of the user and thus provide more functionality, flexibility and customer value. For instance, they can boost agricultural production, improve transportation safety, make housework easier, improve the quality of life of the elderly or entertain the children. Intelligent Systems Design (ISD) is a Master’s programme at Chalmers that teaches how to innovate, design, develop and commercialise intelligent products.

    Programme
    ISD is a two-year international Master’s programme that leads to the degree of Master of Science in Applied Information Technology. At ISD you study artificial intelligence and also physical computing and ubiquitous computing. This gives you a solid foundation for working with intelligent products. Then you can choose between courses in innovation and entrepreneurship, research methodology and your specific technologies of choice. In addition to these courses you will spend a great deal of time working hands-on in real prototype development projects together with our industrial and academic cooperation partners.

    In addition to functioning systems, the other key to proving intelligent design is “information” programming as found in DNA/RNA of the cell.

    When the naturalist can prove that functioning systems, with programmed instructions and spontaneously form without the assistance of intelligent design, then they will have a basis for argument. Until then, naturalistic causes is nothing more than a myth. An imaginary or unverifiable thing.

    There is nothing scientific about the claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor that spontaneously formed. The common ancestor is a myth and therefore anything evolving from the myth is also a myth.

  15. Mike Ayala November 9, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    John Bebbington November 9th at 12:07 pm

    Hi John,

    The God referenced is the one and only true God, Creator of heaven and earth, who formed your spirit within you, who also is the only one who accurately and precisely foretells the future through prophecy and uses that as the benchmark by which to measure all other false gods who cannot.

    Due to the nature of our God, your question about Him taking Himself off to another universe 13 billion years ago is nonsensical. Also, “another universe” would merely be another part of the same universe since by definition the universe is the totality of everything that exists.

    I think we could easily get lost in the number of “natural process[es] which require the constant surveillance of an involved god.” We can start with every cell division and within that are numerous processes each by itself which requires constant loving care and intervention of our Creator. One of them that tickles me the most is the bipedal Kinesin microtubule motor protein. Another that is absolutely mind boggling is the whole process of transcription.

    The closer I get to look into the operations of the constituent parts of the inner workings of the cell, the more I realize that either these little protein molecules have independent intelligence or they all together are instruments orchestrated by the hand of God to create the symphony of life. Independent intelligence is not sufficient to account for the complexity of their aggregate activities upon which our lives depend.

    Ignorance is another matter, but for an informed one to suggest that this symphony of life is the result of and is maintained by random processes is so far beyond ridiculous that it calls into question that one’s sanity.

    The Bible tells us about Jesus,

    “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

    For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

    The word translated “consist” is a Greek word which means “held together” even as in nuclear or gravitational bonds. Jesus is maintaining every atom and molecule of your body. You ought to thank Him.

    By strict evolutionary reasoning, all that man does or that is affected by man is ultimately a natural process (that is unless you want to delve into the origin of conceptual thought in living organisms. Why don’t we save that for another time). The resurrection of the nation and maintenance through history of the people of Israel has happened only through the constant care and intervention of our God – just as He promised in His word.

    Even the preservation and transmission of the word of God has been guided by the Lord.

    I hope you do not, but I would not be surprised to see you to find some way to comfort yourself that will satisfy your intellect so that you can reject each of these examples. So be it.

    God bless you with a soft heart and a truth-hungry mind.

    Mike Ayala

  16. Mike Ayala November 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm #

    John Bebbington November 9th at 11:51 am

    Hi again, John.

    I’m reprinting this post that was originally for Jennifer Preston a couple of weeks ago for you for the benefit of your understanding about the decaying speed of light issue you brought up.
    .
    _______________________________________________________________
    .

    Hi Jennifer,

    Sorry for the delay. I wanted to raise these specific questions because they are at the heart of some of the great misconceptions about Relativity and humanity’s collective understanding of the universe. Currently, science is trying to make sense of the universe without a reliable absolute reference standard – kind of like trying to navigate through life without the word of God illuminated by the Holy Spirit in one’s heart or like trying to drive straightly through London during morning rush hours traffic without a map (or a GPS these days). We need the truth, that absolute standard of reference of reality, in all areas of life.

    I still want to do a point by point response to your posts on the http://www.drdino.com/response-to-senate-candidate-christine-o%e2%80%99donnell blog page because you raised some really great issues which illustrate some of the fairly recent observations and changes of understanding about constants across the board. In the mean time here’s just a quick response to your answers of the four questions I asked you at the end of the same page. I have been extremely stretched for time with inescapable responsibilities (no, that’s not a relativistic pun).

    ____________________________________________

    Four Questions for Jennifer Preston:

    In the mean time, please allow me to pose just a few questions:

    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?

    2. How do you define a vacuum?

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?

    _____________________________________________

    Firstly, for all that modern science has accomplished – especially in the last few decades – it still has not produced a plausible explanation and understanding of light or energy. We know much about how to manipulate light and energy through the employment of fantastic technologies, but corporately mankind’s understanding of light is in its infancy: the best it can offer is an indecisive schizophrenic black box which those who dare to open it are called crazy, heretical or liars.

    Secondly, without a decaying velocity of light, evolutionary cosmology has three fatal problems, Horizon, Lambda, and Flatness, which show that the universe cannot be a fraction as old as evolutionary cosmologists claim it is. Each is a problem of such magnitude that each one is evidence why Big Bang cosmology is false. That is why blow-up-the-balloon cosmologists have had to come up with even stranger ideas to try to overcome the deficits of evolutionary cosmology in order to maintain an old age for the universe: They propose a balloon that does not exist; They propose someone or something that does not exist to decide to inflate the balloon that does not exist with energy and a pump that do not exist; Then they get someone or something that does not exist to turn off the pump that does not exist before the balloon that did not exist pops; and then Wha-la… we magically appear and call it home. This is the best they have to offer, and it does not work. So, to make a fuss about creationists demonstrating a decaying c is to be either disingenuously hypocritical or naively ignorant particularly when evolutionists are finally catching up with creationists who had proposed a decaying c decades ago, and the evolutionists are now proposing a decaying c to solve their insurmountable fatal flaws.

    Furthermore, to state that Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity proclaims c as a constant is flat-out wrong: What it actually states is that the velocity of light is unaffected by the speed of it’s source. That is a vastly different statement than saying that its velocity is a constant.

    Moreover, in v=d/t, the time component is meaningless unless it is according to some sort of reference. Now, today we have two basic choices: Orbital time or atomic time. Which clock do you choose? Atomic time is very precise, but it is not accurate. If atomic time is found to be accurate, then we have a surprising problem in that the orbits of Venus and Mercury are increasing in speed which means they are gaining energy from some unknown somewhere and converting that energy into motion in order to increase their velocity in their orbits around the Sun.

    It turns out that orbital time remains accurate in relation to atomic time which is decaying. The implications of this are staggering and wholly destructive to historical paradigms of science and science fiction. It also means that atomic time is useless when measuring other phenomena which are also affected by what ever it is that is causing the decay of the atomic constants. This is a major source of confusion because atomic time has been used to measure other constants, and then theories have been built on those observations. You might say that constants are only constant in like company.

    Your definition of the vacuum of space is a few years behind the times. Observations suggest variations in the permeability of space. Zero Point Energy was proposed back in the 1920’s. It is safe to say that there is a lot more occurring in the fabric of the universe about which we do not yet know than what we do presently know.

    No one has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to confirm if in fact E=mc^2 is truly accurate. We do not have the technology capable of containing and measuring such a conversion. We do know very well through observation that a lot of energy is released. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our instruments are just not up to the job. Consequently, although E=mc^2 makes for a nice mathematical representation, it has yet to be verified to the exclusion of other simpler explanations which also make the same predictions that resulted from Einstein’s Theories of Relativity.

    There is no shortage of examples of evidence showing that the speed of light as an inviolable constant is false. Pulsars caused quite a bone in the throat for cosmologists years ago when they realized the implication that sound was traveling faster than the speed of light. They had to do some revising there. Recent papers by Paul Davies, John D. Barrow, V.S. Troitskill are readily available for your viewing at Lambert Dolphin’s webpage “On The Constancy Of The Speed Of Light” discussing anomalies with c as a fixed constant, and remember, these guys are hardly young earth creationists. Even more so, Scientific American, that bastion of young earth creationist literature, recently published “Faster-than-light electric currents could explain pulsars” By George Musser Jun 18, 2010 07:27 PM. It is easy to find. John D. Barrow’s “Unusual Features of Varying Speed of Light Cosmologies” from February 5, 2008 is a nice read.

    .

    The whole point is to falsify evolutionary cosmology by evolutionists themselves: Evolutionary cosmology is based on flawed and shifting presuppositions because of a seriously flawed understanding of the nature of our universe and the basic phenomena through which we experience it. The evolutionary scenarios do not make sense in the light (pun intended) of recognized observation, and they fall apart with the slightest of scrutiny (just ask an evolutionary cosmologist with a competing theory and model), and even more so, they are ridiculous to the point of becoming an object of humor.

    .

    My point to you is, please do not be holding on to c as a constant while the cutting edge of physics is trying to conveniently and quietly shelve it, and please recognize the serious flaws of evolutionary cosmology: It is unsupportable and even more so if all available observation is taken into consideration. Human derived mathematical constants are a poor substitute for reality.

    Geno brought up the work of Barry Setterfield. I suggest you actually read and examine Barry Setterfield’s writings such as Atomic Constants, Time, and Light, or read his later papers on Redshift rather than accept or perpetuate heresay as some of his critics (both evolutionists and progressive creationists) had done. His work is not undermined by spurious accusations. His critics either refused to hear and accept his answer as an answer, or they did not understand it. The very nature of Barry’s work called into question many foundational truths of his critics upon which they based their criticism. Rather, many evolutionists are finally coming to similar conclusions as Barry (better late than never) although from a different perspective. In fact, Barry’s conclusions are rather tame compared to some of the evolutionists such as Paul Davies or that of V.S. Troitskill.

    Please check out the writings of these guys – especially Barry Setterfield. I think you will find them captivating if not just amazing if you are hungry to learn about new discoveries in these fields.

    Grace & blessings to you.

    Mike Ayala

  17. Kenneth Tyner November 9, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    Hey Mike, I just wanted to state that we do know what light is.

    Light is the accumulation of the density of thermal energy. The greater the density, the brighter the light. The lower the density, the dimmer the light.

    The speed of light is directly proportionate to the force projected from the source. Think of a camp fire compared to the suns fire. Light from the sun will travel faster and farther than light from the camp fire, due to the increased size and density of the suns thermal energy.

    Due to light scattering, consistent with Newtons inverse square law, and entropy, as the light wave reduces in density with distance light will slow down until all thermal energy is used up.

    I wish that I could post thermal imaging photo of stars here. You can clearly see the thermal waves expanding uniformly. As the waves increase in size, the density is reduced which means the frequency is also being reduced, proving that the speed of light is in fact slowing down. This is observable.

    Hope this helps,

    Ken

  18. Geno Castagnoli November 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    Michael Encke wrote:
    The best answer to it I have seen is that we don’t see those things get designed so we cannot conclude that they are designed.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    That is not my argument at all. My point is those presenting the design argument as a scientific proof of God fail to meet the criteria of scientific testing. They do not and have never produced a validated and tested algorithm for design detection. One that they can demonstrate has the capability to differentiate between something that is the result of design and something that is the result of natural processes.

    As I pointed out before, once they do that, I will be on board with them.
    #####

    Michael claims:
    This is foolishness at it worst. I have not seen a computer factory, yet I know this computer was designed.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    This argument is foolish. I have designed, and built computer circuits and have written computer programs. I can take you to a computer factory and provide you with a guided tour showing exactly how computers are designed, built and tested. On the other hand, you cannot take me to a factory where universes are designed and built.
    #####

    Michael:
    I have not seen a money printing factory yet I know my cash was designed.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Let me help. I have been to money printing factories. Both for currency (the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington DC) and coin (the San Francisco mint). I can state, with great certainty, that both exist as I have actually seen the money being made. Now, can you show me where universes are being made?

    The entire ID movement is nothing more than creationism in a lab coat. The agenda is political and religious, not the advancement of science (read the “Wedge Document”). Many of the more vocal ID proponents absolutely REFUSE to discuss the age of the planet because they want YEC on board to increase their political clout. It would be far more honest and accurate if IDists were to change the initials “ID” from meaning “Intelligent Design” to meaning “Intellectual Deception.”

    There is no validated test for design detection and the amount of research going on to actually develop one is exactly ZERO. The IDists are too busy on the lecture tour trying to push their agenda in political forums and to school boards to spend any time doing actual research.
    #####

  19. Geno Castagnoli November 9, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Mike Ayala wrote:
    Geno brought up the work of Barry Setterfield.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Yes I did. And a recent visit to Setterfield’s pages indicates my original criticism is still accurate. In fact, I’m not the only one who criticizes c-decay. The YEC ministry AnswersinGenesis lists c-decay as an argument creationists should avoid.
    ####

    Mike wrote:
    I suggest you actually read and examine Barry Setterfield’s writings such as Atomic Constants, Time, and Light, or read his later papers on Redshift rather than accept or perpetuate heresay as some of his critics (both evolutionists and progressive creationists) had done.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    As my remarks were the result of actually readinig some of Setterfield’s work, they are not hearsay. That said, I also suggest those interested read Setterfield’s writings. They will quickly find out his claims are as fantastic as I said they are. When I last checked, he was claiming that mass changes as a function of the speed of light. While I must admit I didn’t read that particular claim in depth, I suspect it was to comply with Einstein (e=mc^2).
    #####

    Mike writes:
    His work is not undermined by spurious accusations.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    There is nothing “spurious” about my comments. Setterfield proposes change in the speed of light, a change of mass, and a change of the Gravitational constant. Despite all this, he is unable to simultaneosly satisfy the laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum when discussing objects like Earth in its orbit, so he proposes a new kind of mass. Sorry, Mike…. the mass Einstein uses in his equation is exactly the same kind of mass Newton uses in his equations.
    #####

    Mike writes:
    His critics either refused to hear and accept his answer as an answer, or they did not understand it.
    #####
    Geno notes:
    Oh, I think I understand it pretty well. I didn’t even mention some of the issues with Setterfield’s earlier claims. It’s so unreasonable of me to not accept an “answer” that involves changing multiple constants, an intrinsic property of matter and creating a new form of mass.
    #####

    Mike claims:
    The very nature of Barry’s work called into question many foundational truths of his critics upon which they based their criticism. Rather, many evolutionists are finally coming to similar conclusions as Barry (better late than never) although from a different perspective. In fact, Barry’s conclusions are rather tame compared to some of the evolutionists such as Paul Davies or that of V.S. Troitskill.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    That would be the same Davies who in 2002 found the speed of light may have changed by less than 0.001% since it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth. If I’m not mistaken, Troitskill acknowledges his ideas would violate Einstein’s relativity.

    Check with me again when Setterfield, Davies, or Troitskill come up with an idea as thoroughly tested and confirmed as Einstein.
    ######

    Mike:
    Please check out the writings of these guys – especially Barry Setterfield. I think you will find them captivating if not just amazing if you are hungry to learn about new discoveries in these fields.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Well, I guess “amazing” is one way you could describe it.

  20. Don Carr November 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Dr. Hovind has CLEARLY deomonstrated that a giant hoax or scam is being forced upon us. No doubt Hawking is part of that scam. Why waste time discussing such propaganda?

    Emily G. has made the point, THEY are coming, but, to what? Should the trumpet blast – who would hear? Should they arrive in the sky, who would see? It takes a spiritual ear and eye.

    Congregations must demand to know the truth behind the parables with which they are being teased, and acquire the spirit – for real…

  21. Duane November 10, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    Why are we not supposed to pay attention to criticisms of Setterfield? Or any of the other creationist scientists, who all turn out to be preachers or otherwise demonstrably biased, for that matter? That statement of faith posted in other blogs is about as damning as is even possible concerning a bias. (If it is stated that data that does not agree with Scripture must be wrong, then how do we know if real data is being ignored for convenience?) Scientists failing to account for Hebrew folklore is not a bias, any more than failing to account for Scandinavian, Greek, or South African Bushmen folklore. Obviously, it is not possible for everyone to gain expertise in every field of knowledge, so we must rely on those that do. How do we judge them, then? Well, we can look at what else they believe. When an otherwise intelligent sounding person starts off on Obama “birther” and “He’s a Muslim” arguments, then he can pretty much be dismissed as a credible source. Even our hosts, when the rest of their beliefs are examined, it becomes impossible to take them seriously, either. A Bible question was answered to me with an explanation quoted from a Peter Ruckman. I looked up Peter Ruckman. Our hosts, whatever their credentials or lack thereof concerning Science, they should have some credibility in Bible study. If someone such as Peter Ruckman is considered by our hosts to be an authoritative source, then I believe they can be dismissed in pretty much anything they say.

    Thanks for playing.

    • CSE November 10, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

      Duane,
      That reply was directly from Dr. Hovind (via email though the moderator).

  22. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 1:51 am #

    Hi Mike,

    Oh, ye of little faith. So, in your view, God cannot create a universe which is incapable of looking after itself without his constant micro-management of every last particle. If you are correct then the science of chemistry could be called the science of God Prediction since we already know in advance what will be the consequence of mixing chemical A with chemical B and hence can predict the outcome of God’s micromanagement.

    If this really is your position then you must hold God responsible for every last cancer-causing mutation in the human genome which rather goes against Emily G’s view that God is entirely good. Perhaps you two should have a private discussion between yourselves in order to come up with a self-consistent philosophy.

  23. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 2:22 am #

    Hi Mike,

    I have read Setterfield’s work. As you probably know, as a result of criticism in the science community, he has had to withdraw his work on c-decay on three occasions and re-write it with similar error-strewn results. In the end he withdrew from the affair and his wife now refuses to allow him to enter correspondence on the matter. If you doubt me, write to him on the subject on his current work on c-decay and see what response you get.

    You wrote to Jennifer “Secondly, without a decaying velocity of light, evolutionary cosmology has three fatal problems….” But Barry does not agree with you. He does not now postulate a decay in the velocity of light. You, Emily G and Barry Setterfield do not seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

  24. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    Mike, your four questions were:

    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?

    2. How do you define a vacuum?

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?

    My brief off-the-cuff answers:

    1. Constant with respect to what? As you think it relevant who the person was who told me, it was Barry Setterfield?

    2. In every day parlance it is the absence of matter. In science it is the energy ground state. In other words, within a universe, a real vacuum as popularly understood cannot exist

    3. It doesn’t matter.

    4. How precisely do you want to know? All measurement comes with error bars. However, as part of everyday nuclear power station management, energy output is measured against loss of fissile material. If E does not equal mc^2 then what in your opinion does it equal and why?

  25. Jack Napper November 10, 2010 at 3:13 am #

    NO WAY Kent!!! Are you REALLY trying to recycle this one? I found it utterly hilarious when you tried to “stump” me with it in response to a comment barely a month ago.

    Stephen, please give a scientific explanation for how your computer came to be without referring to any outside source of power or design such as “man.”

    This is just plain silly. Let’s use a inorganic non self-replicating artificial entity and then stack the deck. What’s next Kent? Explain how my sack lunch got into the fridge while removing myself as the “creator” of said meal? Excuse me while I catch my breath.

    Your answer must be confined to natural causes within the elements of the machine.

    Man is natural not supernatural. We can prove that the man exists and link the evidence to him. We don’t require a “man of the gaps”. Seriously Kent, how exactly is it that you think this is actually a well thought out challenge?

    You can refer to physical forces like inertia, gravity, centrifugal force, etc., even though it could be argued that even they need a designer!

    You could argue it and I’m sure it would consist of a “God of the gaps” style fallacy.

    If you choose to involve long time periods for your explanation, then also please factor in the disintegration and natural decomposition of the various materials in the computer as well.

    Why? Your challenge has yet to make even the slightest bit of sense.

    The finished computer only needs to be loaded with software for solitaire, not any other programs (to save you lots of time!).

    Even a man-made computer wouldn’t do squat without an OS or at least a loader. EPIC FAIL.

    To assist you, start with gold, silver and copper wire already the right diameter and already insulated and on a spool. As an added bonus, all the plastic parts for the keys are supplied and the case is already in the right size and shape, too. What a bonus that is! Ready – set – GO!

    Ready. Set. FACEPALM.

    While we wait in vain, I’d recommend that Stephen and everyone else admit the obvious: there was a Designer of this universe.

    Yep so obvious yet you still require apologists, have to resort to logical fallacies and then the biggy. Rather than actually do what you really need to do you simply waste time with a false dichotomy. Apparently you think that if you can make one position look silly with this, uh…challenge it will somehow make your correct. You’d still have to prove why YOU are right.

    If fallacies were logic, no computer would function at all.

  26. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:25 am #

    Mike:

    “If we see the complexity of a computer and know that it did not and cannot be developed by natural processes how could we possibly say that Man did not have a creator. This is the same watchmaker argument that Creation has had for over 100 years and still there is no answer.”

    The problem with your argument is that you ignore self-replication with modification. Your genome is not the same as that of your mother or your father. There are sequences in your DNA which exist in neither. Are you suggesting that God deliberately designed your DNA? If so, why does he bother designing the DNA of foetuses he knows will never reach viability though natural abortion?

    I’ve often heard Kent hopelessly trying to argue against evolution on the totally irrelevant basis of car mass-production techniques. He then compounds his error by suggesting that he would believe in evolution if ever a “dog gave birth to a non-dog”, a spurious anti-truth which would actually disprove evolution if it happened. I suggest that you suffer the same lack of comprehension.

    P.S. I wrote in an earlier post “God cannot create a universe which is incapable of looking after itself without his constant micro-management of every last particle.” That “incapable” should have read “capable”.

  27. Brian Carman November 10, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    Jay (the first poster) kind of missed the whole metaphor. The human body is similar to a computer in that the DNA is literally a programming language, and a very complex one at that.

    Scientists have never said that information springs up out of nowhere. Everything we know about the existence of information always traces back to a person with a mind as the origin of the information. Therefore, since DNA has information in it (quite complicated, in fact), scientists have absolutely no theory as to where the information originated. They claim it just appeared out of thin air. We have no scientific evidence of that. We cannot test that, observe it nor reproduce it in a laboratory. And yet, however illogical and irrational it is, evolutionists claim that it is true. They will stop at nothing to discount the existence of a God. It’s incredibly ridiculous.

  28. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    Brian wrote: “Everything we know about the existence of information always traces back to a person with a mind as the origin of the information. ”

    That cannot be correct else we would know nothing of the natural world. The moon shining down on us possesses no intelligence but by observing it we can obtain a great deal of information. For a start, just by observing its phase, I can determine the approximate maximum and minimum heights of my local tide despite the fact I live 20 miles from the sea.

    “scientists have absolutely no theory as to where the information originated.”

    Yes they do. In fact, they have a number of theories – most of them, but not all, non-viable.

    “They claim it just appeared out of thin air.”

    They would be meteorologists you are thinking of. And you are right; they know nothing beyond next week.

    “We have no scientific evidence of that. We cannot test that, observe it nor reproduce it in a laboratory.”

    Wrong. Perhaps you should look at the work of Mike Russell and be very surprised. It has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God though.

  29. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:

    “Hey Mike, I just wanted to state that we do know what light is. Light is the accumulation of the density of thermal energy. The greater the density, the brighter the light. The lower the density, the dimmer the light.”

    Light is thermal energy? So all I need to do to get warm is to turn on a small bank of LEDs? That’s great – who needs expensive invisible infra-red anyway?

    “The speed of light is directly proportionate to the force projected from the source. Think of a camp fire compared to the suns fire. Light from the sun will travel faster and farther than light from the camp fire, due to the increased size and density of the suns thermal energy.”

    Nah, not really. All light travelling through space gets scattered or absorbed by dust. The light from a camp fire on Earth would reach the sun in the same time a light ray from the sun would reach the earth – if it wasn’t all absorbed by intervening dust. The sunlight gets through because there is far more light than dust – the opposite of one of Kent’s dim seminars.

    “Due to light scattering, consistent with Newtons inverse square law, and entropy, as the light wave reduces in density with distance light will slow down until all thermal energy is used up.”

    Light “scattering” has nothing to do with Newton’s Inverse Square law. Nor entropy. And if light did slow down over time then light from the most distant galaxies would never reach us.

    “I wish that I could post thermal imaging photo of stars here.” You can clearly see the thermal waves expanding uniformly.”

    Although you are not permitted to provide a link (why not?) perhaps you could suggest an address for us to google.

    “As the waves increase in size, the density is reduced which means the frequency is also being reduced”

    No, frequency equates to colour (with respect to the wavelengths our eyes can detect) and not speed. You can experiment for yourself to prove this is true. When the sun is at noon it is bright yellow, hot and 93 million miles away. At dusk, it approaches the horizon which is only about 4 miles distant and the sun is much redder and much cooler thus proving the opposite of what you are postulating.

    Hope this helps,

    John

  30. Duane November 11, 2010 at 1:18 am #

    @CSE November 10th at 4:00 pm

    “Duane,
    That reply was directly from Dr. Hovind (via email though the moderator).”

    “”CSE October 7th at 8:24 am

    @ Alfred Russell Wallace, and Duane

    The supposed conflict between II Kngs 8:26 and I Chron 22:2 is dealt with very thoroughly in the book The Errors in the King James Bible by Peter Ruckman.””

    If the explanation given wasn’t from that source, it was similarly pulled from regions of the anatomy best not discussed in mixed company. I looked that issue up and 99 out of 100 Biblical scholars (that is, those that actually believe, not atheists) acknowledge an obvious scribal error that doesn’t affect doctrine at all. Indeed, on Biblegateway, with its multiple translations/versions I noticed that most Bibles correct the error. The actual issue is one of trust. When you set yourself up as an authority, how do we know we can trust you? I know neither you nor Dr. Hovind are scientists. Your degrees are in Christian Education, not Paleontology, Astronomy, Geology, Physics, etc. yet these are the fields you are calling into question. Like the rest of us, with the exception of Gene, who appears to be the real deal, you must rely on others’ expertise. Whose expertise we call upon becomes the measure of the validity of our statements. On a subject that I would normally trust your superior knowledge, Bible study, you referred to a crank as an authority. If this is standard where you set your bar, then it colors all the science you mention. You appear to solicit the opinions of those that agree with you rather than seek for knowledge, be it in science or religion. Without exception, you refer to scientists who are either straight-up preachers or scientists who hold extreme minority opinions within their fields, at best. How one is viewed by his peers is generally a valid judge of one’s ability. One thing you don’t do is pick out the “Bela Lugosi” or “John Carradine” type scientists who are cackling in the corner about how everyone thinks they are “mad”. Yes, sometimes science is actually advanced by those guys. I just don’t trust the guy who also believes the Illuminati, FEMA, the Tri-lateral Commision, and the Council on Foriegn Relations are out to reduce the world population to 1 Billion through vaccines (as I’ve seen videos of Dr. Hovind discuss as fact) to be the one to pick those guys out.

    I watched the video on the front page about “They’re both religions”, and you completely misrepresented the Evolution position on every step. If you can’t honestly present your argument, then again why should I believe you?

  31. andrew Ryan November 11, 2010 at 3:27 am #

    Brian: “Jay (the first poster) kind of missed the whole metaphor. The human body is similar to a computer in that the DNA is literally a programming language, and a very complex one at that.”

    Brian, you say yourself that it’s a metaphor. References to computer programming languages are metaphors, nothing more. And yes, scientists can explain very well where the ‘information’ comes from. You’re local library should be able to help you there.

  32. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 8:51 am #

    Brian Carman wrote:
    ” …… We have no scientific evidence of that. We cannot test that, observe it nor reproduce it in a laboratory. And yet, however illogical and irrational it is, evolutionists claim that it is true. They will stop at nothing to discount the existence of a God. It’s incredibly ridiculous.”
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Ridiculous claim noted. Evolutionists (at least 80% or so of them) do not discount the existence of God. They believe evolution to be a creative process used by God.

    However, there is no scientific test available that will detect God. Properly used, science is limited to producing natural explanations for observed events/processes. The supernatural is outside the (limited) scope of scientific inquiry. This has nothing to do with Darwin/evolution and a lot to do with Newton. The Newtonian synthesis basically holds the natural laws apply at all times and in all place. If/when God intervenes in the natural world by suspending the natural laws and performing a miracle, it would be undetectable to science for that reason. The correct scientific response in such a situation is not “Goddidit”, but “Wedonno.”

    Go ahead, prove me wrong…. simply produce one test available to science that will detect the invervention of God.

  33. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    Kenneth Tyner
    I just wanted to state that we do know what light is.

    Light is the accumulation of the density of thermal energy. The greater the density, the brighter the light. The lower the density, the dimmer the light.
    #######
    Geno comments:
    Wrong. Light is electromagnetic radiation of particular wavelengths.
    #####

    Kenneth:
    The speed of light is directly proportionate to the force projected from the source.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    Well, either Einstein was wrong or Kenneth is. If Kenneth’s claim is true, the radio signal from a megawatt TV station would be hundreds of thousands of times faster than that from a cell phone.

    I think I’ll put my money on Einstein and bet against Kenneth. (Kenneth may be thinking about the frequency of light which is directly proportional to its energy.)

  34. David Rose November 11, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    Does not seem like an unreasonable analogy to me. You have to understand that the points being made are not about the computer, but about life. When you see a computer you see glass and plastic and you understand that it was created. You see a person you see flesh and bone but is that any less reason to think he was created? What is it about the computer that convinces you it has a designer? Organization, specialized parts, function, etc. People have all of that. You say “I can see a computer being made”. What if you couldn’t. You would still believe it had a designer based on the afore mentioned characteristics wouldn’t you?

  35. Joni Hankin November 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Anyone that takes away from God’s Creation, is not of God, nor knows God. And their input is but foolishness and shall fade and die like a flower. God’s Word that spoke the creation of the universe, goes on infinitely. How would but mortal man have an understanding of this if not given to him by God?

    And you say how do I know this? By faith in what God has taught me.

    “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6

    Simple. (God made it that way for we are but simpletons compared to God.)

  36. Jennifer Preston November 12, 2010 at 7:28 am #

    Stephen Hawking has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and can only move one (maybe two) muscles in his entire body. It takes him about 10 minutes to say 7 words. And you expect him to enter debates and build computers with your strict rules??? Stephen Hawking does not have the time or energy to debate Kent Hovind. You honestly expect him to actually accept your challenge in his condition?? Don’t be surprised if you hear nothing from him. Besides, creationism isn’t such a problem here in the UK. I doubt he would’ve even heard of this website or you Kent Hovind. Maybe CSE should come and see what dent they can make in the beliefs of people in Britain.

  37. andrew Ryan November 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    “When you see a computer you see glass and plastic and you understand that it was created. You see a person you see flesh and bone but is that any less reason to think he was created?”

    I saw my daughter born, she grew from a single cell, organically. Any assumptions I made about either the creation of a computer or my daughter based on observing the other would be based on false assumptions. Sure, you can assert that God made my daughter to, but it’s by observing a computer that you can justify that assertion.

  38. John Bebbington November 12, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    Joni said:

    “Anyone that takes away from God’s Creation, is not of God, nor knows God. And their input is but foolishness and shall fade and die like a flower”

    A bunch of words piled together in no particular order. It reminds me of a camel’s DNA.

    Jennifer said:

    “Maybe CSE should come and see what dent they can make in the beliefs of people in Britain.”

    Actually, Jennifer, Kent has been to Britain where he was entertained by a pastor Todd some six or seven years ago at a village near an American Airforce base somewhere in North Suffolk or South Norfolk where he spoke to a handful of American baptists. Fortunately, this area of England is so isolated that news of the event has yet to reach even the county border.

  39. andrew Ryan November 13, 2010 at 3:48 am #

    Sorry, that should have read ‘it’s NOT by observing a computer”. You might as well say that seeing as we know animals are born, we must also assume that complex machinery is also produced through sexual reproduction.

  40. andrew Ryan November 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Ken, can you explain where the fallacy in the following is?

    Man made systems are functioning systems.
    Man made systems are intelligently designed
    Men are mortal
    Therefore, functioning systems are designed by mortal creatures.

    We can both agree that this is fallacious, I just want to know how the above differs from your own argument.

  41. Luke Henderson November 13, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    Pride. Thats all I see here. God loves you all so change your mind and believe the gospel.

  42. Jennifer Preston November 15, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    Andrew Ryan said
    “You might as well say that seeing as we know animals are born, we must also assume that complex machinery is also produced through sexual reproduction.”

    Nice One!!