Evolutionry/religious nonsense

an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.

the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to distinguish right from wrong.

I think it just a matter of recognizing it.

Let's see... if life is order then is imposing something on life order or crime?

Quote:

I think it just a matter of recognizing it.

Or imposing it.

No butter please, but I have no doubt tht many people of a specific mindset will insist on ID as a scientific explanation. Why dont they seem to be presenting their evidence? Could it be that there is none?

There is nearly perfect complex order making up the space inside an atom, and in the false vacuum of empty space at distances from matter where gravity becomes negligible. The disorder of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle where matter and space come into contact, is where all our sensors operate. That is why it is so hard for us to detect the order, we mess the order of the false vacuum up with our sensors, and can't observe the order inside an atom because we can't see inside it without destroying it.

We are missing the extra layers of order built into the universe that are being revealed as we unite QM and Relativity with Entropic gravity. We are missing them because the building blocks of space are arranged so precisely they had to be arranged like a machinist building a planetary gear system inside every atom and every portion of space between those atoms. You cannot unite relativity and gravity and explain anything when you can't envision the basic building blocks of space and matter. For that reason, consciousness is required in the establishment of the initial conditions of the universe. The initial hardware (matter and the Higgs field) is complex. The initial operating system (the laws of physics) are revealed by the structure of the hardware, and the algorithm of ecosystems and life are amazingly complex and appear to have been adjusted many times in the past. And by your following quote Intelligence is still affecting the ecosystem:

Quote:
all the available evidence easily shows that evolution is pretty nuch NOT anagenetic and is actually opportunistic and subservient to edaphic and all other environmental factors (including cataclysmic extinction events like that which we are experiencing today and which appears to be entirely under our control).


Maybe it is a later smaller version of the same intelligence that initiated the whole ecosystem in the first place. Maybe we need to try and learn about the initiator so we can figure out how to diagnose and fix the cataclysmic extinction event. Or, we could be biased (because of a bunch of misguided but well meaning people at the Discovery Institute) and throw that option in the garbage because of unfounded biases and keep shooting from the hip because science doesn't even know where gravity comes from let alone how it affects the Higgs field and the temperature of Earth.

Quote:
Ive been in the business 40 years and hqve seen more crap, bad science, and downright criminal BS over "verification of Creationist science".
I agree. And the same is true about atheistic science of Stephen Hawking, Alan Gunth, Stephen Gould and their cohorts. Both sides need to quit calling each other names and see if they both can turn out some science that truly gives an explanation of what space looks like and how it operates rather than coming up with math to explain where needles are pointing.

You can't explain an automobile by just measuring the input rpm of the engine and then coming up with math to explain why the speedometer is reading and then calling that good. What's going to happen to the math when it runs out of gas or someone applies the brakes or shifts into reverse. As you pointed out if intelligence doesn't operate the system correctly damage or even a cataclysmic extinction event can be the result that could otherwise be controlled with intelligence that understands the operation and purpose of the automobile.

I think I figured out the structure of the space inside matter and in the Higgs field 15 years ago, but I am not in the game. (yet?) I am not a genius, it isn't any harder than figuring out what is going on inside a transmission without tearing it apart. But you have to admit that there are gears and planetary gears inside the transmission and rear end housings before you can hypothesize how it is built without taking it apart.

And, if I understand, you take ownership of possible "seeding" of our planet by life from somewhere else as an example of ID?

Im sure that with the few good examples of abiogenesis from the lab are just examples of possible ways that life could have begun.
"Knowing what's true" without any evidence, is more an ID thing, not science.

1.To me(and I assume others) an algorithm is supposed to be unambiguous sets of calculations. A simple "if then" relationship for one statement aint an algorithm..

2 Your beliefs contain too many "ifs" as if they constitute evidence. Thats neither good science nor good logic. Its pure speculation.

Im sure that with the few good examples of abiogenesis from the lab are just examples of possible ways that life could have begun.
"Knowing what's true" without any evidence, is more an ID thing, not science.

Matter creation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Even restricting the discussion to physics, we do not have a unique definition of what matter is. In the currently known particle physics, summarised by the standard model of elementary particles and interactions, it is possible to distinguish in an absolute sense particles of matter and particles of antimatter. This is particularly easy for those particles that carry electric charge, such as electrons or protons or quarks. In the standard model, it is not possible to create a net amount of matter particles--or more precisely, it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations.

However, similar processes are not considered to be impossible, and in fact they are expected in other models of the elementary particles, that extend the standard model. Actually they are necessary in speculative theories that aim to explain the cosmic excess of matter over antimatter, such as leptogenesis and baryogenesis and they could manifest themselves in laboratory as proton decay or as creations of electrons in the so called neutrinoless double beta decay.

In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions. In this sense, the process inverse to particle annihilation can be called matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles[citation needed]. The most common and well studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.

This is particularly easy for those particles that carry electric charge, such as electrons or protons or quarks. In the standard model, it is not possible to create a net amount of matter particles--or more precisely, it is not possible to change the net number of leptons or of quarks in any perturbative reaction among particles. This remark is consistent with all existing observations.

However, similar processes are not considered to be impossible, and in fact they are expected in other models of the elementary particles, that extend the standard model. Actually they are necessary in speculative theories that aim to explain the cosmic excess of matter over antimatter. . .

In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions. In this sense, the process inverse to particle annihilation can be called matter creation; more precisely, we are considering here the process obtained under time reversal of the annihilation process. This process is also known as pair production, and can be described as the conversion of light particles (i.e., photons) into one or more massive particles[citation needed]. The most common and well studied case is the one where two photons convert into an electron–positron pair.

T-symmetry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about time reversal symmetry. For time translation symmetry, see Time translation symmetry.

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Time
T-symmetry or time reversal symmetry is the theoretical symmetry of physical laws under the transformation of time reversal:

{\displaystyle T:t\mapsto -t.} T:t\mapsto -t.
Although in restricted contexts one may find this symmetry, the observable universe itself does not show symmetry under time reversal, primarily due to the second law of thermodynamics. Hence time is said to be non-symmetric, or asymmetric, except for equilibrium states when the second law of thermodynamics predicts the time symmetry to hold. However, quantum noninvasive measurements are predicted to violate time symmetry even in equilibrium,[1] contrary to their classical counterparts, although it has not yet been experimentally confirmed.

You've got a beef, specifically with Wikipedia, on the origin of matter--and yet you seem to think your imaginary friend poofed it all into existence on a whim. You provide not a shred of evidence, yet you scorn the work of scientists who are far better educated than you, and spend their lives researching physics and chemistry. That's pathetic.