The religion that science has become and the realization of vortice plasma

[jimmcginn]

Introducing the Solving Tornadoes Podcast

The religion that science has become and the realization of vortice plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes ... sma-ehrkj3

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Brent72]

Thanks for the link to your podcast James. I agree with you that much of science has become a religion. Sounds like you've done a lot of breakthrough work in the area of meteorology. Have you been able to publish? Particularly your solution to the anomalies of H2O.

With respect, I would like to contest a couple of points you make however:

1. Religion is about tricking yourself into believing something (2.29)

Who's being tricked here really? I'm sure you would agree that a lot of mainstream science these days is just fundamentally wrong. For example in biology, how can life 'evolve' without the input of new information? Genetic mutations and 'natural selection' clearly result in the loss of information. The evidence for intelligent design in the natural world is there to see if you are open minded enough to follow the evidence.
Also when a man who lived about 2000 years ago claimed to be God, he got killed for it. However he came back to life and appeared to hundreds of eye witnesses, who recorded it in thousands of historical documents. If you aren't going to believe the historical records, you'd also have to throw out everything we know about ancient Greek and Roman civilisation.

2. Science has the ability to give us absolute truth (7.53)

Can you give me one example of a scientific law that holds true for all time and in all places in the universe? As you said yourself, humans are deeply delusional. We can never find the absolute truth on our own, it has to be revealed to us. (Refer point 1).
Looking at the history of science, you can see that every scientific model is subject to change. Even the so-called scientific 'constants' are not absolutely true. Many of the fathers of modern science such as Newton, recognised that the universe was orderly and that it appeared to follow 'laws' - not because it came about randomly, but because it was put in place by an intelligent designer. There is only one source of absolute truth and it comes from outside our physical realm. Science points to it, but isn't, itself, it.

[jimmcginn]

Thanks for the link to your podcast James. I agree with you that much of science has become a religion. Sounds like you've done a lot of breakthrough work in the area of meteorology. Have you been able to publish?

JMcG: No. Which is understandable since one of my goals is to expose them (the academic factions of meteorology in particular and the atmospheric sciences in general) as pretending to understand what actually doesn't make sense in regards to their model of the physics of storms. As I explain in my most recent podcast, storms can't be understood until we first understand water.

Particularly your solution to the anomalies of H2O.

JMcG: I am doing a YouTube video series on this subject, the first episode of which exposes and fixes the conceptual error regarding the quantum mechanics of H2O hydrogen bonding and polarity. (In previous videos I have referred to this error as "Pauling's Omission.")

With respect, I would like to contest a couple of points you make however:
1. Religion is about tricking yourself into believing something (2.29)
Who's being tricked here really? I'm sure you would agree that a lot of mainstream science these days is just fundamentally wrong. For example in biology, how can life 'evolve' without the input of new information?

JMcG: You don't buy Darwin's argument about random variation? Have you looked into what is called, the Science of Complexity? Or chaos theory?

Genetic mutations and 'natural selection' clearly result in the loss of information.

JMcG: Doesn't replication more than makes up for any loss of information?

The evidence for intelligent design in the natural world is there to see if you are open minded enough to follow the evidence. Also when a man who lived about 2000 years ago claimed to be God, he got killed for it. However he came back to life and appeared to hundreds of eye witnesses, who recorded it in thousands of historical documents. If you aren't going to believe the historical records, you'd also have to throw out everything we know about ancient Greek and Roman civilisation.

JMcG: If it all never did happen the way it says in the bible would the value you get from it be any less?

JMcG: About My Coming Video
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes ... deo-ej9q4s

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[Brent72]

JMcG: You don't buy Darwin's argument about random variation? Have you looked into what is called, the Science of Complexity? Or chaos theory?

Genetic mutations and 'natural selection' clearly result in the loss of information.

JMcG: Doesn't replication more than makes up for any loss of information?

Jim I don't buy Darwin's argument about random variation. I can't find any evidence. Can you give me one example?

When it comes to mutations and replication, the evidence shows a loss of information leading to dysfunction/disorder/degradation of the original organism. This follows the second law of thermodynamics.

The 'Science of Complexity' asserts that "systems display behavioral phenomena that are completely inexplicable by any conventional analysis of the systems’ constituent parts" (Britannica).
There are many examples for this, but how do we explain it? Again let's look at the evidence. Living organisms have such a high level of complexity — at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that they could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. This is evidence of "Irreducible complexity". The only rational conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

[jimmcginn]

JMcG: Doesn't replication more than makes up for any loss of information?

Jim I don't buy Darwin's argument about random variation. I can't find any evidence. Can you give me one example?

JMcG: I think it has been demonstrated that radiation can cause mutation.

When it comes to mutations and replication, the evidence shows a loss of information leading to dysfunction/disorder/degradation of the original organism. This follows the second law of thermodynamics.

JMcG: Lifeforms can produce instances where entropy decreased but only at the expense of causing a NET increase in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics does not say that instances involving a decrease of entropy cannot occur. It just says that it always produces a NET increase. And lifeforms do not contradict that. (I capitalized "net" for emphasis.)

The 'Science of Complexity' asserts that "systems display behavioral phenomena that are completely inexplicable by any conventional analysis of the systems’ constituent parts" (Britannica).

JMcG: I think anytime people say something is inexplicable in principle they are speculating. There is a big difference between saying something is unexplained and inexplicable in principle. And I think Britannica is using the concept of something being unexplained interchangeably with the concept of something be inexplicable in principle, which is a very different argument. So, I reject Britannica's assertion here.

There are many examples for this, but how do we explain it? Again let's look at the evidence. Living organisms have such a high level of complexity — at the anatomical, cellular and molecular level— that they could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated.

JMcG: If you have a limb surgically removed your complexity is reduced and you can survive and still function. So . . . ?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
What is Water's Role in Storms?
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes ... rms-egaa7o

[Brent72]

Well Jim, to believe that the complexity we see in the natural world has all come about by chance... you've got more faith than I do!