A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[oxmixmudd]

One observation: dark matter is not detectable by any other means mainly because it is a long way away in space. I'm sure that if I had some dark matter on my desk I'd be able to detect it by touching it. If souls were dark matter we'd have investigated both them and it by now.

No, I don't think that is true. Dark matter does not interact with matter at all. And if theory is correct, we are in dark matter all the time, it's mass is what is holding our galaxy togetherso to speak in that without it the stellar orbits of the galactic core are too fast and they'd all fly off into intergalactic space, including our sun.

Jim

[tabibito]

No, I don't think that is true. Dark matter does not interact with matter at all. And if theory is correct, we are in dark matter all the time, it's mass is what is holding our galaxy togetherso to speak in that without it the stellar orbits of the galactic core are too fast and they'd all fly off into intergalactic space, including our sun.

Jim

On first face appearances, those claims seem to be mutually contradictory.

[Roy]

No, I don't think that is true. Dark matter does not interact with matter at all.

Isn't dark matter theorised because the behaviour of visible astronomical objects suggests gravitational attraction to something otherwise undetectable? That would be dark matter affecting non-dark matter.

[37818]

The soul is the formal cause of a living body. Any body that is alive has a soul. Plants and animals have material souls. Men have spiritual souls. Without the soul, there is insufficient causation to account for life. Materialists attempt to account for life through mechanistic explanations such as chemical reactions, but such explanations do not account for life as life in contradction to non living bodies. A non living body lacks the act of life. The act of life is a form, which requires a formal cause in contradiction to a body that does not have life and does not have the act, nor the formal cause of life.

The soul as the substantial form of a living body is a conclusion derived from an understanding of bodies in accord with hylomorphism. Hylemorphism explains how bodies remain as the same bodies, but also are bodies that change. As bodies have two acts 1) same with itself and 2) change, two causes are required to account for the two acts. The form accounts for 1) and the matter accounts for 2). The union of formal cause and material cause is hylemorphism. Hylemorphism is expressed in examples such as man, who has a human soul, as the formal cause of human life of the body. When the human soul (formal cause) is united to the body, the flesh of the body (material cause) is humanised, or informed flesh.

Similarly, with animals and plants, the soul is united to the body, to cause the body to be alive. Hence the oak tree, along with all other trees has a soul as the formal cause of life. As the soul is a substantial form of a living body, the soul is the root cause of all acts of life of the body. When a living body acts to grow, nourish and generate, those acts of life have their root cause in the soul.

Of course, TE knows nothing of hylomorphism and the soul, for TE is a materialist understanding of biological organisms that lacks deductive reasoning and relies heavily upon induction as Jim has show us on this thread. No amount of contradictions or problems stop evolutionists from following TE even when TE is shown to be false through reason. TE is only a poorly formed theory based upon atheistic, materialist naturalism. Whatever truth is contained within TE may be included in a theistic, hylomorphic, supernaturalist model that posits a creation event as the source of all complete living substances and the small changes we observe are those that are in accord with hylomorphism.

JM

You gave me your long argument. I guess that is the best I can expect. Thank you.
It is my understanding only man and animals have souls as such, having blood. All living things have a spirit. My understand that the spirit and soul can be separated. Soul being a self awareness and spirit being breath/living.

[Roy]

You gave my your long argument. I guess that is the best I can expect.
It is my understanding only man and animals have souls as such, having blood.

Tree-sap doesn't count?

[oxmixmudd]

Isn't dark matter theorised because the behaviour of visible astronomical objects suggests gravitational attraction to something otherwise undetectable? That would be dark matter affecting non-dark matter.

Yes, I should have added 'except gravitatially'. But I had already mentioned its only measurable quantity is mass and so I thought that would be undrstood.

For you to 'detect' dark matter directly with your 5 senses it would have to interact with matter in some other way, so unless you had a quantity of sufficient mass and density so as to noticably change the gravitational field where you found it, you would never know it was there. It doesn't emit light, it has no charge nor any other property of matter other then Mass.

Jim

[sylas]

When you "touch" ordinary matter, you are interacting via electromagnetic forces. Dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic forces. (This is basically what it means to be "dark". Interactions with light are electromagnetic as well.)

Hence you would not be able to "touch" dark matter; it wouldn't even be able to sit on your desk.

An example of a known dark matter particle is the neutrino. There aren't enough of them, however; they are too light weight. We are flooded with neutrinos all the time, but you can't touch them. We might be flooded with other dark matter particles as well; in fact it is probable. But you still can't touch them.

Interactions with gravity are, in a sense, indirect, but still. For precision it would have been better to say dark matter does not interact with ordinary matter except through gravity. Even that might be an approximation. You could have very rare more direct interactions... as we have with ordinary matter and neutrinos.

Cheers -- sylas

[Roy]

For you to 'detect' dark matter directly with your 5 senses it would have to interact with matter in some other way, so unless you had a quantity of sufficient mass and density so as to noticably change the gravitational field where you found it, you would never know it was there. It doesn't emit light, it has no charge nor any other property of matter other then Mass.

Can it be packed densely enough to be poked with a finger?

[TheLurch]

No, I don't think that is true. Dark matter does not interact with matter at all. And if theory is correct, we are in dark matter all the time, it's mass is what is holding our galaxy togetherso to speak in that without it the stellar orbits of the galactic core are too fast and they'd all fly off into intergalactic space, including our sun.

Jim

Your hand would go right through a pile of dark matter. Objects repel due to the electromagnetic force; if dark matter feels that, it does so only very weakly (hence WIMPS, or weakly interacting massive particles). But it does interact with regular matter through gravity. You'd just need a lot of it on your desk to feel its pull.

EDIT: derp, read the rest of the thread before responding. I see everyone's already handled this point already. Sorry!

[TheLurch]

Can it be packed densely enough to be poked with a finger?

I think by that point, the time dilation that results from its intense gravitational field would prevent your finger from reaching it in your lifetime. Plus, if it's rotating, your finger would do some very weird things due to frame dragging.

[oxmixmudd]

On first face appearances, those claims seem to be mutually contradictory.

yes - I assumed the fact I'd already mentioned the only way it interacts with matter is by the fact it has mass (i.e. gravitationally) would suffice to imply that exception. Secondarily, while gravitational interaction is an interaction, it is not the sort of interaction implied by Roy's post when he said:

dark matter is not detectable by any other means mainly because it is a long way away in space. I'm sure that if I had some dark matter on my desk I'd be able to detect it by touching it.

To detect something by touch implies that something interacts electrochemically with matter. dark matter does not.

Jim

[rogue06]

Dawkins is quoted as saying evolution is an intellectual edifice of his atheism.


It's well known that atheists appeal to evolution as the theory that replaces the Genesis creation account. Evolution is founded upon naturalism, and denies the creator as understood by atheists.

JM

So what? Dawkins hardly speaks for everyone. At one time Newton's ideas about gravity were being accused of supporting atheism but that hardly makes it so.

ETA:Principia" before they aim their telescopes

In 1724 John Hutchinson^[1], professor at Cambridge, published his "Moses' Principia," a system of philosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of the universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory as "atheistic," and, according to the The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science, p.504:

"...accused Newton of contradicting Biblical authority and further limiting God's power by equating Him with space and requiring Him to be constantly active in maintaining the equilibrium of the universe."

Hutchinson led the way for similar attacks by such Church teachers as George Horne (a Vice-Chancellor of Oxford), Duncan Forbes (Lord President of the Scottish Sessions)^[2], and William Jones of Nayland (pamphlet ally of Edmund Burke and an an influential theological writer "who systematically picked apart Newton's concept of gravitational attraction in order to uphold his own insistence that such power could be exerted only by God").

In 1796, the Gentleman's Magazine1. Who described Newton's Principia as that "Cobweb of Circles and Lines to catch Flies in"

2. At least early on

[oxmixmudd]

Can it be packed densely enough to be poked with a finger?

Not if I understand what is proposed. Early on the neutrino was a dark matter candidate - assuming it had some mass. Later discoveries showed the potential mass of the neutrino was way too small to account for what we see, even though there are a LOT of neutrinos whizzing by at any given time. As I understand it, you'd have a better chance 'feeling' the presence of neutrinos than you would the presense of dark matter - excepting the really dense blob of sufficent mass to create a humanly noticable change in the graviational field where you are. I'm pretty sure such a blob would have bigger effects - like disturbing the orbit of the Moon by changing the Earth/Moon barycenter.

Jim

ETA: Sylas post snuck in I guess while I was writing these others. So this is a bit redundant at this point :) Joining TheLurch in the 'my post was already posted' category ...

[oxmixmudd]

I think by that point, the time dilation that results from its intense gravitational field would prevent your finger from reaching it in your lifetime. Plus, if it's rotating, your finger would do some very weird things due to frame dragging.

You could have a blob with say the mass of the moon not necessarily at sufficient density to create such effects. Since it doesn't interact with matter outside its gravitational field, it could just be on a tangential orbit and pass within a few thousand kilometers of the Earth. It would create massive tides and earth quakes, perturb the moons orbit. It might even disrupt the crust if passed by that close - not sure. But you'd notice it without any exotic time dilation effects or frame dragging being involved.

We don't really understand dark matter very well. Does it collapse on itself like regular matter? if not, why not - what keeps it from doing so? If it did, why wouldn't it always just collapse down to a black hole - it's the electromagnetic properties of matter that prevent collapse unless the mass exceeds several times that of the Sun. But dark matter theoretically doesn't have any electromagnetic interactions. Theoretically the amount in our galaxy whould be much more than that required to form a massive black hole if it collapsed. Why hasn't it? Anybody here know? Sylas?

Jim

Editted to add:

I did a quick google and found this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#73132c423de1

It makes sense to me.

[Roy]

I learnt something today