Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why I believe in Creation? An unbelieving scientist, that knows the structure of DNA says, that life could not develop here on earth, it must have come from outside. Another scientist that knows the structure of DNA who believes in Creation says, if life came through evolution, it is like throwing the loose pages of a book out of a helicopter and down on earth the pages fall in the right order on each other.
Life comes from the Creator. He has also programed the reproduction of life. Question for evolutionists: How did the first baby developed in the womb? How much time was needed? The Creator programed it to happen in 9 month. This is a miracle, that cannot develop in millions of years, right? It makes sense that such a miracle does not come just by chance, not even in million, billion of years. Animals and humans do not live so long. It is like the fish, if it has not the DNA, it will just die on land. The trick with time just does not work.
There are not two ways to look at the principle, and what you posted is incorrect.
There is only one way to look at the principle...the actual physical description of the principal. It does not state anything that you just wrote. Everything is a wave. Nothing is truly a "particle". This is the basis of Quantum Field Theory (and again, just because the word "Theory" is attached, does not imply we do not clearly understand it). You can't determine where a "particle" is, and its location, not even one single photon. Not even on the Planck scale.
Yikes again!
Probability is not our lack of understanding, it's simply how the Universe works. I am sorry to say but the Universe does not care if you don't like the way it works, because it does not fit yours or anyone's else's "beliefs".
Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background.
Quite the opposite. The more we learn the more we've proven the wave theory to be correct. Not one single experiment has proven it to be inaccurate by any margin of error.
we will have to disagree on this. on a few things really. one is that the physical description I gave on Heisenberg is an accepted explanation. Take it to your physic dept. The second area we may disagree on is what we are using this information for. the third, and the main thing is >>> The formulas come from the observations. The formulas do not drive the observations.
Like all disconnects it comes down to what we are using the formula for. I am not really using for anything but we need to clean up what we know about it. from here we would be discussing ideologies not formulas.
I only joined the discussion because you misrepresented Hiesy when you said "they have smaller particles that's how they know.". (paraphrased) That is wrong. I messed up and confused the issue because I was not clear when I said it can make predictions. BUT I WAS UNCLEAR and should have pointed the that it can't with particles and can with groups of particles. my bad there.
The statistical wave function is a mathematical model. Like all models it falls short. you know where it falls short so that's that. I know many people that "live on only the formulas". that is what it is too.
I said you may be right, we may not be able to see smaller because we may very well be at the limits that we can see with the stuff we have. I am not so sure. I think the next big break through is gravity. It may even show you are right. I don't think so because we are not a zero energy and don't know what space is yet. And that QM does not describe gravity, black holes, or the fabric of space itself.
yes, I said it has never failed. It doesn't change what I said. as long as dt is in there and we use a wave (whole numbers only) you may very well be right. The "waving" is the problem and I think we may get around that. Based on how much we don't know, I think so. and that is not irrational to say. We use "rates" and there may not even be "time".
As far as the physical descriptor of the Hinesburg uncertainty principle I will not change my description. I not only can read the definition I know what it means.
"edit" ... big edit ...srry.
I m aware of QFT, QED,QCD and others. Yes, hiesszie fits there too; because? they have particles. And yes, the particles, as I said, may not even be "particles" and be an excited field location. they may be "waving".
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-29-2015 at 06:17 AM..
Reason: forgot to add last part.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,918,389 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
While the observation is correct please don't forget that a certain type of consciousness has evolved to understand that 'it just is' and 'it is nature' and 'chance' are words created through observations of what is happening.
Lets assume neither the fish or the pelican think about things in this way. They simply do. They are being, without the ability to think "I will go and fly around and perhaps by chance I will catch a fish' or 'I will take my chances and swim today and hopefully I wont get eaten.'
Human consciousness works differently because it is more evolved and is able to contemplate the fact that the pelican caught the fish due to chance. That is a reasonable description of the event yes?
But human consciousness does not stop there. It is able to see things through a subjective lens which interprets certain events to being more than simply chance.
In doing so it transforms the mundane into the magical.
And yet there are those who respond to such interpretation with derision as if those who choice to see things as more than 'chance' are somehow sick in the head.
The process of nature may well have started of as a mindless impulse devoid of any intelligence, but it has already evolved into something far greater than that.
So in short, any god was conceived by humans.
I would concur.
There are various reasons why humans conceived their various gods, part of it was to explain what at the time was unexplainable, such as thunder, part of it was that I do agree that humans have an innate drive to be spiritual in some way or other, end religion and gods were conceived to control populations.
Spirituality does not mean one has to buy into any religion or god concept.
Why I believe in Creation? An unbelieving scientist, that knows the structure of DNA says, that life could not develop here on earth, it must have come from outside. Another scientist that knows the structure of DNA who believes in Creation says, if life came through evolution, it is like throwing the loose pages of a book out of a helicopter and down on earth the pages fall in the right order on each other.
Life comes from the Creator. He has also programed the reproduction of life. Question for evolutionists: How did the first baby developed in the womb? How much time was needed? The Creator programed it to happen in 9 month. This is a miracle, that cannot develop in millions of years, right? It makes sense that such a miracle does not come just by chance, not even in million, billion of years. Animals and humans do not live so long. It is like the fish, if it has not the DNA, it will just die on land. The trick with time just does not work.
This post is full of mistakes. Scientists do not exactly say that evolution happened by chance. There IS random variation in nature - mutations occur more or less at random - but it is natural selection acting on this variation in small incremental steps that leads to evolution. So the analogy of throwing the book out of a helicopter is not relevant.
Also, evolution does not say whether life developed on Earth or not. Evolution only says that species changed over time by natural processes. You can believe in both creation and evolution; they are not mutually exclusive.
Question for evolutionists: How did the first baby developed in the womb? How much time was needed? The Creator programed it to happen in 9 month. This is a miracle, that cannot develop in millions of years, right? It makes sense that such a miracle does not come just by chance, not even in million, billion of years. Animals and humans do not live so long. It is like the fish, if it has not the DNA, it will just die on land. The trick with time just does not work.
You believe that humans come from animals, and animals come from a fish, is that right? so I asked how the DNA from a fish can change in the DNA of an animal and how this animal can reproduce itself, so that the first baby can come out in that short time from the mother. BTW the mother and the father have to develop at the same time. How can you think that nature can change by chance to reproduce life, when we know today how complex the structure of DNA is and changes do not work and a baby has to develop in a very short time or it is just dead. And the first animal and humans have not long time to develop either, they do not live long enough, I am challenging your theory of millions of years, if you think about it, it does not work in 6000 years, and it will not work in millions of years. But I understand that you as an atheist has to believe in evolution and that is OK with me. I just feel sorry for Christians who do not believe in their Creator.
This post is full of mistakes. Scientists do not exactly say that evolution happened by chance. There IS random variation in nature - mutations occur more or less at random - but it is natural selection acting on this variation in small incremental steps that leads to evolution. So the analogy of throwing the book out of a helicopter is not relevant.
Also, evolution does not say whether life developed on Earth or not. Evolution only says that species changed over time by natural processes. You can believe in both creation and evolution; they are not mutually exclusive.
I know that evolution does not know from where life comes. It comes from God, the Creator and He is the intelligent agent behind the reproduction of life till this day. If you would know how complex the structure of DNA is, you would agree with me. There is no random change in another specie possible, because the Creator has programed it that way, every specie is created in his kind. That is the rule, you may find an example or create one. God does not need your evolution. Mutation is not change in another specie.
we will have to disagree on this. on a few things really. one is that the physical description I gave on Heisenberg is an accepted explanation.
Your explanation was completely wrong and I explained explicitly the points you had wrong.
I explained it just as it was written and understood by Physicists. You can't put your spin on a well proven and established physic's Law. Prove it wrong and you will go down in History. You can't and won't be able to prove it wrong...as I stated yesterday...The more we learn the more we've proven this to be correct. Not one single experiment has proven it to be inaccurate by any margin of error.
I suppose you can put your spin and beliefs on it here on CD but in the real world you would be fired.
Like I said said the Universe doesn't care if you don't like how it works, because it does not fit into your "beliefs".
*Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background.*
I know that evolution does not know from where life comes. It comes from God, the Creator and He is the intelligent agent behind the reproduction of life till this day. If you would know how complex the structure of DNA is, you would agree with me. There is no random change in another specie possible, because the Creator has programed it that way, every specie is created in his kind. That is the rule, you may find an example or create one. God does not need your evolution. Mutation is not change in another specie.
Sorry mate The God Hypothesis is not a good one. You will never be able to progress it to an an established God Theory either.
Your utter and complete lack of Genetics and Evolution understanding is evident. Not one thing you have posted about how DNA functions or how Evolution works is accurate.
Your explanation was completely wrong and I explained explicitly the points you had wrong.
I explained it just as it was written and understood by Physicists. You can't put your spin on a well proven and established physic's Law. Prove it wrong and you will go down in History. You can't and won't be able to prove it wrong...as I stated yesterday...The more we learn the more we've proven this to be correct. Not one single experiment has proven it to be inaccurate by any margin of error.
I suppose you can put your spin and beliefs on it here on CD but in the real world you would be fired.
Like I said said the Universe doesn't care if you don't like how it works, because it does not fit into your "beliefs".
*Scientists are not afforded the luxury of a belief system, since what we believe does not matter. The same standard should hold true for every human, regardless of their scientific background.*
no, sorry dude. QM. they do not know why it works but it works. That ends that. The more experiments they do the more it works. yeah, so what. They still do not know why it works. If you don't know why it works you can't make many assumptions on what is actually going on. You implying they do know is wrong.
All "we" can say is the formula works. I said it did. My explanation of hiezzie is really fine. take what I said to your physics dpt. I purposely left out some other misunderstanding you have because this isn't that important.
I only pointed out you were wrong when you implied we had smaller particles and that's how we know the principle is right. Hiezzy showed up because we are at the limit we can work with. Everything else about QM I kind of agreed with you so I am not sure what you are driving at. I am beginning to think I may know you by another name.
I am not sure why you are talking about beliefs and spin. Our disconnect can't be the material not the material. Because I know the material. It is what you are trying to do, or what you think I am trying to do with it.
your name is new, what was it before? You last line is crapola to me for this topic. I am addressing strickly QM and Hiezzy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am sorry to say but the Universe does not care if you don't like the way it works, because it does not fit yours or anyone's else's "beliefs". 