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.
There is only one guy I know that defends his statements to this level no matter what.
This wasn't about proof. It's just about being reasonable. All I did was tell you where you had a minor misunderstanding. It wasn't even a big deal. It became a big deal because you made it a big deal.
I told you I was wrong about QM when I was unclear what I posted. I even said I am sorry for that. I AM SORRY I WAS UNCLEAR. I was wrong when I said QM predicts outcomes of events every time. I meant groups of particles not individual particles.
You said something like "smaller particles is how we know hizzy is right" I told you that there are not smaller particles that showed us that hizzy is right. I said hizzy is true because we don't have smaller particles. That the particles are close to the same size and that waving becomes important to hizzy thats why we have it. IE when you decrease the wavelength you increase the energy and can't "see" both the object's location and its momentum. And showed you how it works. That's all I said. Its not a big deal.
why you bring up proof, belief, and spin I don't know. I don't think we are at the same point. I am only addressing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and my miss queue in QM. we both know nobody knows why QM works. It doesn't "define the universe. Very few people understand the uncertainty principle. All I said was take the definition and what I said to your physics dept. I even say it nicely.
Let us just end this please. It aint a big deal. you gave your side, I gave mine. If I could sit in front of you and draw the pictures this would be over. I struggle in forums settings.
You are rehearsing just about every error and misconception in the book. Panspermia is a possible explanation of how life began. Abiogenesis is, however a perfectly adequate alternative - as is creation. Abiogenesis as least has some supportive evidence and a mechanism and I rather doubt that Panspermia was postulated just because DNA could not 'evolve' here but had to come from somewhere else - which of course merely has it evolve somewhere else without the suitable conditions of earth. Your arguments doesn't even get off the ground.
"the pages fall in the right order on each other" is just the whirlwind in a junkyard nonsense. The misconception based on ignoring the natural and physical laws that direct evolution and increasingly seem capable of directing the assembly of matter is remarkably persistent.
Your argument about the first baby flags up your lack of understanding. The egg came first, the chicken came later. Where the buck stops is the first replication of a molecule or whatever in chemical evolution. That is where the 'First Baby' began.
Finally the other frequent misunderstanding of the evolutionary process is the claim that a fish will dies before it adapts. Tell that to the lungfish. Tiktaalik is a transitional form refuting Irreducible complexity. It is a fish evolving into an amphibian.
Now these arguments you put forward are of such poor quality that I must regard most of the Christians, no matter what they may think about evolution or God's part in it, as too smart to any longer credit these foolish objections of the 'abiogenesis is impossible' 'Whirlwind in a junkyard' and Irreducible complexity kind. That is, if they have followed the discussion on this thread, which, Zur, old mate, you evidently have not.
You have your "theory" from where life comes. The gen scientist, who believes in the book you reject, said that life is so complex, it cannot evolve, that means to develop by chance, not here on earth nor elsewhere. You can feed a big computer with the data and ask him if it can evolve by chance, he will tell you: No, not possible!
You forgot to tell us from where the first egg came from to become a chicken. Only an egg from a chicken can become a chicken. This can be proven today. If it is true today, it was true some "millions of years" ago. There is the myth that from an egg came a goddess, the Queen of Heaven, therefore the eggs on Easter. Is evolution of that kind?
Now to the first "baby". A baby needs a father and a mother and they have to evolve perfect in "millions of years" at the same time and the same place, to have a baby. I think if they are not perfect, they cannot have a baby. That makes evolution very difficult, I would say, impossible, but you know from the book, by faith thinks are possible, but only through a Creator.
Your claim that the lungfish is a fish evolving into an amphibian, you have no proof, that the same fish once had no lungs and developed the lungs. The fact is fishes are fishes till today, no one developed lung, because for a fish there is no need to develop lungs and if there is not enough water they just die. The time is too short to evolve in a lungfish. A fish has to be created with lungs, sorry, I have my doubt how a fish can develop lungs. That a lungfish exists is not proof, that fish in general became amphibian.
You have your "theory" from where life comes. The gen scientist, who believes in the book you reject, said that life is so complex, it cannot evolve, that means to develop by chance, not here on earth nor elsewhere. You can feed a big computer with the data and ask him if it can evolve by chance, he will tell you: No, not possible!
You forgot to tell us from where the first egg came from to become a chicken. Only an egg from a chicken can become a chicken. This can be proven today. If it is true today, it was true some "millions of years" ago. There is the myth that from an egg came a goddess, the Queen of Heaven, therefore the eggs on Easter. Is evolution of that kind?
Now to the first "baby". A baby needs a father and a mother and they have to evolve perfect in "millions of years" at the same time and the same place, to have a baby. I think if they are not perfect, they cannot have a baby. That makes evolution very difficult, I would say, impossible, but you know from the book, by faith thinks are possible, but only through a Creator.
Your claim that the lungfish is a fish evolving into an amphibian, you have no proof, that the same fish once had no lungs and developed the lungs. The fact is fishes are fishes till today, no one developed lung, because for a fish there is no need to develop lungs and if there is not enough water they just die. The time is too short to evolve in a lungfish. A fish has to be created with lungs, sorry, I have my doubt how a fish can develop lungs. That a lungfish exists is not proof, that fish in general became amphibian.
You have your "theory" from where life comes. The gen scientist, who believes in the book you reject, said that life is so complex, it cannot evolve, that means to develop by chance, not here on earth nor elsewhere. You can feed a big computer with the data and ask him if it can evolve by chance, he will tell you: No, not possible!
You forgot to tell us from where the first egg came from to become a chicken. Only an egg from a chicken can become a chicken. This can be proven today. If it is true today, it was true some "millions of years" ago. There is the myth that from an egg came a goddess, the Queen of Heaven, therefore the eggs on Easter. Is evolution of that kind?
Now to the first "baby". A baby needs a father and a mother and they have to evolve perfect in "millions of years" at the same time and the same place, to have a baby. I think if they are not perfect, they cannot have a baby. That makes evolution very difficult, I would say, impossible, but you know from the book, by faith thinks are possible, but only through a Creator.
Your claim that the lungfish is a fish evolving into an amphibian, you have no proof, that the same fish once had no lungs and developed the lungs. The fact is fishes are fishes till today, no one developed lung, because for a fish there is no need to develop lungs and if there is not enough water they just die. The time is too short to evolve in a lungfish. A fish has to be created with lungs, sorry, I have my doubt how a fish can develop lungs. That a lungfish exists is not proof, that fish in general became amphibian.
Then that scientist is putting his faith in that Book over the science that refutes the claim that life is too complex to evolve, because not only can humans never know enough to say 'impossible', but there is evidence that shows that it happened.
I told you where the first egg came from, but it went right over your head. Your views on the evolution of parenthood are so unevolved that discussion of them seems pointless.
The lungfish already had the air-sac (used as flotation) which helped it to survive when the water was gone or if it needed to get on land for any reason. This there was no question of needing to evolve a set of lungs double quick before it died. This is the refutation of the Irreducible complexity argument and the ongoing short -sightedness of the creationists.
The evidence (proof is a far -too loaded term) is in the fossil record of worm to fish, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, dinosaur and mammal from reptile (oh yes) and so on. And each group produced its group of cells called an 'egg' in the same way and mammals were the first (apart from Ichthyosaurs, who couldn't lay their eggs on land) to bear young live. Try to make an effort to understand.
We may not be able to prove to the hilt every single event 100 %, but ALL the evidence supports evolution and there is a lot of it. NONE supports creationism. Not really. If this isn't good enough for you, that is your problem.
You said something like "smaller particles is how we know hizzy is right"
It is a big deal when people go around making inaccurate statements about science. That is what this entire thread has basically been about. People who have no scientific understanding about Evolution, but who think they do. Nothing they post represents the Theory of Evolution. It has all been 100% their misunderstanding of Evolution.
For the umpteenth time I never said what you keep posting. YES let's clear this up so you won't keep repeating it.
You said that that we can't measure anything that small. I said yes we can, this is why we know the Uncertainty Principal is a law.
See how this is different than what you keep posting?
You're welcome for the links...I thought they would help.
It is a big deal when people go around making inaccurate statements about science. That is what this entire thread has basically been about. People who have no scientific understanding about Evolution, but who think they do. Nothing they post represents the Theory of Evolution. It has all been 100% their misunderstanding of Evolution.
For the umpteenth time I never said what you keep posting. YES let's clear this up so you won't keep repeating it.
You said that that we can't measure anything that small. I said yes we can, this is why we know the Uncertainty Principal is a law.
See how this is different than what you keep posting?
You're welcome for the links...I thought they would help.
no, I was being polite. your site was a review and said exactly what I have been telling you. now I have to go get where you said because you are so thick
post number 614:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
We really don't have anything smaller to measure the smallest things.
YOU posted this: .... Sure we do, and that's why we know the Uncertainty Principal is a Law.
you are wrong here we do not have anything smaller.
you are misrepresenting what science is. you are misrepresenting what QM means. NOBODY knows why QM works. it does not mean they know what is going on. you are wrong. Wht are you a biologist.
no, I was being polite. your site was a review and said exactly what I have been telling you. now I have to go get where you said because you are so thick
post number 614:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
We really don't have anything smaller to measure the smallest things.
YOU posted this: .... Sure we do, and that's why we know the Uncertainty Principal is a Law.
you are wrong here we do not have anything smaller.
You are wrong. We know why the Uncertainty Principal is a law....Because we can measure the smallest things. Keep in mind there are no true "particles" and yet the Uncertainty Principle is a mathematically proven law....like it or not. I will say it again...if you think it is wrong then prove it and you will win a Nobel Prize.
The link was NOT a review but a quoted word for word of what Dr. Carroll said.. Do you not see the quoted text? You can even click on the little link
highlighted in orange that says: at approximately 1:14:32
you are misrepresenting what science is. you are misrepresenting what QM means. NOBODY knows why QM works. it does not mean they know what is going on. you are wrong. Wht are you a biologist.
LOL says the one who claims that there are two definitions of of the Uncertainty Principle and who claims that QM is precise.
Both of these claims are inaccurate. Look up the physical definitions if you need evidence.
It is you that is misrepresenting science.
You are wrong again claiming that I am a Biologist.
I hold a MS in Molecular Diagnostics and yes I have taken and passed college level physics.
BTW my brother is an Astrophysicists and he finds that your claims are not accurate as well.
How about this. Let me post your quotes about QM and all the things you have misrepresented about QM and QFT in the space forum and lets see how that goes.
the uncertainty is based on the limits we think exist in "being small". We really don't have anything smaller to measure the smallest things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Sure we do, and that's why we know the Uncertainty Principal is a Law. .
let's keep it focused on my main point. You said you didn't say this. And Your response to my post here is wrong. Don't address anything else.
ref~ post 614.
let's keep it focused on my main point. You response to my post here is wrong. Don't address anything else.
ref~ post 614.
"Oh, you cant measure that small" you say. Well, yes, we can, and that's why we know Uncertainty Principal is a law.
Here are a few more quotes of yours that contradict each other but hey this is your how your logic works.
Quote:
Q.M. is very precise. it has never miss a prediction.
Quote:
Nobody knows why QM works. Nobody.
My response: The basics of Quantum Uncertainty where you can never know "when" and "where" something is, is one of the main reasons the Universe is not mathematically precise. Everything is simply a probability. And probabilities are not precise when you can't measure one!
Quantum Mechanics is the most successful physical theory ever devised and yes we know why it works. I suggest you read up since it is a huge field and there have been lots of books written about it.
Last edited by Matadora; 05-30-2015 at 03:32 PM..
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.
