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 do you find it impossible to believe that the Earth was created in six days?
Because the evidence indicates otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Can't an all-powerful God do anything?
Actually... no. But that's a discussion for elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Secondly, you're under the illusion that because fallable human beings believe that the Earth was formed over a long time period, that anything that contradicts that point of view is not acceptable.
For that to be a meaningful comment there would actually have to be something that "contradicts that point of view." Something scientific I mean.
All your assertions are breathlessly dumb. I'll just use one as example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SityData
Niagara Falls has been eroding at the rate of 4.7 feet per year over the past 185 years. If, under the uniformitarian theory of Evolution, we pick a number of just three feet per year, in 120 million years Niagara Falls would have eroded completely around the world, crossing others rivers and falls that were doing the same thing (an impossibility).
Then it is a good thing that Niagara river is itself less than 10,000 years old. The falls are even younger.
Even if mutations are brought it, consider that the vast majority of mutations are harmful to an organism and, thus, generally result in death for the organism, or result in it being less favored for mating and the continuation of genes.
This statement is factually false. The vast majority of mutations are actually pretty much neutral to an organism, in fact about 40% of them are completely silent. You yourself posses about 100 or so original mutations that were present in neither of your parents, and I note you are not so dead that you are unable to post in this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Further consider that the vast complexity on Earth would require in each organism millions of mutations, many, perhaps a majority, occurring at exactly the same moment, given that many traits work in tandem with one another and would, hence, be unusuable if not occurring at the same time.
Straw man. There is nothing in evolution that would require the simultaneous occurrence of multiple mutations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
All in all, the statistical probabilities of such a diverse planet is about zero.
To even make that assertion would require you to have actually done the calculations. Are you willing to share them with us so they can be critiqued?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
The reality is that the Bible states that God formed the Earth in six days. on the seventh day, He rested.
I suppose you've done some probability calculations for that too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Those that argue that the Earth is billions of years ago, based on the idea of multiple sedimentary layers and the rate of deposition discount two very important details.
Straw man. There are a large number of independent sources of evidence for an ancient earth. None of them depend on the rate of sedimentary deposition.
Of course, when one wants to deny the existence of the after life and God, they make up false explanations for them. To the people who have had them, they know the score.
My dad's spirit popped out of his body, and he could see the nurses trying to resuscitate him from above. He approached a being who told him that he could go to Heaven. My dad perceived this being as an angel. There was a bright light eminating from the beings head. The light was so bright he couldn't see the head. He felt love from the being. Behind the being was a bright light/tunnel that was perceived as the entrance to Heaven. When my dad was given the choice of going to Heaven at the moment, he thought about his family and felt it wasn't time. He was instantly transported into the hospital room, where he saw the nurses trying to resuscitate him. He re-entered his body, only to wake up moments later.
Anyone can write a false explanation, but it doesn't make it true. Those that deny God will make up stuff to try to deny all the evidence of God and the afterlife.
It's funny how there are similar accounts across thousands of people.
Right These researchers are actually part of an Atheist
conspirancy.
The article just explained why many people experience this physiological occurrence which they want to believe is a near death experience.
Glad your dad survived his ordeal and if believing it was an intervention from God works for him, then so be it.
You were asked to show the experiments that demonstrated points three and four. The one you offered does not do so. It provided no example whatsoever of where detection was running and the interference pattern still existed... regardless of whether or not the results were being recorded.
You need to go back and reread the paper I linked to. It showed two nearly identical experiments that produced, in one permutation, an interference pattern, and in the other, no interference pattern.
The ONLY difference between the experiments was in the first, the "which slit" data was destroyed, and in the second, it was maintained. The measurement was STILL made, it was simply constructed in such a manner in which the result of that measurement was lost. The particles which created, or not, an interference pattern "experienced" the exact same thing in both cases, so arguing that the act of measuring affected the results is rendered moot. It WAS measured. Whether or not the data was retained is what determined the results.
It's a common experiment, it's been done many times by many different people in many different ways. There used to be a link that showed how you could build it yourself at home with commonly available consumer products, but that's not around anymore.
However, the idea that it's the measurement itself causing the behavior change has been so thoroughly debunked we're wasting electrons debating it.
I can't find anything directly on-point re: encrypting and destroying, but I've heard about it from multiple sources. And even if it turns out they were wrong, or I somehow misinterpreted what they said, it does not change the fact that all available evidence seems to indicate that the determining factor to whether or not an interference pattern emerges is the availability of the "which slit" information, NOT whether or not that measurement was taken.
Quote:
Well, at least finally you have acknowledged this issue. Now it is time to recognize the implications of it. We exist at macro scale. All our tools (to include our lexicon) exist at macro scale, else we cannot manipulate them. To measure anything on the micro scale, we must perforce amplify what we choose to measure in order for it to even be accessible to our tools. And this includes the lexicon we use to describe and communicate what we have measured.
You're still trying to argue that the measurement itself is causing the change. At the risk of repeating myself, that idea is so thoroughly debunked as to be unworthy of debate.
You need to go back and reread the paper I linked to. It showed two nearly identical experiments that produced, in one permutation, an interference pattern, and in the other, no interference pattern.
I read it. I am confident that I understand it. It actually showed three different experiments not two, and none of them demonstrate either the third or fourth points in your five point list. More to the point, they were not designed to even explore what you assert they demonstrate, but instead to consider the "communication at a distance" between entangled photons.
Remember your core assertion here; that the photons do not actually exist and the simulation only renders them when "necessary."
1) What about these three experiments delivers a differential need for rendering?
2) What about your theory would predict the specific difference in result between them in a way superior to quantum theory in a real universe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
The ONLY difference between the experiments was in the first, the "which slit" data was destroyed, and in the second, it was maintained.
No data was destroyed. In one, an instrument was emplaced that was capable of measuring the particle nature of the photon and so (in perfect compliance with the complementarity principle) the wave character of the photons collapsed. In the second, that same instrument was modified so that it was no longer capable of measuring the the particle nature of the photon and so (in perfect compliance with the complementarity principle) the wave character of the photons persisted. In the third, a different modification was made to the instrument but it was still no longer capable of measuring the the particle nature of the photon and so (in perfect compliance with the complementarity principle) the wave character of the photons persisted.
In all three experiments, a certain number of protons were polarized the same way for at least some segment of their path. The photons all still actually passed through their respective slits in the same way. And ultimately all the photons still struck their respective detectors and ceased to be photons at all... so the "data" is the same for all three experiments. None of it was stored differently, all of it ultimately was ephemeral, and none of it was ever actually subject to human perception, eliminating your theoretical "need" for it to be rendered at all, let alone differently in the different cases.
It is clear that the experiment does not support the third or fourth points of your list. It is also clear that the experiment provides no obvious reason for a simulation to render them differently. And it is also clear that the differences between the three permutations do not depend in any difference in the existence or treatment of data.
The only difference is that one of them has a functioning apparatus for measuring the particle nature of photons, and the other two do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
The measurement was STILL made, it was simply constructed in such a manner in which the result of that measurement was lost. The particles which created, or not, an interference pattern "experienced" the exact same thing in both cases, so arguing that the act of measuring affected the results is rendered moot. It WAS measured. Whether or not the data was retained is what determined the results.
None of the data that these apparati were designed to measure appear to have been collected or stored. In at least two of the experiments, the measurements could not be made at all since the apparatus as designed was not capable of measuring it. So the retention of that data does not appear to be a distinguishing characteristic between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
However, the idea that it's the measurement itself causing the behavior change has been so thoroughly debunked we're wasting electrons debating it.
Not by this set of experiments it hasn't. I would still deeply appreciate you pointing me towards the experiments that demonstrated points three and four on your list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
I can't find anything directly on-point re: encrypting and destroying, but I've heard about it from multiple sources.
I suspected as much, but I felt obligated to give you the opportunity to show otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
You're still trying to argue that the measurement itself is causing the change. At the risk of repeating myself, that idea is so thoroughly debunked as to be unworthy of debate.
You keep saying that, but you have yet to show it.
Remember your core assertion here; that the photons do not actually exist and the simulation only renders them when "necessary."
1) What about these three experiments delivers a differential need for rendering?
Being observed by a conscious entity. In the case where the "which slit" data remains available, that is AT the slit. The probability wave collapses into a particle (or photon, molecule, or whatever is being used) at the point of measurement. Now, immediately after it's detected, it goes back to being a probability wave, but since we KNOW which slit it went through, the chance of it going through both is zero, so the probability wave has changed until it gets rendered again on the measuring screen.
Quote:
2) What about your theory would predict the specific difference in result between them in a way superior to quantum theory in a real universe?
I am unfamiliar with any part of quantum theory (other than defining the behavior as "wave/particle duality, which really is merely an observation, not an explanation) that adequately predicts the behavior.
Quote:
In all three experiments, a certain number of protons were polarized the same way for at least some segment of their path. The photons all still actually passed through their respective slits in the same way. And ultimately all the photons still struck their respective detectors and ceased to be photons at all... so the "data" is the same for all three experiments. None of it was stored differently, all of it ultimately was ephemeral, and none of it was ever actually subject to human perception, eliminating your theoretical "need" for it to be rendered at all, let alone differently in the different cases.
Hmm. You may be right, the one I posted is frankly not the link I usually use and I just now read it in depth. I need to do some research and get back to you.
That said, entanglement is, of itself, evidence of a simulation.
Being observed by a conscious entity. In the case where the "which slit" data remains available, that is AT the slit. The probability wave collapses into a particle (or photon, molecule, or whatever is being used) at the point of measurement. Now, immediately after it's detected, it goes back to being a probability wave, but since we KNOW which slit it went through, the chance of it going through both is zero, so the probability wave has changed until it gets rendered again on the measuring screen.
This makes no sense at all. In none of the three experiments were any measurements taken at the slit. Detection in all cases took place at the same place, at the targets at the terminal end of the photon paths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
I am unfamiliar with any part of quantum theory (other than defining the behavior as "wave/particle duality, which really is merely an observation, not an explanation) that adequately predicts the behavior.
That wasn't the question. That fails to even try to distinguish real world quantum theory from yours. I will ask it again:
What about your theory would predict the specific difference in result between them in a way superior to quantum theory in a real universe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Hmm. You may be right, the one I posted is frankly not the link I usually use and I just now read it in depth. I need to do some research and get back to you.
I really look forward to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
That said, entanglement is, of itself, evidence of a simulation.
What about a simulation would predict photon entanglement?
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.
