RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,13:45   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01)

 
Quote
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.


Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others?
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome
http://http/....ttp........ttp

"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."

Dead link....

But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.

In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*

http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html

Corrected the link

Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.

  
Robin



Posts: 1423
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,13:58   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05)
It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.


So it's really just another take on Dianetics or Lifespring. Greeeeaatt...

Quote
Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.

Eureka.....I have found it!


Sing it sister!

Quote
But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.

Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.

But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.


Yep...sounds just like Scientology, EST, and Lifespring. Hey, the money's great if you can be that disingenuous.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2042
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,14:25   

You really need to lay off the acid for a while, Jerry.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,14:47   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 25 2012,10:04]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2042
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,14:49   

Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 933
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:02   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))



--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1250
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:13   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,14:47)
[quote=Kattarina98,Nov. 26 2012,12:16]
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:20   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:40)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:34)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.

Tracy:

Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?


Just because particles are created at the same time does  not mean they are entangled.  It depends on the state vector and its time evolution.

Some particles were made today.  We call them photons, and they enable those with eyes to see.  You have eyes but do not see. 

QED.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:24   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:31)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find.  Your google-fu is weak.

The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.

What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?

Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.

You said evolution is not contested, I gave a link to an Institute for Creation Research (guffaw!) article.

Simple enough for you?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:26   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:27   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,15:13)
[quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,14:47]
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.

Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.

You might want to read a textbook, that helps.

No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1250
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:44   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

You must be trolling, nobody can be that stupid.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 868
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:46   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,08:26)
So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

<snip two more inane scenarios>

Just - wow! Project much?

ETA - curses, beaten by Kattarina.

Edited by Ptaylor on Nov. 27 2012,08:48

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., Grown up, ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:47   

Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'

This is sometimes stated a bit differently as the momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and velocity, however, its meaning doesn't change: the action of measuring one quality of a particle, be it its velocity, its mass, or its position, causes the other qualities to blur into something unknowable.

With a casual glance at this concept one might draw the conclusion this is due to lack of technology in precise particle measurement, but this is not the case. The blurring of these properties is a fundamental property of nature.

As Heisenberg's work began to be diffused throughout the scientific community, many scientists were left scratching their heads. Some seemed to feel that maybe the entire field of quantum mechanics had
somehow "missed the point." Albert Einstein was one of those and being Einstein, he was not shy about routinely pointing out his opinions; "God does not play dice with the universe." He once stated to Niels Bohr. Bohr shot back, "Don't tell God what to do." Bohr meant by this that the universe we live in abides by quantum laws and inherent uncertainty, whether Einstein liked it or not!
Werner Heisenberg began collaborating with Niels Bohr on this strange, new concept in Copenhagen, Denmark around 1927 and came up with other underlying theories, one of which was termed the Copenhagen Interpretation named after Bohr's place of birth. Bohr and Heisenberg took the uncertainty principle and extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wave-function, proposed earlier by Max Born.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was their attempt to answer some perplexing questions which arose as a result of the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics and how the role of an observer in that process seemed to change what could, and could not be accurately measured considering particles and the waves they produce.

Heisenberg had written in his original paper: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' [of a particle] can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Interesting. But was it true?[insertion mine]

English scientist Thomas Young in the 1800s had attempted to resolve the question of whether light was really particles (the "corpuscular" theory), or was comprised of 'waves traveling through some ether,' much as sound waves travel in air. Interference patterns that were observed in the original experiment questioned the corpuscular theory; and the wave theory of light dominated well into the early 20th century, when evidence began to emerge which seemed instead to support the particle theory of light.

Young's famous double-slit experiment became a classic gedanken experiment (thought experiment) for its efficiency in articulating some of the many conundrums of quantum mechanics. But is was not until the 20th century that the double slit experiment was performed on individual particles and once it was, particle physicists began to catch a glimpse into a strange quantum world where particles themselves seem to interact with information and Heisenberg's observer hypothesis came to the surface.

Could it be true that particles may know when we are and when we are not, looking at them? Can particles exhibit the intelligence to know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? In other words can particles look into the future and prophesy what will happen before it does? There are documented experiments conducted by prestigious universities that actually imply this.

Energy and matter are so closely related that many times we can view energy either as a wave or a particle and in fact it is both. Some examples are light waves which can be viewed as either waves of light or flowing photons and electricity can be measured by the frequency of the wave or by flowing electrons. Feynman pointed out, one of the strangest things about quantum-mechanical description of an object is its duality: quantum objects are neither particles nor waves. They are neither, yet they are both? Kind of, and if you think you hear the weirdness siren sounding right now, you are correct but this is cool enough to put up with for a bit.

The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits in a box producing patterns on a monitor, plate or a piece of film. When the light hits the film, it leaves a spot, so we can actually see where distinct photons hit the back of the box. One can view the image and see the basic concept .

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science....lit.png


Watch a video of the double slit experiments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....JcZi_oY


Our light source is going to be a gun that shoots light through the opening of the box. If we turn the light gun on high, where it is shooting a great deal of light at once, and shine it toward the opening, we will see an interference pattern on the monitor, patterns of light and dark showing where light waves interfere with each other to the point that certain parts of the waves (where crests meets crests) work to enhance both waves and where other parts of the waves (where crests meets troughs) serve to cancel one another out.

Let's turn our light-gun down to the point we are only shooting one photon at a time with each pull of the trigger. I'm going to cover one of the two slits with opaque tape that photons cannot penetrate and shoot a burst of photons into the opening. We will discover the film will record a clump of individual particles in a pattern much like bullets would make when shooting a bull's eye target and it will record them behind the open slit as we would expect. If we remove the tape from that slit and place it over the other one, the same thing happens. This pattern would be fully expected, since we are shooting individual particles, not waves of light.

Let's try it a different way. I will shoot one photon at a time into the box when both slits are open and the results are quite astounding. Now the photons begin to build up the interference pattern identical to the scenario that was recorded when we imported massive photons, as in a bright light.

If I cover one slit and shoot again, this interference pattern disappears. What is happening here? The same photon seems to be going through both slits at the same time. This is confusing me because I don't understand how a single photon can interfere with itself, or for that matter, how an individual particle can go through two holes at the same time.

Next I place a detector at each slit to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the film so I can understand what is happening. But when the experiment is arranged in this way, the interference pattern disappears -- for reasons still not well understood, when the photon is not being observed, it acts as a wave but when detectors are placed at each slit to observe the photon, the wave function collapses and it acts only as a single particle!

Thus, how the particle behaves seems to depend on whether that particle is being observed or not. How do particles know when they are, or are not being observed?

Theoretical physicist John Wheeler of Princeton took the double slit experiment a step further. His version is called the 'delayed choice experiment.' In the above experiment, the physicist's choice whether to observe the particle or not seems to cause the photon to choose between acting like a wave or a particle. What would happen, Wheeler mused, if the researcher could devise a system where the photon was observed only after it had passed the two slits but before it hit the monitor at the back of the box?

If one uses common sense to reason Wheeler's question through (if there is such a thing as common sense in quantum mechanics), it would seem that if the physicist doesn't observe the particle before it goes through the slits, the particle will not know it is being observed and will act like a wave, go through both the slits at once and cause the interference.

Nope. According to independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich the photon acts like a single particle and goes through only one slit as if it had known that it was going to be observed at some point in the future. Of course, once the detector is removed from the system, the particle then 'decides' to go through both slits again, interferes with itself, and the monitor shows the interference pattern.

These experiments pose many questions about the quantum aspect of our universe. How could 'dumb' particles know that observers will be watching them in the future? Or better yet, do the observers actually alter the behavior of the particles in the past by observing them in the present? As it must be to some readers, this is quite maddening to scientists who have had enough trouble understanding the quantum world without having to deal with mysterious, intelligent and even prophesying particles.

With the passage of time the Copenhagen Interpretation has been more specifically refined with this concept known as the collapse of the wave-function. The Copenhagen Interpretation draws distinction between the observer and what is observed; when there is no observer in a system, the system seems to evolve deterministically according to wave equations, but when an observer is present, the wave-function in the system "collapses" to the observed state.

Of course, just as ID makes no attempt to discern a designer, the Copenhagen Interpretation states the observer has special status in that a system must be observed in order to exist as individual particles but it cannot explain or identify the observer itself, nor does it attempt to.

John Gribbons writes: "They say, according to the standard interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation), that nothing is real unless you look at it, that an electron (say) exists only as a wave of probability, called a wave function, which collapses into reality when it is measured, and promptly dissolves into unreality when you stop looking at it."


Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed. It seems that for our universe to exist as it does at all, the universe must be observed by a supreme, conscious observer. Of course, waves also exist in our universe but if this is truly a conscious observer, then it requires little imagination to understand this observer could choose to observe, or not to observe a particular system in order to achieve a desired result. But who/what might this observer be?


Enter chairman of the Mathematical Physics Department at Tulane University, world renowned cosmologist and avid atheist, Frank Tipler. Actually, I must clarify that although Tipler was once a confessed atheist, through his research in physics he has shown mathematical evidence for this supreme observer to exist and today seems very much the ardent (and one of my favorite) ID theorists. Tipler shows this supreme observer to be quantum mechanics acting within the universe. He writes: "I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate Omega Point which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past. Tipler's advanced math and physics are well beyond the scope of this paper, however, I would encourage the interested reader to research this further as it is quite fascinating.


My point with introducing the work of Young, Heisenberg, Bohr, Tipler, Feynman, Wheeler and others is that the more temporal humans learn scientifically about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science to discover a Supreme Observer as explained in the post above.


This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is.


FURTHER READING:
Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
Q is for quantum : an encyclopedia of particle physics. John Gribbin ; edited by Mary Gribbin ; illustrations by Jonathan Gribbin ; timelines by Benjamin Gribbin. New York, NY : Free Press, c1998. Call Number: QC793.2 .G747 1998.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, M.I.T. Press, 1965.
John Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat, Bantam New Age Books, 1984.
Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality, (1994: ISBN 0-385-46798-2)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3223
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:47   

1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?

2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?

Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.  

Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.  

Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.

You might look up evolution of whales.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,15:52   

Dumb Fuck wrote:

Quote
No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful


Yeah, just like every other lying, stinking, dishonest creationist I've ever dealt with.  "Peel me a grape, Beaulah."

Too stupid, too dishonest, too immoral and just plain too thick to do a 5-second Google search.  Seriously, even FtK is better than this guy!

Larry, order me a pizza!

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 740
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:01   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:25)
You really need to lay off the acid for a while, Jerry.

You Darwinists are always trying to prevent real science, aren't you?

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Quack



Posts: 1720
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:03   

I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

--------------
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design. - Sean Devine.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1250
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:06   

Aaaand here's the evidence, Mr Bauer:

http://www.talkorigins.org/....ins....ins.org

Enjoy!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)

Quote
1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?


I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

Quote
2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?


No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

Quote
Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.


So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL

Quote
Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.


No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.  

Quote
Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.


And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))

You might look up evolution of whales.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3223
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:31   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,15:47)

 
Quote
1) Common sense really doesn't work in science.  That's why we have evidence and statistical data.  What's yours?


I'm sorry, evidence and statistical data for what?

Science.  It's sure not ID that has evidence and statistical data.
Quote



 
Quote
2) Do you look EXACTLY like your parents?  Do you have exactly the same genes as your parents?

Do your children look EXACTLY like you?  Do they have EXACTLY the same genes as you?


No, due to the recombination of both of their DNA I would not expect any of this.

 
Quote
Since the answer to these questions is all "No", then you are transitional between your parents and you children.


So, you think I am evolving into my children? Scary...LOL


Wow.  You really don't know shit about evolution do you.  And that's a common creationist tactic known as a 'strawman'.  You can't attack the argument that your opponent makes, so you make up an argument and attack that instead.

Now, listen very carefully.  Individuals don't evolve.  Say it with me.  Individuals don't evolve.

POPULATIONS evolve.  When your children were born, the allele frequency of the entire human population altered (very little, but measurable).  That's evolution, which, I believe, you agree with.

Quote

 
Quote
Finally, what is a transitional fossil?  It is not a fossil that is a direct descendant of another fossil.  It is impossible to tell if one fossil is directly descended from another fossil.  What you do is examine the characteristics.

For example, one fossil has legs that are 120 centimeters long.  Another fossil with almost no other differences has legs that are 100 centimeters long and they are separated by 15 million years.  A third fossil has legs that are 60 centimeter longs and it's dated 30 million years later.  

Do you see a trend.


No, but you would see a trend. I would probably just think I found three different fossils with different leg lengths as we see in real life organisms. I certainly would not feel I had enough data to draw scientific conclusions.  


Yes, that's what I said "trend" and not "scientific conclusion".  For it to be a scientific conclusion we would need to statistically analyze all the data... which was done in the case of whales.  Again, I suggest you actually research the article.

I know you won't find evidence that convinces you because you are immune to evidence.  But at least you wouldn't be ignorant of how science actually works.

Quote

 
Quote
Now let's compare to your analogy (I hate analogies).  The woman loses weight and loses weight and will eventually die from lack of nutrients and body mass.  Similarly the fossils I described above, the legs keep getting smaller and smaller until the legs finally disappear.


And then how does she pass that trait on ter her offspring...:)) Into Lamarkianism much?? :)))))


And again, strawman.  Attacking a made up argument that I didn't use.  

Did you know that traits like leg-length and even tendency to weight gain are GENETIC.

Seriously?
You might look up evolution of whales.[/quote]
Just count the fallacies...

Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,16:32

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:55   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2012,16:03)
I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1250
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,16:55   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:49)
Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".

Nearly there ...

Say, that gives me an idea:

Mr Bauer, how old is the Earth?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4354
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,17:27   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,16:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,14:49)
Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".

Nearly there ...

Say, that gives me an idea:

Mr Bauer, how old is the Earth?

Ha!  Excellent question!  We have an undercover Republican Presidential Candidate!

added in edit:  So, Mr. "Jerry"... What do you think about Global Warming?

Edited by J-Dog on Nov. 26 2012,17:29

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3223
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,19:38   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:55)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2012,16:03)
I trust I don't need to provide a link, if you just would take a little time off your high-strung cosmology-QM-ID-& all the rest excursion for some down to earth study:

Science Daily,
Fossils and ruins - evolution.

You will find pages of news from evolution research, all from this very year 2012CE.

Then come back an tell us that you beat 100's of scientists with a solid margin because you are much smarter than all of them.

Since IANAS, I depend on people like you to show me the way to enlightenment, seeing as scientists are rather dim, science is off on a totally wrong direction and I'll be going to hell.

You wouldn't want that to happen to a nice old man like me, would you?

I'm afraid I've studied it all at one time or another. If I didn't run across it in college, I probably looked into it more than once or twice on my own accord.

Yet, I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone else, probably average.....however, I may be better informed in my areas of interest than most are, but isn't that true with all of us?

So, are you really a nice man? Careful....Santa is watching and the time is near..........Santa is omnipresent due to quantum superpositioning. He is in all states at all times...kinda like a decaying radioactive trigger in cat's box.

Who cares?  I'm mean to idiots.

Now, you've ignored a number of direct questions.  Do we count that as lying or just avoiding an ugly truth?

Here they are since that was a whole page ago and you seem to have forgotten, instead settling for tone trolling.

Quote
) Cite (or link to) any 10 peer-reviewed papers that support ID.

2) CSI is probability mathematics now?  What is the probability that I was designed then?  how do you know?  Calculate my probability.

3) But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway.  If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do).  Does the designer have any limits?  If yes, why? How do you know?  If not, why?  How do you know?  Can the designer create anything?  How do you know?  


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,21:46   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2012,16:52)
Dumb Fuck wrote:

Quote
No, I had rather have you back up your arguments with some evidence, please. That would be most helpful


Yeah, just like every other lying, stinking, dishonest creationist I've ever dealt with.  "Peel me a grape, Beaulah."

Too stupid, too dishonest, too immoral and just plain too thick to do a 5-second Google search.  Seriously, even FtK is better than this guy!

Larry, order me a pizza!



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,21:55   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,16:47)
retarded snip

hey who knew this was a cut and paster, right?  well if you google

 
Quote
Quantum theory seemed to come together in the late 1920s when Heisenberg's uncertainty principle began to be accepted and debated by the greats of science. The uncertainty principle states, 'the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.'  


you can find a Jerry Don thread, preceded by Glenn Morton* calling good old Jerry Don a pantheist and not a True Christian™

i had to laugh at someone typing this out and being surrious bout it

 
Quote
June 5th 2005, 08:24 PM -snip-
I get lost in the math in there myself (unless coached). So let me see if I can cut to the chase. Do you agree that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) is science? If so, you must also agree that it takes an observer to collapse the wave function. Do you agree with his original 1920s paper which basically started quantum mechanics?


Obviously it does not, nor is that what the word "pantheism" implies. When you say things like: "This Supreme Observer can be Christ to me, Yahweh to the Jews, Allah to the Moslems, Krishna to the Hindus, nothing more than quantum mechanics to the atheist and the agnostics still just may not know WHAT the heck it is," it's quite obvious that you're explicitly denying that this proves a specific God-name. (As a side note, Jerry, generally speaking there is no specific "god of pantheism.")

But the observer is something is it not? If it wasn't, everything you interact with would be waves. The keyboard you are typing on right now would be waves and your hand would just go through it and hit the desk below it. How do you explain all the double slit experiments that show experimentally it takes an observer to collapse the wave function? I'm not letting you past this until you address it.


However, when you simultaneously assert that quantum particles may be aware of being observed, and assert a "Prime Observer," you are asserting functional pantheism, where all quantum particles partake of the nature of the "Prime Observer."

But I do not just aimlessly assert this. I quote scientific experiments and Tipler's mathematical physics which show an observer. Yet you just seem to want to brush all this off as if it were ME that invented this stuff. Hey, don't kill the messenger, I'm just quoting some (very well known) scientists here. :wink:


Now, don't get me wrong, Jerry--I'm a Wiccan, and that kind of thing is right up my alley. I've been asserting for years that all of Creation partakes of the nature of the Creator, and frankly if science does determine that quantum particles are somehow aware of being observed, I'm gonna make the biggest "I told you so" post you've ever seen. But please do not take it as an attack if I call a spade a spade.

Well, I've just offered you experimental evidence that it does. You have yet to address any of the science I've posted. Why? Perhaps the Wiccan may find a new mantra here? You never know. :smile:


>mfw someone is a wiccan near me





* aint it

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,23:06

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,22:01   

Re quantum mechanics:

The Copenhagen interpretation is just that - an interpretation. There are others. Without testable distinctions among them, no one of them can safely be assumed.

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,07:56   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,13:44)
You must be trolling, nobody can be that stupid.

I remember Jerry Don from years back. He really is that stupid, and dishonest.

I think that he works it out like this;

1) come up with a stupid argument just to irritate people,
2) be so impressed with himself that he becomes convinced he has discovered a profound truth

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 27 2012,05:58

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 933
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2012,09:49   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

Your argument has been reduced to a comic strip characterization, and you answer that with more inanity, and irrelevant inanity at that.  

Why do you accept small changes over a relatively short period of time, but not big changes in the long run?

Bonus question: If "genetic makeup," whatever that means, will prevent humans from being 70 feet tall, what is the primary limiting factor, and how will it be genetically expressed?

Edit: moar better spelling

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]