PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Quantum Creationism
       Rethinking Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

It seems like the biggest problem with Christian creationism is the insistence by most Christians that the Christian God is the agent in the creation process. That's automatically against the rulebook in the game called science. I therefore propose replacing Christian creationism with quantum creationism, which I believe embodies the fundamentals of Christian creationism, yet can be defended as science.

Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Exodus 14:21
"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided."


The answer to this question is yes. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

The second and third fundamental assumption of quantum creationism is the theory of devolution and the postulate that the fossil record was caused by a single, fantastic, global flood catastrophe.

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.

Indicators for human extinction

Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?

1: Cancer
Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.

2: Immunodeficiency
Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.

3: Heart attacks and strokes
Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.

4: Sperm counts
Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.

Shubee



-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:16 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correct me if I'm wrong - Quantum mechanices, and Quantum theory, have to do with explaining processes that occur at the atomic and sub-atomic level.  

A parting of the Red Sea all on its own (without God's intervention) due to molecular motion of seawater would not occur as you decribe.  For one thing, gravity would not allow it.  And for another, more fundamental reason, random molecular motion would not allow it.  You have molecules going every which way.

Life did form out of non-living material.  But it happened in stages, with building blocks forming first, and more complex structures forming from them, perhaps with the aid of substrate material such as clay.  There is research suggesting this scenario.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:33 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.



There have been catastrophes throughout earth's long history.  That is clearly indicated by the fossil record.  Mainstream science has no problem with that.  However, mainstream science does not support a biblical flood event.  That idea is only advocated by the so called creation scientists, such as Henry Morris.  A biblical flood is not supported by geological evidence that we have.

Also, a biblical flood (besides its inablility to explain the fossil record) cannot explain why we have many, many times the current world biomass found in the world supply of coal and oil.  I'll see if I can find the figures, which I came across the other day.  One is that the world's coal supply is 50 times the total world biomass.  Oil was at quite a higher figure.  

Evidence supporting a biblical flood just is not there.  That was clear to geologists evein in Darwin's day - by the early 1800's.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:02 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossil record does not support a global flood.

For instance, fluid mechanics (and you can test this in your sink) argues that similar mass objects sink at the same rate with minor deviations for angle entry given the same basic shape. Therefore, if there was a global flood, we should see similar mass organisms all in the same layer. Meaning, we should see small dinosaurs, medium sized mammals, medium sized birds, and small~medium sized reptiles all in the same layer. That simply does not happen. Furthermore, we should NOT see large mass organisms in the same layer with lots of low mass organisms. That however, is the case. Furthermore, based on fluid mechanics we should see simple and complex organisms of the same type, ie, shellfish all together in the same layer. Does not happen anywhere. Instead we see complex animals at the top and simple at the bottom despite similarities in mass.

The fossil record doesn't in any way support a global flood.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:41 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Obvious-Child - Excellent summary and explanation.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:27 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for
devolution.


The question must be asked, What the hell is devolution???  It isn't a scientific term, and if you understand how evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.  I think we have another official sounding creationist word that really means nothing.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:36 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on September 16, 2008 :
The question must be asked, What the hell is devolution???  It isn't a scientific term, and if you understand how evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.  I think we have another official sounding creationist word that really means nothing.


Wouldn't the backwards re-engineering of the mutant chickens into dinosaurs be de-evolution? Returning to a previous genetic state?


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:48 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:48 PM on September 16, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on September 16, 2008 :
The question must be asked, What the hell is devolution???  It isn't a scientific term, and if you understand how evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.  I think we have another official sounding creationist word that really means nothing.


Wouldn't the backwards re-engineering of the mutant chickens into dinosaurs be de-evolution? Returning to a previous genetic state?





No. "De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the state of the population is degrading or going 'backwards". Returning to a previous genetic state is not the same thing. So long as a species is able to propagate and avoid extinction through reproduction and genetic change, it is evolving completely regardless of what it's evolving into. When you attach direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution means.

Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution. Also, mainstream scientists are starting to lean more and more toward catastrophism. There is hard physical evidence for a global flood catastrophe. See The Fossil Record. And there is good evidence for devolution.


Indicators for human extinction

Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?

1: Cancer
Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.

2: Immunodeficiency
Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.

3: Heart attacks and strokes
Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.

4: Sperm counts
Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.


Is this a joke? I thought you were serious up until you pasted that ridiculous list of "evidence" for "devolution." Increased instances of cancer and heart attacks are definitively the result of increased average age. Calling it a problem with "telomere erosion" is dishonest pseudo-science because telomere erosion happens because of... age!

It's also ludicrous to say immunodeficiency via AIDS is the result of telomere erosion. Immunodeficiency via AIDS is the result of... you guessed it, AIDS! The virus kills our immune system. It wouldn't matter how long our telomeres lasted -- AIDS makes death inevitable without proper treatment.

Furthermore, evolution works so long as the population can continue to reproduce. It doesn't matter if all of us suffer dropped sperm counts, cancer, and heart attacks the very moment we conceive children because once we've passed on our genes, we've succeeded.

Salmon always die right after they reproduce. That is not evidence of "devolution" by any means. On the contrary, salmon have been very successful through that reproductive method.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/17/2008 at 12:14 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 :

No. "De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the state of the population is degrading or going 'backwards". Returning to a previous genetic state is not the same thing. So long as a species is able to propagate and avoid extinction through reproduction and genetic change, it is evolving completely regardless of what it's evolving into. When you attach direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution means.


But if that genetic change results in a species being less adapted to its environment then the previous state, doesn't that imply that it has reduced its fitness? let's say I take a chicken, mutate its controller gene to stay on to result in a larger more dinosaur like mouth that fundamentally restricts its diet and slows down its growth, hasn't the creature devolved for the moment?

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:28 AM on September 17, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 12:28 AM on September 17, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 :

No. "De-evolution" or "devolution" implies that the state of the population is degrading or going 'backwards". Returning to a previous genetic state is not the same thing. So long as a species is able to propagate and avoid extinction through reproduction and genetic change, it is evolving completely regardless of what it's evolving into. When you attach direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution means.


But if that genetic change results in a species being less adapted to its environment then the previous state, doesn't that imply that it has reduced its fitness? let's say I take a chicken, mutate its controller gene to stay on to result in a larger more dinosaur like mouth that fundamentally restricts its diet and slows down its growth, hasn't the creature devolved for the moment?



Well, only if it's taken out of the domestic environment. As it stands the chicken would seem to be perfectly suited for its environment. Of course, that's not natural selection, so it's a stretch calling it evolution and/or devolution in the first place.

Anyway, the concept of de-evolution is a misnomer. By definition, evolution is the change of a population to better suit its environment in order to avoid extinction. No matter how inefficient or crappy we might think a production of evolution is, if evolution manages to work around extinction, it's doing its job. Assuming the environment stays the same, it's not really possible for a specie to evolve in a way that would make it less-suited for its own environment. We already have a word for that process. It's called extinction.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/17/2008 at 02:08 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:05 AM on September 17, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obvious-Child, excellent post.

Regarding shubee's indicators of human extinction...
Besides the obvious (but smart) remarks posted by EntwickelnCollin, there is the medicine factor.

Not only medicine does make us live longer (hygiene and better food also do this). It also make people that would die in nature, survive, and reproduce.

My father, for instance, would have died of appendicitis if it wasn't for medicine. In nature i wouldn't have been born.

The better medicine gets, the worse we will get. But that has nothing to do with a natural process.

Some breeds of dogs can't mate on their own anymore, females deliver cubs by cesarean, and have problems breathing (but they look cute to some).

Take bananas (the evolutionist's nightmare, LOL). They can't reproduce anymore without human assistance (but they are much tastier).

And we have lots of problems, but we live longer.

In order to devolve (LOL) some trait, some natural pressure must disappear (like having good seeds, for the banana).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:08 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Will we see shubee again? Make your bets, gentlemen.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:10 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on September 16, 2008 :
Most of the evidence I see purported for evolution I regard as evidence for devolution.

The question must be asked, What the hell is devolution???

The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.

Quote from Demon38 at 9:36 PM on September 16, 2008 :
It isn't a scientific term, and if you understand how evolution works, it doesn't make any sense.  I think we have another official sounding creationist word that really means nothing.

I believe that the theory of devolution can be given a mathematically precise definition. If there is a scientifically acceptable definition of computer programs and electronic machines being robust, then the theory of devolution may be replaced with an equation that says, in the mathematical limit, all forms of life are becoming less and less robust over time.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 :
When you attach direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution means.

I believe it's clear that many prominent evolutionists assign a direction to evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.
The theory of devolution simply takes the opposite direction.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 :
"Telomere erosion" is dishonest pseudo-science because telomere erosion happens because of... age!

Are you certain that I can't adopt the evidence for Reinhard Stindl's theory as support for my second postulate? Are you implying that Reinhard Stindl has not published his theory in peer-reviewed scientific literature?

According to Reinhard Stindl, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna, the answer to this question could lie at the tips of our chromosomes. In a controversial new theory he suggests that all eukaryotic species (everything except bacteria and algae) have an evolutionary "clock" that ticks through generations, counting down to an eventual extinction date. This clock might help to explain some of the more puzzling aspects of evolution, but it also overturns current thinking and even questions the orthodoxy of Darwin's natural selection. -Kate Ravilious, The final countdown, guardian.co.uk.

Quote from orion at 3:33 PM on September 16, 2008 :
Correct me if I'm wrong - Quantum mechanices, and Quantum theory, have to do with explaining processes that occur at the atomic and sub-atomic level.  

A parting of the Red Sea all on its own (without God's intervention) due to molecular motion of seawater would not occur as you decribe.  For one thing, gravity would not allow it.  And for another, more fundamental reason, random molecular motion would not allow it.  You have molecules going every which way.

I have explained the fundamental physics of quantum creation in great detail at, Are Evolutionists Scientists? I believe it will answer your questions.

(Edited by Shubee 9/27/2008 at 8:04 PM).

(Edited by Shubee 9/28/2008 at 12:06 AM).


-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:28 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shubee, where is your evidence for the flood?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 5:02 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe it's clear that many prominent evolutions assign a direction to evolution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.


I watched the entire video front to start. Nothing even remotely touched on direction. "Adapting to avoid extinction" isn't direction; it's survival... it either happens or it doesn't.

The theory of devolution simply takes the opposite direction.


Not only are you knowingly equating a scientific fallacy with a scientific theory, but more importantly, that's not even logically possible. Selective pressure is what causes the widespread appearance of certain genes in populations. There is no selective pressure to cause populations of life to adapt in ways that would be detrimental to their current environment. Without selective pressure, there is no evolution of any kind, beneficial or otherwise, because no traits spread throughout the entire population. Eroded telomeres don't count as evidence to the contrary because they aren't inherited traits selective pressure could even act on in the first place.

If a species dies out due to telomere erosion, it happened because evolution was unable to get around the problem, not because natural selection spread harmful traits throughout a species; by definition, it's not possible for natural selection to do that. What you're saying is akin to claiming that when the meteor crashed into the earth 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs specifically evolved characteristics right there that made them more able to die off. That's a stark contrast to the scientific explanation: the dinosaurs simply failed to evolve around the rapdily-changing environment in time.

Are you implying that Reinhard Stindl has not published his theory in peer-reviewed scientific literature?


No...?

Are you certain that I can't adopt the evidence for Reinhard Stindl's theory as support for my second postulate?


Absolutely, and for two reasons.

First and foremost, proponents of Dr. Stindl's conclusions have a long way to go as far as finding evidence that human beings are getting closer to extinction. Every single piece of "evidence for extinction" quoted from the Guardian is inconclusive: lower sperm counts haven't been confirmed in the first place; the other three, as I've already explained, have much more plausible explanations for their increased occurence in human populations, chief among which is age. It's been known for a very long time now that every individual's telomeres shorten with age as their own body's cells reproduce; however, nothing you referenced and nothing the article referenced suggests at this time that human beings are suffering increased disease as a result of population-wide telomere erosion. Finally, let's say population-wide telomere erosion is causing all these problems. Guess what? It doesn't matter. Most instances of cancer and immunodeficiency happen after the victim has passed their reproductive ages; we wouldn't be in danger of extinction for quite a long time.

That brings us to the second reason. We could ignore everything I just said in the above paragraph, and your argument still falls flat on its face. Even if population-wide telomere erosion threatened human beings to extinction, none of it would be evidence of "devolution". Devolution is a contradiction in terms. It can no more occur than can a boulder that has mass and no mass at the same time. A failure of a population to evolve in time is not the same thing as devolution.










(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/27/2008 at 7:32 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:26 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 4:02 PM on September 16, 2008 :
A biblical flood is not supported by geological evidence that we have.

Also, a biblical flood (besides its inablility to explain the fossil record) cannot explain why we have many, many times the current world biomass found in the world supply of coal and oil.  I'll see if I can find the figures, which I came across the other day.  One is that the world's coal supply is 50 times the total world biomass.  Oil was at quite a higher figure.

I love scientific anomalies. Could you please post some good links on the biomass discrepancy? How is this good evidence for evolution? Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient coal deposits featured in the videos at Sean D. Pitman's website, The Fossil Record?

Quote from orion at 4:02 PM on September 16, 2008 :
Evidence supporting a biblical flood just is not there.

You agree that evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. What is the most indisputable fact you know that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events?



-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:03 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 10:03 PM on September 27, 2008 :

You agree that evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. What is the most indisputable fact you know that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events?


Because there's no evidence of it?

I see you still haven't responded to the refutation of your claim that the fossil record supports a global flood.

Where is your evidence for the flood?


Or do you not have any?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:19 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 4:41 PM on September 16, 2008 :
We should see small dinosaurs, medium sized mammals, medium sized birds, and small~medium sized reptiles all in the same layer.

I agree that it's all very mysterious but I just don't see any obvious contradiction with my first two postulates. I love scientific mysteries. Let me state another. What shall we conclude from The Case of the Missing Mars Water?





-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:26 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:26 PM on September 27, 2008 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.

I watched the entire video front to start. Nothing even remotely touched on direction.

It's hard for me to believe that you didn't notice any direction to the evolution.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:26 PM on September 27, 2008 :
Not only are you knowingly equating a scientific fallacy with a scientific theory, but more importantly, that's not even logically possible.

For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article: Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.

Please note that terrific title and the first line of the article that follows it: "In fact, natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity."

In the main body of the article, also note that it admits some rather startling evidence: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.

(Edited by Shubee 9/27/2008 at 11:59 PM).


-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:54 PM on September 27, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


It's hard for me to believe that you didn't notice any direction to the evolution.


The video showed nothing but evolution's splendid ability to get life forms out of a pinch. Life doesn't evolve for the sake of getting somewhere; it evolves to avoid extinction. You can no more derive direction from looking at a life form's evolutionary past than you can by looking at the random route a robber took while being chased by the police.



In the main body of the article, also note that it admits some rather startling evidence: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."


Why is the occurrence of evolution so startling to the theory of evolution? Complexity is a non-issue. I already explained to you that evolution will do whatever is beneficial for the population. If that means the population loses complexity, so be it. In this case, it was beneficial to the survival of the sea urchins and star fish to lose their nervous systems. If it was "devolution" they wouldn't be here anymore. Instead it's a textbook example of random mutation + natural selection yielding a product that is better suited to its environment than it was before.

This is only proof of what I said in my last post: that evolution has no direction. If evolution did have direction, we wouldn't see examples of evolution towards both more and less complex life forms.

I gather this difficulty you're having here is due to your continued confusion over what devolution actually means. "Devolution" isn't the process of life forms becoming less complex. It's the process of life forms evolving specifically in order to become extinct, which is an oxymoron by virtue of the fact that life can only evolve away from extinction. It's like steering out of the way of an incoming truck in order to hit the truck -- it doesn't logically compute.

And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.


Apparently the fact that only single-celled organisms are found in the oldest fossil beds means nothing to you.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/28/2008 at 01:02 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:58 AM on September 28, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:11 AM on September 17, 2008 :

When you attach direction to evolution, you're misunderstanding what evolution means.

I've stated a mathematically precise definition of devolution. The theory of devolution means, "all forms of life are becoming less and less robust over time." Anyone who says that the theory of devolution is wrong due to an argument in semantics is confused by Darwinian evolution. The theory of devolution assigns a direction to evolution.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 02:05 AM on September 17, 2008 :

Assuming the environment stays the same, it's not really possible for a specie to evolve in a way that would make it less-suited for its own environment.

But of course it's possible. The environment could stay the same and all forms of life could be becoming less and less robust over time.

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 7:26 PM on September 27, 2008 :

Devolution is a contradiction in terms.

Arm-waving is not a scientific argument. Has it ever occurred to you that a proof might require starting with a definition, using logic and reason, and reaching a contradiction?



-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:14 AM on September 28, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When i play with GenePool (a neat program that can be downloaded for free at www.swimbots.com ) i try to force the evolution of my critters towards smarter and more complex beings.

If i let them by themselves they often grow in simplicity, towards a highly energy-efficient stupid worm. They aren't very good at finding food, but since they travel so well using so little energy they eventually find food before dying of starvation.

I have to tweak ecology (besides manually killing lots of worms) so that the advantage of being energy-efficient is smaller than the advantage of being smart. (My being there killing bugs i dislike is a great selective pressure.)

A brain is something that consumes lots of energy. If evolution finds a way to make individuals eat and mate without thinking too much about it, the brain will get smaller, every time (anyway i really doubt that the ancestors of the starfish ever had a brain).

That wasn't our case (fortunately). Nature was hard on us.

Since we never had a loving god that provided us or made things easy for us (fortunately), we have to think in order to avoid starvation, freezing, becoming food, and getting sick. The better thinkers had a clear advantage. Their descendants mastered the secret of fire, tools, written language and credit cards.

Today everything is easy. So we reached a stalemate in evolution. Especially if medicine keeps improving and we keep avoiding genetic engineering.

Perhaps it's like i've said in the thread "Creationism challenged!Dare u?". Creationists acknowledge "evolution", but simply focus on cases that seem ugly to them, and call it "devolution".

Creationists have a remarkable tendency of being very picky on their examples. And even then, their best examples of "devolution" are just normal cases of what we call "evolution".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:35 AM on September 28, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 10:26 PM on September 27, 2008 :

I agree that it's all very mysterious


No, it's not. You claimed the fossil record supported the flood. Where is your evidence?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 6:50 PM on September 28, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 6:50 PM on September 28, 2008 :
You claimed the fossil record supported the flood. Where is your evidence?

Understand first that there might be evidence for an exceptional event and then there is undeniable evidence of the truly miraculous. To illustrate that contrast, one scientist said to another, "Of course you forget, Peter, I was present at an undersea, unexplained, mass sponge migration." The response was, 'big deal.' "Ray, the sponges migrated about a foot and a half."

The evidence that I have in support of a global flood is truly marvelous, exquisite and compelling. Let's talk about the many enormous burial sites that consist of unimaginably large quantities of plant biomass residue and the graveyards of fantastically many, densely packed fossilized remains of assorted animals.

Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100 times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs 1993). That's a highly relevant calculation. It's easy to conceptualize a pre-flood Eden-like world with 100 times the living plant biomass that exists today. The truly insurmountable problem is in trying to imagine a gradual, non-catastrophic process today that is on its way toward producing vast quantities of oil, gas and coal in highly concentrated pockets of the earth's crust.

The distribution of fantastic amounts of plant biomass residue in widely separated pockets on a continually changing planet is very strange. The existence of immense animal graveyards seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon and equally mysterious. Can you explain the enormous graveyards of fossilized animals where the bones are found tightly packed and jumbled together?

For one such burial site, consider the Morrison Formation (Late Jurassic) in the western United States.

This formation has an average thickness of 100m (300 ft) and extends well over 1,000,000 square km (about 700,000 square miles), being found from Canada to Texas, the Dakotas to Idaho and Arizona to Oklahoma.  It is known as one of the world’s richest sources of dinosaur fossils, but also contains fossil fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards, crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaur eggs, and shrew- to rat-sized mammals.  The dinosaur bones occur in the middle green siltstone beds and in the lower sandstones of the Morrison Formation, often in graveyards composed of densely packed bones.

The Morrison Formation preserved the remains of millions of very large plant-eating dinosaurs as well as very large meat-eating dinosaurs ... but hardly any plant fossils.

It seems like such massive and concentrated burial grounds as are found in the Morrison Formation ... are best explained by very large catastrophic flooding events with massive sorting and transport ...--Sean D. Pitman, The Fossil Record.

There seems to be many unimaginably large animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid burial of large animal populations is widespread. How do theorists explain it? Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated there are eight hundred billion skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karroo formation. --Adequacy of the Fossil Record, Norman D. Newall, Journal of Paleontology, vol. 33 (May 1959, p. 492).

Compared with any other fossil deposit in the world the Karroo must be regarded as phenomenally rich. Our fossil beds cover an area of about 200,000 square miles in almost any area of which fossils may be found. Some areas are rather poor; others are extremely rich. Great areas are covered by wind-blown dust, and vegetation; and as a rule it is only in water courses, and on slopes that fossils can be seen. I estimate that there are lying today exposed to view the fossil remains of five animals on average in every square mile. In some areas there are 100; in some none. For every fossil that is exposed to view there must be a 1,000 hidden by dust and talus. If there are the remains of 1,000 animals on the shale surface on an average in every square mile, there would be in the Karroo, if the wind-blown sand and dust could be removed, 200,000,000 fossil animals exposed to view. The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000-5,000 feet thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet, and at every few inches we have another page of the book, and another series of fossils to be revealed. I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals. --Broom, R., The Mammal-like Reptiles of South Africa, H.F.G. Witherby, London, p. 309, 1932.

Broom is not the only person to remark upon the extraordinary abundance of fossils in the Karroo formation. The paleontologist Edwin H. Colbert, in his A Fossil-Hunter's Notebook [Dutton, 1980, pp.163-4], writes "...in the Karroo... it seemed that everywhere we went we found fossils. All of which is some indication as to the abundance of fossil reptiles in the Karroo beds. I have never seen anything to equal the numbers of fossil vertebrates in the Karroo, except perhaps the prolific occurrences of Oligocene mammals in the White River Badlands of South Dakota. Wherever one goes in the Karroo there is a feeling of fossil reptiles at one's feet — and more often than not the fossils are nearby..."

Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient oil and coal deposits that now exist? Also, please tell me where animal graveyards of immense size are currently forming.  If fantastic numbers of animals were ever mysteriously drawn to specific locations that became immense graveyards of fossilized skeletons and densely packed bones, please explain the mechanism.



-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 1:59 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There seems to be many unimaginably large animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid burial of large animal populations is widespread. How do theorists explain it? Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated there are eight hundred billion skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karroo formation. --Adequacy of the Fossil Record, Norman D. Newall, Journal of Paleontology, vol. 33 (May 1959, p. 492).


Wow. That's a lot of vertebrates. You think they died in timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of them? Seriously?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:24 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Wow. That's a lot of vertebrates. You think they died in timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of them? Seriously?

Please understand that paleontology isn't a science. There is nothing resembling science in the estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.

Paleontology is more like stamp collecting. The real problem with the creation-evolution debate is that Darwinists defer to non-scientists. Darwinists have no idea where they truly rank in the pecking order established by science.

Paleontology doesn't rank much higher than the art of stamp collecting. Darwinianism isn't science.  

"Biologists think they are biochemists,
Biochemists think they are Physical Chemists,
Physical Chemists think they are Physicists,
Physicists think they are gods,
And God thinks he is a Mathematician."

When science is working correctly, "physicists defer only to mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to God."

David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.

When compared to any true science, Darwinism is just an anecdote. See The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski.




-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:57 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 4:57 PM on October 15, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Wow. That's a lot of vertebrates. You think they died in timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of them? Seriously?

Please understand that paleontology isn't a science. There is nothing resembling science in the estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.

Paleontology is more like stamp collecting. The real problem with the creation-evolution debate is that Darwinists defer to non-scientists. Darwinists have no idea where they truly rank in the pecking order established by science.

Paleontology doesn't rank much higher than the art of stamp collecting. Darwinianism isn't science.  

"Biologists think they are biochemists,
Biochemists think they are Physical Chemists,
Physical Chemists think they are Physicists,
Physicists think they are gods,
And God thinks he is a Mathematician."

When science is working correctly, "physicists defer only to mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to God."

David Hilbert's Philosophy of Physics is the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.

When compared to any true science, Darwinism is just an anecdote. See The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski.




This wasn't exactly the response I was looking for. We can talk about your attempt to redefine science later; for now I'd like you to try answering the question I had for you. Heck, let's go right ahead and stipulate that paleontologists are "stamp collectors" of the fossilized variety... This means you've got a rather inordinate amount of fossilized stamps to account for in a given area of earth. You seem to be saying that all these fossils got there as a result of a flood that occurred in the time span of less than one life time. I'd like you to take a shot at explaining how so many life forms could have possibly been living in such an area at the same time. The problem is that our villainous pseudo scientists aka Professional Stamp Collectors have found an awful lot of stamps in a place where they shouldn't have if all these stamps were placed there by a single flood. There isn't enough room for so many creatures to even stand there in the first place, much less live off the land. How were they supposed to have been alive at the same time, allowing for the flood to have killed them at the same time?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:34 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evidence that I have in support of a global flood is truly marvelous, exquisite and compelling.
No real scientist would ever consider to apply those attributes to any piece of evidence.

You sound too emotional.





-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:43 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


There is nothing resembling science in the estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.


Well lets see.  The dinosaurs dying out 65million years ago?


Paleontology doesn't rank much higher than the art of stamp collecting.


That is simply stupid.  Paleontology is the classification and discovery of fossils etc. from past life.

If you want to say paleontology isn't science, STOP USING YOU'RE FOSSIL RECORD ARGUMENT (not that it's much of an argument) It is hypocritical and makes you look like an idiot.


"Biologists think they are biochemists,
Biochemists think they are Physical Chemists,
Physical Chemists think they are Physicists,
Physicists think they are gods,
And God thinks he is a Mathematician."


This is irrelevant, and is based on opinion.


I watched all of the David Berlinski clips.  He DOES NOT EVER endorse the "theory" of creation.  He does bring up some interesting points.  None of which provide evidence for creation.  He doesn't even disprove the theory of evolution.  He simply shows some holes in the theory.  No one ever said it was perfect, it is simply the best theory out that at the moment.  Personally it makes sense to me,  and i doubt it will do anything but gather more and more evidence.  But that isn't to say it couldn't be dis-proven in 10 years.  EVEN IF it is, it will not point towards creation, because it is completely unscientific and there is ABSOLUTELY NO credible evidence for it whatsoever.

As to your "theory" of devolution, it is ridiculous.  In order for an entire species to grow LESS fit for it's environment, it would have to be less likely to reproduce successfully, and still spread it's genes through an entire population.  This is logically impossible.  Being less likely to reproduce to the point of extinction, does not allow for enough reproduction to affect the entire populous.



(Edited by 0112358132134 10/15/2008 at 6:10 PM).


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 6:08 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 1:59 PM on October 15, 2008 :

and the graveyards of fantastically many, densely packed fossilized remains of assorted animals.


Let's see if you even understand what the hell you are talking about.

Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100 times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs 1993). That's a highly relevant calculation. It's easy to conceptualize a pre-flood Eden-like world with 100 times the living plant biomass that exists today.


Come again? All that proves is that plants lived and died in the same areas and coal was produced from long periods of pressure. Furthermore, your argument is insane. For 100x the living plant biomass to exist during one period then today would require significently raised levels of Co2 as well as massive amounts of nutrients in the soil. While that COULD have occurred, it did not 6,000 years ago. The last time we saw such massive greenery was during the Carboniferous. That was not 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, the flood fails to explain where all of that Co2 went. For plants to have grown to such levels, they need large amounts of Co2 to photosynthesize. Without it, they cannot grow.

The truly insurmountable problem is in trying to imagine a gradual, non-catastrophic process today that is on its way toward producing vast quantities of oil, gas and coal in highly concentrated pockets of the earth's crust.


Not at all. In fact, Chevron and Exxon employ hundreds if not thousands of geologists who have studied evolutionary biology to find deposits based on evolution and an old Earth. A flood does not explain the necessary pressure to create coal quickly. Nor does it explain why hydrocarbons are found primarily in certain areas at certain depths based on specific geological conditions. A flood would have evenly left plant matter all over the world.

The distribution of fantastic amounts of plant biomass residue in widely separated pockets on a continually changing planet is very strange.


No it's not. What is strange is why, if a flood occurred, why we don't have hydrocarbon deposits everywhere. Large amounts of plant biomass in areas we know had large forests and swamps is pretty mundane and predictable. A region of the plant that has had massive swamps for thousands of years results in large amounts of coal. That isn't surprising at all. what is strange is why a flood would have deposited them in specific areas rather then depositing them according to fluid mechanics and hydrodynamics. Your argument directly contridicts physics.

The existence of immense animal graveyards seems to be a remarkably similar phenomenon and equally mysterious. Can you explain the enormous graveyards of fossilized animals where the bones are found tightly packed and jumbled together?


Because certain animals go to central places to die. Elephant graveyards for example. Furthermore, tar pits have been killing creatures for millions of years. A flood, however, would have hydrologically sorted animals based on fluid mechanics and would have done so evenly across the planet. Tell me why we do not see similar sized and massed mammals in the same layer with similar sized and massed dinosaurs from different eras.

Again, your argument directly contridicts the physics you can test in your kitchen sink.

It seems like such massive and concentrated burial grounds as are found in the Morrison Formation ... are best explained by very large catastrophic flooding events with massive sorting and transport ...--Sean D. Pitman, The Fossil Record.


Except that it doesn't. The formation has fossils of species that lived together. That is exactly what evolution predicts. What you fail to notice is that the foundation does not include species that did not live together. We do NOT see large mammals in the formation along with large reptiles. Furthermore, the formation has different massed organisms in the same layer. That is contradictory to fluid mechanics. A giant flood would sort based on mass and size. What we see in the formation is layers by age, not by mass and size. I don't think you know a single thing about physics.

There seems to be many unimaginably large animal graveyards that demonstrate that the rapid burial of large animal populations is widespread.


Aside from the fundamental rejection of physics. The same kind you can test in your kitchen. Along with the lack of fossils from eras that differ by the millions.

Where in the present do you see fantastic oil and coal deposits being created that compare in any way to the unimaginably huge and ancient oil and coal deposits that now exist?


Foolish. Montana is pretty oil free. We do find large amounts of oil in places where diatoms lived. And we find large amounts of coal in places where ancient forests and swamps were. Furthermore, areas of large amounts of oil are relatively fossil poor, Indonesia for example. Mexico has few fossils yet has large amounts of oil.

Come back when you understand physics.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 9:34 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 9:34 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Come back when you understand physics.



Let's start with understanding LOGIC.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:43 PM on October 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:43 PM on October 15, 2008 :
Quote from Obvious_child at 9:34 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Come back when you understand physics.



Let's start with understanding LOGIC.


Ouch. I brought up the issue of fluid mechanics the first time and our resident whack didn't want to deal with it.

But then again, creationists have no problem ignoring the laws of physics which they can test themselves.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 01:08 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 4:57 PM on October 15, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Wow. That's a lot of vertebrates. You think they died in timely proximity to one another? 800 billion of them? Seriously?

Please understand that paleontology isn't a science. There is nothing resembling science in the estimate of 800 billion vertebrates.


Um, what am I missing.

It was YOUR source Shubee that listed 800 billion vertebrates.  If you aren't willing to defend YOUR OWN QUOTED MATERIAL, then why in the world are quoting them????
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 05:44 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 2:16 PM on September 16, 2008 :Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?


Um, the shortening of telomeres occurs in EACH INDIVIDUAL'S BODY CELLS AS THEY CONTINUE TO DIVIDE - THAT IS, AS S/HE AGES.

Telomerase is the enzyme that maintains telomere length.  It is not expressed in our somatic cells, but it is in our germ cells.  

Thus, your telomeres started off at the same length as your mother's telomeres.  And your mother's telomeres started off at the same length as her mother's telomeres, which started off at the same length as her mother's, which started off at the same length as her mother's, which started off ...
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 05:55 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 2:16 PM on September 16, 2008 :Formally, quantum creationism is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. Quantum creationism then is essentially just conventional quantum physics applied to unauthorized, non-textbook questions. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).


What?

Creationists claim that it's impossible for a single cell to have popped into existence.  

But you're going to say to hell with them and overshoot that astronomically and propose something that is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more improbable - a complete human popping into existence.

I would think that even Creationists would just mock the hell out of this.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 06:04 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 01:08 AM on October 16, 2008 :
Quote from 0112358132134 at 11:43 PM on October 15, 2008 :
Quote from Obvious_child at 9:34 PM on October 15, 2008 :

Come back when you understand physics.



Let's start with understanding LOGIC.


Ouch. I brought up the issue of fluid mechanics the first time and our resident whack didn't want to deal with it.

But then again, creationists have no problem ignoring the laws of physics which they can test themselves.



I apologize, i was not referring to you, I was merely pointing out that understanding physics will get Creationists nowhere if they still cannot comprehend the logic behind it.

I'll try to be more specific next time, I do agree with most if not all of what you've posted, keep up the good work.



-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 09:32 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shubee, i have to ask if you got your "theory" for devolution from the movie "Idiocracy."

Besides being logically impossible, there is absolutely NO reliable evidence for it.

Regarding a global flood, IF we were to ignore the fact that THIS flood defied fluid mechanics, and that, lasting only 40 days, would not have deposited creatures in layers millions of years apart,  it still begs the question: where did all the water go?  It rained down enough to flood the ENTIRE planet, and then...disappeared?  It couldn't have soaked into the earth, there would be too much water to do that, and even if it did, it wouldn't have happened all at once at the end of 40 days.  Please give us some real evidence, not just making up some bullshit about the fossil record or quantum mechanics, neither of which you have an knowledge in.


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 09:49 AM on October 16, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They believed in devolution before that movie.

They say "
New traits can't appear from nowhere. They can only be lost. New generations take only what DNA is available in their gene pool. Since there is no DNA for an organ which they don't already have, no new organs can appear.", which could make sense, if one didn't know better.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:12 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:34 PM on October 15, 2008 :

I'd like you to take a shot at explaining how so many life forms could have possibly been living in such an area at the same time.

Your presupposition doesn't follow from any physical evidence or anything I've said. It's impossible to infer where all those vertebrate animals were at the beginning of the flood from my three axioms. I, in fact, believe that powerful waves and currents transported all the drowned Karroo animals to their present location.

I agree that the third axiom is highly improbable mathematically. Since my only aim is to prove that quantum creationism is science, I'm fine with that.

The Great Flood axiom requires fantastic physical displacements, up to and exceeding complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles of all of the continental surfaces of the Earth. The amount of energy required to cause such planet-wide liquefaction must be taken into account.

Here's someone with enough imagination to at least believe that the third axiom is conceivable:

The Biblical Flood Explained


(Edited by Shubee 10/16/2008 at 1:59 PM).


-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 1:51 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ratings and comments disabled.

My principles tell me not to watch it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:47 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Shubee at 1:51 PM on October 16, 2008 :

Your presupposition doesn't follow from any physical evidence or anything I've said.


That's due to the lack of any evidence your argument has. You have twice ignored physics to suit your truly asinine belief.

It's impossible to infer where all those vertebrate animals were at the beginning of the flood from my three axioms. I, in fact, believe that powerful waves and currents transported all the drowned Karroo animals to their present location.


Really? Seriously? Explain to me how that would work. How water could intelligently sort organisms based on specific species in specific areas without sorting other similar sized and massed organisms in the same place and from different eras.

You are sounding like you are making a joke. No one can be that stupid.

The Great Flood axiom requires fantastic physical displacements, up to and exceeding complete liquefaction of at least the top 5 miles of all of the continental surfaces of the Earth. The amount of energy required to cause such planet-wide liquefaction must be taken into account.


Why is there no evidence of this then? Furthermore, to create huge mountains between the flood and now would have required massive geological action resulting in massive amounts of heat.

The #1 problem creationists have is heat and none of them have any clue about how to deal with it.

Just because physics blows holes in your argument doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 3:19 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
0112358132134

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It would be interesting if an intelligent, well educated creationist showed up, I would like to see what they come up with to fix the holes in the issue.  Unfortunately Intelligent and Creationist seem to be mutually exclusive...


-------
“It is impossible for any number which is a power greater than the second to be written as a sum of two like powers. I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain.” -Pierre de Fermat
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:21 PM on October 16, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on October 16, 2008 :

How water could intelligently sort organisms based on specific species in specific areas without sorting other similar sized and massed organisms in the same place and from different eras.

One likely possibility is a fantastic quantum improbability. If fast and slow moving water molecules can be separated and prevented from mixing, then the same trick can be applied to the random forces in turbulent water flow on specific objects. This all easily follows from the first axiom of quantum creationism.

I have already illustrated the fundamental physics of my first axiom. Since it appears that the implications of the opening post were not understood, I will be happy to provide more details now. I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of quantum improbability theory.

Quantum improbability is the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. The fundamentals of this physical theory are easy to understand. I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I instantly recognized the similarity of that belief to the Biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea. My next encounter with the concept of fantastic quantum improbabilities was in the book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback by the prominent physicist George Gamow. I was deeply impressed by his representation of quantum improbability in that book. Consider this excerpt:



When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.

It seems that George Gamow's well-known popularization of modern physics is regarded as an acceptable view of physics. Please note the references from scholarly works: Mr Tompkins in Paperback - Google Book Review.

A review by SCRIPTA MATHEMATICA said, "Science students will find it worth while for it is definitely a good supplement to a modern physics textbook."

A review by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN said, "Will vastly fascinate the whimsical, and is also entirely scientific."

Presumably therefore, quantum physics is a scientific theory. If we adjoin to quantum physics all of the untestable, far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics, would we still have a scientific theory? I believe so.

All the underpinnings of statistical thermodynamics are based on the collective motion of microscopic particles, which is governed by quantum mechanics:

In physics, thermodynamics (from the Greek θερμη, therme, meaning "heat" and δυναμις, dynamis, meaning "power") is the study of the transformation of energy into different forms and its relation to macroscopic variables such as temperature, pressure, and volume. Its underpinnings, based upon statistical predictions of the collective motion of particles from their microscopic behavior, is the field of statistical thermodynamics, a branch of statistical mechanics. -- Thermodynamics.

I believe I am correct in identifying quantum physics as the fundamental physical law upon which all the laws of physical interactions and chemistry may be derived:

Essentially, statistical thermodynamics is an approach to thermodynamics situated upon statistical mechanics, which focuses on the derivation of macroscopic results from first principles. ... The statistical approach is to derive all macroscopic properties (temperature, volume, pressure, energy, entropy, etc.) from the properties of moving constituent particles and the interactions between them (including quantum phenomena). -- Thermodynamics.

I do not want to limit myself to classical thermodynamics because, "From a [classical] thermodynamics perspective, all natural processes are irreversible." --Irreversibility.

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible, it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. --Irreversibility

I believe that I can make the first postulate of quantum creationism clearer and even make it understandable to a general audience. Consider the following easy-to-understand conversation from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters, which I interpret as a spoof on science and pseudo-science:



Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it ceasing instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

It really is true that the fantastic improbabilities explained to me by my high school physics teacher and the excerpt that I quoted from George Gamow's book, Mr. Tompkins in Paperback, is well-known and well-accepted physics. Shall we dare think about the far-reaching mathematical implications of quantum physics by taking well-understood conventional physics to its logical conclusion?

Theoretically, a conceivable number of nuclear weapons strategically placed all around the Earth could end all life as we know it, almost instantaneously. I argue that if all the fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible, then it follows mathematically that there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living things in a single day.

Before the rage and ridicule of my detractors escalates to higher levels, I wish to make clear that I'm not under any delusion as to the opinions of the general physics community in regard to quantum improbability theory. As foretold in prophecy, it's an absolute certainty that many respectable physicists will strongly protest my use of quantum physics in a fun application for which they do not approve:

The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

... The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability were of course well understood — and such generators were often used to break the ice at parties by making all the molecules in the hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left, in accordance with the Theory of Indeterminacy.

Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this — partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties. — Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979).

It all boils down to a debate between physicists and mathematicians. There are physicists that believe that the fantastically improbable is impossible. There are mathematicians that believe that even events of zero probability can happen. I take the side of the mathematicians. See A Scientific Theory for Creation.

Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on October 16, 2008 :

To create huge mountains between the flood and now would have required massive geological action resulting in massive amounts of heat.

That's correct. It's all an elementary exercise in quantum improbability theory.

Quote from Obvious_child at 3:19 PM on October 16, 2008 :

You are sounding like you are making a joke. No one can be that stupid.

The real surprise to me is that you felt qualified to respond to this thread without the slightest understanding of the opening post.

"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass." — The Inventor of the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.




-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 12:14 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One likely possibility is a fantastic quantum improbability.


He's not being serious anymore. That's not to suggest he necessarily ever was being serious, but the gig's up when they start equating "likely possibility" with "fantastic improbability".


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:39 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It wouldn't be a theory anyway. A proper theory should give the easiest explanation of what we observe, and allow predictions.

Besides, the unlikeliness of any of those things to happen would make it easier to theorize a Matrix-like reality. A group of machines using us (instead of, say, cows, or even lobotomized humans, to avoid difficulties) as batteries and projecting into our brains magic events, including a Red Sea partition.

Inf fact ANYTHING (literally) is more likely than an infinite being intervening in our affairs (let alone creating us).

If your theory is about an intelligeht being creating life using quantum improbabilities, it would be much easier just to stop the laws of phisics. Seriously.

If it's about things happening by chance, then it shouldn't be called "creationism".

Nevermind if those things "can" happen. It can't be our first (or second, or third, or anythingth) theory about anything. Thus it's not worth mentioning.

"Not worth mentioning" is far more compelling than "impossible".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:26 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:39 PM on October 17, 2008 :
One likely possibility is a fantastic quantum improbability.


He's not being serious anymore. That's not to suggest he necessarily ever was being serious, but the gig's up when they start equating "likely possibility" with "fantastic improbability".


Agreed. Shubee 's just doing this for kicks and giggles.

The sheer ridiculousness of his posts is beyond measurability.

I love how his argument has come down to relying on extremely remote possibilities of violations of the greater body of physics that results in his desired outcome yet leaves absolutely no evidence to support it.

However, there is a possibility he's actually serious, but like most creationists to stupid to understand what he's saying or for that matter what anyone else is saying.

Has he even begun to address the problem of hydrological sorting based on actual physics?

(Edited by Obvious_child 10/17/2008 at 11:27 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

The sheer ridiculousness of his posts is beyond measurability.

You obviously do not understand them or even the debate topic. What does the subject line (Rethinking Creationism - Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?) mean to you?

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

I love how his argument has come down to relying on extremely remote possibilities

My argument didn't descend down to quantum improbability theory. The QIT axiom was present in the opening post.

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

violations of the greater body of physics

If you disagree with the physics I quoted from Wikipedia, you should become an editor and overturn the prevailing consensus.

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

that results in his desired outcome

The debate is if quantum creationism is science. The suspicion that I might believe in a God that plays dice with the universe and cheats is irrelevant. It's clear from physics alone that quantum improbability theory allows for quantum miracles.

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

yet leaves absolutely no evidence to support it.

The meaning of quantum improbability theory, the first axiom, is just beginning to dawn on you and you have shown no understanding of the second. Is my second axiom false because of semantics alone, as alleged by some of my critics, or is the theory of devolution just another area for which you are not qualified to speak?

As I see it, there is no point for me to discuss a test for my third axiom with someone who clearly doesn't understand quantum creationism.

Quote from Obvious_child at 10:55 PM on October 17, 2008 :

However, there is a possibility he's actually serious, but like most creationists to stupid to understand what he's saying or for that matter what anyone else is saying.

Has he even begun to address the problem of hydrological sorting based on actual physics?

By not seeing how easily I have demolished your argument on hydrological sorting, you have clearly demonstrated not understanding quantum improbability theory at the high school level.




-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 07:49 AM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Shubee, all of what you posted seems correct. Not sure about the heat, but nevermind.

Still not worth mentioning. Not in the context of science. It's like dismembering Occam with his razor.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:49 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
Shubee

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:49 PM on October 18, 2008 :

Shubee, all of what you posted seems correct. Not sure about the heat, but nevermind.

Still not worth mentioning. Not in the context of science. It's like dismembering Occam with his razor.


Please define science.





-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental questions in quantum mechanics?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:45 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum... The organized structured effort towards a better understanding of the natural phenomena.

That came out nice, didn't it? ^_^

Of course, it's not a complete definition. Would you like me to write more about it? I hope it's not necessary for you to address my comments.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:12 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.