Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you figure that we're not all descended from a single couple?
By analyzing modern genetic material, we know beyond question that scenario did not happen. We do ALL have a common maternal ancestor, a woman who lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago, but her spouse (assuming she had one) is NOT a common paternal ancestor.
That is not up for debate, discussion, or question. It is inerrant scientific fact.
And its not universally shared that the Earth is round and that we went to the moon.
Just because its not "universally" shared, doesn't mean its wrong.
God doesn't exist; a fictional being created, that traces back to how the masters wanted to control their subjects by instilling fear that an almighty being can "smite" them if they go against their words; words that they claim came from "God".
You know, it's sad that you think that God doesn't exist.
What about people who have died, only to be resuscitated, and who have accounts of the after life? My dad died, was resuscitated, and has accounts of his "near" death experience.
By analyzing modern genetic material, we know beyond question that scenario did not happen. We do ALL have a common maternal ancestor, a woman who lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago, but her spouse (assuming she had one) is NOT a common paternal ancestor.
That is not up for debate, discussion, or question. It is inerrant scientific fact.
Total nonsense.
This is man thinking that they know more than God.
This is man thinking that God is held by some kind of laws that He himself made. God isn't constrained by His own natural laws.
You don't know beyond question anything.
You know, I find it odd how you could even claim the 200,000 years argument, when the Earth would not be large enough for that number of people in such a time frame, even controlling for higher numbers of deaths via plagues and famines of the past.
You are correct. It isn't up for debate, as your time frame doesn't match reality. The Earth would simply have too many people at this time for such a time frame. There would have been massive numbers of deaths by this time.
Secondly, do you honestly think that one can look at DNA and conclude without a shadow of doubt that there was some lone woman 200,000 years ago? Seriously?
From what the evolutionists put out, they think that we evolved from a common ancestor that looked more alike to a chimpanzee than a human. This is about the most ludicrous thing that one could come up with. Oh yes, a chimp-like "woman" 200,000 years ago is our common maternal ancestor.
This from a fallible species, thinking that they know more than God. The utter arrogance.
Creationists argue that the Earth is around 7,000 years ago, and we have a genological account from Adam to Jesus, the Savior who lived on this Earth only two thousand years ago. It's much easier to say with assurance that you're more likely to be right the less-time that has transpired since the time of the event.
Without even going back to your other post that I didn't have time for earlier, I think you may have ended the conversation.
Okay. But I have to tell you that making that choice at a point in the conversation when you have still completely avoided the specific questions I asked sounds a lot like retreat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
You asked for examples of the experiment that behaved in the way I described. I provided one. Granted, it was only one, but it was directly on point.
But it didn't behave the way you described at all. Here... let me remind you what you asserted (numbers added):
No detection=interference pattern.
Detecting, and recording results=2 bands.
Detecting, not recording results=interference pattern.
Detecting, recording results encrypted, and then destroying them=interference pattern.
You were asked to show the experiments that demonstrated points three and four. The one you offered does not do so. It provided no example whatsoever of where detection was running and the interference pattern still existed... regardless of whether or not the results were being recorded. It was an experiment regarding quantum weirdness and conformed perfectly to the complementarity principle. But it did not move us any distance towards coming up with a way to discriminate between your simulation theory and an objective reality.
You provided that 5 point list ostensibly to make a case for the universe being a simulation. I suspect two of the 5 points to be false. I challenged you to point me to experiments that would justify them.
You appear to be declining that challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Rather than concede a point, you go off in a completely irrelevant direction.
Give me a reason to concede a point and I will be more than happy to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Yes, quantum is quantum, and macro is macro. No duh.
Well, at least finally you have acknowledged this issue. Now it is time to recognize the implications of it. We exist at macro scale. All our tools (to include our lexicon) exist at macro scale, else we cannot manipulate them. To measure anything on the micro scale, we must perforce amplify what we choose to measure in order for it to even be accessible to our tools. And this includes the lexicon we use to describe and communicate what we have measured.
It is that semantic context that seems to give you the greatest trouble. It is not an irrelevant direction at all, it is the fundamental source of your inability to comprehend the differences imposed by scale. Quantum mechanics is not classical mechanics, yet you persist in trying to pretend that they are, that entities should behave the same in either. It is a fascinating example of someone trying to impose their preconceptions on the data in spite of being continuously assaulted by the empirical evidence that it is wrong to do so.
Stepping back from the specific challenge regarding the two steps you now appear to be unwilling to defend, we are left with equal lack of satisfaction regarding the larger question I have asked repeatedly; what specific predictions does the simulation theory make that would allow us to distinguish it from an objective reality? Even Einstein who depended almost exclusively on thought experiments for assembling theoretical conjectures was able to come up with ways to actually test his ideas.
Without those testable predictions, your theory is unrefined solipsism. And what good is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
But what I presented to you was an experiment that had different results based SOLELY upon whether or not the "which slit" data remained available. When it did, there was no interference pattern. When it did not, there was. The ONLY difference was whether or not the data was retained and destroyed. The method of detecting the data was identical. The method of delivering the photons was identical. The only difference is that, AFTER the data was collected, in one iteration they kept it, and in another they arranged for it to be rendered noncollectable.
Nonsense. No differential data retention or restriction was relevant to the outcomes of that experiment. To the extent that any data regarding the polarity of the entangled photons existed at all, it existed in all comparable permutations of the experiment. For some segment of the photon path, the imposed polarity existed regardless of whether or not it was later destroyed at some other point in its path. The existence (or not) of an interference pattern had nothing to do with whether or not the data was actually collected. It had to do with whether or not the apparatus (purely as part of its function) was generating data accessible at the macro scale. The data did not need to be collected, stored, perceived or experienced. The apparatus is what affected the collapse of the photons into a classical mechanical state. Not the data.
This is perfectly consistent with the two previous examples I presented (and you ignored) regarding fullerenes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
If you want to keep sticking your head in the sand and ignore what's right in front of you, be my guest.
Is that your closing shot? Because it was as unhelpful as it was gratuitous.
You know, it's sad that you think that God doesn't exist.
What about people who have died, only to be resuscitated, and who have accounts of the after life? My dad died, was resuscitated, and has accounts of his "near" death experience.
What do you have to say about that?
Thousands report similar accounts.
Yes, thousands do and maybe this is why...
Near-death experiences are tricks of the mind triggered by an overload of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, a new study suggests.
Quote:
Many people who have recovered from life-threatening injuries have said they experienced their lives flashing before their eyes, saw bright lights, left their bodies, or encountered angels or dead loved ones.
In the new study, researchers investigated whether different levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide—the main blood gases—play a role in the mysterious phenomenon.
The team studied 52 heart attack patients who had been admitted to three major hospitals and were eventually resuscitated. Eleven of the patients reported near-death experiences.
During cardiac arrest and resuscitation, blood gases such as CO2 rise or fall because of the lack of circulation and breathing.
"We found that in those patients who experienced the phenomenon, blood carbon-dioxide levels were significantly higher than in those who did not," said team member Zalika Klemenc-Ketis, of the University of Maribor in Slovenia.
Near-death experiences are tricks of the mind triggered by an overload of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, a new study suggests. Near-Death Experiences Explained?
Of course, when one wants to deny the existence of the after life and God, they make up false explanations for them. To the people who have had them, they know the score.
My dad's spirit popped out of his body, and he could see the nurses trying to resuscitate him from above. He approached a being who told him that he could go to Heaven. My dad perceived this being as an angel. There was a bright light eminating from the beings head. The light was so bright he couldn't see the head. He felt love from the being. Behind the being was a bright light/tunnel that was perceived as the entrance to Heaven. When my dad was given the choice of going to Heaven at the moment, he thought about his family and felt it wasn't time. He was instantly transported into the hospital room, where he saw the nurses trying to resuscitate him. He re-entered his body, only to wake up moments later.
Anyone can write a false explanation, but it doesn't make it true. Those that deny God will make up stuff to try to deny all the evidence of God and the afterlife.
It's funny how there are similar accounts across thousands of people.
The problem you have with your argument, Georgiafrog, is that observation doesn't provide evidence for evolution, only small changes within variation of the species via natural selection.
Of course. What reasonable person would expect otherwise? It is really odd (don't you think) that someone would point out that we observe exactly what evolution would suggest we should observe and then consider that somehow a strike against the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Natural Selection is not enough to make changes from one type of organism to another.
A bald assertion, but one that has no genuine basis in the science. It is in short a pure equivocation. What is the definition of "one type of organism?" The only rigorous definition we have for any taxonomic category is species... and we know that can't be what you mean since we have extensive and direct observational evidence of speciation. Creationists have been wrestling for decades with the concept of "baramin" ("created kind") in the effort to squeeze all the animals on the ark, but that concept allows for more evolution than is necessary to evolve humans from apes... thus working against their core conceit.
When the boundary between "one type of organism" and another is that ambiguous, you have made no genuine argument. You have merely preemptively positioned yourself to engage in furious goal post moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Simply put, anything that has been observed merely shows a shift in the available phenoytpes already within the gene pool.
You have just defined evolution.
That said, the extensive morphological changes that you are trying to avoid addressing are demonstrated (again, as evolution predicts) by other observations in other specialties. We have a comprehensive accounting via fossil evidence (for just one example) of the evolutionary transition from reptiles to mammals. Certainly even you cannot move the goalposts far enough or fast enough to claim that reptiles and mammals are "one type of organism."
So you believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of forming all of creation?
If I appeal to magic, then anything is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
You believe the complexity of life is by mere chance?
No. And neither does any evolutionary scientists. Nothing in nature operates by "mere chance." The universe operates by invariant natural law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever
Wow, just wow.
Right back at you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
