Evolution is a Joke part XII

Seeing there was no question to address, the accusation is pretty stupid.

I really couldn't care less how you think it works, sorry for any inconvenience.

Then one cannot help but wonder why you have failed utterly to cite any scientific observation which comes within lightyears of doing so.

I can hardly be expected to learn from those who have nothing valuable to teach.

Yes, I'm ignorant of many things, including astrology, numerology, and the price of a ton of pig iron in 1912. Why that is problematic I don't know or care.

I really couldn't care less what you think I should work on, so thanks for nothing.

How very amusing.

Alas, it's not new facts you have a problem with.

Never happen. Hell, they don't even understand what life is to begin with, which is why they can't even figure out whether or not viruses are alive. What they'll do is cobble together some sort of nanobot that meets all the requirements of their intellectually bankrupt definition of life, and call it a life form, even though it will be no more alive than a computer virus.

 

And what caused your God to exist?

 

I would be happy to explain if you would read my ideas with an open mind. (well they are the ideas, those of the cosmological argument are from minds with much more amps of brain power than I can muster). Ok I will take a chance. First an extremely brief answer, the shorter the better most of the time. Long answers threads and replies are not very often read...

Do you like riddles? The answer to your question is here; ‘Everything that begins to exist has a ‘cause’ to cause it to begin to exist’ , that is premise one in the first logical syllogism of one of the arguments* etc that I use to justify, verify, validate, Gods existence. Umm' it's maybe 40% of my personal reinforcement and authority that allows my belief in God.

reva

 

Cause and Effect.

For every Effect, there is Cause, which excludes Magic, spiritualism, and supernatural events.
There is Cause whether we can at this moment state such a Cause for Effects observed.

That is merely the initial postulate for the whole discipline of Modern Science.

Now, in the aftermath of the Copenhagen Interpretation, we understand Science to agree, that Observation is the Cause of everything Material which exists in the necessary Space/time to contain it.

 

Okay, can you prove this premise true? How do you know that everything that begins to exist has a cause to bring it into existence? Where are some examples of this in nature?

 

Every has a cause....except gawd, right?

too funny

 

People have been mislead by the reference to a "singularity."
What that means is there was some Cartesian point (of the graph of the Universe that would appear) where in the whole materialization began.

It is more akin to the idea of the Center of Universe, some initial point that did not exist until the exact moment of the Big Bang.
It refers to that single point on graph paper where we could point and say the expansion into a Universe was from here.
It is a Cartesian location from which the expansion after the Collapse of the Wave Function.
It is a mathematical address, a location for the 0,0,0 Coordinate System we might cast over the universe after it materialized.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system
A Cartesian coordinate system is a coordinate system that specifies each point uniquely in a plane by a pair of numerical coordinates, which are the signed distances from the point to two fixed perpendicular directed lines, measured in the same unit of length. Each reference line is called a coordinate axis or just axis of the system, and the point where they meet is its origin, usually at ordered pair (0, 0). The coordinates can also be defined as the positions of the perpendicular projections of the point onto the two axes, expressed as signed distances from the origin.

One can use the same principle to specify the position of any point in three-dimensional space by three Cartesian coordinates, its signed distances to three mutually perpendicular planes

 

Perhaps we have differing opinions on the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics....and also perhaps a differing understanding of hypothesis.

While the interpretation does indicate the value of observation in perceived reality, it does not claim this is a creation event. The possibility remains open, but is undefined. The hypothesis is not accepted theory, but a mental equation awaiting verification and further study afterward to become an accepted theory. I am impressed you have researched this possibility, yet not so much that you understand the implications or current status of it.

 

God seems to be the First Cause, himself, because he was the initial creator that observed the collapse of the Wave Function carrying the information of the Big Bang.

 

You pretend to have an understanding of physics, yet accept a ghost as fact.....it makes no sense to me.

 

Argument from special pleading. Fail.

 

Nonsense.

I am merely applying the Copenhagen Interpretation as stated to the collapse of the Wave Function that carried the information from the Big Bang.

The CI states quite clearly that "nothing exists until it is observed."

What you would like to do postulate the exception to this rule so that it doesn't so neatly support my conclusions here.
If you don't believe the Bible or Science, you are just a nilihist that doubts everything and there is no sense talking about thos or anything else.

 

I do indeed doubt those things unsupported by evidence....but other than that you are correct....BYE.

 

"Special?"

I am pleading from the foundation of Modern Quantum Physics in the discipline of Empirical Science in support of the scriptures in the discipline of Theology.

YOU are making a special pleading in company of confirmed Atheists who have no support for your doubts but a personal decision to opt for Nihilism over the sanity of Reality.

 

Well that is what a nihilist does, "doubt everything."

You are doubting the Bible which says there is a God and now science which says there HAD TO BE a First Cause that was outside of the yet to appear Universe in order to be that necessary observer.

What is interesting here, to me, is that after all this discussion, you say "bye."

It is clue to the intellectual dishonesty that existed when you and others here began.
You will fade away from being edified, and most likely seek out other weaker spirits to smash at and bash bible believers unable to defend against the multitude of what you now know are your fallacious arguments against a God.

 

No wrong. You are inserting a mythical sky fairy and then attempting to use Science to support that fallacious claim. Special Pleading because your mythical sky fairy appears to be the only element in the universe not subject to the known laws of the universe. You cannot prove your mythical sky fairy exists and you cannot prove there is a need or a requirement for your mythical sky fairy. Special Pleading requires special proof....proof you neither have nor can you provide.

You're a simple, run-of-the-mill "god of the gaps" apologetic.

50 years ago you mythical sky fairy was responsible for the creation of all creatures...now we know that's BULSH so, you creatards packed up your medicine show and set up on the science of cosmology....from which you will soon be ousted from.

 

Physics does not rule out such things as a spirit world, it actually entertains any hypothesis that might be examined to find evidence for such an idea.

The Many World's Hypothesis of Branes M-theory postulate something very similar to Ghost existence of two of everything, including us.
Sort of a possibility of a another place, maybe Heaven, where we exist in duplicate.

 

LAME...

I started by stating that an Observer would necessarily be required by the Copenhagen Interpretation such as for the Universe to have had a beginning.
By definition then, that observer was the creator, de facto, collapsing the wave function.



This is all Genesis says, that "in the beginning," this observer created the heavens and the earth and all that was observed thereafter as the information in the wave function materialized.

Now, after the support of science, I say this Observer qualifies as the God behind this Reality within which we are all both trapped and nurtured.

YOU are the one trying to deny such an god-like observer, one that pre-existed, outside or the Cosmos, yet still requires an observer to collapse the wave functions as the future unfolds (Schrodingers Cat).

LOL

 

Really???...wow...grasp at those straws! How would be god be the observer if he is not part of the reality?

Who observed it?...and why, if an all-powerful god wanted to create a universe...he would go to all this trouble? How is that remotely logical?

You application of the Copenhagen Interpretation is dubious at best.

Circular Reasoning. Fail.

Really? So, where is your proof it wasn't an alien from another universe?

Furthermore, you make the assumption that the collapse has to take prior to the creation of that observer. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation contains no such requirement.

 

First of all, I'm going to need a citation on that claim. It seems somewhat suspect, to say the least. Especially because Tolweb claims that there are no clownfish in the Caribbean. So does NatGeo. So, we've hit our first stumbling block. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "almost all ocean reefs are identical", and I'd like to see your evidence of that as well.

Which is a 150-year-old book, and while it does get some things wrong, the thrust of it is pretty much entirely correct. I wouldn't be surprised if it had errors (hell, Darwin didn't even imagine Punctuated Equilibrium or horizontal gene transfer, and his book was published before genetics were generally understood); but pointing them out is largely irrelevant precisely because the field has moved so much further. Or do you mean critique of the actual base theory? Yeah. Right. You haven't given a great first impression in terms of your understanding of biology or zoology. Do you still have that paper? I wouldn't mind giving it a read.

As previously stated multiple times, this argument is invalid and based on a failed understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Please stop using it, or refute the counterargument.

 

I still would like to know, why his is shock two clown fish would have the same DNA?...after all, the are both......

 

His argument has to do with the species being so far-flung, or if it's not the same species, how they could have evolved to be that close. Both, however, are moot points, as there are no clownfish in the Caribbean.

 

Do you mean this argument, whichiswrong on its first sentence?

"The SAP and its variants assume that human observers are required for the existence of the universe. This is a common misrepresentation of the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics.

It is taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat. A cat is placed in a sealed box into which poison will be pumped when the nucleus of a certain atom decays. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the atom exists as both decayed and undecayed (superpositioned) until a measurement is made. Since the atom must exist in this superpositioned state, the cat must exist in the same state until the box is opened. Note that the cat does not cease to exist, nor does the atom's nucleus. They simply exist in an unobserved state. The 'wave forms' that represent the experiment's possibilities have not collapsed into a single 'choice'. If we accept the most mystical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the universe would still exist without human intelligence. It would simply exist in an unobserved state. "


It is NOT taken from the mental experiment called Schrödinger's cat.

The Copenhagen Interpretation was devised to explain the Quantum Leap as observed from the Double Slit Experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&eurl= :The Quantum Physics of the Double Slit Experiment</a>

 

Schrödinger's cat is a useful, handy example to try to conceptualize a very counterintuitive concept to the layperson audience. Iron Chariot's formulation is slightly off, but the point remains the same - unobserved objects still exist. Which is the basis of your argument.

 

LOL

My argument is the application of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Science.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics specifically says that nothing exists until it has been observed.
.