Quantum Physics

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by ChronicClif, May 11, 2011.

  1. I can't say I see what you mean. There is just too much we do not yet know about the universe for assumptions like that to be made. I hope I am lucky enough to live long enough to be alive when they are finally able to answer the great question.
     
  2. damn ramtha cult got another
    well
    mfw

    [​IMG]
     

  3. So where's all the evidence that random mutation was the process which brought life to appear so designed? I mean just looking at the fossil record.. we have perfectly symmetrical complex organisms that appear out of nowhere with no indication of a preceding ancestor. Where are all the completely unsymmetrical random mutation fuck ups which logic would tell you would be much more abundant through a completely random process?

    Just look at the observable mutations we have today. I'm not sure we've ever even witnessed one truly beneficial mutation to date, so obviously negative mutations >> beneficial mutations.

    Even just the most simplest cells are still more complex than a nasa space shuttle.. Like what came first, the dna or the proteins to make dna which are originally made by dna? Are you trying to say there were primitive cells that existed back then that aren't capable of existing now? Also wheres the information in dna come from? DNA literally works like a coded language, please state a natural process which is capable of bringing about information with no intervention of intelligence.
     
  4. I know man… What an asshole! I mean, how dare he have a different opinion then you! Dumbass, right?
     
  5. Evolution made consciousness possible.

    In quantum mechanics, the measuring device interferes with the experiment because the photons from the devices carry energy and momentum. Because of this, it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle.

    Atoms are not infinite. In order to study what atoms are made out of, physicists must smash them together, which destroying them.
     
  6. You are not going to be able to have a decent debate here because you do not understand or choose to ignore actual science, lets talk in the S&P or you can use google or maybe go to college and fill in your gaps of science:D
     
  7. What science have I ignored?

    It's a very logical question. The first cells- they must require dna, but to make the dna you must have proteins, but these proteins are made from the dna code itself. I'm sure if you think about this for a minute you can realize the problem... It is just one of the many many 'which came first' problems that face evolution.

    To refute this problem, you must claim that there was once a more primitive cell that once existed but no longer does, even though we cannot recreate one or have any evidence of this even being possible..

    You must also recognize the sheer complexity in a single cell.

    I'll ask you personally, you find many specified and intricate parts in a Nasa space shuttle. Even say given 2 billion years, do you believe a space shuttle could ever assemble itself simply by natural causes?
     
  8. I have had some discussions with you over evolution before and have offered to help you learn even more, with no contact from you! I can see from some of your arguments you lack some fundamentals when it comes to science. Actually I remember debating with you that humans walked with dinosaurs with you taking the stance that is reality:rolleyes:

    As far as the nasa throw back to the watchmaker analogy, you must certainly recognize it is a self refuting evidence for at least an eternal god. If something is so complex it requires a creator how much more so must the creators complexity be then the created object. So it goes to follow due to the complexity of the creator and the arguments reliance on complexity to be evidence for a creator that the creator must have a creator, no?

    about to smoke a spliff:hello::smoke:
     
  9. My face while reading this thread --------> :D
     

  10. If you believe in eternal matter, wheres the issue with an external eternal designer?

    If you believe consciousness can come from inanimate matter, what makes you think consciousness couldn't have formed outside our universe on its own before the existence of our universe?

    The evidence alone for design in our reality is so overwhelming, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin.. it's only logical and commonsensical that an intelligent force exists outside our realm of space and time, what it is or where it originated is a whole different question.
     
  11. Unfortunately, as pointed out here many times, your grasp of the actual science prevents you from understanding the question and the answer. You've been told this information before many times, but somehow keep avoiding reading it. In my post some three pages earlier I showed that sciecne knows how the proteins came about before DNA and were created naturally. Why are you so determined to not ackowledge that?

    Quote: The evidence alone for design in our reality is so overwhelming, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin..

    MelT

    If that's the case, why are you still totally unable to provide any valid links showing proof of that? Why can I provide hundreds of links and you none?
     
  12. I linked one earlier in this thread, also in another thread I've posted quite a few links of peer reviewed publications on intelligent design as well.. I dont get why so many people have it in their heads that theres zero peer reviewed publications of ID theory that exist.. I've also posted more than plenty logical and factual explanations of intelligence being the origin of information, but I understand how that doesn't fully actually count for evidence.

    And I must've missed the post of yours, mind relinking to proteins coming about through natural processes? I'm not doubting you, I find it interesting to read about all this. Just I get lost in all the back and forth responses.
     
  13. So far you haven't posted anything that's peer reviewed that supports ID, all you've posted is one link to a denver christian paper. You haven't given any logical or factual explanations of anything TBH, saying things like 'look at nature, it must have been designed' isn't proof, it's conjecture - and most of it personal at that. Because you don't understand the science, the explanations you provide aren't accurate. The worst part is that even when faced with direct proof that you're conitnually wrong on a whole ream of things in endless threads, you keep posting as though nobody has said a word. Please, start by learning about science, then come and tell us we're all wrong afterwards.

    I'll ask again: Post some links, peer reviewed by science, not just by christian scientists or those with an agends,then we can begin to talk. If they exist then you wont have a problem doing that. Or is this going to be the Dover case all over again?


    MelT
     
  14. #54 KirbyPuckett, May 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2011
    Believe what you want to believe. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean I have to. Our proof is very subjective. Yours is based on human understanding. Mine is based on nature. The fact is, nature created us. Why question how? Why not just accept it? Intelligent design was required for this to happen in my eyes, just like all of natures laws are not a coincidence, but created by intelligent design IMO. I don't see how people can think these laws just naturally happened?
     
  15. Your proof may be subjective but don't speak for mine.

    Do you have any evidence for such claims. I personally stick with the scientific axiom of everything having a natural cause. Intelligence is a byproduct of existence, you can't have intelligence without an existent substrate for it to infect.:D

    Intelligent design is a fiction of your imagination based off of self projection onto a natural system! I can talk more about that outside of this forum cover some basics of consciousness and how we operate in reality, time to roll a spliff:smoke:
     
  16. Again, you may believe what you choose. May I ask where you got this theory? Did someone elses belief tell you this, and you yourself believed it? Are you saying nature is not a higher power than ourselves? Seems rather risky to say considering we do not control these laws that allow us to exist. What is your hypothesis for these laws coming into effect?
     
  17. #57 KirbyPuckett, May 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2011
    Also, my point is existence wouldn't exist without an observer.

    Think of the double slit experiment. There are infinite possibilities, until a photon hits the electron to create the possibility. Doesn't this mean in order for us to exist, there must be a photon creating the possibility?
     
  18. Yes to a certain extant I take peoples authority, example I take Einsteins authority on general and special relativity because I lack the understandings of matrix multiplication and have very little knowledge of non-euclidean geometry so I lack the basic skills to test it (or even come up with my own way to test relativity) and take it on his authority.

    These natural laws are just observations of interactions between systems it does not lead logically to a concept of laws being a higher power. If I fall down the stairs it is not because of a higher power it is because of two or more systems interacting and the inherent forces involved between the micro and macro interactions of these systems. Interactions, energy, forces all natural with no need to ascribe to them a higher power. Interactions between systems is the cause and the effect without any higher power. A photon is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation but also the medium or carrier of electromagnetic force, I don't know if I am making sense but hopefully I am:smoke:
     
  19. #59 KirbyPuckett, May 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2011
    Interesting belief. I respect your decision. One love bud

    I'd still like to hear your hypothesis for where these laws came from, though.. If you are saying energy, I agree. But where does our infinite supply of energy come from then? And how did energy cause these laws to go into effect?
     
  20. I don't think you understand the double slit experiments and what they show:confused:

    The laws as I stated come from interactions, once "things" are there to interact you will have observable "laws" in which to label these interactions. The infinite supply of energy comes once again from simply being here. Energy if generally defined as a force acting through a distance and the quantity of "work" a physical system can do on another physical system (interactions). Energy is not onto itself it is part of, there are forces that show these "energies" but nonetheless energy is a part of existence. Big bang and I don't know what happened before but it had to of come from natural sources, do you like my argument from ignorance creationist use this mechanism a lot so I figured I would give it a try!
     

Share This Page