Evolution Is Not A Theory..........................

[Gadgeteer]

As to the double slit, dear God man, it's just phase cancellation.

Phase cancellation with what? How does one particle cancel phase with itself? I was referring to the experiment cited to in Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", aligning with Schrodinger's Cat. Electrons impinging on a double slit produce the "wave interference phenomena". Reportedly (I haven't seen the experiment myself), decreasing the amplitude until only one electron at a time is emitted, still displays the interference pattern on the phosphor (time-exposed onto film).

The act of observing which slit the electron passes through collapses the "wave equation", and the simple particle double-bell density distribution asserts (think, "machine gun spraying onto a wall through a double-slitted steel plate").

Same as Schrodinger's Cat --- the act of observing the cat collapses the "dual universes" (as Hawking proposes) and forces either the "dead-cat-Universe", or the "live-cat-Universe".

If the electron interference experiment supports "multiverse", then the two universes interact (else interference cannot assert). And that disputes the boundary condition. We must seek an equation that exists in a single Universe which explains the "dual path" of one electron.

An experiment that everyone reading this can try (which, as memory serves me, is also discussed in Hawking's book), is the polarizing filter one. Two crossed polarizers (at 90° to each other) have a through-transmission of 0%. However --- insert a third polarizer between the first two, the third at 45° to the others, and it's as if a clear window opens up. Transmission is 25%.

Hawking proposes that there are two Universes --- first comprised of polarizer #1 and #2 --- which because they are at 45° to each other, assert 50% transmission. The second Universe is comprised of filters #2 and #3, which are also at 45° to each other, so THEIR through transmission is 50%. Because the two Universes interact, the total transmission is 50% of 50%, or 25%.

Grab three pairs of polarized sunglasses (or one good pair and one disassembled pair), and instantly create the experiment. And then explain what's happening, in physics, here.

(Note --- do not use the new "Real 3D" glasses, those are circularly polarized; this experiment needs linearly polarized. The "Real 3D" glasses do have one side linear, with a birefringent (quarter-wave-retarder) layer to convert it to circular. I have no idea how they get "clockwise" and "counterclockwise", haven't bothered to sit down and do the math...)

 

[Gadgeteer]

Pascals wager is a huge non sequitur. You DO know that...right?

Apparently not. I'm assuming you are actually being serious.

What about the rest of my post? And the ones before? Statistical impossibility? And we haven't even discussed thermodynamics..

Discuss away. There's no thermodynamic restriction with regard to evolution. That's just the hardline creationists trying to con the scientifically unsophisticated.

"A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy."

Entropy increases; the Universe progresses from order towards disorder. The only exception is when there is an energy input, and an operating program (ie, "birth").

Evolution proposes that life wrote its own program.

"Statistical impossibility" was valid; the probability is zero. By many magnitudes. The argument of "infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will eventually create Shakespeare" specious. The Universe is not infinite. Say it another way: "A tornado can tear through a wrecking-yard and assemble a perfectly working Boeing 747".

No, it can't. Not ever.

The only answer to "statistics", is to propose terribly subjective ideas like "heretofore undiscovered attractors for an equally undetermined chaotic equation". Stated another way, "Physics may exist so that life MUST come into existence and evolve".

Faith, that's what it is. Pure faith. Faith that is (voice of Sagan) "Billions and Billions of times" more incredible than "Intelligent Engineer"...

 

[Vaard]

its pretty easy to understand.......

the farther down you dig, the farther you go back in time, the simpler organisms get........

if evolution was not true, then every strata of historical data would have the same level of organisms in it........

 

[Gadgeteer]

I'll go with Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain and Albert Einstein any day:

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.



The Following From Mark Twain:

•Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.


•The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter.


•It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.


•The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same, but the medical practice changes.


•No sinner is ever saved after the first twenty minutes of a sermon.


•India has 2,000,000 gods, and worships them all. In religion, other countries are paupers; India is the only millionaire.


•By temperament, which is the real law of God, many men are goats and can't help committing adultery when they get a chance; whereas there are numbers of men who, by temperament, can keep their purity and let an opportunity go by if the woman lacks in attractiveness.


•But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?


•It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.


•Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.


From Albert Einstein's obituary 1955


"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world," he said on another occasion, "is that it is comprehensible."

Argument from a certain person that I heard:

"You're an Atheist?"
"Yes".
"You know there's no God, you're certain."
"Yes!"
"Do you know everything there is to know in the Universe, EVERYTHING?"
"Well, no."
"Do you know HALF of all there is to know in the Universe?"
"No."
"Would you consider that God could exist, in the half you don't know?"
"...Okay, then I guess I'm an Agnostic. I can't say for certain."
"An Agnostic. A doubter. You don't know if there's a God."
"Right."
"Are you an HONEST doubter, or a DISHONEST doubter?
"What do you mean?"
"Well, if you're an honest doubter, you don't know if there's a God but you would LIKE to know; but if you're dishonest, you don't know and you don't really want to know.
Which are you?"
"Uhhhhhhhhhhh..."

 

[Dragon]

Entropy increases; the Universe progresses from order towards disorder. The only exception is when there is an energy input, and an operating program (ie, "birth").

There are no exceptions. A system in which there is energy input is, by definition, NOT a closed system. Of course, that describes the Earth and the Earth's biosphere, which receives energy from the sun.

"Statistical impossibility" was valid; the probability is zero. By many magnitudes. The argument of "infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will eventually create Shakespeare" specious. The Universe is not infinite. Say it another way: "A tornado can tear through a wrecking-yard and assemble a perfectly working Boeing 747".

Like many creationists, you are making the mistake of seeing evolution as a random process. It is not. Mutation is random, but natural selection is non-random, and it is natural selection which guides and shapes evolution. For this reason, comparison to zillions of monkeys typing randomly and tornadoes crashing through a wrecking yard are misleading.

If you want a good monkey-typing analogy to evolution, try this. ONE monkey, not zillions, bangs away at a typewriter, and if he types something other than the first letter of the first play in Shakespear's folio, a genie makes the letter disappear. As soon as he types that first letter correctly, the genie advances the typewriter to the next space and the process begins again, searching for the second letter.

In this picture, the monkey represents random mutation, and the genie represents natural selection. While it would take a long time to produce all of Shakespeare's works in this way, the probability of doing so is not small; in fact, it is 100% provided the monkey survives and keeps hitting keys long enough.

 

[Gadgeteer]

its pretty easy to understand.......

the farther down you dig, the farther you go back in time, the simpler organisms get........

if evolution was not true, then every strata of historical data would have the same level of organisms in it........

Not exactly true, is it? The "Cambrian Explosion" is a large amount of life, with jointed limbs and compound eyes.

...pre-Cambrian didn't really have anything. Oh wait, there WERE, but they were all "soft tissue" and didn't leave any fossils!

By the latter Precambrian, heat dissipated enough to allow the continental crust to form; crustal rifting, mountain building, and volcanic activity then dominated, as did sedimentation. The life of the late Precambrian is poorly represented by fossils, but a few invertebrates including creatures resembling jellyfish and worms have been discovered. The best evidence that there probably were numerous forms of life is the variety and complexity which suddenly appears in Cambrian fauna. Mineral deposits associated with Precambrian rocks have yielded most of the world's gold and nickel in addition to large quantities of copper, silver, radium, and uranium.

Wow --- the best evidence is that Cambrian life is COMPLEX, so there MUST have been precursors because we know evolution is a FACT!

Uh, huh. Prejudice, bias, and seriously unscientific propaganda.

 

[Dragon]

Regarding Pascal's wager (which is off-topic of course) here is the real argument against it.

I may make up a claim with exactly the same real evidence behind it (i.e., zero), and thus exactly the same probability of it being true (extremely low but not zero), as the claims of traditional Christianity. In this claim, I assert that it is Christians, and those who accept the doctrines of Christianity, who will go to Hell and be tortured forever, while it is non-Christians who go to Heaven.

A rational person must assess this claim as having the exact same (extremely low but not zero) probability of being true as the Christian claim. It and the Christian claim cannot both be true. Either all Christians go to heaven and all non-Christians go to hell, or vice-versa, or neither, but not both.

In taking Pascal's wager you would therefore be refusing mine, and thus committing yourself to Hell if I am right and Christianity is wrong. This possibility, which cannot logically be denied, invalidates Pascal's mathematical argument.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Entropy increases; the Universe progresses from order towards disorder. The only exception is when there is an energy input, and an operating program (ie, "birth").

There are no exceptions. A system in which there is energy input is, by definition, NOT a closed system. Of course, that describes the Earth and the Earth's biosphere, which receives energy from the sun.

Depends on how you define your boundary. If the boundary includes the Sun, then the system is "closed", and the energy is finite (the Sun will run outta gas). There is also time; from life's pov, the Sun does not present a closed system.

"Statistical impossibility" was valid; the probability is zero. By many magnitudes. The argument of "infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will eventually create Shakespeare" specious. The Universe is not infinite. Say it another way: "A tornado can tear through a wrecking-yard and assemble a perfectly working Boeing 747".

Like many creationists, you are making the mistake of seeing evolution as a random process. It is not. Mutation is random, but natural selection is non-random, and it is natural selection which guides and shapes evolution. For this reason, comparison to zillions of monkeys typing randomly and tornadoes crashing through a wrecking yard are misleading.

Evolution by definition is "advancement by random mutation selected by nature". The vast majority of mutations are detrimental, because of the complexity and machine-like nature of life. The sheer number of mutations required to have created all of life, could not have happened in the mere blink of only 4.5 billion years; and conversely we'd be seeing gobs of mutative events today.

Hence, the theory of "punctuated equilibria" --- perhaps there were cyclic radiative events that causes short bursts of progression. "Perhaps". Conjecture; bias.

If you want a good monkey-typing analogy to evolution, try this. ONE monkey, not zillions, bangs away at a typewriter, and if he types something other than the first letter of the first play in Shakespear's folio, a genie makes the letter disappear. As soon as he types that first letter correctly, the genie advances the typewriter to the next space and the process begins again, searching for the second letter.

The "genie" would be the intelligent designer, in other words --- right?

In this picture, the monkey represents random mutation, and the genie represents natural selection. While it would take a long time to produce all of Shakespeare's works in this way, the probability of doing so is not small; in fact, it is 100% provided the monkey survives and keeps hitting keys long enough.

Your analogy is faulty (with respect). The monkey does not represent random mutation, he represents nature (producing all possible building blocks).

...and the genie is GOD, who reaches out and picks up the blocks and arranges them in the correct order.

Of course, many people do regard God as a genie; "God, give me this, or that!"

Or, as a T-shirt said:
"Dear God, PLEASE let me PROVE to you that winning the lottery will not corrupt me!"

 

[Gadgeteer]

Evolution by definition is "advancement by random mutation selected by nature". The vast majority of mutations are detrimental, because of the complexity and machine-like nature of life. The sheer number of mutations required to have created all of life, could not have happened in the mere blink of only 4.5 billion years; and conversely we'd be seeing gobs of mutative events today.

Let's assume that 1 in a thousand mutations is beneficial. And recall that Human DNA (nucleic) has three billion sequences of A, C, T, and G, for each of the 46 chromosomes.

How many mutations per year would have to be happening in nature, to achieve DNA as we now know it?

(Doesn't take a math wiz to grasp the absurdity...)

 

[Gadgeteer]

Regarding Pascal's wager (which is off-topic of course) here is the real argument against it.

I may make up a claim with exactly the same real evidence behind it (i.e., zero), and thus exactly the same probability of it being true (extremely low but not zero), as the claims of traditional Christianity. In this claim, I assert that it is Christians, and those who accept the doctrines of Christianity, who will go to Hell and be tortured forever, while it is non-Christians who go to Heaven.

A rational person must assess this claim as having the exact same (extremely low but not zero) probability of being true as the Christian claim. It and the Christian claim cannot both be true. Either all Christians go to heaven and all non-Christians go to hell, or vice-versa, or neither, but not both.

In taking Pascal's wager you would therefore be refusing mine, and thus committing yourself to Hell if I am right and Christianity is wrong. This possibility, which cannot logically be denied, invalidates Pascal's mathematical argument.

I actually don't believe Hell is forever, for people. "Apollumi" really means "destroy", in the Greek. And there will be many non-Christians (that is, those who never heard the name "Jesus") who will make it to Heaven.

Are you willing to tell me that millions of Indians, Eskimos, Incas and Aztecs and Aborigines and Bushmen are excluded, because they had the misfortune to live for millennia absent messengers? I believe in a God that is fair; and I can put Bible-verses to these opinions...

What each person has to do (and DOES), is decide what they believe. Each of us weighs evidence and makes determinations. In that, there is psychology; perhaps a subliminal motivation for one way or another. Those who embrace evolution, have no less faith than anyone who graces the steps of a cathedral. How many of you have dug up fossils and done lab analysis yourselves?

You trust someone, don't you? How do you decide who to trust?

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Fire away...for every one you declare I can put three to the contrary

 

[Dragon]

Depends on how you define your boundary. If the boundary includes the Sun, then the system is "closed", and the energy is finite (the Sun will run outta gas).

Yes, but in that case the system conforms to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and represents overall increase of entropy with time.

Evolution by definition is "advancement by random mutation selected by nature".

The selection is what makes the process non-random overall.

The vast majority of mutations are detrimental, because of the complexity and machine-like nature of life. The sheer number of mutations required to have created all of life, could not have happened in the mere blink of only 4.5 billion years; and conversely we'd be seeing gobs of mutative events today.

Incorrect. You are grossly exaggerating the numbers of mutations required, and ignoring once more the effect of natural selection which makes the entire process non-random.

Hence, the theory of "punctuated equilibria"

No. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with the ratio of good to harmful mutations. It is a recognition that the fossil record shows periods in which evolution proceeded faster than at other times.

Your analogy is faulty (with respect). The monkey does not represent random mutation, he represents nature (producing all possible building blocks).

...and the genie is GOD, who reaches out and picks up the blocks and arranges them in the correct order.

No, it represents what I said. The monkey represents mutation, putting random input into the genetic code, and the genie represents natural selection, taking those random inputs out when they don't advance the chance of survival and procreation. That a genie is literally an intelligent being is neither here nor there -- an analogy is not a literal description. (For that matter, a monkey is also an intelligent organism. Nobody has suggested, however, that mutation is the product of intelligence, not even creationists.) Note that the genie is NOT "picking up the blocks and arranging them in the correct order." It is simply removing any letters typed by the monkey that are wrong.

God is not a necessary hypothesis to account for natural selection.

 

[Gadgeteer]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell...

They have the opportunity. Romans1:19-20 says that God can be seen in what He has made; and 2:14-16 says they can have the Creator (the "Law") written in their hearts.

but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...

God is fair. Whoever seeks the Creator, will find Him. Though "there is no other name", they can know Him as much as they understand Him.

which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

Very, very excellent. "Seeking" converts has nothing to do with us, there are no "brownie points" or rewards. But it has EVERYTHING to do with us being a little selfish.

"Treasure" is something you CAN take with you, if you collect the right kind of treasure. The people who pass through my world --- if they are or become family, then they are my treasure. And every last person here, reading this --- if I can have you as family, to fellowship with you, forever, that will be acceptable to me.

Whatever each of you decides about anything, is up to you; if we're right, and if you join us, that will be the real party.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

After the plate is passed.

 

[Gadawg73]

How come in Chapter 1 Genesis God made the animals and fish before man and in Chapter 2 he made Adam before the animals?
And what about the story where Adam AND Eve were forbiden to eat the apple yet Genesis ONLY forbids Adam from eating the apple.
God got off to a bad start creating.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

After the plate is passed.

You apparently have never heard of "missionaries" or the broad scope of their work.

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm not sure that those who have never been given the opportunity of salvation will go to Hell, but I think we do know that they won't go to heaven...which is why Christians witness and seek converts...we want as many as possible to attain heaven.

After the plate is passed.

You apparently have never heard of "missionaries" or the broad scope of their work.

Sure I have. The church I used to go to has a tradition to go Mexico with the youth over 16 every year. They do a lot of good down there and it is $2200 a kid to go.
When my oldest turned 16 I inquired about helping the poor in our own county 1/2 mile down the road from the church, God knows there are plenty of them AND a zillion Mexicans.
You would have thought I got up and farted in church bent over when I asked about that. NO WAY JOSE, it was $2200 to be a good disciple of Christ as a missionary there. When they spent $30K a piece on 6 stained glass windows for the new church I ran.
Ditto that for 99% of all the churches. I go to a Lutheran open door church now. We rent a nice vacant office building and NO building fund and NO $2200 missionary trips so the adults can drink Tequila and Modelo, they also do a lot of good down there, in the name of JEEESAS.

 

[KissMy]

its pretty easy to understand.......

the farther down you dig, the farther you go back in time, the simpler organisms get........

if evolution was not true, then every strata of historical data would have the same level of organisms in it........

Really?

 

[koshergrl]

After the plate is passed.

You apparently have never heard of "missionaries" or the broad scope of their work.

Sure I have. The church I used to go to has a tradition to go Mexico with the youth over 16 every year. They do a lot of good down there and it is $2200 a kid to go.
When my oldest turned 16 I inquired about helping the poor in our own county 1/2 mile down the road from the church, God knows there are plenty of them AND a zillion Mexicans.
You would have thought I got up and farted in church bent over when I asked about that. NO WAY JOSE, it was $2200 to be a good disciple of Christ as a missionary there. When they spent $30K a piece on 6 stained glass windows for the new church I ran.
Ditto that for 99% of all the churches. I go to a Lutheran open door church now. We rent a nice vacant office building and NO building fund and NO $2200 missionary trips so the adults can drink Tequila and Modelo, they also do a lot of good down there, in the name of JEEESAS.

Uh..ok?