Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

Well gee whiz...

Thank you Tinkerbell for all of the glittering generalities about "imagination". Brings a tear to my eye.

But for the third time...will you please answer my question!

What exactly are you talking about?

Are you saying that something as vast and complex as the entire human genome could just pop into existence out of nowhere with out antecedents?

And how would envision that happening. What could it do if that even happened if the genome weren't inside the cells of a living organism.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 31 Aug 2017, 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But with science, logic has to go hand-in-hand with imagination in order to come to a right conclusion. Otherwise, conclusions would be purely fantasy.

Funny, however, that's why my avatar has colorful, blinking "IMAGINATION".

I am not telling you what to believe. I am not saying you're wrong.

I only offer alternate ideas.

Here's a video on "Schrodinger equation and "wave function" .. it explains current theories on knowing where energy will be at ...

Our understanding is that energy is like basic strategy in blackjack .. on any hand , anything can happen, however, over, the very long run, energy functions based on a probability function -- the wave function --(not apparently based on causal determinism). Note: there could be many "wave functions", this is the only one we know about.

This is a probability that is unknown to us, why it is true, or what it means.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 31 Aug 2017, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Can't we all just get along...and agree the Earth is flat and only 8,000 years old?

SIX!

Six thousand years old!

Creation happened in 4004 years before Christ. Christ was born 2000 years ago. Ergo it was 6000 years ago!

You Heathen you!

I thought it was six thousand years old.

Of course a physics professor would agree with you. They're part of the "money whore con men", your words. But nevermind all that; why does having a physics education matter when you've literally said there is no such thing as valid science? Or falsifiability? Or logic? By what metric do you claim superior knowledge when you proclaim all claims to knowledge to be false?




I can't speak to how much effort you expend, but you certainly do speak down to people. With very little justification, I might add.




My understanding was that Schrödinger's cat was a thought experiment meant to illustrate a flaw in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Hence its absurdity.

Also:





What makes these quantum biologists different from all the evil money whoring con-men that makes up the entire rest of the scientific community, in your view?




I've asked some rather pointed and illustrative questions, all of which you've dismissed with the equivalent of a shrug.




I freely admit I'm not terribly well-versed in physics. I'm a bit more in my element in evolutionary biology and entomology. What was the thread title again?




This from the person who said:




So...people were mean to you, so science is wrong and any suggestion to the contrary is a personal attack on you? That about right?




I have the greatest respect for the man, but I'd posit that intelligence and imagination need to work in tandem, and that either on their own is severely hampered.

Also, the man went to his grave opposing the contemporary interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, on his conviction that "God does not play dice".





Many thanks for the kind words and vote of confidence.




Yeah, okay. But only if it's also on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle.

Last edited by Wolfram87 on 31 Aug 2017, 3:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

it's obviously no years old since years are a heretical unit derived from the supposed orbit of the earth around the sun, completely false since it's the sun that orbits the earth.

With respect to the above video, since the position of energy is known to us through a probability function, then what can happen?

We know very, very unlikely events can happen, and will happen.

So, the human DNA or some basic version of it may just be a low-probability-event, rather than some miraculous evolutionary process.

Your mixing two ideas.

1. I have knowledge of the "Harry Potter" universe.
2. That doesn't mean I think Harry Potter is some truth of reality.
3. Some one wants to argue about "Harry Potter" may have insufficient knowledge to, but that doesn't mean I "have superior knowledge" about reality.

I claim the truth of all knowledge is unknowable.


Like, Socrates, "All I know is I know nothing".


The user asked, "what's the problem", after many, many pages of explanation. This user consistently needed explanation. I provided.


No, its what people spend tens of millions of dollars on for scientific research.

In quantum computing. It's the same principal.

Qbits are both "1" and "0" at the same time.

Like, Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive at the same time.


You're right.


You said something like "you don't believe in logic".

Yeah, that's the point of quantum; it doesn't follow logic.

Qbits can be "0" and "1" at the same time. Qbits can be here and there at the same time.


OK, but your first post is some personal digs about me, and not the subject.


Still trying to attack me personally, rather than focus on the ideas.


Einstein opposed indeterministic intepretations of QM.

Those that believe determinism believe there are "hidden variables" built into reality that control the probability of the wave function.

However, your responses are wrong. You appear to think there is a right and wrong.

No one knows the truth. These are just ideas.

Yes, I understand all of that quite well. What I don't fully understand is what the f**k your argument is. My understanding of it is as follows:

Premise 1: Quantum mechanics is truly random.
Conclusion 1: Therefore causality doesn't always apply.
Premise 2: Evolution partially relies on causality.
Conclusion 2: Therefore evolution is wrong and humans popped into existence for no reason.

This is what I have been debating against. I disagree with premise 1 because it is unproven and I disagree with conclusion 2 because causality sometimes breaking doesn't mean that causality never happens. Is this what you are arguing? Yes or no.

You're welcome to disagree with me.

And at "19" you're some kind of genius it seems.

However, you've made many misstatements about quantum, both on this topic, and the other topic. This indicates you only know these concepts superficially.

Again, you disagree with "Quantum mechanics is truly random", which means you disagree with the majority of scientists. Why? What's your reasoning? What model do you believe in, or do you think it's all hogwash?

Well...the concept of a "year" goes back many thousands of years. Long before astronomers discovered the true heliocentric nature of the solar system. OOOPS!! !

I am sorry!

What I meant to say was: the concept of the year goes back many thousands of years. Long before these despicable heritecs, famewhores, and scientist conmen (like Copernicus, and Galileo), came around a few hundred years, to FOIST this nonsense about how the earth goes around the Sun when we all know the truth! That the sun goes around the earth!

Just like the concept of the "day". The Illumanatti wants you to believe that the earth rotates on its axis so that your side of the earth faces toward and then away from the sun, and alternates between day and night every 24 hours when we all know that the earth is really flat and that the sun is a chariot in the sky being pulled by winged horses around the flat earth every 24 hours!

No. Religious is a way to control the masses.

Religion is the biggest lie ever told.

That was a nice little informative video. But it was about how electrons can appear out of a wave function. Nothing in the video has anything to do with even small molecules materializing out of thin air, much less a strand of DNA, much less the entire genome of species popping into existence out of thin air.

You did not answer my question, but considering that you have not said that my portrayal of your argument is wrong I will assume that you agree with it unless you say otherwise.

I actually turned 20 two days ago but that is irrelevant. Even if I were 5 that would not automatically make me wrong. I don't know if you are trying to use this as part of your argument but I hope for your sake that you are not because it would be an ad hominem fallacy.

I will admit that my understanding of quantum mechanics is relatively superficial because I don't know how to actually solve for the Schrodinger equations myself but I have done enough research on the topic that I know a lot about the more basic and intermediate stuff such as the various interpretations of the theory and how it conflicts with relativity. Again though, could you please address my argument and not me? A good argument stands on it's own merit and not the merit of the person making it.

You have a made a false dichotomy here. Why must I either pick an interpretation of quantum mechanics or think that they are all bunk? Why can't I consider them all equally possible and admit that I have no way to tell which is correct (which I do by the way)? Claiming that something is wrong does not require claiming that the exact opposite thing is right. My problem is that you claim to know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct. I have two main problems with your argument:

1: We currently can't know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.
2: No matter which one it is, it has no effect on evolution or anything else we can currently empirically measure.

Even if we assume that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, that only predicts that some effects on the quantum scale don't have causes yet every cause has an effect according to information theory. On the scale of humans and animals quantum randomness averages out and things act in a very Newtonian way and obey causality.