Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: cooperton

I am sorry Cooperton
Your argument is based on logic and valid evidence
It won't cut it with this crowd

Try theory and blind faith in scientific dogma, you might get a few more stars

Cheers, I enjoy and learn

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: cooperton

I am sorry Cooperton
Your argument is based on logic and valid evidence
It won't cut it with this crowd

Try theory and blind faith in scientific dogma, you might get a few more stars

Cheers, I enjoy and learn

You call three unsourced quotes to be "valid evidence"? That looks like confirmation bias to me. It's right because you agree with it not because it is truthful in any way.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You call three unsourced quotes to be "valid evidence"?

How rude of me. Here:

originally posted by: cooperton

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

Source: Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy. Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Cesellschaft

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.” -Neils Bohr

Source: "The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr"

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." - Erwin Schroedinger

Source: The Observer (11 January 1931); also in Psychic Research (1931), Vol. 25, p. 91


Science has affirmed the teachings of the ancient adepts. Unfortunately, mainstream is still stuck in the material reductionist trap.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
Really? Can you list a few citations for your interpretation of quantum physics? I'd really like to see that.

Thanks

Consciousness is the foundation of matter. From three nobel-prize winners:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. In quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you yet, you don’t understand it well enough.” -Neils Bohr

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." - Erwin Schroedinger

Those are not citations - those are quotes - opinions. Where's the evidence? What experiments? Where are the research papers?

And the quotes actually contradict your position - none of them suggests that quantum mechanics is about consciousness or that consciousness is the foundation of matter. So where's the beef?

originally posted by: Phantom423


Those are not citations - those are quotes - opinions. Where's the evidence? What experiments? Where are the research papers?

These quotes are based off the experimentation that these scientists observed. If you haven't delved into it yet, I'd suggest the double-slit experiment first. Here's a good explanation:

And the quotes actually contradict your position - none of them suggests that quantum mechanics is about consciousness or that consciousness is the foundation of matter. So where's the beef?

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." - Max Planck

I can't walk you through it any further, if you're truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge you can venture more on your own. Research the conundrum of Schroedinger's Cat.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

There are differences in internal structure such as a vestigial lung in the 2 surviving members of the Latimeria Genus

No way to tell for sure if the "extinct" coelacanth did not have this same aspect.

Have you ever heard of these really cool things that elementary school kids go nuts over? They're called fossils. While fossilization itself is a rare occurrence, soft tissue can also fossilize.

As demonstrated by the morphologic differences between the negroid caucasoid and mongoloid (all the same "species"), differences in skull morphology do not demonstrate evolution or a different species.

You are basing your assessment of an entire genus based on the cranial morphology of 3 separate individuals with extremely minor variation. If they weren't labeled would you be able to tell who was who?

How could they tell there was an oil filled organ in an "extinct" species? Non-ossified tissue would not be so lucid in fossilized form

As you note, ossified material will permineralize better than soft tissue. In instances where soft tissue fossilized, there are significant differences in appearance between ossified and oil filled swim bladders.

Proof these smaller extinct relatives were not simply younger coelacanths? Perhaps the conditions thousands of years ago had a higher rate of mortality at younger ages.

Different skeletal structures demonstrate this quite clearly unlike the so-called "pygmy T-Rex" where there were no morphological differences aside from the size of the organism.

The average cranial capacity of homo erectus is about 2/3 the "homo sapien sapien".
Do you not think this is a significant difference?

You do realize that there is an entire postcranial skeleton that Anthropologists examine right? Could you tell the difference between an Asian, European and African H. Erectus just by looking at the cranium alone? The differences are certainly enough to tell them apart from the cranium of an HSS but their post cranial anatomy is remarkably similar to that of us. As far as cranial capacity goes, the average for H. Erectus is 900 cc but there is a great deal of overlap as there are H. Erectus craniums of 1250 cc which is higher than the low end of HSS. Variation in cranial morphology is also dependent on geography and the geological layer in which they are found.

Not to mention neanderthal cranial capacity is larger than the homo sapien.

No, this is not true. While it is true that the average cranial capacity for HN is 100 cc more than ours, the way their brains were organized was much different. This can be determined from endocranial casting as well as genetic information. They had a much larger visual cortex, much larger eyes and greater distance between the sockets as compared to HSS

Who is to say the neanderthal is another sapien skull likened which has differences just like the caucasoid negroid and mongoloid. The semantic game of taxonomy is very ambiguous.

Who is to say? Anyone who has studied H. Neanderthalensis. In addition to the different brain structure and morphological features I noted above, they had a very prominent supraorbital ridge and a distinctly protruding face with no chin compared to HSS. They are clearly a distinct species from HSS. One evolved in Eurasia and the other only in Africa.

You make it sound as if the taxonomy is entirely arbitrary when this is not the case at all.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423


Those are not citations - those are quotes - opinions. Where's the evidence? What experiments? Where are the research papers?

These quotes are based off the experimentation that these scientists observed. If you haven't delved into it yet, I'd suggest the double-slit experiment first. Here's a good explanation:

And the quotes actually contradict your position - none of them suggests that quantum mechanics is about consciousness or that consciousness is the foundation of matter. So where's the beef?

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." - Max Planck

I can't walk you through it any further, if you're truly interested in the pursuit of knowledge you can venture more on your own. Research the conundrum of Schroedinger's Cat.

Then where are the citations which describe their research?
Specifically, where is Planck's research which suggests that matter is a derivative of consciousness?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, just because you can not understand it, does not mean it is wrong. Sorry life is hard, but YOU not liking it, is not a measure of its correctness.

a reply to: Raggedyman

SO you are a young earther? Yeah that fits. Sorry but you need to cite peer reviewed material, thats how this works.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Cite away. Sorry anecdotes are not an argument made.

a reply to: cooperton

Well you fixed the "unsourced" part. Awesome, that still doesn't make it valid evidence though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So far we've had two people pull out the same dry and crumpled creationist clap trap. I'd LOVE to hear one of them use their own thoughts, rather than cite this "Scripture". Except when a scientist shows up, they challenge them

a reply to: Noinden

You should have seen what the OP tried with me. I asked him a simple question about defining valid evidence in his own words and I got a huge runaround and a bunch of assumptions about things I supposedly said about him. Still don't know how the OP defines "valid evidence" though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I saw that, I also love how the Big Bang gets dragged into these arguments. These sorts still do not get that origins of the universe == evolution. Its hard enough to try and explain abiogenesis/proteogenesis is also not evolution. Its as if they think we actually have the grand unifying theory of everything sorted out

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

SO you are a young earther? Yeah that fits. Sorry but you need to cite peer reviewed material, thats how this works.

Oh I am sorry. I didn't know I had to conform to your ideals

Oh wait, what, I am a YEC, I don't conform to your ideals

I guess it would take a little more than comprehension skills to sort through all my posts and position to stumble and bumble onto what I thought was blatantly obvious, even unto a child

Evidently not

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: cooperton

I am sorry Cooperton
Your argument is based on logic and valid evidence
It won't cut it with this crowd

Try theory and blind faith in scientific dogma, you might get a few more stars

Cheers, I enjoy and learn

You call three unsourced quotes to be "valid evidence"? That looks like confirmation bias to me. It's right because you agree with it not because it is truthful in any way.

KS are you any different

Really
The only thing different is the money grabbing scholars who embellish their term papers to get more funding.
Christian peers review each others work just like secularists

We don't believe we came from space dirt and space water

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So far we've had two people pull out the same dry and crumpled creationist clap trap. I'd LOVE to hear one of them use their own thoughts, rather than cite this "Scripture". Except when a scientist shows up, they challenge them

I walked out into my large backyard to have a wee this morning, as I emptied my bladder from the night before, it dawned on me. I was weeing on my own ancestor, the dirt, then I thought, WOW.
Dirt, my urine, that could bring about a whole new life form.
Maybe I was creating future life?

Id LOVE to hear a reply on that topic

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I saw that, I also love how the Big Bang gets dragged into these arguments. These sorts still do not get that origins of the universe == evolution. Its hard enough to try and explain abiogenesis/proteogenesis is also not evolution. Its as if they think we actually have the grand unifying theory of everything sorted out

I am sorry I posted a thread on something that irks you

and because you seem to have a slight learning block, you don't get to decide what I think, neither does a boffin in a white coat that you deify

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution in my opinion, white coats don't constrict my opinion, you don't either

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Noinden

You should have seen what the OP tried with me. I asked him a simple question about defining valid evidence in his own words and I got a huge runaround and a bunch of assumptions about things I supposedly said about him. Still don't know how the OP defines "valid evidence" though.

Valid evidence KS

Repeatable observable and testable

Its been said before you ignored it

Feels like I have to parrot basic science, its exactly like teaching children who don't want to learn

Its just basic science, please, just basic science, you don't need to be told
Just basic science

The question was how do you define it, assumption, faith, belief in those with a white coat

a reply to: Raggedyman

You want to argue against science, you have to play by their rules. This includes but is NOT limited to peer reviewed articles. Tough luck