It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 70
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Do you understand what Scientists do day to day? Reading papers is nothing special too us.




posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

I told you to look at the references. You didn't open them because you didn't have time to open them. This is a very long paper explaining the mechanics of a system.

Either address the paper as it is with the references, with the experimental data and the conclusions or admit that you do not have the ability to do it.


There are 102 references and you asked me to read them. You gave me a homework assignment that would take the average student a year. Narrow the question to a specific part of the paper. There are nothing but assumptions in the paper so I can't really spear a phantom.


originally posted by: Phantom423

I want to know what book or publication you got that information from (that photons behave as waves until they are observed and then they behave like particles)



Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment, so when you quickly google it you can't patronize me with your pedestal talk. Here is the basic experiment explained:




posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment,
I am. And it does not demonstrate quite what you seem to think it does. That clip comes from a really dumb movie btw, one produced by some real oddballs. These guys:
en.wikipedia.org...

The double slit experiment actually demonstrates that, depending upon the method used to observe them (using one, or two slits), quantum sized things (including photons) will demonstrate the characteristics of either a particle or a wave.

What does the experiment tell us? It suggests that what we call "particles", such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. That's the famous wave particle duality of quantum mechanics. It also suggests that the act of observing, of measuring, a quantum system has a profound effect on the system. The question of exactly how that happens constitutes the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.
plus.maths.org...


edit on 11/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

As there are 102 references it can't be too difficult to post some then can it? So go ahead, show some of these.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yvhmer

I am aware of these experiments. But they are not as you say: photons exists in superposition, both wave and particle.


Superposition is a reference to the summation of the wave-like nature of photons, which causes the interference patterns. Superposition has nothing to do with observation of the particle.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton
What does the experiment tell us? It suggests that what we call "particles", such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. That's the famous wave particle duality of quantum mechanics. It also suggests that the act of observing, of measuring, a quantum system has a profound effect on the system. The question of exactly how that happens constitutes the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.plus.maths.org...



That is what I was saying. What's your point?
edit on 28-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter.

No it doesn't (and is a derivative of Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism; a man who distributed tar-water from his church as a cure for all known ailments, telling people to drink it "as much as the patient can bare" for all sorts of things including stomache aches, which just happens to be a symptom of carbolic acid poisoning; something the Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned as a symptom of drinking tar-water as well, a nice vicious circle, and that didn't stop anyone from following the advice of Bishop Berkeley for multiple centuries in spite of that fact being listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Don't drink his tar-water, philosophical tar-water included such as immaterialism, heavily promoted in the movie "The Matrix"). Some quantum physicists make that contradictory (paradoxal) claim as their preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. They call it (or connect it to) the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (part of it, by logical extension or following through that way of thinking about it; again I like to stress, not everything discussed in what has become known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) and one of the leading figures in quantum physics (Schrödinger) actually used an example with a cat to demonstrate that it is contradictory logic, a paradox. His opinion about that part of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is continuously warped and misrepresented by those making money with speculating in this field and bringing up Schrödinger's cat without making it clear why Schrödinger presented that example.

Synonyms for paradox are:

contradiction/mystery(/error/nonsense), there's a distinction made between the last 2 synonyms and the first 2 on thesaurus.com.

From his wikipedia page (including the one about "Schödinger's cat"):

Schrödinger wrote about the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying: "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
...
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[1] It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [*: Latin: "scientia"; KJV: "science"]

The doctrine of the Trinity included. Another mystery:

MANY people view the Trinity as “the central doctrine of the Christian religion.” According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching.

Source: Is Jesus God?
Not to get too off-topic but I would like to share what the official Assemblies of God website has to say about the Trinity at 2:56 below in relation to what the bible says about "confusion" (Babel, the name is derived from the verb ba·lalʹ, meaning “confuse”):

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea

Revelation 17:3,5:

And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns.
5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.”


The Paradox of Tertullian

Ah well, while I'm at it (Babylonian religious philosophy comes up below as well, they spread far and wide, of course, since the speaker below is a Trinitarian, he won't go into details about Plato and the Trinity; that would be in the next videos):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 2

Since the following information is not in the playlist above:
Babylon the Great: Reasoning

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Sorry for going off-topic and not keeping that shorter. The subject of quantum mechanics seems a little off-topic as well anyway.

Regarding what conclusions to draw from the double-slit experiment, which I've given some thought on and off in the last 10 years of my life or so, I think this commentary is quite appropiate:

It is generally believed that light consists of energy particles that have wave properties. To this day, however, man still cannot give a complete answer to the question propounded over three millenniums ago by the Creator of light: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”—Job 38:24.

Source: Light: Insight, Volume 2

Job 38:1-5

Then Jehovah answered Job out of the windstorm:
2 “Who is this who is obscuring my counsel
And speaking without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself, please, like a man;
I will question you, and you inform me.
4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?


etc., the whole chapter is full of these type of questions that could make a man change their perspective as to how wise they really are and learn humility in the process.

1 Corinthians 1:20

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

If they keep on presenting paradoxes/contradictions/mysteries as supposed accurate decriptions of reality (knowledge, science, enlightenment) - yep.

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something
edit on 29-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



That is what I was saying.

No. This is what you said:

Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter.


The experiment demonstrates that, depending on the method of observation used, a quantum thingy (electron, photon, whatever) can express the characteristics of either a particle or a wave. That is not what you were saying. It may be what you meant, but it is certainly not what you said.

edit on 11/29/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment,
I am. And it does not demonstrate quite what you seem to think it does. That clip comes from a really dumb movie btw, one produced by some real oddballs. These guys:
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks Phage, keyword I immediately noticed was "enlightenment" which made me feel content that I used the word as well in my previous comment before I saw your link.

Edit previous comment: "as much as the patient can bear" (instead of bare, that's what happens if you cite from memory and english isn't your mother tongue). The citation is from Siris : a chain of philosophical reflexions and inquiries concerning the virtues of tar water, and divers other subjects connected together and arising one from another (by Bishop George Berkeley, 1747, 6 years before his death).

And 243 years before this:

Pine tar has also been used for treating skin conditions, often as soap, though this use as a drug was banned by the FDA along with many other ingredients, due to a lack of proof of effectiveness.[7]

7. Bonnie Aikman (1990-11-07). "Clean-Up of Ineffective Ingredients in OTC Drug Products" (Press release). Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 2014-04-19.

Source: Pine tar - Wikipedia

Bishop Berkeley recommended that too. And it's not like everyone has stopped yet just because the FDA has banned "this use as a drug", or at least I'm not expecting as much (I've seen modern websites marketing the practice again; at least they're not drinking it anymore, that helps). Still eagerly gulping down the immaterialism philosophy and its derivative philosophies though. As well as promoting Bishop Berkeley as someone worthy to study and listen to; in particular in philosophy class, and not studying him for what he truly is, a snake-oil salesman that's very good at marketing himself and whatever philosophies he has to sell as knowledge, science/scientia or (spiritual) enlightenment, much like the other Trinitarian theologian, Darwin or Plato, Artistotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Spinoza, etc. for that matter. People with a terrible track record in regards to the questions asked in my quotation from the article in my signature under "Ask questions: ....". Especially when compared to Isaac Newton and his discoveries of facts/certainties/realities/truths or things that are factual/absolute/certain/true/correct, without error (and confirmed by experiments and observations, like the proof of effectiveness phrase used by the FDA earlier). Or to name someone else that made signigicant discoveries both in theology as well as biology: Michael Servetus.

"Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thess.5:21)

Newton's approach to science. "Certain" works as a synonym for "sure" in that sentence as well.

Don't take your information about reality from anyone who stays silent about Bishop Berkeley's behaviour and his admirers in the medical community or amongst philosophers or those teaching philosophy, or even someone who praises Bishop Berkeley as someone worthy of taking his philosophies seriously (I'm referring to a clique of philosophers who will not criticize eachother properly, adequately addressing their way of thinking and way of completely abandoning the proposed rules for "experimental philosophy" or "modern science" by Isaac Newton, or in essence ignoring 1 Thess.5:21, and all the possible negative side effects that behaviour has).

Eccl. 12:12

As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

For clarity regarding what I was responding to in Cooperton's comment:
Definition of Immaterialism by Merriam-Webster

a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

The observations and experiments in the field of quantum physics do not provide evidence for the above (or any similar derivative philosophies, or when phrased slightly differently). Keep it in the science-fiction movies, that's where it belongs. At least it's not falsely labeled then and if people get the wrong impression that it's part of the science rather than part of the fiction, that's their own responsibility. Your movie is labeled correctly at least unlike Stephen Hawking's book "The Grand Design" (or similar books about the multiverse, the Blind Watchmaker, A Universe from Nothing, etc.).

Talking about the failures of philosophers like Descartes, Tertullian, Berkeley, Aristotle, Plato, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking and Krauss and those who refuted some of the unverified philosophies some of those names promoted or adhered to, those that made such a big impression on people of all sorts including the way of thinking and reasoning of the names towards the end of that list (as in ignoring 1 Thess.5:21 and Newton's proposed methodology for acquiring science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties, making actual discoveries rather than proposing the latest exotic philosophy designed to 'tickle the ears' of a possible audience, entertain them in the same manner Hollywood aims to do rather than getting to the truth of the matter which would reduce booksales and undue attention):


I've gone off-topic anyway, too late now.
edit on 29-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I am really scratching my head and bearded chin here. Seriously? .. JW.org? Insight in the Scriptures Volume II. I could have felt more endearment if you had quoted Aid to bible understanding..... Why not a scientological product? hahaha

Allow me proceed with the optimistic view as expressed in Ecco's Name of the Rose:


Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means


However this brings me to one of the more gnostics parts of the NT.



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


So .... if there is a double slit experiment vocabulary somewhere written around 90 CE, there you have it. Supplant God with WAVE and Word with particle and read the following 3 verses.

hahahaha

Nevertheless, It leaves me still with the question .... What do your massive reporting on days long gone, on systematics long abandoned mean? To me it seems that trying to understand quantum physics is something that can fry your brain and the risk is abound to call to authority instead of personal understanding.

When I was reading Hawkins: "a brief history of time", I found myself swept away on his brief regarding how people of the past had thought about cosmology. The change from geocentric to heliocentric worldviews I could fathom. But the change to quantum physics was a bridge too far for me. I find consolation in the idea that those who profess to understand Quantum physics, know not quantum physics.

As far as I am concerned, the whole questionnaire in Job is quite funny. If I were inclined to consider this interesting piece of inquiry into the why's of human suffering as literal, I would respond thusly:
As the text says: brace like a man. So, let's absorb the barrage, stand up and hit back:

Proof it! then I'll answer your question! Fingerprints of the gods, baby.
Where were you when we needed you?
Where were you when you conspired to confuse the languages so you could plunge mankind in divisions, and perpetual war, so we would never attain that what our potential allows to hope and aspire for. So, as long as you leave us alone, we will get there.
Who are you to lecture us about what you did or not, when in essence you are a genocidal (flood) pathological jealous(mosaic law), vindictive suffering from delusions of grandeur (prophets) inconsistent useless twat.
No .... get the gone


Since it is a piece of literature, a device to bring into the light one of the basic questions of life, it is interesting to note the ending as there is no explanation as to why. It just is. Conversely, there is no need to postulate anthropomorphic beings representing good and evil for real.

On the whole, I find it encourages both to keep wonder alive, as well as self empowerment to take responsibility for our lives!

Turning back the the theme of this thread, IC is a smart skyhook, that forces us to think deeply about the processes in particular that progressively shape the species now alive on both a grand scale as on a small scale. This will rage on for some time to come, yet, can yield unexpected insights.

Once you leave the premise of IC being a skyhook, a device for inquiry, in favor of the interpretation that there MUST be an intelligence, you still have not very much answered the questions, but only pushed them further back in time and place.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The universe is deterministic at bottom, true randomness is an incoherent piece of nonsense.





Article on recent free text on quantum mechanics and determinism

Cellular automata interpretation of quantum mechanics

A world that is digital at heart, as all existence likely is, is one that may very well be open to full control of its physical laws. A Reality warping machine. No more arguments, no more debates, absolute law modification that all would follow willingly or unwillingly. Imagine a machine able to bind all nations all worlds, all men under one authority, a divine authority.

That which men have dreamed of for over a thousand years, an omnipotent omniscient monarch.

A digital world, born of the evolution of digital patterns, is an eternal world, patterns being but aspects of the eternal truth.


edit on 29-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic


a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

The observations and experiments in the field of quantum physics do not provide evidence for the above


"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter." -Max Planck

Not only do I think quantum physics is a great indicator of how special we as children of God are, it also dismantles the obsolete material reductionist viewpoint that still plagues our school system. The complexity of our universe was not created by matter, as clearly demonstrated by basic empirical evidence in quantum physics. Rather, the Creator is Spirit, who brought the entire world into existence through a Word.

The Bible suffices, yes. But there exists Truth from God outside of the Bible as well. Quantum physics demonstrates the power of the I Am, and it holds God's signature as the Source Creator of the Universe.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Yvhmer
a reply to: whereislogic
So .... if there is a double slit experiment vocabulary somewhere written around 90 CE, there you have it. Supplant God with WAVE and Word with particle and read the following 3 verses.

There's no confusing language at John 1:1 in honest translations of it. Trinitarians usually aren't that honest about it or lack some knowledge about what John was really talking about. It should read at the end "was a god" or "was divine", both carrying the same meaning. The bible makes mention of many gods (angels are also referred to as gods, they are divine beings, not false gods or falsely seen as gods, they are rightfully called gods according to the broader definition of that word, which has multiple applications and definitions, like most words), but which God is referred to at the start of John 1:1 is clear, God Almighty, i.e. Jehovah God. The one referred to as "The Word" was also a god (the broadest definition of which is: mighty one), but a different one, and less mighty. He is also referred to as "Mighty God" in the bible, but never Almighty God, or God Almighty (or the Alpha and the Omega). The article I linked about the question "Is Jesus God?" has more details regarding John 1:1 and the correct translation. It even has a clue about the honesty of one of the translators that worked on the ASV which reads the same as how you quoted it, yet that translator admits to something else.

... Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

So, why does the ASV still say "the Word was God" at the end? Might there be some motive for that in terms of number of sales (to a Trinitarian market)? He's referring to the God mentioned earlier in the verse with "the divine Being himself", in case that wasn't obvious cause I left out the context that I don't want to distract with cause then I have to post the whole thing because of the misinformation that is going around regarding the phrase "the God". But anyway, here it is:

One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·onʹ], and the Word was God [the·osʹ].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·osʹ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·onʹ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·osʹ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
...
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”

Now I'm just hoping you won't get distracted or confused by BeDuhn and his confusing use of the phrase "the one-and-only God", which is not in the bible. As mentioned earlier, the bible mentions many gods, including angels. It does however make a distinction between one unique God and the rest though with phrases and expressions such as.

1 Corinthians 8:5,6

For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

John 17:3 (Jesus speaking in prayer to his God and Father Jehovah)

3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

Which is one of the many clear distinctions the bible makes between our Lord Jesus Christ and "the God... of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Ephesians 1:3a

Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,...

Coming back to religious Greek philosophy from where Trinitarian philosophers drew their inspiration (both self- and mutual marketingwise, as well as way of thinking and reasoning; as well as borrowing a lot, concepts and words; just like is done with the Greek word Logos which has a secondary Greek philosophical meaning: "reason"; which is not what is meant at John 1:1, which if I remember correctly, John Lennox builds further on by changing "reason" to "mind" or "thought", in that video I shared earlier as well I suspect, one of the reasons I didn't recommend anything outside of the timeframes I gave for that video to focus on). Watch till 1:41 (don't feel like mentioning further caveats regarding the use of the word "evolution"; I'll just leave a reminder that in effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. Except that this form of pantheism, or Mother Nature/Gaia-worship is a bit more like Pantheism in the closet cause most philosophical naturalists who do this, won't actually worship or describe natural forces or nature as a god or God, which was discussed in more detail in the video about the pagan religious roots of evolutionary philosophies, the pantheism part, 'nature did it', or as Phantom423 once said in another thread about the origin of the brain, "nature already designed it...". The first comment of him that I responded to on ATS long ago, related to what Franklin M. Harold refers to as "the dialogue of chance and necessity" in the quotation in Michael Behe's presentation, and Stephen Meyer and others refer to as "self-organizational scenarios", "self-assembly" and "deterministic" and in a thread title in this subforum some time ago "inevitable"; and a way of thinking that also pops up in Stephen Hawking's notion of the universe creating itself):

Oh btw, even though it was a red herring from multiple years ago, the bonds Phantom423 was talking about (after my response to the earlier mentioned phrase) as if Stephen Meyer wasn't aware of it or left it out of his talk on purpose are drawn in in the picture he uses at 3:49 below (the line with vertical bars in between the 2 strands), they are just irrelevant regarding what he's talking about:

I also used the video above in the thread here that uses the terminology "inevitable" (a word used by Jeremy England).

Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist (ATS thread, my comment)
edit on 29-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not exaggerating. The same people (including you) have been repeating the same claims (like the BS lucy foot claim) that have been debunked for YEARS on here, yet they just keep repeating it even though they have already been proved wrong. Just like the whole carbon dating conversation with Coop that has already happened a dozen times. There's no way you guys are not trolls. There's a reason I scroll through your posts these days without reading them. They are all the same long winded rhetoric based on the same JW propaganda. You copied and pasted those last ones dozens of times already. Give it up.
edit on 11 29 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your job, since you chose to accept it, is to read the paper, analyze their results and tell us why the research does not support human evolution.



This is a theoretical paper that assumes evolution is true. I see no proof, just the assumption that "evolution did it".

My initial question is how could adaptive immunity be so meticulously wired as to not target bodily process? How does it so intelligently target specific threats, and more importantly, how could this mechanism ever have evolved through piece-by-piece mutation?

You, having the burden of proof, must put forth a complete mechanism as to how random mutation could have created the complex mechanism of adaptive immunity. Otherwise, spontaneous Creation through intelligent forces would have been much more capable of making such a complex, intuitive immune system.


I could have told you ahead of time the response would be exactly this, regardless of what paper you chose. He doesn't read it, he claims it's all assumptions. Beating the dead horse over and over. Coop is dishonest. He should be ignored.
edit on 11 29 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your job, since you chose to accept it, is to read the paper, analyze their results and tell us why the research does not support human evolution.



This is a theoretical paper that assumes evolution is true. I see no proof, just the assumption that "evolution did it".

My initial question is how could adaptive immunity be so meticulously wired as to not target bodily process? How does it so intelligently target specific threats, and more importantly, how could this mechanism ever have evolved through piece-by-piece mutation?

You, having the burden of proof, must put forth a complete mechanism as to how random mutation could have created the complex mechanism of adaptive immunity. Otherwise, spontaneous Creation through intelligent forces would have been much more capable of making such a complex, intuitive immune system.


I could have told you ahead of time the response would be exactly this, regardless of what paper you chose. He doesn't read it, he claims it's all assumptions. Beating the dead horse over and over. Coop is dishonest. He should be ignored.


Most definitely on my ignore list - and I'm sure he's quite happy about that. No more nasty questions that he can't answer.

The jerk replied to my post with the link to the paper in less than 90 minutes. It would take a professional several hours to read and digest that paper plus time to go over the references where a lot of important data is published.

His answer was the canned package I was expecting. It actually was a setup to catch him not reading the paper and commenting on it anyway. Turned out exactly as I had predicted.

Now he's spewing out QM as though he knows something. He's a fraud and a liar.

He's actually a failed "scientist" who published a paper that turned out to be a train wreck. Now he's taking out his frustration on anyone who will give him a platform.

As I said, I will not respond to his posts. If he's so interested in QM, perhaps he should go over to the science board and make a few posts. I'm quite sure they'll flatten his behind in short order.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
edit: van der Waals forces, not "bonds". Hey, it was multiple years ago. And some people describe them as "van der Waals bonds" as well.

If you change the terminology "irreducible complexity" to "interdependent co-functionality" (with possible redundancy or backups that can be removed without losing the original function) for a moment (or change your thinking to that topic) you may be able to realize the relevance of the Stephen Meyer video to this thread and certain comments made so far. After all, the term Behe invented, "irreducible complexity", is only a small part of the larger discussion about the conclusion of design (and thus a minimum of 1 designer and other logical implications involving intelligence with the use of that word or when used as a verb, otherwise it doesn't apply just like the word "nothing" doesn't apply to "something", even if that something is the "quantum vacuum") by induction.

From before about Babylonian religious ways of thinking:

There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature...

Which has now become:

In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

Such as the ability to design and create (or engineer); for example the comment made by Phantom423 regarding the brain. Which I described as pantheism in the closet (philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, especially when those are conflated with "science" and "the scientific method" respectively), or Mother Nature 'worship' in the closet (without the worship, but with the same core ways of thinking and arguing, boiling down to 'nature did it' or saying things like 'the universe created itself'). It's quite well demonstrated in the sign at 7:38 below:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 2 of 10)
edit on 29-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Its as if someone who claims to have a Chemistry degree (Cooperton) does not know his Heisenberg
That can't be correct. /sarc



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

Most definitely on my ignore list - and I'm sure he's quite happy about that. No more nasty questions that he can't answer.

The jerk replied to my post with the link to the paper in less than 90 minutes. It would take a professional several hours to read and digest that paper plus time to go over the references where a lot of important data is published.


I can't spear a phantom. Could you politely tell me what empirical evidence from that paper, or one (not 102 please) of its sources, you want me to argue against. You told me to generically explain to you why that paper and its 102 resources do not support evolution. That task would take over a year.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phage

Its as if someone who claims to have a Chemistry degree (Cooperton) does not know his Heisenberg
That can't be correct. /sarc


fact: anyone can get a chemistry degree. It is no impressive task at all. The only reason I mentioned it was because you guys persistently call me scientifically illiterate because I don't agree with your conclusions. This mentality is what's wrong with the system, and why I only continued scientific study as a hobby and not an occupation.

edit on 29-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Eh its forgivable, those weak through space effects can cause interesting effects for chemists (trust me I know)
Hyrdogen bonding is what most people think of however.



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Come now you claim to be a degreed individual. You can cope with multiple papers as sources. Assuming you are being honest about your education that is.







 
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join