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.
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.
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)
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:
Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment,
plus.maths.org...
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.
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.
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...
originally posted by: cooperton
Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is what I was saying.
Quantum physics demonstrates that light particles simply do not exist materially until they are observed by an experimenter.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton
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:
Take note now that you are unaware of the double slit experiment,
en.wikipedia.org...
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.
a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions
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
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
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
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.
... 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature...
In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.
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.
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