Evolution where is the Evidence?

[thilipsis]

10 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings

   I was just about to reply  to thilipsis after reading his intitial post ,especially because of this

My definition would have been simply....evolution ISN"T,so how does one define nothing???   Errr"Science Fiction"      Philosophy of natural history thatb presupposes naturalistic causes????Huh?.......I was merely going to end my comment there & then I saw Enoch,he took point by point,answered every one and the reply was "What did anything have to do with what I wrote?Seriously?

 Well,DARRELX asked four questions,I couldn't wait to hear the replies......as usual,none    Though I do enjoy Sci-Fi I was in the mood for something on a serious note

I assure you I am being very serious and aside from some dramatic rhetoric no serious questions have been posed. The truth is you can't dismiss evolution as a phenomenon in nature, arctic wild life for example. The arctic cod for example, has a brand new (de novo) gene, co-evolved at least four times. It produces an antifreeze gene they need to live in the frigid waters of the arctic. Now this creates no special problems for me as a Creationist since I simply regard this as define providence, God provided for adaptive evolution. Let us not rush ahead of ourselves and dismiss evolution before we actually define what it is we are talking about.

That's how evolutionists do it, they get you to argue against evolution when what is really at issue is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. It wouldn't be that bad if not for the fact that creationists tend to go for that equivocation fallacy hook, line and sinker. The adaptive evolution of a protein coding gene with simple repeats and the de novo emergence of 60 brain related genes in the human genome since the supposed split isn't the same thing at all.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings thilipsis

   Ah,okay so you are a creationist then & I am getting the feeling that what you are talking about has little or nothing to do with the OP......let's see

Quote

Abiogenesis is impossible.

Single cell to multicellular life is impossible.

Multicellular species  evolving new biological traits is impossible.

 

These are the 3 things that DARRELX asked any evolutionist to PROVE with REAL evidence to support their claims,right?

Okay then ,#1)Abiogenises    can life EVOLVE from an inorganic or inanimate substance? No,therefore it is wishful thinking

                 #2)Explain HOW a single cell can EVOLVE into a multicellular living thing.........huh?

                #3)New biological TRAITS EVOLVED from a multuicellular SPECIES......producing what? New Species?How? I suppose without being able to prove HOW single cell EVOLVES to multicell then one  cannot explain new biological traits,can one?

What does your replies have to do with these questions as you are talking about adaptations of species,they do not EVOLVE into other "species" a horse was always a horse,it will not become anything but a horse no matter where you put that horse & no matter how drastic the conditions change in it's environment & no matter how many generations it remains there,it may get a thicker coat of hair,wider hooves etc.... & the species will ADAPT to survive & be better suited but it will still be A HORSE......it was never a donkey,it will never be a donkey,a camel or an elephant .....as an ape never became anything but an ape nor has a single cell ameoba ever turn into a tree,a unicorn or a  human embryo    So what is it that you are trying to say as a Creationist?Are you saying that God did not do what He said He did,the Bible is a summary or a brief description of what really took much longer the 6 day creation?I cannot see rhyme or reason in what you are saying and first you agreed with DARRELX but then went on to say that THEY(I'm assuming that means EVOLUTIONISTS?)have some formidable arguments? What might they be?

[thilipsis]

4 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings thilipsis

   Ah,okay so you are a creationist then & I am getting the feeling that what you are talking about has little or nothing to do with the OP......let's see

These are the 3 things that DARRELX asked any evolutionist to PROVE with REAL evidence to support their claims,right?

Okay then ,#1)Abiogenises    can life EVOLVE from an inorganic or inanimate substance? No,therefore it is wishful thinking

Theories abound, I have an old Biology textbook that says it had something to do with iron pyrite. The most popular one is the RNA world, the real challenge though is trying to determine how the amino acids originated. There are sixteen and they have to be in a specific sequence in order to fold into a usable protein. That's why the definition of 'evolution' as distinct from 'the theory of evolution' aka 'Darwinism', is important. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, readily defined observed and demonstrated. The so called 'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time. DARRELX doesn't like to get down to specifics, that's why the conversation got derailed.  

Quote

                 #2)Explain HOW a single cell can EVOLVE into a multicellular living thing.........huh?

Just like stem cells they would have to differentiate. The primordial single cell life would have had a pretty short genome and no nucleus. What would be required is molecular mechanisms capable of building and editing stands of DNA so that to can differentiate in protein coding and regulatory genes. After that organelles like mitochondria, ribosomes, Golgi apparatus and at some point there as to be a nucleus with pores that control traffic like a security guard, there are also ports on the outer wall of the cells that are highly specified. These are things all needed to become a population of Eukaryote cells before they organize into multicellular creatures. Then there is the problem of plants which use photosynthesis to power it's cellular functions instead of mitochondria.

You see, finding the problem with evolution as natural history is easy enough. You just need to know a little something about biology.    

Quote

                #3)New biological TRAITS EVOLVED from a multuicellular SPECIES......producing what? New Species?How? I suppose without being able to prove HOW single cell EVOLVES to multicell then one  cannot explain new biological traits,can one?

What does your replies have to do with these questions as you are talking about adaptations of species,they do not EVOLVE into other "species" a horse was always a horse,it will not become anything but a horse no matter where you put that horse & no matter how drastic the conditions change in it's environment & no matter how many generations it remains there,it may get a thicker coat of hair,wider hooves etc.... & the species will ADAPT to survive & be better suited but it will still be A HORSE......it was never a donkey,it will never be a donkey,a camel or an elephant .....as an ape never became anything but an ape nor has a single cell ameoba ever turn into a tree,a unicorn or a  human embryo    So what is it that you are trying to say as a Creationist?Are you saying that God did not do what He said He did,the Bible is a summary or a brief description of what really took much longer the 6 day creation?I cannot see rhyme or reason in what you are saying and first you agreed with DARRELX but then went on to say that THEY(I'm assuming that means EVOLUTIONISTS?)have some formidable arguments? What might they be?

What I have done over the years is study comparative genomics, particularly brain related genes. Just like with Eukaryote cell information when you know the difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, you can establish the burden of proof for Darwinians. You can't get into the specifics without a basic understanding of genetics. There is a reason evolution was defined in terms of population genetics, the Mendelian laws of inheritance track changes in traits (alleles) that way. It's the only way science has ever seen it done. When I went to find Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box I had to ask the clerk. Turns out it was in the biology section, I chuckled about that all the way home, of course that's were it would be. Intelligent design proponents simply review biology and apply certain principles to determine intelligent design. Creationists are a little different since we have biblical, doctrinal and theological reasons as well.

What invariably happens with the Darwinians is they eventually have nothing but biting personal remarks. That's when you know you have them, it starts with an equivocation of the phenomenon of evolution with Darwins theory of natural history, wrongly called selection. Then it ends with ad hominem fallacious rhetoric that drives the conversation further and further away from scientific fact, theory and laws of science like Mendelian genetics. Learn the rules of science and Darwinism can be dismissed as deductive logic from a priori assumptions that are contrary to science. Science is inductive, until we establish a few rules of reason they get to run us in circles endlessly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited November 20, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:02 PM, thilipsis said:

Well your argument is an obviously ad hominem

Saying (and more importantly specifically SHOWING--as I've done 3 times now) that your definition is "Bunk", ahhh...isn't an ad hominem (Fallacy):

Ad Hominem (Fallacy) -- argumentum ad hominem ...

(also known as:  personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

 

Ironically, your appeal is a painful Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

Quote

Differentiating between the phenomenon in nature known as 'evolution' and Darwinian naturalistic evolution also known as the 'theory' of evolution are two different things passed off as if they were the same thing which is an equivocation fallacy. 

Thanks for repeating what I've already said and illustrated --- multiple times now.

 

Quote

If you want to define, 'evolution' then be my quest but I'm not chasing this around the mulberry bush.

You already did, that's what led us to your trainwreck.

There is no "Scientific Theory" of evolution ...it doesn't and NEVER Existed.

 

Quote

You fail to see that during the Modern Synthesis Darwinism and Mendelian Genetics were blended.

Begging The Question Fallacy (Again):  Where'd you get Genes...?

And 'Modern Synthesis' of what?

 

Quote

1. That's why evolution in this day and age reflects population genetics, 2. which is statistical variance, 3. which is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time.

1.  Begging The Question Fallacy (Again):  Where'd you get Genes...?

2.  Statistics isn't "Science"...

Richard Lewontin PhD; Geneticist, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University...

 

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

3.  AGAIN...

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

 

Quote

Your too busy attacking the person to focus on the substantive aspects of these issues.

I haven't attacked YOU once; However, I sure have Bludgeoned YOUR inane arguments.

 

Quote

 

From your link that you didn't bother to quote or discuss:

For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter. (Equivocation Fallacy)

 

 Why would I need to...it's saying the same thing I posted:

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

Quote

Evolution is not one thing but two, it's the change of allele frequencies in populations over time and it's the Darwinian philosophy of natural history that presupposes universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic causes.

My goodness gracious:  Errr...Equivocation Fallacy.

 

Quote

 

Science, as we have come to understand it today, was a product of the Scientific Revolution. It was an inductive approach that was the inverse of the Medieval Aristotelian deductive logic. With the advent of tools, mental and physical, like the Y squared and the telescope a new approach was forged. Newton sent his Experimentum Crucis, which was a serious of demonstrations, published and submitted to the Royal Society in London. 

If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment-the experiment crucis-where found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.  (Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, by Michael White) 

It was attempted to argue from a priori deductive logic but Newton argued that since he had demonstrated the principle it could only be disproven through demonstration. This silenced his critics, science has held to that standard ever since. Newton, once in a coffee shop challenged his colleagues with a wager over the Y² in motion. He said a comet will appear in the eastern sky in May, if they could calculate when it will appear in the western sky on it's return trip he would give them an uncut (brand new) book on astronomy worth over 700 pounds. They couldn't do it so very politely one of them asked if he had calculated it. He said, 'yes, of course', so he asks to see the calculations and Newton agreed to try to find them. When he was unable to do so he reproduced the calculations and as a result he ended up writing Principia, this was the first application of an emerging math we now know as calculus. In Principia Newton describes the rules of science:

1. Admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. To the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. Qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. Propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena. (Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton)

 

 

What on Earth prompted this?  Did I solicit directly or even remotely imply the need for your trainwreck history lesson?

1.  Science is it's Method, The Scientific Method:

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

2. Newton's Trainwreck was Titled: The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural PHILOSOPHY. 

Is Philosophy Science??    Please demonstrate by The Scientific Method...?  Can't wait to see that Step 1 

 

3.  Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.

 

Math is Immaterial "Abstract", often rigidly domain specific, and @ BEST...merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.

 

Conversely, ACTUAL Scientists are in the business EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

"That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results.  The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework."

Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT Madras

Introduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55)

 

According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality".

 

Can you show ONE CASE in all of history where Mathematics CAUSED any Phenomena? 

 

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!

 

Physics....."PHYSICAL" Concrete.  Mathematics..."IMMATERIAL" Abstract.  Is there something wrong with this picture?      

 

 

Attempting to "EXPLAIN" the Physical, Immaterially/Abstractly... makes as much sense as suffering from Poison Ivy on the Brain and Scratching it by..... Thinking of Sand Paper !!!

 

And btw...

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them". 

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.  

Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)

 

"First I want to tell you what goes wrong with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's the Nail in the Coffin for Newtonian Physics." 

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.

Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)

If you need me to explain HOW/WHY, don't hesitate.

 

Quote

We learned that science is a process where you test hypothesis, frame a theory explaining the data and when the principle is sufficiently universal it's determined to be a law of science.

  Thanks, Priceless!!! ...

 

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.

 

 

Scientific Laws: "describe" ---The What/IS (The "Cause" is N/A).  Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Here, "The Cause" (mechanism) How/Why is Nonsensical and Invalid Inquiry ...it's just an " IS ".  e.g., How/Why does heat flow from Hot To Cold (Always!!) ??   And we'll never know.  All we know, every single time... it just DOES and IS; Ergo...Scientific Law.

 

 

Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory:

 

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

 

Scientific Theories never become Scientific Laws or Vice Versa; Each are DOMAIN SPECIFIC.  Neither outweighs the other!

 

Quote

To date, the only scientific laws governing evolution

How can there be 'Scientific Laws' governing something that isn't defined ??

And Scientific Laws don't 'govern' anything...they merely "DESCRIBE" a What/IS.  (SEE: above)

 

 

Quote

You see, l do know what a theory is and this is getting tedious.

Laughingly you haven't the First Clue of what a Scientific Theory, Scientific Law, The Scientific Method, or what "Science" is in general as clearly evidenced in this post and the others in this thread.

 

Quote

I'm well read on the subject of comparative genomics

Really??  

1.  Comparisons, Similarities, Correlations et al...aren't "SCIENCE". 

2.  Please show us --- in a 'DeltaG' context, how you get Nucleosides Then Nucleotides 'Spontaneously', 'Naturally' from their respective building blocks...? 

 

Quote

especially the DNA of chimpanzees and humans.

Really??

So put this in the Scientific Method...?

 

Quote

I have a special interest in human brain evolution and if you would like to learn more about that I suggest you start working with me and stop trying to turn this into a contest.

1.  "evolution", what's that??  Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2.  This is tantamount to Elmer Fudd telling Tiger Woods to stop challenging him;  and if he complies, he would be more than happy to give his unsolicited advice to the art of 'Back Swings'.

 

Quote

I would have to answer, perhaps, but there is an alternate reading. God created the, 'heavens and the earth', a Hebrew idiom for the universe.

'heaven and the earth' is an IDIOM 

Idiom --  an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

So you're saying that the Universe cannot be understood from the "heavens' AND has a separate meaning from the 'heavens'...?

Is 'Heaven' ---where God resides, a part of our Universe...?

 

And I'm still trying to find the relevance from my point in which you replied with this.

 

Quote

At some time subsequent, perhaps minutes, perhaps billions of years, God started his work of creation on earth that was complete in six literal days.

There is no need for contrived speculation here, God plainly said it...

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Quote

What I think is going on is that the radiometric dating in geology is getting samples from fossil beds that are showing indications of old age, the fossils are becoming mineralized from elements that may well be very old but it is useless to determine the age of the fossils.

So it's 'Bunk'.

And, 'Geology' isn't Science and neither are 'Fossils' or 'Radiometric Dating'.

 

Quote

Don't get me wrong, radiometric dating is quite useful, it can be highly useful when examining archaeology evidence.

Radiometric Dating and archaeology aren't Science.  And btw...

 

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
 

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

2. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!!  So can you please elaborate: 

How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.


More Importantly, according to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

Independent of EXISTENCE of the 'which-path information' ... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." 

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

Furthermore...

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.
 
So... unless you can provide The Name of the person who Observed these Rocks/Photons (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped and Recorded...

Can you please post the "Decay Rate or Speed" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

If not, then all this buffoonery is Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling...with a Misappropriated (READ: Equivocation Fallacy) "Science" facade.

 

Quote

Now I intend to keep my word, if you want me to make an argument for Darwinian evolution I can do that.

Please, that's what I've been waiting for.  And since this is "SCIENCE", could you be so kind as to finally reveal the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

 

Quote

But we are not going to get anywhere simply exchanging biting personal remarks.

"We"??  You mean YOU.   So try and stick with the subject and SUPPORT your claims and leave the rest of your diversions (Red Herrings), Begging The Questions, Appeals to Emotion, and Non Sequiturs in the closet.

 

Quote

They had me on the ropes

You haven't seen anything yet.   Wait till you start specifically attempting to SUPPORT your claims. 

 

Quote

I was even willing to rearrange some of my theology to accommodate Darwinian evolution right up until the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome.

Really??  So your Hermeneutics was based so SOLIDLY --- so as to avail man's word (in this case -- blatant fairytales) some sway potentially, eh?

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

On 11/20/2016 at 0:28 PM, thilipsis said:

Theories abound, I have an old Biology textbook that says it had something to do with iron pyrite.

You mean ABJECT Fairytale Speculations 'abound'.

REAL "Scientific Theories" (Again)...

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Do you know the difference between "Science" and Fairytale "Just-So" Stories??  It's all in The Method:

"Science"---  Method: The Scientific Method.

"Faiytale "Just-So" Stories--- Method:  Imagination.

So please, put your 'Iron Pyrite' in The Scientific Method and VALIDATE IT for us...?

 

Also, can you please speak to how you got Iron Pyrite, SINCE:  

According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

 

Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of/or the "Which-Path Information" EXISTING...... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.  Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

 

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

 

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

The act of a Conscious Observer/Measurement, collapses the Wave Function and creates the existence of physical objects and the properties they entail....INSTANTLY!! ...

 

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it!." ---

Pascual Jordan (PhD Physics); as quoted in: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, ( Max Jammer ), p. 151, 1974.

 

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

 

 

Sir Rudolph Peierls, PhD Nuclear Physics....

 

"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {Emphasis Mine}

The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

 

Please Reconcile...?

 

Quote

The most popular one is the RNA world, the real challenge though is trying to determine how the amino acids originated.

1.  Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

2.   No ahhh, the 'Real Challenge' in the RNA WORLD is how on Earth you got RNA -- Spontaneously/Naturally.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of ONE "Functional" RNA 30 mer or larger, that has wickered itself together outside a Living Cell/Organism "Naturally" and Spontaneously from: Ribose, Nucleo-Bases, and Activated Phosphates....?

2. The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from sugars and nucleo-bases is "POSITIVE" as is the phosphorylation into Nucleotides.

3. Sugars (Ribose) exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed.  But LIFE exclusively uses Right-Handed Sugars. To have "Functional" RNA, you not only need their Primary Structure (Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif.  ONE "Left-Handed" sugar in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat. 

Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research...

 

"We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

"Unless the molecule can literally copy itself, that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template. If two or more copies of a particular 50-mer RNA are needed, then a much larger library, consisting of 10^54 RNAs and weighing 10^34 grams, would be required. This amount far exceeds the mass of the earth." 

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 11. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

"This discussion concerning the first RNA replicase ribozyme has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 13 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993 

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

"Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis. They believe that a few more striking chemical "surprises" will establish that a reasonable approximation to a racemic version of the molecular biologist's pool could have formed on the primitive earth and that further experiments with different activating groups and minerals will solve the enantiomeric cross-inhibition problem. The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view.)"

Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 19. The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.

https://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/3786/3003

 

Quote

There are sixteen and they have to be in a specific sequence in order to fold into a usable protein.

Factually Incorrect...

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids.  All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....?  (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).

  
We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that...

2. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed.  But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion).  To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif.  ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
 

In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent.  Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is so far beyond Unacceptable Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
 

3. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
 

4. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions".  Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions ---this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), Mono/bi-functional moieties, pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.

I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel) was referring to, when he said (His last DOCUMENTED WORDS before passing)...

Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research...

 

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."

Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018

 

And to 'FOLD' Proteins you need Chaperonins ---which are "Functional Proteins".  That is, How did the First Protein Fold without "Functional Proteins" ??

Is it like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant ?? 

Besides, the Entire Inquiry is Pseudo-Science...

The de novo appearance of just the Physical "Functional " Molecules -- DNA, RNA, and Proteins (30 mer or larger) from their respective constituents (Sugar/Nucleo-bases/ activated Phosphates/Amino Acids) is such a Fairytale of Epic Proportions it's difficult to express it in language !!! 

 

Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life.  Why??  Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!!  It's not "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing scorch marks on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it.  And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) --- Pseudo-Science!!

 

Quote

 

That's why the definition of 'evolution' as distinct from 'the theory of evolution' aka 'Darwinism', is important. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, readily defined observed and demonstrated.

The so called 'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time.

 

TEXTBOOK:  Equivocation Fallacy (Again).  And you clearly haven't the first clue what an ACTUAL "Scientific Theory" is !!

 

Quote

Just like stem cells they would have to differentiate.

Begging The Question (Fallacy): Where'd you get Living Cells (??) when you can't even get a single--Natural 'Spontaneous' Formation of --- a Functional DNA or 30 mer RNA/Protein ??

 

Quote

The primordial single cell life would have had a pretty short genome and no nucleus.

Ha ha ha.  This is tantamount to saying: "The Invisible 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula would have had pretty short genome".

See above Juxtaposition between "Science" and Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling.

 

This should more than take care of cases, The rest of your offering here is of equal nonsensical gibberish.

 

regards

[kwikphilly]

Hi Thilipsis

   Okay,let's try it this way.rather than go off into many different directions.....we can start with this(again)...can we begin at the beginning?

Quote

That's why the definition of 'evolution' as distinct from 'the theory of evolution' aka 'Darwinism', is important. Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, readily defined observed and demonstrated. The so called 'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time. DARRELX doesn't like to get down to specifics, that's why the conversation got derailed.  

Phenomenom? Okay,define,observe & demonstrate,PLEASE.....after you first tell me what the  Scientific Theory of evolution is?

Quote

'theory of evolution' is little more then a naturalistic assumption applied to all life throughout all time

So ,what is it then?      Then we can move on to the FIRST question DARRELX asked because frankly,no disrespect intended "You are all over the place"

[thilipsis]

10 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Saying (and more importantly specifically SHOWING--as I've done 3 times now) that your definition is "Bunk", ahhh...isn't an ad hominem (Fallacy):

Ad Hominem (Fallacy) -- argumentum ad hominem ...

(also known as:  personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

 

Ironically, your appeal is a painful Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

Thanks for repeating what I've already said and illustrated --- multiple times now.

Which is a statement directed toward me personally and not based on anything substantive. A classic ad hominem fallacy. You have to actually relate an actual statement to the illogical framework that makes the argument a fallacy.

Quote

 

You already did, that's what led us to your trainwreck.

There is no "Scientific Theory" of evolution ...it doesn't and NEVER Existed.

 What I said was that what is referred to as 'the theory of evolution' is Darwinism. Once in a while you might try relating what I say to the scathing indictments you write.

Quote

 

Begging The Question Fallacy (Again):  Where'd you get Genes...?

And 'Modern Synthesis' of what?

The Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism. You say I'm begging the question of proof.

Quote

 

1.  Begging The Question Fallacy (Again):  Where'd you get Genes...?

2.  Statistics isn't "Science"...

Richard Lewontin PhD; Geneticist, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University...

 

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

3.  AGAIN...

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

Dobzhansky and Mayr were the architects of the Modern Synthesis. What was being synthesized was the emerging science of genetics and Darwinism. Frequencies come down to traits that emerge from dominant and recessive traits in normal Mendelian genetics. I would elaborate but you would just ignore it.

Quote

 

I haven't attacked YOU once; However, I sure have Bludgeoned YOUR inane arguments.

 You have done nothing but attack me personally, this has been on long cut and paste of quote mining and biting personal remarks that never address what I actually have to say.

Quote

 

 Why would I need to...it's saying the same thing I posted:

Equivocation (Fallacy)--- The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/

 

My goodness gracious:  Errr...Equivocation Fallacy.

 

What on Earth prompted this?  Did I solicit directly or even remotely imply the need for your trainwreck history lesson?

1.  Science is it's Method, The Scientific Method:

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

2. Newton's Trainwreck was Titled: The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural PHILOSOPHY. 

Is Philosophy Science??    Please demonstrate by The Scientific Method...?  Can't wait to see that Step 1 

 You mean to tell me that you don't consider Principia to be scientific? Wow...

Quote

3.  Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.

 

Math is Immaterial "Abstract", often rigidly domain specific, and @ BEST...merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.

 

Conversely, ACTUAL Scientists are in the business EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.

 

"That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results.  The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework."

Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT Madras

Introduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55)

 

According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality".

 

Can you show ONE CASE in all of history where Mathematics CAUSED any Phenomena? 

 

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!

 

Physics....."PHYSICAL" Concrete.  Mathematics..."IMMATERIAL" Abstract.  Is there something wrong with this picture?      

 

 

Attempting to "EXPLAIN" the Physical, Immaterially/Abstractly... makes as much sense as suffering from Poison Ivy on the Brain and Scratching it by..... Thinking of Sand Paper !!!

 

And btw...

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them". 

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.  

Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)

 

"First I want to tell you what goes wrong with Newtonian Mechanics...the double-slit experiment is a problem; that's what put's the Nail in the Coffin for Newtonian Physics." 

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.

Quantum Mechanics II: (3:18 minute mark)

If you need me to explain HOW/WHY, don't hesitate.

 

  Thanks, Priceless!!! ...

 

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED.

 

 

Scientific Laws: "describe" ---The What/IS (The "Cause" is N/A).  Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Here, "The Cause" (mechanism) How/Why is Nonsensical and Invalid Inquiry ...it's just an " IS ".  e.g., How/Why does heat flow from Hot To Cold (Always!!) ??   And we'll never know.  All we know, every single time... it just DOES and IS; Ergo...Scientific Law.

 

 

Scientific Law vs Scientific Theory:

 

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

 

Scientific Theories never become Scientific Laws or Vice Versa; Each are DOMAIN SPECIFIC.  Neither outweighs the other!

First of all I was talking about the principles of motion and the Scientific Revolution. I don't know what this is and I'm really starting not to care.

 

Quote

How can there be 'Scientific Laws' governing something that isn't defined ??

And Scientific Laws don't 'govern' anything...they merely "DESCRIBE" a What/IS.  (SEE: above)

 

 

Laughingly you haven't the First Clue of what a Scientific Theory, Scientific Law, The Scientific Method, or what "Science" is in general as clearly evidenced in this post and the others in this thread.

 

Really??  

1.  Comparisons, Similarities, Correlations et al...aren't "SCIENCE". 

2.  Please show us --- in a 'DeltaG' context, how you get Nucleosides Then Nucleotides 'Spontaneously', 'Naturally' from their respective building blocks...? 

 

Really??

So put this in the Scientific Method...?

 

1.  "evolution", what's that??  Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

2.  This is tantamount to Elmer Fudd telling Tiger Woods to stop challenging him;  and if he complies, he would be more than happy to give his unsolicited advice to the art of 'Back Swings'.

 

'heaven and the earth' is an IDIOM 

Idiom --  an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

So you're saying that the Universe cannot be understood from the "heavens' AND has a separate meaning from the 'heavens'...?

Is 'Heaven' ---where God resides, a part of our Universe...?

 

And I'm still trying to find the relevance from my point in which you replied with this.

 

There is no need for contrived speculation here, God plainly said it...

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

So it's 'Bunk'.

And, 'Geology' isn't Science and neither are 'Fossils' or 'Radiometric Dating'.

 

Radiometric Dating and archaeology aren't Science.  And btw...

 

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
 

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

2. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!!  So can you please elaborate: 

How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.


More Importantly, according to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

Independent of EXISTENCE of the 'which-path information' ... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." 

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

Furthermore...

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.
 
So... unless you can provide The Name of the person who Observed these Rocks/Photons (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped and Recorded...

Can you please post the "Decay Rate or Speed" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

If not, then all this buffoonery is Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story Telling...with a Misappropriated (READ: Equivocation Fallacy) "Science" facade.

 

Please, that's what I've been waiting for.  And since this is "SCIENCE", could you be so kind as to finally reveal the Scientific Theory of evolution...?

 

"We"??  You mean YOU.   So try and stick with the subject and SUPPORT your claims and leave the rest of your diversions (Red Herrings), Begging The Questions, Appeals to Emotion, and Non Sequiturs in the closet.

Ok that's enough, the formatting alone is enough to bore me to tears but your obviously making this one big fallacious mess. Nothing you have said has been directed at anything substantive I've been saying. You come up with some random quotes, play with the formatting and make a lot of biting personal remarks. I've seen it too many times to count, when you have nothing but ad hominem arguments it's because you have nothing left.

Thanks for the exchange but I'm thinking it's the last time we have one. I was fishing the boards for a discussion of Creationism, I honestly don't think you would be interested.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

11 hours ago, thilipsis said:

Ok that's enough

It was enough before you started.  

As clearly revealed in this thread, EACH of your "so-called" arguments (more like appeals) are: inane, devoid of any Scientific Acumen whatsoever, and reveal a great unfamiliarity with mere basic concepts of reasoning.

regards

[thilipsis]

9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

It was enough before you started.  

As clearly revealed in this thread, EACH of your "so-called" arguments (more like appeals) are: inane, devoid of any Scientific Acumen whatsoever, and reveal a great unfamiliarity with mere basic concepts of reasoning.

regards

I don't even think you are a Creationist, I've seen this before and it's always the same. Its all just a game to you, one long ad hominem attack driving the discussion from anything remotely Scriptural or scientific. Some call that trolling, none call it science.