Levi

London, UK

#2705 Oct 21, 2013
Actually the observer is important in more, it's just most scientists have only noticed it on the scale of QT.

When you say the forces at the scale of QT are different, you seem to be suggesting that there is some particularl scale size at which a switch is flipped and the entire universe changes it's laws. It's not the case.

The standard model predicted most of the particles that we know of, yes. It also missed various things too. It also can't explain various things too. And it has also got plenty of things wrong. Look up survival bias. The particles that you are referring to are those that survived the test, and that have been found, not all of those that were predicted and not all of those that exist. There will be more particles discovered. You are looking at it in hindsight. That's not very scientific of you.

Scientists don't draw attention to the difference between the scientific model and what has been applied in quantum theory. I am talking about the DIFFERENCE. You say that it is discussed in high schools, but it is not. As evidence that the difference hasn't been discussed, you are hihgly educated and you can't even see the difference. Standard science is that you experiment and the theory if it is true should predict the result accurately and precisely. That's not what occurs in much of QT.

[quote]Set up an experiment then. You'll be the most famous person in the world if you can bridge this world to whatever supernatural realm you think you are in contact with. I, just like the rest of humanity, will hoist you up on our shoulders and shower you with praise for your achievement.[/quote]

You won't, because you'll have to experience it for yourself. It won't be little round balls flying around a nucleus, it won't be seances and floating gurus. It will be something that occurs INSIDE you, inside your mind. And for that reason, unless you undertake the experiment yourself, you'll never know, and can never be shown for that obvious reason.

I've read some of Jung too. Yes interesting character.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2706 Oct 21, 2013
Levi wrote:
Actually the observer is important in more, it's just most scientists have only noticed it on the scale of QT.
Explain. This is more than a little vague and subjective, Levi.
When you say the forces at the scale of QT are different, you seem to be suggesting that there is some particularl scale size at which a switch is flipped and the entire universe changes it's laws. It's not the case.
I say that because there is a completely different set of rules for the ultra-submicroscopic (aka atomic/sub-atomic) scale. That is the whole purpose and significance of QT!

Einstein's Relativity was thought to explain all scales in the universe from the most massive star to the smallest of small. But, data from guys like Max Planck and Niels Bohr began to open the window into the atomic scale and structure, further than anything Einstein had imagined. Then we found out that atoms and their components operate on very, very, very different principles and under even more amazing forces. This is quantum mechanics.
The standard model predicted most of the particles that we know of, yes. It also missed various things too. It also can't explain various things too. And it has also got plenty of things wrong. Look up survival bias. The particles that you are referring to are those that survived the test, and that have been found, not all of those that were predicted and not all of those that exist. There will be more particles discovered. You are looking at it in hindsight. That's not very scientific of you.
This is a very big reach. I looked up 'survival bias quantum mechanics' and found no journals and no science related material. Do you have a better or more well-known example of the "various things" "they missed"?

The Standard Model proved amazing at showing the relationships between the fundamental particles and forces of our universe as well as predicting every fundamental particle that has been found. You need to be specific if your disagreements are to be understood.

If you know of more particles or are a mathematical genius and can show the evidence for their existence, as before, I would suggest you rapidly begin documenting your work. It took Higgs (after decades of education and research) a few decades to get his Nobel prize, but he did get it once this new particle that has the Higgs characteristics was found. You should follow in his path. You sound very sure of yourself so that must mean you have real evidence for your claims, right? Or are you simply guessing? It's difficult for me to tell.

---------->To be continued...
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2707 Oct 21, 2013
Scientists don't draw attention to the difference between the scientific model and what has been applied in quantum theory. I am talking about the DIFFERENCE.
Levi, you need to be a *lot* more specific if you want to get close to even cracking the surface of this topic. Atomic physics isn't something that a person can write about in a vague manner while expecting to be understood or considered to have a working understanding of the relevant material. Writing "DIFFERENCE" in caps doesn't help to explain your view at all.

You say that it is discussed in high schools, but it is not.
Sure it is. The particle-wave nature of electrons and their orbits [aka probability shells (s,p,d,f)] are a core part of every introductory chemistry class in every industrialized nation. How can you say it's not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

This is basic stuff that is taught everywhere.
As evidence that the difference hasn't been discussed, you are hihgly educated and you can't even see the difference. Standard science is that you experiment and the theory if it is true should predict the result accurately and precisely. That's not what occurs in much of QT.
You're losing me, man. I'm not sure what the difference that you're asking about is or what you mean. What is "standard science"? I've never heard of that.
You won't, because you'll have to experience it for yourself. It won't be little round balls flying around a nucleus, it won't be seances and floating gurus. It will be something that occurs INSIDE you, inside your mind. And for that reason, unless you undertake the experiment yourself, you'll never know, and can never be shown for that obvious reason.
Cool. I'm sure it will. Can't wait.
Levi

London, UK

#2708 Oct 21, 2013
Intelligent response as always Blind Faithiness.

The observer is important in lots of things. If you see a rainbow, you are the only one who sees that rainbow, because it's an effect of light on your eye, and interpreted by your brain. It's subjective to you.

If you see the colour green, well is it the same for you as it is for me? Probably not. We go along with the general consensus of colours, because humans like categories, but there's no real right answer, and I have disagreed on colours with other people before despite neither of us being colour blind. Depends on how the colour is observed and interpreted.

What does something taste like? I bet lots of things taste different to you than to me and to others. Again there can be a consensus about salty or sweet, but not everybody agrees, and there is no one true taste. Consensus doesn't equal truth. Depends on how the taste is observed and interpreted.

Are these particles or waves? Depends on how you observe and interpret. Things are not waves or particles. They're something else entirely, but we have a consensus in science that wants to put things into either a wave or particle category (or both), but we shouldn't consider that as true, just as above.

you think there are a set of separate laws depending on scale. But, again, it depends on how you observe. If I throw a ball in the air, it will obey the law of gravity. Yet the ball is made up of huge amounts of tiny particles. These therefore by definition, since they're part of the ball, will have obeyed the law of gravity as a unit. Now if I observe differently, and look at the particle in another way, I can see something else.

So the observer, or manner in which you're observing is key. Do you agree?
Levi

London, UK

#2709 Oct 21, 2013
Also, I will be happy to reply to your other comments, but occasionally you don't seem to follow what I'm saying and have asked me to be clearer, so I have put one post above for the first question you had before moving on.

I typed difference in capitals to emphasise that I am referring to the difference only and not the topic of atomic physics. I know that some basic atomic physics is taught in high school, I wasn't suggesting it wasn't. You interpreted that I was saying that, which is why I had to emphasise that I'm talking about the difference between:
(1)the scientific method of having a theory which correctly and precisely predicts the future outcome based on initial data (standard science model), and
(2)the model that is in QT which is not precise, it is probabilistic.

(1) and (2) are fundamentally different methods of understanding. To me (2) is staggeringly different from the standard science model (as explained above). This difference is brushed under the carpet and students are now taught that this is all the same science. As if it's all equal. Doesn't matter that we can't predict with certainty any more, probabilities will do :)

(i) certainty
(ii) educated estimate
(iii) I can't tell you what will happen on the next trial, but I can tell you the average after 1000 trials

Are (i),(ii) and (iii) the same? I hope you'll agree they are not.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2710 Oct 21, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Indeed the fusion could have been a result of the fall
I don't know why I even bother to write back after that one. Could have been? In ALL people? Same chromosome?
You can't be taken seriously after that one, if you ever was.
MazHere wrote:
Computer modelling is designed to find some straw of a 2nd remnant centromere.
It was anticipated IF evolution is real, and it was found. Do you contest that?
MazHere wrote:
This data seriously calls into question the validity of the fusion model and human evolution in general.
Only creationists seems to think that. Big surprise.

Still waiting for something more than "could have" and "the fall" from your side. This is science to you?
Nope, instead of presenting an alternative you nitpick and try to find some way of convincing yourself that evolution has something that isn't fully explained...then throw out the whole theory and replace it with miracles. Good luck with that.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2711 Oct 21, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know why I even bother to write back after that one. Could have been? In ALL people? Same chromosome?
You can't be taken seriously after that one, if you ever was.
<quoted text>
It was anticipated IF evolution is real, and it was found. Do you contest that?
<quoted text>
Only creationists seems to think that. Big surprise.
Still waiting for something more than "could have" and "the fall" from your side. This is science to you?
Nope, instead of presenting an alternative you nitpick and try to find some way of convincing yourself that evolution has something that isn't fully explained...then throw out the whole theory and replace it with miracles. Good luck with that.
Actually you do not get to set what evidence I will or will not present to support creationism any more than you would accept my demanding proof of abiogenesis as a starting point.

I have given you evidence in human ch2. You will either choose to deal with it in depth to conclusion or run away. So far you have run away from every challenge. Are you scared?
olasonn

Norway

#2712 Oct 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you do not get to set what evidence I will or will not present to support creationism any more than you would accept my demanding proof of abiogenesis as a starting point.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things, and even if abiogenesis as we understand it today turns out to be false it doesn't take evolution down with it.
MazHere wrote:
I have given you evidence in human ch2.
Actually no.
MazHere wrote:
Are you scared?
I'm afraid you are wasting your only life with these faith-fairytales, otherwise no.
What have I to be scared of, I only want to know what's true and live by it. That's why I wasn't afraid to challenge my faith and leave it when it came up short.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2713 Oct 22, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, instead of presenting an alternative you nitpick and try to find some way of convincing yourself that evolution has something that isn't fully explained...then throw out the whole theory and replace it with miracles. Good luck with that.
You may also take a lesson from yourself. A creationist also does not have to have every answer to every question for their claims to have credibility. You them evoke a double standard by calling the unexplained a miracle.

You also support miracles. Don't forget you claim some non living elements and a few proteins some how organized themselves into a complex living factory of reproduction. That is a miraculous claim.

I should not need to clarify any alternative. Obviously if man and chimp were created in individual events one would find evidence of remarkable differences between them, and we do, including ch2 and a different chromosome count. That is exactly what researchers have found. I do not need an alternative paradigm or a theory of everything.

Something else we need to remember is that scientists have reduced the compelxity of the genome to a hand full of enzyme dye stains for comparative analogy.

Do you know that a mouse has 35% identical sequence to man as opposed to the 95% compared in chimps?

What does identical really mean in the science world? Nothing much at all.

"This image shows the 34% of the mouse genome that maps to identical sequence in the human genome. The matching locations are jumbled, indicating rearrangements of the two genomes since their last common ancestor, approximately 75 million years before present."
http://cbse.soe.ucsc.edu/research/comp_genomi...

'Jumbled' actually means NOT identical at all, but researchers have to give an evolutionary spin to the data.

I suggest that comparative genomics is based on a flawed concept developed by biased models, and that includes current theories on human chromosome 2.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2714 Oct 22, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things, and even if abiogenesis as we understand it today turns out to be false it doesn't take evolution down with it.
<quoted text>
Actually no.
<quoted text>
I'm afraid you are wasting your only life with these faith-fairytales, otherwise no.
What have I to be scared of, I only want to know what's true and live by it. That's why I wasn't afraid to challenge my faith and leave it when it came up short.
It appears it is a waste of time speaking to you. All you want to do is chase your tail and talk in generalities about the wisdom of the majority, which is rubbish.

TOE is only as good as the sum of its parts and you don't want to talk about any of them.

Suffice to say the thread topic is answered because there are some very intelligent and well credentialed creationists out there. I hope you can still sleep at night!

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

#2715 Oct 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears it is a waste of time speaking to you. All you want to do is chase your tail and talk in generalities about the wisdom of the majority, which is rubbish.
TOE is only as good as the sum of its parts and you don't want to talk about any of them.
Suffice to say the thread topic is answered because there are some very intelligent and well credentialed creationists out there. I hope you can still sleep at night!
Can you name a well credentialed creationist? Perhaps Kent Hovind? Ray Comfort? Michael Behe?

Not one stands the test of peer review.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2716 Oct 22, 2013
Levi, it's pretty clear now that you have taken a few specific QT terms and assumed these terms have a similar meaning to their 'everyday' counterparts. "Observer" and "certainty" and "probability" don't mean what I think you think these words mean in the context of QT.

i, ii, iii are all more similar than different in the quantum world. The fact that you don't agree that the rules(physics) for quantum scale is different than the rules(physics) for the relatively large pretty much says it all. Newtonian physics and Relativity simply don't explain the observed nature at the atomic scale which, again,**is** the reason for quantum physics.

The wave-particle aspect of electrons isn't convenient or subjective. This **is** what electrons are and the properties they exhibit. It's displayed partly by the clear "standing wave pattern" exhibited by Bohr as a fundamental part of QT.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ew...

The same is true for electron shells in which the "probability" of position (super-position). These are casual terms of convenience. It's *very* specific meanings for *very* specific phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superpos...

The nature and orbits of electrons have been shown to exhibit these properties in countless experiments. These characteristics have all been shown to be real by what you are calling "standard science" and the 'spooky'(to use Einstein's words) characteristics simply **are** the nature of electrons. Again, they aren't round balls orbiting a nucleus. They are charged, near-mass-less bundles of energy that spread out over probability shells that are also capable of being measured when an "observer"(measuring device) uses mechanisms to evaluate their properties.

You'll never "get" quantum physics if you pretend that the ultra-small behaves the same as the world at our scale.

This 'difference' that you're upset about is clearly your own misunderstandings of these principle concepts. It's not uncommon, but you won't 'get it' if you try to bend it to your own will.

Quantum physics is extremely precise. We can entangle and alter the quantum spin of individual particles. The level of precision required is mind-boggling! But, that isn't what you're referring to when you say QT isn't "precise". This is clearly a sticking point for you and is also clearly a misunderstanding of the very **fundamentals** of chemistry, physics, and sub-atomic particles.

I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. I think at this point you'd do better to step-back and study what the science ***actually*** states, rather than what you *think* it is stating. You still may not agree, but hopefully you'll at least understand what is really being reported. Right now you're miles off course, I'm sorry to say.

Try this:


It's part 4 of a PBS NOVA episode called "Fabric of the Cosmos: Quantum Leap" and outlines the history and fundamentals of QT. The show also thoroughly discusses the difficulty in grasping these concepts and presents the science that overcomes the counter-intuitive aspects observed at these scales. I hope you'll give it a try.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2717 Oct 22, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
The same is true for electron shells in which the "probability" of position (super-position). These are casual terms of convenience. It's *very* specific meanings for *very* specific phenomenon.
2nd sentence in the 4th paragraph(quoted) should read "These are **not** casual terms of convenience". That was probably confusing without the correction.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2718 Oct 22, 2013
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name a well credentialed creationist? Perhaps Kent Hovind? Ray Comfort? Michael Behe?
Not one stands the test of peer review.
John C Sanford, is a YEC and was very well respected evolutionary researcher.

Sanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Here are some more.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scie...

The evo watchdogs will not allow creationist work to be published in their journals because they are concerned. They will withdraw perfectly good creo research if it goes anywhere near overturning the current evo dogma.

I hope you realize how dysfunctional you appear trying to argue that all creationists are retards.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2719 Oct 22, 2013
As far as human chromosome 2 being the fusion of 2 ape chromosomes goes, it is a straw grab at best to save a theory that had been falsified.

“The availability of complete genome sequences (Hubbard et al., 2007) offers the opportunity to characterize the regions flanking the breakpoints of chromosomal reorganizations at the molecular level. However, to our knowledge, only the head-to-head ITS located in the human 2q13 region, which is a relic of an ancient telomeretelomere fusion, is precisely associated with an evolutionary breakpoint (Ijdo et al., 1991). Here, we used bioinformatic tools to analyze, in the current genome releases, the presence of short ITSs in the chromosomal inversions that do not involve terminal regions and that occurred between human and chimpanzee and between human and rhesus macaque during evolution.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19420924...

Why is this paper significant? Though there are many cited instances of these interstitial telomeric sequences in the genomes of humans and chimps, the 2q13 interstitial telomeric sequence is the only one which is able to be associated with an evolutionary breakage point or fusion. The other ones do not square up with chromosomal breakpoints in primates at all!

Non human apes have a different chromosome count. That marks a clear distinction in the kinds "ape" & "human". Evo researchers cannot accept the obvious results of their own data. So the straw grab is researchers found ONE that could in any way be associated with an evolutionary break point fusion.

Hence, evolutionary researchers continue to find evidence for creation and then have to spend years or decades overturning that evidence with any paradigm they can think up to save TOE from falsification.
Blind Faithiness

Asheville, NC

#2720 Oct 22, 2013
What was all that troll-talk about using one's own words? I'm guessing most already realize this, but most of maz's latest post is just copy/paste without quotation or citation from this tired, old site.

Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

I guess the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Regarding creationist publishing, a quote from Behe at the Dover trial seems fitting:

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" but no mention of this vast conspiracy maz has dreamed up. Seems like a leading advocate for 'goddidit' would have known that the perfect time to shine light on this 'grand conspiracy' would have been at a highly publicized court proceeding. LOL!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am...

The "all creationists are..." line of reason is a direct result of ***your*** initial statements when you plopped down here with all your 'great debater' nonsense and evos are this and that writings. Duh-doy! LOL!

Chase that tail. I'm loving this. Maz just keeps digging.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2721 Oct 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
A creationist also does not have to have every answer to every question for their claims to have credibility.
No, but he has to have some, which he hasn't.
MazHere wrote:
You also support miracles. Don't forget you claim some non living elements and a few proteins some how organized themselves into a complex living factory of reproduction.
Nope, I never did that.
MazHere wrote:
I should not need to clarify any alternative.
That's how science works and how you overturn a leading theory.
Good luck.
Let me know how that works out.
olasonn

Harstad, Norway

#2722 Oct 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears it is a waste of time speaking to you.
Well, when you base your case on "might have" and "the fall", what do you expect?

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2723 Oct 22, 2013
Blind Faithiness wrote:
What was all that troll-talk about using one's own words? I'm guessing most already realize this, but most of maz's latest post is just copy/paste without quotation or citation from this tired, old site.
Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...
I guess the hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Regarding creationist publishing, a quote from Behe at the Dover trial seems fitting:
"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" but no mention of this vast conspiracy maz has dreamed up. Seems like a leading advocate for 'goddidit' would have known that the perfect time to shine light on this 'grand conspiracy' would have been at a highly publicized court proceeding. LOL!!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am...
The "all creationists are..." line of reason is a direct result of ***your*** initial statements when you plopped down here with all your 'great debater' nonsense and evos are this and that writings. Duh-doy! LOL!
Chase that tail. I'm loving this. Maz just keeps digging.
Listen Blind. I am running my own race here. You're the one having a love affair with Behe. The research I present itself falsifies TOE with excuses offered as hypothesis. All you can do in replying to me is squark like the usual evo parrot, scratching around trying to justify your existence on here. If you don't like what I say to Oli, then don't reply.

I have challenged one of TOEs leading supports for TOE and all you want to to is dig around and see what words came from where. You will see I use arguments reflected in various creationist sites and that is not what makes a troll. I am not offering a research paper for publishing.

A troll is one that posts inflamatory material in order to provoke an emotional response or whose comments are irrlevant. That would be you.

You are having some silly philosophical discussion here chasing your own tail and now again want to interject your opinion on my discussion with Oli, with ridicule and spam. You are the troll. Go back to your philosophy and tail chasing. Your decline into trolling is due to your not having anything of substance to add to the discussion.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#2724 Oct 22, 2013
olasonn wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but he has to have some, which he hasn't.
<quoted text>
Nope, I never did that.
<quoted text>
That's how science works and how you overturn a leading theory.
Good luck.
Let me know how that works out.
This is very simplistic. You are trying to turn topix into a peer reviewed publishing house. What are you doing here if the best you have to say is 'they said so'?. That's not a debate or discussion. That's you fluffing your feathers using a science topic to be a religious bigot. You are an empty vessel and that has nothing to do with you're being an evolutionist. I feel sorry for you.

I can only assume that the evidence that brings human ch2 into question as being evidence for TOE is established on my part. Otherwise you would post research to refute me. That's how a real science debate works. You wouldn't know about that, obviously!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Today at SDA Sabbath Service 3/28 2 min Doug Mason 58
News The Consequences of Atheism 16 min Thinking 1,128
Many SDA pastors are Dangerously Deceptive (Jul '11) 1 hr usefull 361
Medical Science Proves Ellen White Was Wrong! 4 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 46
Sunday "Christianity" - [SATANIC CULT] Daniel'... 4 hr Earburner 291
IS AMERICA the Great Harlot Revelation 17 - 18? (Jul '13) 4 hr martinezjosei 101
EXAMPLE of one in a CULT 5 hr JesusWasNOTaJew -... 703
More from around the web