Hyper evolution in the bible

Of course, but the particle can give more than one result in the sense of being wave-like. You're still not getting it. Your arguments rests on false analogies, not direct engagement of the data. You cannot see gravity, but that does not mean it is not detected.Also, the math is not the pattern. The math is a description of the pattern, and there are different equations used to try to describe the pattern. It's getting silly to go on and on with you on this.Here's a link for instance, where one quantum physicist is working on newer mathematical equations to describe the real nature and event of what a particle is and does.It's a good article overall, and I'd recommend you read it because it links the concept of information being what a particle is to the fact particles and matter appear quantized. It's taking what I am talking about to a much more in-depth level. It'll be interesting to see if Zeilinger is right and but if what I am saying is wrong and what you were saying is correct, you could dismiss him out of hand.Fortunately, that's not the case. http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/links/newscientist/bit.html John, you need to get away from analogies and consider the real science because you don't know what the debate is about here.The formula for a probability pattern is immaterial. That's not what I am talking about. What I, and QM, talks about is then nature of fundamental physical existence. You need to get your head around the idea that it's not math we are discussing here, and it's not based on thousands of calculations.If you want to create a probability formula, sure, you need lots of studies, but I am not talking about a formular. I am talking about the states of existence. In what state of existence does a particle exist fundamentally.What QM shows, which one reason it is considered so weird and paradigm-shaking, is that a particle fundamentally either does not exist (Wheeler's view) in a physical form from a classical perspective, or that it exists as a potential in a superpositional state. However, even though we cannot measure it in that state directly, we know it exists due to secondary reactions such as observation that show us a physical form. This is what Wheeler is talking about when he said the particle is intrinsincly undefined until observation.I'll google up some tidbits so you can see it's not just me saying this stuff.Here's one. I suggest you read it to get a basic concept of what this debate is about. You have denigrated my ideas, which this guy calls the "orthodox interpretation" as if they are ignorant when in reality they are the same view of QM expressed by some of the giants in the field, like Wheeler. Your claims seem to be just based on ignorance.Let me put it this way. Why do you think Feynman, Wheeler's student, said QM was so baffling? It's because it doesn't follow the conventional, classical paradigm you espouse as reality. http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt

quote:

---

Of course, but the particle can give more than one result in the sense of being wave-like.

---

Given the context in which I made my statement, your comment makes no sense.

quote:

---

Your arguments rests on false analogies, not direct engagement of the data.

---

The analogies are illustrative, not supportive. The core argument engages the data about as directly as it can be engaged. That argument you have not yet so much as acknowledged. I'll quote myself for you. That argument looks like this:

quote:

---

1) Scientists observe the results of particle experiments? I am assuming you'll answer 'yes'.

​

2) Scientists make, or derive formulas to describe the experiments? Again, I assume you'll answer 'yes'.

​

3) Now, you have math that is descriptive of the results of particle experiments. If you do, in fact, answer yes to the two preceeding questions you are locked into accepting the opening statement of #3.

​

4) What makes the math go from descriptive as in #3 to proscriptive or to somehow being the underpinning of reality instead of just the language used to describe it? What is the justification for claiming the formula become, somehow, reality?

---

If you cannot address those four lines please do not respond.

quote:

---

Here's a link for instance, where one quantum physicist is working on newer mathematical equations to describe the real nature and event of what a particle is and does.

---

Notice your own language. Describe. Formulas describe. Calling it 'real' doesn't change anything. And you are right. That is exactly what he is doing. Zeilinger is describing quantum effects in terms of information theory.Notice...

quote:

---

Zeilinger thinks that before we can truly understand quantum theory, it must be connected in some way to what we know and feel.

---

quote:

---

Now Zeilinger proposes to rebuild quantum mechanics on a similar basis, to put it in terms that need no debatable philosophy.

---

Read between the two quotes. It is too much to paste into this message. Zeilinger is attempting to make QM palitable by couching it in terms familiar to non-scientists. It says so in the paper you quote. He is not jumping off the deep end and claiming that information 'underlies' realilty, as it seems you do.

quote:

---

Zeilinger's conceptual leap is to associate bits with the building blocks of the material world. In quantum mechanics, these building blocks are called elementary systems, and the archetypal elementary system is the spin of an electron. The only possible outcomes of measuring an electron's spin are "up" and "down".

---

The root of Zeilinger's formula, or conception, is not 'information' but electron spin. 'Information' doesn't 'underpin' his physics. His physics sits on the very detectable spin of electrons. Information theory describes it. And it is very simple to prove. If lab results conflict with information theory, which one wins? The winner is the true 'root'. The winner is the lab.

quote:

---

The formula for a probability pattern is immaterial. That's not what I am talking about. What I, and QM, talks about is then nature of fundamental physical existence. You need to get your head around the idea that it's not math we are discussing here, and it's not based on thousands of calculations.

---

Really, you have got to be joking. The methods-- THE METHODS-- of the science are immaterial? You deny then that QM comes from observations made in a lab? Scientists did not base their theories on these results? You, not I, need to take a look at the real science. You seem to have no idea how it works.I no longer have time for this. You've essentially discarded the hard science in favor of you theory, and in doing so you've leapt into the absurd.Take care.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

John, you clearly just refuse to engage the point. Zeilinger, and you can read his papers in PDF (but I cannot cut and paste) is indeed arguing for information as what a particle is, and so is the other quote you ignored.The reason I quoted how he was working up a different mathematical equation to describe the same event was to show you that the event is real. It's not merely a mathematical equation, as you suggest, but that point went right over your head.The line of reasoning is not germane in any respect to the issue here. What you cannot seem to get your head around is that QM displays non-classical properties, not just the math, but the actual thing itself.It's be OK if you admitted as such, and considered it weird and difficult. Feynman said no one could understand QM. But you keep trying to bring up irrevalent classical analogies that don't fit in anyway to what we observe in the lab.In your 4-part scenario, you fail to realize my point is made after point 1. The math is inconsequential to my point. The observations show the wave/particle duality all on thier own.On a side-note, I think you probably do not realize that in other areas of physics, they start with the math. That's step 1.But irregardless, my point has nothing to do with predicting behaviour of quantum particles, and everything to do with the basic state particles exist in, which is something you doggedly refuse to take on. You seem to think the particle exists in a definite state all the time, and fail to recognize some of the basic qualities of what a particle is, and is not.It's a shame you consider the heart of QM and the observations made as absurd, but that's your opinion. You cling to trying to assert a classical paradigm in an arena where the paradigm does not work.As far as Zeilinger, he is going further than the basic concept I mention here. What he is saying is providing a reason for the apparent random appearance of the particle in the collapse of the wave function. Basically, he is saying the particle and the world are quantized because information is quantized and can be reduced to a yes or no response at it's most elemental level.He theorizes the particle holds an elementary level of information, meaning it can only answer yes or no, but not provide any other information, and he is working on the math to show this.So what happens with observation is that the particle shoots it's wad so to speak and the elementary answer is provided. It exists as a yes or no potential, and when the situation occurs where it to be observed, it answers by coming into a form. It doesn't exist as a form prior to that. It exists as information.The reason then it is random is it's information bit was used up, and it cannot provide more discrete answer by showing up in a definite spot. It's appearance must be random.It's an interesting theory. Too bad you ignore it. My point is that if the particle does not consist of a probability (information), then his line of reasoning would be absurd. That's the starting point of which he is elaborating.I probably do not do justice to his theory, but it does explain both the quantized facet, random appearance, and probability aspect of particles.

quote:

---

John, you clearly just refuse to engage the point.

---

That is really quite rich. I've debated myself about whether it is worth continuing. It is not. The longer this continues the more I realize that you don't know what's actually going on in the labs, you don't know the science works, and you can't follow an argument, not even your own. There are numerous examples in this post, but I am tired of the run around.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

interestingly enough, you cite the same resources. i am not arguing a strawman, i am arguing what you, yourself said: that it was 120 years from the proclamation to split. incidently, peleg was born 101 years after the flood. but at least 199 years after the proclamation. if it were 120 years from proclamation to the flood (a MUCH better reading) then it doesn't matter, and this whole 120 years to peleg thing is moot.

---

Peleg was born 101 years after the flood, yes, as I said. Where do you get a date from the proclamation there?

quote:

---

the decline is more drawn out. there is no point of splitting.

---

It seems to be a trend that quickly ends up at our present lifespans. No one says it was some exact thing, but name anyone after my attempt at a date for the split, who lived anywhere near the previous almost 1000 years? Even Noah, as I recall, lived somewhere in the right lifespan for post splitters!

quote:

---

ad-hoc. show me something in the bible that has to do with radioactive decay or genetics

---

I raise a possibilty question, and you have some supposed righteous freak! Look, if the show fits, and we see an effect, perhaps the cause is there too?? Something caused, if I am correct, radioactive decay in the universe at some point, just as, at some point, it will be different, because eternity, and heaven are coming.

quote:

---

do you really think god has abandoned us?

---

Of course not. But if angels and the spiritual are all one, or whatever you seem to think why did the angel take quite a while (I think it was about 3 weeks, or a month) to get through to Daniel? God is as near as a prayer.

quote:

---

of COURSE there's something more at play here -- it's called "god." you either believe, or you don't. trying to justify something that is inherently supernatural with a naturalistic explanation is just stupid.

---

Of course God did it, one way or another. How does this correspond to what we see now? We live in a naturalistic world, or physical only, and it is you who seek to impose this type of explanation on things, as if that is all there ever will be! There was more than the box.

"Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."
"Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth."
Now these verses you posted are true, of course, but say nothing of the which you desperately seek to imply! What does how old Noah was when he had some babies (unless they were triplets, they couldn't all be born the same year anyhow!) -have to do with how old he was after the flood! Nothing!
Face it the proclamation was not in a specific year by any stretch of your imagination. If so, prove it.

quote:

---

His physics sits on the very detectable spin of electrons.

---

Then his pitiful theory is in the physical only box.

quote:

---

anything else is a double standard. listen, i don't even need to address this. it's pretty obvious that you're just making stuff up as you go along. i mean, a bunch of water indicates that a spiritual plane is merged with the physical, but stopping the motions of the heavens does not? come on, simple!

---

Does what happened here, the sun and moon standing 'still' mean anything more than the sun and moon were affected? Is there any mechanism that could have caused the earth to give the appearance of the sun standing still? I don't know, is it worth looking at? What if, for example, the earth's axis were tilted some amount, could this give us a longer day? Etc? Anyhow, if something was affecting just the earth and moon, that wouldn't be, by any means universal.

Everything you listed except possibly the "olive branch" is a miracle.I believe the Bible, and, consequently, I believe in miracles.Just to correct a common misconception, though, the dove that Noah sent out came back with an olive leaf...not an olive branch. Heh. Can you imagine a dove flying around with an olive branch in its beak? A twig, maybe...but a branch? Anyways...it was a LEAF!If I understand things correctly, no miracle is required for an olive branch buried in mud (near the surface) to produce leaves in a fairly short time.My dad has often taken cuttings from fruit trees and just stuck them in the ground. These cuttings will (occasionally) take root and produce leaves. In the very damp conditions right after the Flood, the olive tree could probably do this easily.But, if not...then, hey, its another miracle...and I don't mind that a bit.I am responding, btw, to your opening remarks...not anything in the 19 pages of responses that follow.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-30-2005 06:36 AM

quote:

---

Just to correct a common misconception, though, the dove that Noah sent out came back with an olive leaf...not an olive branch. Heh. Can you imagine a dove flying around with an olive branch in its beak? A twig, maybe...but a branch? Anyways...it was a LEAF!

---

Gen 8:11 "and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off:
which might easily be done, and even an "olive branch", as the word sometimes signifies, and is by some rendered; "
Genesis 8 - Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.orgSo, apparently there are different opinions, but as you say "But, if not...then, hey, its another miracle...and I don't mind that a bit." But the beauty of this is that, it affects the stars, and their creation, radioactive decay, and everything else, pretty well in the creation/evolution debate! Because if the split was a fact, then everything is now to be seen in a different light, the light of a real God, a true bible, an amazing future, and even an amazing past!
If this were alone, as a scripture, I might disregard it, but combined with the plants being made on the third day or so, and men eating them a few days later, it seems evident to me we had different conditions then. The garden of Eden, where Adam was put, and where Eve was created, I believe, was planted, not "zapped" into being.
We know eternity will be different, so the future is well covered here, and we know also the past was different than a physical only one, because today's PO universe just does not fit the bill.

event 1: god declares that human life shall be limited to 120 years.

quote:

---

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

---

event 2: noah gets in god's good graces.

quote:

---

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

---

event 3: shem is born.

quote:

---

Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

---

event 4: the flood. (do you need a verse for that?)event 5: shem has a kid:

quote:

---

Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

---

so. two years after the flood, when he has arphaxad, shem is 100 years old. the proclaimation is given before shem is born. therefor, it stands to reason, that the flood is at least 100 years after god sets the 120 year limit. the 100 years is confirmed here:

quote:

---

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

---

quote:

---

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

---

in fact, the reading that's best is that 120 years is the time from the proclaimation to the flood -- just like your source says. therefor, it cannot have anything to do with your "split" if it happened in peleg's day. qed. [qs]It seems to be a trend that quickly ends up at our present lifespans. No one says it was some exact thing, but name anyone after my attempt at a date for the split, who lived anywhere near the previous almost 1000 years? Even Noah, as I recall, lived somewhere in the right lifespan for post splitters![/quote]if noah is post-split, then here's your counter-example:

quote:

---

Gen 9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

---

950 years is pretty close to 1000. btw, that means he lived for 350 years after the flood:

quote:

---

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

---

peleg, btw, was born 101 years after the flood, lived 30 years and had a kid, then lived another 209 years.101 + 30 + 209 = 340.noah, post flood = 350.NOAH OUTLIVED PELEG.are you satisfied that your point is demolished yet? it's doubly ad-hoc. you have no reason to assume that radioactive decay did not occur at some point. you want to believe this to justify a literal belief in a young earth, to justify your belief in a particular interpretation of the bible.so not only is it ad-hoc, it's circular and self-affirming. cause god got stuck in traffic. i dunno. you're being silly. no. that is your BELIEF. an assumption. science only analyzes the physical, but it does not mean nothing else exists. in fact, if you claim to be saved then you believe inherently that we DO NOT live in a physical-only world. hey, i'm the one arguing for miracles and god-did-it here. you're the one trying to fit everything into your pre-concieved framework. your box may be shaped like a sandwich, but it's still a box.

---

אָרַח

it's 100 years (or 98, depending) from the birth of shem until the flood. shem was born before the flood.the proclamation was before shem.also, as i pointed out above, noah outlived your beloved peleg by ten whole years. i just did. well, close, anyways. i gave you a timeframe for when it had to have occurred that backs the most obvious plain reading of the text -- the flood is 120 years after the proclaimation.JUST.LIKE.YOUR.OWN.SOURCES.SAY.

---

אָרַח

ad-hoc and double standards. how the hell can you claim that a bunch of water demands god's presence in a sense where reality had to have been modified ("merged") from the way it is now (according to you), but changing the motions of the planets does not?you're full of crap, and you know it.the sun and moon standing still is possibly the grandest miracle in the bible, next to salvation.

---

אָרַח

yes, and adam eating an apple in a garden is a pretty common opinion too. it's still wrong. it doesn't explain the sun standing still for joshua, does it?

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

event 1: god declares that human life shall be limited to 120 years.

---

No, in no way, that is your opinion. That isn't what it says or means! That is nonsense that comes from one who is obviously trying to grind an ax with God here. I already provided some bible commentary on this, if I remember on this thread, that illuminates this point.

quote:

---

event 5: shem has a kid:

---

Sorry, too much assumption here. In the millenium, it says he who dies at 100 will be considered a child, so, I suppose, in the broad sense, you could be right here!
So if we looked at it like this, would it fit? -- Shem was say, 99 years old when the flood came. Shem was 100 when he had Peleg's great granddad! This was 2 years after the flood. So, when Noah died, it was about 250 years after the split (which was about a century after the flood in this idea). This is in keeping with the post split lifespans.

quote:

---

in fact, the reading that's best is that 120 years is the time from the proclaimation to the flood -- just like your source says. therefor, it cannot have anything to do with your "split" if it happened in peleg's day. qed.

---

Well, this is indeed what I had thought. But in the light of the split, it makes more sense as I just described it. Three Sons, the oldest of which was Shem, and 99 or so years old at the flood time!

quote:

---

950 years is pretty close to 1000. btw, that means he lived for 350 years after the flood:

---

Yes, but since the split was about 100 years after the flood here, this would put Noah also in the proper post split lifespan range.

quote:

---

peleg, btw, was born 101 years after the flood, lived 30 years and had a kid, then lived another 209 years.

​

101 + 30 + 209 = 340.

​

noah, post flood = 350.

​

NOAH OUTLIVED PELEG.

​

are you satisfied that your point is demolished yet?

---

Ha. Are you kidding? You say Noah outlived Peleg. - So what? The difference is only 10 years, and both were there for the split. Therefore both were living post split lifespans, and some decade or even a few is not out of the range of the normal lifespan differences even today. The real point here is that these two people had very similar post split lifespans!

quote:

---

you have no reason to assume that radioactive decay did not occur at some point.

---

Oh, but I do. If Adam had made the right choice, on this same planet here, he would have eaten the tree of life and lived forever, therefore, no death and decay could have been extant, because this would fly in the face of everlasting life!

quote:

---

cause god got stuck in traffic. i dunno. you're being silly.

---

An example of an angel being delayed in getting down here, in the physical world, is not silly, but a clear indication there is some form of seperation!

quote:

---

science only analyzes the physical, but it does not mean nothing else exists. in fact, if you claim to be saved then you believe inherently that we DO NOT live in a physical-only world.

---

Well, of course there is a spiritual world, but it is seperate at the moment, in case you haven't noticed! We live in a physical only plane, or universe, but there is, beyond our sight, of course, another whole spiritual universe, which will one day be merged!