|
Author
|
Topic: the underlying assumptions rig the debate
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 11 of 246 (322205)
06-16-2006 10:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-14-2006 4:16 PM
|
|
The Bible as nonsense
randman writes: This is just one example, but it shows how what is a fact is determined by what assumptions one uses to interpret data. If one assumes a linear time-line of causality (which imo is fading as scientifically valid), then it is a fact that death preceded man perhaps. If one assumes the system can be affected as a whole, and that non-linear causality is possible, then it is not a fact that death preceded the creation of man.
The Bible is obvious nonsense. You are making the absurd assumption that what you read in the Bible is what was written thousands of years ago. But once we abandon the idea of "a linear time-line of causality" we must recognize that there is no basis for these assumptions about the Bible. The text in copies of the Bible might well have been changing over time, and the thousands of years ago past might not yet have happened.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by randman, posted 06-14-2006 4:16 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 24 of 246 (322703)
06-17-2006 7:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
06-17-2006 6:55 PM
|
|
Re: not trying to reconcile evo with Bible
I am suggesting that the Bible doesn't necessarily disagree with evolutionary theory except the concept it occurs via chance, etc,.....
I remember a pastor from my youth, who said that when people talk of "luck" or "chance" they are talking about God working behind the scenes. So I'm not sure why "the concept it occurs via chance" would be a basis for disagreement with ToE.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 6:55 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by randman, posted 06-17-2006 7:13 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 105 of 246 (323011)
06-18-2006 7:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by Percy
06-18-2006 7:30 PM
|
|
Re: for Iblis: down-converter experiments
Well, as anyone can see, your message is dated 5/7/2003, ...
Not only that, but randman edited it 4/14/2002, more than a year before it was written. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-18-2006 7:30 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 127 of 246 (323079)
06-18-2006 11:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by randman
06-18-2006 10:56 PM
|
|
Re: still no substance from you here
I'll note this quote from wheeler Wheeler: It's inspiring to read the life of Charles Darwin and think how the division of plant and animal kingdoms, all this myriad of order, came about through the miracles of evolution, natural selection and chance mutation. To me this is a marvelous indication that you can get order by starting with disorder.
However, I didn't find anything that would support the claims you make in your OP.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 10:56 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 12:37 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 128 of 246 (323082)
06-18-2006 11:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by randman
06-18-2006 11:29 PM
|
|
Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
Contrary to some claims here, there are plenty of scientists that think meaningful transfer of information instantly and thus from our vantage point, superluminally, is entirely possible, ...
And here is a good place to look for them:
cranks, crackpots, kooks & loons on the net
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by randman, posted 06-18-2006 11:29 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 130 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 12:40 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 131 of 246 (323088)
06-19-2006 12:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by randman
06-19-2006 12:37 AM
|
|
Re: still no substance from you here
randman writes: while at the same time asserting the anthropomorphic principle and observer-participancy, which are things you assume only crackpots believe.
That's false. I make no such assumption.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 12:37 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 132 of 246 (323089)
06-19-2006 12:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by randman
06-19-2006 12:40 AM
|
|
Re: superluminal potentials still under debate
Hmmm....calling esteemed physicists and scientists working in the field crackpots......
Which esteemed physicists and scientists are working on superluminal transfer of information?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by randman, posted 06-19-2006 12:40 AM | | randman has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 218 of 246 (323949)
06-20-2006 3:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by randman
06-20-2006 2:59 PM
|
|
Re: Zeilinger's view
But is the past path of the photon determined by the present, or not?
That's horribly ambiguous.
I think concerning this question, we should be precise.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by randman, posted 06-20-2006 2:59 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 223 by randman, posted 06-20-2006 3:24 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 229 of 246 (323975)
06-20-2006 4:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by randman
06-20-2006 3:24 PM
|
|
Re: Zeilinger's view
It's not ambigious at all. The way we measure a photon determines it's path, period, and that includes the path the photon already took.
It could mean: By measuring the photon, we gain knowledge of what the path was in the past. It could also mean: By measuring the photon we cause it to have taken a particular path in the past. Those are two quite different meanings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by randman, posted 06-20-2006 3:24 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 230 by randman, posted 06-20-2006 4:23 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2