I just read through this thread and I would like to comment on a few points Jerry made in several posts.
In
Message 1, Jerry wrote:
[...] quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solid in the universe.
The collapse of the wave-function (not the "wave-collapse function", as you have it) does not result in "making matter solid in the universe." It simply means the realisation of one of several possibilities. I think you are mixing up ideas about waves, energy and matter, and are somehow seeing waves and energy as unreal, and (solid) matter as real. The following quote (from
Message 9) illustrates this:
Perhaps the most difficult dilemma to explain is the fact that individual particles such as photons, electrons and neutrinos are a very real part of our universe and yet to also understand that if photons are to be particles rather than waves as they sometimes are, it requires a conscious observer to collapse the wave-function--to make the reality of our universe, real indeed.
In
Message 14, Jerry wrote:
Darwinism because it's not science, it's religion.
This is sloppy thinking. If something is not science, it's therefore religion? Shopping is religion? Having a telephone conversation is religion?
Also in
Message 14, Jerry wrote:
Theories of science must be taken through the strict scientific method in order to become theories of science.
Another example of careless thinking. Something must undergo a certain procedure to
become what it already is? That doesn't make sense.
Again, in
Message 14, Jerry wrote:
[...] nothing in Darwinism is falsifiable. I would love to hear someone falsify common descent, or that man and apes shared a common ancestor, or that huge, ferocious land mammals called pakicetus poofed its legs into flippers, crawled off into the oceans and magically morphed into whales, or that weird looking reptiles shoved their jawbones up into their ears and poofed into mammals.
You are painting a false picture by using the word 'poof'. It suggests a rapid, if not instantaneous process, whereas Darwinism states no such thing. In fact, Darwinism proposes quite the opposite: the process of evolution is gradual and can take literally ages and ages to produce even the slightest difference between an organism and its descendants.
Also, I am not sure you understand what 'falsifiable' means. It doesn't show from what you said about it. The fact that common descent has not been falsified as yet, does not mean that it isn't falsifiable at all.
In
Message 32, Jerry wrote:
Catholic Scientist writes:
This seems to suggest that the detectors are affecting the photons. Perhaps when the photon hits the detector it messes up the interference pattern it would have made.
The photon doesn't hit the detector. The detector is just there to observe the photon as it goes by.
I'd love to hear your technical explanation of how a photon detector works.
On second thought, don't bother. A detector cannot observe a photon "going by". To detect a photon, it must hit the detector, it's as simple as that. And when a photon hits a detector, it's no longer available to cause an interference pattern elsewhere.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
™ Version 4.2