Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8964 total)
36 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Tangle, xongsmith (4 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 872,990 Year: 4,738/23,288 Month: 1,643/1,286 Week: 310/615 Day: 2/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Whale of a Tale
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 226 of 243 (277353)
01-08-2006 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 10:21 PM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
if i ever rob a museum and get caught on camera, i'm hiring a creationist lawyer

Yeah - 'cause we saw how well that worked in Dover... :)


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 10:21 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 941 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 227 of 243 (277354)
01-08-2006 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 10:21 PM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
if i ever rob a museum and get caught on camera, i'm hiring a creationist lawyer.

Better to have a creationist jury. Having a lawyer who's unfamiliar with terms like "evidence" probably isn't in your best interest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 10:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 11:48 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 426 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 228 of 243 (277367)
01-08-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Nuggin
01-08-2006 11:12 PM


Re: Completeness of fossil record
Better to have a creationist jury. Having a lawyer who's unfamiliar with terms like "evidence" probably isn't in your best interest.

well, since something like 2/3rds of american society are fooled by creationism, i'd probably be ok. besides, having a creationist lawyer would (hopefully) imply a creationist jury. you know they wouldn't let people with biases towards stuff like "evidence" in.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Nuggin, posted 01-08-2006 11:12 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by AdminNWR, posted 01-08-2006 11:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 243 (277368)
01-08-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 11:48 PM


Time to get ON TOPIC
That enough of this diversion. Please debate the thread topic.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 11:48 PM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 01-09-2006 12:19 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 426 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 230 of 243 (277380)
    01-09-2006 12:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 229 by AdminNWR
    01-08-2006 11:51 PM


    Re: Time to get ON TOPIC
    it's only mildly off-topic. it explains why we're even having this debate, really -- different standards of evidence, and prior assumptions.

    we could line up all of the intermediatary whales that ever existed, and the adamant creationists will never see the connection.


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 229 by AdminNWR, posted 01-08-2006 11:51 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3347 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 231 of 243 (277398)
    01-09-2006 1:07 AM
    Reply to: Message 220 by NosyNed
    01-07-2006 12:36 AM


    mods
    RM has been reading material about physicists understanding that time does not "flow"; that our perception of that is another illusion about the universe we live in. This appears to be the correct way to view it.

    He, like many who grab onto something without understanding it, thinks this suggests that the past can be affected (since it is as there as the present and future are). This is, as I understand it, not supported by any physics and is contradicted by it.

    RM is just like the new agers who grab onto parts of popular explanations of QM and try to warp it to support their views. You are not going to get anything sensible out of him since he hasn't forumlated a coherent view of it.

    Why is this allowed? Clearly and unequivocally, it is a personal attack without a shred of substantiation.

    Had Nosey the foggiest notion of telling the truth about exchanges related to this area, considering I have repeated this fact, he would know that Brukner and Vedral have indeed presented papers that entanglement occurs across segments of time, and moreover, the mere fact of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" raises the specter, considering GR, of time not exactly working in a perfectly linear fashion.

    Wheeler pointedly addresses this very fact in his proposed delayed-choice experiments relating to QM.

    Moreover, not a few evos here have at times advanced the transverse wave interpretation of QM which involves accepting as real the mathematical proposition of waves that do indeed travel backwards in time.

    But hey, ad hominen attacks totally uncensured from Nosey are not exactly new.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2006 12:36 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 233 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-09-2006 1:25 AM randman has not yet responded
     Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 12:06 PM randman has responded

      
    AdminAsgara
    Administrator (Idle past 751 days)
    Posts: 2073
    From: The Universe
    Joined: 10-11-2003


    Message 232 of 243 (277402)
    01-09-2006 1:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 220 by NosyNed
    01-07-2006 12:36 AM


    Re: SpaceTime in total
    Nosy, I do agree with rand that this post is full of insults and arguments against your opponant, not his claim.

    I am suspending you for 48 hours, as you are a admin and should know better.

    Take any arguments to the appropriate thread in my signature when you are welcomed back.


    AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 01-07-2006 12:36 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

      
    AdminAsgara
    Administrator (Idle past 751 days)
    Posts: 2073
    From: The Universe
    Joined: 10-11-2003


    Message 233 of 243 (277407)
    01-09-2006 1:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 231 by randman
    01-09-2006 1:07 AM


    Re: mods
    Rand, Two wrong do not make a right.

    quote:
    Had Nosey the foggiest notion of telling the truth...

    quote:
    ...ad hominen attacks totally uncensured from Nosey are not exactly new.

    There is no more need for examples like this than there are for those that Ned wrote.

    As I pointed out to everyone in the admin forum, I am not going to go back and hand out retroactive suspensions all over the board, but I am going to be on a closer watch from here on out. If you are going to act out because you find others doing so...nothing will change around here.

    I suggest that everyone try to take the high ground, then you can never be accused of adding to the height of the water.

    Please take any discussion of this warning to the appropriate thread in my signature box. It is OFF TOPIC here.


    AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 1:07 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 941 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 234 of 243 (277543)
    01-09-2006 12:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 231 by randman
    01-09-2006 1:07 AM


    Monkey in a Time Machine
    Let's bring it back to this time travel theory - while ducking the mud slinging, you failed to respond to my initial post.

    Are you suggesting that the rules of QM apply to living organisms? That evolution is wrong because it assumes a linear timeline and we should try and look at it from a multi-dimensional timeline?

    If so, do we have any evidence of any creature which is alive today, died last week and will be born tomorrow? (I'll allow all sorts of variations on the time period)

    It's one thing for sub-atomic particles to mathematically travel through time, it's a very different thing to have a Yak doing it.

    To tie it to the topic -

    Are you saying that modern whales are actually decended from future whales which don't yet exist? Or that prehistoric whales are devolved from modern whales?

    What does this theory predict we should be looking for to confirm it?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 1:07 AM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 235 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 12:46 PM Nuggin has responded
     Message 236 by Modulous, posted 01-09-2006 1:01 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3347 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 235 of 243 (277552)
    01-09-2006 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 234 by Nuggin
    01-09-2006 12:06 PM


    Re: Monkey in a Time Machine
    First off, this is totally off-topic, and the threads started to discuss this, you were noticeably absent from, I believe. So your off-topic comments here, as far as I am concerned, are not appreciated and not very helpful in that they do not properly characterize my position or things I have posted.

    Are you suggesting that the rules of QM apply to living organisms?

    Secondly, had you been on some of the threads discussing these ideas, you would see that WK had provided a link to a peer-reviewed article making that exact proposition, specifically that mutations are governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics.

    But unfortunately, you have not really taken the time to learn what people are saying in this area.

    It's one thing for sub-atomic particles to mathematically travel through time, it's a very different thing to have a Yak doing it.

    No one has ever suggested that things like a Yak travel backwards through time per se. That comment is based on ignorance of the issue.

    Are you saying that modern whales are actually decended from future whales which don't yet exist? Or that prehistoric whales are devolved from modern whales?

    This is a false claims about your opponent's argument. Are you attempting to address my stance in good faith, or simply trying to insert ridiculing comments to the lurkers, because after all, this process is best understood, as you have stated, as something akin to the Jerry Springer show?

    One of the theories related to QM is that of the multiverse. Personally, and I freely admit that this is tentative from a science perspective, but I believe we will discover not so much distinct multiverses not connected to one another, but more of a blended set of multiverses. I realize for any knowledgeable lurkers or posters out there that the initial concept for the multiverse in QM does not necessitate interaction as I am proposing, and on a different thread, we can get into this (see Moving Towards an ID mechanism thread).

    But one thing is clear, the assumption of a single static past is unproven, but is a mere assumption, sort of like imo the assumption of a constant rate of time for all things equally in the universe (before GR).

    So the issue is that if we look at data based on an assumption, and we later find that assumption is wrong, we will have to review our conclusions of the data.

    I'll give you an example where this line of thinking is relevant. Let's say you are arguing that the Bible is incorrect because it states the earth is 6000 years old. Of course, the Bible does not state that, and it is a silly argument evos make, but assuming one is arguing against the Bible in a YECist context, let's look at that claim.

    Well, if the past is changing, then is entirely possible that both situations of a young earth and old earth could be true. There could well be an expansion of time as time progresses, or there could be events that massively change and expand space-time or change it (such as the Fall).

    Or to be less extreme, let's say 3000 years ago, the universe was 4 billion years old, and now 3000 years later, it is 15 billion years old or whatever it is. The idea the universe exists in a linear progression of time, or even that this is the only universe and not part of a larger multiverse, are mere assumptions and assumptions increasingly undermined by more advanced physics in the past 100 years.

    This message has been edited by randman, 01-09-2006 01:59 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 12:06 PM Nuggin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 237 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 2:08 PM randman has responded

      
    Modulous
    Member (Idle past 552 days)
    Posts: 7789
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 236 of 243 (277559)
    01-09-2006 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 234 by Nuggin
    01-09-2006 12:06 PM


    Randman is right
    This is getting offtopic.

    There is an open topic where it is on topic though (not too many posts left, but it could be a springboard?)

    Try reading this post from Jerry which gets into the nitty gritty. IIRC randman basically agrees with Jerry, but they have some differences of opinion.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 234 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 12:06 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 238 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 2:09 PM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 941 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 237 of 243 (277577)
    01-09-2006 2:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by randman
    01-09-2006 12:46 PM


    Editted
    edit - bygones

    the assumption of a single static past is unproven, but is a mere assumption

    Assuming a multiverse and a fluctuating past, at some point in time (call it the observation point) the past leading to that point will be static. If we choose a different observation point, the past leading to that point will be different than that leading to the initail observation point, but it will likewise be static.

    So, call it a variation on the uncertainty principle, but how would you determine if the past is in motion, if by observation of the past you have locked it in place?

    Bible is incorrect because it states the earth is 6000 years old. Of course, the Bible does not state that, and it is a silly argument evos make

    No, it's a silly argument that Evos respond to. There is a multiverse of difference between the two.

    Well, if the past is changing, then is entirely possible that both situations of a young earth and old earth could be true.

    Do we have any evidence for this? How would we test for this?

    let's say 3000 years ago, the universe was 4 billion years old, and now 3000 years later, it is 15 billion years old or whatever it is.

    Let's assume that this is true and that time is elastic. You still haven't answered my question - Do you think this has an effect on biology?

    Even if this is correct -

    that mutations are governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics.

    Who cares? Theory of Evolution does not require that mutations take place as a result of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics - just that they take place.

    If your argument is that Evolution doesn't happen because mutations are taking place, you better rethink the argument.

    This message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-09-2006 04:45 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 12:46 PM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by randman, posted 01-09-2006 2:13 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3347 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 238 of 243 (277579)
    01-09-2006 2:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 236 by Modulous
    01-09-2006 1:01 PM


    Re: Randman is right
    Randman is right

    Feels good to say it, doesn't it? Catchy, on target, etc,...;)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 236 by Modulous, posted 01-09-2006 1:01 PM Modulous has not yet responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3347 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 239 of 243 (277582)
    01-09-2006 2:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 237 by Nuggin
    01-09-2006 2:08 PM


    Re: Hey Randman, cut the crap
    Hey nuggins, I had edited out some of those comments before your response.

    And in fact, I was forced to mention my views because guys like you keep diverting thread topics demanding, well, if this is wrong, what is your position.

    Imo, as I state often, it really doesn't matter what or if there is an alternative if the facts don't mesh, which is why I tend to stick to looking closely at the data, but that doesn't stop you guys from always trying to divert the topic and claim I am dodging you or something.

    But this is way off-topic. There are threads where this has been brought up. Modulous mentions one of them.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 237 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 2:08 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3347 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 240 of 243 (277586)
    01-09-2006 2:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 213 by Nuggin
    01-06-2006 10:50 AM


    nuggins, sorry if these were legit questions
    You may be talking right over my head but it sounds like you are making these points:
    1) There is more evidence for speciation in physics than in biology
    2) Since time is not necessarily linear, species do not need to adapt linearly through time.
    3) Therefore it's possible that species we see today are decended from things not in the past, but in the future.

    Am I close?

    No, but it is important to realize that physics underlies chemistry which undergirds biology, and that if one has a mistaken paradigm in terms of what constitutes the material world, then that will affect the evo/ID arguments and does affect them.

    Imo, a more modern definition of reality includes and necessitates a deeper framework than was presupposed when ToE was formed, and in many ways, the principles and behaviours of this deeper reality and framework coincidentally match up with the principles related in spiritual traditions, so much so, I would argue that what people called spiritual is really a part of our universe, and the deeper reality physics indicates is the spiritual realm.

    I think people are hung up on semantics, and so the argument seems wrong to them a priori without thinking it through.

    Now, I could go on and on because there are lot of things to learn and understand before you are probably even seeing what I am talking about, but my stance is this "spiritual realm" which can be and imo, is being tested for, but without really recognizing it as spiritual contains within it principles that match up well with the idea of Intelligent Design, but not with the idea of randomness and things not being the result of an intelligent cause. In fact, I would argue that things are always a design, but only sometimes "physical" in terms of being an observavble discrete form in "reality", and that is something many physicists such as Wheeler have claimed in stating that physical things exist in an "inherently undefined state" prior to observation.

    So if we see ID in physics, and integral to physics, then imo, it is reasonable to think ID can occur in biology.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 213 by Nuggin, posted 01-06-2006 10:50 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 243 by Admin, posted 01-13-2006 8:40 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020