Obvious_child
|
 |    | 
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 07:49 AM on October
18, 2008 :
You obviously do not understand
them or even the debate topic. What does the
subject line (Rethinking Creationism - Is It
Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific
Theory?) mean to you? | |
And
what do you not understand about your complete and utter
failure to back up your argument that has stated that the
fossil record supports the flood?
| My argument didn't descend down to quantum
improbability theory. The QIT axiom was present in
the opening post. | |
Read
your last post. You stated that you believe that the outcomes
we see today are because of an extremely remote and improbable
outcome that does violate physics but does so based on quantum
principles.
| If you disagree with the physics I quoted
from Wikipedia, you should become an editor and
overturn the prevailing consensus. | |
Too
bad it's not relevant and you're trying to change the subject.
You haven't addressed a single actual point I've made
as to why your argument is garbage. In fact you have
completely avoided two of my posts entirely that deal with the
actual fossil record.
The debate is if quantum creationism is
science. | |
Incorrect.
It was. You stated that the fossil record supported a flood. I
destroyed that argument. You have yet to provide any rebuttals
other then a belief of sheer impossible probability.
The meaning of quantum improbability
theory, the first axiom | |
Explain
how that shows how the fossil record supports a global flood.
Or admit you are wrong.
| By not seeing how easily I have demolished
your argument on hydrological sorting, you have
clearly demonstrated not understanding quantum
improbability theory at the high school level.
| |
Where.
Where have you even discussed hydrological sorting. The only
place you did you argued essentially that animals were
effectively sorted by an intelligent being. I mocked you on
that. You then dropped the subject. You have demolished
nothing but your own credibility.
You are a big, fat,
liar.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 03:55 AM on October 19, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| If a highly ordered reality can suddenly
materialize out of nothingness and then become
increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable
extinction and non-existence, then there is
scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a
similar quantum miracle at a later time produced
all life on earth. | |
Your
assumption is out of line on many levels. First and foremost,
we don't know if reality can materialize out of nothingness.
That it did so is one of many hypotheses regarding the origin
of the universe, and like the rest of these hypotheses, we
don't yet have any means to test (ie: confirm or disprove)
it.
Without a sufficient condition to stand upon, your
conditional statement falls apart before we even start
debating the consequent. For the sake of discussion, though,
we can lay aside the problem with your argument above and move
on to a fault beyond the conditional's invalidity: its lack of
soundness. Just because the material world can pop into
existence does not mean life, a highly structured variant of
that material world, can also pop into existence. When
the universe as we know it began, there was nothing but a lot
of very hot hydrogen. It took more than 10 billion years
before a small collection of matter had changed into the
elements we find here on Earth.
Essentially what you
have exercised is the tool of gross oversimplification. No
one, from you or I all the way on up to Stephen Hawking, has
any idea what quantum behavior is fully capable of, and
no one is qualified to say within any area of certainty
whether something as structurally complex as life could simply
"pop" into existence when we still don't know if even the most
basic of material substances can do that
either.
Finally, just because something could
have popped into existence is by no means evidence that ever
did. The improbabilities you're talking about are so
astronomically low as to be immeasurable. Quantum
improbabilities work at the atomic level; to hypothesize that
they could simply have all worked together at a macro level --
a level on par with molecules as large as those required for
life -- far exceeds anyone's working knowledge of
quantum behavior (and that includes yours).
Our
understanding of chemical behavior above quantum levels
has been acceptable evidence for the origin of life for more
than half a century. Not only is Obvious Child correct in
pointing out that your explanation is not needed here, but
when we couple that with your explanation's ridiculous
improbability when contrasted to non-quantum natural
explanations, you leave the audience wondering whether you
even actually believe the words coming out of your mouth.
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 12:33 PM on October 19, 2008 |
| |
wisp
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee:
Quote from Shubee:
Please
define science. | |
Quote from wisp:
Hum... The organized structured
effort towards a better understanding of the
natural phenomena. | |
Then
you will enjoy learning that "one of the big
mysteries of the universe" is that the universe
began in "an extraordinarily organized state."
| | Perhaps it did. Perhaps there are several initial
conditions that could end up originating the Universe as we
know it, and there's an essential uncertainty (akin to
Heisenberg's) about the beginning which can't be blamed on our
ignorance.
Entropy tends to grow, yes. You "could" say
that the Solar System is less organized now that there are
books written in one of it's planets, yes. You could say that
a big stone standing is more organized than it's eroded (or
carved) byproduct (even if it resembles the Venus de Milo),
yes.
There could be infinite universes, for all we
know. Yes. The initial condition of one of them could be like
last Thursday in our universe. But would that be worth
mentioning?
Of the infinite possibilities, why is
yours worth mentioning? Because it would suit your sacred
book?
| Consequently, the first axiom of quantum
creationism, the proposition that a highly ordered
reality can suddenly materialize out of
nothingness, is science. | | Your
particular model and it's implications would not help getting
a better understanding of the natural phenomena (my definition
of science). So, again, no. Not worth mentioning in the
context of science (just like speaking about the particular
possibility of the last Thursday started Universe).
| And I have the backing of mainstream
science on that. | | No
more than it's backing up the last Thursday started Universe.
| It's undeniably clear that Penrose affirms
that the universe began in a "highly organized"
and "highly ordered" state. | | I
wouldn't deny what Penrose said. I didn't even deny your idea.
I just said that your particular idea is not worth mentioning
in the context of science. But i didn't say it isn't nice!
I liked Asimov's The Last Question better
though. His best short story, and perhaps the best short story
ever (as he put it).
| If a highly ordered reality can suddenly
materialize out of nothingness and then become
increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable
extinction and non-existence, then there is
scientific precedent for the hypothesis that a
similar quantum miracle at a later time produced
all life on earth. | | You
know what i'll say, right?: Not worth mentioning.
Sorry! :S
|
| |
Posts: 98 |
Posted: 07:02 AM on October 20, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
| If a highly ordered reality can suddenly
materialize out of nothingness and then become
increasingly disordered and decay into
inevitable extinction and non-existence, then
there is scientific precedent for the hypothesis
that a similar quantum miracle at a later time
produced all life on earth. | |
Your
assumption is out of line on many levels. First
and foremost, we don't know if reality can
materialize out of nothingness. | |
No.
Your misrepresentation of my argument is out of line. The
debate, first and foremost, is whether or not the classic big
bang model of the universe is science. It's the most popular
view of the world's foremost cosmologists. Sir Roger Penrose
believes the standard view of cosmology is credible and
explains it in the YouTube video, Roger Penrose - Cyclic Universe
Model. And in a public lecture by another icon of
spacetime physics, Professor Stephen Hawking says, "The
universe can spontaneously create itself out of
nothing."
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
That it did so is
one of many hypotheses regarding the origin of the
universe, and like the rest of these hypotheses,
we don't yet have any means to test (ie: confirm
or disprove) it. | |
Anyone
can dream up a creation myth. You don't need to be certified
as a high priest of physics to do so.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Without a
sufficient condition to stand upon, your
conditional statement falls apart before we even
start debating the consequent. | |
What
is the "sufficient condition" for the big bang myth?
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
For the sake of
discussion, though, we can lay aside the problem
with your argument above and move on to a fault
beyond the conditional's invalidity: | |
Please
define what you mean by "conditional's invalidity".
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Just because the
material world can pop into existence does not
mean life, a highly structured variant of that
material world, can also pop into
existence. | |
True.
However, suppose that a highly structured material world can
pop into existence. Then the hypothesis that a highly
structured variant of that material world can also pop into
existence would have at least an infinitesimal amount of
support whereas the belief that highly ordered systems can
develop gradually would not. Like the big bang, the Cambrian
explosion is an evidence of highly ordered systems appearing
seemingly instantaneously, not gradually.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Essentially what
you have exercised is the tool of gross
oversimplification. No one, from you or I all the
way on up to Stephen Hawking, has any idea
what quantum behavior is fully capable of, and no
one is qualified to say within any area of
certainty whether something as structurally
complex as life could simply "pop" into existence
when we still don't know if even the most basic of
material substances can do that either. | |
Try
to understand my assertion. I'm saying that my creation myth
is just as scientific as the most popular creation myths ever
imagined by the high priests of science.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Finally, just
because something could have popped into
existence is by no means evidence that ever
did. | |
I
say again, I'm only arguing that quantum creationism is
science.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
The
improbabilities you're talking about are so
astronomically low as to be immeasurable. | |
I
don't mind anyone saying that the probability for creation
through quantum creationism is infinitesimal. How much more
probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at it this
way: Suppose the mathematical probability is 1/googolplex for
some inanimate material on an earth-like planet to assemble
itself into a great variety of living things in 3 days. Also
suppose that the probability for a slow, multiple billion year
life-creating process is 10^12 times greater. Would you really
count that as a great win for the theory of
evolution?
A googolplex is the number 10 raised to the
power googol, written out as the numeral 1 followed by 10^100
zeros.
A googol is 10^100 or equivalently, the numeral
1 followed by 100 zeros.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Quantum
improbabilities work at the atomic level; to
hypothesize that they could simply have all worked
together at a macro level -- a level on par with
molecules as large as those required for life --
far exceeds anyone's working knowledge of quantum
behavior (and that includes yours). | |
I
say again, look at the universe. The evidence that supports
the big bang is compelling.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Our understanding
of chemical behavior above quantum levels
has been acceptable evidence for the origin of
life for more than half a century. | |
Understanding
chemistry is not evidence for molecular evolution.
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:33 PM
on October 19, 2008 :
Your explanation
is not needed here, but when we couple that with
your explanation's ridiculous improbability when
contrasted to non-quantum natural explanations,
you leave the audience wondering whether you even
actually believe the words coming out of your
mouth. | |
Your
objection is obviously religious; there is no known
non-quantum mechanical process that explains either the origin
of life or the origin of the universe. Hawking wrote, “Many
people do not like the idea that time has a beginning,
probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (A Brief
History of Time, p. 46).
-------
Isn't
it amusing that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently
about the specific nature of physical reality and believe that
they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into
existence out of nothingness but are totally confused about
fundamental questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 22 |
Posted: 8:40 PM on October 20, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Shubee
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE
FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS THE FLOOD?
Provide it or retract
your statement.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 9:44 PM on October 20, 2008 |
| |
ImaAtheistNow
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 8:40 PM on October
20, 2008 :
I don't mind anyone saying that
the probability for creation through quantum
creationism is infinitesimal. How much more
probable could the theory of evolution be? Look at
it this way: Suppose the mathematical probability
is 1/googolplex for some inanimate material on an
earth-like planet to assemble itself into a great
variety of living things in 3 days. Also suppose
that the probability for a slow, multiple billion
year life-creating process is 10^12 times greater.
Would you really count that as a great win for the
theory of evolution?
| |
YES!
All
else being equal, who in their right mind would pick option B
when option A is a trillion times more
probable????
PS: And your estimate for
the probability of OOL and evolution is ridiculously
low.
|
| |
Posts: 43 |
Posted: 10:07 PM on October 20, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from orion at 12:45 PM on October
21, 2008 :
I think you're forgetting
something - quantum processes work at the
sub-atomic level, not at the macro level.
You're trying to project quantum mechanical
behavior of sub-atomic particles at the macro
level. | |
You
then obviously don't believe in the representation of quantum
improbability at the macro level by the prominent physicist
George Gamow. If you don't trust the positive reviews the
Mr. Tompkins in Paperback book has received, then read
the book yourself and see if you can overturn the accepted
scientific consensus by getting your opinion published. While
you're at it, you should also become an editor at Wikipedia to
expunge the physics that I quoted from there on page 1.
Quote from orion at 12:45 PM on October
21, 2008 :
Once you reach the macro
level (with a mass of atoms and molecules) you
have other forces taking over, such as molecular
bonding, gravitational forces, electormagnetic
forces, nuclear forces, etc. Quantum
creationism becomes nonsense, and cannot
happen.
| |
Why
aren't you rewriting the Wikipedia physics articles at this
very moment, which support my argument that all the
fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible and ultimately
probabilistic? If mainstream physics is correct, then it's
easy to see that my argument is logically correct. Any child
mathematician can see that. It mathematically follows that
there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to
rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living
things in a single day.
-------
Isn't it amusing
that physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 22 |
Posted: 2:36 PM on October 21, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
So much
for Shubee supporting his claim that the fossil record
supports the flood.
Typical.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 9:04 PM on October 21, 2008 |
| |
Obvious_child
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 9:05 PM on October
21, 2008 :
Your protest is preposterous
because even the general public and many prominent
scientists are plenty smart enough to understand
that logical conclusions are inseparably connected
to evolutionary presuppositions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA.
| |
Care
to show where in the theory of evolution it discusses
abiogenesis?
Furthermore, the video you provided
logically concludes by your own argument that astronomy is
part of evolution.
Let's all laugh at your asinine
argument and beliefs.
|
| |
Posts: 125 |
Posted: 10:27 PM on October 21, 2008 |
| |
orion
|
|
|
|
Regular
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Gamov
was talking about the Big Bang theory. The forces
present in the universe today did not exist until after the
Big Bang, and after the universe cooled down enough to allow
the formation of sub-atomic particles and the various forces
of nature - electromagnetic, nuclear forces,
gravity.
I'm not a physicist, but I do know something
about chemistry, and what you propose is pure hogwash.
The geological, astronomical, biological evidence does
not support Quantum Creationism.
Quantum Creationism is
merely another attempt, like ID, to wrap Creationism into
something that sounds like science. But it's pure
baloney.
If you really want to convice me, point
me to a peer-reviewed article on the subject published in a
valid scientific journal, such as Science or
Nature.
|
| |
Posts: 151 |
Posted: 10:38 PM on October 21, 2008 |
| |
orion
|
| |
|
Regular
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Shubee
- Why aren't you rewriting the Wikipedia physics articles
at this very moment, which support my argument that all the
fundamental laws of physics are time-reversible and ultimately
probabilistic? If mainstream physics is correct, then it's
easy to see that my argument is logically correct. Any child
mathematician can see that. It mathematically follows that
there is a fantastically small probability for random atoms to
rapidly assemble themselves into a great variety of living
things in a single day.
Here's what Wikipedia
has to say about Quantum Mechanics:
Quantum mechanics
is the study of mechanical systems whose dimensions are close
to the atomic scale, such as molecules, atoms, electrons,
protons and other subatomic particles. Quantum mechanics is a
fundamental branch of physics with wide applications. Quantum
theory generalizes classical mechanics to provide accurate
descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as
black body radiation and stable electron orbits. The effects
of quantum mechanics become evident at the atomic and
subatomic level, and they are typically not observable on
macroscopic scales. Superfluidity is one of the known
exceptions to this rule.
Note this sentence:
The
effects of quantum mechanics become evident at the atomic and
subatomic level, and they are typically not observable on
macroscopic scales.
That seems to agree with what
I was saying above, wouldn't you agree?
Quantum
Creationism is nonsense. You're trying to twist Quantum
Mechanics and mumbo-jumbo about quantum probabilities into
something that is totally unfounded.
|
| |
Posts: 151 |
Posted: 08:28 AM on October 22, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from Shubee at 2:36 PM on October
21, 2008 :
You then obviously don't
believe in the representation of quantum
improbability at the macro level by the prominent
physicist George Gamow. If you don't trust the
positive reviews the Mr. Tompkins in
Paperback book has received, then read the
book yourself and see if you can overturn the
accepted scientific consensus by getting your
opinion published. | |
Quote from orion at 10:38 PM on October
21, 2008 :
Gamov was talking about the
Big Bang theory. | |
It
appears that orion has been so perfectly programmed to not
believe in anything miraculous that his brain has
short-circuited and is now under the delusion that Gamov's
illustrated story of quantum improbability at the macro level
is really a reference to the big bang. That's amazing!
When the
clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the
same chair she was sitting in before she went into
the dining room.
'Holy entropy!' her father
shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins'
highball. 'It's boiling!'
The liquid in the
glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles,
and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward
the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however,
that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively
small area around the ice cube. The rest of the
drink was still quite cold.
‘Think of it!'
went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice.
‘Here I was telling you about statistical
fluctuations in the law of entropy when we
actually see one! By some incredible chance,
possibly for the first time since the earth began,
the faster molecules have all grouped themselves
accidentally on one part of the surface of the
water and the water has begun to boil by
itself!
In the billions of years to come,
we will still, probably, be the only people who
ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary
phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now
slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he
breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing.
She did not care to argue with father, but this
time she felt sure she knew better than he. | |
Another
proof that orion's mind is possibly under a hypnotic spell or
specious programming, if not a dark, unknown, evil influence,
is his delusion that the quote he selected from Wikipedia is
somehow an argument against fantastic quantum improbabilities.
Children, let this be a warning to you. If an atheist tells
you that quantum miracles can't happen, run for your life.
Remember to always guard your mind at all cost. Otherwise, you
may be victimized as fiercely as my critics and detractors
have and, like them, finally arrive at the sad point of not
even being able to think rationally.
-------
Isn't it amusing that physicists are
able to pontificate eloquently about the specific nature of
physical reality and believe that they are about to figure out
how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness
but are totally confused about fundamental questions in
quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 22 |
Posted: 10:41 AM on October 22, 2008 |
| |
EntwickelnCollin
|
| |
|
Junkie
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
| Another proof that orion's mind is possibly
under a hypnotic spell or specious programming, if
not a dark, unknown, evil influence, is his
delusion that the quote he selected from Wikipedia
is somehow an argument against fantastic quantum
improbabilities. Children, let this be a warning
to you. If an atheist tells you that quantum
miracles can't happen, run for your life. Remember
to always guard your mind at all cost. Otherwise,
you may be victimized as fiercely as my critics
and detractors have and, like them, finally arrive
at the sad point of not even being able to think
rationally. | |
Don't
worry -- we stopped taking you seriously long before this
post.
-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're
official! |
| |
Posts: 676 |
Posted: 12:41 PM on October 22, 2008 |
| |
wisp
|
| |
|
Member
Post
Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from wisp:
Your particular model and it's
implications would not help getting a better
understanding of the natural phenomena (my
definition of science). | | wisp,
your definition of science is unworkably vague and
seemingly confused. No mature science can be based
on imprecision. You need to define natural
phenomena clearly and unambiguously. | | No i don't. Here's why: Your particular model and
it's implications would not help getting a better
understanding of ANYTHING.
Quote from wisp:
Shubee will agree with me that he's
not talking about something typical, but merely
possible.
But i
maintain my point about his "possibility": ...
if that was science, perhaps it would be the
most dishonest science ever. | | Quantum
creationism is a transparent, | | So far so good...
Not at all.
A
theory? Does it provide any intelectual advantage? Does it
make any predictions? Is it testable in any way?
| based on a clearly understood mechanism for
the origin of life on earth. | | What
mechanism would that be??? You don't mean "quantum
creationism", because you'd be saying that quantum creationism
is based upon itself... So what do you mean?
| Fundamental laws of physics support
it. | | Again,
no more than the theory of last thursday creation.
| Darwinism is a dishonest
non-science. | | "Darwinism"
doesn't exist.
Quote from wisp:
And i repeat my reason: it would NOT
give us any intellectual advantage. It wouldn't
help our understanding of the natural phenomena
nor allow us to make any predictions about
anything we can observe. And THAT's what science
deals with. | | What
quantifiable predictions ever followed from the
hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a common
ancestor? | | That's "just" a hypothesis. I personally don't
believe it.
| How many of those quantifiable predictions
were subsequently verified? | | None
(at least none that belongs just to this particular
hypothesis). It's a nice hypothesis, but i don't buy it.
| And what percentage of those subsequently
verified predictions confirms the idea that
descent with modification has added to the genetic
complexity of life? | | Huh?
Look, i'll quote from wiki:
| It is possible that all of
LUA's contemporaries became extinct and only LUA's
genetic heritage lived to this day. Or, as
proposed by Carl Woese, perhaps no individual
organism can be considered a LUA, but the genetic
heritage of all modern organisms derived through
horizontal gene transfer among an ancient
community of organisms. | | This is what i personally believe.
As for
"descent with modification", there's evidence everywhere.
Happens all around us. You can test it within very few
generations.
Again, your story is not science.
Science-fiction, maybe.
|
| |
Posts: 98 |
Posted: 6:55 PM on October 24, 2008 |
| |
Shubee
|
| |
|
Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
|
Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October
24, 2008 :
Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on
October 23, 2008 :
Quote from wisp at 07:02 AM on October
20, 2008 :
Your particular model and
it's implications would not help getting a
better understanding of the natural phenomena
(my definition of science). | |
wisp,
your definition of science is unworkably vague
and seemingly confused. No mature science can be
based on imprecision. You need to define
natural phenomena clearly and
unambiguously. | |
No
i don't. Here's why: | |
The
reason why you decline to define science yet claim the
prerogative to accuse me that my axiom set together with David Hilbert's philosophy of
physics isn't science is to hide the provable incompetence
and hypocritical inconsistency of Darwinists. I love David
Berlinski's insightful thoughts on this frequently observed
phenomenon. He wrote, "[Darwinists] are often languid in
argument, and they attend to the deficiencies of one another's
work with the studied elegance of men who keep silk
handkerchiefs in their sleeve" (The Devil's Delusion, p. 107).
Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October
24, 2008 :
Your particular model and
it's implications would not help getting a better
understanding of ANYTHING. | |
I
can easily prove your incompetence and hypocrisy if you would
answer questions. That would be a better understanding than
you possess. As it is, you choose to entrench yourself behind
willful ignorance and remarkable self-deception.
Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October
24, 2008 :
That's
"just" a hypothesis. I personally don't believe
it. | |
The
contradiction of believing in Darwinism while repudiating Evolution 101 is not an answer.
I'm challenging Darwinism, not wispism.
Quote from wisp at 6:55 PM on October
24, 2008 :
Quote from Shubee at 11:01 PM on
October 23, 2008 :
What percentage of
those subsequently verified predictions confirms
the idea that descent with modification has
added to the genetic complexity of life? | |
Huh?
... there's evidence everywhere. | |
Your
profound inability to understand a simple question is evidence
for devolution. Thanks for confirming my second postulate.
-------
Isn't it amusing that
physicists are able to pontificate eloquently about the
specific nature of physical reality and believe that they are
about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence
out of nothingness but are totally confused about fundamental
questions in quantum mechanics? |
| |
Posts: 22 |
Posted: 12:59 AM on October 25, 2008 |
| |
| Multiple pages for this
topic [ 1
2 ] |
| |
