Come on, Creationists!

[Audie]

Hmmm. That is good to hear. Would be better to see.

No rule sez a guy cant mull it over then choose wrong.
Wishful thinking is, after all, still thinking.

 

[Ella S.]

Not true. On the quantum level observation effects reality... defying All laws of physics...All that we see is happening for a reason, because Someone is observing and guiding it.

This is a common misconception. What we see in quantum physics is that our process of measuring particles interferes with the results. It's very easy to confuse this as nothing more than a slight re-wording of what you just said, but there is a difference.

Let's say that you have a fragile fossil and you went to measure how long it was using a caliper, but you tightened the caliper too tightly and shattered off the tips of the fossil, making it shorter. Your process of measuring the fossil's length has now changed what its length is, but not because you were an observer; it changed due to the way you interacted with the object for the sake of measurement.

That's all we're really seeing on a quantum level.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is a common misconception. What we see in quantum physics is that our process of measuring particles interferes with the results. It's very easy to confuse this as nothing more than a slight re-wording of what you just said, but there is a difference.

Let's say that you have a fragile fossil and you went to measure how long it was using a caliper, but you tightened the caliper too tightly and shattered off the tips of the fossil, making it shorter. Your process of measuring the fossil's length has now changed what its length is, but not because you were an observer; it changed due to the way you interacted with the object for the sake of measurement.

That's all we're really seeing on a quantum level.

Evidence?

 

[Ella S.]

Evidence?

How is your reading comprehension for linear algebra?

 

[ppp]

No rule sez a guy cant mull it over then choose wrong.
Wishful thinking is, after all, still thinking.

Well sure. But the mulling over an issue should mean that he has actually strung a series of cogent thoughts together. All I get from him is, Nuh uh.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How is your reading comprehension for linear algebra?

Probably not great, lol. But if that's the case, why was the information released saying otherwise?

 

[Audie]

Well sure. But the mulling over an issue should mean that he has actually strung a series of cogent thoughts together. All I get from him is, Nuh uh.

I was trying to be generous. Some
creationists thnk i am hostile to them.

 

[Ella S.]

Probably not great, lol. But if that's the case, why was the information released saying otherwise?

In extremely complex fields of science, it's unfortunately all too common for scientific articles made for the layman to be riddled with minor errors, poor analogies, and half-truths because they're often written by non-experts trying to simplify highly abstract ideas.

It can make it very frustrating to figure out what exactly a specific study actually says, especially without the prerequisite education in that field to understand it. That's a pain that I share with you.

Fortunately, in this specific case, I've had the opportunity to talk about quantum physics with actual quantum physicists working on a Theory of Everything. It was fairly informal, but this is one of the misconceptions that they taught me about. Without knowing them, I would have likely continued to have this misconception, myself.

Unfortunately, and I'm not ashamed to admit this, the proof they provided goes way, way over my head and I kind of just have to take their word on it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Despite the constant false refrain from creationists, there is nothing in the Big Bang Theory that either says or implies that the universe came from nothing.

Interested in what the bible demands of yuo? Read Matthew 5,6 and 7.
As Galileo points out, the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

 

[PruePhillip]

In extremely complex fields of science, it's unfortunately all too common for scientific articles made for the layman to be riddled with minor errors, poor analogies, and half-truths because they're often written by non-experts trying to simplify highly abstract ideas.

It can make it very frustrating to figure out what exactly a specific study actually says, especially without the prerequisite education in that field to understand it. That's a pain that I share with you.

Fortunately, in this specific case, I've had the opportunity to talk about quantum physics with actual quantum physicists working on a Theory of Everything. It was fairly informal, but this is one of the misconceptions that they taught me about. Without knowing them, I would have likely continued to have this misconception, myself.

Unfortunately, and I'm not ashamed to admit this, the proof they provided goes way, way over my head and I kind of just have to take their word on it.

Abraham in ca 1650 BC was an eye witness to the aftermath of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah.
Do you take his word for it ????

 

[ppp]

I was trying to be generous. Some
creationists thnk i am hostile to them.

I am hostile to the ones who depend on guile and deception. But there are a lot of creationists who while wrong, are at the least, straight shooters

 

[ppp]

Interested in what the bible demands of yuo?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do I have to explain the obvious? We are obsessed with the supernatural because we have an internal prompt telling us there's something beyond the physical

Which is explained by our (and most other animal's) tendency of superstition.

That should not be if we live in a universe created by chance. We should not even care about music and art and love.

Doesn't follow at all.
And even if it did, which it doesn't, the starting point would still be a strawman.

 

[PruePhillip]

No.

But when you see it in people its a lovely thing:
grace
respect
humility
compassion
brotherhood
self denial

qualities that are not so prevalent anymore....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you look at Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is based on a form of science determinism. Natural selection does not roll dice, when it makes selections, according to Darwin. A concept like survival of the fittest, as a basis for selection tells us an anticipated cause and affect this is not random.

The random approach to life, by modern biology; mutations, is not consistent with Darwin and is what makes the expanded theory wrong

You are confusing 2 different aspects.
Mutation is random with respect to fitness. This is correct.
Selection is not random, as you said. That is also correct.

One doesn't exclude the other.
The basic principle is reproduction with variation (= through mutation) which is then followed by selection.

Darwin never assumed the random approach that was added to his theory.

I don't know about that, but in any case there were a lot of things that Darwin didn't know about. So what?
Newton didn't know about relativity either.

If you know anything about the history of science, alchemy came before the age of reason. The Alchemists used a type of whim of the gods approach similar to modern biology. They would mix thing together to see what happened, not expecting things to be rational. They thought, they could turn lead into gold since they lacks the logic of modern science and would bet on wishful odds like winning a lottery.

This has absolutely nothing to do with biology or the theory of evolution.

The rise of the age of enlightenment and the age of reason slowly phased out this whims of the gods approach. By the time of Darwin in the middle 1800's, reason was the way of science. Darwin believed in a deterministic view of selection, based on laws of science that would be discovered in the future. He never envisioned a version of modern alchemy, regressing his theory back to whim of the gods.

Correct. And that's not what happened either.
Evolution theory explains a very solid, well-evidenced, well-understoond process of biology.

If the natural selective at the nanoscale was random,

Here you go. Black on white evidence that you confuse mutation and selection as being the same thing.
They aren't.

Mutation is random (with respect to fitness).
Selection is not.

why did it select enzymes that can proof read and correct mistakes on the DNA and thereby minimize random?

Because it helps survival as that reduces damage done to DNA.

The modern problem appears to stem from 20th century Atheism

Most evolutionary biologists are theists. So that makes no sense.

Darwin also chose a type of determinism, but he used the term natural selection; Mother Nature, as way to differentiate this from divine selection of religious creationism. That was enough for the atheists. However, they did not consider the bigger picture implied by determinism, in general. Science is teaching bad science, with proofreader enzymes nature's way of putting modern alchemy science on notice.

No. You might want to study up a bit.
You can start by learning the difference between inheritable mutation on the one hand and the selection process on the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But when you see it in people its a lovely thing:
grace
respect
humility
compassion
brotherhood
self denial

qualities that are not so prevalent anymore....

And in practice, it frequently then manifests as:
- superiority complex
- homophobia
- intolerance
- anti-science propaganda
- ...

All the while they will be saying that those manifestations are things from your list instead.

 

[meshellean]

DEvinedtruth&justice with peace&love was created by the creator&guardean of r souls in order 2 protect us so as 2 enjoy the variety of opstions opened 2 us in the parallel earth

 

[ppp]

But when you see it in people its a lovely thing:
grace
respect
humility
compassion
brotherhood
self denial

qualities that are not so prevalent anymore....

To say that the Bible demands those things is to cherry pick the Bible. To say that those are prevalent in Christian history is to turn a blind eye to the history of Christianity.

 

[Audie]

Interested in what the bible demands of yuo? Read Matthew 5,6 and 7.
As Galileo points out, the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

So much false info causes a loss of trust in
anything it says

 

[Audie]

I am hostile to the ones who depend on guile and deception. But there are a lot of creationists who while wrong, are at the least, straight shooters

Similarly likewise.

But mostly it is impatience with ignorance
and unreasonable arguments, not hostility as such.