"Intelligent Design" is a conspiracy.

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

You're not seeing the beauty of the stars and the like. Explain the Southern and Northern Cross constellations. Are they making that shape by chance? If even one of the four constants in the universe were changed by one little bit we wouldn't be here right now debating the existence of an intelligence beyond our comprehension.

Proving life exists for a "reason" by stating that life exists for a reason is less that convincing. As for the stars, you can find patterns wherever you wish to look, if you're determined enough. And for "beauty", they're pretty, sure, but how does that imply they've been created just for us to view? What an EGO that would take.

Originally posted by R13sg0
No, and btw Einstein is wrong with E=mc² But I'll leave that for another topic.

That's quite a bold statement coming from some random internet user.

What i was referring to is a thing called the uncertaincy principle in Quantum mechanics and it's observer effect. In short (very short) it basically comes down to this: A particle is only there when and where u measure it, otherwise it exists as a waveform.

How is this related to your statement: "All matter is energy."?

No no no, biophoton emission, like the words implies, is DNA EMITTING light. Photons to be exact. The fact that i can say that it also receives information i can point to an experiment (i have it laying around somewhere, i don't recall the name of the researcher) Where light (laser) was passed through a fertilised frog egg to a fertilized lizard egg. The lizardegg developed as a frog and became a frog. (i might have it switched, but this is the basic idea)

And what's your point? This stuff is used in for example XRF and AES-devices in pretty much all analytical laboratories of the world. There's nothing weird going on here. It has to do with electrons moving on orbits and subsequent release of quantas. As for this experiment: BS

[edit on 5-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Rhino, he's referring to the babblethon known as "What the Bleep do we know", a sort of a Keystone Kops take on physics. It should have been named, "Everything we know is Woo!"

With all the irrefutable proof at hand, there is no way that any body can come to any other conclusion. There is neanderthal man, Lucy the upright walking human foot ape, Nebraska man the artist manikin and his wife. Also human foot prints with dinosaurs tracks (ignored by scientist on site on camera) Neanderthal man a crippled old man with arthritis. Lucy finely render from bones miles apart 1/3 skull,1or2 foot bones, knees of a tree climber. Nebraska man human foot, face, and upright walker from pigs tooth. Yet you religion still preaches the this as truth. Reason its to much trouble to take down a perfectly good display.
Yes Science Lies and fudges the facts for fear that they will be declared heretics in there field.
loosing any grants and monies. If a scientist says he's Christian he will be persecuted.
There is no proof of evolution as of yet, but they treat and teach it as fact. they also teach and treat the bible as a fairy tail (with out proof). I can see how it could be looked at as a conspiracy of sorts.There is more proof of the bible in maps, giants (they found bones). other cultural that say the same things.
Darwin bless

Of coures

Originally posted by abfinch
With all the irrefutable proof at hand, there is no way that any body can come to any other conclusion. There is neanderthal man, Lucy the upright walking human foot ape, Nebraska man the artist manikin and his wife. Also human foot prints with dinosaurs tracks (ignored by scientist on site on camera) Neanderthal man a crippled old man with arthritis. Lucy finely render from bones miles apart 1/3 skull,1or2 foot bones, knees of a tree climber. Nebraska man human foot, face, and upright walker from pigs tooth. Yet you religion still preaches the this as truth. Reason its to much trouble to take down a perfectly good display.
Yes Science Lies and fudges the facts for fear that they will be declared heretics in there field.
loosing any grants and monies. If a scientist says he's Christian he will be persecuted.
There is no proof of evolution as of yet, but they treat and teach it as fact. they also teach and treat the bible as a fairy tail (with out proof). I can see how it could be looked at as a conspiracy of sorts.There is more proof of the bible in maps, giants (they found bones). other cultural that say the same things.
Darwin bless

Of coures

Nice recap of the party line. However, if you read through this thread you'll see that most of your propaganda has been debunked repeatedly. And it ALL has been debunked elsewhere. (At least the parts that don't involve the great sky fairy. No need for further debunking of that.)

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by R13sg0
No, and btw Einstein is wrong with E=mc² But I'll leave that for another topic.

That's quite a bold statement coming from some random internet user.

Wel this 'Random internet user' is not going deeper into that.

What i was referring to is a thing called the uncertaincy principle in Quantum mechanics and it's observer effect. In short (very short) it basically comes down to this: A particle is only there when and where u measure it, otherwise it exists as a waveform.

How is this related to your statement: "All matter is energy."?

Wave as in energy wave.

Here is delicious copy-pasta:

The still-dominant "Copenhagen interpretation" of Quantum Theory developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and others says two basic things:

1. Reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation), and
2. Quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible.
(SOURCE: David Bohm by Will Keepin)

This is another view of this problem:
Everett noted that for a composite system (for example that formed by a particle interacting with a measuring apparatus, or more generally by a subject (the "observer") observing an object (the "observed" system) the statement that a subsystem (i.e. the observer or the observed) has a well-defined state is meaningless -- in modern parlance the subsystem states have become entangled -- we can only specify the state of one subsystem relative to the state of the other subsystem, i.e. the state of the observer and the observed are correlated. This led Everett to derive from the unitary, deterministic dynamics alone (i.e. without assuming wavefunction collapse) the notion of a relativity of states of one subsystem relative to another.

And there are other theories out there, but i want to keep it simple to get a message across. Because it's pretty obvious i'm dealing with people that can;t wrap their head around this.

No no no, biophoton emission, like the words implies, is DNA EMITTING light. Photons to be exact. The fact that i can say that it also receives information i can point to an experiment (i have it laying around somewhere, i don't recall the name of the researcher) Where light (laser) was passed through a fertilised frog egg to a fertilized lizard egg. The lizardegg developed as a frog and became a frog. (i might have it switched, but this is the basic idea)

And what's your point? This stuff is used in for example XRF and AES-devices in pretty much all analytical laboratories of the world. There's nothing weird going on here. It has to do with electrons moving on orbits and subsequent release of quantas. As for this experiment: BS

So you don't find it somewhat peculiar that living organisms in a natural state are emitting light? That's great. Because with both devices you mentioned it don't use the natural state of a living organism.
Electrons don't move out of their orbit because they want to, you have to instruct them. But with biophoton emissions there is no input, only output.

As for that experiment i can't argue and i'm not going through all my paperwork for this discussion. I have to admit i'm not the tidiest man in the world. I provided another link.

I also see that i made a mistake. The word 'It's' should have been 'the' in this sentance: "...a thing called the uncertaincy principle in Quantum mechanics and it's observer effect."
Sorry i overlooked that. IM ONLY HUMAN MAN!

[edit on 6-5-2009 by R13sg0]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Rhino, he's referring to the babblethon known as "What the Bleep do we know", a sort of a Keystone Kops take on physics. It should have been named, "Everything we know is Woo!"

Yes, And Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Planck... Where just busy with WOO. You are a funny guy, but you don't know much about all this. This has been around since 1930 or so. It's not new. It's not like What The bleep do we know just grabbed something that a guy thought off and was forgotten about by science. There were/are so many great, brilliant minds that want(ed) to tackle the problem. Many did. And now they come as far as making it one big entangled superstate in which nothing is certain. I can go from there but i would stretch mind gymnastics beyond your limit. I already reached your limit. And as far as i'm concerned i've got the idea out there. And i'll write a book about Everett's interpretation in correlation to my(this) idea.
I;m not going to spend my time here being debunked by the equivalent of kindergarten teachers.

Originally posted by R13sg0

Originally posted by rhinoceros
How is this related to your statement: "All matter is energy."?

Wave as in energy wave.

Define energy wave.

And there are other theories out there, but i want to keep it simple to get a message across. Because it's pretty obvious i'm dealing with people that can;t wrap their head around this.

You still have not explained how this supports your "All matter is energy" statement. I've yet to seen a formula that states energy = matter.

So you don't find it somewhat peculiar that living organisms in a natural state are emitting light?

On what frequency? Are they emitting perhaps UV-light or visible light or what? What they're emitting is quanta (I personally wouldn't call it light). Nothing peculiar about it.

Electrons don't move out of their orbit because they want to, you have to instruct them. But with biophoton emissions there is no input, only output.

I'm starting to think you don't really know at all what you're talking about. But do go ahead, prove yourself (and me wrong) by posting a link to some article that confirms what you just said there. I could be wrong, I'm just an armchair physicist

[edit on 6-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Define energy wave.

A wave = energy. That is the defintion of a wave. It's transporting energy along a medium without transporting matter. And the definition of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics is that the state of all matter should be described as wavefunction. That is because Quantum particles behave as wave.
If you picture just one wave, one peak on an oscilloscope. You can tell where the wave is, but you can't measure wavelength. And now a set of waves, now you can see the wavelength, you just measure between two peaks. But you can't pick where one wave is, because you can't tell the difference between them.
Now, Matter is a peak in the energy field. And Just like an ocean you can't tell where that wave begins begins or stops. It has no boundaries. It's just there in an endless sea of energy.
So they use a wave function to predict the probability of the location of a particle. And lo and behold as soon as they measured in the most probable spot, it was there. Time and time again. So they came to the conclusion that the observer caused that to happen. It created the peak of a wave at that spot.
So all matter is energy and that's also the observer effect. Did that answer your questions?

I've yet to seen a formula that states energy = matter.

E = ℎ ℏ and p = ℎ / λ

Now you've seen one.

On what frequency? Are they emitting perhaps UV-light or visible light or what? What they're emitting is quanta (I personally wouldn't call it light). Nothing peculiar about it.
...
g to think you don't really know at all what you're talking about. But do go ahead, prove yourself (and me wrong) by posting a link to some article that confirms what you just said there. I could be wrong, I'm just an armchair physicist

Biophotons: "a permanent light emission from all biological systems in terms of single photons, indicating a biological quantum phenomenon. The intensity ranges from a few up to some hundred photons/(s cm²) within a spectral range from at least 300 to 800 nm. The spectral distribution is flat, following almost a f = const. - law which means that the excitation temperature increases proportional to the frequency under consideration. The photocount statistics follows a Poissonian distribution, the relaxation of delayed luminescence (photon intensity after illumination of the system in darkness) follows not an exponential (exp (-at)) but a hyperbolic (1/t) law. Every change in the biological or physiological state of the living system is reflected by a corresponding change of biophoton emission."

www.lifescientists.de...

Edit:
I just realized that we got very off-topic. I really suggest you study this by yourself. It's Amazingly interesting stuff. And don;t be afraid to watch 'What the bleep do we know'. It's like the most dramatized version of Quantum mechanics you've ever seen. It's cool on every level. But you know, google the names they mention and find stuff out for yourself.
And if you really want to know more about all the stuff i mentioned and in relation with each other i suggest a book, The Field by Lynne McTaggert. She will mention a lot what i also mentioned and it's easy to read.
Also be sceptical about your own thinking and watch like creationist videos from hard core bible believers... because if you leave out all the Jesus saves you stuff... they do have a few strong points. I found This one entertaining and also informative, but it's evangelical as hell (please don't convert )
Just where you feel your own points a bit shaky, do some research. Find stuff out. We have the internetz! w00t w00t.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by R13sg0]

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Leaving out all biases, opinions, and personal beliefs, I challenge someone to prove to me that evolution is any more a verifiable fact than intelligent design. Anyone?

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Leaving out all biases, opinions, and personal beliefs, I challenge someone to prove to me that evolution is any more a verifiable fact than intelligent design. Anyone?

Go to talkorgins.org, they've done it for years. The articles compiled there will be sufficient for the sapient reader.

Originally posted by R13sg0Yes, And Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Planck... Where just busy with WOO.

You're endorsement isn't exactly comforting. The interpretation of serious works in support of woo-ology is just plain strange.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Ok I did a quick scan of the site, while it seems to get deeper into it than most places, I'm not seeing anything new really. My take is that the big bang THEORY and the THEORY on evolution is just that; a theory. How can we justify their teaching then, when as a theory (i.e. drawing a conclusion based on overt facts, which may or may not be directly related) it isn't any more PROVEABLE than believing in intelligent design.

When you look at the world do you see chaos or order? Do you believe in fate or destiny? I think people's general outlook on life shapes what they're willing to believe in.

Personally I do not discount the possibility for creation to adapt in order to survive. But everything starting from a big random explosion raises more questions than it does answer anything. Everything can't be simply explained away using ONLY evolution or ONLY creationism. So realistically we shouldnt teach EITHER to kids!

reply to post by mostlyspoons


My take is that the big bang THEORY and the THEORY on evolution is just that; a theory.

Ah, the old "teach the controversy" line. Behe would be proud. So, you would be happy to have a creationist doctor operate on you, using the tenets of the BuyBull? Bronze Age medicine? Good for you, pop-corn moment for me.

As I've stated before, evolution is a fact. How it works is a theory. Your "creator" is a myth. How it works is a mystery. You can't trump science with faith anymore than you can come to a soft landing if you pray on the way down from the Empire State Building.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mostlyspoons

 

Ah, the old "teach the controversy" line. Behe would be proud. So, you would be happy to have a creationist doctor operate on you, using the tenets of the BuyBull? Bronze Age medicine? Good for you, pop-corn moment for me.

Yes I would, just as I'm sure you would be happy to have a eugenics program implemented. Population control! Let's do away with the weak, as only the strong deserve life!! (See, I too can arrogantly and unfairly lump you together with other people out of disrespect for your beliefs)

As I've stated before, evolution is a fact. How it works is a theory. Your "creator" is a myth. How it works is a mystery. You can't trump science with faith anymore than you can come to a soft landing if you pray on the way down from the Empire State Building.

Oh okay then I guess the debate is officially over everyone... Gawdzilla knows ALL!!

I look at the facts as well, and evolution can explain many aspects of life, but I believe it is flawed. Just as I believe man's interpretation of the Bible is very flawed. You seem to have me tagged as being unreasonable and base simply for believing in God. I don't blame you for not knowing better, however, as you not only don't know me, you also probably haven't met too many christians who are also capable of thinking for themselves.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by mostlyspoons]

reply to post by mostlyspoons


"I don't blame you for not knowing better, however, as you not only don't know me, you also probably haven't met too many christians who are also capable of thinking for themselves."

Sorry if you're upset. When I see the creationist party line being expounded I really get my fangs out. There's nothing worse than a Christian on a mission. Especially when the mission is to destroy the scientific knowledge that has brought us up out of the darkness.

All through school I was never taught a single thing about creationism. What I learned of religion was certainly outside of the school system. Yet I keep seeing people say that religion is being jammed down our childrens throats through the school system.

I believe there is more to life than coincidental chance. For reasons based on my own mind just telling me there is more.

I find it strange that everything on the planet has some purpose to the whole, for one example; symbiosis. Or other odd things like "pain" that tells us something is wrong. The world seems to work in unison or would without us almost like a machine.

Just a question though for whomever, why hasn't every living thing on the planet evolved to our level of intellect? Considering we all came from the same soup, but some of us stopped evolving after we became a tree or cockroach or a monkey or man. Since we are the only ones, I guess that makes us special?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


If I was upset, I wouldnt be laughing! I'm not the one lumping you together with my percieved "oppressors"

Now I'm on a mission too!? Wow!! You are completely astounding. LOL

Actually you're right. I am on a mission. My mission is to present my opinions as being opinions, while trying my best to respect other's opinions. You're the one telling me my opinions are wrong, and yours are right. I'm an open-minded person. If I choose to believe in God now, expect then that I reached that conclusion after years of being just like you, then slipping into the occult world, researching every religion, deliberating with myself and finally coming to this conclusion. I can't be so easily defined, labeled and catalogued and for you to do so and jump to conclusions about me like that so easily is kinda offensive. However, I do not blame you. I can't stand most christians, and when confronted with opposing opinions on subjects I am very passionate about, I tend to jump to emotionally-driven conclusions about people too, for which I am ashamed.

reply to post by mostlyspoons


Proselytizing is a mission, believe it or not. I don't say I'm "right", I say "show me you're right". The difference is too subtle for most people.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mostlyspoons

 

Proselytizing is a mission, believe it or not. I don't say I'm "right", I say "show me you're right". The difference is too subtle for most people.

Both thing imply the same thing, that you have all the truth. And let's be fair here, you haven't listened to anything that might contradict evolution. You just don't speak about it, Tell stuff like: Omg, that has been proven ages ago..., and, So you think im wrong well read this website and you prove that you are right.

mmh mmh.
Okay man Let's do this OLD SCHOOL.

I'm right and evolution is wrong! And i bring forward my proof:
Trees, petrified, standing upright trough 'millions of years' worth of sediment layers. (It's not a single event, it's a regular event).

The Earth is not as OLD as people claim it is, the estimated age of the Earth shifted from 70,000 to 4 billion years in 20 years. Both where calculations done by scientist. Time is added to make the evolution theory sound more plausible.

Darwin examined 14 different finches. And he theorized every living thing has a common ancestor. Then a guy showed embryonic resemblance, and Darwin said about that: It's the most important piece of proof for my theory. But the embryo drawings where falsified, Darwin was mislead.
But by then it was to late, the faith has spread over Europe.

Ever since, the search for proof was on. It was fossil hunting time! But one thing was missing, a geological time scale. So back in 18 something, there was no c14 dating or anything of that kind. A few 'scientist' decided to put all the fossil finds into layers, give the layer a name and assign a fossil to it. They pulled the ages right out their noses, from their ass and scientific rolling of the dice. It was complete bull#, but up to now they define the age of a fossil by the layer it is found in and the age of the layer by the fossils that are found in it.

Then suddenly they found living dinosaurs. The coelacanth for instance. It's a miracle it survived for millions of years! Why, how millions of years? Because it is found in rock that is millions of years old, and how do you know that rock is millions of years old? By the fossils they find in it. Never ever will they admit that maybe the timeline is completely wrong.

And then they found all kind of dating methods. Yeah! That's awesome, now we can find out how old the rocks really are! Let's put it to the test and date some newly formed magma from yesterday. It will date back millions of years. So we can;t use it on rocks. We Use it on fossils then, yeah! Let's test it on living tissue first.... well didn't work. Living tissue was dated as far back as 30,000 years old. Well it doesn't work on newly formed stuff, But let's assume that it works on fossils anyway.

Listen man, i've been growing up with this bull#. The embryonic evidence, the evolution of the horse, the pelvic of the whale, it was proven wrong long before i was born. And it is STILL even TODAY in the textbooks. The archaeopteryx was still in my textbooks in 1992. Seriously. Evolution has the Weird habit of not evolving itself. IT keeps regurgitating stuff that has debunked. And a biologist point to a geologist for the best proof and vice versa. Nobody finds proof in it's own field of research. Even after years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Nobody has seen evolution occur today it hasn't been observed. The best thing they can come up with is random mutations in flies. Without wings or with curled wings. But they dismiss it as proof against their theory instead they say: Well it happened over millions of years so one day we find a good mutation! Look at dogs there are hundred of types of dogs, one day a new species will evolve if we continue doing this for another million years. NO! Won't happen, seriously. Stop it.