Evolution is a Joke part XII

Since you are Logical, let me break my god down for you this way:

LOGICAL SYLLOGISM:

The Major Premise is based upon Jesus saying "I am the Truth,: clearly the personification of that ideal.


The minor premise is that Truth is the image of God, and…

The conclusion is that God must be the Reality which unfolds and gives birth to Truth.

 

But it does mark the beginning of Time.
Right?

 

And why are we supposed to accept those premises as true?

 

Presupposition is viciously circular and not valid. There is no proof that Jesus was anything other than a run-of-the-mill prophet...not too mention, the actual proof of Jesus is dubious, at best.

 

The foundation of Quantum O[Physics rest upon the Copenhagen Interpretation espoused by Neils Bohr.

The basic premise that everything material, "real," is described by information expressed as Wave Function.

Nothing actually material exists until the Wave Function is observed, which causes the Wave Function to collapse and the materialization to follow.
From this science it logically follows that at the moment of the Big Bang, some initial Observer had to collapse the waves which contained the information that materialized in the Big Bang.

 

Grasping at straws. Shocker.

 

How many times are you going to simply repeat this crackpot theory?

 

Then surely you will have no problem providing a verbatim quote and link to me having made that claim.

Science works by insisting people prove claims they never made?

Yes, actually I do.

I just did.

That makes one of us.

Nothing suffices for either in the minds of bigots.

Seeing you've already made it clear you consider bearing false witness an integral component of the scientific process, I think your pontifications along those lines may be safely written off.

 

****Not too difficult really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics

 

This was your comment in response to my comment to OhZone (i believe) regarding the FACT that Humans and Chimp share approx 98% DNA. I read your comment as making the argument that because you do not believe Chimp have a conscience that you don't acknowledge the "98%" stat.

If not, why would you make the comment?

Studies have shown that Chimps also demonstrate empathy, a human emotion. Why would a conscience be something they wouldn't have?....unless you believe only Humans can have a conscience.

and then prove man and chimp don't share 98% (+/-) DNA.
What the hell for?

 

The Wright brothers weren't even the first to fly. They were probably the first to fly a powered heavier-than-air machine in a controlled manner. However, I don't see how any of this has to do with publishing to a scientific journal especially since George Cayley had already published work on aviation in a scientific journal about 100 years prior.

Doppler was degreed and published his work. And I'm pretty certain you're flat out wrong about him being opposed since his hypothesis was confirmed about three years later in an experiment by Buys Ballot.

You're just pulling this from creationist websites. Seriously just laughable (*)(*)(*)(*) in here. The STM was preceded by the topografiner in 1972 which relied on basically the same ideas. And you don't win a Nobel Prize four years after the publishing of your paper if your ideas aren't pretty well established. And all of these men were accredited scientists who published their work.

Another accredited man who published his work. And the press ridiculed and misrepresented his ideas due to him talking about reaching space flight/targeting the moon; it had nothing to do with his actual theory.

Also accredited and published her work. Her theory was initially rejected by about 15 scientific journals, which just goes to show you how stringent scientific journals can be to even scientists.

Accredited, published his work. Do you see a pattern here? You posted a criticism of scientific journals that mostly critiqued them for not accepting papers from unaccredited people. I said that was a good thing to root out the random crackpot theorists. You then posted a list of people who all were accredited and published their work, but maybe at some point were opposed by their contemporaries. So, did you have a point?

Yeah, because that's what I said.

And by dogma you mean "defense of one of the most widely accepted and widely supported scientific theories out there." And how am I being devious by pointing out that you were ignorant of even the definition of evolution?

The record of what? How is this a response to my answer about evidence that would disprove evolution? I obviously know what evidence would disprove evolutionary theory, and you are still stuck on not knowing what you would accept as proof of evolutionary theory.

I'm not sure if you thought your question was a "gotcha!" kind of question, but it wasn't.

"It isn't that difficult, but I can't explain what I'm looking for, so here's a link to a page dealing with the history of math."

Um, okay. Can you seriously not answer what exactly you're looking for in regards to Babylonian mathematics?

 

Then obviously you didn't read very well, to say the least.

Because it presents a challenge I know you can't meet, which ought to give you pause to reflect.

What makes you think conscience is the least bit dependent on any emotion whatsoever?

Well it ain't like I have a choice, seeing that is clearly the case.

 

There's no challenge. Fact: humans and chimps share 98% DNA (+/-). The only challenge seems to be your inability to acknowledge facts you don't wish to accept.

So, because you assert only humans have a conscience, therefore, it must be true.

Thanks for playing.

 

I believe the sole surviving species in the Homo genus should always take evolution, seriously.

 

Which has no demonstrable connection to the presence or absence of conscience, a phenomenon you have no understanding of.

An inability which finds no manifestation other than in the realm of your imagination.

No, I assert its truth because I know it to be true - and of course so do you, which is why you can't oppose it except by way of misdirection.

And thanks for bearing witness to the abject intellectual and moral bankruptcy of your position.

 

And how is it that you know it's true?

 

Conscience is a byproduct of having a brain with certain traits, which is itself a result of having certain genes. So, yes, there's a demonstrable connection.

Especially since there are studies out there showing non-human primates have a sense of morality (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) that is similar to most universal aspects of human morality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html

So, while they don't have the sophisticated, subtle, and more overarching ethical views of humanity, that's not entirely surprising. After all, they use tools, too, but they haven't developed robots that drive on other planets and can perform analytical chemistry, either.

There are rhesus monkeys that would rather starve themselves than risk harming another member of their group.

"The researchers reported in 1964 in the American Journal of Psychiatry that rhesus monkeys refused to pull a chain that delivered food to themselves if doing so gave a shock to a companion. One monkey stopped pulling the chain for 12 days after witnessing another monkey receive a shock. Those primates were literally starving themselves to avoid shocking another animal." - http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_evolution_of_empathy

Yeah, tell me again how only humans have a conscience.

"These observations suggest that apart from emotional connectedness, apes have an appreciation of the other’s situation and show a degree of perspective-taking. One striking report in this regard concerns a bonobo female named Kuni, who found a wounded bird in her enclosure at Twycross Zoo, in England. Kuni picked up the bird, and when her keeper urged her to let it go, she climbed to the highest point of the highest tree, carefully unfolded the bird’s wings and spread them wide open, one wing in each hand, before throwing it as hard as she could toward the barrier of the enclosure. When the bird fell short, Kuni climbed down and guarded it until the end of the day, when it flew to safety. Obviously, what Kuni did would have been inappropriate toward a member of her own species. Having seen birds in flight many times, she seemed to have a notion of what would be good for a bird, thus giving us an anthropoid illustration of Smith’s “changing places in fancy.”" - Ibid.

Nope, no such thing as an ability to have concern or care for others in non-human animals. :v

 

And as I've previously mentioned, this entire argument is based entirely on a complete misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation and how it interacts with matter. It's bull(*)(*)(*)(*), stop using it.

Aside from the massive debunking of this load of crap that Grasping was so kind to do, there's an important point to raise. You know what the difference between these "crackpots" and you is? These guys put in the legwork and published their ideas in peer-reviewed journals, where they presented their evidence and convinced their peers of its accuracy. "They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo The Clown," as the saying goes. Meanwhile, the idea that evolution is false is neither new nor particularly backed by any of the evidence. The idea of a place like Atlantis is not new nor particularly backed by any of the evidence. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're not Galileo. You're not even Bozo The Clown - at least he was interesting.

 

I never claims the 2% DNA (+/-) difference between Human and Chimp account for anything other than the noticable differnences between Human and Chimp. You're the one who commented with regard to chimps not having a conscience. Something you know nothing about but claim to because you have asserted it. Again, where is you proof or data chimps do not have a conscience?

Oh, so you acknowledge Human and Chimps share 98% DNA (+/-), right?

...and your research, data.....is?...What's your field of expertise?

By all means, continue to parade your personal incredulity as a valid position. Still waiting for the Science.

 

They need this to be so, because after all, they were created in gawd's image....and we are special.

 

**** Maybe you would like to talk to some of the other Scientists from around the world that have not accepted Darwinism as fact. And not from “creationist” sites.
You seem oblivious to the idea than anyone would question it. Didn't you have any pro & con discussions in school? What happened to students that did ask questions?

RANKS OF SCIENTISTS DOUBTING DARWIN’S THEORY ON THE RISE
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
February 8, 2007
http://www.discovery.org/a/2732

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE
OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

The Scientific Controversy Over Whether
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

 

The Disco Institute!....BWAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Their Wedge Strategy.....yeaup!....ALL SCIENCE!

 

I'll see your list of nobodys, and raise a list of Project Steve's
http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

 

Why would you say this and then post a bunch of links from a creationist website? Or are you under the impression that the Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization?

 

I think he's under the impression they do "science"....when they are actually, just an apologetic propaganda factory with....what....6 peer-reviewed articles since 1998?

"We would point out how short this list is. In addition to what is here, we note what is missing. Where are the peer-reviewed articles explaining that the Cambrian Explosion contradicts evolution? Where is the detailed scientific treatment of the flagellum? Where are the articles on hominid fossils? Where are the articles showing that speciation is impossible? Where is the mathematical discussion of Dembski's design filter?"