Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, Ed, I note that you are now answering posts made AFTER I nominated Homo Habilis as a human/ape transitional form and challenged you to explain why it is not. And Oolon provided you with a photograph of a Habilis skull.

You have failed to respond.

Why?

Duvenoy

Yes, Rattlesnake Kind, and boy howdy, that covers a lot of territory.

What we have here is Evolution, Ed. Two animals of the same genus that have fit themselves into their ecological niches so well that one could not hope to survive in the other's.

The big diamondback is a creature of the scrublands, ranging from Flordia to the Carolinas, and out as far as Lousiiana. It's prey can be as large as adult, cottontail rabbits. The lep, as they're called in hot snake circles, inhabits crevices in rock formations, in New Mexico and texas, in pocket populations as tiny as it is. It is commonly a lizard-eater with a healthy side order of larger arthropods, such as scorpions, centipedes, and trantulas. One of the world's very few, front-fanged, venomous serpents to do this as an adult.

From my reading, the common ancestor of these species has not been identified, snake fossils being what they are, but rest assured: there was one.

Evolution in action, Ed! Ain't it great?

doov

Oolon Colluphid

Let's see it, then...

Oolon

Ed

So my refutation of your contention that a uncaused QE popped the universe into existence stands. But actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that causality cannot occur outside time. Time is just the relative position of objects, there is no reason why that precludes causality.

Quote:

Ed: How do you know it is the same particle? lob: I'm glad you asked. First allow me to detail the experimental setup. You have a barrier with two narrow parallel slits (of width a and separated by a short distance d) cut into it at which you fire massive particles (in the experiment I heard about I believe the researchers used rubidium atoms). A given distance D beyond this barrier is a screen upon which particles are collected. Each particle that makes it past the slits impacts this screen and the location of each impact is recorded (this can be done in any number of ways). Now, the expected classical distribution one would expect to see on the screen is a set of overlapping Gaussians. After all, if you cover up one of the slits, you simply get a Gaussian distribution. So, researchers fired particles one at a time (and this is important) at the slitted barrier and guess what pattern emerged on the screen over time: a standard interference pattern characterized by alternating maxima and minima of intensity. Since only one particle was in the air at any given time, exactly what was it interfering with on route to the target screen? The only solution is that it was interfering with itself...it has a probability amplitude to pass through both slits and the particle's wavefunction was thusly interfering with itself just like photons interfere with eachother constructively and destructively in this same experiment. But here's the wackiest part: researchers performed the exact same experiment again only this time they set up detectors by each of the slits so they could tell which slit a given particle passed through on route to the target screen. Any guesses as to what they distribution pattern formed on the screen? Yup, the classically-expected overlapping Gaussians. Here the detectors at the slits had acted to collapse the particle's wavefunction, thereby preserving the classical nature of the particles. So, in short, as long as you don't look, the particle goes through both slits...one object simultaneously in two places. Not intuitive, but also not unphysical.

There are a number of possible explanations rather than yours. There could have been something interfering with the particle that we are presently unable to detect. Or the rubidium atom may have lost some subatomic particles that entered the other slit at the same time as the remaining atom. And there are other possible explanations.

Quote:

Ed: Our knowledge of reality at the quantum level may be probabilistic and not deterministic, but that does not mean that no causes operate at that level. It means only that we have no ability to predict them with certainty. lob: No, Ed, it's more fundamental than that. It means that the information does not exist. As I said before, Aspect's experiments in the 80's showed that Einstein's local realism principle was false and confirmed the idea that non-commuting observables cannot simutaneously exist with perfect precision. For example, exact angular momentum (meaning both magnitude and direction) does not exist. What you now need to explain to me is how causal factors operate on information that does not exist. Remember, I didn't say that no causes operate at that level, I said that causes operate differently and in no way bar what are considered to be "spontaneous" processes.

How do they know they dont exist? It could be just that we cannot detect them. Well if now you admit that causes DO operate at that level then why did you claim that the law of causality is not valid at the subatomic level earlier?

Quote:

Ed: Empirical experience. Throughout all of human experience only persons can produce the personal. lob: There is nothing empirical about that, Ed, and you know it.

Huh? You and I have been producing personal communication in this thread. How is that not empirical evidence of something personal?

Quote:

Ed: No, persons are much more complex than rocks or cows therefore a cause with the characteristics of a cow or rock would be inadequate to produce this universe which contains persons. lob: I fully agree with that last clause. For the same reason, however, you must then conclude that a cause with the characteristics of a person would be inadequate to produce a universe that contains cows and rocks. I'm sorry, but I've never seen a person create a cow or anything resembling cow "essence." So what we're left with is somewhat of a logical conundrum, isn't it? The existence of people means the universe could not have been created by a cow, while the existence of cows means the universe could not have been created by the "personal." Looks like you've just disproved God...good job, Ed.

No, you have just never seen a human person create a cow. There is no reason that a more intelligent personal being could not create a cow. Especially given the recent advances in AI, which are getting human persons closer to creating personal beings which are much more complex than a cow.

Quote:

Ed: Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything. lob: Wow, you sound like a little child who retorts "am not...you are!" without even thinking about what he's saying. Something is not "unfalsifiable" simply because it hasn't yet been falsified, and, frankly, you'd have to be an idiot to not see the billion ways that evolution could be falsified. It actually proposes the mechanisms by which genomes can change, so it's pretty obvious that one can conceive of patterns of life that would be inconsistent with such mechanisms. Think about it this way, Ed...the historical evolution of life on Earth is a highly complex process about which almost none of the variables are known to science. As such, all scientists can say about a proposed course of life's development is whether it happens to be consistent with the theory of evolution. Let's look at an analogy. Say I take a die and roll it onto a highly-complex bumpy surface. If physicists cannot determine ahead of time what number I will roll, does this invalidate physics? Does this mean that physics can't predict anything and is unfalsifiable? Get real. All this means is that complex real-world applications of theories aren't simple enough to allow us to make cut-and-dry predictions. In practice, outside a lab, you generally can only say that a given outcome is consistent with current theories. The physicists could watch the roll to determine whether it broke any laws of physics. If, for example, the die stopped in midair for a little while before taking off in a new direction, my roll would have falsified the current laws of physics. Similarly, experimental findings can falsify evolution, which would force the theory to be either scrapped (not likely given the wealth of evidence that already supports it) or revised (far more likely). Another example: does the fact that the morning weatherman is incapable of telling you whether it will rain next week imply that meteorology and its underlying principles are not science? Are they unfalsifiable? Your biggest misunderstanding, Ed, is that you don't seem to grasp the difference between the theory of evolution and our attempt to apply it to one specific complex scenario (using the fossil record as a guide).

I am not referring to the mechanisms, the academic elite do seem to allow them to be falsifiable. But the overarching theory itself is not. Just recently it was discovered that mice have functional pseudogenes. Most evolutionists up until this have claimed that all pseudogenes are nonfunctional. But now that it has been found that some are functional they are saying "well evolution predicted that some would be." But just a few months ago they were saying that evolution predicted that all pseudogenes are non-functional.

Quote:

lob: Also, I have a question for you, Ed: If organisms were created, why is it even remotely possible to taxonomically classify them? Is it just a remarkable coincidence? Why aren't all species "mosaic"?

Actually it is just the opposite. If organisms are just the product of random variations of the environment in which they live then you would be unable to classify them. The reason we CAN classifiy them is because they are created by a single triune designer that used certain basic blueprints and orderly patterns.

Lobstrosity

You can't have it both ways, Ed. You can't claim that spontaneous quantum events need time while caused events don't. Time has nothing to do with relative positions of objects and a lack of time clearly precludes causality. If you'd actually think about it you'd see it was obvious. Causality is by definition intimately interwined with the notion of time, thus my proof is the mere fact that in an absense of time causality becomes undefined. Please define for me a time-independent notion of causality.

No, Ed, there aren't. Stop grasping at straws so as to avoid conclusions you don't like. Let's take a look at your "solutions":

- There was something interfering with the particles we couldn't detect.

Then the interference pattern would have been unaffected by the presence of detectors at the slits. It also would have been unaffected by the number of slits.

- Or the rubidium atom may have lost some subatomic particles that entered the other slit at the same time as the remaining atom.

The atoms lost no subatomic particles in transit. Rubidium atoms are stable and such losses are easily detectable. These solutions are mighty pathetic.

The mathematical distribution of the interference pattern matches the predictions of quantum mechanics. I urge you to look into the concept of Feynman path integrals...quite fascinating stuff. I know you'll never grasp it because you seem inherently closed-minded to anything you don't see as "intuitive," but maybe something will finally click with you. You're really missing out on a lot of interesting things, Ed.

I told you, Aspect's experiments in the 80s show this. Check out:

A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982).

It's not that we can't detect them, it's that we can detect that they're not there. It's something you have to deal with--this universe isn't going to be intuitive to you.

"Personal" is an undefined concept, Ed. This is nothing more than evidence that we're communicating.

Praise Jesus, he sees the light! Bingo, Ed, you have just never seen something non-personal create the personal. There is also no reason why a more intelligent, non-personal (whatever the fuck that means) being couldn't have created a human. Maybe now you understand why this isn't evidence for anything.


As far as I know, evolution made no predictions that pseudogenes did nothing. Evolutionists claimed this simply because this was an observation of the translation of our genetic material. If anything, it seems that evolution predicts that they'd have some sort of function and that function was only recently discovered. I think your understanding of what evolution actually predicts is a bit lacking.

Please Ed, don't be defensive and don't broadly demonstrate your lack of understanding of what evolution implies. Just answer the question: why can we taxonomically classify organisms? Why isn't every species a "mosaic" species? Your current answer doesn't cut it given an omnipotent God. There's no such thing as a "basic blueprint" as the diversity of life on earth attests. An omnipotent God isn't restricted to tweaking existing designs, he can make whatever he wants with equal ease. Creationism is at odds with taxonomy. Evolution is not at odds with taxonomy because you seem to forget that all life in an evolution scheme builds off of current life. This leads to "relationships" and shared traits. Despite what you may think, evolution does not advocate that life randomly pops out of the ground fully-formed.

Jack the Bodiless

[Eddian Logic Mode]
No, that will never happen, because of the Law of Sufficient Cause. Only cows can produce the cowish. This has been empirically verified throughout human (and bovine) history, and is therefore an immutable natural law.

Therefore Christianity is impossible, because God (a non-cow) is not a sufficient cause to produce the cowish.
[/Eddian Logic Mode]

Ed, this morning my pet cat produced the personal. Therefore your assertion that "only persons can produce the personal" is false.

You have never provided an adequate definition of "personal", so how can you possibly argue that my cat could not have produced it?

Ed

I am afraid I can. It has been scientifically proven that QE requires time while it has not been proven that the law of causality is not valid outside time. Since noone has ever experienced outside time. But it is rational to assume that the law is valid outside time until proven otherwise since it appears to be universally valid within time. The burden of proof is on those who claim that you throw out the LoC outside time.

Quote:

lob: Time has nothing to do with relative positions of objects and a lack of time clearly precludes causality. If you'd actually think about it you'd see it was obvious. Causality is by definition intimately interwined with the notion of time, thus my proof is the mere fact that in an absense of time causality becomes undefined. Please define for me a time-independent notion of causality.

Evidence time has nothing to do with the relative positions and motions of objects? Explain to me how YOU measure time in this universe. A time independent way of understanding causality is "that which it takes for a thing to exist".

Quote:

Ed: There are a number of possible explanations rather than yours. There could have been something interfering with the particle that we are presently unable to detect. Or the rubidium atom may have lost some subatomic particles that entered the other slit at the same time as the remaining atom. And there are other possible explanations. lob: No, Ed, there aren't. Stop grasping at straws so as to avoid conclusions you don't like. Let's take a look at your "solutions": - There was something interfering with the particles we couldn't detect. Then the interference pattern would have been unaffected by the presence of detectors at the slits. It also would have been unaffected by the number of slits.

How do you know? The interferer could be in some way affected by the presence of the detectors and the slits.

Quote:

Ed- Or the rubidium atom may have lost some subatomic particles that entered the other slit at the same time as the remaining atom. The atoms lost no subatomic particles in transit. Rubidium atoms are stable and such losses are easily detectable. These solutions are mighty pathetic.

I stand corrected on that one but the other one above still stands.

Quote:

lob: The mathematical distribution of the interference pattern matches the predictions of quantum mechanics. I urge you to look into the concept of Feynman path integrals...quite fascinating stuff. I know you'll never grasp it because you seem inherently closed-minded to anything you don't see as "intuitive," but maybe something will finally click with you. You're really missing out on a lot of interesting things, Ed.

As I stated earlier just because a theory makes accurate predictions does not necessarily mean that it is an accurate picture of reality, ie epicycles.

Quote:

Ed: How do they know they dont exist? It could be just that we cannot detect them. Well if now you admit that causes DO operate at that level then why did you claim that the law of causality is not valid at the subatomic level earlier? lob: I told you, Aspect's experiments in the 80s show this. Check out: A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982). It's not that we can't detect them, it's that we can detect that they're not there. It's something you have to deal with--this universe isn't going to be intuitive to you.

How can we detect something is not there when we may not even be using the correct detector? Our detector may be what is hiding them from us. I notice you did not answer my question.

Quote:

Ed: Huh? You and I have been producing personal communication in this thread. How is that not empirical evidence of something personal? lob: "Personal" is an undefined concept, Ed. This is nothing more than evidence that we're communicating.

The definition that I am using is anything intrinsically related to what a person is. A person is a being that has a will, conscience, emotions, intellect, communicates propositionally, and etc.

Quote:

Ed: No, you have just never seen a human person create a cow. There is no reason that a more intelligent personal being could not create a cow. Especially given the recent advances in AI, which are getting human persons closer to creating personal beings which are much more complex than a cow. lob: Praise Jesus, he sees the light! Bingo, Ed, you have just never seen something non-personal create the personal. There is also no reason why a more intelligent, non-personal (whatever the heck that means) being couldn't have created a human. Maybe now you understand why this isn't evidence for anything.

No, impersonal things do not have intelligence. It is not just me, NOONE has ever seen impersonal processes create the personal while millions have seen persons produce the personal.

Quote:

Ed: I am not referring to the mechanisms, the academic elite do seem to allow them to be falsifiable. But the overarching theory itself is not. Just recently it was discovered that mice have functional pseudogenes. Most evolutionists up until this have claimed that all pseudogenes are nonfunctional. But now that it has been found that some are functional they are saying "well evolution predicted that some would be." But just a few months ago they were saying that evolution predicted that all pseudogenes are non-functional. lob: As far as I know, evolution made no predictions that pseudogenes did nothing. Evolutionists claimed this simply because this was an observation of the translation of our genetic material. If anything, it seems that evolution predicts that they'd have some sort of function and that function was only recently discovered. I think your understanding of what evolution actually predicts is a bit lacking.

Fraid so, at least the evolutionists on this board. I have mentioned to atheists on this board how pseudogenes might have a function that we have not discovered yet and received the retort that "no we KNOW that pseudogenes do not have functions that is why they are called junk DNA!" But now my hunches from creation theory are being confirmed by these new studies. Of course, there could be something wrong with the people on this board that makes them obtuse on this subject.

Quote:

Ed: Actually it is just the opposite. If organisms are just the product of random variations of the environment in which they live then you would be unable to classify them. The reason we CAN classifiy them is because they are created by a single triune designer that used certain basic blueprints and orderly patterns. lob: Please Ed, don't be defensive and don't broadly demonstrate your lack of understanding of what evolution implies. Just answer the question: why can we taxonomically classify organisms? Why isn't every species a "mosaic" species? Your current answer doesn't cut it given an omnipotent God. There's no such thing as a "basic blueprint" as the diversity of life on earth attests. An omnipotent God isn't restricted to tweaking existing designs, he can make whatever he wants with equal ease. Creationism is at odds with taxonomy. Evolution is not at odds with taxonomy because you seem to forget that all life in an evolution scheme builds off of current life. This leads to "relationships" and shared traits. Despite what you may think, evolution does not advocate that life randomly pops out of the ground fully-formed..

No, God wants us to know that there is only one creator, if every species was a weird mosaic then it would appear as if there were multiple creator/designers. By using a basic blueprint (DNA, cells, body plan patterns and etc.) that is evidence there is only one designer. If there was no such thing as a basic blueprint, Darwin would never have been able to propose the theory of Evolution!

Jack the Bodiless

That's your definition of PERSON, not PERSONAL.

My cat, presumably a non-PERSON according to you, can produce the PERSONAL (personal communication, with me).

Therefore, "only persons can produce the personal" is refuted.

If you wish to define PERSONAL as "that which is produced by a PERSON", then "only persons can produce the personal" is obviously a worthless tautology.

Therefore the argument against God stands: only cows can produce the cowish, therefore God is eliminated as creator by the Law of Sufficient Cause.
It is not just me, NOONE has ever seen non-cows create the cowish while millions have seen cows produce the cowish.
Name ONE occasion where an event in the FUTURE has caused an event in the PAST.

Causes precede their consequences in time. This is obvious, and confirmed empirically throughout human history (your own criterion of "proof").
(emphasis mine).

The Eddian Lie Reflex kicks in again. Lobstrosity never claimed that time wasn't relevant to MOTION, only POSITION. So let's lie about what Lobstrosity is claiming, to pursue a strawman and evade the issue.

Do you seriously believe that we wouldn't notice?

Wounded King

God couldnt think of a clearer signal than homologous DNA? Why didnt he just make it so that all animals had MADE BY GOD tatooed on their butt? Would have save a whole lot of confusion.

GunnerJ

I find it amazing how Ed continually lectures all the other participants in this thread about what science is, and how science should be done, and yet makes statements such as this.

I mean, Christ, it's just sad seeing him babble on about "unobserved interfrences" in the wave/particle experiment, and thrashing about, challenging us with "HOW DO YOU KNOW there ISN'T an unobserved, unsupported interference that convieniently makes many the problems QM causes for my own crackpottery go away?"

Well, gee, Ed, how do you know that there isn't an invisible sword dangling in the air above your head, threatening to impale you from the top down if you reply to this thread one more time? Don't say "because I can't see it!" First, replying will cause the sword to fall, and second, how do you know that the "detectors" (your eyes) are not "interfering" with your ability to see the sword?

I contend that if Ed replies to this thread after reading my post, he will have refuted his own belief in an unobserved interference. He obviously knows where the burden of proof lies for an unobserved sword threatening to kill him if he replies to this thread, and there is no excuse for him to not apply the same standard to the slit experiment and his "unobserved interference."

Now, reading this thread has made me sick. I'm going to go and pray for health from the porcelin alter.