Yikes DNA proves what??

[MrGoodBytes]

You should teach these poor confused Scientists a thing or 2...

Do you plan to adress the simple fact that everything you posted so far has been shown to be wrong?

 

[Carey]

Uh, no, this world doesn't apply to the quantum, i.e. particular level. In classical physics, you can predict the future position and momentum of things. Things are composed of particles, but we can't tell the position and momentum of those individual things.



Wrong. Quantum Theory describes the sub-atomic world, just not in the same way as GR describes things.

One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics, ‘the events take place at a scale far smaller than any realm yet explored by experimental physics. It is only when particles approach to within about 10-35 meter that their gravitational interactions have to be described in the same quantum-mechanical terms that we adopt to understand the other forces of nature. This distance is 1024 times smaller than the diameter of an atom—which means that the characteristic scale of quantum gravity bears the same relation to the size of an atom as an atom bears to the size of the solar system. To probe such small distances would require a particle accelerator 1015 times more powerful than the proposed Superconducting Supercollider.’
At the outset of this century, electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets in a miniature solar system. However, later researches modified that view. The electron is now understood to be more of an energy field cloud fluctuating around a nucleus.
The nucleus itself seemed to be composed of two smaller constituents—protons and neutrons. However, in the 1960s, physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig confirmed by experiments that protons and neutrons were made up of even more elementary particles, which Gell-Mann called ‘quarks’. Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small but also because they do not seem to be quite ‘all there’.
Quarks are better described as swirls of dynamic energy, which means that solid matter is not, at its fundamental level, solid at all. Anything you hold in your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance. At its most fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power.
This is not all that makes us unable to predict even the nearest future of the universe. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is traveling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behavior. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed.

 

[Chalnoth]

You should teach these poor confused Scientists a thing or 2...

I am a scientist. Confusion of scientists isn't a problem. It's creationists like yourself that are confused. This is shown quite clearly by the fact that you don't bother to post your own explanations for anything at all. You just repost crap from creationist websites.

 

[Chalnoth]

One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics, ‘the events take place at a scale far smaller than any realm yet explored by experimental physics. It is only when particles approach to within about 10-35 meter that their gravitational interactions have to be described in the same quantum-mechanical terms that we adopt to understand the other forces of nature. This distance is 1024 times smaller than the diameter of an atom—which means that the characteristic scale of quantum gravity bears the same relation to the size of an atom as an atom bears to the size of the solar system. To probe such small distances would require a particle accelerator 1015 times more powerful than the proposed Superconducting Supercollider.’
At the outset of this century, electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets in a miniature solar system. However, later researches modified that view. The electron is now understood to be more of an energy field cloud fluctuating around a nucleus.
The nucleus itself seemed to be composed of two smaller constituents—protons and neutrons. However, in the 1960s, physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig confirmed by experiments that protons and neutrons were made up of even more elementary particles, which Gell-Mann called ‘quarks’. Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small but also because they do not seem to be quite ‘all there’.
Quarks are better described as swirls of dynamic energy, which means that solid matter is not, at its fundamental level, solid at all. Anything you hold in your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance. At its most fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power.
This is not all that makes us unable to predict even the nearest future of the universe. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is traveling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behavior. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed.

Will you stop plagiarizing already? But what's more, what's your point?

P.S. We can predict the future quite well using quantum mechanics. Sorry that I missed that bit of nonsense when I said the previous part of this article that you quoted was "largely correct."

 

[Carey]

I am a scientist. Confusion of scientists isn't a problem. It's creationists like yourself that are confused. This is shown quite clearly by the fact that you don't bother to post your own explanations for anything at all. You just repost crap from creationist websites.

So you admit scientist are confused??

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So you admit scientist are confused??

It might be wise to actually read the posts you reply to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics,

Wrong: quantum mechanics is a refined version of classical mechanics. In the limit of large scales (i.e., macroscopic distances, masses, etc), quantum mechanical predictions are synonymous with those of classical mechanics.

That is, classical mechanics is a special form of the more general quantum mechanics.

Quantum gravity, on the other hand, is the reconiliation of quantum mechanics (mechanics at low speeds) and general relativity (mechanics at high speeds/forces).

If you can't even understand the difference between classical and quantum mechanics, then I don't see any reason to read on.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you admit scientist are confused??

Just because the words 'confused' and 'scientist' appear in the same piece of text doesn't mean the text is calling scientists confused.
You'd do well to actually read what people write to you.

 

[FishFace]

You should teach these poor confused Scientists a thing or 2...

Chalnoth is a scientist. Although not poor and confused, as far as I know

 

[FishFace]

One reason for their unobservability is that, as Renteln writes in an attempt to propose a theory which he calls quantum gravity to reconcile the two different worlds of classical and quantum physics, ‘the events take place at a scale far smaller than any realm yet explored by experimental physics. It is only when particles approach to within about 10-35 meter that their gravitational interactions have to be described in the same quantum-mechanical terms that we adopt to understand the other forces of nature. This distance is 1024 times smaller than the diameter of an atom—which means that the characteristic scale of quantum gravity bears the same relation to the size of an atom as an atom bears to the size of the solar system. To probe such small distances would require a particle accelerator 1015 times more powerful than the proposed Superconducting Supercollider.’
At the outset of this century, electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom were thought to orbit the nucleus like planets in a miniature solar system. However, later researches modified that view. The electron is now understood to be more of an energy field cloud fluctuating around a nucleus.
The nucleus itself seemed to be composed of two smaller constituents—protons and neutrons. However, in the 1960s, physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig confirmed by experiments that protons and neutrons were made up of even more elementary particles, which Gell-Mann called ‘quarks’. Quarks cannot be seen, not just because they are too small but also because they do not seem to be quite ‘all there’.
Quarks are better described as swirls of dynamic energy, which means that solid matter is not, at its fundamental level, solid at all. Anything you hold in your hand and which seems solid, is really a quivering, shimmering, lacy lattice of energy, pulsating millions of times every second as billions of fundamental particles gyrate and spin in an eternal dance. At its most fundamental level, everything is energy held together by forces of incredible power.
This is not all that makes us unable to predict even the nearest future of the universe. According to Werner Heisenberg’s theories, at just the time when we can know either where a particle is or how fast it is traveling, we cannot know both. This is because the very act of measuring the particle alters its behavior. Measuring the particle’s speed changes its position, and measuring its position changes its speed.

Tell us what this means and what your conclusion is. We don't want to debate whichever website it is you're leeching from, we want to hear what you think.

 

[Split Rock]

You should teach these poor confused Scientists a thing or 2...

The only thing you are teaching here is how dishonest and bankrupt Creationism is. Probably you're just another Troll. In any case, I am not going to bother with you any more. :bye-bye *ignore*

 

[TheOutsider]

I know that I'm going to regret this, but oh well ...

Evidence to one is not to another who is deceived.

Not exactly objective evidence then, is it?

That depends on if the deceived one is willing to look at the evidence objectively

I'm not sure that you understand what the word "objective" means.

Objective, adj.: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

What I was trying to point out is that you were basically saying "You have to believe it in order to see it". That is not objective evidence. Objective evidence is able to be see by all despite what their religious beliefs are. I was a Christian for 15 years and never saw evidence of demon possession (and don't you dare give me that "You weren't a True Christian" BS, I've heard it all before). That are many Christians who would agree with me that demon possessions do not exist.

Rational people say "I'll believe it when I see it" not "I'll see it when I believe it".

 

[USincognito]

Trying to use gravity to disprove evolution.

"Gravity says stuff goes down, but evolution says stuff goes up!"

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Carey, were you ever planning on addressing the replies to your OP from back on the first couple of pages which you ignored?

 

[Nitron]

A Christian Creationist linking to a Muslim site to disprove evolution.

This has to be some sort of win.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Haha, thanks for the reps.

 

[Cassandra]

I'm wondering when the old "Hilter was an evolutionist!" or "Darwin was a racist!" arguements are gonna start popping up again

 

[Carey]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Carey, were you ever planning on addressing the replies to your OP from back on the first couple of pages which you ignored?

If you read my signature you will know my answer.

 

[TheOutsider]

If you read my signature you will know my answer.

What the heck are you doing on a Debate board then?

 

[Carey]

What the heck are you doing on a Debate board then?

I am here for the non foolish discussion on this discussion/debate board.

 

[TheOutsider]

I am here for the non foolish discussion on this discussion/debate board.

You are making the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically foolish. Does that not seem a little arrogant to you?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I am here for the non foolish discussion on this discussion/debate board.

Since your own contribution to this board mainly consists of cut-and-pasting text you obviously don't understand yourself, I dare say that you are not in the position to call anything here "foolish".