An atheists world (2)

[Loudmouth]

Why doesn't that work on atheists? You should read this book about Christianity, all the answers are always in a book. Unfortunately faith is not in a book.

Books on christianity do not contain evidence or facts, just beliefs and empty assertions. That's why.

 

[Loudmouth]

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

Then do not push truths that are demonstrably wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

It most certainly explains. It demonstrates that the wave function of photons interfere and produce the expected valleys and peaks.

How is that not an explanation?

there is all sorts of other aspects of the photon that has nothing to do with the slit experiment.

the fact it's an energy, is one.

 

[createdtoworship]

Subduction correctly said that experiments are A way of supporting theories....but they are not the ONLY way. In the case of eyes, the best support for the theory that we have are the genetic information supplied from extant living creatures. We are able to observe a smooth gradation in the development of eyes, from simple light-sensitive cells on the surface of an animal, through to the most sophisticated forms of sight (which are not human, by the way...)

Oh...and whilst Newton was a genius in his own right and provided us with some seminal breakthroughs in mathematics and physics, our understanding of biology has advanced somewhat since his time...!

so you have any documentation on the eyes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you have any documentation on the eyes?

There are countless papers explaining it and videos that can demonstrate it.

Here is one:

Eye Evolution

Or if you want a video, here you go. See if you can recognize the young speaker:

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

 

[Loudmouth]

there is all sorts of other aspects of the photon that has nothing to do with the slit experiment.

the fact it's an energy, is one.

How do you think they detected the photons and electrons?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And gradyll, a very important point from the video that I linked. Dawkins mentions a study that was done that showed how long it took for an eye to evolve. The study conservatively estimated that an eye could evolve within a quarter of a million years. That would more than explain rapidly appearing eyes in the fossil record. It is also supported by nature by the many different types of eyes that have evolved. Eyes did not evolve only once, they have evolved several times over. Our eyes may look similar to a squid or octopus eye but a closer investigation shows they took a very different path than we did. As a result they do not have the blind spot that we do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

actually theories without experiments are null and void, so I am not sure where you are going with all of this.

btw you have any experiments of eye balls evolving

or bacterial flagellum (with something like 300 moving parts?)

I posted a quote from newton (not sure which thread) but it mentions how it is unlogical to thing complex things can evolve at all. I mean how can a can opener evolve teeth and a gear when the experiment will fail after the gear evolve over (1000's of years) and no teeth. The result is not a can opener. It's a spinning gear thing with no usefullness, only to be naturally selected out of the equation.

I'm still waiting on you to offer a theory on how the designer was able to accomplish the task of designing.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm still waiting on you to offer a theory on how the designer was able to accomplish the task of designing.

your question is on a contradicting basis, you assume that this knowledge is available. Remember this is ID not BC (biblical creationism).

 

[createdtoworship]

How do you think they detected the photons and electrons?

If you are referring to energy, I am unsure what you are talking about. Energy, wave, particle.....they are similiar due to the fact light possesses these traits but they are way different.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are countless papers explaining it and videos that can demonstrate it.

Here is one:

Eye Evolution

Or if you want a video, here you go. See if you can recognize the young speaker:

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye - YouTube

I will have to watch it later when I have sound but your link says the eye is only "light detection, pigment, and receptor" then goes on to say that this is all that is composed of the eye. What about the retna? Or the Lense, or the optic nerve, pupil, iris? Does your example have shutters for too much light, or a lense combination for focus (like zooming)?

I hardly think so.

if the eye evolved without the optic nerve it would be selected out in nature.

(natural selection)

if the pupil didn't work, same thing

if the lense didn't work same thing

the human eye is a work of art. ( i mentioned eye balls, similiar to the human eye )

and there are countless other examples like the bacteria flagellum with circuitry and an outboard motor.

 

[HitchSlap]

your question is on a contradicting basis, you assume that this knowledge is available. Remember this is ID not BC (biblical creationism).

You do realize that they switched "creationism" with "ID" in "Of Panda's and People," right? There is no difference between creationism and ID. "Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

Watch and learn as Dr. Scott schools you as to why "creationism" was taken out of the book in 1987, and replaced with ID.

Kitzmiller vs Dover Knockdown Evidence (The IDiots L-IeD) - YouTube

 

[HitchSlap]

If you are referring to energy, I am unsure what you are talking about. Energy, wave, particle.....they are similiar due to the fact light possesses these traits but they are way different.

So, what's your point?

 

[createdtoworship]

So, what's your point?

well photons are understandable to a point where we can reign in and harness it's use, but we don't actually understand the concepts yet.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that they switched "creationism" with "ID" in "Of Panda's and People," right? There is no difference between creationism and ID. "Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

Watch and learn as Dr. Scott schools you as to why "creationism" was taken out of the book in 1987, and replaced with ID.

Kitzmiller vs Dover Knockdown Evidence (The IDiots L-IeD) - YouTube

yeah, I know that.

but they don't endorse that book any more.

they are simply teaching the controvery for academic freedom and critical thinking over evolutionary pros and cons right now, maybe for a long time coming.

 

[HitchSlap]

yeah, I know that.

but they don't endorse that book any more.

they are simply teaching the controvery for academic freedom and critical thinking over evolutionary pros and cons right now, maybe for a long time coming.

Maybe you missed the point. The ONLY reason "ID" is used is because they outlawed "creationism" in 1987 for textbooks.

Hence, "ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

ID = creationism = cdesign proponentsists

 

[createdtoworship]

Maybe you missed the point. The ONLY reason "ID" is used is because they outlawed "creationism" in 1987 for textbooks.

Hence, "ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

ID = creationism = cdesign proponentsists

I would check discovery institute on the time line as well,

CSC - A Brief History of Intelligent Design

"Those three scientists were Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. Soon thereafter, Thaxton, a chemist and academic editor for the Pandas textbook, adopted the term "intelligent design" after hearing it mentioned by a NASA engineer.14 Thaxton’s adoption of the term "intelligent design" took place pre-Edwards and therefore could not have been an attempt to "evade" a court decision. Rather, his adoption of this terminology was done to distinguish ID from creationism, because, in contrast to creationism, ID sought to stay solely within the empirical domain. As Thaxton testified during his deposition in the Kitzmiller case:

"I wasn’t comfortable with the typical vocabulary that for the most part creationists were using because it didn’t express what I was trying to do. They were wanting to bring God into the discussion, and I was wanting to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."15


but even if it was to avoid a court decision, I personally honor the willingness to reform. All scientists should do this.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would check discovery institute on the time line as well,

CSC - A Brief History of Intelligent Design

Are you familiar with the "Wedge Document?"

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Energy, wave, particle.....they are similiar due to the fact light possesses these traits but they are way different.

Then I present to you:

E = hc/λ

λ: wavelength
h: planck's contsant
c: speed of light
E: energy of a photon of light

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Books on christianity do not contain evidence or facts, just beliefs and empty assertions. That's why.

Like an assertion that one light sensitive cell became the human eyeball over millions of years; but require glasses today?