Evidence for macro-evolution

[Ace777]

As I said, no gods are used to study physics, or needed to explain it.

Where do you get this stuff from? I never said that. Have you ever heard of shadow boxing?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where do you get this stuff from? I never said that. Have you ever heard of shadow boxing?

You've introduced an unnecessary element into first evolution (belief) and then physics (gods). Neither is needed or welcome.

 

[sjastro]

The discussion has to do with how accurate the laws of physics are.

Try reading my post again you brought up the idea of a Block universe which I was responding to.

 

[Ace777]

It's because there's no such thing as "atheistic"
evolution. You just made that up. And enlist God
to support the falsehood.

Options students were given for their personal view of evolution and then what they thought most closely represented the scientific view of evolution

Choice​	Description presented to student​
Young Earth creationism​	All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God 6000–10,000 years ago at the same time.​
Old Earth creationism​	All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God at different times over billions of years.​
Creationism with some evolution​	Some forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God created groups of organisms such as reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans separate from one another, and organisms that currently exist have evolved slowly from those first creations.​
Humans-only creationism​	Almost all forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but humans were created by God in their present form separate from the rest of life.​
Interventionist evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God intervenes from time to time to shape or override evolution.​
Theistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God set up evolution from the start in a perfect way so that it would fulfill God’s purpose, and no subsequent intervention was necessary.​
Deistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but life and evolution were first set in motion by God without a specific purpose or plan.​
Agnostic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but it is uncertain whether God was involved in evolution.​
Atheistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but no God has ever played any role in evolution.​

“Accepting Evolution Means You Can’t Believe in God”: Atheistic Perceptions of Evolution among College Biology Students - PMC

Although many scientists agree that evolution does not make claims about God/god(s), students might assume that evolution is atheistic, and this may lead to lower evolution acceptance. In study 1, we surveyed 1081 college biology students at one ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[sjastro]

When Physics does not apply then we use Quantum Physics. This conversation does not exist if not for quantum physics.

In modern computers you need semiconductors, and the whole theory of solid state physics (band structures, doping, etc) is based on a foundation of quantum mechanics - since electrons in semiconducting solids behave in a manner that is more wave-like than particle-like, with each electron occupying its own distinct

No need for a lecture thank you very much.
Once again the discussion is around a Block universe which is based on cosmological scales, not the subatomic scales of QM.

 

[Ace777]

Once again the discussion is around a Block universe which is based on cosmological scales, not the subatomic scales of QM.

Quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in quantum physics, suggests that the past, present, and future are all connected. This means that actions in the future can potentially influence events in the past, a concept known as retrocausality.

Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past

(Phys.org)—Although there are many counterintuitive ideas in quantum theory, the idea that influences can travel backwards in time (from the future to the past) is generally not one of them. However, recently some physicists have been looking into this idea, called "retrocausality," because it...

phys.org

 

[sjastro]

Quantum entanglement, a phenomenon in quantum physics, suggests that the past, present, and future are all connected. This means that actions in the future can potentially influence events in the past, a concept known as retrocausality.

Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past

(Phys.org)—Although there are many counterintuitive ideas in quantum theory, the idea that influences can travel backwards in time (from the future to the past) is generally not one of them. However, recently some physicists have been looking into this idea, called "retrocausality," because it...

phys.org

Please stop with the blatant confirmation bias fallacy.
Did you even try to read the article let alone comprehend it; it is a fringe idea with zero supportive evidence and is not mainstream science.
The mainstream view is that quantum entanglement can be explained using the Copenhagen interpretation which is most popular amongst scientists and is not based on retrocausality.

Furthermore as I explained previously this about the Block universe which is not quantum mechanical in nature.
In fact retrocausality applied to the Block universe leads to absurd paradoxes such as dying before you were even born.

 

[Ace777]

Did you even try to read the article let alone comprehend it

What did you say? I do not comprehend what you are saying.

The discussion has to do with quantum entanglement.

“quantum entanglement” was famously described by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance,”

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People get confused and do not understand that Theistic Evolution is not the same as Atheistic Evolution. In the real world we know that God does not make mistakes and errors in the DNA correct themselves, Even if there were to be an error in the Bible it would correct itself. That maybe why there are no errors. God declares the end from the beginning and calls the things that are not as though they were. Romans 4:17

Isaiah 46:10​

That's really more of a religious problem than a scientific one.

 

[Ophiolite]

What did you say? I do not comprehend what you are saying.

The discussion has to do with quantum entanglement.

“quantum entanglement” was famously described by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance,”

At least have the honesty to admit that your introduction of the Block Universe hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by @sjastro. Your blatant attempt to ignore that simple observation and blend a Gish Gallop with a melange of buzzwords is not only unseemly, but destroys any credibility your argument might have had.

 

[Ace777]

At least have the honesty to admit that your introduction of the Block Universe hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by @sjastro.

LOL Swing and a miss, nice try though. People always accuse others of what they are guilty of.

 

[Astrid]

Options students were given for their personal view of evolution and then what they thought most closely represented the scientific view of evolution

Choice​	Description presented to student​
Young Earth creationism​	All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God 6000–10,000 years ago at the same time.​
Old Earth creationism​	All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God at different times over billions of years.​
Creationism with some evolution​	Some forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God created groups of organisms such as reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans separate from one another, and organisms that currently exist have evolved slowly from those first creations.​
Humans-only creationism​	Almost all forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but humans were created by God in their present form separate from the rest of life.​
Interventionist evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God intervenes from time to time to shape or override evolution.​
Theistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God set up evolution from the start in a perfect way so that it would fulfill God’s purpose, and no subsequent intervention was necessary.​
Deistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but life and evolution were first set in motion by God without a specific purpose or plan.​
Agnostic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but it is uncertain whether God was involved in evolution.​
Atheistic evolution​	All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but no God has ever played any role in evolution.​

“Accepting Evolution Means You Can’t Believe in God”: Atheistic Perceptions of Evolution among College Biology Students - PMC

Although many scientists agree that evolution does not make claims about God/god(s), students might assume that evolution is atheistic, and this may lead to lower evolution acceptance. In study 1, we surveyed 1081 college biology students at one ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So someone else makes things up, and you parrot the
nonsense. That's ever so much better.

 

[Ophiolite]

LOL Swing and a miss, nice try though. People always accuse others of what they are guilty of.

Feel free to point out where I have used a Gish Gallop, or a plehtora of buzzwords, or any other feature of your post. I have not done so, and thus your accusation is shown to be baseless. All you have done here is to avoid addressing my assertion, an assertion that is evident to anyone who chooses to examine your posts in this thread.

It is entirely possible that there are elements - perhaps many elements - in your argument that are valid. However, by doubling down in defence of those elements for which the weight of evidence shows to be invalid you give the appearance of someone who is simply not credible. That seems a foolish approach if your intent is to persuade people to at least give serious consideration to your point of view. However, if you have some other motive do keep going, just don't be offended if your posts are laughed at.

 

[Astrid]

No need for a lecture thank you very much.
Once again the discussion is around a Block universe which is based on cosmological scales, not the subatomic scales of QM.

The "lecture" is obvious cut n paste,
with no source given.
As in taking credit for someone else's work.

 

[Ophiolite]

So someone else makes things up, and you parrot the
nonsense. That's ever so much better.

It is also worth noting that several definitions are missing from the table. For example:

Scottish Evolution: All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but never to a sufficient level in Scotland to enable them to get past the Group stages of Continental or Global football competitions.

 

[Astrid]

It is also worth noting that several definitions are missing from the table. For example:

Scottish Evolution: All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but never to a sufficient level in Scotland to enable them to get past the Group stages of Continental or Global football competitions.

And Creationist Evolution, ( aka Crevolution) which is whatever the creationist happens to fancy. Strawmen, misrepresentation, assertion of facts not in evidence, lies distortions, half truths last thursdayism, any base and ignoble ninsense that comes to mind.

Quite the omission, not mentioning Crevolution as it is in clear evidence every time a creationist tries to argue against ToE.

What never has or will be used is even one datum point,
one fact contrary to ToE.

 

[sjastro]

What did you say? I do not comprehend what you are saying.

The discussion has to do with quantum entanglement.

“quantum entanglement” was famously described by Albert Einstein as “spooky action at a distance,”

For once I agree, you do not comprehend which is a consequence of confirmation bias.
You post links without understanding the details, flip from one subject to another without realising they are either irrelevant or contradictory.
The reference to Einstein is an example of irrelevancy, he was taking a jab at quantum entanglement because he thought QM was incomplete and deterministic.
Einstein was eventually shown to be wrong.

Bell test - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BCP1928]

Exactly and that is why God could have created the laws of physics.

Many of us here already believe that the universe behaves in an orderly way by divine Providence, it's not exactly a new idea, and the laws of physics which we propound are describing that order with increasing accuracy as we learn more about it. But it doesn't really have anything to do with the theory of evolution,

 

[Ted-01]

God did not create the laws of physics.
He did put order in His creation... man simply goes on a treasure hunt to categorize aspects of His creation. When we uncover some of that order, we call them laws.

 

[Ace777]

So someone else makes things up, and you parrot the
nonsense. That's ever so much better.

Now we know about you, but what about me?