Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. Let's talk about the fact that C14 is produced in the atmosphere, regardless of the theory explaining the production, and that that's the only thing needed to carry out C14 dating.
That's right - it took parity violation and the working out of the electroweak theory which is the detailed model (or more complete one) which fit the observations.
Oh it most certainly IS WRONG and always has been. It seems only you are the one making unsubstantiated claims unsupported by the electroweak theory or the Standard Model of Physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction
"Fermi's four-fermion theory describes the weak interaction remarkably well. Unfortunately, the calculated cross-section grows as the square of the energy, making it unlikely that the theory is valid at energies much higher than about 100 GeV. The solution is to replace the four-fermion contact interaction by a more complete theory (UV completion)—an exchange of a W or Z boson as explained in the electroweak theory.
In the original theory, Fermi assumed that the form of interaction is a contact coupling of two vector currents. Subsequently, it was pointed out by Lee and Yang that nothing prevented the appearance of an axial, parity violating current, and this was confirmed by experiments carried out by Chien-Shiung Wu.
Fermi's interaction showing the 4-point fermion vector current, coupled under Fermi's Coupling Constant GF. Fermi's Theory was the first theoretical effort in describing nuclear decay rates for Beta-Decay.
The inclusion of parity violation in Fermi's interaction was done by George Gamow and Edward Teller in the so-called Gamow-Teller Transitions which described Fermi's interaction in terms of Parity violating "allowed" decays and Parity conserving "superallowed" decays in terms of anti-parallel and parallel electron and neutrino spin states respectively. Before the advent of the electroweak theory and the Standard Model, George Sudarshan and Robert Marshak, and also independently Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann, were able to determine the correct tensor structure (vector minus axial vector, V − A) of the four-fermion interaction."
Actually they do for the purpose of establishing and monitoring decay rates. There is also an established commission that monitors this and updates decay rates as measurements become more and more accurate.
It seems this creates a real problem for you. The reason for using someone who holds the opposite position of one you hold is to show that the premise behind the differing view is real and is evidence. The premise is the appearance of design is real and is in evidence. This shows that even those who oppose your position or view have evidence for the views they hold but the interpretation of that evidence is where the difference lies and not with the evidence its self.
Yes.
Explain how the claims that Dawkins makes about how evolution is the falsifiable or testable?
Which is exactly why I don't buy into Dawkins and his claim that the evidence of design with purpose in life forms is due to "evolution" which he gives no real evidence but just a broad general evolution did it proclamation.
His view on biology is based on his expertise in the subject and his personal bias towards religion and Christianity in particular. The evidence of the biology is that life forms appear to be designed with a purpose. The denial of the evidence comes from his bias.
Now you are really misrepresenting Dawkins. He has made it clear that he is totally against design by God...any god but specifically the Christian God and that he doesn't believe in alien seeding but that he would accept that more readily than God.
You are so blinded by your own dogmatic worldview that you can not even consider the possibility that the appearance of design is exactly as it appears and is the evidence of design. This is as much a faith-based position as you claim mine is but the evidence is on my side. We see design of purpose in all living things on earth and in the fine tuning of the universe as well. The fact that you hold a materialistic worldview will not allow you to consider the possibility that the evidence is what it is...evidence of design.
Exactly, they don't support my position that the design they admit they see is actual design. The evidence is evidence, the claim that it is an illusion is not supported by any evidence but is there determination based on their atheistic and materialistic worldview, just as is yours. Yet the evidence supports the exact opposite of what you, Dawkins, and Crick claim.
No evolution explains how life adapts and changes by mutations and environmental pressures. It does not explain why these changes should give the appearance of design. In fact, it should show no appearance of design at all. It should show no reason or purpose behind the mechanisms of life. A mindless process without any planning or goals should hold to that appearance rather than appear like it was produced by an intelligent agent with a plan and purpose for life forms. IF evolution alone was true, evolution should predict that life forms would show no evidence that appears designed at all.
You are fooling yourself and trying to fool others.
That is your opinion based on your own worldview and personal beliefs. The Biology evidence supports design. Life forms appear to be designed for a purpose...that is the biology of the issue...that is an illusion is not based on any evidence and is determined not by science but opinion of those making that claim.
I am not pretending anything and I am basing my position on the evidence present in the Biology of the life forms on earth. You on the other hand are denying the evidence and believe others who make up stories to explain it.
See above.
The evidence states design, it is admitted even by those who do not chose to believe that it is actual design. See above.
I agree the appearance of design may be perceived as real. This however, is nothing more than the opinion of the observer. What is lacking is the evidence of "a" "designer". As I tried before, I begin with the basic instruments that govern design. Those instruments are purely and physically identifiable as being natural processes governed by the physical laws of chemistry. What I do not see is a mechanism describing, attributing, and quantifying any physical evidence by means of a non-natural process, much less a designer. That is why intelligent design fails as a scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis can't even be tested.
So you comment on the issue that was resolved and totally ignore the major part of my post to you that I feel shows that you were being rather unfair in your appraisal of my discussion with you. Nice.
Why do you think it is perceived as real?
What is based on the opinion of the observer?
The evidence for a designer is that the thing in question appearing as if it were designed...wouldn't that be rather reasonable?
Your argument rather becomes illogical when one puts those instruments that are purely and physically identifiable as being natural due to the laws of chemistry. You conclude it seems to me that due to these life forms having a makeup of atoms, molecules and the like can not be designed as we know those things are inanimate but we know that a chair has a chemical makeup and it is designed. Millions of things come under this inanimate makeup that are designed.
The evidence of life forms appearing to be designed for a purpose is not faith based but scientifically proven. It is a faith based belief to deny this is evidence of design and to claim it is an illusion.
He has not been prove downright wrong either. There are those who feel his view on the Bacterial Flagellum were incorrect, there is no way to show who is actually correct.
You are misrepresenting what he said. He said at one time astrology was considered science.
Confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias.
That is confirmation bias with zero empirical evidence.
Quite the opposite. It is completely logical when all of that can be shown to be due to natural causes.
No, I'm not saying they cannot be designed. I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence for a non-natural design mechanism, nothing more.
Absolutely, I agree. The trouble is we cannot physically connect them to an intelligent agent.
What is "Design predicts", and how can it be confirmed that it predicted something? Are you using "design" and "designer" interchangeably" as a single physical entity?
