Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Jester4kicks]

ROFL!!! Look where else this guy has been trying to spread this junk!

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&act=ST&f=24&t=22040
(Seriously, did you think anyone on a board dedicated to physics would buy into your garbage?!)

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=517&m=31
(Yeah, those guys really believed you!!)

Seriously... are you just trolling any forum you can find, trying to get ANYONE to believe this junk?

 

[Calminian]

Don't try to make sense of it... he's been copy/pasting the same bunch of garbage in this thread and over in the other thread: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47460883&posted=1#post47460883

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have the faintest clue about what he's trying to prove.

I don't think it's garbage. Why are you threatened someone posting their views in multiple places to get feedback? Just because you and I and others may disagree, this doesn't make him a troll. He said his goal was to sharpen his own views. I fail to see what's so horrible about that.

 

[no1nose]

I don't think it's garbage. Why are you threatened someone posting their views in multiple places to get feedback? Just because you and I and others may disagree, this doesn't make him a troll. He said his goal was to sharpen his own views. I fail to see what's so horrible about that.

__________________


Thanks, I think I might be on to something and I am excited about that. Feedback is good personal attack is just off topic.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I don't think it's garbage. Why are you threatened someone posting their views in multiple places to get feedback? Just because you and I and others may disagree, this doesn't make him a troll. He said his goal was to sharpen his own views. I fail to see what's so horrible about that.

It's not threatening... it's annoying. It's annoying because he's NOT trying to "sharpen his views"... he's trying to make rediculous statements based on complete misunderstandings of completely un-related topics.

It would be like telling you that gravity exists because of the color red. It's almost painful to try and wrap your head around because the statement is so rediculous.

Furthermore, developing one's views requires discussion. He's not actually discussing anything. When he gets cornered, he just cites another line of gibberish.

Here's a normal debate:
"I believe A because of B, C, and D"
"No, you're mistaken, because C is actually this, and E, F, G, and H support a different position"
"Hmmm, well I see your point with E, F, G, and H. Let me review C and then revise my initial position"

With him, it's more like:
"I think A because of B."
"Umm, no, you're completely misinterpretting B"
"I think C because of D"
"No, now you're confused about D... and you still haven't addressed what I said about B"
"I think E because of F"
"Cut it out! You're just rambling now!"
"G, H, I, J, K..... ¥"

Again... it's just annoying. It's not discussion, it's not debate, it's not developing an argument... it's just rambling and hoping someone will buy it.

__________________


Thanks, I think I might be on to something and I am excited about that. Feedback is good personal attack is just off topic.

The only thing you're catching onto is a failing grade in physics, biology, chemistry, and history.

 

[Calminian]

It's not threatening... it's annoying. It's annoying because he's NOT trying to "sharpen his views"... he's trying to make rediculous statements based on complete misunderstandings of completely un-related topics.

Why are you so annoyed? Even if he's misunderstanding, I don't see why this is so disturbing for you. You're actually trolling to try to prevent someone from trolling. Dude, seriously, you have issues.

It would be like telling you that gravity exists because of the color red. It's almost painful to try and wrap your head around because the statement is so rediculous.

If that's what you've gotten from his post, I have a feeling a lot of it is going over your head. Science is filled with necessary philosophical presuppositions, such as the reliability of the senses. There are also issue of historical and future uniformity and all kinds of other ideas that are not subject to scientific testing. People knowledgeable in the science often overlook the philosophical foundations of scientific reasoning and topics like this are good, especially for the scientific minded.

Furthermore, developing one's views requires discussion. He's not actually discussing anything. When he gets cornered, he just cites another line of gibberish.

Er, okay, well I haven't heard him do this, but I do hear gibberish coming from you.

Here's a normal debate:
"I believe A because of B, C, and D"
"No, you're mistaken, because C is actually this, and E, F, G, and H support a different position"
"Hmmm, well I see your point with E, F, G, and H. Let me review C and then revise my initial position"

Eek. You're obviously not a student of formal logic.

Again... it's just annoying. It's not discussion, it's not debate, it's not developing an argument... it's just rambling and hoping someone will buy it.

Who appointed you discussion sherif?

The only thing you're catching onto is a failing grade in physics, biology, chemistry, and history.

Actually, just from listening to you, your issue is not the sciences, but philosophical reasoning. Science is not the same as logic. Science is not the same as math. I think a misunderstanding of this might explain why you're getting so excited.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Why are you so annoyed? Even if he's misunderstanding, I don't see why this is so disturbing for you. You're actually trolling to try to prevent someone from trolling. Dude, seriously, you have issues.

I guess I get annoyed when someone makes completely unreasonable and irrational statements about something I hold dear. If I were to go to any section of this forum and make the same type of irrational and rediculous statements about jesus or god, I'm fairly certain the response would be much worse than my reaction to him.

Hey Nose, there's something you could study; relativity!

If that's what you've gotten from his post, I have a feeling a lot of it is going over your head. Science is filled with necessary philosophical presuppositions, such as the reliability of the senses. There are also issue of historical and future uniformity and all kinds of other ideas that are not subject to scientific testing. People knowledgeable in the science often overlook the philosophical foundations of scientific reasoning and topics like this are good, especially for the scientific minded.

I have no problem discussing philosophy. However, I wouldn't attempt to use Plato's forms as a way of disproving gravity... and that's essentially what he's doing. If you want to approach the matter from a philisophical perspective, let's do that... but don't try to take a vague philosophy and apply it to concretes within math and science.

And yes, I use the word "concrete" for a specific purpose. Science doesn't presume the accuracy of the senses, it requires empirical evidence that can either be replicated or reliably-predicted. My vision might be horrible, and your hearing might be even worse... but when we both drop the same bowling ball from the same height and the same conditions, we should have the same result.

Er, okay, well I haven't heard him do this, but I do hear gibberish coming from you.

Try reading the other thread.

Eek. You're obviously not a student of formal logic.

Granted, if I were to show that example to my best friend (spent the last 4 semesters studying logic), he might cringe... if he thought I was identifying variables in a logic system. I'm not setting up a formula, I'm pointing out the very basic structure of a logical debate. You present your argument, then present your basis for your argument. To counter, someone else may point out inaccuracies in your own analysis of the supporting points, or they may introduce other evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the evidence you presented.

Who appointed you discussion sherif?

Um... a couple guys by the name of Merriam, or one guy by the name of Webster... depending on the date of the original entry...

Main Entry: dis·cus·sion Pronunciation: \di-ˈskə-shən\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Actually, just from listening to you, your issue is not the sciences, but philosophical reasoning. Science is not the same as logic. Science is not the same as math. I think a misunderstanding of this might explain why you're getting so excited.

Science relies on logic, just as science relies on math. Unless you want to tell me how you would teach a physics class without any reference to triginometry or calculus.

Finally, as I said before, I have no problem with philisophical reasoning... but if he's trying to discuss philosophy, let's keep it to philosophy.

 

[Calminian]

Science doesn't presume the accuracy of the senses,

Bingo! I knew it. The number of scientists (and science worshippers) I come across that are confused about this is staggering. Yes, science does assume the accuracy of the senses, a priori. This explains a lot. Scientists are very good at what they do, but they are often very poor at reasoning once they get out of their field. I think this is why threads like these offend you so. It is analogous to challenging ones religion because, to the science worshipper, these assumptions are religious. I don't know if I agree with everything put forth in this OP, but I do know that many like yourself conflate science with epistemology. To them there is no distinction. Thus you limit yourself to the unproven assumptions of science.

Granted, if I were to show that example to my best friend (spent the last 4 semesters studying logic), he might cringe... if he thought I was identifying variables in a logic system. I'm not setting up a formula, I'm pointing out the very basic structure of a logical debate. You present your argument, then present your basis for your argument. To counter, someone else may point out inaccuracies in your own analysis of the supporting points, or they may introduce other evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the evidence you presented.

All I can say is, you are violating this very principle by trolling.

Um... a couple guys by the name of Merriam, or one guy by the name of Webster... depending on the date of the original entry...

I think you've been dubbed by presumptions and conflation.

Science relies on logic, just as science relies on math. Unless you want to tell me how you would teach a physics class without any reference to triginometry or calculus.

I never said this. Again, this is where you get confused. Yes, science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. There is nothing illogical about miracles, but there is something unscientific about them.

Finally, as I said before, I have no problem with philisophical reasoning... but if he's trying to discuss philosophy, let's keep it to philosophy.

Again, you still don't get it. Science is built on a foundation of philosophical beliefs, methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism, the accuracy of the senses, etc.. None of these assumptions can be verified or falsified by science as that would result in circular reasoning—basing a conclusion on a starting premise.

Sorry nose, I know this is way off topic.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Bingo! I knew it. The number of scientists (and science worshippers) I come across that are confused about this is staggering. Yes, science does assume the accuracy of the senses, a priori. This explains a lot. Scientists are very good at what they do, but they are often very poor at reasoning once they get out of their field. I think this is why threads like these offend you so. It is analogous to challenging ones religion because, to the science worshipper, these assumptions are religious. I don't know if I agree with everything put forth in this OP, but I do know that many like yourself conflate science with epistemology. To them there is no distinction. Thus you limit yourself to the unproven assumptions of science.

Nice way of cutting my statement short and then twisting it around.

First, how about you list some of these "unproven assumptions" of science? As I have already stated; science is objective, not subjective. A theory is not sound until it has been tested and repeatedly produced predictable results. Even then, other scientists will continue to test and develop the theory based on their own experiments. All of this removes any form of subjectivity from the process. If I'm a scientist, and I have blurred vision (literally or metaphorically), the results of my experiments will not be consistent with the experiments of other scientists. From there, it becomes a matter of determining possible causes of error, and then experimenting further to determine the truth.

All I can say is, you are violating this very principle by trolling.

How am I trolling?

I think you've been dubbed by presumptions and conflation.

Yeah, the dictionary can really be a pain when people actually use it....

I never said this. Again, this is where you get confused. Yes, science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. There is nothing illogical about miracles, but there is something unscientific about them.

What a wonderful example for this topic! I believe you have hit the nail on the head!

You are absolutely right, logic can be applied to things that are not scientific. However, you can't mix-and-match to suit your own purposes.

For example:
As you said, miracles are not necessarily illogical, even if they are not scientific. However, in order to accept miracles as logical, you must accept the idea that supernatural forces may exist outside of the bounds of nature, and that those forces are not confined to the laws of physics.

Ok, that's fine, but if you accept that, then the nature of the conversation changes... since anything that would not otherwise make sense could just be attributed to the supernatural. Again, these types of discussions may have their purposes.

However, you can't take the results of that line of logic and then suddenly apply them to the scientific world.

Let me see if I can elaborate.

If you and I were to have a discussion about wheat catching fire, I might make the argument that wheat cannot spontaneously catch on fire without an ignition source. You might then say that god could make this happen if he chose to manifest a miracle. Now, if I'm willing to accept your suggestion that a supernatural being could do such a thing, I must be willing to accept all the other implications that go along with a supernatural being. From there, we might discuss motives for such an act, or the nature of such a being...

However... at the end of the conversation, we couldn't turn to a scientist and tell him that wheat can spontaneously combust without an ignition source. We would have no scientific basis for the claim.

We had a philisophical conversation... not a scientific conversation. Our conclusions are limited to the realm of philosophy. No matter how hard we try, those same conclusions cannot automatically be applied to the natural world of science.

Again, you still don't get it. Science is built on a foundation of philosophical beliefs, methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism, the accuracy of the senses, etc.. None of these assumptions can be verified or falsified by science as that would result in circular reasoning—basing a conclusion on a starting premise.

Wait... did you just tell me, "science is based on A, B, and C... but you can't verify my claim either way because it would result in circular reasoning"??? You don't see a logical fallacy in that statement?

 

[no1nose]

Bingo! I knew it. The number of scientists (and science worshippers) I come across that are confused about this is staggering. Yes, science does assume the accuracy of the senses, a priori. This explains a lot. Scientists are very good at what they do, but they are often very poor at reasoning once they get out of their field. I think this is why threads like these offend you so.

I agree.

Jester4kicks just seems overwrought by any free thinking.

Here is something I thought of last night:

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I agree.

Jester4kicks just seems overwrought by any free thinking.

Here is something I thought of last night:

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

You touched on a couple key concepts here. Let me see if I can address them without over-complicating the issue.

First, you mentioned how changes in the natural world trend towards beauty. You then stated that randomness would result in a "junk yard". Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to think that evolution implies every change is random. This is not correct. Although random genetic changes may occur, the changes will only benefit the species if they assist in survival, the chance of replication, or the product of replication. Thus, the random change ends up serving a very specific purpose.

The main point here is that life, as we know it, does not exist just because of random changes in genetic code. Life exists because life, itself, demands existence.

Second, you seem to think that the theory of evolution is invalid because there hasn't been anyone who has observed it from start to finish. (Again, please feel free to correct me if I misinterpretted your position)

What you seem to be forgetting is that scientists regularly develop theories based on what they have observed, what they continue to observe, and the predictions they make regarding those observations. Consider the science behind stars. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star Astronomers have developed the means to determine the age, mass, and chemical composition of stars... all without the benefit of watching the formation, life, and death of a single star. We can make these types of observations because we can develop theories to explain what we see, and then we can apply those theories to other scenarios (in this case, other stars) to see if the theories produce the predicted results. When they don't, we know the theory is flawed, and scientists must examine it and develop it further.

Furthermore, human beings have observed changes in a species within their own lifespans. Check out the study of London's Peppered Moths. http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a.htm

At least this time, I understand what you are trying to suggest... but your suggestion assumes that scientists cannot draw conclusions about events in the past... and this simply isn't true.

 

[Calminian]

First, how about you list some of these "unproven assumptions" of science?

I just did!

As I have already stated; science is objective, not subjective.

Oy, it's painful sometimes listening to scientists and their followers make statements like this. You simply don't understand the idea of presuppositions. Science is objective when it comes to ideas within the confines of its necessary presuppositions. Science is not objective when it comes to non uniformitarian causation such as miracles and even libertarian human choices. There's actually an article you should read by an atheist who agrees with me and admits to the necessary preclusion of miracles in scientific methodology.

Science and Miracles (1998)
Theodore M. Drange

You'll advance light years if you can grasp onto this.

How am I trolling?

Look it up and you will see your picture.

For example:
As you said, miracles are not necessarily illogical, even if they are not scientific. However, in order to accept miracles as logical, you must accept the idea that supernatural forces may exist outside of the bounds of nature, and that those forces are not confined to the laws of physics.

Ok, that's fine, but if you accept that, then the nature of the conversation changes... since anything that would not otherwise make sense could just be attributed to the supernatural. Again, these types of discussions may have their purposes.

You were doing okay up until the last portion. Miracles and non-uniform acts of God (and even humans) make perfect sense. There's nothing illogical about them at all.

However, you can't take the results of that line of logic and then suddenly apply them to the scientific world.

What do you mean by scientific world?

If you and I were to have a discussion about wheat catching fire, I might make the argument that wheat cannot spontaneously catch on fire without an ignition source. You might then say that god could make this happen if he chose to manifest a miracle. Now, if I'm willing to accept your suggestion that a supernatural being could do such a thing, I must be willing to accept all the other implications that go along with a supernatural being. From there, we might discuss motives for such an act, or the nature of such a being...

However... at the end of the conversation, we couldn't turn to a scientist and tell him that wheat can spontaneously combust without an ignition source. We would have no scientific basis for the claim.

I totally agree.

We had a philisophical conversation... not a scientific conversation.

Which is what all origins conversations should be. Truth be told, scientists are not the most qualified in this field as science can never answer questions of ontology and origins.

Our conclusions are limited to the realm of philosophy.

Philosophy is not limited to specific presuppositions. Science is. You will be unlimited when you allow yourself to think beyond science and enter into the realm of philosophy. You will be a new man, much happier, less grumpy.

No matter how hard we try, those same conclusions cannot automatically be applied to the natural world of science.

But they can be applied to the natural world. Science is simply a method of investigating the natural world. It is not the only method and in the area of origins it is not the best.

Wait... did you just tell me, "science is based on A, B, and C... but you can't verify my claim either way because it would result in circular reasoning"??? You don't see a logical fallacy in that statement?

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Oy, it's painful sometimes listening to scientists and their followers make statements like this. You simply don't understand the idea of presuppositions. Science is objective when it comes to ideas within the confines of its necessary presuppositions. Science is not objective when it comes to non uniformitarian causation such as miracles and even libertarian human choices. There's actually an article you should read by an atheist who agrees with me and admits to the necessary preclusion of miracles in scientific methodology.

Science and Miracles (1998)
Theodore M. Drange

You'll advance light years if you can grasp onto this.

I read it. Interesting essay, although the author seemed to ulimately be of the opinion that science cannot explain everything. I do not agree. Perhaps that is where we are truly butting heads here. I believe, given enough time, science can explain anything. Furthermore, while I see the author's perspective regarding the possibility for miracles outside of the bounds of naturalistic science, I cannot agree because I do not believe that anything is outside of science.

Look it up and you will see your picture.

Oh.. I see... you're just being cute... or insulting. Good for you.

You were doing okay up until the last portion. Miracles and non-uniform acts of God (and even humans) make perfect sense. There's nothing illogical about them at all.

From a naturalistic perspective (my perspective), they are absolutely illogical... as I just stated, and as the author of the essay you cited wrote when referring to miracles and their compatibility with science.

What do you mean by scientific world?

Sorry, I suppose I'm referring to the naturalistic world. I refer to the scientific world as the natural world, governed by natural laws and concretes.

I totally agree.

Ok, so now I see where you are coming from. You agree with the author that miracles can exist outside of the naturalistic world. I do not.

Which is what all origins conversations should be. Truth be told, scientists are not the most qualified in this field as science can never answer questions of ontology and origins.

Why not?

Philosophy is not limited to specific presuppositions. Science is. You will be unlimited when you allow yourself to think beyond science and enter into the realm of philosophy. You will be a new man, much happier, less grumpy.

I love philosophy! But I love and respect it for what it is. It's like appreciating a good hypothetical scenario. You can develop it, consider it, weigh the possible implications, and even rework it with the input from others. At the end of the day though, we're all still just biological lifeforms, cruising in a circle through space on a big hunk of rock.

But they can be applied to the natural world. Science is simply a method of investigating the natural world. It is not the only method and in the area of origins it is not the best.

Simply stated (obviously), science is THE method for investigating the natural world, while philosophy is the method for considering aspects of existence.

Both serve seperate purposes.

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

Ok, let's explore one of your points; the accuracy of the senses.

I will agree that most scientists (I won't speak for everyone) rely on the accuracy of the senses. However, if someone theorized that the senses were not accurate, they would need to develop an alternative hypothesis, run experiments, analyze the data, and produce some conclusions. Those conclusions would then be reviewed by other scientists who would probably want to recreate the circumstances of the experiment to determine if the results could be replicated. If it turned out that the conclusions were accurate, it would mean a major shift in our understanding of the world around us.

Now, based on what I've read from you, I assume that you are referring to a more philisophical approach. Plato certainly had some interesting ideas about the nature of existence, and our understanding of reality. (For those that are unfamiliar, do some googling for "Plato's cave") Again, while these ideas may suggest that the reality we know is not the "real" reality, science is not based on non-absolutes.

Science is based on empirical evidence, concretes, absolutes, A is A. It is based on that which can be observed and studied. It is based on that which can be duplicated and predicted.

We can spend all day speculating about alternate realities... but in the end, this is the reality we've got to work with.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

Because it isn't. Science is the aquisition of probabilistic knowledge about a plethora of fields of inquiry (biology, nanotechnology, the quantum world, galaxies, etc, etc, ad infinitum). The probability of a given explanation is determined by the logically derivable scientific method (parsimony, falsifiability, etc).

So what presuppositions does science make?

 

[Calminian]

Because it isn't. Science is the aquisition of probabilistic knowledge about a plethora of fields of inquiry (biology, nanotechnology, the quantum world, galaxies, etc, etc, ad infinitum). The probability of a given explanation is determined by the logically derivable scientific method (parsimony, falsifiability, etc).

So what presuppositions does science make?

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

 

[Calminian]

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

Doh! Just noticed I completely hijacked this thread. Looks like Jest is a little less trollish now, so perhaps I've accomplished my goal. If any one wants to pursue the presuppositions of science I'll be happy to address it, but in a new thread.

 

[gluadys]

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

Let's start with the fact that uniformitarianism does not exclude miracles and if you think it does, you have an incorrect understanding of uniformitarianism.

 

[shernren]

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Not true. For basic examples of the mathematics of evolution, see Fischer's work on the mechanisms of gender balance as enforced by genetic ratios in the gene pool, and Kimura's work on neutral mutations. Very important works, governed by much the same statistics that pharma companies use to ensure (or not ) that their drugs (which you take, presumably) are safe.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

"Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer" <- non-sequitur. Please elaborate.

Also, I'm not sure how well you know quantum theory. The links you are trying to draw out (if they are true) are very deep, and you need to have a good grasp of theory and interpretation to make sure you don't go wrong. Here's a diagnostic question:

Suppose Young's double-slit experiment is performed with light and a photographic plate. If both slits are left open, does the wavefunction ever collapse? If so, at what point? How does the situation change if electrons are used? (Bonus: how would the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation using pilot waves differ from the Copenhagen interpretation?)

This is a typical undergrad-level question on the interpretation of quantum theory; I hope you get it right. ^^

 

[no1nose]

As for the date of the creation, why waste time number-crunching when Gen. 1:1 says it all: "In the beginning ..." - which is soon enough. - K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the O.T., 2003

Attempting to measure finite time set within the infinite context will give a varity of results.

Take the example of a photon traveling across the universe. From our viewpoint this photon has taken 12 billion years to reach us. But from the photon&#8217;s perspective the journey has been instantaneous &#8211; it hasn&#8217;t taken any time at all.

You may have heard of the twins experiment. One twin goes off in a rocket traveling near the speed of light and when he returns he has only aged two years where as everyone on earth has aged twenty years. The question is how old is the matter that makes up the first twin? Is it twenty year younger than the matter of the second twin? Now let&#8217;s say that the second twin is jealous and goes off in another rocket that is even faster. When he comes back he has only age one year but the other twin has aged 40 years. So now how old is the matter that makes up the twins and how old is the matter that makes up the earth?


Whether light is observed to be a particle or a wave depends on the position of the observer. When the observer&#8217;s perspective is the same as the photon then the photon appears as a particle. However when the observer&#8217;s perspective is independent of the photon then the photon is observed as a wave. This is easily demonstrated by the two slit experiment.

When one slit open the photon is observed at the moment that it impacts and the perspective of the observer and the photon the same. When a second slit is opened then photon is first observed passing though the slits, however the photon does not react until it hits the target. This puts the observer and the photon is separate reference points.

In the first case where the observer and photon share the same perspective the photon has not time to change into a wave form. Because the photon does not experience time, it is in effect everywhere in the universe until it is observed.

In the second case where the observer and the photon have different perspective the photon is observed passing through the two slits before hitting the target. In this situation the photon is observed in real time from an outside perspective and because the photon does not have mass it is always observed as a wave form

This paradox again requires a higher more encompassing dimension

 

[shernren]

Have you ever taken an undergraduate quantum physics course?

 

[no1nose]

BSc, MPA and degree in Theology.
Here is the idea:

I don&#8217;t have a problem with the science that is associated with Evolution. But I do disagree with the idea that mutations are chance events. At the most basic level mutations are a result of quantum physics. So for me the changes in living things are caused by quantum outcomes that are observer determined. This scenario has, for me, a better fit in explaining the way life changes in the real world than the idea of chance mutations.