New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[lasthero]

It's very basic quantum mechanics? The double slit experiment etc?

Then you shouldn't have trouble finding a source. I would really love to read a quantum mechanics based on the Matrix.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Then you shouldn't have trouble finding a source. I would really love to read a quantum mechanics based on the Matrix.

It seems that every time I post something, you require sources or teaching? Just what do you know about the belief system you adhere to? What is your speciality?

 

[Herman Hedning]

It seems that every time I post something, you require sources or teaching? Just what do you know about the belief system you adhere to? What is your speciality?

A more relevant question is maybe what your speciality is? Since you assert all kinds of things about what scientists believe, how quantum mechanics works and so on, we have to assume you are an expert in the field.

 

[nuttypiglet]

A more relevant question is maybe what your speciality is? Since you assert all kinds of things about what scientists believe, how quantum mechanics works and so on, we have to assume you are an expert in the field.

So no evols here have any knowledge of quantum physics? is that what you are saying? The very physics which for decades has been opening new discoveries and new ideas. Shame on you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So no evols here have any knowledge of quantum physics? is that what you are saying? The very physics which for decades has been opening new discoveries and new ideas. Shame on you.

Herman doesn't speak for all of us -- I, for one, don't assume you're an expert.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Herman doesn't speak for all of us -- I, for one, don't assume you're an expert.

Good assumption, I only know the basics, but that's better than nothing.

 

[lasthero]

It seems that every time I post something, you require sources or teaching? Just what do you know about the belief system you adhere to? What is your speciality?

Quantam physics is not a belief system, and I ask you to post sources becaus, quite frankly, it sounds like you're making stuff up. I don't claim to have a speciality in anything, but I've never heard of any scientist writing a serious paper on how we're living in the Matrix, and your blithe assertions don't impress.

So yeah. Source?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Quantam physics is not a belief system, and I ask you to post sources becaus, quite frankly, it sounds like you're making stuff up. I don't claim to have a speciality in anything, but I've never heard of any scientist writing a serious paper on how we're living in the Matrix, and your blithe assertions don't impress.

So yeah. Source?

study and research then you'll see I'm not making stuff up, and at the same time it will give you an education

 

[lasthero]

study and research then you'll see I'm not making stuff up, and at the same time it will give you an education

Yup, about what I thought. 'I don't have to prove my claim, you prove it for me!' The sure sign of the guy who's just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

The blind man is putting his faith in your rules and faith that your apparatus is working correctly, and even then he is only detecting photons.

The blind man can confirm for himself if the apparatus is detecting photons.

Please demonstrate to the blind man that the photons are caused by the sun.

Already covered in previous posts. It is no different that demonstrating to a sighted person that the photons striking their retina are coming from the Sun.

No he doesn’t. He’s blind. We can see what he can't.

Knowledge does not require sight. We can't see radiowaves, but that doesn't make them any less real.

The universe is pointing toward a very strong producer of the universe.

Evidence please.

Even still, the blind man doesn’t know where the telescope is pointing.

Why not? The telescope can give feedback on where it is pointing, giving audible coordinates. The blind man can also do checks to make sure the coordinates are accurate by pointing to known sources.

He has to take your word for it by faith.

No, he doesn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing is proven to be true in science.

Educated guess at best. Blind speculation at worst.

Says the person using a computer over the internet.

 

[Loudmouth]

all depends what you choose to believe

Why don't you throw away all beliefs and follow the evidence instead.

 

[LastSeven]

Why don't you throw away all beliefs and follow the evidence instead.

Says the person believing what "science" tells him.

 

[Loudmouth]

Says the person believing what "science" tells him.

I follow the evidence, not beliefs.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yup, about what I thought. 'I don't have to prove my claim, you prove it for me!' The sure sign of the guy who's just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his claims.

It has even been in the media.

 

[LastSeven]

I follow the evidence, not beliefs.

You're missing the point. You have no evidence other than what other people tell you is evidence. In other words, you still have to believe what they tell you. It all boils down to who you believe has the authority to make factual statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says the person believing what "science" tells him.

You know what is neat about science? It is a very open process. If you don't believe a certain scientists finds you can reproduce his work and see if you get the same results. Since science is based upon reproducible results and lying is very bad for science there is an extreme reaction to anyone that falsifies research.

It is permissible to make mistakes. Mistakes happen. It is not permissible to falsify results. If that is shown to happen it ends the career of the scientist guilty of this act. Scientists don't wait for an afterlife to punish a wrong doer. He is removed very quickly from the profession.

This is totally unlike creationism where creationists are caught all of the time and they only get kudos from their colleagues.

So if you doubt the science of evolution, you can always check it out for yourself. See if you can find any errors or mistakes in the works of various people. You might. I am very sure you will not find any lies.

 

[nuttypiglet]

I follow the evidence, not beliefs.

So where's your evidence that the Universe and life wasn't created? please don't say 'nested hierarchy' again or I'm sure I'll vomit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're missing the point. You have no evidence other than what other people tell you is evidence. In other words, you still have to believe what they tell you. It all boils down to who you believe has the authority to make factual statements.

Once again, you can go check out the evidence for yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has even been in the media.

I doubt it. And even if it was, that does not mean that much. The media very often gets the details of science wrong.