"Poorly" designed eye can be used to test quantum mechanics

[Chinchilla]

I don't believe that sand castles make themselves, I know that they don't make themselves. I've seen it and I've done it myself.

And there is evidence that cells come about naturally, which is very different to cells making themselves from nothing. But there's zero evidence that cells were created by a deity. I only choose the natural option because it's the only option with evidence for it.

If you don't believe that sand castle could make itself then how could hydrogen atoms make themselfes into other atoms when big bang occured ? Shouldn't they evolve as we are told ?

Making sand castle out of sand is much easier than evolving the sand first to make the castle out of different material .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you don't believe that sand castle could make itself then how could hydrogen atoms make themselfes into other atoms when big bang occured ? Shouldn't they evolve as we are told ?

You really don't understand what you're railing against.

 

[Chinchilla]

You really don't understand what you're railing against.

Attack the topic not the person , typicall when losing an argument .

 

[Chinchilla]

You really don't understand what you're railing against.

So if Sand castle can't create themselfes then something like stars and planets can't make themselfes either right ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Attack the topic not the person , typicall when losing an argument .

For starters, you've got that insult backwards.
Secondly, it's a fact that you really don't seem to understand what you are arguing against. You don't seem to understand basic chemistry or biology or physics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So if Sand castle can't create themselfes then something like stars and planets can't make themselfes either right ?

You do realise that it is impossible to try and compare something that is obviously man-made to something that has tonnes of evidence for having natural occurred. Right?

 

[Chinchilla]

For starters, you've got that insult backwards.
Secondly, it's a fact that you really don't seem to understand what you are arguing against. You don't seem to understand basic chemistry or biology or physics.

That's why I'm asking questions and you instead of answering are dodging it .

So can stars and planets build themselfes ? Or they can't like sandcastles .

You do realise that it is impossible to try and compare something that is obviously man-made to something that has tonnes of evidence for having natural occurred. Right?

Why do you again are arbitrary and assume that they are man made ?
I'd say sandcastle evolved from big bang through ages but you argue they could not why is that . Aren't human just atoms , a result of big bang or do you consider humans as something which was not made due to evolution but was created so it requires a designer ?

There should not be difference between human and sandcastle on atomic level just different atoms in different orders , now why can one evolve and build itself but the other can't ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's why I'm asking questions and you instead of answering are dodging it .

Where have I dodged a question?

So can stars and planets build themselfes ? Or they can't like sandcastles .

Stars and planets aren't built. They're formed via natural forces. To suggest they are built is already suggesting an outside force acting on them. Something that cannot be backed up by science.

Why do you again are arbitrary and assume that they are man made ?
I'd say sandcastle evolved from big bang through ages but you argue they could not why is that . Aren't human just atoms , a result of big bang or do you consider humans as something which was not made due to evolution but was created so it requires a designer ?

See, it's comments like this that make me say that you don't understand what you are arguing against. Evolution only affects BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS. Do you understand that?[/QUOTE]

 

[Chinchilla]

Stars and planets aren't built. They're formed via natural forces. To suggest they are built is already suggesting an outside force acting on them. Something that cannot be backed up by science

What natural forces formed them ? You say that hydrogen after big bang formed them ? What force compressed such hydrogen we know that gas law is not working in our favor .

See, it's comments like this that make me say that you don't understand what you are arguing against. Evolution only affects BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS. Do you understand that?

What is living organism ? I thought that the world is made only of matter , different atoms in different orders , different amount of electrons orbiting protons and neutrons . How do you discern between something which is alive and something which is not alive ?

Do you suggest that some of these atoms were put in order but there is something like Spirit inside of them to give them life so they can move , while the other atoms even tho they are put in order making for example fine diamond are not alive because there is no Spirit inside of them ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What natural forces formed them ? You say that hydrogen after big bang formed them ? What force compressed such hydrogen we know that gas law is not working in our favor .

Gravity forms planets and stars. And that last comment just doesn't make sense.

What is living organism ? I thought that the world is made only of matter , different atoms in different orders , different amount of electrons orbiting protons and neutrons . How do you discern between something which is alive and something which is not alive ?

Really? REALLY?! You don't know what a living organism is? You cannot be serious.

Do you suggest that some of these atoms were put in order but there is something like Spirit inside of them to give them life so they can move , while the other atoms even tho they are put in order making for example fine diamond are not alive because there is no Spirit inside of them ?

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. A diamond is not alive since it is just a rock. It has none of the attributes of what a living organism has.

 

[Chinchilla]

Gravity forms planets and stars. And that last comment just doesn't make sense.

How do you have gravity when you have only gas after big bang . There is nothing to compress the gass.

It was calculated that to form one star with hydrogen you would need energy of 18-22 stars exploding near it . So you need 20 stars to make one . It's a miracle if one formed you could say .

Really? REALLY?! You don't know what a living organism is? You cannot be serious.

Please act mature I'm asking serious questions . What would you consider to be alive and on what basics ?

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. A diamond is not alive since it is just a rock. It has none of the attributes of what a living organism has.

What are the atributes then ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How do you have gravity when you have only gas after big bang . There is nothing to compress the gass.

It was calculated that to form one star with hydrogen you would need energy of 18-22 stars exploding near it . So you need 20 stars to make one . It's a miracle if one formed you could say .

The fact that you think it's a 'miracle' for a star to form shows that you don't understand science. Here's the Wikipedia page on how stars form -- Star Formation.

Please act mature I'm asking serious questions . What would you consider to be alive and on what basics ?

As my history teacher used to say: stupid questions deserve stupid answers. And that was a very stupid question. If you want to know what a living organism is, then I suggest you find the closest mirror.

What are the atributes then ?

Look it up yourselves.

 

[tas8831]

Attack the topic not the person , typicall when losing an argument .

It is not attacking the person to mention that the person does not understand the subject matter based on the things the person has written.

 

[tas8831]

I like this from your link. Note the apologetic quotes around the word 'design', included no doubt because no other term would be appropriate.

"At a cellular level, there appear to be two main "designs" of eyes, one possessed by the protostomes (molluscs, annelid worms and arthropods), the other by the deuterostomes (chordates and echinoderms)."

I also missed the process of the development of primitive "eyespots". They just seemed to jump into existence out of thin air, as do most of the facets of evolution.

Maybe they were breathed-on dust of the ground and appeared via tribal magic?

Any updates (and by updates, I mean actual, relevant evidence) re: the aorta and stomach sending motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve? You had some problems last time in that you kept quoting and linking to essays that didn't remotely support your claim.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe they were breathed-on dust of the ground and appeared via tribal magic?

Any updates (and by updates, I mean actual, relevant evidence) re: the aorta and stomach sending motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve? You had some problems last time in that you kept quoting and linking to essays that didn't remotely support your claim.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said. That's on you.

 

[Jack Slatts]

It was calculated that to form one star with hydrogen you would need energy of 18-22 stars exploding near it . So you need 20 stars to make one . It's a miracle if one formed you could say .

Hi Chinchilla, sorry to butt in, but I have some students who are young earth creationists, and one who is flat earth, and all base their beliefs on the bible, which I believe is true for you as well. I'm trying to figure out how to work with them, so I would appreciate it if you could answer a couple of questions.

The above quote is definitely a claim invented by Kent Hovind (You don't "need" 20 stars to make one.). Now that Kent Hovind can no longer use a Gish Gallop because anyone can stop the video and evaluate his claims one by one, he has been thoroughly debunked, statement by statement, by numerous people. Probably the best is done by Logicked. Have you watched any of Logicked (or anyone else's) debunk videos? If so, why did you not believe the debunking?

 

[Chinchilla]

Hi Chinchilla, sorry to butt in, but I have some students who are young earth creationists, and one who is flat earth, and all base their beliefs on the bible, which I believe is true for you as well. I'm trying to figure out how to work with them, so I would appreciate it if you could answer a couple of questions.

The above quote is definitely a claim invented by Kent Hovind (You don't "need" 20 stars to make one.). Now that Kent Hovind can no longer use a Gish Gallop because anyone can stop the video and evaluate his claims one by one, he has been thoroughly debunked, statement by statement, by numerous people. Probably the best is done by Logicked. Have you watched any of Logicked (or anyone else's) debunk videos? If so, why did you not believe the debunking?

Ok let's invoke my amazing paint skills plus I will give you TWO miracles so you don't feel like I'm using Gish Gallop is this ok for you ?

I give you:
- that matter existed out of nothing for eternity in one single point prior to Big Bang
- first cause which allowed it to explode without the first cause for God argument

Now you explain to me according to your theory :
Why didn't the particles which came out of Big bang collapse right back into the dot because of Gravity ?
Before Big bang happend , there is dot , there is no time , space and matter outside of it . Then it exploded

After shortest time for us to imagine : Planck's time , why didn't the particles which came out of Big Bang collapse back into the dot which had such mass because of it's Gravity but contuinued to spread ?

I mean I could quote your prophet Neil deGrasse Tyson saying that " we are stupid because we only can measure 3% of gravity and the rest is missing " but I won't because it would be unfair .

 

[Jack Slatts]

Ok let's invoke my amazing paint skills plus I will give you TWO miracles so you don't feel like I'm using Gish Gallop is this ok for you ?

Thank you for taking the time to answer this. I'm not an expert at this, my specialty is education, although I am pretty good at Math and Logic.

I was hoping to get an answer to my questions, so I will answer your questions, and you can answer my questions from the previous post, sounds fair I hope!

I give you:
- that matter existed out of nothing for eternity in one single point prior to Big Bang
- first cause which allowed it to explode without the first cause for God argument

Now you explain to me according to your theory :
Why didn't the particles which came out of Big bang collapse right back into the dot because of Gravity ?
Before Big bang happend , there is dot , there is no time , space and matter outside of it . Then it exploded

OK, first, it's not my theory. I wish it was, I would be famous.

My answers: I see no problem with matter/energy being eternal. Do you have any evidence that it couldn't have always existed? Is even possible for "nothing" to exist?

Next Answer: AFAIK, there is no evidence that gravity existed at the beginning of the expansion, or that gravity would be stronger than the expansion. Without evidence, your point is moot.If you have some evidence regarding either of these points, please present it.

Next answer: I have no idea what caused the big bang. Maybe the expansion was required by natural laws that we are as yet unaware of.


OK, your turn. I would appreciate it if you could answer the questions I asked in my previous post.

 

[tas8831]

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said. That's on you.

I'm sorry that you do not understand biology at any level, yet pretend that you do. This is especially obtuse and deceptive seeing as how you have admitted ignorance in biology.
That is on you.

 

[Chinchilla]

Next Answer: AFAIK, there is no evidence that gravity existed at the beginning of the expansion, or that gravity would be stronger than the expansion. Without evidence, your point is moot.If you have some evidence regarding either of these points, please present it.

If gravity did not exist as you say then you could use that God after some time made gravity as a thing for fine-tuning the universe .

"The earth without form and void " then fine tuned for life .