Proof of Creation?

[bhsmte]

Or you'll do exactly what?

See it as an opportunity to be intellectually honest.

Let's see what you can do?

 

[Davian]

Or you'll do exactly what?

It is not for me to do something, but for you.

By all appearances, you have misrepresented or incorrectly stated what I have claimed. It is your choice to substantiate those accusations or to retract them and apologize, whether it was an honest mistake, or you have mistaken me for another member of this forum.

If you do not wish to be perceived as intellectually honest within these forums, one would wonder why you are here.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

See it as an opportunity to be intellectually honest.

Let's see what you can do?

Magpies??

 

[Davian]

It is not for me to do something, but for you.

By all appearances, you have misrepresented or incorrectly stated what I have claimed. It is your choice to substantiate those accusations or to retract them and apologize, whether it was an honest mistake, or you have mistaken me for another member of this forum.

If you do not wish to be perceived as intellectually honest within these forums, one would wonder why you are here.

I have a little granddaughter who throws tantrums like you do. She's eight. She don't throw them as often as you do though. I guess she's more mature.

My eight-year-old daughter apologizes when she is shown to be wrong.

Why are you here in these forums, then?

 

[Euler]

If no evidence will convince you of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, just say so and be done with it.

He never says anything in a few words, when a page will suffice.

 

[Shemjaza]

Or you'll do exactly what?

The truth is it's own reward.

And... well...

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

[Kylie]

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com

Um, sorry to burst your bubble there, but these don't support your claim.

Your original claim was that "reality changes based on the observers intent." The observer's INTENT.

These articles don't say that.

The first one says that "by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality." Notice it specifies the ACT of watching. Not INTENDING to watch, but actually doing it. The second article says much the same thing. So the observer's INTENT means nothing; it is his ACTIONS that make the difference. It is the result of actually watching it, not just intending to watch it, that causes these results.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's called design in creation. Something nature can't do unless
it has some sort of higher intelligence.

The appearance of design can come about in nature through the process of evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Um, sorry to burst your bubble there, but these don't support your claim.

Your original claim was that "reality changes based on the observers intent." The observer's INTENT.

These articles don't say that.

The first one says that "by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality." Notice it specifies the ACT of watching. Not INTENDING to watch, but actually doing it. The second article says much the same thing. So the observer's INTENT means nothing; it is his ACTIONS that make the difference. It is the result of actually watching it, not just intending to watch it, that causes these results.

Exactly right. The observer can be a simple mechanical device incapable of having intent; the mere fact of observation forces the transformation.

So what is observation in this context? Apparently, merely arranging for the particle to interact with the broader range of particles, that is, the universe.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't reject evolution. Natural selection and change within species
happens. It was designed that way.

And there is no evidence. Just some similarities and a whole lot of
assumptions.

Defense attourney: "There is no evidence against my client, merely a lot of similarities between fingerprints at the scene of the crime and my client's fingerprints; DNA found at the scene of the crime, and my client's DNA . . . that and a whole lot of assumptions . .. . you must find my client innocent"!

Jury: We find the defendant guilty, your honor.

 

[Loudmouth]

Defense attourney: "There is no evidence against my client, merely a lot of similarities between fingerprints at the scene of the crime and my client's fingerprints; DNA found at the scene of the crime, and my client's DNA . . . that and a whole lot of assumptions . .. . you must find my client innocent"!

And the defense attorney continues . . . : Not only that, members of the Jury, the fingerprint and DNA evidence is also consistent with a prankster Leprechaun who likes to frame innocent people for crimes.

 

[EternalDragon]

Defense attourney: "There is no evidence against my client, merely a lot of similarities between fingerprints at the scene of the crime and my client's fingerprints; DNA found at the scene of the crime, and my client's DNA . . . that and a whole lot of assumptions . .. . you must find my client innocent"!

Jury: We find the defendant guilty, your honor.

I find it absolutely silly that you guys compare a crime done by one
or several people to evolution theory. As if you know the how and why.

But if you want to go that route then all the evidence clearly points to
one intelligent designer.

 

[lasthero]

But if you want to go that route then all the evidence clearly points to
one intelligent designer.

Why 'one'? How would things look different if they were made by, say, ten intelligent designers? How would you ever verify that?

 

[EternalDragon]

Why 'one'? How would things look different if they were made by, say, ten intelligent designers? How would you ever verify that?

How does that look with human designers? We have all kinds of
different versions of creations.

You would verify it the same as in a trial where DNA evidence is
presented. Or how we verify if a painting is actually by Piccaso or
not.

If you guys want to present evolution theory as a trial then there
has to be a defendant and a crime. You can't just pin the crime on
random, natural processes.

 

[lasthero]

How does that look with human designers? We have all kinds of
different versions of creations.

I don't know, how does it look? To the best of my knowledge, there's no way to tell how many people were involved in making something. Like, for i stances my IPod. I know it was made by multiple people because I'm familiar with the process. But there's nothing g about it that couldn't have been made by just one person. It would be hard for one person to do it, but not impossible. I've known people who've built their own computers. You wouldn't know they did it unless they told you.

 

[Loudmouth]

How does that look with human designers? We have all kinds of
different versions of creations.

You would verify it the same as in a trial where DNA evidence is
presented.

Hold on a second. In a trial, they use similarity between DNA samples to evidence a common ancestor, don't they?

 

[Smidlee]

Defense attourney: "There is no evidence against my client, merely a lot of similarities between fingerprints at the scene of the crime and my client's fingerprints; DNA found at the scene of the crime, and my client's DNA . . . that and a whole lot of assumptions . .. . you must find my client innocent"!

Jury: We find the defendant guilty, your honor.

It is possible the reason fingerprints and DNA of someone were found at the scene of the crime because they lived there. A single fact can make a huge difference. It's these kind of assumptions that can puts an innocent man behind bars.

 

[crjmurray]

How does that look with human designers? We have all kinds of
different versions of creations.

You would verify it the same as in a trial where DNA evidence is
presented. Or how we verify if a painting is actually by Piccaso or
not.

If you guys want to present evolution theory as a trial then there
has to be a defendant and a crime. You can't just pin the crime on
random, natural processes.

If you were trying to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial you would have to prove that there is no other logical alternative. "Designer that just happens to look exactly like evolution" is not a logical alternative.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I find it absolutely silly that you guys compare a crime done by one
or several people to evolution theory. As if you know the how and why.

But if you want to go that route then all the evidence clearly points to
one intelligent designer.

What we are comparing is the value of "similarity" as evidence. Similarity is actually very powerful evidence.

The hypothesis of some that all life on earth was created, species by seperate species by an omnipotent, omniscient designer runs into the problem of explaining shared defects. For example. we have a gene that would make vitamin c, except it is defective. Your dog and your cat can make their own vitamin c, you cannot, you have to get it from your diet.

Oddly that same break in the same gene is present in other primates. This is not reasonable under the created separately by an omnipotent, omniscient designer hypothesis. Mutations are random, and the same damage wouldn't come up in multiple species. Omniscience wouldn't copy an error over and over. The theory of evolution explains this situation better.

I believe God created us all, but He did it through the natural process of evolution, and we share common descent with other mammals, and other primates. The evidence shows this to be the case, as strongly as DNA shows who the father is of a disputed child.

 

[JacksBratt]

Defense attourney: "There is no evidence against my client, merely a lot of similarities between fingerprints at the scene of the crime and my client's fingerprints; DNA found at the scene of the crime, and my client's DNA . . . that and a whole lot of assumptions . .. . you must find my client innocent"!

Jury: We find the defendant guilty, your honor.

Cool strawman story. One of the best yet, I would say.