Table Salt
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 03:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm failing to see how your example supports evolution and/or the science behind evolution.

It seems rather non-sequitur to me.

I mean, how is identifying a specific incident in science giving credence to evolution?

It just seems like it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I don't believe in evolution."
"What about salt?"
"WTF?"
"Bam. That's what I thought."

I've always wondered why creationism is such a line in the sand for xtians? I mean, your godboy spent scads of time driving out demons and off hand I can't recall him talking about creationism much at all. Yet, we never see xtians whining about adding "Demon Driving Out" to medical school curricula.

Could it be because medicine has brought tangible benefits to people's lives and they don't want to look foolish by insisting on going back to primitive cures? Creationism is the classic god of the gaps mentality. "We don't know therefore god."

Bullshit.

The prototype radio telescope only dates to 1931. Science has thus only had even the most rudimentary tools for 80 years. Give them some time. Eventually it will put your god on the unemployment line and we'll all be better off for it.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:36 PM)viole Wrote:  That just proves that you believe in things without evidence and you don't believe in things that have it.
Not at all. I gave my evidence and my reasoning. The macro world is orderly, and it's made up of the quantum stuff. I don't see that unpredictability would aggregate to predictability. Or perhaps we have different ideas of randomness and unpredictability. I was a successful poker player before the stupid US cut it off. Sure, the next card dealt was random, but there were probabilities within the randomness that allowed some people to consistently win. So, I see poker as orderly despite the random content. maybe you see it as completely random. If so, we should play sometime. Yes
Quote:The fact that Quantum Mechanics excludes, at fundamental level, total predictability, is a major conquest of last century's physics.
Who's to say that the quantum mechanics of today is the final word on the subject? Have scientists in the field switched to other fields because there's nothing more to learn?
Quote:Alas, you are not alone. Many people, including atheists, have problems to accept the concept. Einstein did not accept it, either, but he was proven wrong.
People tell me that nothing is ever proven in science, and that it's always open to change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The random nature of the quantum level is predictable hence Schrodenger's probability equation has been proven to be accurate.

Can you predict whether a single photon will be reflected by a semi-transparent glass?
If if you can, we can meet in Stockholm for a beer when you come to collect your Nobel prize.

Quote:Einstein couldn't accept "Spooky action at a distance" because it violates the principle of locality and the speed of light constraint on which his GR was founded.

Yes. And he was wrong.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:45 PM)viole Wrote:  What is claimed is equivalent to: Nature is orderly except in those cases when it isn't. We call the latter case "miracles".
No, as it's not nature that's acting in the case of miracles, it's God overriding the natural order.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: Table Salt
(03-12-2013 03:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm failing to see how your example supports evolution and/or the science behind evolution.

It seems rather non-sequitur to me.

I mean, how is identifying a specific incident in science giving credence to evolution?

It just seems like it's a smoke screen tactic.

"I don't believe in evolution."
"What about salt?"
"WTF?"
"Bam. That's what I thought."


No.

Many creationists I have encountered think scientists, especially evolutionary scientists are evil. They think science is evil.

Chemistry is an often overlooked discipline with regards to its complexity. Evolution is disregarded because "it just doesn't make sense, so God."

However, basic chemistry is mind-boggling. Something as simple as salt defies logical thinking. No one gives a second thought to it. Salt hasn't been put on trial for its validity.

You can see salt right in front of you, just as you can see evolution. The science of salt (chemistry) is as real as the science of evolution.

That's how the comparison can be made. It is a basis for further discussion. It brings to light that some of the simplest things in science are phenomenally complex and to scoff at one is irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:55 PM)viole Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 12:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The random nature of the quantum level is predictable hence Schrodenger's probability equation has been proven to be accurate.

Can you predict whether a single photon will be reflected by a semi-transparent glass?
If if you can, we can meet in Stockholm for a beer when you come to collect your Nobel prize.
It's not totally random. The probability is known accurately.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Not at all. I gave my evidence and my reasoning.

You gave more reasoning than evidence, I am afraid.

Quote:The macro world is orderly, and it's made up of the quantum stuff. I don't see that unpredictability would aggregate to predictability.

Well, this margin is too small to explain that Smile. I suggest to read Feynman's QED little book.

Quote:Or perhaps we have different ideas of randomness and unpredictability. I was a successful poker player before the stupid US cut it off. Sure, the next card dealt was random, but there were probabilities within the randomness that allowed some people to consistently win. So, I see poker as orderly despite the random content. maybe you see it as completely random. If so, we should play sometime. Yes

Well. Of course we have different ideas if you compare cards playing or playing roulette with the intrinsic randomness at the quantum level.

Quote:Who's to say that the quantum mechanics of today is the final word on the subject? Have scientists in the field switched to other fields because there's nothing more to learn?

Nobody has the final word about anything, really. Actually, scientist are trying now to apply quantum theory to general relativity, and not the other way round. After all, QM is by far the most successfull theory we have in the whole field of science.

Quote:People tell me that nothing is ever proven in science, and that it's always open to change.

Sure. You can still hope...lol.

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 12:55 PM)viole Wrote:  Can you predict whether a single photon will be reflected by a semi-transparent glass?
If if you can, we can meet in Stockholm for a beer when you come to collect your Nobel prize.
It's not totally random. The probability is known accurately.

Yes, it is accurately predicted that the probability is 50%. Right, not random Wink

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 12:58 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(10-12-2013 12:45 PM)viole Wrote:  What is claimed is equivalent to: Nature is orderly except in those cases when it isn't. We call the latter case "miracles".
No, as it's not nature that's acting in the case of miracles, it's God overriding the natural order.

So, are you telling me that:

1) nature is orderly because of God, and
2) there are violations of this order because of God
?

This is logically equivalent to

3) whatever happens, it is because of God

Or not?

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Table Salt
(10-12-2013 01:08 PM)viole Wrote:  After all, QM is by far the most successfull theory we have in the whole field of science.
I've heard evolutionists say the same regarding evolution. How do you quantify that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: