Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 128. (Read 108173 times)
my opinion is evolution hoax, because the creature will not change shape, for example chicken will remain its shape and will not change.
When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven, even in scientific realms, even if there is a slight possibility that there might be something else. I expect that there are a few people living in the heart of Chicago, who go get a bucket of water, and fish out of that bucket when there is nothing in it but water. In the same way, there are always going to be scientists who will be trying to find something other than cause and effect for things.
''When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven'' No it hasn't. What is ''enough''? I already told you scientists have found things that have no cause or at least they cannot be proven to have a cause, C&E IS PROVEN, WHAT'S NOT PROVEN IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE LIKE YOU CLAIM. There is no scientific law or theory claiming that everything must have a cause, that's something you invented and something you cannot prove. You keep saying the same shit which is not going to prove your point.
EVEN IF I AGREE and everything has a cause, what does that mean? Everything has a cause so we just go back forever? Has everything existed since forever then?
Admit it badecker, you lost.
LOL! I lost.
But not about cause and effect. 
What did I lose at? I lost in a number of ways, in explaining to you. You won at remaining in ignorance in the face of knowledge.
Cause and effect are upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. Evolution is destroyed by C&E at least regarding the way evolution theory says mutations come about. C&E is opposed to evolution theory because C&E allows for no pure random, while evolution mutations must have pure random to fit evolution theory.
You may have won in political science - constantly talking around reality - but I have won in the pure and hard sciences. And, I have given you such a run for your money regarding political science, that your PS winning is barely winning at all... except to show your ignorance.
You and evolution scientists may not like C&E, but take it up with Newton and those other scientists who understand that C&E is all-pervading. At this stage of the game, regarding C&E, you lose.
Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A. Where does it say that everything must have a cause exactly? I would like you to tell us.
Mutations are ''random'' in the way that we can't figure out the cause of them because we don't know the variables but deep down somethings might be totally random so no, cause and effect does not destroy evolution.
'' C&E allows for no pure random'' Lie, newtons 3rd law never says everything must have a cause. Human behavior could be truly random, we don't know and we can't prove it either way.
Cause and effect exists but it doesn't mean that everything has a cause and you can't prove it. I can't prove that something doesn't have a cause to an 100% degree because it might have a cause that we don't know of but you can't prove that everything has a cause either. We are stuck in the same place.
Something with no cause makes no sense to us just like everything with infinite causes makes no sense, the truth is that we don't know and you don't know either and you can't prove that everything has a cause so why are you still saying the same thing over and over again. Either prove that everything has a cause or admit that you don't know.
When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven, even in scientific realms, even if there is a slight possibility that there might be something else. I expect that there are a few people living in the heart of Chicago, who go get a bucket of water, and fish out of that bucket when there is nothing in it but water. In the same way, there are always going to be scientists who will be trying to find something other than cause and effect for things.
''When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven'' No it hasn't. What is ''enough''? I already told you scientists have found things that have no cause or at least they cannot be proven to have a cause, C&E IS PROVEN, WHAT'S NOT PROVEN IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE LIKE YOU CLAIM. There is no scientific law or theory claiming that everything must have a cause, that's something you invented and something you cannot prove. You keep saying the same shit which is not going to prove your point.
EVEN IF I AGREE and everything has a cause, what does that mean? Everything has a cause so we just go back forever? Has everything existed since forever then?
Admit it badecker, you lost.
LOL! I lost.
But not about cause and effect. What did I lose at? I lost in a number of ways, in explaining to you. You won at remaining in ignorance in the face of knowledge.
Cause and effect are upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. Evolution is destroyed by C&E at least regarding the way evolution theory says mutations come about. C&E is opposed to evolution theory because C&E allows for no pure random, while evolution mutations must have pure random to fit evolution theory.
You may have won in political science - constantly talking around reality - but I have won in the pure and hard sciences. And, I have given you such a run for your money regarding political science, that your PS winning is barely winning at all... except to show your ignorance.
You and evolution scientists may not like C&E, but take it up with Newton and those other scientists who understand that C&E is all-pervading. At this stage of the game, regarding C&E, you lose.
He will stop replying soon anyways, he knows he lost.
That is an impossibility - chances of that happening are less than 1 in 10 to the fortieth power. He lost when he couldn't explain dogs.
From his point of view, everything is sand, so sand is what he means when he capitalizes god.
I don't believe in evolution theory because they're not true.. I cannot accept that human evolve from ape.. I'm fearfully and wonderfully made by God himself..yes if human came from them why there's monkey around.
I do not believe in the theory of evolution , Because the theory is not clear
The theory of evolution is really clear man, which is the part that you doubt about ?
Both of you need to edit your quote trees to just what you are actually quoting. 
He will stop replying soon anyways, he knows he lost.
Both of you need to edit your quote trees to just what you are actually quoting.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.
It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.
Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.
Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you again for helping me.
Science has found that when the odds against something happening go to something like 1040 to 1 against, that is something that is scientifically impossible. Now don't quote me on those odds. Go see what the odds really are.
The point is that even science knows that cause and effect is is throughout, because there is no other way that has been found. And if you study it, you will see that pure random doesn't even make sense.
The few things that have been literally observed that might fit evolution, fit things other than evolution, easier, like genetic programming as to how to deal with unexpected genetic errors caused by environment or some other factor. Mutations are programming, and as such don't fit evolution theory.
I don't know what that means.
Science knows that cause and effect exists however science never claimed that everything has a cause like you do. If i study it I see that everything having a cause also makes no sense. You claim everything is programmed, programmed by what? And that what has to be programmed too because everything has a cause so we just keep going like this forever? Makes as much sense as something that has no cause.
You cannot prove that everything has a cause, quit being a hypocrite and admit it.
When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven, even in scientific realms, even if there is a slight possibility that there might be something else. I expect that there are a few people living in the heart of Chicago, who go get a bucket of water, and fish out of that bucket when there is nothing in it but water. In the same way, there are always going to be scientists who will be trying to find something other than cause and effect for things.
''When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven'' No it hasn't. What is ''enough''? I already told you scientists have found things that have no cause or at least they cannot be proven to have a cause, C&E IS PROVEN, WHAT'S NOT PROVEN IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE LIKE YOU CLAIM. There is no scientific law or theory claiming that everything must have a cause, that's something you invented and something you cannot prove. You keep saying the same shit which is not going to prove your point.
EVEN IF I AGREE and everything has a cause, what does that mean? Everything has a cause so we just go back forever? Has everything existed since forever then?
Admit it badecker, you lost.
I do not think that. Evolution is the selection of nature. To best adapt to the present living environment. Man is the pinnacle of evolution.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.
It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.
Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.
Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you again for helping me.
Science has found that when the odds against something happening go to something like 1040 to 1 against, that is something that is scientifically impossible. Now don't quote me on those odds. Go see what the odds really are.
The point is that even science knows that cause and effect is is throughout, because there is no other way that has been found. And if you study it, you will see that pure random doesn't even make sense.
The few things that have been literally observed that might fit evolution, fit things other than evolution, easier, like genetic programming as to how to deal with unexpected genetic errors caused by environment or some other factor. Mutations are programming, and as such don't fit evolution theory.
I don't know what that means.
Science knows that cause and effect exists however science never claimed that everything has a cause like you do. If i study it I see that everything having a cause also makes no sense. You claim everything is programmed, programmed by what? And that what has to be programmed too because everything has a cause so we just keep going like this forever? Makes as much sense as something that has no cause.
You cannot prove that everything has a cause, quit being a hypocrite and admit it.
When you find enough C&E things, and nothing else, then C&E has been proven, even in scientific realms, even if there is a slight possibility that there might be something else. I expect that there are a few people living in the heart of Chicago, who go get a bucket of water, and fish out of that bucket when there is nothing in it but water. In the same way, there are always going to be scientists who will be trying to find something other than cause and effect for things.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.
It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.
Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.
Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you again for helping me.
Science has found that when the odds against something happening go to something like 1040 to 1 against, that is something that is scientifically impossible. Now don't quote me on those odds. Go see what the odds really are.
The point is that even science knows that cause and effect is is throughout, because there is no other way that has been found. And if you study it, you will see that pure random doesn't even make sense.
The few things that have been literally observed that might fit evolution, fit things other than evolution, easier, like genetic programming as to how to deal with unexpected genetic errors caused by environment or some other factor. Mutations are programming, and as such don't fit evolution theory.
I don't know what that means.
Science knows that cause and effect exists however science never claimed that everything has a cause like you do. If i study it I see that everything having a cause also makes no sense. You claim everything is programmed, programmed by what? And that what has to be programmed too because everything has a cause so we just keep going like this forever? Makes as much sense as something that has no cause.
You cannot prove that everything has a cause, quit being a hypocrite and admit it.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.
It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.
Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.
Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you again for helping me.
Science has found that when the odds against something happening go to something like 1040 to 1 against, that is something that is scientifically impossible. Now don't quote me on those odds. Go see what the odds really are.
The point is that even science knows that cause and effect is is throughout, because there is no other way that has been found. And if you study it, you will see that pure random doesn't even make sense.
The few things that have been literally observed that might fit evolution, fit things other than evolution, easier, like genetic programming as to how to deal with unexpected genetic errors caused by environment or some other factor. Mutations are programming, and as such don't fit evolution theory.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
How do you know there is a way to do it? Can you prove it? ''You don't have to be a physicist to see the examples of cause and effect.'' But you do have to be a physicist to understand quantum mechanics.
''And all it said is that people are not smart enough to detect the cause behind the effect.'' Maybe or maybe it just doesn't have a cause, you can't prove it either way so again your statement that everything has a cause is not known to be factual.
It doesn't matter if there are quadrillion of C&E operations because what matters is if everything has a cause and you can't prove that everything has a cause, no one can. You are claiming that everything has a cause very easily and then you also claim that everything is programmed, that's simply not known. There are many scientific hypothesis about the universe, god is not one of them. One idea that's being tossed around is that the beginning of the universe was the beginning, not only of matter and energy, but of space-time itself...and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about what happened "before" time itself began. No programming there, no god, no sentient being that programmed everything, just the universe.
Everything having a cause also presents huge problems because we can just go back infinitely, so what's the point?
A : asserts that something (the universe) could have come about without a cause.
B : asserts that something (the universe) must have had a cause, but the thing that did the causing (The Prime Mover) was itself uncaused.
Both positions assert there is something that was uncaused which started everything. Only through parsimony (which is not logical argument, but a general heuristic) can we say that A's position is more rational to hold, because it requires a lot more evidence to prove a Prime Mover that in turn caused the universe as opposed to stating the universe simply caused itself. Both, however, are rather unsatisfying because neither really provide any evidence either way; they are merely assertions.
Now that we understand that we can say we have dismissed every single one of badecker's arguments therefore evolution is not a hoax. Thanks for watching ladies and gentlemen.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
Didn't you see the part that says "As we currently understand it...?" The history of "we currently understand" is that tomorrow or next year we may understand more. After all, this is the way science has always been. Why would we suddenly have perfect understanding so that our knowledge of science wouldn't change, and we would know everything?
So, he is telling you/us that there is a limit to our understanding. All science theory says this in one way or another. No science theory is factual that we know of.
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
Quantum anything has to do with probability. And all probability has to do with is our inability to determine. It has nothing to do with what our ability will be tomorrow or next year. Why? Because if we knew, we wouldn't need quantum/probability.
Since we acknowledge that we don't know everything, we also acknowledge that the things that we don't know, we just don't know.
But, there are billions of things wherein we can prove cause and effect, and nothing other than cause and effect has been proven... except our inability. Maybe tomorrow or next year...
Thanks for providing points that make it easier to show the fallacy of your points.
Its not a hoax! Evolution is just a fancy word for some fine ass, flawless and rule bound programming written by someone. For real, the way everything in this world works, including the biology of all organisms, it just seems so.... programmed. Coded. A little too perfectly.
However, science regarding cause and effect is not incorrect. Everything is programmed. Perhaps we will find it is not someday. But so far science has found nothing that is not C&E derived and affected. Point it out if you know of it.
This means that even evolution theory has been programmed to have happened. The scientists and others who have made and upheld evolution theory have been programmed to do so by C&E. This in itself shows that the so-called random mutations spoken about in evolution theory, are not random at all. Scientists were simply programmed by C&E, as was their theory of evolution.
Why would "some great programmer of nature" program scientists to think up a theory that says that there was pure random not affected by C&E, especially in the face of this programming, itself, proving evolution theory to be false? Why? To show the evolution scientists (and all of us) that even the things that they (we) are saying are programmed, so that they (we) can see that anything that seems to apply to evolution is programmed, as well, and not random mutations at all.
You can't prove everything is programmed, you can't even prove that everything has a cause (radioactive decay doesn't)
Quite the contrary. Everybody can prove it to themselves. All they have to do is realize that complexity that cause and effect provide.
That's not proof of anything. All they have to realize is that we don't know if everything has a cause or not and we certainly don't know if the cause was programmed or not
Oh dear. Countless billions of things proven to have a cause or causal group, and no effect ever proven to have existence NOT because of a cause or causal group... and we don't know?
Another thing we don't know is if that star some 13 billion lightyears from here has more than one planet circling it, or if that star even exists. But just because we don't know about that star, doesn't mean that stars don't exist by the billions.
The thing that you are trying to say is that we need to have all knowledge to have proof for something. Even scientists won't agree with you on that point.
I think you skipped this post mr hypocrite.
Yes you do have to prove that everything has a cause otherwise the statement ''everything has a cause'' is not known to be factual. We do not know that everything has a cause. Just because most things have a cause doesn't mean everything had or has a cause. You didn't agree with all the dating methods although all the evidence is there because as you said, maybe in the past somehow physics didn't work like today, didn't you say that? How is that not applicable to cause and effect? You are a hypocrite.
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Quit being a hypocrite. We don't know whether everything had a cause or not, that's a fact.
You know that nothing that has been proven in science has an absolute proof for it. There is always a potential that something was missed. For example.
Newtons Laws have been proven. But there are possible extremes of nature where the proofs might be wrong.
But that is not what we are talking about when we say "proof." Rather, we are talking about evidence that is so great that there really won't be evidence against it.
Regarding cause and effect, that's the kind of evidence we find. Regarding evolution, we really haven't found anything in evolution that can be applied in such a way that it can't be readily contradicted with science.
Evolution is barely possible, but C&E - which totally discredits evolution - is barely NOT possible.
Evolution is complete hoax being professed as it is.
There are billions of C&E happenings that, obviously and scientifically, are C&E. Yet there are so few so-called evolution happenings that are obviously and scientifically evolution, that evolution does not exist. All but the tiniest fraction of a percent of evolution can be proven to exist. And the part of evolution that can be proven, can fit other things as well.
No evolution. Evolution is a hoax.
EDIT: If you are talking about scientific proof that is 100% - 1000% - proof, C&E is so close to it that C&E is essentially proof. Evolution is so far away from proof, that evolution is impossible.
Did you not read? This is direct evidence against C&E ''some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if a single unstable atom is placed in a controlled environment, it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the atom to decay''
It's right there, did you not read that? Are you a physicist?
“As we currently understand it, quantum randomness is true and absolute randomness,” said theoretical physicist York Dobyns in an email to the Epoch Times. “Nothing in the universe can predict quantum outcomes except at a statistical level.”
No theory that can predict random quantum events has been proposed. Maybe badecker here would like to do so and get a nobel prize. Im waiting for it.
No one knows whether the universe is deterministic or not, claiming that it is, is lying.
monkeys are completely adapted to survive, humans exposed themselves to bigger dangers and had to learn to overcome these, you can think on brain size as the result of a risk/reward scenario
The fundamental material parts of everything that we know, are particles that are half energy - protons, nutrons, electrons:
Q:
If everything is made of atom, then atom has three parts proton,neutron and electron so therefore an atom is made of proton neutron and electron? what are the parts of proton,neutron and electron?
- dominique enriquez (age 15)
Iba,Zambales,Phillipines
A:
Hello Dominique,
According to the latest theories, protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.. Quarks are spin 1/2 particles. Gluons are spin zero carriers of the so-called 'Strong Force', the force that binds neutrons and protons inside the nucleus. See for more details.
The electron, on the other hand, is an entity itself. It is a member of a family of fundamental particles called leptons. The electron does have an electric charge and is attracted to positive objects such as a proton to form a hydrogen atom. See for more details.
LeeH
If everything is made of atom, then atom has three parts proton,neutron and electron so therefore an atom is made of proton neutron and electron? what are the parts of proton,neutron and electron?
- dominique enriquez (age 15)
Iba,Zambales,Phillipines
A:
Hello Dominique,
According to the latest theories, protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.. Quarks are spin 1/2 particles. Gluons are spin zero carriers of the so-called 'Strong Force', the force that binds neutrons and protons inside the nucleus. See for more details.
The electron, on the other hand, is an entity itself. It is a member of a family of fundamental particles called leptons. The electron does have an electric charge and is attracted to positive objects such as a proton to form a hydrogen atom. See for more details.
LeeH
The guy keeps arguing over and over that the world is made of sand. No matter what you say, he will insist he is right, for that is all he knows.
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
a possible evolution doesnt dissprove that the universe has not some kind of an intelligent AI like Sourcecode or Consoll Command option....
Jump to: