"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh? So it is not logically possible that a Cambrian rabbit could be found?

Under current evolutionary theory, no.

However it is always possible that the theory *could* be wrong.

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
You talk about things you know nothing about. Why?

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!

And okay, your response was to humble bro, but still...

polymath257 wrote:

First, the time dilation effect is not a quantum effect. it is a relativistic effect.

You don't know that, you only assert that. My hypothesis is that it is, you asserting against it is not an argument against my hypothesis.

polymath257 wrote:

Second, to say quantum effects are affected by speed would imply there is a 'rest frame' that is well defined. This is wrong.

Only within the theory of relativity which is challenged by the contradicting hypothesis. Therefore, this is just another assertion from you.

polymath257 wrote:

Third, to say that the pace of *all* quantum events are affected *in the same way* by relative speed is completely equivalent to the pace of time being dependent on relative speed.

Not talking about relative speed nor the theory of relativity. Step out of your confined box already.

polymath257 wrote:

Fourth, the observational differences are those predicted by relativity, which has 'proper time' dependent on the path in spacetime.

Observations between relativity an this challenging hypothesis are equal. This model can be derived from relativity by performing a transformation from:
varying time + constant observed speed of light
to:
constant time + varying observed speed of light

What comes to observations, it's a perfect fit with the theory of relativity.

polymath257 wrote:

Fifth, time travel (in the sense of closed time-like loops) is probably not possible even in general relativity, but distortions of space and time are predicted and the measurements we have made agree with the predictions.

Sure.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Haha. You seem to be quite confused with your questioning.
How would I know exactly that I am experiencing an "out-of-brain intelligence"?
Is there a test you do? How does it work?
I haven't been able make that kind of distinction, so NO I cannot say that I have experienced an "out-of-brain intelligence".

Actually, no. Its you who is confused, or attempting to confuse. You have made several clearly theistic or deistic claims in other posts.

Since you do not believe in the supernatural, you appear to be claiming some sort of "natural deism". That indicates that you are sure there is some sort of intelligence pervading the universe, independent of neurological structures (brains)...

You know, it would be very easy to clarify. Simply state what you think is true.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh? So it is not logically possible that a Cambrian rabbit could be found?

Nope.

Because the geologic column have not contradicted itself ONCE.

It is as far fetched as the Earth reversing it's rotation tomorrow.

I am so sure of this, that I will make you a bet. Go to any museum, any geologist, and radiometrically date ANY rabbit fossil (extant or extinct species) and I WILL BET MY HOUSE that it will not exceed 65 million years of age.

Keep this in mind: Our knowledge of mining - the biggest industry on the planet RESTS ON GEOLOGY. We can predicts phenomena - accurately - due to our understanding of geology.

So, we have a source that gets tested on A DAILY BASIS. Not falsified ONCE.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't know that, you only assert that. My hypothesis is that it is, you asserting against it is not an argument against my hypothesis.

I saw no hypothesis. Only a vague intuition. Supply the details and we can talk about it. In particular, supply the specific dynamical laws. make a prediction that differs from that of relativity.

Only within the theory of relativity which is challenged by the contradicting hypothesis. Therefore, this is just another assertion from you.

Since you have no hypothesis, this is meaningless.

Not talking about relative speed nor the theory of relativity. Step out of your confined box already.

Show that the 'box' is confined. Give a specific prediction that differs from that of relativity.

Observations between relativity an this challenging hypothesis are equal. This model can be derived from relativity by performing a transformation from:
varying time + constant observed speed of light
to:
constant time + varying observed speed of light
What comes to observations, it's a perfect fit with the theory of relativity.
<quoted text>
Sure.

So it is observationally equivalent? Then there is nothing to say at all. It is a meaningless distinction. Of course, you supply no actual dynamical laws, give no detailed reasons for the observations, and provide no reason to doubt the theory that *does* give those.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
"What if" is kind of pointless. If there are mutations that only affect the brains then that's where you should put your focus.

It looks like you're planning to pull out the stops today. Why don't you put your exponential decline of knowledge theory on the table and let everyone know how truly muddled your mind really is?

Chimney1 wrote:

Actually, no. Its you who is confused, or attempting to confuse. You have made several clearly theistic or deistic claims in other posts.
Since you do not believe in the supernatural, you appear to be claiming some sort of "natural deism". That indicates that you are sure there is some sort of intelligence pervading the universe, independent of neurological structures (brains)...
You know, it would be very easy to clarify. Simply state what you think is true.

This is so funny :)

I don't understand though why you cling to some old posts of mine.

Thinking something to be true for me equates to KNOWING that something to be true. I don't know if there is some intelligence existing outside of human brains. I hold no beliefs so I don't believe it either.

It is logically possible that some alien species' exist. However I don't have any knowledge in this regard either. Do you?

I do find some of the reported crop circle patterns quite intriguing and have often wondered how could they have come to exist.

polymath257 wrote:

I saw no hypothesis. Only a vague intuition. Supply the details and we can talk about it. In particular, supply the specific dynamical laws. make a prediction that differs from that of relativity.

Since you have no hypothesis, this is meaningless.

I hypothesize that the speed of an object in space relative an singularity in the center of the universe affects the rate of quantum events of that object. This is an explanation for the observed differences how atomic clocks on Earth and in orbit are observed to differ in how they estimate time.

That is the hypothesis now for this discussion.

polymath257 wrote:

Show that the 'box' is confined. Give a specific prediction that differs from that of relativity.

By putting an fully mechanical clock and an atomic clock in an satellite in fast orbit the prediction is that only the atomic clock is observed to slow down.

polymath257 wrote:

So it is observationally equivalent? Then there is nothing to say at all. It is a meaningless distinction. Of course, you supply no actual dynamical laws, give no detailed reasons for the observations, and provide no reason to doubt the theory that *does* give those.

There are a few observable differences, one is the clock example above. The theory of relativity expects both of the clocks to slow down.

This is an "easy" method to falsify one of the two theories.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
This is so funny :)
I don't understand though why you cling to some old posts of mine.
Thinking something to be true for me equates to KNOWING that something to be true. I don't know if there is some intelligence existing outside of human brains. I hold no beliefs so I don't believe it either.
It is logically possible that some alien species' exist. However I don't have any knowledge in this regard either. Do you?
I do find some of the reported crop circle patterns quite intriguing and have often wondered how could they have come to exist.

Uhm... Discovery channel had a programme a few years ago, called 'Is it real?', in which they investigated stuff like crop circles, ghosts, poltergeists, Loch Ness Monster, The Jersey Devil, etc.

On the Crop Circle episode, a group of professional crop circle makers made an intricate pattern within two hours, WHILE FILMING.

It's all a hoax, done by people with way too much time on their hands.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
This is so funny :)
I don't understand though why you cling to some old posts of mine.
Thinking something to be true for me equates to KNOWING that something to be true. I don't know if there is some intelligence existing outside of human brains. I hold no beliefs so I don't believe it either.
It is logically possible that some alien species' exist. However I don't have any knowledge in this regard either. Do you?
I do find some of the reported crop circle patterns quite intriguing and have often wondered how could they have come to exist.

Why do you deny your previous claims to direct communication with the God of the Bible. Are these simply manifestations of methamphetamine psychosis?

Double Fine wrote:

Uhm... Discovery channel had a programme a few years ago, called 'Is it real?', in which they investigated stuff like crop circles, ghosts, poltergeists, Loch Ness Monster, The Jersey Devil, etc.
On the Crop Circle episode, a group of professional crop circle makers made an intricate pattern within two hours, WHILE FILMING.
It's all a hoax, done by people with way too much time on their hands.

Nice. I think I will try to look that one up... Thanks!

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I hypothesize that the speed of an object in space relative an singularity in the center of the universe affects the rate of quantum events of that object. This is an explanation for the observed differences how atomic clocks on Earth and in orbit are observed to differ in how they estimate time.
That is the hypothesis now for this discussion.

Again, this is not a hypothesis. It is a vague intuition. Give details: where is the center? how does speed with respect to that center affect quantum processes? if the particle is accelerating, how does the effect change? does direction of travel change the effect? do you expect different results for the movement of atomic clocks with respect to the earth at different times of the year because of the motion of the earth itself? how large would those effects be?

By putting an fully mechanical clock and an atomic clock in an satellite in fast orbit the prediction is that only the atomic clock is observed to slow down.

Really? So the atoms in the mechanical clock are not slowed down? Why is that? Do you have a mechanical clock of the required precision? Would an electric clock have slowing or not?

There are a few observable differences, one is the clock example above. The theory of relativity expects both of the clocks to slow down.
This is an "easy" method to falsify one of the two theories.

Except that we do not have mechanical clocks of the required precision.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh? So it is not logically possible that a Cambrian rabbit could be found?

Idiot.

Its logically possible IF evolution is false.

Its NOT possible if evolution is true.

That is the whole point of falsification.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
This is so funny :)
I don't understand though why you cling to some old posts of mine.
Thinking something to be true for me equates to KNOWING that something to be true. I don't know if there is some intelligence existing outside of human brains. I hold no beliefs so I don't believe it either.
It is logically possible that some alien species' exist. However I don't have any knowledge in this regard either. Do you?
I do find some of the reported crop circle patterns quite intriguing and have often wondered how could they have come to exist.

So, are your old posts now evidence that you have changed your mind? Clearly they contradict your claims now.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice. I think I will try to look that one up... Thanks!

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle

*****
The most widely known method for a person or group to construct a crop formation is to tie one end of a rope to an anchor point, and the other end to a board which is used to crush the plants. All characteristics of crop circles are fully compatible with them being made by hoaxers, but there is no actual evidence.[22] Bower and Chorley confessed in 1991 to making the first crop circles in South England.[3] When some people refused to believe them, they purposefully added straight lines and squares to show that they couldn't have natural causes.[3] In a copycat effect, increasingly complex circles started appearing in many countries around the world, including fractal figures.[3] Physicists have suggested that the most complex formations might be made with the help of GPS and lasers.[3] In 2009, a circle formation was made over the course of three consecutive nights, and was apparently left unfinished, with some half-made circles.[3]

The main criticism of alleged non-human creation of crop circles is that while evidence of these origins, besides eyewitness testimonies, is essentially absent, some are definitely known to be the work of human pranksters, and others can be adequately explained as such. There have been cases in which researchers declared crop circles to be "the real thing", only to be confronted with the people who created the circle and documented the fraud.[23] In his 1997 book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan discussed alien-based theories of crop circle formation. Sagan concluded that no empirical evidence existed to link UFOs with crop circles.[24] Many others have demonstrated how complex crop circles can be created.[25][26] Scientific American published an article by Matt Ridley,[13] who started making crop circles in northern England in 1991. He wrote about how easy it is to develop techniques using simple tools that can easily fool later observers. He reported on "expert" sources such as the Wall Street Journal, who had been easily fooled and mused about why people want to believe supernatural explanations for phenomena that are not yet explained. Methods of creating a crop circle are now well documented on the Internet.[25]

Some crop formations are paid for by companies who use them as advertising.[20][25] Many crop circles show human symbols, like the hearth and arrow symbol of love, stereotyped alien faces[27] or the logo of local soccer club Feyenoord.[28]

Hoaxers have been caught in the process of making new circles, for example, in 2004 in the Netherlands.[28]

Cerealogists discount on-site evidence of human involvement as attempts of discrediting the phenomena.[28] Some cerealogists even argue a conspiracy theory, with governments planting evidence of hoaxing to muddle the origins of the circles.[28]
****

There have even been prosecutions and convictions for crop circle creation.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you deny your previous claims to direct communication with the God of the Bible. Are these simply manifestations of methamphetamine psychosis?

He is incapable of giving a straight answer.

I think HB is insane.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

Why do you deny your previous claims to direct communication with the God of the Bible. Are these simply manifestations of methamphetamine psychosis?

I have not claimed to have any supernatural communication.

Chimney1 wrote:

So, are your old posts now evidence that you have changed your mind? Clearly they contradict your claims now.

Yes, my hypotheses change constantly. That is what I have been trying to tell you.

KittenKoder wrote:

The horrible tactics of the religious fundies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

And the rock cried out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

that's one i missed.