Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Evolution vs. Creationism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEvolution vs. Creationism
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 272829
Poll Question: What represents your opinion best?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [3.23%]
3 [4.84%]
12 [19.35%]
45 [72.58%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 07:13
^ that's correct, thanks for pointing it out. It's on the same wikipedia page, but a different chapter. :-)
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31165 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:05
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


What Stenger says about photons is that their wave "aspect" is not a property of individual photons, but "the statistical property of an ensemble of many particles".


But Young's experiment directly contradicts this.  Single photons create diffraction patterns.


Not really. Have a look at this pattern:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Results_observed

It shows that the diffraction pattern emerges from the single particles (photons or electrons) hitting the sensors. So whenever you observe a wave, it's really because your resolution isn't high enough. At least that's, from my impression, what Stenger also says.


I think I misunderstood what you were saying.  I think we're in agreement.  The diffraction pattern is a result of the probability distribution ("wave").  Just that you need not have a coherent illumination, you can send particles one by one and get the same result.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:19
^ agreed. :-)
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:27
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

As an aside, here's one theory.  Please point out the craziness in the following: 
"So much so that we have decided to call it "the standard model" At early times there was so much energy floating about that matter and anti-matter popped into existence, then annihilated each other. This went on for a while but due to a deep asymmetry in nature slightly more matter was created than anti-matter. This eventually condensed out as the universe expanded and cooled. In about 11 minutes after the point at which our physics doesn't work. The technical term for stuff in the universe before the matter froze out is Yelm. " 
Well, first off there's the spelling error - it's Ylem not Yelm and is an archaic (poetic) term dating back to 12th Century - the chances of finding that term in a published scientific document are pretty remote, so I assume this quote is taken from a blog or forum somewhere.
 
I have to admit I am intrigued by whatever this guy said before "So much so that we decided to call it "the standard model", people don't normally start talking with "so much so that..." .. ho-hum, I doubt it's that important.
 
As a piece of internet-chat thrown together in a hurry it's okay - could be better - no glaring errors other than omission - nothing to bust a capillary over.
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

Oh really?  And the energy came from where?
So it just "popped into existence" eh?
So could everything just "pop out of existence"?
Sorry, there are no simple bitesize answers for this, (and what we do know is way over my head Embarrassed), what happened during the Big-Bang prior and during the Planck Epoch (1st 1x10E-43 seconds) will undoubtably contain a different kind of physics to the one we currently know (or at least a variant of it), quantum cosmology is a highly speculative field because of the limitations of observation and/or understanding.
Originally posted by AmbianceMan AmbianceMan wrote:

 
People should be locked up for spewing stuff like this.
 
Not directed at you negoba but while I'm here....someone was asking for it earlier.
People should be locked up for lots of perfectly valid reasons - saying something you disagree with is not one of them. Tongue
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

(a good presentation by Lawrence Krauss titled "A Universe From Nothing")
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 10:47
Mike, hourlong videos are not going to be watched. At least summarize.
 
But I'm very interested in ideas about those early moments, because the asymmetry and resultant potential differences are what made the manifest world possible.
 
What did cause the pertubation in the equilibrium?
 
I am not assuming it was God, especially as an outside agent. I'm seriously curious about the ideas on this.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 10:57
^ An hourlong video doesn't mean that you have to watch it to the end. Usually - and also in this case - the speakers give a short summary at the beginning. And "A Universe From Nothing" is already a very good summary. :-)

What caused the perturbation in the equilibrium? I don't know. Currently I'm more intrigued by philosophical questions, reading Victor J. Stenger's "A New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason", and I also ordered the books of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett (which lead to the notion of "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse").

Maybe later I'll also get more books about biology. :-)
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 11:06

Well you know what I'm reading (Gould's _Rocks of Ages_)

I bought Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_ at the same time (he's the Germs, Guns, and Steel guy
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Silverbeard McStarr View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 05 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 167 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2009 at 11:19
Evolution full on.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 272829

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.