A Whale of a Tale

Yeah - 'cause we saw how well that worked in Dover...

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Better to have a creationist jury. Having a lawyer who's unfamiliar with terms like "evidence" probably isn't in your best interest.

well, since something like 2/3rds of american society are fooled by creationism, i'd probably be ok. besides, having a creationist lawyer would (hopefully) imply a creationist jury. you know they wouldn't let people with biases towards stuff like "evidence" in.

---

אָרַח

That enough of this diversion. Please debate the thread topic.

---

it's only mildly off-topic. it explains why we're even having this debate, really -- different standards of evidence, and prior assumptions.we could line up all of the intermediatary whales that ever existed, and the adamant creationists will never see the connection.

---

אָרַח

Why is this allowed? Clearly and unequivocally, it is a personal attack without a shred of substantiation.Had Nosey the foggiest notion of telling the truth about exchanges related to this area, considering I have repeated this fact, he would know that Brukner and Vedral have indeed presented papers that entanglement occurs across segments of time, and moreover, the mere fact of what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" raises the specter, considering GR, of time not exactly working in a perfectly linear fashion.Wheeler pointedly addresses this very fact in his proposed delayed-choice experiments relating to QM.Moreover, not a few evos here have at times advanced the transverse wave interpretation of QM which involves accepting as real the mathematical proposition of waves that do indeed travel backwards in time.But hey, ad hominen attacks totally uncensured from Nosey are not exactly new.

Nosy, I do agree with rand that this post is full of insults and arguments against your opponant, not his claim.I am suspending you for 48 hours, as you are a admin and should know better.Take any arguments to the appropriate thread in my signature when you are welcomed back.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Rand, Two wrong do not make a right.

quote:

---

Had Nosey the foggiest notion of telling the truth...

---

quote:

---

...ad hominen attacks totally uncensured from Nosey are not exactly new.

---

There is no more need for examples like this than there are for those that Ned wrote.As I pointed out to everyone in the admin forum, I am not going to go back and hand out retroactive suspensions all over the board, but I am going to be on a closer watch from here on out. If you are going to act out because you find others doing so...nothing will change around here.I suggest that everyone try to take the high ground, then you can never be accused of adding to the height of the water.Please take any discussion of this warning to the appropriate thread in my signature box. It is OFF TOPIC here.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Let's bring it back to this time travel theory - while ducking the mud slinging, you failed to respond to my initial post.Are you suggesting that the rules of QM apply to living organisms? That evolution is wrong because it assumes a linear timeline and we should try and look at it from a multi-dimensional timeline?If so, do we have any evidence of any creature which is alive today, died last week and will be born tomorrow? (I'll allow all sorts of variations on the time period)It's one thing for sub-atomic particles to mathematically travel through time, it's a very different thing to have a Yak doing it.To tie it to the topic -Are you saying that modern whales are actually decended from future whales which don't yet exist? Or that prehistoric whales are devolved from modern whales?What does this theory predict we should be looking for to confirm it?

First off, this is totally off-topic, and the threads started to discuss this, you were noticeably absent from, I believe. So your off-topic comments here, as far as I am concerned, are not appreciated and not very helpful in that they do not properly characterize my position or things I have posted. Secondly, had you been on some of the threads discussing these ideas, you would see that WK had provided a link to a peer-reviewed article making that exact proposition, specifically that mutations are governed by quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics.But unfortunately, you have not really taken the time to learn what people are saying in this area. No one has ever suggested that things like a Yak travel backwards through time per se. That comment is based on ignorance of the issue. This is a false claims about your opponent's argument. Are you attempting to address my stance in good faith, or simply trying to insert ridiculing comments to the lurkers, because after all, this process is best understood, as you have stated, as something akin to the Jerry Springer show?One of the theories related to QM is that of the multiverse. Personally, and I freely admit that this is tentative from a science perspective, but I believe we will discover not so much distinct multiverses not connected to one another, but more of a blended set of multiverses. I realize for any knowledgeable lurkers or posters out there that the initial concept for the multiverse in QM does not necessitate interaction as I am proposing, and on a different thread, we can get into this (see Moving Towards an ID mechanism thread).But one thing is clear, the assumption of a single static past is unproven, but is a mere assumption, sort of like imo the assumption of a constant rate of time for all things equally in the universe (before GR).So the issue is that if we look at data based on an assumption, and we later find that assumption is wrong, we will have to review our conclusions of the data.I'll give you an example where this line of thinking is relevant. Let's say you are arguing that the Bible is incorrect because it states the earth is 6000 years old. Of course, the Bible does not state that, and it is a silly argument evos make, but assuming one is arguing against the Bible in a YECist context, let's look at that claim.Well, if the past is changing, then is entirely possible that both situations of a young earth and old earth could be true. There could well be an expansion of time as time progresses, or there could be events that massively change and expand space-time or change it (such as the Fall).Or to be less extreme, let's say 3000 years ago, the universe was 4 billion years old, and now 3000 years later, it is 15 billion years old or whatever it is. The idea the universe exists in a linear progression of time, or even that this is the only universe and not part of a larger multiverse, are mere assumptions and assumptions increasingly undermined by more advanced physics in the past 100 years.This message has been edited by randman, 01-09-2006 01:59 PM

This is getting offtopic.There is an open topic where it is on topic though (not too many posts left, but it could be a springboard?)Try reading this post from Jerry which gets into the nitty gritty. IIRC randman basically agrees with Jerry, but they have some differences of opinion.

edit - bygones Assuming a multiverse and a fluctuating past, at some point in time (call it the observation point) the past leading to that point will be static. If we choose a different observation point, the past leading to that point will be different than that leading to the initail observation point, but it will likewise be static.So, call it a variation on the uncertainty principle, but how would you determine if the past is in motion, if by observation of the past you have locked it in place? No, it's a silly argument that Evos respond to. There is a multiverse of difference between the two. Do we have any evidence for this? How would we test for this? Let's assume that this is true and that time is elastic. You still haven't answered my question - Do you think this has an effect on biology?Even if this is correct - Who cares? Theory of Evolution does not require that mutations take place as a result of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics - just that they take place.If your argument is that Evolution doesn't happen because mutations are taking place, you better rethink the argument.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 01-09-2006 04:45 PM

Feels good to say it, doesn't it? Catchy, on target, etc,...

Hey nuggins, I had edited out some of those comments before your response.And in fact, I was forced to mention my views because guys like you keep diverting thread topics demanding, well, if this is wrong, what is your position.Imo, as I state often, it really doesn't matter what or if there is an alternative if the facts don't mesh, which is why I tend to stick to looking closely at the data, but that doesn't stop you guys from always trying to divert the topic and claim I am dodging you or something.But this is way off-topic. There are threads where this has been brought up. Modulous mentions one of them.

No, but it is important to realize that physics underlies chemistry which undergirds biology, and that if one has a mistaken paradigm in terms of what constitutes the material world, then that will affect the evo/ID arguments and does affect them.Imo, a more modern definition of reality includes and necessitates a deeper framework than was presupposed when ToE was formed, and in many ways, the principles and behaviours of this deeper reality and framework coincidentally match up with the principles related in spiritual traditions, so much so, I would argue that what people called spiritual is really a part of our universe, and the deeper reality physics indicates is the spiritual realm.I think people are hung up on semantics, and so the argument seems wrong to them a priori without thinking it through.Now, I could go on and on because there are lot of things to learn and understand before you are probably even seeing what I am talking about, but my stance is this "spiritual realm" which can be and imo, is being tested for, but without really recognizing it as spiritual contains within it principles that match up well with the idea of Intelligent Design, but not with the idea of randomness and things not being the result of an intelligent cause. In fact, I would argue that things are always a design, but only sometimes "physical" in terms of being an observavble discrete form in "reality", and that is something many physicists such as Wheeler have claimed in stating that physical things exist in an "inherently undefined state" prior to observation.So if we see ID in physics, and integral to physics, then imo, it is reasonable to think ID can occur in biology.