Quantum physics disproves evolution?!

I registered there yesterday and I still haven't received my confirmation e-mail. Can't post there yet, and I'm feeling a little left out.
 
JLam or KingMerv00, do you know the handle of any of the mods over there? I'd like to contact them to find out WTF is going on with my registration!
 
But QM says that no one can know how the waveform will collapse beforehand, which means that God isn't omnipotent, which disproves Christianity.

Clearly, this guy doesn't understand the difference between a theory and an interpretation.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Clearly, this guy doesn't understand the difference between a theory and an interpretation.
Click to expand...

That flaw seems to be universal among QM woos.

I have one who pops up regularly on my blog determined to convince me that QM proves Cartesian Dualism... Based on his version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
 
HappyCat said:
His line of reasoning can be used to save alot of people! He argues that "there is no phenomenon until it is observed." As long as we don't observe a bomb, it can't explode! How can an asteroid impact occur if we don't observe it? If we can just avoid observing dangerous things, nothing bad will ever happen again! I guess ignorance is bliss.....
Click to expand...
Ah, but Gunderscored is omniscient and omnipresent...
 
JLam said:
http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47146

This guy is arguing that quantum phsyics backs up intelligent design and disproves evolution. I'm no expert in quantum physics, but it sounds like bunk to me. Might anyone here want to register over there and lay down some smack?
Click to expand...
I hope Iacchus doesn't see this. It's hard enough trying to explain quite basic maths to him.
 
BillHoyt said:
Ignore that post, folks. Just an example of the Schroedinger Dead Cat Bounce. Back to our regularly scheduled pogrom.
Click to expand...
Just an example of how silly it was to attempt to justify anything normal sized using quantum mechanics . You see we have this thing we call Irony..
 
dogjones said:
Tell him this is not a new argument. "Esse Est Percipi" said Bishop Berkeley, ooo, about 300 years ago. It was a crap idea then too.
Click to expand...
Or, in a somewhat more humorous format:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A limerick by Ronald Knox, with Reply, sets forth Berkeley’s theory of material objects

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There was a young man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Reply

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dear Sir:Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about in the Quad,
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by,Yours faithfully, God [/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
homer said:
Just an example of how silly it was to attempt to justify anything normal sized using quantum mechanics . You see we have this thing we call Irony..
Click to expand...
I personally believe that the very basics of Quantum Mechanics is something every sceptic should be familiar with just to refute the very common misconceptions the average believer comes up with.

Or am I really going to be forced to write a piece for SkepticWiki?
 
Ashles said:
Or am I really going to be forced to write a piece for SkepticWiki?
Click to expand...

Please do. I wrote and expanded upon a lot of the basic science sections there, but I found the blank page for an article on QM a bit daunting.

I invited another good science writer from another forum, but there was some sort of conflict that I don't really understand, and he won't.
 
Homer said:
So it looks as if you are all a figment of my imagination
Click to expand...
Nice one.

Clearly the population of the universe is zero.
Since there are an infinate number of planets in the universe, but only a finite number are inhabited... any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds... so any people you meet in your travels are the figments of a deranged imagination.
--- The Hitch Hikers' guide to the Galaxy


The argument from QM (not restricted to wave mechanics btw) seems just a pretext for the more commonly known troubles with phenominalism.

Phenominalism, for those new, proposes that since we experience the universe via sence data, that only the sence data can be considered "real". basically, everything is a kind of illusion and if you don't experience something it dosn't exist.

It can easily get extreme.

One trouble is when you realise that nothing exists but that you make it so. This is trouble as soon as you consider the existance of others like yourself.

Decartes famously suggested that the existance of ones thoughts implied the existance of oneself... and so other things may exist also.

The main problem with the more extreme forms of phenominalism is the persistance of the illusuion that some things have an existance independant of our awareness of them. (Language gets really bogged down here.)

Some have suggested that objects don't go away when we stop looking at them because God is looking at them (and everything else) all the time.

The trouble with this is, who is observing God to keep God existing.

And this, freinds, is the fundamental flaw in all such arguments ...
 
Last edited:
If God is watching, without my permission, even when I am "going to the bathroom" (as the Yanks so charmingly put it) dosn't that make Him a peeping tom... can't I get Him arrested? (Or do I need Him looking so I can get it out and pee with it? Am I the only one being creeped out here?)
 
The theory of Quantum Woo Mechanics:

Quantum Mechanics, since so few really understand it, can be used to argue for any proposition.
 
Quantum physics irrefutably proves that people don't understand quantum physics.
 
Simon Bridge said:
And this, freinds, is the fundamental flaw in all such arguments ...
Click to expand...
I don't see what you think the flaw is. An "object" is simply a conceptual schema for organizing phenomena. It has no objective existence, even when we are looking at it. It seems to me that you are starting with the position that objects have an objective existence, observing that phenominalism says they don't, and concluding that since it disagrees with you, it must be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom