Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Star]

.

Quantum computing at this point is just science fiction.

You're wrong again. The ignorance in your arguments is absolutely staggering.

You will have to forgive me, I don't get to go to the movies a lot these days, my science fiction is a bit behind. I will look into this and get back to you.

In the mean time can you tell me how you would program this simple program in Quantum programing...

X = 7001 * 7841; // product of two large prime numbers
FOR I = 2 TO X ^ 0.5;
IF MOD( X, I ) == 0 THEN RETURN I;
NEXT I;
RETURN ERROR;

It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation like this. Did you also argue that microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-fi were fictional magic when they first came out?

There are many problems with what you are telling us.

First, you switched goal posts. I began by stating that quantum computing will eventually solve complex problems. You've now moved the goal post to quantum computing solving problems right now.

Second, in doing so, you also impose a false dichotomy, ie., either quantum computing solves problems right now, or it's entirely fictional. Quantum processors are only now becoming commercially available and are still rather experimental. Further development is needed before we see it in wide-scale use solving the kinds of problems we were discussing earlier.

Third, you posted some code that's irrelevant to quantum computing. Humans program in what we call "high-level" languages, such as Java and C#. Machine code, the 0s and 1s, are the lowest level, which must be compiled from the high-level. Quantum computing introduces a third option in a qubit by allowing a superposition of both states. Instead of just the binary state, there's 0, 1, and both. So the answer to your question, we would still use the same high-level programming languages in principle (with some minor changes in some cases), but the compiler and processor will be much different.

Fourth, I posted a link to a company that is already making quantum processors. You are arguing from a position of personal incredulity. You don't know anything about it, you don't want to, and even if you did, it's too complex for you to understand, therefore it must be wrong. That's terrible logic!

D-Wave Systems, based out of my hometown Vancouver, BC, Canada, is the world's first quantum computing company. Partnered with Google and NASA, they have launched the D-Wave Two, the most advanced commercially-available quantum processor to date.

[/URL]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/51 ... aces-wins/

“Using a specific test problem involving eight qubits, we’ve verified that the D-Wave processor performs optimization calculations – finds lowest energy solutions – using a procedure that is consistent with quantum annealing," said Daniel Lidar, the lead scientist on the project and director of the USC-Lockheed Martin Quantum Computing Center (QCC), in Marina del Ray, CA, US.

http://www.isgtw.org/spotlight/world%E2 ... ter-indeed

[Star]

.

You've got that exactly wrong. And I don't understand how you could be so far off.
Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case. The DNA discovery by Watson, Crick, et al. provided the mechanism for these 'numerous, successive, slight modifications.'

That is what you say, but I don't see it, and until such time that you demonstrate this to be true, I will have to consider this as an unsupported claim on your part.

If you don't see it, maybe I can explain.

This is Darwin's quote that you posted: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

In the first sentence, starting with "If it could be demonstrated...," he's saying, if it could be shown that organs could NOT have been formed by evolution, his theory would break down. Second sentence, he's saying he can find no such case of any organ which could NOT, which implies that his theory does NOT break down. Evolution is numerous successive, slight modifications. So Darwin's basically saying, his theory of evolution by natural selection withstands this particular test, because there are no cases he can find of an organ with irreducible complexity. Every organ can be explained by numerous successive, slight modifications. This remains true to this day.

[FarWanderer]

.

Behold digital evolution!

Now we are getting somewhere.

What is the most novel feature that these programs have come up with and did it come from the elements of natural evolution or from the intelligent design of the programers?

It's not reasonable to require complete virtual replication of evolutionary processes to accept the Theory (in fact it is by definition impossible for humans to produce natural selection). It only requires real world observation, with testable predictions. And we have that in droves.

Natural replication of traits, natural random variation, natural selection, time: that's all that's needed for natural speciation. It does not matter if the mechanism is digital or analog, and it does not matter what Darwin himself may or may not have theorized about said mechanism.

The Origin of Species is not like the Bible. No one claims it's infallible.

Saying that the modern Theory of Evolution is in some degree different from what exactly Darwin proposed, even if taken as a correct claim, doesn't change whether the modern Theory is accurate. So what if you don't think the modern Theory should be called "Darwinian"? What difference does it make?

[Peter]

.

Behold digital evolution!

Now we are getting somewhere.

What is the most novel feature that these programs have come up with and did it come from the elements of natural evolution or from the intelligent design of the programers?

If I understood you correctly, you claimed that DNA, since it's digital, and we all know that corrupt digital code only breaks the program, disproves evolution. That's quite an assertion. It seems you believe incorrectly that only analog systems can remain viable through mutation (change). Well, apparently, programmers have been writing digital code for the past 50 years that does evolve successfully. Today, evolving digital code is the very basis of artificial intelligence. If programmers 50 years ago could write what must have been very simple code that evolved then how much more able to evolve is DNA with it's vastly more complex code?

[Sir Hamilton]

I am really not sure you know what you are talking about either. I was referring to atheists. There is a difference between someone who is without religion and an atheist. Do you understand?

It does not matter what the subject is. The point is that you have claimed you will choose your 'experts' based on whether they soothe your 'mind' rather than whether they speak the truth or can factually back up their arguments. Whether someone is an atheist or is simply without religion is irrelevant to the issue. You claimed you didn't care what the facts were, what the data was, you would simply choose to believe whomever is "pleasing to your mind."

This proclamation of yours demonstrates you have no interest whatsoever in learning or in analysis of facts. You simply will agree with whatever is 'pleasing to your mind.'
It is hard to think of a clearer way for you to state you don't care what the facts are, or what the truth is. You simply will endorse whatever silliness or absurdity "pleases your mind." These are your words not mine. Do you wish to retract them?

Actually it does matter what the subject is...and the subject that I was referring to was atheism. You said it is irrelevant whether someone is an atheist or without religion. Are you not aware that someone can be without a religion but still be open-minded enough to accept the possibility of God? or a god? or a higher power? So no it is not irrelevant as you say. It takes a very narrow and backward mind to be an atheist. Fortunately that is only a small percentage of the human population.

[Sir Hamilton]

Wow, talk about taking my posts out of context....that was cute danmark. I was only using the popularity thing because star was using the popularity thing.

You still don't understand the difference between appealing to popularity of non-experts in a general population, and that of appealing to scientific consensus and expertise? Wow. I really don't know what else to say to you at this point.

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going

[Sir Hamilton]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

Where did you see me claim that 75% of the population are atheists?

Now declare your specific religious belief system and we may be able to continue the conversation.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

[Joab]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

Where did you see me claim that 75% of the population are atheists?

Now declare your specific religious belief system and we may be able to continue the conversation.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

Anybody who has a different belief system to you, which at a minimum must be at least 75% even if you are Catholic and comprise approx 25% of the population. That's who.

Your turn.

[Star]

Wow, talk about taking my posts out of context....that was cute danmark. I was only using the popularity thing because star was using the popularity thing.

You still don't understand the difference between appealing to popularity of non-experts in a general population, and that of appealing to scientific consensus and expertise? Wow. I really don't know what else to say to you at this point.

And you still don't seem to understand that these so called "experts" are nothing more than imperfect biased humans. Humans that you just blindly believe everything that they teach because you like it. And around and around we keep going

I understand experts are only human. What's your point?

If you had a bad tooth ache, would you avoid going to your dentist just because he's an imperfect human, and instead opt for just anybody?

"You should let Aunt Martha do your root canal... our dentist is just a person!"

- If my car broke, I'd get a mechanic to fix it, not a seamstress
- If I needed surgery, I'd have it done by a surgeon, not a pharmacist
- If I need medicine, I'll visit my doctor, not my hair stylist
- If someone is mentally ill, I'll recommend they see a psychiatrist, not a priest
- If my cat is sick, I'll take her to a veterinarian, not a mechanic
- If you want biometric facial recognition software, you ask someone like me, not a veterinarian
- If we want to know the scientific consensus on evolution, we'd look to biologists, not garbage men

It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest experts in their respected fields are no different than anyone else just because they're human. There's also the science itself, which is published for peer-review in a public and democratic process, something you continually dismiss. Experiments must be repeatable. Evidence and methodologies must withstand scrutiny. Hypotheses must be tested. They don't just dictate what the facts are.

You know very little about science. You are out of your depth here. You can't effectively criticize that which you can't understand.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Star to Sir Hamilton Post2891--You know very little about science. You are out of your depth here. You can't effectively criticize that which you can't understand.


And what did we learn yesterday? What is it that we call this argument. I continue to wait in hope for a response from Danmark regarding a question that I have added to this thread more times than I can now remember.