DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

From your own article:


Two particles interacting, not one particle existing two places at once.

They are interacting while they are existing in 2 different places. Please educate yourself about this. I am right and you are wrong. Let it go.

You're even wrong according to your own source. Fine. You want more?

"No reasonable definition of reality" could permit two objects to be mysteriously entwined across great distances, Einstein and his collaborators complained in Physical Review (SNL: 5/11/35, p. 300). There must be more to reality, Einstein believed, than quantum theory described. But rather than undermining quantum physics, the EPR paper, as it became known, became fodder for other scientists who showed that this unreasonable connection was in fact real. If quantum rules applied in everyday life, as soon as Peyton saw his quantum coin land in Seattle, he would know the outcome of Eli's toss--even if Eli's game were across the country or on the moon.

For decades, though, few physicists worried about entanglement. It was regarded as a hypothetical concept with no real prospects for ever being tested. "Initially it was a pure theory--quasi-philosophy," says physicist Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva.

That's no longer the case. Now, laboratories around the world routinely create and study entanglement, pushing the limits on the types and sizes of objects that can be entangled. Some studies are attempting to clarify the mysterious boundary separating the strange realm of quantum weirdness from the macroscopic world of football. Others focus on entanglement itself, particularly how it changes over time. Much of the new work is building a base for powerful technologies that operate in the real world, from manipulating information in futuristic quantum computers to sending secret messages with unbreakable security.

~ Sanders, Laura. "Everyday entanglement: physicists take quantum weirdness out of the lab." Science News, November 20, 2010, 22+.

Two objects. Not one.

[Bucky Ball]

Nope the  opposite

You are now denying the validity of proven science. It has been demonstrated over and over again to be true. Sorry, but you need an education and to learn to accept hard facts.

Quantum Superposition, and Quantum Entanglement are not the same thing.

[Everena]

God always has been and always will be, just like our true selves.

Maybe but I don't think my true self has been around for anymore than 65 years, and I scarcely remember all of that.  Is that just a working definition or do you have a reason to think so?  I could grant you that a natural god arising in consciousness can be older than our modern conscious selves .. but always?  Can't follow you there.  Another difference in hunches I guess.

I appreciate your honesty and flexibility, but God has been proven to me beyond any and all doubt, so I am looking at things from a very different perspective.

As would I if I'd had that same experience and didn't have the conceptual framework I do for making sense of it.  I'm sure your experience is genuine and significant, but I don't think it supports all the conclusions you are drawing from it.  Your choice to make though, as you should.  But I'll leave you to wrestle with the lions if you enjoy that sort of sport.  But I'm available by P.M.  Have fun.

These are not experiences that anyone could possibly justify in any other way. You have to experience them yourself to really understand, and someday you will. 

As for the "lions" here, many of them are just very hateful, bullying type people. I've never met an atheist yet who did not enjoy being rude, horrible and ugly to any person who did not agree with them on everything. Their idea of fun is putting down others who have a clearer understanding of everything than they do. Really, they just want to live in a pretend world, where they pretend to be apes, robots, plants, anything but what they truly are. And of course, this is all becaue they want to create a ficticious reality where they will never be held accountable for any of their actions. If they were all madly and deeply in love and connected with their other half, it would help them immensely.

Only true agnostics (like I assume you are) can be engaged in any type of meaningful discussion. Thank you for offering some positive human input admidst the hateful gibberish.

[brewer]

They are interacting while they are existing in 2 different places. Please educate yourself about this. I am right and you are wrong. Let it go.

You're even wrong according to your own source.  Fine.  You want more?

"No reasonable definition of reality" could permit two objects to be mysteriously entwined across great distances, Einstein and his collaborators complained in Physical Review (SNL: 5/11/35, p. 300). There must be more to reality, Einstein believed, than quantum theory described. But rather than undermining quantum physics, the EPR paper, as it became known, became fodder for other scientists who showed that this unreasonable connection was in fact real. If quantum rules applied in everyday life, as soon as Peyton saw his quantum coin land in Seattle, he would know the outcome of Eli's toss--even if Eli's game were across the country or on the moon.

For decades, though, few physicists worried about entanglement. It was regarded as a hypothetical concept with no real prospects for ever being tested. "Initially it was a pure theory--quasi-philosophy," says physicist Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva.

That's no longer the case. Now, laboratories around the world routinely create and study entanglement, pushing the limits on the types and sizes of objects that can be entangled. Some studies are attempting to clarify the mysterious boundary separating the strange realm of quantum weirdness from the macroscopic world of football. Others focus on entanglement itself, particularly how it changes over time. Much of the new work is building a base for powerful technologies that operate in the real world, from manipulating information in futuristic quantum computers to sending secret messages with unbreakable security.

~ Sanders, Laura. "Everyday entanglement: physicists take quantum weirdness out of the lab." Science News, November 20, 2010, 22+.

Two objects.  Not one.

Studied at all levels of science just bursting out all over with this troll. 

Has any come up with a nick name for this thing yet. How about Never-in-ya, Nev for short.

Edit: Stop trolling and my attitude might change.

[LadyForCamus]

If you had personal experiences with God, then they would only lead you the truth of eternal life. You have decided on your own that you die and that is the end of you because you are without God.

My experience with god is real.  I know it.  I don’t have to prove it to you.  You are the one who is deciding there is an afterlife on your own.  I have experiences with the one true god, and I know that there is no afterlife, because he did not design us that way.  The same method, personal experience, leads two people to two different conclusions.  Mutually exclusive conclusions.  What does that tell you about the reliability of personal experience?

Um, response please?  I’m trying to make up my mind about whether or not you’re a troll.

[Bucky Ball]

Maybe but I don't think my true self has been around for anymore than 65 years, and I scarcely remember all of that.  Is that just a working definition or do you have a reason to think so?  I could grant you that a natural god arising in consciousness can be older than our modern conscious selves .. but always?  Can't follow you there.  Another difference in hunches I guess.



As would I if I'd had that same experience and didn't have the conceptual framework I do for making sense of it.  I'm sure your experience is genuine and significant, but I don't think it supports all the conclusions you are drawing from it.  Your choice to make though, as you should.  But I'll leave you to wrestle with the lions if you enjoy that sort of sport.  But I'm available by P.M.  Have fun.

These are not experiences that anyone could possibly justify in any other way. You have to experience them yourself to really understand, and someday you will. 

As for the "lions" here, many of them are just very hateful, bullying type people. I've never met an atheist yet who did not enjoy being rude, horrible and ugly to any person who did not agree with them on everything. Their idea of fun is putting down others who have a clearer understanding of everything than they do. Really, they just want to live in a pretend world, where they pretend to be apes, robots, plants, anything but what they truly are. And of course, this is all becaue they want to create a ficticious reality where they will never be accountable for any of their actions. If they were all madly and deeply in love and connected with their other half, it would help them immensely.

Only true agnostics (like I assume you are) can be engaged in any type of meaningful discussion. Thank you for offering some positive human input admidst the hateful gibberish.

Obviously you are very insecure in your nonsense, which you have no evidence for. 
Your "beliefs" are exactly what any psychopath or psychotic would say. You are divorced from reality. 
You can't even define what it is this "god" of yours is, that you are convinced of. 
What *is* hateful, is the harm, hate, and bullying that has been perpetrated by religionists across the centuries on people who refuse to accept their rubbish.
Is there anywhere in the world atheists put religionists to death, cut off their heads, shun them ?

[Amarok]

Nope the  opposite

You are now denying the validity of proven science. It has been demonstrated over and over again to be true. Sorry, but you need an education and to learn to accept hard facts.

No i'm denying your misunderstanding and ignorance of science and accepting when people point it out

[Everena]

They are interacting while they are existing in 2 different places. Please educate yourself about this. I am right and you are wrong. Let it go.

You're even wrong according to your own source.  Fine.  You want more?

"No reasonable definition of reality" could permit two objects to be mysteriously entwined across great distances, Einstein and his collaborators complained in Physical Review (SNL: 5/11/35, p. 300). There must be more to reality, Einstein believed, than quantum theory described. But rather than undermining quantum physics, the EPR paper, as it became known, became fodder for other scientists who showed that this unreasonable connection was in fact real. If quantum rules applied in everyday life, as soon as Peyton saw his quantum coin land in Seattle, he would know the outcome of Eli's toss--even if Eli's game were across the country or on the moon.

For decades, though, few physicists worried about entanglement. It was regarded as a hypothetical concept with no real prospects for ever being tested. "Initially it was a pure theory--quasi-philosophy," says physicist Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva.

That's no longer the case. Now, laboratories around the world routinely create and study entanglement, pushing the limits on the types and sizes of objects that can be entangled. Some studies are attempting to clarify the mysterious boundary separating the strange realm of quantum weirdness from the macroscopic world of football. Others focus on entanglement itself, particularly how it changes over time. Much of the new work is building a base for powerful technologies that operate in the real world, from manipulating information in futuristic quantum computers to sending secret messages with unbreakable security.

~ Sanders, Laura. "Everyday entanglement: physicists take quantum weirdness out of the lab." Science News, November 20, 2010, 22+.

Two objects.  Not one.

Yes, but what we are discussing is the concept of atoms and electrons existing in two places at once, and quantum entanglement is just part of the theory of quantum mechanics. You all should know this, since it is how we are able to have advanced technology. 

Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics. 2012
These two physicists got the Prize for doing experiments once thought to be impossible, i.e. studying single atoms and single photons (particles of light).

They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time. Einstein himself hated this idea, but he was wrong on this one. It sounds preposterous that electrons and atoms can be in many states at the same time, but this is the foundation of modern civilizations. Lasers, transistors, computers, the internet etc. are all based on quantum mechanics. It has been tested to 1 part in 100 billion in accuracy, making it the most successful physical theory of  all time. Except that it is based on feet of clay.

The idea that you can be in many places at the same time can be proven indirectly, by looking at the properties of many atoms, but testing it on single atoms and single photons was beyond reach. Until now.

Dr. Wineland put a single atom in a box, and then hit it with a photon of light.

Dr. Haroche did the opposite. He put a single photon in a box, and then hit it with an atom.

In both cases, the experiments verified quantum mechanics."

[Amarok]

[Bucky Ball]

"I'm convinced of my beliefs, therefore you should be too."

The moon is made of green cheese. You are giving up eternity with Cheesus. Just accept it. 
Some day you will come to see the truth of Pink Sparkly Unicorns.

---

Einstein himself hated this idea, but he was wrong on this one.

Actually Einstein was the one who first described it. He was wrong about a lot of things, but "spooky action at a distance" was not one of them. 

"Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realist view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky action at a distance")[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete. Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally[5] in tests where the polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating , demonstrating that the classical conception of "local realism" cannot be correct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement