quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

Better get over to UCLA/berkely those Doctoral candiadtes seem to need your help.

I think they need yours more.

I'm quite sure they're not aware that hydrogen is as old as the universe and that atoms are immutable.

K.

quote:

You can keep the hostility

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

Do you not believe most of the unverses hydrogen was created from cooling plasma.

Okay, let's review. You said:

The hydrogen in me is as old as the universe it is eternal

Ignoring the "eternal" claim, hydrogen is not "as old as the universe":

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen.

In other words, close but no cigar. Fair enough?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

You can keep the hostility

Hostility? Not at all. Just pointing out you're an ass.

But that was the purpose of your thread, so you already knew that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

My point was that the scientific consensus sounds so much more extraordinary and at least equally moiraculous as the biblical miracle invloving clay

Actually, the constituents of your body are much closer to ordinary soil than they are to either hydrogen or the heavy elements.

Unless you're a very unusual fellow.

K.

quote:

I just wanted to engage in a conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof. This ignores that evolution is actually two theories: natural selection deserves this criticism; that evolution has occurred is well-documented and even observed. First, there's the fossil record showing this progression. Then, there are the several studied and even observed occurrences of punctuated equilibrium--evolution taking place suddenly, within a season, to adapt to changing conditions (pepper-moths changing color, Galapagos finches changing beak length, etc.), along with the discovery that DNA communicate with light (something outside the old strictly biological model), and suddenly, while the Creationists are still off base, so are Darwin's defiant defenders. Start adding the fascinating and replicable effects of consciousness and intention on matter and time, and the world and creation are a very different place.

Huh???????
What on Earth is this paragraph supposed to mean? Communicate with light??? Darwin's defenders???? Are we confusing Darwin with evolution??? Where did that come from?

(in reply to Musicmystery)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof. This ignores that evolution is actually two theories: natural selection deserves this criticism; that evolution has occurred is well-documented and even observed. First, there's the fossil record showing this progression. Then, there are the several studied and even observed occurrences of punctuated equilibrium--evolution taking place suddenly, within a season, to adapt to changing conditions (pepper-moths changing color, Galapagos finches changing beak length, etc.), along with the discovery that DNA communicate with light (something outside the old strictly biological model), and suddenly, while the Creationists are still off base, so are Darwin's defiant defenders. Start adding the fascinating and replicable effects of consciousness and intention on matter and time, and the world and creation are a very different place.

Huh???????
What on Earth is this paragraph supposed to mean? Communicate with light??? Darwin's defenders???? Are we confusing Darwin with evolution??? Where did that come from?

quote:

Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

quote:


Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof. This ignores that evolution is actually two theories: natural selection deserves this criticism; that evolution has occurred is well-documented and even observed. First, there's the fossil record showing this progression. Then, there are the several studied and even observed occurrences of punctuated equilibrium--evolution taking place suddenly, within a season, to adapt to changing conditions (pepper-moths changing color, Galapagos finches changing beak length, etc.), along with the discovery that DNA communicate with light (something outside the old strictly biological model), and suddenly, while the Creationists are still off base, so are Darwin's defiant defenders. Start adding the fascinating and replicable effects of consciousness and intention on matter and time, and the world and creation are a very different place.

Huh???????
What on Earth is this paragraph supposed to mean? Communicate with light??? Darwin's defenders???? Are we confusing Darwin with evolution??? Where did that come from?

quote:

Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

Try context, Patrick. It's an example of the type of problem.

quote:


Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

Honestly, did you think that science was firmly established and unchanging?

Hell, we've been using lasers to communicate information for decades now. Hardly a mystery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I just wanted to engage in a conversation.

Nonsense. Nor is anyone "putting you down" -- baiting was entirely the point. Conversations start with seeking understanding.

For example--you've already dismissed one huge problem for your take, the zero point field, as "I don't understand the math," though you've made no effort to learn the concepts. Instead, you just returned to your previous understanding of physics. How is that different that someone saying "Well, I don't understand science, so I'm going back to what I was taught as a child"?

You are clinging to a mechanistic model of the universe that just isn't true, and we've known this for a 100 years now. Building up from tiny pieces to big pieces simply doesn't account for the data; time and space work very differently than this, and so does energy/matter within that universe. "I know and you idiots don't" is as far from science as one can get--no real scientist is likely to go there, as scientific breakthroughs are always break-withs. The old and familiar is not the end all--or even accurate.

For example, take gravity--every school child knows about this, right? No. We don't even know what it is, let alone how it works. Same as the other three postulated forces. Then along came dark matter, which simply didn't fit into framework. In science, that's code for "we've got it wrong" and need a better model that accounts for the new observed phenomena. In very recent years, physicists are seriously considering that gravity is not a force, but an effect of the same field that would account for dark matter. Under that approach, the ancients we laughed at for suggesting the sky pushed on us to hold us on the earth would not be so far off, even if they didn't really understand the physics at play.

Science vs. Religion bashes simply pit pseudo-intellectuals against pseudo-intellectuals both cherry-picking and spinning data to their own purpose and for not conversation or learning, but ego and self-righteousness. The problem objectively with that is they ignore the wealth of reality outside their mutual either/or false dilemma. The bulk of religious people would be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers. And the vast bulk of the science community would be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers--and far from it. Clinging to these extremes as if accomplishment simply blinds one to conversation and learning--exactly the opposite of your claim.

Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof. This ignores that evolution is actually two theories: natural selection deserves this criticism; that evolution has occurred is well-documented and even observed. First, there's the fossil record showing this progression. Then, there are the several studied and even observed occurrences of punctuated equilibrium--evolution taking place suddenly, within a season, to adapt to changing conditions (pepper-moths changing color, Galapagos finches changing beak length, etc.), along with the discovery that DNA communicate with light (something outside the old strictly biological model), and suddenly, while the Creationists are still off base, so are Darwin's defiant defenders. Start adding the fascinating and replicable effects of consciousness and intention on matter and time, and the world and creation are a very different place.

You want to have a conversation? Engage with people and open the door to new knowledge.

But the "how can those idiot religious people not see the truth" will always be morons talking to idiots while pretending to be scientists, and nothing religion nor science will take seriously--as you've already seen in the responses to your threads attempting to bait so you can rant.

Spend your time learning. Get off CM and go to Amazon for a while. Come back with interesting things to talk about. Then we'll have a conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

I just wanted to engage in a conversation.

Nonsense. Nor is anyone "putting you down" -- baiting was entirely the point. Conversations start with seeking understanding.

For example--you've already dismissed one huge problem for your take, the zero point field, as "I don't understand the math," though you've made no effort to learn the concepts. Instead, you just returned to your previous understanding of physics. How is that different that someone saying "Well, I don't understand science, so I'm going back to what I was taught as a child"?

You are clinging to a mechanistic model of the universe that just isn't true, and we've known this for a 100 years now. Building up from tiny pieces to big pieces simply doesn't account for the data; time and space work very differently than this, and so does energy/matter within that universe. "I know and you idiots don't" is as far from science as one can get--no real scientist is likely to go there, as scientific breakthroughs are always break-withs. The old and familiar is not the end all--or even accurate.

For example, take gravity--every school child knows about this, right? No. We don't even know what it is, let alone how it works. Same as the other three postulated forces. Then along came dark matter, which simply didn't fit into framework. In science, that's code for "we've got it wrong" and need a better model that accounts for the new observed phenomena. In very recent years, physicists are seriously considering that gravity is not a force, but an effect of the same field that would account for dark matter. Under that approach, the ancients we laughed at for suggesting the sky pushed on us to hold us on the earth would not be so far off, even if they didn't really understand the physics at play.

Science vs. Religion bashes simply pit pseudo-intellectuals against pseudo-intellectuals both cherry-picking and spinning data to their own purpose and for not conversation or learning, but ego and self-righteousness. The problem objectively with that is they ignore the wealth of reality outside their mutual either/or false dilemma. The bulk of religious people would be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers. And the vast bulk of the science community would be the first to tell you they don't have all the answers--and far from it. Clinging to these extremes as if accomplishment simply blinds one to conversation and learning--exactly the opposite of your claim.

Here's a science/religion debate to illustrate (and again, I'm talking about pseudo-intellectual "science" folk and extreme dogma religious folk, not the norm of either scientists or religious people): evolution.

Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof. This ignores that evolution is actually two theories: natural selection deserves this criticism; that evolution has occurred is well-documented and even observed. First, there's the fossil record showing this progression. Then, there are the several studied and even observed occurrences of punctuated equilibrium--evolution taking place suddenly, within a season, to adapt to changing conditions (pepper-moths changing color, Galapagos finches changing beak length, etc.), along with the discovery that DNA communicate with light (something outside the old strictly biological model), and suddenly, while the Creationists are still off base, so are Darwin's defiant defenders. Start adding the fascinating and replicable effects of consciousness and intention on matter and time, and the world and creation are a very different place.

You want to have a conversation? Engage with people and open the door to new knowledge.

But the "how can those idiot religious people not see the truth" will always be morons talking to idiots while pretending to be scientists, and nothing religion nor science will take seriously--as you've already seen in the responses to your threads attempting to bait so you can rant.

Spend your time learning. Get off CM and go to Amazon for a while. Come back with interesting things to talk about. Then we'll have a conversation.

I actually called gravity a weak force when i referenced it. The lay understanding I have is it is weak because of dimensional leaks and if it wasnt we'd be a singlearity and I wont even open the bolack hole theory grabbag. I did apologize for the last line it didnt belong and it was a put down of others beliefs. My point wasnt specific scientic thesis and proofs it was s the general that it is a marvel that the science would of been considered divine not long ago. The broad theories all of which have holes as you stated. I was familar with the issues withdark matter,string theory and the big bank and I believe anther is the dual nature of electromagnetic energy as particle and wave. I have read the problem may be as you referenced with the distortion of time and space an issue with changes in the basic physical rules of the universe. Because I do not have a grasp of the equations but made statement on what is a consensus of those who do isnt something that should disqualify me from discussing the subject in a broad way is it? I only made a few broad strokes I wasnt tryng to write a proof or a thesis. I am glad you engaged me . if you had earlier I would of admitted those things right off. I still can't find any real source to challenge that we intially had 6 elements and the rest are the result of stellar reactions. I didnt see where vaccum theory changed that or where it would change the consensus that fuel for stellar reactions will eventually be depleted and the universe will be dark ( meaning to human perception) and expanding. I understand the idea of dark matter I have never seen anything that claims it has thde mass to reverse expansion at some point and begin a collapse. i get that there will still be measurable energy because of the oscillations between atoms. I understand that was your point and if I had been talking about measurable energy not light in the visible spectrum I would say I was wrong. We werent talking about the same thing. Honestly it's probably the number one problem with forum conversation. Iwouldnt of disagreeded with any of the points you made other than I think you are overstating when you say the basic broad statements I made about plasma cooling into 6 light elements and the rest of the periodic table a result of stellar reactions changing them into the other I dont know m what is it like 86 or 87 othe rnatural elements? I mean with all sincereity if you can post some links I would read them. I just havent run across anything that threw the basic thinking out the window

i also am aware of the holes in evoloutionary theory. Sometimes great leaps are made form sudden mutation. i spoke in absoloutes not out of a belief there werent holes in the thoeries just the convenience of making the point with or without a God the universe is miraculous. i think the sciednce does support that and would besurprised if you disagreed. I think it's fine others believe in God I also think it's fine I do not. There is a prejudice non belief in this country. there is also widespread nblanket condemnations of religon. When I critisized relgous values inthe other thread it wasnt a critique of christianianty it wass pointing out that in some circles the values of Aynn rand and libertarianism have replaced the actual teaching s of Jesus in areas other than the ressurection. I dont demand anyone not believe. I have friends who get great solace form religous faith. I truly am grateful you engaged me and I will read up on the theory further. It is probably the most pop culture erverted scientific theory of the day and iwas trying to find references that disagreed with my statements when the real issue was a lack of understanding between us and the poor choic of words like immutable in an effort to be "flowery" The basic premise I made was about changing one atom to another through stellar action and the idea most of the 6 light elments are damn near as old as the big bang. I know heavier ones get broken down but I was talking on a massive scale not the small exceptions and was not trying to teach science people viewed as inferior. I dont think that nor woud I think it even on subjects I am an expert. Sometimes I lack tact but I would never claim superiority in any way. that's borderline personality territory and delusional. I look people in the eye unless I have a collar and leash on in which case I look down to avoid the slap :) I wasnt teaching or trying to I was stating y beolief the physocal worls that is seems as miraculous as the spiritual worls based on faith to me. Ty for lettingme know where you were coming from and Imean that.

Have a good one and please I hope you challenge me anytime you disagree. I really believe its the only way to change belief and it's a relief not to view you as a troll and instead have to read something and think and I hope youunderstand I wasnt tryingto troll with the exception of that unconsius rude last sentence AI apologized for. I dont think I am superior in anyway i am a layman annd if you challange me it provides an oppurtunity for me to reinforce or change my beliefs. My mind isnt cement it can change. Iwill give anything you write the effort to think on it at least equal to the respect and willingness to engage you gave me in writing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Creationists love to point out the Evolution is just a theory with no proof.

quote:

I actually called gravity a weak force when i referenced it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Did anyone read all that ? If so can you sum it up ?