0
   

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 01:39 pm
I didn't say it was.

I said that there's a contradiction for the evolutionist who supports abortion and contraception and marriage and ages of consent.

He's got his evolution hat on talking about animals and his social engineering hat on when talking about humans and he says humans are animals. And the students in schools are humans.

He runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds.

The absurd thing is that he thinks we don't notice which is caused by his overestimation of his own intelligence and the corollary.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 01:42 pm
spendius wrote:
I didn't say it was.

I said that there's a contradiction for the evolutionist who supports abortion and contraception and marriage and ages of consent.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 02:27 pm
spendius wrote:
I didn't say it was.

I said that there's a contradiction for the evolutionist who supports abortion and contraception and marriage and ages of consent.

He's got his evolution hat on talking about animals and his social engineering hat on when talking about humans and he says humans are animals. And the students in schools are humans.

He runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds.

The absurd thing is that he thinks we don't notice which is caused by his overestimation of his own intelligence and the corollary.


As far as I'm concerned, you've eaten more than enough meat to prove that you're a vegitarian.

Evolution is not "contradicted" (since you're trying to play semantic games) by the issues of abortion or contrception.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:16 pm
I would like to remind Wolf that gravity is not just a good idea . . . it's the law.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Dec, 2007 03:24 pm
Setanta wrote:
I would like to remind Wolf that gravity is not just a good idea . . . it's the law.


What if I get a 2/3 vote, can I amend it?

T
K
Laughing
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 04:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Neither entropy nor the law of the conservation of energy have any relevance to the question of whether or not we live in a closed or open universe.


Do you have any evidence of something outside our universe?


Closed universe is not a reference to an "outside." Did you bother to read the link?


If you are referring to the link that included this blurb in regard to 'dark matter':

Quote:
But for the last two decades, astronomers have been seeing evidence of vast amounts of invisible matter in the Universe.


yeah I read it.

(Have you been seeing invisible things too, Setanta?)

Noticing an effect for which there is no known cause is far different than 'seeing evidence' (of 'dark matter' or anything else), is it not?

-----------------------------------------

But let's talk about what we KNOW actually exists.

Now regarding matter (not 'dark matter') we have abundant evidence that it exists.

We also have a scientific law that says matter cannot be created. Yet here it is.

So, either this scientific (natural) law has been overcome (supernaturally) and matter HAS been created, or matter is eternal.

Which do you think it is?

Has matter been created?

Or is matter eternal (i.e. it was NEVER created)?
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 05:28 pm
Richard Feynman was fond of defining a fooldamn fool
Quote:

I find it interestingĀ…okĀ…hilarious, that someone who can question how anyone else can KNOW things as fact yet himself make posts that are supposedly FILLED with incontrovertible facts (that virtually always contradict the experts) can provide no answers to basic questions. As an example RL purports to KNOW what the physical laws are, that they are decreed by god (HIS god of course), when they started, and that they imply the supernatural yet cannot answer the most basic questions about those laws; to wit:

Exactly how many conservation laws are there?


Are all forces bounded by the same laws, if not, which force is bounded by which of the laws?


Do these laws operate differently at the quantum level than at the level that classical physics describes?



That dead silence is his total ignorance showing.

Thanks to RL, I am...as always...
ROFLMAO
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 10:03 pm
Jesus, what a feckin' idiot. I'm not wasting any more time on him. He can't even follow a simple statement with a referential response. What a loon.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 11:02 pm
real life wrote:
We also have a scientific law that says matter cannot be created...
... within this Universe (goes without saying).

Just as it goes without saying, that parallel lines will never meet (on a two dimensional surface).

But if we suddenly start talking about a one dimensional world, then the parallel line rule doesn't even make sense any more does it.

The same goes for the "matter cannot be created/destroyed" law, you cannot extend it beyond this Universe, we simply can't make that assumption.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 12:52 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
We also have a scientific law that says matter cannot be created...
... within this Universe (goes without saying).

Just as it goes without saying, that parallel lines will never meet (on a two dimensional surface).

But if we suddenly start talking about a one dimensional world, then the parallel line rule doesn't even make sense any more does it.

The same goes for the "matter cannot be created/destroyed" law, you cannot extend it beyond this Universe, we simply can't make that assumption.


You've sung this song before , Ros.

And my question is: what scientific evidence do you have for anything outside the universe?

Where and how do you propose matter was created (if you do so propose. And if you don't then what is your point?), and what evidence do you have to back it up?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 01:07 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
We also have a scientific law that says matter cannot be created...
... within this Universe (goes without saying).

Just as it goes without saying, that parallel lines will never meet (on a two dimensional surface).

But if we suddenly start talking about a one dimensional world, then the parallel line rule doesn't even make sense any more does it.

The same goes for the "matter cannot be created/destroyed" law, you cannot extend it beyond this Universe, we simply can't make that assumption.


Well put.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 07:16 am
real life wrote:
You've sung this song before , Ros.

You've sung your song before too, RL. And I've given you answers before, but you don't seem to be attempting to understand them.

real life wrote:
And my question is: what scientific evidence do you have for anything outside the universe?

None. I never claimed any. Anything that is not our Universe is unknown to us. But we do know that the laws about our Universe are in reference to our Universe, and nothing else.

real life wrote:
Where and how do you propose matter was created (if you do so propose).

Matter/Energy is a part of our Universe. It has no conceptual definition anywhere else. From the perspective of our Universe, Matter/Energy has always been here, just in different forms.

What you're question really implies is, how the Universe came to be, and I don't know that answer, nobody does. But we do know that it's illogical to multiply entities when conjecturing about such things.

real life wrote:
And if you don't then what is your point?

My point is that you're asking meaningless questions because you refuse to accept that the unknown is the unknown, and that our Universe is a self-contained set of physics. You keep trying to transcend the boundaries and apply physical laws where they don't apply (or we can't assume they apply).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 07:24 am
Diest TKO wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
We also have a scientific law that says matter cannot be created...
... within this Universe (goes without saying).

Just as it goes without saying, that parallel lines will never meet (on a two dimensional surface).

But if we suddenly start talking about a one dimensional world, then the parallel line rule doesn't even make sense any more does it.

The same goes for the "matter cannot be created/destroyed" law, you cannot extend it beyond this Universe, we simply can't make that assumption.


Well put.

T
K
O

Thanks. I thought it was pretty clear, but RL just isn't getting it. Oh well.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 01:23 pm
Not trying to bring real science on to a thread featuring RL but I thought that the article this link points to might be of interest to some of the readers on this thread. I have been trying to find an article like this to post for a while but most get too deep into the math or physics to be useful to someone not knowledgeable in the subject. I think this one does a nice balancing job.

To point out all of RLs ignorance of the current state of physics would be a lifetime job. I could talk about how matter is constantly created and destroyed at the subatomic level, RL's reading of the law of conservation of energy notwithstanding; but this deals in subtleties that are difficult to handle on this type of forum. What I wouldn't have given for science concepts to be as cut and dried as the colloquial pros approximations used by RL for his leaps of illogic. But, of course, reality is much more subtle than that.

The article for which I provided the link is on the topic of: what, if anything is outside our universe and how this can be incorporated into real science. Davies article gives a good overview of both the pros and cons of this concept and the role it can play in real science. Before the quantum theory speaking of these types of things or inquiring what came before the BB was absolutely beyond the formalism of physics, QM may have turned this all on its head. If you are not up to date on this kind of information you may find it interesting.

(Below the link I have provided a brief bio of the author to show that he is quite in the mainstream of physics. Well, at least his work is considered of a caliber that he has had an asteroid named after him.)

The up to date, real science, clearly written is, at least, a nice break from RL's utter BS. Enjoy.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/MultiverseCosmologicalModels%2083.pdf

Bio:
Paul Davies is theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, author and broadcaster. He now works as a College Professor at Arizona State University, where he is setting up a research institute that will examine fundamental concepts in science. Davies previously held academic appointments in the UK, at the Universities of Cambridge, London and Newcastle upon Tyne. He moved to Australia in 1990, initially as Professor of Mathematical Physics at The University of Adelaide. Later he helped found the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, based at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory.

In addition to his research, Professor Davies is known a passionate science communicator. He gives numerous public lectures each year throughout the world and has written twenty-seven books, both popular and specialist works, which have been translated into many languages. He writes regularly for newspapers, journals and magazines in several countries.

Among Davies's better-known media productions were a series of 45 minute BBC Radio 3 science documentaries. Two of these became successful books and one, Desperately Seeking Superstrings, won the Glaxo Science Writers Fellowship. In early 2000 he devised and presented a three-part series for BBC Radio 4 on the origin of life, entitled The Genesis Factor. His television projects include two six-part Australian series The Big Questions and More Big Questions and a 2003 BBC documentary about his work in astrobiology entitled The Cradle of Life.

Paul Davies has won many awards, including the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on the deeper implications of science; the 2001 Kelvin Medal from the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Michael Faraday Prize from the Royal Society for promoting science to the public. In April 1999 the asteroid 1992 OG was officially named (6870) Pauldavies in his honour.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:08 pm
One can well see what Voltaire had in mind.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 02:15 pm
Now, Spendi's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill
All he believe are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies.

But there's a woman on my block
Sitting there in a cold chill
She say who gonna convince Spendius that he's ill?

Plagiarized music and Lyrics ~ by Bob Dylan
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 06:04 pm
I hardly think Mr Dylan would have composed that with me in mind. He knows next to nothing about Englishmen.

No. It was his contemporaries. You lot.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 07:11 am
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Not trying to bring real science on to a thread featuring RL but I thought that the article this link points to might be of interest to some of the readers on this thread. I have been trying to find an article like this to post for a while but most get too deep into the math or physics to be useful to someone not knowledgeable in the subject. I think this one does a nice balancing job.

To point out all of RLs ignorance of the current state of physics would be a lifetime job. I could talk about how matter is constantly created and destroyed at the subatomic level, RL's reading of the law of conservation of energy notwithstanding; but this deals in subtleties that are difficult to handle on this type of forum. What I wouldn't have given for science concepts to be as cut and dried as the colloquial pros approximations used by RL for his leaps of illogic. But, of course, reality is much more subtle than that.

The article for which I provided the link is on the topic of: what, if anything is outside our universe and how this can be incorporated into real science. Davies article gives a good overview of both the pros and cons of this concept and the role it can play in real science. Before the quantum theory speaking of these types of things or inquiring what came before the BB was absolutely beyond the formalism of physics, QM may have turned this all on its head. If you are not up to date on this kind of information you may find it interesting.

(Below the link I have provided a brief bio of the author to show that he is quite in the mainstream of physics. Well, at least his work is considered of a caliber that he has had an asteroid named after him.)

The up to date, real science, clearly written is, at least, a nice break from RL's utter BS. Enjoy.

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/MultiverseCosmologicalModels%2083.pdf

Bio:
Paul Davies is theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, author and broadcaster. He now works as a College Professor at Arizona State University, where he is setting up a research institute that will examine fundamental concepts in science. Davies previously held academic appointments in the UK, at the Universities of Cambridge, London and Newcastle upon Tyne. He moved to Australia in 1990, initially as Professor of Mathematical Physics at The University of Adelaide. Later he helped found the Australian Centre for Astrobiology, based at Macquarie University, Sydney. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory.

In addition to his research, Professor Davies is known a passionate science communicator. He gives numerous public lectures each year throughout the world and has written twenty-seven books, both popular and specialist works, which have been translated into many languages. He writes regularly for newspapers, journals and magazines in several countries.

Among Davies's better-known media productions were a series of 45 minute BBC Radio 3 science documentaries. Two of these became successful books and one, Desperately Seeking Superstrings, won the Glaxo Science Writers Fellowship. In early 2000 he devised and presented a three-part series for BBC Radio 4 on the origin of life, entitled The Genesis Factor. His television projects include two six-part Australian series The Big Questions and More Big Questions and a 2003 BBC documentary about his work in astrobiology entitled The Cradle of Life.

Paul Davies has won many awards, including the 1995 Templeton Prize for his work on the deeper implications of science; the 2001 Kelvin Medal from the UK Institute of Physics and the 2002 Michael Faraday Prize from the Royal Society for promoting science to the public. In April 1999 the asteroid 1992 OG was officially named (6870) Pauldavies in his honour.


Good article , TCR.

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K. However, I am usually ridiculed for doing so. So be it.

Merry Christmas to all on A2K. It'll be a while before I'm back. Happy New Year to all of you.

Peace and goodwill to each, and to your family. Cool
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 07:23 am
real life wrote:
Merry Christmas to all on A2K. It'll be a while before I'm back. Happy New Year to all of you.

Peace and goodwill to each, and to your family. Cool


Merry Christmas to you & your family RL. Hope you have a great one. :wink:
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Dec, 2007 07:58 am
Quote:

I think it's interesting that Davies cites, and references others who cite, a number of the same points I've made here on A2K. However, I am usually ridiculed for doing so. So be it.
Rolling Eyes

Well I sure don't see it, so either you are delusional or I am.

On second though your ideas ARE so close to Davies' that it could have been you who wrote this article. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Except for the fact that you think the universe is only thousands of years old and was created by your specific deity, scramble science into a mess that can't even be recognized, won't even contemplate anything that could possibly speak against your dogmatic beliefs (like just about every concept in the article), and have demonstrated over and over your inability to answer even simple questions in any number of fields of science.

Here's hoping Santa fills your stocking will a good supply of Geodon (take as directed). Perhaps you can share some with BD, after all it is the season for giving.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/31/2025 at 04:12:50