14
   

Surgeon: Human body did not evolve

 
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sun 29 Mar, 2015 09:06 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
In the BELIEF that you found the discussion too difficult, I shall continue .



No just busy. (And BTW... I'm not impressed by your ability to cut and paste) Also in my haste, I colored the wrong section of your quote. What I meant to take exception to was the idea that the universe had any size at all at the moment of creation...that very very singular start. Your question regarding if our universe would be destroyed by quantum fluxuations that create other verses in the multi-verse that could collide with ours is a possibilty...maybe even inevitable. We just may not be around to know and if we are we wont know it happened...we'd be gone in a nano second (or less)


So what stops that from happening now and eliminating our universe ? Do you know how much energy is required to turn quantum foam into anything of size ? And what made the randomness ?

I am quite familar with the Casimir effect and the dissusion of zero point energy. This is not however to what I refer.
Nothingness is merely the absence of the arrow of time. What lies out side our universe, and outside the multi-verse is that nothingness where these fluxuations occur.
I believe we will in my/your lifetime prove the exsistance of a dimension outside the 3 and time we know. And if there is one there would in all probability be an infinite number.

Quote:
Does not exist . Empty space is full of Quantum Foam . Or not .


Not true or even thought to be so. The quantum foam is not in our universe or in the empty space of our verse. It is out side of it. Think of 2 separate relms. (A simplified explaination but easier to wrap your Newtoian practiced mind around) The quantum foam, the area of the muti-verse (in this, time does not exsist, hence there is nothing, which in fact is something, [you keeping up?] and then our verse that makes its own space. (not within the multi-verse but within our verse...still with me?)

Quote:
To take this unknown and extrapolate multiple universes is simply trying to fill every void with knowledge . Maybe we should admit we will never know everything . Incidentally, if they do exist, religion came up with them first .



Now this is gibberish...I have no response.

Have a nice day.
giujohn
 
  0  
Sun 29 Mar, 2015 09:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This place is like a vaudeville hall.



Oh Frank...is that your ONLY contribution to the discourse?? Tsk tsk.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Mar, 2015 10:00 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
I'm not impressed by your ability to cut and paste
So you think you can phrase things better then Fermilab ? Just a little up yourself there, arent you ?

Quote:
Your question regarding if our universe would be destroyed by quantum fluxuations that create other verses in the multi-verse that could collide with ours is a possibilty...maybe even inevitable. We just may not be around to know and if we are we wont know it happened...we'd be gone in a nano second (or less)
So I CAN understand it . You were wrong, or arrogant, or both . Or maybe just a condescending blowhard .

Quote:
What lies out side our universe, and outside the multi-verse is that nothingness
Which is it ? It cant be both because the multi-verse is outside our universe . Does your gibberish mean it is outside the multi-verse and our universe is one of the multi-verses ?

Quote:
Quote:
Does not exist . Empty space is full of Quantum Foam . Or not .
Not true or even thought to be so.
Now that answer tells me you would be more knowledgable talking about what medication you are on . Having read volumes on this topic, I can only suggest you start off with google . Fermilab et al seem to disagree with you .

Quote:
Quote:
To take this unknown and extrapolate multiple universes is simply trying to fill every void with knowledge . Maybe we should admit we will never know everything . Incidentally, if they do exist, religion came up with them first .
Now this is gibberish...I have no response.
You see how limited your mind is ? I bet everyone else grasped that point . Whats your basic trade ? Carpenter ?

Still with me ? I feel privileged to be tutored by such a self absorbed useless person .
layman
 
  1  
Sun 29 Mar, 2015 11:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im not aware of ANY evidence that nails even a classroom discussion about panspermia. Some scientists. like Dr Crick, had been fans of it but they always beg off the inconvenient missing evidence.


Crick certainly had "evidence," whether one considers it sufficient or not. Crick simply did not think that the conditions on earth would allow for an abiogenetic origin of a self-replicating organism with the known DNA structure.

Given that evidence, only one conclusion follows (if you assume abiogenesis to begin with), to wit: It came from somewhere else.

If I am accused of a crime, and can show that I didn't do it (by whatever means) then, without in any way showing who did commit the crime, there can only be one conclusion, to wit: Somebody else did it.

To re-iterate the point: I don't have to show who did it, how they did it, when they did it, or anything of the kind in order to give conclusive proof that it was "somebody else," not me. The "evidence" for that conclusion is impeccable.
farmerman
 
  2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:01 am
@layman,
Youre using a "beyond a reasonable doubt" analogy that is in order to exhonerate a defendant. In law, "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent" I dont think cience can accept that .
I think that , in science, youd need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that abiogenesis DID NOT OCCUR and then, youd need to provide actual evience for some form of panspermia.
Im aware of two cases in which actual "space life" was asserted by some scientists. In the early 2000's the now infamous D'Argenio-Geracci "discovery" was reported in NAture or SCience. They claimed to have found viable protist spores in a C chondrite. This was never substantited and the two guys were kind of dismissed. THEN, the big flap over the metroite "from Mars" (ALH 84001) had all kin of press and the NYT had photos of these little "rods" that ere first stated to be microscopic organisms.
Turned out that the little rods were a naturl mineral called a carbonotite (A hydrothermal form of limestone)

Im not dismissing the "possibility" of panspermia, but , e dont spend any time on it because its Unfalsifiable and it really has no evidence beyond clever word games.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:13 am
@farmerman,
NOW, suppose we find from our Mars Rovers and beyond, that spores of life resembling that found on earth. (Similar DNA and precursors, cell walls of similr "biopolymers"), then I think youd have the nucleus for some serious discussions on panspermia. Especially, if we go further into space , e find similar life forms.
This would add some credibility to a possibility of "lithopanspermia" as asserted by Crick, and not "Directed panspermia" as preached by Woodmorrape
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:18 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Quote:
This place is like a vaudeville hall.



Oh Frank...is that your ONLY contribution to the discourse?? Tsk tsk.


Actually, no, John.

But after listening to that "firm" blind guess you made...I consider it one of the more reasonable and reflective responses that could be made to your comment.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 04:53 pm
@Ionus,
My mistake was asumming since you grasped one concept (one verse colliding with another) you would understand the concept of where virtual particles originate and, for expediency, refered to it as the "quantum foam".
So I will now explain it so even you can understand. Yes, at the quantum level virtual particals "pop" into and out of exsistance (in our verse) and for the incredibly short time that they are here empty space could be called the quantum foam. But more succinctly, where they come from and return to is the quantum foam, where there is no arrow of time and hence, nothingness. For if they are coming into our verse they must be coming from OUTSIDE our verse. Now even you should be able to grasp this unless you are, as I suspect a complete dumb ass.
giujohn
 
  0  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well Frank, I dont aplogise for having firm beliefs when based on a theory supported by what looks like pretty good circumstantial evidence. I suppose one could call it an educated guess.
Do you even have any beliefs, firm or otherwise? Or have you elevated your fence sitting to professional status? Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:23 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Well Frank, I dont aplogise for having firm beliefs when based on a theory supported by what looks like pretty good circumstantial evidence. I suppose one could call it an educated guess.


One certainly could. And if you any ethics...you would at least attempt to do that, rather than calling it a "firm belief."


Quote:
Do you even have any beliefs, firm or otherwise?


None at all. If I am making guesses..."educated" or otherwise, I am man enough to call them guesses.

You ought to take a shot at that some day.


Quote:

Or have you elevated your fence sitting to professional status? Wink


I don't do any fence-sitting, John. Most of what you call "fence sitting" in me is simply being ethical enough to acknowledge that I do not know some of the things you pretend you know. I call what I do "telling the truth"...and I am of the opinion that much of what is on the other side of that...I call "lying."
giujohn
 
  -2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 05:35 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Oh and BTW Frunk, if you are going to start the rock throwing about a few spelling errors remember the old adage about glass abodes.

Quote:
One certainly could. And if you ? any ethics...you would at least attempt to do that, rather than calling it a "firm belief."


Seem to be missing an adverb here Frunk.
neologist
 
  1  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 06:42 pm
@giujohn,
Appears to need a different verb, actually
giujohn
 
  -2  
Mon 30 Mar, 2015 06:44 pm
@neologist,
I stand corrected...compostition issues me thinks.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 12:03 am
@giujohn,
Quote:
My mistake was asumming
I think you make more mistakes than that old chum .
Quote:
Yes, at the quantum level virtual particals "pop" into and out of exsistance (in our verse) and for the incredibly short time that they are here empty space could be called the quantum foam.
I am shocked . Is that the great gooeytoilet admitting to a mistake but blaming me for it ?? Almost getting your arrogance under control there arent you ? Well done, keep up the good work !

Quote:
where they come from and return to is the quantum foam, where there is no arrow of time and hence
Whilst you seem to have mesmerised yourself the 'arrow of time' (does it make you sound clever, do you think?) you have never stated the lack of distance, something that is always associated with time . Google didnt tell you that ? Shocking !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 06:14 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Oh and BTW Frunk, if you are going to start the rock throwing about a few spelling errors remember the old adage about glass abodes.

Quote:
One certainly could. And if you ? any ethics...you would at least attempt to do that, rather than calling it a "firm belief."


Seem to be missing an adverb here Frunk.


Another good catch, John. You are getting good at this...and I hope it translates into better posts of your own comments.

I was wrong here. I left out the word "had" (which I think to be an auxiliary verb rather than an adverb)...and it was careless. Same comment I made on your catch in the other thread applies. My bad.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 02:41 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Is that the great gooeytoilet admitting to a mistake but blaming me for it


Oh I see...IT'S BooB IN DISGUISE!!! (isnt there a rule about posting under another name when you've been kicked out?) I should have known it was you from the cut and patse job. You never had a original thought in your life. Now that I know its you I wont bother to respond, DUMB ASS
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 09:03 pm
@giujohn,
I haven't been following this thread, but I must interject.

I assure you, giujohn, that bobsal u1553115 and Ionus are two different individuals. They're not even citizens of the same country.

Just thought I'd say so.
Ionus
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 09:25 pm
@giujohn,
Do you really think that wily hamster would allow a banned member to return that easily ? Not everyone is as dumb as you .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 09:27 pm
@wmwcjr,
I think bob etc must have been during my absence, I dont remember them . What did they get banned for ?
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Tue 31 Mar, 2015 10:23 pm
@Ionus,
I have no idea. A few members apparently complained to the moderators about them, but both of them were back in about a week. They're posting now.
 

Related Topics

The ten most dangerous drugs - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Ebola: Science vs. Mass Hysteria - Discussion by maxdancona
Popular medical myths - Discussion by JohnJonesCardiff
The original universal health care system - Discussion by gungasnake
This could be important - Discussion by mysteryman
Major Problems with ObamaCare! - Discussion by Miller
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 06:07:33