4
   

The root of the human genome

 
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 04:48 am
@The Anointed,
For any sane person reading..

You don't "read up" on quantum physics. Quantum Physics is a deeply mathematical subject. You can't reach any understanding of the subject without a few years of calculus under your belt because it is based on the Schrodinger equation which you can google if you would like.

I have studied quantum mechanics in University. I have done the math and actually done xray scattering experiments.

Science is not about making stuff up, and it isn't something you pick up on the internet.

Science is a serious subject based on mathematics and experiment.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 05:39 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I have studied quantum mechanics in University. I have done the math and actually done xray scattering experiments.


And you remain no more that an amateur compared to a quantum physicist such as Neila Bohr.

Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. Just as no two humans have the same fingerprints, and no two snow flakes are the same, no two atoms have the same wobble.

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr, a renown quantum physicist, is here speaking to ignorant people like you Maxdancona

At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.

What do you believe was spewed out in the event that we call the BIG BANG? Remembering that our scientists, have recorded the universal temperature at that moment to have been 100 million trillion trillion kelvins, or 180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature in which no physical element can exist.

It was from that superhot liquid like plasma of electromagnetic energy that this enter universe is created.

Like it or lump it kid, you are wrong.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 08:47 am
@The Anointed,
I have to admit that I am impressed, and a little jealous, that you got to meet Neils Bohr.
The Anointed
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 02:11 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I have to admit that I am impressed, and a little jealous, that you got to meet Neils Bohr.


Then you should come and travel with me and let me introduce you to many wonderful people, such as Rembrandt, Einstein, and I'd love you to meet my old friend Omar Khayyam, I am sure you would be enthralled as we sit and listen to his wonderful words of wisdom, as I have done with Neils Bohr.
0 Replies
 
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 11:05 pm
@Leadfoot,
Could there be another test to confirm the hypothesis?
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 11:07 pm
@maxdancona,
Giordano Bruno was not a scientist
0 Replies
 
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 11:09 pm
@The Anointed,
What is the beginning of that thought?
0 Replies
 
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 11:11 pm
@The Anointed,
Who created the beginning of the same thought you are writing about?
0 Replies
 
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2021 11:14 pm
@maxdancona,
But can we argue that different scientists have different tools to test and examine its outcome?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 01:36 am
@yovav,
Science is exact and reproducible. I don't know what you mean by "different tools". If two scientists have different outcomes, then you have a problem.
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 03:19 am
@maxdancona,
"anyone who says science has dosproven the existence of God is lying".

The question is what science are we talking about.
Are we talking about the science that deals with the five senses with which the results can be achieved. Is it a science that is beyond those five senses.
And can we say about what is not achieved in the five senses of science.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 05:53 am
@yovav,
Quote:
Could there be another test to confirm the hypothesis?

Yes, and it has already been done in the normal course of scientific research.

Any objective view of what Watson and Crick discovered about DNA and subsequent related research, should be enough to convince anyone able to grasp it. I’ve never understood why it hasn’t convinced everyone as it has for me.

If anyone could show me a plausible 'natural' origin of biological life I would reconsider. But so far Science has only served to further convince me of life's intelligent design.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 08:14 am
@maxdancona,
Not So, Max.
Science is neither 'Exact' or 'Reproducable'.
That's why they can't fathom the 'Double-Slit'.

HEAR THIS! No TWO THINGS CAN OCCUPY THE SAME SPACIAL LOCATION.

The 'PROTON', of which, there is ONLY "ONE", Occupies ALL LOCATIONS.

The 'observer' (aware-avatar) is prone to temporal transitions.

EVEN IF THE "EXPERIMENT IS CONDUCTED TWICE - THE OBSERVER, NOR THE EXPERIMENT is AS-IT WAS or in the same 'spacial' location - It was, either as the observer or experiment - when experiment '1' commenced.

Have a Great Day
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 08:27 am
@The Anointed,
Very quaint.

How did your friends measure the 'big-bang', and what did they measure it with?

Have you met Nassim Haramein, yet?
He's kinda disproven your 'mates' 'culDe-sac' approach to qed.

Have a great spin-cycle.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 10:20 am
@Leadfoot,
you need to just look, if you keep ignorance as youre guidepost you can assert anything you wish. i dont ignore a possibility of panspermia because the ame chemicals keep showing up in star spectra.
Intelligently designed??? Wnen 3/4 of lifes chemicals can be derived from CN- ,water, pent sugars (non biological) and phosphate salts and fatty acids, its almost the same way complex minerals evolved" on the planet.

The responsibility top rovide the HOW's of ID are squarely on the back of the believers in ID because science has NO IDEA how they can prove anything. (Watch em try to sound profound though), wanna take a shot ledfoot?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 10:25 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
science has no real idea on how abiogenesis happened; although the fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.
all science has is an accurate list of the componds involved , that wasnt accomplished by testing a hypothesis, but by actually testing earliest life form compounds.

discovery is one of the first of five or six steps of the scientific method,
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 10:26 am
@yovav,
Science doesn't address the existence of "God." It's the place of those who assert there is a god to supply proof.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 10:33 am
@The Anointed,
m familiar with Ashfordi's assertions. He too is free of any evidence so he's the owner of another hypothesis of the origin of the universe. However, Im aware of his origins of univrses (I have to admit that
hve no idea what the hell he means, Reading about his "comsots" (or whatever thehell his group call it) I AM NOT aware that hes ever given a thought to th origins of life. Appaently Noint's is so up on asfordi;s hypotheses that I suggest that its up to him to post anything thats credible and understandable on asfordis thoughts on "creation of Life"
Lotta people re out there, smart EDUCATED. EXPERIENCED but only expert in an area of focus. Like people who give EInstein credit for lifs origins when all he had were unprovable ideas (even less than hypotheses). They have things listed at the little college in NJ that Albert nd Biochemistry and biology werent up there.
0 Replies
 
The Anointed
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 05:15 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
No one claims that science knows everything.


And you can bet your bottom dollar on that one mate.

Quote:
science has no real idea on how abiogenesis happened;


Correct once again.

Quote:
although the fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.


As you have rightfully admitted, Science has absolutely no idea how or if, the evolution of life or living organisms came from inorganic or inanimate substances. If you believe without any scientific evidence whatsoever, that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then it is by faith and faith alone on which you base your belief.

The observable fact, is that Life can only come from life, and to quote your supposed testable proof, 'The fact that life exists is positive proof that life has always existed' from the everlasting before this universe of apparent tangible matter was created from the super hot electromagnetic energy, which, In my Opinion, was spewed out of a WHITE HOLE, in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, or, according to scientific measurements (180 million trillion, trillion degrees Fahrenheit), which electromagnetic energy has been converted to that which we perceive as inanimate matter, in order to support the life that was to be created from that eternal energy, only to be-reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch, when all will be ripped apart atom by atom, subatomic particle by subatomic particle, as the universal bodies, with all the information that was gathered in that period of universal activity, fall as fire into the Great Abyss, or Black Hole that is connected to a White Hole at the end of an Einstein Rosen bridge that connects the two.

I believe that there is more scientific evidence to support this belief rather that your believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”?

Catch ya later mate.



farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2021 05:28 pm
@The Anointed,
Quote:
science has no real idea on how abiogenesis happened;
actually they have several ideas, some of which, in the testing lab, result in duplication ( not replication) and ingestion and nutrient exploit.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 01:59:24