@TheRealArchAngel "ID is a method of number crunching life systems for predictive computer modeling..."
Maybe at your 'University Of Make Shit Up As You Go Along' it is but everywhere else in the real world, ID is the unsupported belief that an invisible (un-falsifiable) being created the systems and subsystems of cellular and multi-cellular life (as well as each individual species) in a top down process, from concept to execution.
@TheRealArchAngel "And the reason it can only ever be ACCEPTED in that it isn't Verifiable, Testable,or Falsifiable"
Evolution is a natural phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection IS testable, IS verifiable and IS falsifiable. BTW, not a single piece of data has contradicted it in 150 years.
Your point is...?
"Universe isn't evenly distributed as a "big Bang"" would have made it."
The BB does not predict homogeneous distribution nor is it an inevitable result of the BB.
Our undertanding of gravity is theoretical, and I know how it actually works, which has never been properly exemplified, there is no understanding, which is why quantum mechanics can and should become the most important science as we evolve because there is no such thing as progress if we are going to one day run out of natural resources because we are not all on the same conservative page' Quantum Theory is an all inclusive supposition'
"An explanation is a description of a concept in terms of other concepts that we already understand. If God is a concept we cannot understand, then God is not an explanation for anything" (Matt said this in some video)
"I'm not sure where the big bang theory says anything about being centered on Earth"
The most powerful telescopes cat carrently see 13.7 billion lights years in every direction
The most common believed age of the Universe is 14 billion years because of this (eventhough the light from those fully formed galaxies from "13.7 billion years ago" in all directiuons took that long to reach earth?}
The Catholic priest had such a hard on to prove his version of Creation he saw "dopler" in red shift
@TheRealArchAngel Sir, allow me to assist with your edification concerning the validity of evolutional theory. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@TheRealArchAngel James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
@TheRealArchAngel By the way, we can also discuss the alleged accuracy of your Bible. I was a Christian for 20 years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten. Becoming more familiar with my Bible resulted in my apostasy.
Either all gods exsist(which I doubt it) or none of them do, if the christian god was the god from the beginning he would have been in the first religion and we would only have one today, and we don't so think about that for a while
well considedering all the texts from all the cultures say the "gods" officially bugged out 5000 years ago..the Anunaki going back to their dying planet to replenish the gold in the atmosphere,the Norse gods to their alternate plane,the Egyptain/Greek/ROman "gods" back to their alternate reality,and the Indian gods back to their alternate Universe there is nothing but texts and relics and a occasional "Angel/ET" encounter..lol
actually, I agree with you that there are many false, imaginary gods. In most instances, false gods- also known as 'idols'- involve the worship of oneself or some appetite. Keep in mind though that given the transitory arbitrary nature of most life on this planet, there are loads of people who would equally & logically question your reality (or,at the very least, the 'value' of your supposed reality). I don't agree science knows all; but U like all matter are finite -hence, U have a Creator
@shieldsff I do have a creator! My parents! And would you tell that the rest of the gods of the world are false to those believers faces? They have stories of creation and predictions just like you bible or whatever you have! Science does not know all! ''Correct''! But that does not prove that a god exists! When science has a hole which has not been filled, You can't just put god in there! Just because we do not yet have the answer for something, It does not prove a God.
"Science does not know all! ''Correct''! But that does not prove that a god exists! "
No where did I state that the limitations of science can "prove" the existence of God. Rather was that science is credible, productive & of immense value in its proper (but narrowly empirical) arena. In fact, I completely reject what appears to be YOUR supposition that Christians have ever posited a "god" that is subject to naturalist inquiry of any kind.-God is TRANSCENDENT. The order of nature reflects Him
@AlwaysDisagreeing Isn't about theories or academic studies, is about reality. No economist predicted the crash of 2008. The system crashed because of the oil prices in 2007, it will crash again because of the oil prices in 2010. It will happen late in 2011 or in 2012. The next crash will destroy the stock market. Mankind is elevating the consciousness level, we know we don't need that many goods, the markets are based on an artificial need. People becoming aware and once it starts, won't stop.
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
@dejesusluisx but belief jesus was more common in those centuries where genocide was the norm and less common as genocide was not condoned, wait i'm sorry i just blew up your argument.
@dejesusluisx then your argument is still... let me see... bunk since there is no objective and measurable way to confirm your statement, and before you go off again let me remind you that most of the planned genocides were by theists IE Jewish genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide etc. In fact the USSR is only responsible for four genocides out of 20+ from theists in just the 20th century alone
@stupidtrooper5 ""most of the planned genocides were by theists IE Jewish genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide etc"" so?, the goal is there, the fact that people decide not to follow it, or not to live the message, doesn't mean the message isn't the right one. Jesus represents the next consciousness level, rejecting materialism and selfishness. That is a fact, and if mankind doesn't take that step, God will intervene, and people at the low consciousness level will be expendable.
@dejesusluisx please back up you CLAIM that Jesus is the nest level of consciousness with facts that are outside of your ancient book.
Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... "
@stupidtrooper501 ""Jesus is the nest level of consciousness with facts that are outside of your ancient book"" Just google consciousness levels and look were we are and what is the next level. All writings, including the Mayan's affirm the next consciousness step is rejecting materialism and selfishness. That was what Jesus preached and represented. There is not much time, it already started.
@dejesusluisx Googled levels of consciousness and got a bunch of stuff talking about what you said but only one was backed up by hard facts, Glasgow Coma Scale: Conscious, Confused, Delirious, Somnolent, Obtunded, Stuporous, Comatose. I find it amusing that the world is entering into a phase of rejecting materialism when capitalism is still the economic system of the west and is expanding to the rest of the world.
@stupidtrooper501 "when capitalism is still the economic system of the west and is expanding to the rest of the world" that will change very, very soon. The system will collapse, currencies will be worthless. Why do you think the fed have been pouring all this money into the system? The same is happening in Europe. The system is based on artificial demand. People are becoming frugal and soon all will begin to spiral down. Be ready, it will be ugly, and if you are attached to materialism, is over
@dejesusluisx i call bluff on that statement, even if the global currencies collapse and fiat money explodes they world will simply move back to the gold standard. BTW being frugal is not the same as anti-materialistic because a frugal person saves money to spend during emergencies or for a costly item. If the world was moving toward materialism then they would move against capitalism and that is not happening, they may want to regulate the markets more but they do not want to end capitalism.
@stupidtrooper501 ""being frugal is not the same as anti-materialistic"" of course not, but is a path in the right direction.
""they would move against capitalism and that is not happening"" when the next crash comes, which will be pretty soon, so one will put their money in stocks. People will stop paying debts, and will buy just the bare essentials, the economy will spiral down and a socialist system will have to be designed. In the meantime, people will engage in trading goods instead.
"even if the global currencies collapse and fiat money explodes they world will simply move back to the gold standard"
There is not enough gold to use as a bartering intermediary(what money actually is) to replace the dollar on a $1 US dollar for $1 gold standard bases (a 33.436g $20 gold coin is worth $20 in gold against the gold standard, the1.672 gram $1 gold coin is stil $1 in gold against the gold standard )
More likely to barter food,water,gas,and goods directly
@TheRealArchAngel sorry about that, but my point was i don't think th collapse of fiat currency will change humanity's material possessions or capitalism (restrained by the gov)
"my point was i don't think th collapse of fiat currency will change humanity's material possessions or capitalism (restrained by the gov)"
Right, if the Government had the power to control the dollar(via the price of gold) Gold and other precious metals wouldn't be going up in value and the value of the Dollar going down
a 1964 Silver Quarter is worth $5 in silver and a easy "alternative currency" to attain and use by anyone willing to trade with it ($20 or 4 1964 quarters)
"nice strawman i never said that government had the power to control of the dollar via the price of gold."
What do you think the empty vault in Kansas still pretending to be "full to the brimm" is all about?
There was once a false sense that if the "Faith" in the dollar and the government was to waiver you could just go back to the gold standard using the gold supossedly in Fort Knox
Problems is 4500 tons of gold wouldn't cover anywhere near 17trillion dollars (more like 252 billion 11/4/11)
The Legend of Fort Knox makes us think there is at least a peny and a half of gold backing up each dollar (252 billion gold vs dollar divided by 17 trillion "sweet nothings") but the empty vault means there is nothing but "faith" in the U.S. government backing up the worth of the U.S. DOllar
But,yeah..US will go on....just without the Feds pulling the economy strings anymore which will become more localized as ppeople tr4ade and barterd in goods/services while just wiping their ass with dollars
@spmcd2011 "You have not one single shread of evidence that Jesus represents the next level of conciousness." you can believe Jesus is real or false, if you believe He is real, then you wouldn't have made the comment. If you believe Jesus is false, then view Him as a character of a fallacious book if you wish. In that fallacious book, the character is portrayed rejecting materialism and selfishness and all His message is centered around that. So my statement is still a fact no matter what.
@dejesusluisx Well no, because we would have to all agree that the next concious level is what you claim it is, not what you assert it should be. Therefore is it still not a fact and remains an asssertion.
@spmcd2011 "we would have to all agree that the next concious level is what you claim it is, not what you assert it should be."
you know what is the basis for science?
confirmation
Now this confirmation to be valid has to be done trough people in different areas and different times.
The Hindus Chakras, the Incas and the Mayan all confirmed these consciousness levels and the next level is the rejection of materialism and selfishness, just as Jesus taught.
@jeremythehuman wow, you figured that out all by yourself? :) i am not, though. but i am certain that the gods humans have claimed to exist throughout history do not exist - not in the form they are being worshiped.
" i am certain that the gods humans have claimed to exist throughout history do not exist ."
Even though they have found Dwarka and the straight foward documentation say the blue and green skin people they claim as "gods" are in fact visitors from other planes of existances/dimensions and there were 6 major factions of these Aliens fighting with each other just in India and they were using devices to create earthquakes,tornados and Tsunamis?
"And there are blue tiny creatures in the forest called the Smurfs."
Hey, Advanced Theoretical Physics suggest that every thought and dream may in fact be an alternate reality a sleeping consoiusness can tap into (Was its reality but the mind's "perception"?)
The Existance or non-existance of something has nothing to do with belieefs or certainty
The Babalonian texts say the Anunaki created the Adamu(humans) as a slave race to mine for gold and other precious metals and when they left they left the slave labor behind
In the jewish text "elohim"" is plural and after ther civilization on Earth,Mars,Venus and RajaAT(Lucifer,formally planet between Mars and Jupter) was destroyed they made Eden and Hybred Adam
Matt does not understand that the human body is so complex with its molecular structure that the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's these days.One reason, is that human cells are identical to the machines we invent thus concluding that there has to be a creator...Matt is just simply in rebellion against his creator,,,,period!
@flatop59 hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ,,,, sorry i was just laughing at the shit you said. it is true that everything has a creator, we created the machines. evolution created us.
Ah so the "Big Bang" CREATED the Universe from nothing then the Evolutionary process CREATED life from non-life and turn that microscopic life to more complicated life (Life a boy being born from a peach or a Stork giving birth to a human as well as all other creatures then dropping the "mutants" off with others of their kind)?
Do you not even realize Big bang "theory" and Evelotionary "theory" is Pseudo Science bordering on religious belief alternative?
@flatop59 quote: "the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's (sic) these days." hmmm, yea, only it's not.
@isaachaze1 If you count the likes of Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Zachariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken as scientists then I suppose the man has a point, but they're not scientists, despite how much at least three of those seem to like to tell people they are.
"quote: "the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's (sic) these days." hmmm, yea, only it's not. "
Is that becasue the Last pope believed in Big Bang and Evolution and the Vatican also starting to accept the "plurality of worlds" (we are not alone in the Universe) now?
What is the Premordial goop but "dust" and water that all living things "srung" from including humans?
Big Bang and Evolution are Creation stories at their heart
@TheRealArchAngel i care not one bit what any of the popes thought or believed. the big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution, and i believe you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution, when you discuss "premordial goop". but yes, the big bang theory could be characterized as a "creation of the universe" story (or more accurately, "theory"). again, evolution has nothing to do with creation.
@isaachaze1 Thats an untrue statement as we know that the earth has been evolving as has consciousness is also evolving which is whats going on today more than ever, its simply however a very real concern as to where any of this leads us as humans when population growth will eventually exceed global ecological capacity all predicated within any vanity within any and all human kind, so any end time would become associated within how we address any real concern rather than any God argument
"i care not one bit what any of the popes thought or believed"
Lemetrie did
"Big Bang" was a scientific explanation of "how God created the Universe"
Don't you find it odd that a lot of Christian Scientists buy into "Big Bang"
" believe you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution"
Genises is short,vague,and known to be heavily condensed reader digest verions..and no, I mean single cell animals to primates to Man and everything else between as part of "how God did it" in Vatican
"yes, the big bang theory could be characterized as a "creation of the universe" story (or more accurately, "theory"
And a stupid as s one made by a Catholic Priest moonlighting as a Cosmologist that took Hubbles noticing that the futher objects are away the redder the light is as "DOppler effect"
Problem with that idiotic idea is Light does not change pitch as it's waves speed up or slows down as it's waves bend or stretch around betweern objects in motioon like sound waves do
If there was ever an exapble of Liberal communal stupitidy on the the internet.....
HUbble is the one that noticed that the further an obect is the more red shifted the light source is
Get this part, as an astronomer he did not buy into "Big Bang" and explaned the redshift as the scattering effect of the interstellar medium it had to cross making it look more red the further away the object was
Only a self claimed "Cosmologi\ist" would ever claim "dopler effect" on light
Actually it's your Catholic Priest/C0oologist and all the "Physists" ireciting their 14th,15th,16th,17th,and 18th century Chemical and mathamatical Theories with a little Ancient Greek Philosiphy thrown in that are not correct about their Creation Story
There was no "bggining" (A beggining = "Creation")
Light does have a set speed
And because of this seeing young galaxies out at 14 billion light years means they were so 14 billion years ago
@TheRealArchAngel from your problems with spelling correctly, i conclude that spelling was not a part of your education. And that pretty much clinches any argument that you would be a scientist of any kind.
However, doppler effect on light is easily measurable in a laboratory, and all other proposed explanations are rejected because of contradictory _evidence_,
In fact a Roman Soilder killed him in irritation cause Archimedes was to busy talking to himself to listen to the Roman Soldier
"doppler effect on light is easily measurable in a laboratory"
Oh it's possible to slow a photon to a crawl and bens light with electromagnetic fields but "doppler effect" hasto do with sound waveds distorting when they run into then go around objects at different speed/frequiency..which light cant do
@TheRealArchAngel simple experiment, measure the frequency of light as earth move around the sun, in the forward direction, and in the backwards direction, and compare the frequency. Does it show the doppler effect? Yes it does. Can it be explained with scientific method? Yes it can. Has this experiment been carried out? Yes, it was carried out alreay in the 19th century and has been carried out in many different variations since then.
An extended infared light band just means there is more infared light seen by measuring equipment and a extended ultraviolet light band means there is more Ultaviolet light seen by equiptment
It has nothing to do with sound waves warping and bending around objects (or lack there of) vs air between 2 objects and changing pitch as a result("dopper effect")
There is no air in space and light isnt a sound wave(air vibration)
@TheRealArchAngel ****** line emissions *****, emitted by verifiable substances, like H-alpha, O-III
It seems you lack a 101 education on physics.
Light and sound are different things, and the doppler-effect of each also behave somewhat different, but they are both easily verifiable and part of very rudimentary scientifcly accepted physics. You are simply wrong.
I was a general Science major...I needed to take 4 and I Cgose Cosmology,Quantun Mechanics,Probability(bullion theory,statistics),and Creative Thinking(cant remember the facy name)
"Light and sound are different things"
correct
"and the doppler-effect "
Only applys to Soundwaves distorting from speed,distance,tempature and density of air it travels to and objects vs observation point
The doppler-effect on light has been used to discover and verify 100s of extra-solar planets.
The Hubble Space Telescope is stabilized using a sensor that are directly dependant on the doppler-effect of a laser to sense rotation/acceleration. The telescope would fail without this sensor.
Light is an electromagnetic wave, sound is a wave caused by air-particles physically moving - that is the difference.
"The doppler-effect on light has been used to discover and verify 100s of extra-solar planets."
YOur trying to tell a former member of Carl Sagan's Planetary sociaty that we look for other worlds with"Doppler effect"
Watching the starlight for "blinking" is how planets are discovered,and the Spectrometer reading you are found of calling "proof of Doppler" can tell what substance the light is passing,refracting,and scattering in
Infared light's long band carries most information
The first planets was discovered using the doppler effect (repeated red-shifting and blue-shifting due to orbital motions) of the star. Several 100 planets was discovered and verified this way.
Kepler and some other uses transit detection, and have by now added almost 2000 more planets.
But the fact remains, the first few 100 was discovered by doppler effects.
"A infared light Spectrometer is used to discover what stuf is made of..not to measure"doppler"
The true "Hubble constant" observes that the further away a object is from earth the more infared light it seems to give off
Lemetre proposed that this increasing legnth of infared light was from"Doppler effect" as space expanded.
Problem is light would just travel the increased distance and not "Stretch" within it and objects distances havent increased in the 6000 years we look at stars
"Problem is light would just travel the increased distance and not "Stretch" within it "
Some of the "Physist"(in the math dept of University,(not Science building) have claimed that the initiaal "edge" of the Universe moved faster then the speed of light and Space Expands faster then the speed of light
So a Star or Galaxy in a Space moving the speed of light away from us at 12 light years away should read AS 13 light years away the followiing year with"winks"if Lemetre was right
"the first few 100 was discovered by doppler effects."
Exacty how would the "doppler effect" help you find a dark spot the equivalant of a pin head on a object the sixe of a eraser head as bright as a flash of lightning?
heh,heh
Before Kepler watching the Star "wobble" is how you can tell if a Star has planets around it from "mutual gravity tug"...but your firt "100" needed to be huge objects like Benard's Star's near protostar plant to cause a big enough"wobble" to see pre-hubble
"Infared light's long band carries most information"
In fact if you look at the Other Scientist;s letters of the time in response to Lemetre's claim of a Spectrometer showing "doppler shift" you'll find all of them at the time considered him an idiot (including the Spectrometer's inventor"
Infared light is the most common light in the universe and has the longest band of frequencies
A infared light Spectrometer is used to discover what stuf is made of..not to measure "doppler"
"The Hubble Space Telescope is stabilized using a sensor that are directly dependant on the doppler-effect of a laser to sense rotation/acceleration. The telescope would fail without this sensor."
Always thought the Hubble used a Spinning Gyros and thrusters to stablize
Or are you talking about it's muti object spectrometer and Near Infared spectroeter to take images of deep space objects that give off a lot of Infared light cause they are so old (Older as further away=more IR)
@TheRealArchAngel they use gyros aswell, and obviously they also use trusters, but the most sensitive detector is the optical, doppler-effect based, laser. Furthermore, a gyro is not a sensor, it is just a stabilizing mechanism.
I now believe you are just a troll, because it is not possible to be a proffesional (as you claim) and be this ignorant.
Exactly how considering it is you that started this exchange by answering a trivial comment I cant eve remember maing unless I looked through the back posts(if I cared to).
It even looks like,glancing at the title, we are extremely off topic(No,Science , especiallt Consenseses politically motivated kind lke Anthropological. Global warming Hypothises Consenses isnt reliable cause of bias and manipulation)
"because it is not possible to be a proffesional (as you claim) and be this ignorant."
Ignorant of What?
Since rthe Liberals startedi nfiltrating the Education System since the Early 70's America went from 1st in Math and Science to 6th(and that ids only cause we are importing our tech and Engineering Geniuses from India and China that we get 6th,you'll find the average UJ.S. Born student on "Jay Walking")
Ignorant?
You somehow was thougt Light can warp and compress like sound
@TheRealArchAngel America's drop in science can be traced to irrational religious fundamentalists who are presiding on the Board of Education in several states. They insist on having creationism taught in Science class & they're attempting to rewrite History books in some states. Soon many students from several states will be denied access to science programs in college because they're not being taught science in high school.
"America's drop in science can be traced to irrational religious fundamentalists who are presiding on the Board of Education in several state"
Right
That is why we spend 1 billion dollars of tax payers money per child from grade K to 12 in public Education A YEAR and public education kids are getting stupider and stupider while "Math Genius" copsts $249 and "My Baby can read" costs $149 on late night TV
Special Interests and Unions are to blame, not Funda-mentali-st..lol
"They insist on having creationism taught in Science class & they're attempting to rewrite History books in some states"
MKey words there is they are trying
Last I check Al ores movie not only became a part of the "Pop Science" requirements,mandatory attenence along with mommy and daddy or the teacher fails the student,whie Creation still is not thought in Science lass but a lot of nonsence pseudo Science bullshit was being forcey fed into my nice and Nephews' head
"Soon many students from several states will be denied access to science programs in college because they're not being taught science in high school"
Wathcing Al Gores movie withmommy and Daddy isnt Science
Bringing home petitions to save thw Whales,Save the Polar Bears and such crying for mommy and Daddy to sign isnt Science (I had to straighten out the horror stories the kids were force fed more thena few times...such as Polar bears swim 60 miles a day to hunt 200 to migrate)
@TheRealArchAngel STOP ASSuming I watch Al Gore movies (Never have). What Scientific research have you conducted ? Watching Fox News isn't Science. Studying creationism / ID isn't Science.
By ID I assume you mean Inteligent Design which is Advanced Cosmology..a brach of Theoretecal Physics...ironically the same one still thumping on ancient Chemical theory that things ALWAYS break down into thier simpler compounds (like 1 galon gas gas to 20 gallons co2+ 5lb water+14000?btu heat+300Horsepower kinetics...which a gasometer on thee tailpipe busts)
@TheRealArchAngel Many people believe creationism/ ID is real & accept it because it makes them feel good. They prefer orderly error instead of complex truth. How do People study a creation myth ? I can't speak for everybody. Some people read about or hear about creationism/ ID & mythology. Some choose to accept it, Others choose to Question or reject it. Yes Humans can & do have an effect on the Environment. Example, We continually pollute the Environment & that has a negative effect.
"Many people believe creationism/ ID is real & accept it because it makes them feel good"
Yes, wether it's "Big Bang" or any other Creation Story,there are those that like having "the answer"no matter how inconsstant vs observation or irrational it is
Look at classic "Big Bang"...as Science collects more data that shows there was no Spontanious creation they keep on putting a patch on that B.S.
@TheRealArchAngel Are You suggesting creationism / ID is supported to the degree that Scientific Theories are supported ? Scientific Theories are the result of the Scientific Method ( Observation, Verification, Testing, retesting, falsification) Creationism / ID isn't !
"Are You suggesting creationism / ID is supported to the degree that Scientific Theories are supported ?"
Dont attach Creationism and Intelligent Design theory togther cause they are totally different things
Creationism says the Universe was created based on "faith"
ID, Kosher ID, notes that there seems to be an order to things and questions if the Universe itself might be "sentinent" and can order itself..or at least suggests "order" is a natural result from Choas
@TheRealArchAngel Creationism & ID both posit an order of things. Neither are supported with evidence. ID is a theist's attempt to cloak creationism in scientific terminology. Peer Review determines if a Hypothesis meets requirements to produce replicated results before it is published in a Scientific Journal. Are You suggesting ID is an accepted Scientific Theory which has passed Peer Review ?
"ID is a theist's attempt to cloak creationism in scientific terminology"
If a "Creationists" is trying to thump on it...probably
But when Stephen Hawkins or Michco (cant remember hislastname) speak of ID they are noting the almost "arranged" order of things...which has nothing to do wither wether or not there was a creator
It's part "unified Theory" where they note "strings" and Quarks canseem to know what each other is doing light years away (they could co-vibraite)
@TheRealArchAngel Just because Scientists speak of ID / creationism & state they notice the almost arranged of an order of things in no way supports ID / creationism. Things are not always what they seem to be. Many things which appeared to be true were later confirmed to be false. There are many things which We don't understand or are not aware of. However We should not be in a rush to accept anything just because It seems to exist such as an arranged order of things.
Right, like you beliving ID and religious zealots trying to teach creationism is the same thing when it isn'tReal ID can predict the crop yeild of Wheat in China in relation to Climate change for thenext 10 years
Real ID is what predicted that the cause of the disapearing bees is a new parisite that has invaded the Bee population before the new parisite was acually discovered
Real ID is getting a bad name over creationist nonsense
@TheRealArchAngel Real ID has made predictions About crop yield & disappearing Bee Populations ? Please present any Scientific Organization (NOT the Discovery Institute) which claims any of its' findings are based on ID.
@TheRealArchAngel Please explain Why the overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community REJECTS ID. Please explain why ID isn't an accepted Scientific Theory ?
@TheRealArchAngel I believe the Scientist you're trying to remember is Micho Kaku. I'm not suggesting that every Scientific Theory is 100 % correct. However I am stating ID / creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory.
"am stating ID / creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory."
First you need to stop attaching Intelligent Design to Creationisim like the Creationist are trying to do
Inteligent Design is part of Statistiucs and probability in life systems theory (Theoretical Zoology) a sub branch of Permaspermia Theory....it has nothing to do with Religon or Creationist notions
Creationists trying to use ID to bring a Bible in the Classroom is what is confusing you and most people
@TheRealArchAngel First You need to realize ID isn't a theory. It's an unsupported Hypothesis. Second You need to realize ID is creationism masquerading as Science. The overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community dismisses ID & concludes it is creationism. You're confusing Hypothesis with Theory.
"First You need to realize ID isn't a theory. It's an unsupported Hypothesis."
Yeah, it's never been published in a Journal of Science and passed falsification...much like Evolution , Big Bang and AGW are unpublished,untested,and not falsified Working Hypothises and not tested and verified theories (and in case of Big Bang and Evolution they never can be)
@TheRealArchAngel Evolution is an ACCEPTED Scientific Theory which means It has passed Scientific Peer Review. The Big Bang has more evidence to support It than ID / creationism.Please explain What You mean by AGW. You want me to present 5 Quantum Theoretical Life System Engineers that claim ID is creationism ? Please present any Scientific Peer Review Organization which accepts ID as a Scientific Theory. I don't have to refute ID / creationism.
"Evolution is an ACCEPTED Scientific Theory which means It has passed Scientific Peer Review"
Yes. And the reason it can only ever be ACCEPTED in that it isn't Verifiable, Testable,or Falsifiable
Gravity on the other hand is demonstratable by dropping something and therefore is a "Proven" Theory,though the debate is over "gravatons" or reactive EM effect(gravaty doesn't really exist as it's own force,its a reaction of a Mass' combined electrons in its atoms on space)
"The Big Bang has more evidence to support It than ID "
the flaws in the Catholic Priest's "Big Bang" theory are
1) seeing 17 billion light years(currently) in each direction and saying that is how big the universe is a) doesn't account for it taking 17 bilion years for light from that far away to reach us and b) puts earth at the center of the universe(again)
2) "Dopler effect" is a sound waves ability to slow down and speed up while traveling..light doesn't do that..ever
@TheRealArchAngel Thee may be flaws in the Big Bang Theory. However ID is filled with Flaws. The big Bang is an accepted Scientific Theory. ID is NOT ! Instead of trying to refute accepted Scientific Theories I suggest You try to present facts, evidence & a testing methodology which supports ID. Then submit It for Peer Review & see If is accepted as a Scientific Theory.
"the flaws in the Catholic Priest's "Big Bang" theory(cont)
3) The "Hubble Constant" proper, is the observance that things get "redder" the gfurther out they are. Hubble consiered the Catholic Priest's notion of it being "doppler effect" and thus "proving Big Bang" idiodic and,as a Astronomer, noted that "redening" was from interstellar dust interference,nt a "magical Big Bang that created everything"
4) Universe isn't evenly distributed as a "big Bang"" would have made it
@TheRealArchAngel This isn't about Al Gore or the Big Bang. It's about ID which isn't accepted by the Scientific Community because it's FLAWED. Even if you were to refute every accepted Scientific Theory ( DON'T get excited, You won't) It would not support ID. Refuting 1 Theory or many theories doesn't support a Hypothesis.
Antropological Gloal Warming..a "theory" that only existed in mass media hysteria and Al Gores mind and thus pop culture but had no real Scientific Research to back it up
"Please present any Scientific Peer Review Organization"
"peer review" is a step before a research paper WITH RESULTS is published in a journal of Science
"Organiations" are usually government boards or clubs easily pop culture or politically swayed,not Journal of Science
@TheRealArchAngel Scientific Theories have passed Peer Review. ID has not. ID is promoted & accepted by the Discovery Institute which is nothing more than a support group for CREATIONISM !
Actually a theory passes peerreview for publication in a journal of Science,has passed scientists reading the publications replication tests,and has passed all tests of falsification(looking for other explinations for results)
A Accepted Theory like Big Bang and Evolution may not be testable,verifiable,or falsifiable but is agreed to be the best answer based on Observance
"Evolution is supported with facts, evidence & teesting NOT just Observation."
Right..Darwing observersed the same kind of animals in different areas with different features to adapt to that area thus micro-evolution or "adaption of a Spicies" is observably confirmable
Presuming humans came from apes then going to look for proof of that then finding "Lucy" and claiming it as "proof" isnt how science work
Neither is Presuming "Big Bang"then finding"proof"in Hubble's"redshift"
@TheRealArchAngel It's been more than 35 yrs. since I read Darwin's Origin of Species. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe he presumed Humans came from Apes.
Lol, your noting about ID being a creationist plot version...no
ID theory is a Modeling method based of historic,prediciveand inter-related systems and has no real standard form that has ever been published in a Journal of Science that I'm aware of
Real "ID" is about number crunching life systems to try to predict any future outcomes such as the bee deline effecting crop production interaction
ID is a method of number crunching life systems for predictive computer modeling ans since therre is no standard in how it is done there is no research paper in a Journaal of zoological Theory for it
Creationism is a belief that the universe and everyhing in it was created at some point...suchas the "Big Bangers" belive,unknowingly following a alternative creation story made up by a Catholic Priest(George Lemete) posing as a Scientist
P.S. that form of defence "It is up to the person that claims something to support it" only works against a ill informed defender.(like a bible thumping Creationist that dont actually read the bible)
If I have 200 years of bird migration records, 150 year of climate change data and 50 years of data concerning the birds favorite foods on the migration paths I could write a ID in a computer model predicting climates effect on birds
@TheRealArchAngel You're claiming ID is real. It's up to You to present facts, evidence & a testing methodology to support it. It isn't up to me or anyone to refute It. A Hypothesis isn't accepted because It hasn't been refuted. Nobody including You has supported ID. Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist You just believe it's true. BTW ID like most claims in the BUY BULL are not supported with evidence.
I have a Turtle Slhell Siamise Calco Cat and she mates with a Siamse male..the Litter is 5 kittens: 3 siamise girls,1 white and tan patch Male,1 miscarrige
She Mates with same cat again and 2nd Batch"Black Male,Grey and White Female,Black and white Male
She mates with same cat again and has a total miscarage
Question" If she mates with Siames Cat again what is chance of male/female cat? Of miscarige? of Numbr of cats
"Question" If she mates with Siames Cat again what is chance of male/female cat? Of miscarige? of Number of cats in litter? ID prediction: Male 75%,female 25% Litter Side: 2 Change of Miscarrige: 50% When we want something more unpredictable like coat color we would ned a larger data sample to predict the chanches which are Perfect Siamise:10% In perfect Siame 40% Flame tip Siames 1% Albino Siamise 1% Mutt COlors 20% Solid Color 27% Calico 1%
@TheRealArchAngel I appreciate Your input of Cat Reproduction probabilities. However I don't have the means to care for anymore Cats at the present time. We have many abandoned Pets. I spend excess money on Trapping then Spaying or Neutering abandoned Pets before trying to find Homes for them.
"I don't have the means to care for anymore Cats at the present time. We have many abandoned Pets. I spend excess money on Trapping then Spaying or Neutering abandoned Pets before trying to find Homes for them."
Yeah, I know what you mean...I was taking care of 23 strays and 17 rescues at 1 point but managed to find homes for all but 5 which includes the now spayed runt Calico that CANT hunt 1.5-3 foot rats..main reason why people want cats here,her kids are huge enough though
Climate models that IPCC use is based in ID, as is the bee population Study models and crop projection models and The Tsunami/Earthquake prediction models
"testing methodology"
The theory is that with enough data of historical happenings and enough data from crosss referenced happenings we are able to predict a future happening based on passed cross references plus any new data added to the system as needed
@TheRealArchAngel ID isn't the testing methodology the Scientific Community relies on to predict changes in Weather Patters, reduction in Bee Population, crop projection & Tsunami/ Earthquake predictions
Which is fine for 2nd Grate Debat class,but you really do need to prove that I am wrong in saying that ID is a mathimatical means of predicting life system with evidence that such methodology in computer modeling doesnt exist and "ID" is just Bible thumer terminology...not just claim it is (Your making a Claim,not me)
"A Hypothesis isn't accepted because It hasn't been refuted"
"Peer review" finding errors means it isn't published
"Nobody including You has supported ID. Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist"
Which ;part orf Real ID theory/methodology has nothing to do with Bible thumpers trying to teach the Bible in School under the same term isn't registering to your knee jerk anti-theisim views?
"Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist You just believe it's true"
Naw,crap in=crap out
Like that 20 foot tidel wave that was supposed to hit hawaii after a Earthquake but didn't cause data entered was miles off
"Second You need to realize ID is creationism masquerading as Science."
TheCreationists are trying to ascurade thier intent of teaching the Bible in schools under the pretense that it is ID Theory...which it is not
"The overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community dismisses ID & concludes it is creationism"
Give me name of 5 Quantum thoretical Life Systems Engineers (the type of physists that number crunch ID for predicting things like crop yield) that claim ID is religon
@TheRealArchAngel You need to support it with facts, evidence & a testing methodology (the Scientific Method). The Scientific Community has been charting changes in Climate Patterns for decades. They haven't based their findings because of ID. Please explain why the overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community has continually dismissed ID. Please explain the Court decision of Kitzmiller vs. Dover. ID is nothing more than an unsupported Hypothesis.
"You need to support it with facts, evidence & a testing methodology (the Scientific Method"
Facts?
a "fact" is relative to ;perception...Science is aboiut Observane first
Evidence is of things Observed
Data gathering veriifying and testing comes after the Hypothises based on Evidence to see if Hypothises is right
If the tests support the Hypothises then the research p[aper can be submitted to a Journal of Science for publication were it is "peer reviewed" for errors first
@TheRealArchAngel I know about Peer Review. Please explain why ID hasn't passed Peer Review. There are some facts which have not been observed. We can calculate How long it will take for a planet to revolve around the Sun even though We have only observed planet for a period of time which is less than the time it takes to revolve around the sun. Evidence & testing determines whether or not a Hypothesis is right. We follow the evidence. We don't lead the evidence.
"The Scientific Community has been charting changes in Climate Patterns for decades"
3 decades...and I remember the media hysteria screaming Antropological Global Coolinbg in the 70's...though since there was no internet,global media,bloggasphere,and youtube thestupidity of AGC didn't spread like AGW did once Al Gore won his Movie Award and diplomatic peace prize(not prize in Science,prize in politics)
What IPCC gave was a Hypothises(opinon)..one now being verified and tested
@TheRealArchAngel "ID is a method of number crunching life systems for predictive computer modeling..."
Maybe at your 'University Of Make Shit Up As You Go Along' it is but everywhere else in the real world, ID is the unsupported belief that an invisible (un-falsifiable) being created the systems and subsystems of cellular and multi-cellular life (as well as each individual species) in a top down process, from concept to execution.
Terncote 3 weeks ago 2
@TheRealArchAngel "And the reason it can only ever be ACCEPTED in that it isn't Verifiable, Testable,or Falsifiable"
Evolution is a natural phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection IS testable, IS verifiable and IS falsifiable. BTW, not a single piece of data has contradicted it in 150 years.
Your point is...?
"Universe isn't evenly distributed as a "big Bang"" would have made it."
The BB does not predict homogeneous distribution nor is it an inevitable result of the BB.
Terncote 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What do religious people and rapists have in common, they both try and force themselves on orhers. :)
pescadoygamba 1 month ago
Why you can rely on God:
He's perfect, we're not. nuff said
MRQU1K1E 2 months ago
@MRQU1K1E that right there officially proves god exists; and not just any god, the god of the bible.
thrashblackdeath666 2 months ago
@MRQU1K1E wow you just proved god in 2 lines. congrats. oh wait you didn't prove shit.
MrBabylouise2 2 months ago
@MRQU1K1E What a laughably stupid comment. A) He isn't real. B) We are made in his image apparently. Lolol looks like he isnt perfect.
itchygonads 2 months ago
If jesus died for my sins why did i go to jail then ?
If where all gods children what makes jesus so special ?
1 person has an imaginary friend and hes mad
Many people have imaginary friend its religion ?
SuperHardstyleJunkie 3 months ago 12
How about those neutrino`s ........... ey ?
pcrvg0808 3 months ago
Our undertanding of gravity is theoretical, and I know how it actually works, which has never been properly exemplified, there is no understanding, which is why quantum mechanics can and should become the most important science as we evolve because there is no such thing as progress if we are going to one day run out of natural resources because we are not all on the same conservative page' Quantum Theory is an all inclusive supposition'
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
Another thing to take into account is that scientific investigation is expensive. Reasonable justifications & priorities are required.
cuevarap 3 months ago
"An explanation is a description of a concept in terms of other concepts that we already understand. If God is a concept we cannot understand, then God is not an explanation for anything" (Matt said this in some video)
greenjelly01 3 months ago
Q : What's a three letter word for "I don't know"?
A : GOD.
hardinmichael1981 4 months ago 31
"Q : What's a three letter word for "I don't know"? A : GOD."
The word phrase for "I don't know but anything is better then my ex-religion explaination"
Big Bang Theory (13.7 billion light years in every direction centered on Earth...Really?)
One word for I don't know how life started or how we got hewre but anything is better then my ex-religious explaination
"evolution: (thought the "frankenstien effect " has never yielded life in the lab via shocking premodial goop)
Some "Science" is b.s.
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel I'm not sure where the big bang theory says anything about being centered on Earth...
glevantino 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm not sure where the big bang theory says anything about being centered on Earth"
The most powerful telescopes cat carrently see 13.7 billion lights years in every direction
The most common believed age of the Universe is 14 billion years because of this (eventhough the light from those fully formed galaxies from "13.7 billion years ago" in all directiuons took that long to reach earth?}
The Catholic priest had such a hard on to prove his version of Creation he saw "dopler" in red shift
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel Sir, allow me to assist with your edification concerning the validity of evolutional theory. EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
Scientists don't win Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology based on a theory that doesn't actually exist.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel By the way, we can also discuss the alleged accuracy of your Bible. I was a Christian for 20 years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten. Becoming more familiar with my Bible resulted in my apostasy.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 month ago
@hardinmichael1981 idk
urcorrect 3 months ago
Either all gods exsist(which I doubt it) or none of them do, if the christian god was the god from the beginning he would have been in the first religion and we would only have one today, and we don't so think about that for a while
dotson214 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Either all gods exsist or none of them do"
well considedering all the texts from all the cultures say the "gods" officially bugged out 5000 years ago..the Anunaki going back to their dying planet to replenish the gold in the atmosphere,the Norse gods to their alternate plane,the Egyptain/Greek/ROman "gods" back to their alternate reality,and the Indian gods back to their alternate Universe there is nothing but texts and relics and a occasional "Angel/ET" encounter..lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
actually, I agree with you that there are many false, imaginary gods. In most instances, false gods- also known as 'idols'- involve the worship of oneself or some appetite. Keep in mind though that given the transitory arbitrary nature of most life on this planet, there are loads of people who would equally & logically question your reality (or,at the very least, the 'value' of your supposed reality). I don't agree science knows all; but U like all matter are finite -hence, U have a Creator
shieldsff 4 months ago
@shieldsff "there are many false, imaginary gods" All god mythologies cannot be true. Either all are false or only one can be true.
"I don't agree science knows all; but U like all matter are finite -hence, U have a Creator" Huh? How does that follow?
fdasherv 4 months ago
@shieldsff I do have a creator! My parents! And would you tell that the rest of the gods of the world are false to those believers faces? They have stories of creation and predictions just like you bible or whatever you have! Science does not know all! ''Correct''! But that does not prove that a god exists! When science has a hole which has not been filled, You can't just put god in there! Just because we do not yet have the answer for something, It does not prove a God.
MarcusEFN 4 months ago
"Science does not know all! ''Correct''! But that does not prove that a god exists! "
No where did I state that the limitations of science can "prove" the existence of God. Rather was that science is credible, productive & of immense value in its proper (but narrowly empirical) arena. In fact, I completely reject what appears to be YOUR supposition that Christians have ever posited a "god" that is subject to naturalist inquiry of any kind.-God is TRANSCENDENT. The order of nature reflects Him
shieldsff 4 months ago
@shieldsff How do you identify your ''God'' as a ''He''?
MarcusEFN 4 months ago
@MarcusEFN how do you identify your god at all
LukeLuya 4 months ago
@LukeLuya I don't have one (Or perhaps you ment shieldsff)
MarcusEFN 4 months ago
@MarcusEFN i meant it as a general so that it would refair to everyone not just you
LukeLuya 3 months ago
@AlwaysDisagreeing Isn't about theories or academic studies, is about reality. No economist predicted the crash of 2008. The system crashed because of the oil prices in 2007, it will crash again because of the oil prices in 2010. It will happen late in 2011 or in 2012. The next crash will destroy the stock market. Mankind is elevating the consciousness level, we know we don't need that many goods, the markets are based on an artificial need. People becoming aware and once it starts, won't stop.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
Since humans stepped out of the caves, we were constantly expanding our circle of love to include more people. We now reject genocide, racism, incest, etc; things that were common centuries ago. We are in a crucial point in our development. Becoming completely spiritual by rejecting all evil is the next step. Atheism rejects Jesus, which represents 100% love, as a role model,which is a step back for consciousness. The time has come to raise our consciousness to the next level, is now or never.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx but belief jesus was more common in those centuries where genocide was the norm and less common as genocide was not condoned, wait i'm sorry i just blew up your argument.
stupidtrooper501 5 months ago
@stupidtrooper501 ""but belief jesus was more common"" Is not a matter of belief, is a matter of living the message.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx then your argument is still... let me see... bunk since there is no objective and measurable way to confirm your statement, and before you go off again let me remind you that most of the planned genocides were by theists IE Jewish genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide etc. In fact the USSR is only responsible for four genocides out of 20+ from theists in just the 20th century alone
stupidtrooper501 5 months ago
@stupidtrooper5 ""most of the planned genocides were by theists IE Jewish genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide etc"" so?, the goal is there, the fact that people decide not to follow it, or not to live the message, doesn't mean the message isn't the right one. Jesus represents the next consciousness level, rejecting materialism and selfishness. That is a fact, and if mankind doesn't take that step, God will intervene, and people at the low consciousness level will be expendable.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx please back up you CLAIM that Jesus is the nest level of consciousness with facts that are outside of your ancient book.
Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... "
stupidtrooper501 5 months ago
@stupidtrooper501 ""Jesus is the nest level of consciousness with facts that are outside of your ancient book"" Just google consciousness levels and look were we are and what is the next level. All writings, including the Mayan's affirm the next consciousness step is rejecting materialism and selfishness. That was what Jesus preached and represented. There is not much time, it already started.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx Googled levels of consciousness and got a bunch of stuff talking about what you said but only one was backed up by hard facts, Glasgow Coma Scale: Conscious, Confused, Delirious, Somnolent, Obtunded, Stuporous, Comatose. I find it amusing that the world is entering into a phase of rejecting materialism when capitalism is still the economic system of the west and is expanding to the rest of the world.
stupidtrooper501 5 months ago
@stupidtrooper501 "when capitalism is still the economic system of the west and is expanding to the rest of the world" that will change very, very soon. The system will collapse, currencies will be worthless. Why do you think the fed have been pouring all this money into the system? The same is happening in Europe. The system is based on artificial demand. People are becoming frugal and soon all will begin to spiral down. Be ready, it will be ugly, and if you are attached to materialism, is over
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx i call bluff on that statement, even if the global currencies collapse and fiat money explodes they world will simply move back to the gold standard. BTW being frugal is not the same as anti-materialistic because a frugal person saves money to spend during emergencies or for a costly item. If the world was moving toward materialism then they would move against capitalism and that is not happening, they may want to regulate the markets more but they do not want to end capitalism.
stupidtrooper501 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stupidtrooper501 ""being frugal is not the same as anti-materialistic"" of course not, but is a path in the right direction.
""they would move against capitalism and that is not happening"" when the next crash comes, which will be pretty soon, so one will put their money in stocks. People will stop paying debts, and will buy just the bare essentials, the economy will spiral down and a socialist system will have to be designed. In the meantime, people will engage in trading goods instead.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
"even if the global currencies collapse and fiat money explodes they world will simply move back to the gold standard"
There is not enough gold to use as a bartering intermediary(what money actually is) to replace the dollar on a $1 US dollar for $1 gold standard bases (a 33.436g $20 gold coin is worth $20 in gold against the gold standard, the1.672 gram $1 gold coin is stil $1 in gold against the gold standard )
More likely to barter food,water,gas,and goods directly
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel sorry about that, but my point was i don't think th collapse of fiat currency will change humanity's material possessions or capitalism (restrained by the gov)
stupidtrooper501 3 months ago
"my point was i don't think th collapse of fiat currency will change humanity's material possessions or capitalism (restrained by the gov)"
Right, if the Government had the power to control the dollar(via the price of gold) Gold and other precious metals wouldn't be going up in value and the value of the Dollar going down
a 1964 Silver Quarter is worth $5 in silver and a easy "alternative currency" to attain and use by anyone willing to trade with it ($20 or 4 1964 quarters)
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel nice strawman i never said that government had the power to control of the dollar via the price of gold.
stupidtrooper501 3 months ago
"nice strawman i never said that government had the power to control of the dollar via the price of gold."
What do you think the empty vault in Kansas still pretending to be "full to the brimm" is all about?
There was once a false sense that if the "Faith" in the dollar and the government was to waiver you could just go back to the gold standard using the gold supossedly in Fort Knox
Problems is 4500 tons of gold wouldn't cover anywhere near 17trillion dollars (more like 252 billion 11/4/11)
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
The Legend of Fort Knox makes us think there is at least a peny and a half of gold backing up each dollar (252 billion gold vs dollar divided by 17 trillion "sweet nothings") but the empty vault means there is nothing but "faith" in the U.S. government backing up the worth of the U.S. DOllar
But,yeah..US will go on....just without the Feds pulling the economy strings anymore which will become more localized as ppeople tr4ade and barterd in goods/services while just wiping their ass with dollars
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@dejesusluisx You state 'Jesus represents the next consciousness level, rejecting materialism and selfishness. That is a fact.'
It is NOT a fact, it's an assertion. You have not one single shread of evidence that Jesus represents the next level of conciousness.
spmcd2011 4 months ago
@spmcd2011 "You have not one single shread of evidence that Jesus represents the next level of conciousness." you can believe Jesus is real or false, if you believe He is real, then you wouldn't have made the comment. If you believe Jesus is false, then view Him as a character of a fallacious book if you wish. In that fallacious book, the character is portrayed rejecting materialism and selfishness and all His message is centered around that. So my statement is still a fact no matter what.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
@dejesusluisx Well no, because we would have to all agree that the next concious level is what you claim it is, not what you assert it should be. Therefore is it still not a fact and remains an asssertion.
spmcd2011 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spmcd2011 "we would have to all agree that the next concious level is what you claim it is, not what you assert it should be."
you know what is the basis for science?
confirmation
Now this confirmation to be valid has to be done trough people in different areas and different times.
The Hindus Chakras, the Incas and the Mayan all confirmed these consciousness levels and the next level is the rejection of materialism and selfishness, just as Jesus taught.
So, is a confirmed fact.
dejesusluisx 4 months ago
dont know buddy,im not organised .... typical atheist response! (idiot) what then are you?
flatop59 5 months ago
I am almost certain there are no gods.
jeremythehuman 5 months ago
@jeremythehuman wow, you figured that out all by yourself? :) i am not, though. but i am certain that the gods humans have claimed to exist throughout history do not exist - not in the form they are being worshiped.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
@topperheartramada Your not? Why not?
jeremythehuman 5 months ago
@jeremythehuman i can't claim absolute knowledge.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
@topperheartramada I can't claim absolute knowledge either. That is why I said I am almost certain and not totally certain.
jeremythehuman 5 months ago
" i am certain that the gods humans have claimed to exist throughout history do not exist ."
Even though they have found Dwarka and the straight foward documentation say the blue and green skin people they claim as "gods" are in fact visitors from other planes of existances/dimensions and there were 6 major factions of these Aliens fighting with each other just in India and they were using devices to create earthquakes,tornados and Tsunamis?
Norse "gods" were heros eating special "apples"
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel And there are blue tiny creatures in the forest called the Smurfs.
topperheartramada 3 months ago
"And there are blue tiny creatures in the forest called the Smurfs."
Hey, Advanced Theoretical Physics suggest that every thought and dream may in fact be an alternate reality a sleeping consoiusness can tap into (Was its reality but the mind's "perception"?)
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Oh, no, the Smurfs live in this reality.
topperheartramada 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Oh, no, the Smurfs live in this reality"
Your grasp of "reality"?
Perhaps, but have you ever seen them?
Actually, you have never seen me...do I "exist" beyond the text your are reading?
Are you "Awake" or "Asleep"?
Are you Sure?
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
" am almost certain there are no gods."
The Existance or non-existance of something has nothing to do with belieefs or certainty
The Babalonian texts say the Anunaki created the Adamu(humans) as a slave race to mine for gold and other precious metals and when they left they left the slave labor behind
In the jewish text "elohim"" is plural and after ther civilization on Earth,Mars,Venus and RajaAT(Lucifer,formally planet between Mars and Jupter) was destroyed they made Eden and Hybred Adam
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
Who created an athiest? hahahahahaha,,,i must say im sorry too,,, atheists do kill me,hahahaha,,,the theory of argument!
flatop59 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flatop59
"Who created an athiest? hahahahahaha,,,i must say im sorry too,,, atheists do kill me,hahahaha,,,the theory of argument! "
That's about the full depth of your knowledge of evolution.
Creationists crack me up!
Pigdowndog 5 months ago
Matt does not understand that the human body is so complex with its molecular structure that the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's these days.One reason, is that human cells are identical to the machines we invent thus concluding that there has to be a creator...Matt is just simply in rebellion against his creator,,,,period!
flatop59 5 months ago
@flatop59 hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah ,,,, sorry i was just laughing at the shit you said. it is true that everything has a creator, we created the machines. evolution created us.
scousepitty 5 months ago
"evolution created us"
Created?
Ah so the "Big Bang" CREATED the Universe from nothing then the Evolutionary process CREATED life from non-life and turn that microscopic life to more complicated life (Life a boy being born from a peach or a Stork giving birth to a human as well as all other creatures then dropping the "mutants" off with others of their kind)?
Do you not even realize Big bang "theory" and Evelotionary "theory" is Pseudo Science bordering on religious belief alternative?
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@flatop59 quote: "the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's (sic) these days." hmmm, yea, only it's not.
isaachaze1 5 months ago 7
@isaachaze1 If you count the likes of Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Zachariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken as scientists then I suppose the man has a point, but they're not scientists, despite how much at least three of those seem to like to tell people they are.
Lleanlleawrg 5 months ago
"quote: "the evolutionary concept is becoming invalid with a very large percentage of scientist's (sic) these days." hmmm, yea, only it's not. "
Is that becasue the Last pope believed in Big Bang and Evolution and the Vatican also starting to accept the "plurality of worlds" (we are not alone in the Universe) now?
What is the Premordial goop but "dust" and water that all living things "srung" from including humans?
Big Bang and Evolution are Creation stories at their heart
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel i care not one bit what any of the popes thought or believed. the big bang has NOTHING to do with evolution, and i believe you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution, when you discuss "premordial goop". but yes, the big bang theory could be characterized as a "creation of the universe" story (or more accurately, "theory"). again, evolution has nothing to do with creation.
isaachaze1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isaachaze1 Thats an untrue statement as we know that the earth has been evolving as has consciousness is also evolving which is whats going on today more than ever, its simply however a very real concern as to where any of this leads us as humans when population growth will eventually exceed global ecological capacity all predicated within any vanity within any and all human kind, so any end time would become associated within how we address any real concern rather than any God argument
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
"i care not one bit what any of the popes thought or believed"
Lemetrie did
"Big Bang" was a scientific explanation of "how God created the Universe"
Don't you find it odd that a lot of Christian Scientists buy into "Big Bang"
" believe you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution"
Genises is short,vague,and known to be heavily condensed reader digest verions..and no, I mean single cell animals to primates to Man and everything else between as part of "how God did it" in Vatican
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
"yes, the big bang theory could be characterized as a "creation of the universe" story (or more accurately, "theory"
And a stupid as s one made by a Catholic Priest moonlighting as a Cosmologist that took Hubbles noticing that the futher objects are away the redder the light is as "DOppler effect"
Problem with that idiotic idea is Light does not change pitch as it's waves speed up or slows down as it's waves bend or stretch around betweern objects in motioon like sound waves do
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Wikipedia: "redshift"
adman123 3 months ago
Wikipedia?
Seriously?
If there was ever an exapble of Liberal communal stupitidy on the the internet.....
HUbble is the one that noticed that the further an obect is the more red shifted the light source is
Get this part, as an astronomer he did not buy into "Big Bang" and explaned the redshift as the scattering effect of the interstellar medium it had to cross making it look more red the further away the object was
Only a self claimed "Cosmologi\ist" would ever claim "dopler effect" on light
TheRealArchAngel 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Only a self claimed "Cosmologi\ist" would ever claim "dopler effect" on light"
You are scientifically completely WRONG!
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
"You are scientifically completely WRONG!"
Actually it's your Catholic Priest/C0oologist and all the "Physists" ireciting their 14th,15th,16th,17th,and 18th century Chemical and mathamatical Theories with a little Ancient Greek Philosiphy thrown in that are not correct about their Creation Story
There was no "bggining" (A beggining = "Creation")
Light does have a set speed
And because of this seeing young galaxies out at 14 billion light years means they were so 14 billion years ago
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel from your problems with spelling correctly, i conclude that spelling was not a part of your education. And that pretty much clinches any argument that you would be a scientist of any kind.
However, doppler effect on light is easily measurable in a laboratory, and all other proposed explanations are rejected because of contradictory _evidence_,
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" from your problems with spelling correctly, i conclude that spelling was not a part of your education"
Considering I can't see very well and I have Delexsiea I think I am doing pretty good
My Secretary and proofreader has better things to do then look over my casual postings on Youtube...sorry
"And that pretty much clinches any argument that you would be a scientist of any kind. "
SO? Eienstien couldn't tie his shoes or comb his hair,Newton was Neurotic,and Archimedes babbled in public
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"Archimedes babbled in public"
In fact a Roman Soilder killed him in irritation cause Archimedes was to busy talking to himself to listen to the Roman Soldier
"doppler effect on light is easily measurable in a laboratory"
Oh it's possible to slow a photon to a crawl and bens light with electromagnetic fields but "doppler effect" hasto do with sound waveds distorting when they run into then go around objects at different speed/frequiency..which light cant do
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel simple experiment, measure the frequency of light as earth move around the sun, in the forward direction, and in the backwards direction, and compare the frequency. Does it show the doppler effect? Yes it does. Can it be explained with scientific method? Yes it can. Has this experiment been carried out? Yes, it was carried out alreay in the 19th century and has been carried out in many different variations since then.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
" Does it show the doppler effect? Yes it does."
An extended infared light band just means there is more infared light seen by measuring equipment and a extended ultraviolet light band means there is more Ultaviolet light seen by equiptment
It has nothing to do with sound waves warping and bending around objects (or lack there of) vs air between 2 objects and changing pitch as a result("dopper effect")
There is no air in space and light isnt a sound wave(air vibration)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel ****** line emissions *****, emitted by verifiable substances, like H-alpha, O-III
It seems you lack a 101 education on physics.
Light and sound are different things, and the doppler-effect of each also behave somewhat different, but they are both easily verifiable and part of very rudimentary scientifcly accepted physics. You are simply wrong.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
"t seems you lack a 101 education on physics."
I was a general Science major...I needed to take 4 and I Cgose Cosmology,Quantun Mechanics,Probability(bullion theory,statistics),and Creative Thinking(cant remember the facy name)
"Light and sound are different things"
correct
"and the doppler-effect "
Only applys to Soundwaves distorting from speed,distance,tempature and density of air it travels to and objects vs observation point
"redshift" isn't "proof" of expanding Space
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel you are scientifically incorrect.
The doppler-effect on light has been used to discover and verify 100s of extra-solar planets.
The Hubble Space Telescope is stabilized using a sensor that are directly dependant on the doppler-effect of a laser to sense rotation/acceleration. The telescope would fail without this sensor.
Light is an electromagnetic wave, sound is a wave caused by air-particles physically moving - that is the difference.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
"The doppler-effect on light has been used to discover and verify 100s of extra-solar planets."
YOur trying to tell a former member of Carl Sagan's Planetary sociaty that we look for other worlds with"Doppler effect"
Watching the starlight for "blinking" is how planets are discovered,and the Spectrometer reading you are found of calling "proof of Doppler" can tell what substance the light is passing,refracting,and scattering in
Infared light's long band carries most information
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel ROFL.
There are several methods used to detect planets.
The first planets was discovered using the doppler effect (repeated red-shifting and blue-shifting due to orbital motions) of the star. Several 100 planets was discovered and verified this way.
Kepler and some other uses transit detection, and have by now added almost 2000 more planets.
But the fact remains, the first few 100 was discovered by doppler effects.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
"A infared light Spectrometer is used to discover what stuf is made of..not to measure"doppler"
The true "Hubble constant" observes that the further away a object is from earth the more infared light it seems to give off
Lemetre proposed that this increasing legnth of infared light was from"Doppler effect" as space expanded.
Problem is light would just travel the increased distance and not "Stretch" within it and objects distances havent increased in the 6000 years we look at stars
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Problem is light would just travel the increased distance and not "Stretch" within it "
Some of the "Physist"(in the math dept of University,(not Science building) have claimed that the initiaal "edge" of the Universe moved faster then the speed of light and Space Expands faster then the speed of light
So a Star or Galaxy in a Space moving the speed of light away from us at 12 light years away should read AS 13 light years away the followiing year with"winks"if Lemetre was right
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"the first few 100 was discovered by doppler effects."
Exacty how would the "doppler effect" help you find a dark spot the equivalant of a pin head on a object the sixe of a eraser head as bright as a flash of lightning?
heh,heh
Before Kepler watching the Star "wobble" is how you can tell if a Star has planets around it from "mutual gravity tug"...but your firt "100" needed to be huge objects like Benard's Star's near protostar plant to cause a big enough"wobble" to see pre-hubble
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"Infared light's long band carries most information"
In fact if you look at the Other Scientist;s letters of the time in response to Lemetre's claim of a Spectrometer showing "doppler shift" you'll find all of them at the time considered him an idiot (including the Spectrometer's inventor"
Infared light is the most common light in the universe and has the longest band of frequencies
A infared light Spectrometer is used to discover what stuf is made of..not to measure "doppler"
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"The Hubble Space Telescope is stabilized using a sensor that are directly dependant on the doppler-effect of a laser to sense rotation/acceleration. The telescope would fail without this sensor."
Always thought the Hubble used a Spinning Gyros and thrusters to stablize
Or are you talking about it's muti object spectrometer and Near Infared spectroeter to take images of deep space objects that give off a lot of Infared light cause they are so old (Older as further away=more IR)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel they use gyros aswell, and obviously they also use trusters, but the most sensitive detector is the optical, doppler-effect based, laser. Furthermore, a gyro is not a sensor, it is just a stabilizing mechanism.
I now believe you are just a troll, because it is not possible to be a proffesional (as you claim) and be this ignorant.
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
"but the most sensitive detector is the optical, doppler-effect based, lase"
Must be "top secret" cause it isn't in the blueprints...lol
Imagine a "top secret" devce that uses the dfoppler effect to keep itself stable in relation to star feilds (exactly how?)
"Furthermore, a gyro is not a sensor"
Never said that. Was asking if you are confuding the Infared and near infared spectometors for something they are not
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I now believe you are just a troll"
Exactly how considering it is you that started this exchange by answering a trivial comment I cant eve remember maing unless I looked through the back posts(if I cared to).
It even looks like,glancing at the title, we are extremely off topic(No,Science , especiallt Consenseses politically motivated kind lke Anthropological. Global warming Hypothises Consenses isnt reliable cause of bias and manipulation)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"because it is not possible to be a proffesional (as you claim) and be this ignorant."
Ignorant of What?
Since rthe Liberals startedi nfiltrating the Education System since the Early 70's America went from 1st in Math and Science to 6th(and that ids only cause we are importing our tech and Engineering Geniuses from India and China that we get 6th,you'll find the average UJ.S. Born student on "Jay Walking")
Ignorant?
You somehow was thougt Light can warp and compress like sound
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel America's drop in science can be traced to irrational religious fundamentalists who are presiding on the Board of Education in several states. They insist on having creationism taught in Science class & they're attempting to rewrite History books in some states. Soon many students from several states will be denied access to science programs in college because they're not being taught science in high school.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"America's drop in science can be traced to irrational religious fundamentalists who are presiding on the Board of Education in several state"
Right
That is why we spend 1 billion dollars of tax payers money per child from grade K to 12 in public Education A YEAR and public education kids are getting stupider and stupider while "Math Genius" copsts $249 and "My Baby can read" costs $149 on late night TV
Special Interests and Unions are to blame, not Funda-mentali-st..lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"They insist on having creationism taught in Science class & they're attempting to rewrite History books in some states"
MKey words there is they are trying
Last I check Al ores movie not only became a part of the "Pop Science" requirements,mandatory attenence along with mommy and daddy or the teacher fails the student,whie Creation still is not thought in Science lass but a lot of nonsence pseudo Science bullshit was being forcey fed into my nice and Nephews' head
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"Soon many students from several states will be denied access to science programs in college because they're not being taught science in high school"
Wathcing Al Gores movie withmommy and Daddy isnt Science
Bringing home petitions to save thw Whales,Save the Polar Bears and such crying for mommy and Daddy to sign isnt Science (I had to straighten out the horror stories the kids were force fed more thena few times...such as Polar bears swim 60 miles a day to hunt 200 to migrate)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel STOP ASSuming I watch Al Gore movies (Never have). What Scientific research have you conducted ? Watching Fox News isn't Science. Studying creationism / ID isn't Science.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"STOP ASSuming I watch Al Gore movies (Never have). "
Never did
"What Scientific research have you conducted ?"
My specialty is Artifical Biosperes,Enviromental Engineering and weather manipulation
Yes humans can control the Enviroment/weather...if AGW was real Scentists can reverse it by filtering the atmosphere
"Watching Fox News isn't Science."
I only watch Mythbusters on TV when they are in season,dont watch TV otherwise
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"Studying creationism / ID isn't Science.'"
Study
Exactly how does one "study" a creation myth?
By ID I assume you mean Inteligent Design which is Advanced Cosmology..a brach of Theoretecal Physics...ironically the same one still thumping on ancient Chemical theory that things ALWAYS break down into thier simpler compounds (like 1 galon gas gas to 20 gallons co2+ 5lb water+14000?btu heat+300Horsepower kinetics...which a gasometer on thee tailpipe busts)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Many people believe creationism/ ID is real & accept it because it makes them feel good. They prefer orderly error instead of complex truth. How do People study a creation myth ? I can't speak for everybody. Some people read about or hear about creationism/ ID & mythology. Some choose to accept it, Others choose to Question or reject it. Yes Humans can & do have an effect on the Environment. Example, We continually pollute the Environment & that has a negative effect.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Many people believe creationism/ ID is real & accept it because it makes them feel good"
Yes, wether it's "Big Bang" or any other Creation Story,there are those that like having "the answer"no matter how inconsstant vs observation or irrational it is
Look at classic "Big Bang"...as Science collects more data that shows there was no Spontanious creation they keep on putting a patch on that B.S.
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Are You suggesting creationism / ID is supported to the degree that Scientific Theories are supported ? Scientific Theories are the result of the Scientific Method ( Observation, Verification, Testing, retesting, falsification) Creationism / ID isn't !
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Are You suggesting creationism / ID is supported to the degree that Scientific Theories are supported ?"
Dont attach Creationism and Intelligent Design theory togther cause they are totally different things
Creationism says the Universe was created based on "faith"
ID, Kosher ID, notes that there seems to be an order to things and questions if the Universe itself might be "sentinent" and can order itself..or at least suggests "order" is a natural result from Choas
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Creationism & ID both posit an order of things. Neither are supported with evidence. ID is a theist's attempt to cloak creationism in scientific terminology. Peer Review determines if a Hypothesis meets requirements to produce replicated results before it is published in a Scientific Journal. Are You suggesting ID is an accepted Scientific Theory which has passed Peer Review ?
tranquility4all 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Creationism & ID both posit an order of things. Neither are supported with evidence.+"
Again ID is advanced Comology and has nothing to do with creationism as "Creationist Scientist" claims
"Peer Review determines if a Hypothesis meets requirements to produce replicated results before it is published in a Scientific Journal"
No, Peer review checks for errors before in a research paper is published in a Science Journa
After Publication Scientists try to replicate claims
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"ID is a theist's attempt to cloak creationism in scientific terminology"
If a "Creationists" is trying to thump on it...probably
But when Stephen Hawkins or Michco (cant remember hislastname) speak of ID they are noting the almost "arranged" order of things...which has nothing to do wither wether or not there was a creator
It's part "unified Theory" where they note "strings" and Quarks canseem to know what each other is doing light years away (they could co-vibraite)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Just because Scientists speak of ID / creationism & state they notice the almost arranged of an order of things in no way supports ID / creationism. Things are not always what they seem to be. Many things which appeared to be true were later confirmed to be false. There are many things which We don't understand or are not aware of. However We should not be in a rush to accept anything just because It seems to exist such as an arranged order of things.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Things are not always what they seem to be"
Right, like you beliving ID and religious zealots trying to teach creationism is the same thing when it isn'tReal ID can predict the crop yeild of Wheat in China in relation to Climate change for thenext 10 years
Real ID is what predicted that the cause of the disapearing bees is a new parisite that has invaded the Bee population before the new parisite was acually discovered
Real ID is getting a bad name over creationist nonsense
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Real ID has made predictions About crop yield & disappearing Bee Populations ? Please present any Scientific Organization (NOT the Discovery Institute) which claims any of its' findings are based on ID.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Please present any Scientific Organization (NOT the Discovery Institute) which claims any of its' findings are based on ID. "
And you mean the life iife infomation systems management algorithims rather then the silly notion of teaching the Bible in school posing as ID?
Insect Pollinators Initiative(Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council )
they are analyzing the trends in the decline of pollinating inscets using computer models using "ID" algotrithims
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Please explain Why the overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community REJECTS ID. Please explain why ID isn't an accepted Scientific Theory ?
tranquility4all 1 month ago
As for "ID" alogorithims in prediscting future crop yieds....
The DNDC Model
A computer simulation model for predicting crop yield, soil carbon sequestration, nitrogen leaching, and trace gas emissions in agro-ecosystems.
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel I believe the Scientist you're trying to remember is Micho Kaku. I'm not suggesting that every Scientific Theory is 100 % correct. However I am stating ID / creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"am stating ID / creationism isn't an accepted Scientific Theory."
First you need to stop attaching Intelligent Design to Creationisim like the Creationist are trying to do
Inteligent Design is part of Statistiucs and probability in life systems theory (Theoretical Zoology) a sub branch of Permaspermia Theory....it has nothing to do with Religon or Creationist notions
Creationists trying to use ID to bring a Bible in the Classroom is what is confusing you and most people
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel First You need to realize ID isn't a theory. It's an unsupported Hypothesis. Second You need to realize ID is creationism masquerading as Science. The overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community dismisses ID & concludes it is creationism. You're confusing Hypothesis with Theory.
tranquility4all 1 month ago 2
"First You need to realize ID isn't a theory. It's an unsupported Hypothesis."
Yeah, it's never been published in a Journal of Science and passed falsification...much like Evolution , Big Bang and AGW are unpublished,untested,and not falsified Working Hypothises and not tested and verified theories (and in case of Big Bang and Evolution they never can be)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Evolution is an ACCEPTED Scientific Theory which means It has passed Scientific Peer Review. The Big Bang has more evidence to support It than ID / creationism.Please explain What You mean by AGW. You want me to present 5 Quantum Theoretical Life System Engineers that claim ID is creationism ? Please present any Scientific Peer Review Organization which accepts ID as a Scientific Theory. I don't have to refute ID / creationism.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Evolution is an ACCEPTED Scientific Theory which means It has passed Scientific Peer Review"
Yes. And the reason it can only ever be ACCEPTED in that it isn't Verifiable, Testable,or Falsifiable
Gravity on the other hand is demonstratable by dropping something and therefore is a "Proven" Theory,though the debate is over "gravatons" or reactive EM effect(gravaty doesn't really exist as it's own force,its a reaction of a Mass' combined electrons in its atoms on space)
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel The Theory of Evolution & Gravity are accepted by the Scientific Community. ID is not !
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"The Big Bang has more evidence to support It than ID "
the flaws in the Catholic Priest's "Big Bang" theory are
1) seeing 17 billion light years(currently) in each direction and saying that is how big the universe is a) doesn't account for it taking 17 bilion years for light from that far away to reach us and b) puts earth at the center of the universe(again)
2) "Dopler effect" is a sound waves ability to slow down and speed up while traveling..light doesn't do that..ever
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Thee may be flaws in the Big Bang Theory. However ID is filled with Flaws. The big Bang is an accepted Scientific Theory. ID is NOT ! Instead of trying to refute accepted Scientific Theories I suggest You try to present facts, evidence & a testing methodology which supports ID. Then submit It for Peer Review & see If is accepted as a Scientific Theory.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"the flaws in the Catholic Priest's "Big Bang" theory(cont)
3) The "Hubble Constant" proper, is the observance that things get "redder" the gfurther out they are. Hubble consiered the Catholic Priest's notion of it being "doppler effect" and thus "proving Big Bang" idiodic and,as a Astronomer, noted that "redening" was from interstellar dust interference,nt a "magical Big Bang that created everything"
4) Universe isn't evenly distributed as a "big Bang"" would have made it
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel This isn't about Al Gore or the Big Bang. It's about ID which isn't accepted by the Scientific Community because it's FLAWED. Even if you were to refute every accepted Scientific Theory ( DON'T get excited, You won't) It would not support ID. Refuting 1 Theory or many theories doesn't support a Hypothesis.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"You mean by AGW"
Antropological Gloal Warming..a "theory" that only existed in mass media hysteria and Al Gores mind and thus pop culture but had no real Scientific Research to back it up
"Please present any Scientific Peer Review Organization"
"peer review" is a step before a research paper WITH RESULTS is published in a journal of Science
"Organiations" are usually government boards or clubs easily pop culture or politically swayed,not Journal of Science
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Scientific Theories have passed Peer Review. ID has not. ID is promoted & accepted by the Discovery Institute which is nothing more than a support group for CREATIONISM !
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Scientific Theories have passed Peer Review"
Actually a theory passes peerreview for publication in a journal of Science,has passed scientists reading the publications replication tests,and has passed all tests of falsification(looking for other explinations for results)
A Accepted Theory like Big Bang and Evolution may not be testable,verifiable,or falsifiable but is agreed to be the best answer based on Observance
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Evolution is supported with facts, evidence & teesting NOT just Observation. If It didn't It would not be an accepted Theory.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Evolution is supported with facts, evidence & teesting NOT just Observation."
Right..Darwing observersed the same kind of animals in different areas with different features to adapt to that area thus micro-evolution or "adaption of a Spicies" is observably confirmable
Presuming humans came from apes then going to look for proof of that then finding "Lucy" and claiming it as "proof" isnt how science work
Neither is Presuming "Big Bang"then finding"proof"in Hubble's"redshift"
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel It's been more than 35 yrs. since I read Darwin's Origin of Species. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe he presumed Humans came from Apes.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"accepts ID as a Scientific Theory"
Scientific Theory?
Lol, your noting about ID being a creationist plot version...no
ID theory is a Modeling method based of historic,prediciveand inter-related systems and has no real standard form that has ever been published in a Journal of Science that I'm aware of
Real "ID" is about number crunching life systems to try to predict any future outcomes such as the bee deline effecting crop production interaction
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"don't have to refute ID / creationism"
ID is a method of number crunching life systems for predictive computer modeling ans since therre is no standard in how it is done there is no research paper in a Journaal of zoological Theory for it
Creationism is a belief that the universe and everyhing in it was created at some point...suchas the "Big Bangers" belive,unknowingly following a alternative creation story made up by a Catholic Priest(George Lemete) posing as a Scientist
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"I don't have to refute ID / creationism."
P.S. that form of defence "It is up to the person that claims something to support it" only works against a ill informed defender.(like a bible thumping Creationist that dont actually read the bible)
If I have 200 years of bird migration records, 150 year of climate change data and 50 years of data concerning the birds favorite foods on the migration paths I could write a ID in a computer model predicting climates effect on birds
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel You're claiming ID is real. It's up to You to present facts, evidence & a testing methodology to support it. It isn't up to me or anyone to refute It. A Hypothesis isn't accepted because It hasn't been refuted. Nobody including You has supported ID. Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist You just believe it's true. BTW ID like most claims in the BUY BULL are not supported with evidence.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"You're claiming ID is real. It's up to You to present facts"
000110100101010101001100101011010101011010000001010110101000100101010001010101010110110101100101010000110101010100100101001001010100101101010110010011001011001001010100101010010011010101010101001011010000011010101010100101010010100010010010100100000010100101111010010100101001001001010010011010010100111011010101010011010100111010101010011010010101010100101001010101010010101101010101000101010101000011010010010101010101
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel 000110100 etc. What pt. are You trying to make ?
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"What pt. are You trying to make"
Sorrry,
I have a Turtle Slhell Siamise Calco Cat and she mates with a Siamse male..the Litter is 5 kittens: 3 siamise girls,1 white and tan patch Male,1 miscarrige
She Mates with same cat again and 2nd Batch"Black Male,Grey and White Female,Black and white Male
She mates with same cat again and has a total miscarage
Question" If she mates with Siames Cat again what is chance of male/female cat? Of miscarige? of Numbr of cats
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel I can't give You the probabilities of genetics. Glad to hear You love Cats. I have 8 all of which are spayed or neutered.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel I appreciate Your input of Cat Reproduction probabilities. However I don't have the means to care for anymore Cats at the present time. We have many abandoned Pets. I spend excess money on Trapping then Spaying or Neutering abandoned Pets before trying to find Homes for them.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't have the means to care for anymore Cats at the present time. We have many abandoned Pets. I spend excess money on Trapping then Spaying or Neutering abandoned Pets before trying to find Homes for them."
Yeah, I know what you mean...I was taking care of 23 strays and 17 rescues at 1 point but managed to find homes for all but 5 which includes the now spayed runt Calico that CANT hunt 1.5-3 foot rats..main reason why people want cats here,her kids are huge enough though
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"evidence "
Climate models that IPCC use is based in ID, as is the bee population Study models and crop projection models and The Tsunami/Earthquake prediction models
"testing methodology"
The theory is that with enough data of historical happenings and enough data from crosss referenced happenings we are able to predict a future happening based on passed cross references plus any new data added to the system as needed
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel ID isn't the testing methodology the Scientific Community relies on to predict changes in Weather Patters, reduction in Bee Population, crop projection & Tsunami/ Earthquake predictions
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"It isn't up to me or anyone to refute It."
Which is fine for 2nd Grate Debat class,but you really do need to prove that I am wrong in saying that ID is a mathimatical means of predicting life system with evidence that such methodology in computer modeling doesnt exist and "ID" is just Bible thumer terminology...not just claim it is (Your making a Claim,not me)
"A Hypothesis isn't accepted because It hasn't been refuted"
"Peer review" finding errors means it isn't published
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel Peer review finding errors means ID isn't supported with evidence & doesn't produce predictable repeatable results
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"Nobody including You has supported ID. Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist"
Which ;part orf Real ID theory/methodology has nothing to do with Bible thumpers trying to teach the Bible in School under the same term isn't registering to your knee jerk anti-theisim views?
"Like a BUY BULL thumping creationist You just believe it's true"
Naw,crap in=crap out
Like that 20 foot tidel wave that was supposed to hit hawaii after a Earthquake but didn't cause data entered was miles off
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
"Second You need to realize ID is creationism masquerading as Science."
TheCreationists are trying to ascurade thier intent of teaching the Bible in schools under the pretense that it is ID Theory...which it is not
"The overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community dismisses ID & concludes it is creationism"
Give me name of 5 Quantum thoretical Life Systems Engineers (the type of physists that number crunch ID for predicting things like crop yield) that claim ID is religon
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel You need to support it with facts, evidence & a testing methodology (the Scientific Method). The Scientific Community has been charting changes in Climate Patterns for decades. They haven't based their findings because of ID. Please explain why the overwhelming majority of the Scientific Community has continually dismissed ID. Please explain the Court decision of Kitzmiller vs. Dover. ID is nothing more than an unsupported Hypothesis.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"You need to support it with facts, evidence & a testing methodology (the Scientific Method"
Facts?
a "fact" is relative to ;perception...Science is aboiut Observane first
Evidence is of things Observed
Data gathering veriifying and testing comes after the Hypothises based on Evidence to see if Hypothises is right
If the tests support the Hypothises then the research p[aper can be submitted to a Journal of Science for publication were it is "peer reviewed" for errors first
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago
@TheRealArchAngel I know about Peer Review. Please explain why ID hasn't passed Peer Review. There are some facts which have not been observed. We can calculate How long it will take for a planet to revolve around the Sun even though We have only observed planet for a period of time which is less than the time it takes to revolve around the sun. Evidence & testing determines whether or not a Hypothesis is right. We follow the evidence. We don't lead the evidence.
tranquility4all 1 month ago
"The Scientific Community has been charting changes in Climate Patterns for decades"
3 decades...and I remember the media hysteria screaming Antropological Global Coolinbg in the 70's...though since there was no internet,global media,bloggasphere,and youtube thestupidity of AGC didn't spread like AGW did once Al Gore won his Movie Award and diplomatic peace prize(not prize in Science,prize in politics)
What IPCC gave was a Hypothises(opinon)..one now being verified and tested
TheRealArchAngel 1 month ago