Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Britney Spears Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Celine Dion Shop Now STEM
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Abiogenesis be Manned- There is no evidence for life having started naturally on Earth.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4401-4425 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:01:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 8:37:56 AM PDT
Philip J. Allen wrote:
"I guess Einstein, Hawking, Rutherford,Krauss can all be counted as delinquent..... "
=====================================
Rutherford was an entirely different brand of scientist. Despite being a physicist, Rutherford won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and most of his greatest achievements came after, not before, he won the prize.

Einstein, Hawking, and Krauss fall neatly in the category of the most delinquent, lazy, and eccentric scientists in history.

The rule of thumb has always been that experimentalists with great theoretical foundation advanced science beyond its status quo, while theoreticians crippled it. Einstein, Hawking, and Krauss sold more books than making any useful gadget that could have aided humans in making better living.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Posted on May 14, 2012 6:52:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 7:53:09 AM PDT
Nah, Einstein was a model of citzenry. And he was very sociable, too. Just check out his famous photo with his hair standing on end and tongue stuck out. We've all read stories about his eccentricity. No, not delinquent at all...And scientists would never try to rock the boat of government policy or public opinion, either, for that matter. They always tow the line. lol

Sure, saying otherwise is rubbish - to some people. Always check the source, though.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:11:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 7:42:50 AM PDT
RK: "And ID's evidently on the verge of some evidentiary breakthrough, too, John. Let's both put our little idols back in our pockets for now"

Mohammed: "You seem to believe that the scientific theory of evolution made breakthroughs, and that, Intelligent design will make that [too]. The last [too] bothered me."

I was writing in sarcasm, Mohammed. So what I asserted there was only provisional, local, and relative. That is, I meant to state it only from John's position and frame of reference and not my own. My apologies for not making the distinction (relative reference versus absolute reference) clear in context so that it could be understood. My choice of terms there was quite imprecise, being more for literary effect than it was for literal meaning. Watch out; I do that sometimes in writing. I am highly contextual at times.

Actually, I abhore natural selection as a variable. I think it's unempirical and certainly no independent variable at all. I scathe it as being unredeemably flawed; it is an ad hoc-attributed effect only. It is also fundamentally unscientific due to the fact it yields no observable and certainly no measurable parameters.

It is one of the factors that make evolution studies primarily qualitative in nature. Set the Muslim scholars on *that one* to study it with a vengeance. Its investigation could pay off ransomly in terms of debate and dialog advantage in any empirical context.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:18:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 7:44:51 AM PDT
Physics Geek: "Funny that you seem to try to count yourself as a scientist whenever you think it will help your argument."

Funny you equate writing about science with actually being a scientist when you feel it will support your own argument.

And since when is humor automatically bad? Here's wishing you and all of us LOL! Rue the day you become uninteresting...

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:44:06 AM PDT
Would someone who speaks with forked tongue be a *tongulate*, Christine?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:51:03 AM PDT
w: The Green Party here seem to be in awe of something called *chem trails* and they showed a DVD at one of their gatherings, recently. 90 minutes of my life wasted.

The most obvious interviews might have been with a selection of meteorologists but nary a one in sight, presumably because such an *expert* would have quickly told the truth about it all. Am I correct, w?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:52:35 AM PDT
New talents, Christine. I like it. lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:55:20 AM PDT
Richard Kepler wrote:
"Nah, Einstein was a model of citzenry. And he was very sociable, too. "
=========================================
Einstein died scientifically after 1924.

After immigrating to the USA on May 26,1933 from Ostende, Belgium, Einstein never published a single scientific article, never learned to drive a car, sat in Princeton as a rotting pickle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384909/Albert-Einsteins-immigration-papers-turn-80-years-fled-Britain-Nazi-Germany.html

Wikipedia states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein#cite_ref-20

"In the final thirty years of his life, Einstein explored whether various classical unified field theories could account for both electromagnetism and gravitation and, possibly, quantum mechanics. However, his efforts were unsuccessful, since those theories did not match experimental observations.[21]"

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:30:57 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mohamed F. El-Hewie said:
"Einstein, Hawking, and Krauss fall neatly in the category of the most delinquent, lazy, and eccentric scientists in history."

LOL. You're an idi0t. No wonder that you hang around with dumbbells.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 9:53:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 9:54:22 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Mohamed F. El-Hewie says: "In the final thirty years of his life, Einstein explored whether various classical unified field theories could account for both electromagnetism and gravitation and, possibly, quantum mechanics. However, his efforts were unsuccessful, since those theories did not match experimental observations
>That is a well known fact. What does it have to do with Relativity? By the way, it's also a known phenomenon that most mathematicians do their best work when they're young.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 10:01:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 10:03:12 AM PDT
Richard Kepler wrote:
"Actually, I abhore natural selection as a variable. I think it's unempirical and certainly no independent variable at all. I scathe it as being unredeemably flawed; it is an ad hoc-attributed effect only. It is also fundamentally unscientific due to the fact it yields no observable and certainly no measurable parameters. "
========================================
The main reason that the mechanism of natural selection grasps the attention of common people is its implication on numbing the consciousness of the masses in regards to caring for the weak and deprived.

Using natural selection to justify letting the sufferers keep suffering, beating up on the weak and incapable on the grounds that nature justifies cruelty, has engaged many people in questioning the role of science in changing the moral structures of societies.

Scientifically, the mechanism of natural selection is invoked by exclusion of other well identified mechanisms of adaptation. There is no harm incurred in science by letting natural selection remains as the last resort in explaining how species come and go until someone could nail the distinct mechanisms by which the DNA orchestrate the life of organisms.

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 10:17:44 AM PDT
roeselare says:
it's interesting that p52 might or might not be interpreted as trinitarian. Either way the interpretation would have to explained to a liberal Christian. Conservatives see allusions to the trinitarian concepts everywhere, even in much older writings.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 10:22:45 AM PDT
roeselare says:
Richard, they're still at the University of Utah. 'Some sort of snafu. What do I do? lol

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:50:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 1:53:43 PM PDT
A. Caplan wrote:
"That is a well known fact. What does it have to do with Relativity? By the way, it's also a known phenomenon that most mathematicians do their best work when they're young. "
======================
A. Caplan,

Einstein was not a mathematician and his entry to the world of academia was to escape the clerical work at the Swiss patent office.

Einstein's luck was the coincidence of the invention of the quantum by Max Planck which Einstein used superbly in interpreting the photoelectric effect.

In 1988, in during job interview in Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, one of the physicists of Russian origin commented to me that the lab do not get involved in relativity research. It is well known to all experimentalists that relativity cannot lead to any scientific advances.

Ernest Lawrence was one of the few who explained that cyclotron cannot increase its energy unless the relativistic effects of the high speed particles was taken into consideration. It turned, however, that the relative speed of particles was not the same thing as relativistic speed of particles.

http://www.ph.surrey.ac.uk/partphys/chapter4/Cyclotrons.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lawrence

Among the simplest experiments that you could perform at home at a price less than $50 is the Fizeau's experiment on the aether drag

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Aether

Simply, in 1851, Fizeau showed that two reverse streams of water pose different effect on the speed of light.

In 1887, Michelson and Morley confirmed Fizeau's finding. Einstein omitted the results of the famous Michelson-Morley experiments from his 1905 paper, and latter, claimed that special relativity accounts for Fizeau's results.

In 2004, Milan R. Pavlovic did extensive review of the theory of relativity, which sparked a plethora of research into the futility of relativity.

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:54:10 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 3:59:13 PM PDT
A. Caplan: >That is a well known fact. What does it have to do with Relativity? By the way, it's also a known phenomenon that most mathematicians do their best work when they're young.

That is a commonly known fact. But what does it have to do with the price of mustard, or cutting gas for that matter? By the way, it's also a known phenomenon that pianists improve in performance as they age.

Comparable evidence, not relativity evidence for the purpose of making a splash, please...Topics have more sway than you're giving them, but not as much flexibility.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:58:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 5:30:35 PM PDT
JDC: "There is no such thing as a naturalistic ID viewpoint. ID is viewed as pseudoscience."

Platitudes and truisms only...I possess the former. Prove I don't.

And just where's your proof of the nonexistence of anything, or of charlatans appearing everywhere, for that matter? Under your bed? In the closet? In Vaudeville?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 3:04:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 6:15:58 PM PDT
w413: "Conservatives see allusions to the trinitarian concepts everywhere, even in much older writings."

They are not predominant in the earliest writings and writings of the Church Fathers (c50-300 AD). Only after the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) were they everywhere. As to his identity, check out the passages about Jesus as obedient Son of God, God in flesh, our intercessor to God, condescended Christ vicariously taking sin on himself, our brother, and the second Adam. As to his subordination, consider his obedience to Mary his mother at age 30 but not to the rest of his family, his prayers (including petitions) to God even to the point of struggling and being strengthened by an angel at Gethsemane, his position lower than the angels, becoming sin itself, and the requirement on believers to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to share in his salvation.

The severe subordination of the deity of Jesus and the diminution of his identify to that of a man (likened often to us) in these writings are two of the main reasons why there was an Arian controversy in the first place, and a council to resolve the matter subsequently. The mixed identity of Jesus and numerous references in texts to his subordination to both the Father and human authority have caused recurrent problems and controversy throughout the history of the Church. Arianism and modalistic monarchianism surfaced later repeatedly in Europe.

Don't underestimate the arguments pro and con at Nicaea. It is conceivable the Arians could have won. A Church council had to be convened in order to decide, with the emperor in attendance.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 3:06:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 4:29:20 PM PDT
w413: "Richard, they're still at the University of Utah. 'Some sort of snafu. What do I do? lol"

Keep the wait on!! Don't lose it, or ignore your cravings for it, please!

Main dish moved to the back burner... Okay... Duly noted. And thanks for telling me.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:15:38 PM PDT
roeselare says:
it was a close vote and most of the 'bishops' were illiterate, but that was standard fare back then.

Without the ever growing and ever present needs of the empire the Christology they elevated would have faded away. Why did it take three centuries to get behind the best and most emotional ideas for a suffering savior as part of the godhead? Were thinking people hesitant? Did they finally come around to see the organizational power and expedience in the new religion? It is genius-level material, but I doubt many knew it at the time. It quickly blew away the other salvation and meaning of life/origin ideas, because it had a suffering innocent, all powerful and judgmental -- but totally restrained by some higher Goodness held in reserve for humans. I'm glad I'm a Christian, because it has it all!

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:22:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 6:36:44 PM PDT
Arianism was no less efficacious or salvific than trinitarianism. Both had large numbers of converts. Please show arianism would be otherwise. In fact, a more unitarian center for prayer (such as in monotheistic Islam) would very likely build faith more in God than the view of three persons (back then, seen as three 'substances'). Which one do you pray to and why never (or less in all likelihood) to the Holy Spirit? The arians asked this question.

It's a good question to ask, i.e., if you want to support a one or two-person view of the godhead. The Jehovah's Witnesses still ask it, and they're the fastest growing Christian group in Japan, I believe. They're arians, too, by the way...

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:42:47 PM PDT
roeselare says:
w413: "Minds, souls and spirits are used as metaphors, but how can we agree upon what we mean by each of these metaphors? We can't...I have a favorite big picture of reality, but it doesn't require the conjuring up of those metaphors."

As far as I see things, you were originally speaking of consciousness being suspect as a real-world phenomenon, and are now digressing substantially from that for purposes of explanation. What is the connection? You were comparing consciousness to minds, souls and spirits used as metaphors only for support in your critique, weren't you. Now you bring in one's view or picture of reality, sort of like a synonym; but of what? By this latter addition, do you mean consciousness, exactly?

W -- What is consciousness? Is it thinking and emotional responses to events, memories and sensory messages? In my view, it's nothing else THAN thinking and responses.

How come the obvious turn in main discussion from the existence or nonexistence of consciousness, your point and main topic of interest originally? Or did I miss something here? Now you appear to be focusing quite in depth on what constitute your topical comparisons made for only support, i.e., minds, souls, and spirits? That's why I say the topic has digressed from consciousness per se.

W -- To me, consciousness is a placeholder, but no one shares the exact same definition of it. It's not a precise nor valid term for anything, because I'm a reductionist. What else is there??

If you hold consciousness as scientifically suspect, you should be critiquing it as a physical phenomenon based on concept and variable definitions, research approach/methods and published findings, not liking it at the topical level (alone, as far as I see things) to other concepts people currently hold in some scientific disrepute. I could liken evolution to astrology without drawing any actual or detailed comparisons between the two - simply assuming the connections are self-apparent, BUT WHAT WOOD COULD WE LEGITIMATELY MAKE OUT OF THAT? That I don't like either...or any of them?? We're interested in the bases, and you've only brought us flowers (or thorns).

W -- What is consciousness, what makes it up? It's just too fuzzy a concept. Please tell me.

Back to the main point as I see things, and as to why I knocked on your front door in the first place: One neuroscience theory about the cause of consciousness says that an EMF field extending slightly outside the cerebral cortex feeds back in on itself and leaks into the brain. I believe that is uncontested. Whether any mechanism exists in neurons or synapses to detect that field, I admit, is still being contested. (But it could sure shed light on ID.) Nevertheless, at least one research report I seem to recall did lend credence to the second contention:

"Spike Timing Amplifies the Effect of Electric Fields on Neurons: Implications for Endogenous Field Effects," by Thomas Radman, Yuzhuo Su, Je Hi An, Lucas C. Parra, and Marom Bikson. The Journal of Neuroscience, March 14, 2007

W -- Yes, electric fields are produced by living brains.

Why merely compare traditional religious metaphors in what looks like personal reflection and contemplation with what is equally (to religious) a secular phenomenon, i.e., historically speaking? Are you merely trying to put its surface under bad light(ing)? Consciousness has been viewed as a secular concept as least as much as a religious one, in my opinion. If not, demonstrate otherwise; that would be an interesting contribution.

W -- Consciousness is imaginary. Do we retain our consciousness in deep sleep? It's an epiphenomenon. We don't really SEE either, lol. It's illusionary.

Consciousness has been referred to in good light in several, if not many scientific fields. If I were you, I would just present the research on consciousness or any lack thereof that you see; not essentially be (dis)liking it only to its possible religious antecedents.

W -- Well then, tell us what it is, other than awareness as a convoluted, calculated product of our sensory systems.

Evidence, evidence, werranth413, please! That is, don't present an unsupported religious assault by means of nominal categories and personal bases alone. That would be presuming support only on the basis of the anti-religious theme and dislikes/bias of some readers here. AND THAT, FOLKS, IS WHAT IS ONLY BEING ALLOWED TO BE DONE TO ID AND CREATION here. WAKE UP, BECOME CONSCIOUS, PEOPLE! GET WITH *YOUR OWN* PROGRAM!!!

W -- There's no evidence of consciousness. We're beginning to understand the biology of the brain.

You're not just seeking sympathy or quick acceptance of your views alone, are you? No, I don't think you are. Don't sell yourself short. If I have to contend or argue about consciousness and intelligence, I'd rather do it over scientific facts.

W -- Yes, I'm seeking sympathy or acceptance of my views. I'm always trying to help, also.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:50:46 PM PDT
roeselare says:
I'm an anti-trinitarian follower of Jesus. The Church says I can't be a Christian, but I feel like a Christian.

In my experience, Unitarians make better Christians than most other folks, because they're continually reminded about what Jesus might have wanted, and hopefully what God wants.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:52:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 7:57:36 PM PDT
w413:"In my experience, Unitarians make better Christians than most other folks, because they're continually reminded about what Jesus might have wanted, and hopefully what God wants."

I file no contest with that because I can find no criticism at all of it. I have observed the same thing, at least in some cases.

You can very likely find a Christian church online that is similar to your personal beliefs. Several Christian denominations in the U.S. are non-trinitarian. The Coptic Church in E. Europe is, too. Many Christians in the Middle East and Northern Africa are, also.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:15:21 PM PDT
Bubba says:
"space shuttle's ... VHS-HDD-DVD/R-CDR-SD-USB-MP3-coffee cup holder"

Wouldn't that coffee cup holder be just a strip of velcro that mates with a strip of velcro on the bottom on the coffee cup?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 8:24:55 PM PDT
roeselare says:
I want to go to your church.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Will Virgin Galactic ever get off the ground with paid flights? Would you sign up to go? 26 8 minutes ago
Don't eat produce from any Portland school garden, officials warn 10 14 minutes ago
spherical earth vs. flat earth 4795 1 hour ago
Jazz 4 U [hot & cool]. 6 4 hours ago
Limericks-sort of? 106 5 hours ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 1061 5 hours ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 6947 8 hours ago
Of God and Dice: Quotes from Eminent Scientists Supporting a Creator 13 10 hours ago
What Are The Prospects For A Quickly Developed Zika Virus Vaccine? 7 11 hours ago
More Corruption in Physics and Astronomy?.....Yawn 36 12 hours ago
Why relativity and quantum physics will be obsolete? 22 14 hours ago
Creationists ask....Is this the End for Big Physics? 109 14 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  114
Total posts:  6990
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 25, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions