Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:07 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:47 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Hmmm. Only one try does not constitute a thorough scientific inquiry. I mean, maybe his faith wasn't strong enough.

Perhaps some of the televangelists can step up...

How does one gauge the strength of faith? Has the faithometer been invented yet?

On a lion-graph...


Big Grin

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:01 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:54 AM)julep Wrote:  Another kind of idea that sounds stupid: a stupid idea.


M-Theory Science of Faith?
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith." Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

(If you're quoting others' words as your own, please post a link to your source.)

Stephen Hawking's letting his brain go all kinds of cool places, and hooray for that. Some ideas are going to pan out and some aren't. It is a misrepresentation of his position that he "wants us all to believe" his theory. People are free to attack its weak points, try to verify, disprove, expand, come up with something better, etc. Scientific process: that's how it works.

Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences).

I'm not a scientist and not qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
26-10-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:21 AM)julep Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:01 AM)Valaista Wrote:  M-Theory Science of Faith?
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith." Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!

(If you're quoting others' words as your own, please post a link to your source.)

Stephen Hawking's letting his brain go all kinds of cool places, and hooray for that. Some ideas are going to pan out and some aren't. It is a misrepresentation of his position that he "wants us all to believe" his theory. People are free to attack its weak points, try to verify, disprove, expand, come up with something better, etc. Scientific process: that's how it works.

Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences).

I'm not a scientist and not qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories.

You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:48 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:21 AM)julep Wrote:  (If you're quoting others' words as your own, please post a link to your source.)

Stephen Hawking's letting his brain go all kinds of cool places, and hooray for that. Some ideas are going to pan out and some aren't. It is a misrepresentation of his position that he "wants us all to believe" his theory. People are free to attack its weak points, try to verify, disprove, expand, come up with something better, etc. Scientific process: that's how it works.

Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences).

I'm not a scientist and not qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories.

You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?

P.S Useing direct quotations when the author you are quoting has coined a term unique to her or his research and relevant within your own is usually sufficient for an online thread. Lol this isn't a college classroom. Next you be asking for MLA format!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:48 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:21 AM)julep Wrote:  (If you're quoting others' words as your own, please post a link to your source.)

Stephen Hawking's letting his brain go all kinds of cool places, and hooray for that. Some ideas are going to pan out and some aren't. It is a misrepresentation of his position that he "wants us all to believe" his theory. People are free to attack its weak points, try to verify, disprove, expand, come up with something better, etc. Scientific process: that's how it works.

Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences).

I'm not a scientist and not qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories.

You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?

Glad I was able to amuse you. You're the one who claimed that all revolutionary ideas sound stupid (I don't agree with that generalization); I simply pointed out that stupid ideas also sound stupid.

Given that I'm not a scientist, I don't evaluate scientific theory. However, if I did want to do that, I could take classes and read books and do enough math so that I could. That's why I trust scientific theory more than religious theories about how the universe works. Given the time and equipment, I can verify for myself.

I don't and did not call the idea of a creator stupid, but it is a religious claim and not a scientific one. I don't take a stand one way or the other on whether there is a creator. My best guess is no, but I understand that that position is an axiom that I have chosen to hold as true, not an objective truth.

How do I differentiate an idea that sounds stupid from an idea that is stupid? If interested enough, through education in the subject, research, and testing. The idea of a creator as a first cause is meaningless to me, as such a being has no effect on how I would choose to live or my understanding of the universe. The idea of a personal creator such as the god of the Abrahamic religions I find highly implausible (and pretty stupid), but if that god exists, I would not worship it because of its immorality--my analysis there is ethical, of course, and not scientific. I'm comfortable with my conclusions even though their absolute truth/certainty is not established.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:53 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:48 AM)Valaista Wrote:  You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?

P.S Useing direct quotations when the author you are quoting has coined a term unique to her or his research and relevant within your own is usually sufficient for an online thread. Lol this isn't a college classroom. Next you be asking for MLA format!!

No, just giving you a heads-up that copypasta is discouraged here. If all of the above paragraphs are your own composition, that's fine. I wasn't sure from reading them. Most people then provide links to the original source so that interested readers can get the ideas in the original context.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Old Man Marsh
Quote:If that were true, would it not be simpler just to beam Noah and his brats on board a guest vessel to hang out in orbit for a while?

Well according to Sitchin (who figured this all out by translating ancient Sumerian tablets) the aliens knew the flood was coming, which was a natural occurrence, and wanted to use it to destroy humans. But one of them broke ranks. Since helping had to be done in secret Noah and his family couldn't be brought on board.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 10:15 AM)julep Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:48 AM)Valaista Wrote:  You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?

Glad I was able to amuse you. You're the one who claimed that all revolutionary ideas sound stupid (I don't agree with that generalization); I simply pointed out that stupid ideas also sound stupid.

Given that I'm not a scientist, I don't evaluate scientific theory. However, if I did want to do that, I could take classes and read books and do enough math so that I could. That's why I trust scientific theory more than religious theories about how the universe works. Given the time and equipment, I can verify for myself.

I don't and did not call the idea of a creator stupid, but it is a religious claim and not a scientific one. I don't take a stand one way or the other on whether there is a creator. My best guess is no, but I understand that that position is an axiom that I have chosen to hold as true, not an objective truth.

How do I differentiate an idea that sounds stupid from an idea that is stupid? If interested enough, through education in the subject, research, and testing. The idea of a creator as a first cause is meaningless to me, as such a being has no effect on how I would choose to live or my understanding of the universe. The idea of a personal creator such as the god of the Abrahamic religions I find highly implausible (and pretty stupid), but if that god exists, I would not worship it because of its immorality--my analysis there is ethical, of course, and not scientific. I'm comfortable with my conclusions even though their absolute truth/certainty is not established.

(1) When I said all revolutionary ideas sound stupid I meant it in a positive light as anyone could clearly tell from the context in which I wrote it in.

(2) The concept that the universe has a purpose is not solely religious. It just so happens that almost all religions past and present agree that we are here for a purpose. I've watched a lot of well known atheists on YouTube. To be honest, they have some really interesting and truthful things to say. The main objection I find with their perspective is not their critique on religion, but rather it is how they mix God with religion. They look at the irrationality of organized religion, and therefore claim that belief in God is irrational. Most scientists are spiritual or at least agnostic. And there is a difference between atheism and being an agnostic. However, people fling to atheism due to their own contentment for being a conformist. And the cultural/historical baggage of organized religion. Examples would be the genocide of the Native Americans, the colonization of Africa, and the crusades as radical Christianity. The 9/11 attacks, the insanity of ISIL, beheadings, subjection of women, and xenophobia as examples of radical Islam. Examples can be made from any religion or political ideology, or even atheism (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin). The fact is that there is no such thing as radical Christianity or radical Islam, just false and perverted interpretations of true Christianity or true Islam. Organized religions and spiritual beliefs are simply different perspectives and interpretations of a “Designer” Regardless of what religion someone believes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Wicca, Roman Mythology, or maybe we live in the matrix lol, what’s important is that it is logical and scientifically likely (Sommerfeld's constant) for there to be a designer/creator. And that is what atheist’s absolutely hate to argue. Because it is in science that god’s existence can be realized. For the purpose of this thread, when I say god, I mean an ambiguous creator, as a form of protective coloration, that can be perceived and applied to any religious and or scientific idea. This, in turn, will suggest a logical concept in which God created the universe, set it in motion, controlled, after writing natural law and possibly retired from the scene. God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human terms. Also, this means that it makes no sense to state that God intervenes or does not intervene, as that is a human characteristic which God does not contain. This in essence is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of those who pervert the purpose of organized religions for their own deviance, and the rejection of the arrogance of atheists.

(3)What's more important to you, truth or Happiness?

(4) You seem smart enough to know that the only answer that atheists have to the fact that 1/137.036 is the value of the fine-structure constant, is the idea of a multiverse. QUESTION: I know your not a scientist but do you "trust" the idea of a multiverse as scientific claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 11:40 AM by Loom.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
I recently caught an anole lizard at the garden center I work at. It's too cold here for the little bugger so I took him in.

The amount of things required just to satisfy his basic needs are much bigger than he is. At least 10 gallons of space with a soft, safe substrate, with plants and twigs for climbing, a specific humidity range done via daily mistings, basking place, shaded place for thermoregulation, soaking place, uvb/uva light, fruit flies/crickets, a place to house those insects, food/water for the insects, calcium and vitamin supplements, I can go on.

That is all needed for a SINGLE, TINY animal! And more care is to be taken to ensure proper health! The little turd stresses easy so I keep him somewhere quiet and stable. Otherwise he could get very ill from stress alone.

Even if you could get every species down to 'kinds' (lel that always cracks me up), they would all have specific needs, including but not limited to, eating other animals, who would in turn also have specific needs!

And my mom thinks I'm the stupid one, because we don't 'know' what a global flood would be like.

Ha.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
26-10-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 11:19 AM)Valaista Wrote:  (3)What's more important to you, truth or Happiness?

See my tagline, above. It's Latin for, "Do not give me comfort, but truth!"

As to your little speech about "atheist arrogance", go fuck yourself. We're sick to death of hearing that shit from arrogant little fucks who think they know something about the universe because they read a conspiracy website about amoral atheist scientists wanting us all to go communist, or whatever nonsense it is this week. The sheer, astounding arrogance it takes to claim that a top-level cosmologist like Hawking "wants us to believe" anything, especially in suggesting in a paranoid fashion that knowledge attained from scientists is questionable because you don't like the implications, is the type of dumbfuckery we don't treat nicely around here.

If you have better information, PROVE IT. Not to us... go publish your paper disproving the quantum models of Hawking et al, and collect your Nobel in Physics.

Am I comfortable with the Multiverse model? Yeah, I am. As comfortable as Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, and all the other proponents of M-theory. Could it be wrong? Yep! Am I comfortable with that? Yeah, I am.

What I am not comfortable with is leaping to definite conclusions based on my own prejudices/hopes and incomplete information. You call us "arrogant", despite arrogantly claiming you have some special insight into the deeper nature of the universe beyond what the physicists can apprehend, while we have no equivalent claim. So fuck you, if all you're here to do is call us names with baseless accusations.

I'm so sick of that shit.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: