WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-controversy/>
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus".
Just start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't
hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are
open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
sticks wrote:
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:-------------------------------------------------------
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus".
Just start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't
hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are
open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass carbon dioxide – which was never previously considered a pollutant because the “emissions”of this gas do not in any way cause or contribute to air pollution or harm “the environment,” either. We need carbon dioxide “emissions” – so that plants can produce the oxygen we must have to breath and the food we must have to remain alive. ---------------------------------------------------
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start doing
my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.
On 11/12/2024 12:07 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:-------------------------------------------------------
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably
never read a single book on this stuff and just believe the
"consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards. The
leftists simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the election,
those in the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions†to encompass carbon
dioxide – which was never previously considered a pollutant
because the “emissionsâ€of this gas do not in any way cause or >> contribute to air pollution or harm “the environment,†either. >> We need carbon dioxide “emissions†– so that plants can >> produce the oxygen we must have to breath and the food we must have
to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------
This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that classified
CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to regulate it in
the auto industry. There is so much more to CO2 than most people
realize as far as what it is and does, it's crazy. The left only
thinks it raises global temperatures, even though with enough of it temperatures will go down. Wealth redistribution is all it is about.
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.
Me too, going green!
sticks wrote:
On 11/12/2024 12:07 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:-------------------------------------------------------
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably
never read a single book on this stuff and just believe the
"consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards. The leftists >>>> simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in
the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions†to encompass carbon dioxide
– which was never previously considered a pollutant because the
“emissionsâ€of this gas do not in any way cause or contribute to >>> air pollution or harm “the environment,†either. We need carbon >>> dioxide “emissions†– so that plants can produce the oxygen we
must have to breath and the food we must have to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------
This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that classified
CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to regulate it in
the auto industry. There is so much more to CO2 than most people
realize as far as what it is and does, it's crazy. The left only
thinks it raises global temperatures, even though with enough of it
temperatures will go down. Wealth redistribution is all it is about.
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.
Me too, going green!
However comma I am Not going to release the CO2 that I have sequestered
in my fire extinguisher.................unless, like, you know, my pants literally catch on fire from global warming?
And BTW comma let me be crystal clear. As you probably know, it's not
just global warming - the whole damuniverse is getting warmer. -------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature has increased about 10-fold over the last 10 billion years. ...
Using a newly developed method, scientists could estimate the
temperature of gas farther away from Earth. They then compared them to
gases closer to Earth and near the present time. The results showed that
the universe is getting hotter over time due to the gravitational
collapse of cosmic structure, and the heating will likely continue. ------------------------------------------------------------ https://www.techexplorist.com/universe-getting-hotter-study/46075/
What plan do the dumbasses have for that? Are they going to ban cosmic structure collapsing and subsidize BigBuilders to build more cosmic structures?
On 11/12/2024 3:59 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/12/2024 12:07 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:-------------------------------------------------------
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome- >>>>>>> ban- controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of
these climate change zealots. I would say most people have >>>>> probably never read a single book on this stuff and just believe
the "consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards. The >>>>> leftists simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the
election, those in the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions†to encompass
carbon dioxide – which was never previously considered a >>>> pollutant because the “emissionsâ€Âof this gas do not in
any way cause or contribute to air pollution or harm “the >>>> environment,†either. We need carbon dioxide
“emissions†– so that plants can produce the
oxygen we must have to breath and the food we must have to remain
alive.
---------------------------------------------------
This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that
classified CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to
regulate it in the auto industry. There is so much more to CO2
than most people realize as far as what it is and does, it's
crazy. The left only thinks it raises global temperatures, even
though with enough of it temperatures will go down. Wealth
redistribution is all it is about.
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.
Me too, going green!
However comma I am Not going to release the CO2 that I have
sequestered in my fire extinguisher.................unless, like,
you know, my pants literally catch on fire from global warming?
And BTW comma let me be crystal clear. As you probably know, it's
not just global warming - the whole damuniverse is getting warmer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature has increased about 10-fold over the last 10 billion
years.
...
Using a newly developed method, scientists could estimate the
temperature of gas farther away from Earth. They then compared them
to gases closer to Earth and near the present time. The results
showed that the universe is getting hotter over time due to the
gravitational collapse of cosmic structure, and the heating will
likely continue.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.techexplorist.com/universe-getting-hotter-study/46075/
What plan do the dumbasses have for that? Are they going to ban
cosmic structure collapsing and subsidize BigBuilders to build more
cosmic structures?
Interesting guy, this author, Amit Malewar. He is not afraid to
venture into theoretical areas others would refrain from voicing
opinion on. He is said to be "fascinated by the mysteries of the universe." That is how science should work.
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know of physics and
even quantum physics. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics
and the proven science of increased entropy in the universe as time
marches on. The chaos of a super massive black hole quasar can
certainly show more than imaginable light and heat as the process
occurs. Yet, it too will end and entropy will win. Until we show evidence for some unknown law of physics, things lose energy. They
never gain it.
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though. It goes against everything we know of physics and
even quantum physics. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics
and the proven science of increased entropy in the universe as time
marches on. The chaos of a super massive black hole quasar can
certainly show more than imaginable light and heat as the process
occurs. Yet, it too will end and entropy will win. Until we show
evidence for some unknown law of physics, things lose energy. They
never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the fuck
the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started a
universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of things? I can't,
of course, prove it - or even support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that bus, too.
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just >start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear.
But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to
the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
In article <vgvov0$1jq5n$1@dont-email.me>,
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just
start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear.
But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to
the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
My touchstone on whether to listen to someone claiming CO2 is a
threat is to look into what their position is on nuclear power.
If they have a record of opposing and blocking nuclear power,
then reducing harm from CO2 release ***IS NOT THEIR AGENDA***.
Their real agenda is ... something else.
People opposing fossil fuel due to CO2 release have historically
almost entirely been in the forefront of the anti-nuke movement,
doing everything in their power to block nuclear power. Exceptions
can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Q.E.D.
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know of
physics and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second law of
thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy in the
universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super massive black
hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable light and heat
as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end and entropy will
win. Until we show evidence for some unknown law of physics,
things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started
a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our
current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of
things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even support it - but I
believe that there are uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen with
the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates had
to confront. I applaud you for being one who considers such
questions. Most people these days don't. That troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type of
science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to live in a
time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your question on
what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show stopper for the Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the matter and the actual space. I would also throw in time, though some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all this
here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist would be
someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own, and thus
believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the known term for those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist both have to answer
the biggest question of all time as posed above. The creationist
would say there is an intelligence and design involved in our
universe. The naturalist, unfortunately cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been. It
had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and move on.
This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot swallow it.
I would be more accepting if they would simply say that as of yet they
just don't know. That at least would be truthful. There are several reasons they refuse to answer this way, but the effect is still the
same. To me, it is simply unacceptable to claim something has always existed. Worse, I believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop. Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your own view
that anything is possible given enough time is the theory that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution is not the same
as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism now, but the
necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of the reasons the
brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that even
more than the entire length of time the known universe has existed is
not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build even a single
cell.
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically
search for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted, shunned,
and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown they
could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will never
concede that even though the evidence points toward design, there must
have been a designer. That is not really true science. It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls your thinking and
exploration. It is not open minded.
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion. It is simply about "What is Truth", and is an
attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.
That what they believe to be truth is
scientifically impossible. The evidence IMO is abundant!
sticks wrote:
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though. It goes against everything we know of physics
and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second law of
thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy in the
universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super massive black
hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable light and heat
as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end and entropy will
win. Until we show evidence for some unknown law of physics,
things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started
a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our
current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of
things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even support it - but I
believe that there are uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen with
the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates had
to confront. I applaud you for being one who considers such
questions. Most people these days don't. That troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type of
science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to live in a
time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your question on
what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show stopper for the
Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the matter and the actual
space. I would also throw in time, though some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all this
here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist would be
someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own, and thus
believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the known term for
those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist both have to answer
the biggest question of all time as posed above. The creationist
would say there is an intelligence and design involved in our
universe. The naturalist, unfortunately cannot answer the question
satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been. It
had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and move on.
This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot swallow it.
I would be more accepting if they would simply say that as of yet they
just don't know. That at least would be truthful. There are several
reasons they refuse to answer this way, but the effect is still the
same. To me, it is simply unacceptable to claim something has always
existed. Worse, I believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop. Yet,
unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your own view
that anything is possible given enough time is the theory that gives
Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution is not the same
as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism now, but the
necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of the reasons the
brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that even
more than the entire length of time the known universe has existed is
not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build even a single
cell.
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what the universe is.
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search for
it because the secular scientific community will not allow it. It's
called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or design in the
creation of the universe, you get blacklisted, shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown they
could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will never
concede that even though the evidence points toward design, there must
have been a designer. That is not really true science. It is simply
living with a biased paradigm that controls your thinking and
exploration. It is not open minded.
I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion. It is simply about "What is Truth", and is an
attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.
Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out to
be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible. The
evidence IMO is abundant!
So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my life,
and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of spacetime,
I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching an Answer to any
of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently fairly certain of is
that after I die, I'll get some Answers.........or I won't get some
Answers.
And in that vein, here's one I like:
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
On 11/17/2024 9:11 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know >>>>> of physics and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second >>>>> law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end >>>>> and entropy will win. Until we show evidence for some unknown >>>>> law of physics, things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront. I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't. That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space. I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the
known term for those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above. The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe. The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know. That at least would be
truthful. There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same. To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed. Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.
If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or >>> design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer. That is not really true
science. It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration. It is not open minded.
I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious
faith.
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
The other side, also believes the same thing all the way to the
beginning, yet chooses NOT to follow the science that matter and
energy cannot come from nothing and instead claims it has always
existed. I would agree with you that this is somehow having faith, a naturalistic faith if you will. To them, it is religious.
I am of the first group. I want to know where it came from and choose
not to believe the fairy tale (brute fact) it has always existed. I
can understand that some at this point find it hard to believe in
unnatural causes and are hesitant to agree with the obvious logic of
there being no free lunch. But to do so simply because you have a scientific naturalistic paradigm controlling your thought seems a
little odd coming from a group that claims the other side does not
follow the science.
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion. It is simply about "What is Truth", and is
an attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.
Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out
to be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.
I agree, that's how it should be, and for the most part it is. In the areas of the origin of the universe and also the origin of life, this
is not the case. A current example of how this works in the
scientific community is the climate change controversy. It is
changing lately in that more experts are willing to disagree and show evidence that the data has been misused to represent something other
than what actually exists, and has been done for political and
economic reasons. The point is, the science was controlled by outside factors and was thus corrupted and shaped to form a narrative
advantageous to a common group of thinkers. If you didn't play along,
you got expelled from the community. You could show the same type of manipulations with the covid virus and the science. It is a fake
consensus, not scientific at all.
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible.Â
The evidence IMO is abundant!
So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.
I will give another. I say another, because I have already given you
one above, and look how easily you passed it off. I understand
answering the question is difficult, if not impossible. I am not
looking for an answer from you. I am interested in whether or not
someone is just accepting of the "has always existed" brute fact, or
thinks it is an interesting question and wonders for themselves how
this could be here and where it came from.
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my
life, and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of
spacetime, I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching
an Answer to any of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently
fairly certain of is that after I die, I'll get some
Answers.........or I won't get some Answers.
I'm not sure there are what you would call answers. People go looking
for "proof" of something. Science does this every day. They come up
with "evidence" that then has to be interpreted. For it to be
scientific, it has to be repeatable. My interest is in showing how
what some people believe to be proof, in reality has been shown to be impossible.
From there, each person has to decide for themselves how
to move forward. I don't care if a person looks at the evidence and decides he believes it was Q from Star Trek who created all this, or
an unknown super-intelligence in another dimension or reality who
wanted some pets to play with, or any one of the religions earth's inhabitants choose. I also don't care if a person doesn't give a shit
and just wants to ignore all of it. That's up to the individual on
how he deals with what he believes is truth.
I am more interested in the evidence alone, for now. When the
evidence actually points toward there being information and
intelligence necessary for things to have happened, it makes me want
to keep finding more of this evidence.
And in that vein, here's one I like:
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.
That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism. You have made a choice.
Whether
or not that means you've stopped learning and researching is up to
you. Some would say there are passive and active nihilists. I think
there is room for those falling somewhere in the middle.
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
I don't fear hubris on any side of an argument or theory. What
bothers me more is that most people are uninterested in the discussion.
I'll get you another point of evidence later....
sticks wrote:
On 11/17/2024 9:11 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know >>>>>> of physics and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second >>>>>> law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end >>>>>> and entropy will win. Until we show evidence for some unknown >>>>>> law of physics, things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront. I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't. That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space. I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the
known term for those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above. The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe. The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know. That at least would be
truthful. There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same. To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed. Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.
If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>
What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured
universe? Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or >>>> design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer. That is not really true
science. It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration. It is not open minded.
I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious
faith.
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?
bfh <redydog@rye.net> wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?
If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God. I am from the school that nothing comes from nothing, yet here we are.
George.Anthony wrote:
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.
Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?
On 11/21/2024 10:08 AM, George.Anthony wrote:
bfh <redydog@rye.net> wrote:
sticks wrote:
---snip---
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side >>>> uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy, >>>> to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?
If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the
energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God. I am from the school that nothing >> comes from nothing, yet here we are.
Hope you had a nice trip, George.
I had a surgery yesterday and was feeling a little too good (if'n ya
know what I mean) to answer Bill, and plan on doing so today. but first
I thought I'd give my opinion on your questions above.
Where did the stuff come from is how I like to begin my thinking, but probably the last thing I need answered. For me, it is a scientifically unanswerable question and what you have to decide is whether or not you
think it had a beginning, or just always has been. If you think it has always been, you can just move on with no further analysis necessary.
If like me, you think it did have a beginning (intelligently designed) somehow, you then would consider what could possibly do that. My path
is to show different evidence that also points toward an information
rich intelligence being more likely the cause of certain things, and
then add them up and weigh the pros and cons on each side of the debate.
Meaning, I might have an answer personally to your second question of
where then did God come from, but I am not ready to give an answer to it
yet. More information is available and can be helpful. My goal is not
to try and proselytize for anything in a religious manner, though it is
hard to escape the inference if intelligent design gains strength. Who
or what someone might thing that designer might be I want to leave up to
the individual. My goal is to show the science saying much of
naturalism is simply impossible, and contrary to general belief is not
proven in any manner shape or form.
I will say there is a path to answering your question, and that path
includes these scientific and metaphysical questions and discoveries.
Like I said earlier, I am just saddened so few even ask the question
anymore.
sticks wrote:
On 11/17/2024 9:11 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.
If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>
What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured universe?
Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?
This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?
Are you saying that there is evidence of intelligent design?
And in that vein, here's one I like:
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.
That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism. You have made a choice.
I hope that's a general "You", because the only choice myownself has
made is to temporarily conclude that the smartest people on the planet
don't "know" nearly as much as they think they do.
I'll get you another point of evidence later....
On 11/21/2024 1:18 PM, bfh wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.
Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?
Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)
bfh <redydog@rye.net> wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/17/2024 9:11 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know
of physics and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second
law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy >>>>>>> in the universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable >>>>>>> light and heat as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end
and entropy will win. Until we show evidence for some unknown
law of physics, things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the >>>>>> fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that >>>>>> bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront. I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't. That >>>>> troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to >>>>> live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your >>>>> question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the >>>>> matter and the actual space. I would also throw in time, though >>>>> some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist >>>>> would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the >>>>> known term for those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist >>>>> both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above. The creationist would say there is an intelligence and >>>>> design involved in our universe. The naturalist, unfortunately >>>>> cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been. >>>>> It had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and >>>>> move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know. That at least would be
truthful. There are several reasons they refuse to answer this >>>>> way, but the effect is still the same. To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed. Worse, I >>>>> believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop. >>>>> Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your >>>>> own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution >>>>> is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.
If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph >>> Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these >>> days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>
What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured
universe? Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer. That is not really true
science. It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration. It is not open minded.
I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious
faith.
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side >>> uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?
If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God.
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 11/21/2024 1:18 PM, bfh wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.
Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?
Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)
I think therefore I am?
This is all so confusing, eg., yesterday, today was
tomorrow and tomorrow, today will be yesterday, therefore … yesterday is
tomorrow.
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 11/21/2024 1:18 PM, bfh wrote:
George.Anthony wrote:
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.
Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?
Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)
I think therefore I am? This is all so confusing, eg., yesterday, today was tomorrow and tomorrow, today will be yesterday, therefore … yesterday is tomorrow.
On 11/17/2024 9:11 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
On 11/16/2024 7:14 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though. It goes against everything we know >>>>> of physics and even quantum physics. Specifically, the second >>>>> law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on. The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs. Yet, it too will end >>>>> and entropy will win. Until we show evidence for some unknown >>>>> law of physics, things lose energy. They never gain it.
Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.
I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront. I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't. That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space. I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the
known term for those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above. The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe. The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know. That at least would be
truthful. There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same. To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed. Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.
If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or >>> design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.Â
That is not really true
science. It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration. It is not open minded.
I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious
faith.
I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.
The other side, also believes the same thing all the way to the
beginning, yet chooses NOT to follow the science that matter and
energy cannot come from nothing and instead claims it has always
existed. I would agree with you that this is somehow having faith, a naturalistic faith if you will. To them, it is religious.
I am of the first group. I want to know where it came from and choose
not to believe the fairy tale (brute fact) it has always existed. I
can understand that some at this point find it hard to believe in
unnatural causes and are hesitant to agree with the obvious logic of
there being no free lunch. But to do so simply because you have a scientific naturalistic paradigm controlling your thought seems a
little odd coming from a group that claims the other side does not
follow the science.
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion. It is simply about "What is Truth", and is
an attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.
Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out
to be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.
I agree, that's how it should be, and for the most part it is. In the areas of the origin of the universe and also the origin of life, this
is not the case. A current example of how this works in the
scientific community is the climate change controversy. It is
changing lately in that more experts are willing to disagree and show evidence that the data has been misused to represent something other
than what actually exists, and has been done for political and
economic reasons. The point is, the science was controlled by outside factors and was thus corrupted and shaped to form a narrative
advantageous to a common group of thinkers. If you didn't play along,
you got expelled from the community. You could show the same type of manipulations with the covid virus and the science. It is a fake
consensus, not scientific at all.
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible.Â
The evidence IMO is abundant!
So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.
I will give another. I say another, because I have already given you
one above, and look how easily you passed it off. I understand
answering the question is difficult, if not impossible. I am not
looking for an answer from you. I am interested in whether or not
someone is just accepting of the "has always existed" brute fact, or
thinks it is an interesting question and wonders for themselves how
this could be here and where it came from.
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my
life, and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of
spacetime, I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching
an Answer to any of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently
fairly certain of is that after I die, I'll get some
Answers.........or I won't get some Answers.
I'm not sure there are what you would call answers. People go looking
for "proof" of something. Science does this every day. They come up
with "evidence" that then has to be interpreted. For it to be
scientific, it has to be repeatable. My interest is in showing how
what some people believe to be proof, in reality has been shown to be impossible. From there, each person has to decide for themselves how
to move forward. I don't care if a person looks at the evidence and decides he believes it was Q from Star Trek who created all this, or
an unknown super-intelligence in another dimension or reality who
wanted some pets to play with, or any one of the religions earth's inhabitants choose. I also don't care if a person doesn't give a shit
and just wants to ignore all of it. That's up to the individual on
how he deals with what he believes is truth.
I am more interested in the evidence alone, for now. When the
evidence actually points toward there being information and
intelligence necessary for things to have happened, it makes me want
to keep finding more of this evidence.
And in that vein, here's one I like:
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.
That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism. You have made a choice. Whether
or not that means you've stopped learning and researching is up to
you. Some would say there are passive and active nihilists. I think
there is room for those falling somewhere in the middle.
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
I don't fear hubris on any side of an argument or theory. What
bothers me more is that most people are uninterested in the discussion.
I'll get you another point of evidence later....
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Hope you had a nice trip, George.
We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.
sticks wrote:
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.Â
What is this designer, and how did it come to be?
Did it exist before the Big Bang?
That is not really true science. It is simply living with a biased >>>> paradigm that controls your thinking and exploration. It is not
open minded.
So these are some of the cosmological and physics problems the
naturalist encounters. If anyone is interested, I'd move on to some
more easily and hands on evidence in the realm of chemistry and biology
that bring us further into our present timeline.
On 11/21/2024 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:
So these are some of the cosmological and physics problems the
naturalist encounters. If anyone is interested, I'd move on to
some more easily and hands on evidence in the realm of chemistry and
biology that bring us further into our present timeline.
The issue of understanding time I referenced earlier becomes relevant
in the next phase of the timeline, but for now I want to skip over it
and move to things a little easier to grasp. I'll move from the
origin of the universe to the origin of life. I’ll start at the building block of everything: the cell. A cell is the smallest
component that can be considered a living entity. Cells are made of proteins, which in turn are made of amino acids. Sounds simple enough right? Not so fast. We can look at what scientists in Darwin’s day
understood about cellular structure, look at what we know now, and see
if they got things right or not. If you're unaware, it should be
noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not specifically
address how the first forms of life originated, but only how he
suspected they evolved ultimately ending in something like us. Once
his work was published, a thought process known as “Darwinian logic†took hold and gave the naturalist tools to push their design free creation paradigm. It is curious that the scientific world holds
so much value in a theory that explains how species evolve, yet
completely ignores the processes required for life to begin in the
first place. To this day, Darwinian disciples try and avoid the
problems this line of science has to get past. To them, somehow it
just happened.
Darwin in his day actually could see individual cells with microscopes available to him at the time. Not as good as today, but they were
good enough for him to understand cells were complex in some ways. He
felt the cell somehow contained hereditary information that allowed it
to reproduce and called it a Gemmule. <https://evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_/>
He had to do this because if that first cell could not replicate
itself, life would have been over as soon as it had begun. This in
fact is an obvious truth. We now know there was no such thing as a Gemmule, but at least we know he must have understood the cell was
more complicated than the view of his contemporaries and proponents
who called it “a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance.†I think he understood he would have to leave the origin of the first
life form to real scientists and just stick to his speculation on
species and their evolution.
So what exactly do naturalists now think a cell is, and specifically
how is a cell created? Currently, the argument is the atmosphere of
Earth around 4 billion years ago, with little or no oxygen and high in methane, in the presence of water, and with either sunlight or an
electrical discharge like lightning, lead to the spontaneous formation
of organic molecules. The molecules they speak of were amino acids.
Amino Acids are what make proteins, which are essentially long chains
of amino acids. The smallest known protein is glutathione with 3
amino acids, and the largest know is titin, which has 34,350 amino
acids! The average size for humans is 480. Every protein has its sequence of amino acids, and the sequence is what makes the protein
take different shapes which allows them to perform different functions
in the body. So all you need is a little primordial atmosphere,
water, and a little sunlight or lightning and you get life! Now you
must remember that amino acids and proteins are considered organic molecules, but in no way can be considered to be either “aliveâ€, or “life†on their own. Amino acids are even found in the void of
space! It takes an incredibly difficult process of joining the amino
acids into proteins, and then folding the proteins in specific ways to
get even one cell!
Steve Laufman is a systems Engineer who teamed up with physician
Howard Glicksman to write "Your Designed Body." This pairing of
authors is special because their work investigates from a medical
standpoint of just what the different parts of the body do, but
combines it with an engineering analysis of just what is required to actually build these systems and the problems and solutions the body
somehow has achieved. It is an incredibly eye opening read!
They go on to explain that when the specific order of a string of
amino acids is just right, it enables the protein to fold, though
sometimes it needs help to do so from another protein called a
chaperone. The special folds and shape determine the functions the particular protein can perform. However, they write that Douglas Axe
finds that “It’s been shown experimentally that functional protein
shapes are extremely rare among the set of all possible amino acid sequences. The overwhelming majority of possible sequences will not
fold into a stable protein shape, and therefore are unlikely to
provide a useful function. And, of all the sequences that do fold
into a stable shape, only a very few will perform a task that’s useful to a given organism.â€
For how truly mind blowing his words on exactly how rare this is, Axe’s experiments showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short (150 amino acid) functional protein fold, there are
about 10^77 combinations of the same length that will not yield a
stable, useful protein. This means that it would take more than the probabilistic resources of the universe to randomly find even a single
useful protein of moderate length. Douglas Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,†Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295–1315. For perspective, there are an estimated 10^78 atoms in the entire universe, spread
across hundreds of billions of galaxies. Several other studies have corroborated Axe’s numbers using different methods. See, for
example, Sean V. Taylor et al., “Searching Sequence Space for
Protein Catalysts,†PNAS USA 98 (2001): 10596–10601.â€
Joseph Mastropaolo, PH.D. in his article Evolution is Biologically Impossible, also gets right to the difficulty of assembling amino
acids and proteins, essentially proclaiming it an impossibility.
“The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the
probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of
iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is
an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that
ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from
the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule
would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The
origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in
probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is
impossible in probability."
To have a little fun on this, Mastropaolo says famed atheist and
supporter of evolutionary theory Richard Dawkins agreed when he
states, “Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves
the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds
against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100
billion billion to one." The 100 billion billion is 10^20. So
Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in
more than 10^20, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only
one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has
joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids
inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
It gets even more mathematically impossible in the rest of the
article, but I’ll let you read that on your own and only make one last cite. “Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one.†These numbers are not refuted, they simply get ignored.
There are so many tasks proteins do in the cell, it hard to fathom.
It is the scope of what I am trying to get across, but they are so
numerous it is mind boggling. I haven't even touched on the fact that every cell contains the "information" necessary to perform its
function, DNA, and the fact that the energy necessary to form the DNA
was unavailable. All of these different processes and actions have “chicken-or-egg problems evolutionists must confront.†The precise size and shape of each folded protein is a perfect example
with how it managed to form that way in the first place. How did
lifeless, brainless amino acids form a protein, folded in the perfect
shape to do a specific task, at a specific location in the body, in
enough quantity, at just the right time?
I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like,
and they all reside within the cell.
You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design.
Where do you
speculate that the intelligent designer came from?
On 11/23/2024 2:36 PM, bfh wrote:
You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design.
I am presenting evidence that says the naturalist explanation of how
things could have happened could not be so. That actual scientists
say it is impossible. These are not my opinions, these are leaders in their fields, brilliant people who are willing to look into the actual science in their fields. In most cases, the evidence not only says
the events could not have happened on their own, or naturally, they
point towards a design involving information and intelligence.
That said, all this knowledge is available to anyone looking,
including other scientists. It rarely gets refuted, often just
ignored for the reasons I have stated. I'm always open to see any
evidence contradicting anything this evidence I have presented, just
as I am willing to look at anything that shows the opposite of what I
am doing, evidence showing there cannot have been an intelligent
designer.
Where do you speculate that the intelligent designer came from?
As I said earlier, I could answer that question,
but that would be how
I chose to accept or reject the evidence against naturalism. I will
say that the answer is not as simple as one would suppose. In the
end, I simply don't care what people choose to do with the knowledge I
think this process gets you. I could lay out why people with various beliefs see things the way they do. But if you don't at least come to
an understanding on whether or not you think the universe and the
creation of life could have happened on it's own or not, it's
pointless. I am not trying to be theological. I'm trying to be scientific.
I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like, and
they all reside within the cell.
Next I'll show similar mechanisms, motors and pumps, inside every cell
in your body. Kinesin, ribosomes, and the most amazing of all ATP
Synthase.
On 11/21/2024 1:59 PM, George.Anthony wrote:
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Hope you had a nice trip, George.
We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see >> though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.
Glad you had a good trip. The fall came and went pretty fast around
here. 2-3 inches of snow yesterday already. It's gone today, but it is
time to put the motorcycle away I guess.
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
On 11/21/2024 1:59 PM, George.Anthony wrote:
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Hope you had a nice trip, George.
We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see >>> though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we >>> saw was in a cemetery.
Glad you had a good trip. The fall came and went pretty fast around
here. 2-3 inches of snow yesterday already. It's gone today, but it is
time to put the motorcycle away I guess.
I put away my motorcycle many, many years ago. It was a mini bike and I wrecked on it.
I figured it could only get worse… stuck to race cars after
that.
I'll look next into an amazing solution to a problem in our eyes. If
you think this one is the result of evolution, I'd love to hear how.
On 11/24/2024 2:24 PM, sticks wrote:
I'll look next into an amazing solution to a problem in our eyes.Â
If you think this one is the result of evolution, I'd love to hear how.
So, I've given a few examples and a taste of why I believe the
original cell gives the naturalist fits in explaining how it is
possible to have come about without intervention. For now, let's just
do what Darwin did and ignore the origin of life and move into an
actual living thing. We'll also have to then put aside the fact that
every amazing thing in biology is made of cells, from plant life to
animal life, and that every system involved in actually being alive
has to deal with the complexity of the cell and how it could possibly
have come about and now has the DNA to know what to build. Just put
that on the back burner.
To be honest, I find the entire human body to be an irreducibly
complex system, and science for the most part agrees. We have 11
separate systems in the human body that allow us to function and keep
us alive. Some people claim there are 12 by having one for the male reproductive system, and one for the female reproductive system. I'll
just call it the human reproductive system and say there is 11. I
won't get into it here, but I have given some thought as to how
"nature" came up with a reproductive system for a male specimen and a different system for a female specimen. How did the slow process of evolution figure this one out? But anyways, here are the 11 systems:
1. The circulatory (cardiovascular) system
2. The lymphatic system
3. The respiratory system
4. The integumentary (skin and its structures) system
5. The endocrine (metabolism regulation) system
6. The gastrointestinal (digestive) system
7. The urinary (excretory) system
8. The musculoskeletal system
9. The nervous system
10. The reproductive system
11. The immune system
When any one of these systems ceases to function, you die. They also
have the same nagging chicken-or-egg problems which becomes clearer
every day as science uncovers more of the true nature and complexity
of each of the 11 systems and how they coordinate and function as a
whole. I could give an example of a show stopper in any one of these
11 systems, but I want to give just one from the nervous system for
you to consider, and it's part of the human eye.
The human eye even gave Darwin problems and he once confessed that it
was "absurd" to propose that the human eye evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. Much debate has occurred over the
years centering on the origin of our eye. There are many things I
could cite that I believe show a design element involved, but I want
to give just one for now that I see as a naturalist show stopper. The superior oblique and the trochlea.
Image of the superior oblique. <https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/>
The eye has a set of 6 tendons and muscles that control it's movement.
One of these, the superior oblique, is extremely special. The
engineering problem with affixing these muscles to the eye is that
there was no good place to put the one controlling the movement
necessary with a muscle of similar size to maintain similar push and
pull energy because of the shape of the skull and the position of our
eyes.
To solve this problem and get the desired motion, our eye sockets
contain something called the trochlea. In Latin this means pulley,
and that is exactly how it is used. The superior oblique threads it's lengthy muscle through the bony trochlea and then down to attach
itself to the eye in a position that allows the lateral movement and
does not affect vision or stability of the eye. It's a remarkable engineering solution in my view, and one that deserves consideration
of how it came to be. It actually acts like a farmer pulling hay up
in the barn with a pulley system, and that requires intelligence and thought.
How the superior oblique knows to thread itself through the sling is
one thing, how a perfect solution for eye movement like this could
have come about through the slow and chance process of evolution is another. When this lateral rotation of the eye was deemed necessary
by "mother nature," why didn't it go directly from a place in the eye
socket and attach itself to the eye? What mechanism does evolution
have that would allow for a part of the body like the eye to assess
the problem, use a tool like a pulley, and then actually grow one? We haven't even touched on the irreducible complexity of the necessity
for blood supply, the information the eye processes and its connection
to the brain, and the fact that the ear amazingly is also a part of
our vision, among many other things. There are no intermediary
specimens of this in nature in any species. You either have it, or
you don't.
The existence of the trochlea and its superior oblique muscle simply
cannot be explained in my view through evolutionary processes, and is
one of those “show stoppers†with irreducible complexity and “no
intermediate steps in evolutionary terms†as explained by the Centre for Intelligent Design in this linked article. It is short read of
only about one page and very well written.
<https://www.c4id.org.uk/Articles/487300/The_superior_oblique.aspx>
I have really only touched the surface on this wonderful engineered
solution to our sight, but if anyone thinks evolution could do this on
its own, I'd love to have it explained to me just how. If anything, I would at least expect acknowledgement that it poses some serious
question regarding the possibility of evolution!
What did the very first human look like?
On 11/25/2024 6:20 PM, bfh wrote:
What did the very first human look like?
<https://assets.editorial.aetnd.com/uploads/2020/03/human-evolution-gettyimages-122223741.jpg>
It has no light in it yet, and it actually doesn't have any space.
That is what is being created thru inflation: space time. The concept
of "nothing" is extremely difficult to grasp. When it comes to space
and time, actually understanding what nothing means is something that
took the likes of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's discovery of the Big
Bang Theory in 1927 (which even Einstein didn't believe at the time),
and Albert Einstein who was able to think through and give us his
theory of general relativity.
sticks wrote:
It has no light in it yet, and it actually doesn't have any space.
That is what is being created thru inflation: space time. The concept
of "nothing" is extremely difficult to grasp. When it comes to space
and time, actually understanding what nothing means is something that
took the likes of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's discovery of the Big
Bang Theory in 1927 (which even Einstein didn't believe at the time),
and Albert Einstein who was able to think through and give us his
theory of general relativity.
I just discovered that I was born 8 years before the Big Bang. -----------------------------------------------------------
In a 1949 radio broadcast for the BBC, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle jokingly referred to the expanding Universe as the Big Bang. The name
stuck.
----------------------------------------------------------- https://aeon.co/essays/scientists-are-no-longer-sure-the-universe-began- with-a-bang
Unfortunately, I can't remember much of what happened............or didn't.
On 11/11/2024 10:01 PM, bfh wrote:
sticks wrote:
WTF?You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear. But
as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to the
truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:25:44 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,283 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
