Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 10 of 15
Quote:
All you've proved is a lack of imagination.
You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities
Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:
One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.
Your god sounds really, REALLY gay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.
The point is that exotic quantum particles won't be needed under string theory. Quantum Particles are needed in QM to explain forces and interactions, String theory explains these things in a non-matter centric way.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.
Yeah. Also, you know Maxwell's field equations simplify to a single simple equation under a multiple dimensional theory? One of the allures to String Theory's dimensionality is that it simplifies much of the mess of QM and related theories.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are does string theory mean all sub-atomic particles are really the same particle, made up off the same basic component (strings) but overlapped different ways?
Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are they all the same particle, overlapped and combined different ways?
In supersymmetric string (super string) theory Strings vibrate in different ways, which gives rise to different particles. Particles and forces are a consequence of strings vibrating at different frequencies, like different notes are the consequence of a Guitars strings vibrating at different frequencies.
Quote:
Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.
I have a T-shirt, on the back it says:
and god said:
▽·B=O
▽xE=-aB/at
▽xH=i+aD/at
And there was light.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not done reading ... what I got so far:
Bytemite is arguing for the breakdown of the equations - and concepts - at the extreme. Even if the probability is very, very near zero, it exists, and so negates the definition.
Citizen is arguing that for all practical purposes the extreme is irrelevant. (This may be the equivalent to the argument as to why x-rays don't come roaring out of the hearth fire.) The wavelength is so small that, practically speaking, it applies to no known particle and is therefore moot.
My brain hurts. And I may not have got it right. Time to start the weekend. 
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovoviviparous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish
A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?
they look like variations within a common species type or phylum. that doesnt show how, as evolutionary biologists claim, amphibians evolved to reptiles, or birds evolved from reptiles, or mammals came from either of the sub catagories. since the Cambrian period, theres no fossil evidence of this overlap that you claim
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster
Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.
oh really?? ITS STILL A FLY! it didnt become a different insect altogether.. so how does mutation result in a new catagory of animal? for example, youre claiming the random mutation of an ancient reptile, led to the creation of the bird.. you cant verify that
Quote:
What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?
right, within its archetype. cats didnt become dogs didnt become horses. fish didnt become aphibians, which didnt become reptiles. that is claim which has never been verified, but through pure speculation is presupposed as fact
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet
that was absolutely ridiculous. so, mammals originated from this species? birds originated from this species? and where are the millions of intermediates which should litter the fossil records? thats right.. almost entirely absent. if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
KWICKO - Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.
that was a claim made to try to tenously connect birds to reptiles, since the distinctions are quite profound.
birds have hollow bones. the birds feather has literally NOTHING in common with a scale, it has interlocking barbs, it is designed for flight/insulation, it comes in many varieties.. it is nothing like a reptilian scale. also, birds have unique beaks designed to fill their specific niches.. reptiles dont have beaks, let alone genes capable of the varieties of beaks witnessed in nature. also, birds have lungs that constantly circulate air, so that they have a steady stream flowing through them at any given time. no reptile has a lung system even remotely comparable. i could go on, but its pointless
Quote:
As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.
hey, if you want to believe your origins can be found in some prehistoric fish, or that clyde the orangutan is your great great ancestor, be my quest. how that makes me the fool is anyones guess
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?
thats just it.. it takes an incredible imagination to pretend that mammals came from any other catagory of animal, such as reptiles or aphibians.
where are the more evolved primates? we still have the inferior de-volved versions which supposedly preceded the missing links. shouldnt the more fit 'missing links' be around? instead, you could fit all the fossils on a single table.. not a whole lot of evidence
and where did primates originate? we have yet to discover a fossil of a primate that shared an ancestor with any other mammal. the catagories are distinct, they always have been. there is no overlap.
if progressive evolution were true, there would be millions of fossils of intermediates, animals spanning catagories.. but there arent. according to your logic, there is no difference between birds or reptiles or amphibians.. yet clearly their is. its almost mind numbing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:i (Ooops, let me capitalize that, it's the least I can do),I resent the fact that you say evolution is beyond God's capacity to initiate.
Originally posted by antimason:
if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated
You heathen.
A bipedal heathen at that.
I see a pillar of salt in your future.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME