mooeypoo

Okay, look. You came to this forum and signed up in order to share your thoughts with us. By signing up, you agreed to a set of rules that govern this forum. Those rules dictate that you really need to cooperate in the discussion in a scientific manner. You are not doing that, and it's really not going to go well if you continue to insist things go your way. Your theory needs to be substantiated whether you think it's da bomb or not. It has to be, no arguments, no ifs or buts; that's the way it goes. If you can't, that's fine, bow to your efforts and go back to the drawing board, come back when you have something substantial. Otherwise, insisting you have something but insisting you don't have to substantiate it according to the scientific method -- in a science forum -- is just a recipe to either be ridiculed or ignored. I suggest you go over this post "So, you've got a new theory" it might help you see what it is you're missing. What you're missing isn't really negotiable, and it's not going to go well if you insist you don't need to show it. Science isn't about opinion, and it isn't about imaginative wordsalads. You either got the evidence, or you don't. You really need to start cooperating here, it's getting repetitive and tedious. Now really, put up the evidence, or bow out. We're waiting. ~mooey

! Moderator Note A huge chunk of biblical text, without any question, claim or point made, was deleted from the thread. Pymander, this is a discussion forum, not a "copy the bible" fest. If you have a claim you want to make, make it. Copy/pasting huge chunks of scripture is not the way to go.

WOW, the amount of strawman claims is so big, I am not even sure where to START. I suggest you re-read the posts in this thread; answering each point you're making is just going to be repetitive. I will say this, though: if you are so vehemently against something, how about you study what that something says (and I mean *actually* says, not what other people say it says) before you make judgment and decide to spread the word about your opinion? Just a friendly suggestion. Welcome to the forum. ~mooey

I can't answer your point because 112351 you have these weird one two three=123 interjections in the middle inter=321 jection=987 of your sentences Please make your points in proper sentences without these weird numerical interjections. It's impossible to understand you. There are billions of combinations that would give you 114, even if you do go by the WRONG notion that gimatria works on English. That's why your claims are utterly irrelevant. Example: http://www.c2kb.com/gematria/?word=114&x=0&y=0 <-- those are all words that have 114. Among them are: "דגדגן לוהט" (literally means "hot clitoris") "החיים בזבל" (life is in the shits) "גהינום" (gehenom -- hell) And I can keep going. You nitpick your words and definitions out of random preference which makes this entire ordeal completely and utterly meaningless other than supply me with great nostalgia with gimatria. Learn hebrew if you want to play with Gimatria, bub. It's like claiming you want to do math but not use numbers. ~mooey

Stop assuming biologists are atheists, you are demonstrably wrong. There are biologists who are religious, who believe in God, and also know what science shows us. And stop assuming what people say, and instead ASK THEM and treat the claims they actually make - not the ones you insist on putting in their mouths. It's not just fallacious (strawman) it's disrespectful. Stop being as arrogant as to think you're the only real deal in the entire universe, and please have some respect to others. An ant farm is clearly designed to house ants, and they have everything they need to survive (and thrive) in it. The universe is CLEARLY not designed for humans; we need to go to great lengths to try our best and not die horribly while traveling relatively short distances in it. Seems reality is evidence against this idea. ~mooey

One that shows it as evidence rather than as empty claim? The discussion started out asking if it could be that the creation stories are some sort of symbolic historical overview of creation, and in order to support this assertion (or deny it) one needs to support their claims with logic. This might be the "religion" forum, but we're still in the logical realm of scienceforum. Something like 'it's true 'cause 90% of the population believes it' is not good enough. On top of that, there are many religions around the world who do NOT believe God to be omnipotent, only super powerful. That is, they believe he or she (or they) are more powerful than humans but not infinitely powerful. Since the thread doesn't necessarily discusses a particular religion, you will need to consider your own belief might not be the only belief out there. ~mooey Here's the cool thing about science: any claim made needs to be substantiated. "X exists" is a claim. "X does not exist" is not a claim, because it is without substance; nothing exists unless you show it to exist. Petty: there are instances where 'x does not exist' is a claim, but this is not one of them, and if you insist, we can go into the philosophical argument of when these might be valid. It's besides the point because your claim ain't it. If I say "Invisible elephants exist", would you ask me to provide evidence? I would hope so. If I tell you that you can't possible prove it wrong, I would be correct. That, however, wouldn't mean I'm right, or that invisible elephants actually exist. Same goes to your claim about God; you are the one making the claim (or rather, the so-called 90% percent you tout as believers) -- therefore, you need to provide proof. Some cases are not all that hard to substantiate. Say, if I told you "the moon exists!" it would be hardly a problem to simply show it to be true the next night. Perhaps we would have to wait for the full moon if we wanted to be completely positive, and/or send a shuttle back there. It's something you can substantiate, though, and people have throughout the millenia. There is no difference with this claim about the existence of God. I think that's the main issue with the OP's claim about the creation stories. Could they represent some sort of "this is how it happened" story? Maybe, but what we do know about nature seems to be more against htis idea than for it. Before we can say yes to it, we need some more substantiation, and the main "argument" it seems to raise -- the existence of some higher power "intelligent designer" -- needs substantiation all on its own. For that matter, abiogenesis requires no external beings and has more evidence to its side in terms of existence alone. We know each required step in abiogenesis process CAN exist (we've experimented and had repetitiveness in those experiments) unlike the creation stories that require a God or some supernatural power that in itself is not proven to exist. Okham Razor suggests abiogenesis is preferable. Unless, of course, we find evidence that convinces us to the contrary -- but you need to SUPPLY this evidence, not just assume we just drop logic and jump on the bandwagon of supposed popularity. ~mooey

In order to get funding you need to make a proposal, and the propsal has to have a lot more than just a theoretical idea that doesn't SEEM to have evidence. You need to make a strong case that there's merit to your claim. So far, you're not quite as successful... if you can't even convince us, random physicists and science enthusiasts online, how do you expect to convince a funding committee? Do the work, show the process, sit and work on the *basic* mathematical principles, and we can help you see if that works out. ~mooey

Listen, mate. You're the one who said you're using Gimatria. Gimatria is used on HEBREW words. Your calculator attempts to translate the letters into hebrew, calculate the worth of each, and translate back. I am not sure if it's translating the words to hebrew (that would at least be a LITTLE bit of a consolation) and then check the values, or if it just transliterates and checks the value. In any case, it's meaningless in English. You want to claim that you're using any other method, fine. But if you're using Gimatria, you have to use hebrew, otherwise you're not using gimatria. Really, it's that simple. And that's not even starting with the point I actually MADE in the post above (which you ignored) about the ability to produce whatever value we pretty much want to whatever word we pretty much check, which makes the entire process utterly irrelevant. But let's start with being consistent with the method you're claiming to use. You do not use Gimatria if you're checking English words. ~mooey

Did you intend to answer anything, or just quote me..? I'm confused.

So far you seem to post a lot of claims about what you can do without showing us much of what you can do? Can you show us evidence for this idea with the mathematical concepts? If it's doable and easy, you're the one who should produce it, since you're the one making the claim.

Come again? Force equations are elementary... you study the basic ones in physics101, and the "advanced" ones in modern physics.... what exactly is hard to put in math?

Hm, I was under the impression it was a lot later, but even still. 600AD is, supposedly, more than 2000 years after creation. Where was the story up until then? Anyways, as I said before (and in the other thread) this is more of a 'quibbling' point. I think it's quite easy to make connections (any connection, really) from the relatively vague languge of the ancient texts (of the bible, of the quran, of the stories of Gilgamesh, etc) to what we think happened. The reason isn't necessarily because they are similar, but because the texts are so vague that they allow enough room for interpretation that we can fit almost anything in. I think that alone is suspicious as to state that they explain a particular theory. For that matter, if we discover an alternative theory, would creation story fit it? If we discover beyond a shadow of a doubt that Panspermia is true (for the sake of argument alone), would the creation stories in the ancient texts fit it? Probably yes. Doesn't that show them to be almost useless in explaining (or describing) anything real? ~mooey

Um, I don't mean to be petty, but that's not my version of the bible says...? I read it in hebrew, so here's a parallel Hebrew/English version: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. This might not entirely affect your point, but it does point out a potential problem of translation. First, the English version is translated and hence pre-interpreted. There are inaccuracies in the subtle meanings of the text and that makes it very hard to decide what it tells actually happened. Second, the bible wasn't actually physically written until around 70 AD, at which point the elders grouped scrolls together, discarded what tehy didn't want (and there are quite a number of discarded texts that weren't included in the bible) and regrouped the rest. How can we be sure it's even an accurate depiction of the "original" story? Even IF the original story is a historical account, it wasn't written on paper until hundreds (and supposedly thousands) of years later. Until then, it passed from 'father to son' words of mouth through the generations. We don't know how much it got varied -- probably quite a lot. So even if it did, in the beginning, theoretically, explain some creation, then after thousands of years of small variation it may not be even remotely similar to the intended original. ~mooey

The Architekt was permanently banned from the forum for his incessant attempts to teach us what our rules should have said instead of what they're saying. Also, he asked, and we complied. You're welcome.

! Moderator Note Okay, enough. This is no longer a nice friendly request, this is now a warning. You admitted yourself that other forums banned you -- so you know how this game goes. We are being quite patient, and obviously we have an abundance of that quality or we might have pre-judged you initially and this whole lovely argument would have been prevented. And yet here we are, arguing silliness, and, as a result, completely derailing a perfectly soulful thread. absolutely, here's the bottom line: Whether you like it or not, we do not understand what you're trying to say. This will not change by you trying to convince us we're stupid. You came to us, and you agreed to certain rules and etiquettes -- and you need to follow them or you will not stay here. We are being nice in warning you several times already - take the hint (which is hinted no longer) and stop acting like an immature little boy. Stomping your feet and closing your ears will only lead to your suspension or banishment. From the way things are going, it won't be much of a loss. You have an opportunity to prove to us that banning you is a loss, and to do that, you need to start cooperating. That's non negotiable. Good luck. And just in case you need traslation: y0 hom1e i cnt c wht u say coz u ddnt use ne english. peace bro lol ltrzes Do not make things worse by replying. We will start deleting incoherent posts on sight. Have a nice day.

Guys, let's try to stick to the original post and the mainstream arguments. If you want to discuss belief, you can open a thread in the religion forum.

It might not be contradictory, I don't know, but I just pointed out you seemed to be avid in saying how much you need evidence for the claim, and then immediately turned it over and admitted you believe in the other claim (that seems to hold less evidence...) Even by the experiments that were done already in terms of "small" abiogenesis, there is a bit more evidence to the natural cause than there is to the supernatural one; and that's before we discuss the "problem" of having to provide evidence that the supernatural exists at all.. Then again, admittedly, that doesn't necessarily mean that abiogenesis *is* the right answer - there may be other options we're not considering. (One "option" people discuss is Panspermia, the idea that complex molecules came from another planet. That might be so but that also leaves us with the question of how did these molecules came to be on whatever other planet they formed in - so it's not quite a good solution to this question even if it does have merit) Take a look here, though, it's a nice small compilation of the experiments done that show some form of the steps of abiogenesis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Fox.27s_experiments You will find out in a month after we fully lure you in, muahahaha-- ahem. Welcome to the forum, I'm glad you enjoy it! We're doing our best to keep things scientific but still allow for varied opinions and perspectives. We mostly try. I heard that claim a lot, and it may well be that. I personally think it's far fetched; even if the biblical stories are some "dumbed-down" long-story-short versions (and some may well be, and seems to me to logically be, actually) the creation story is a bit of a stretch. You'd have to have someone actually knowing it to be able to "dumb it down" to others, which makes a problem (only god was here, if the story is true, and why would he dumb it down?) and also, the stories are different among other religions, but share a lot of common threads that suggest they might be mishmashed together. This is a really interesting debate, but since it's non-science, I suggest we move this particular question to the religion forum. You can start a thread there about the creation stories, we can discuss those properly. One can argue nothing can truly explain the 'why', because 'why' suggests purpose, and what we already know about nature is that it doesn't necessarily has a purpose, simply a role. That is, human beings attach "why" to things, but nature doesn't necessarily. Evolution doesn't have a "why" results, it only has a 'why' after-the-fact -- which makes it more of a "how" question. Anyways, that's a really interesting point, let's discuss this one in the religion or philosophy forum too. We're trying to keep mainstream-science as much mainstream as possible. ~mooey Heh, well, you (a) assume we're atheists, and (b) use the ad-populus falacy; even *if* 90% of americans believe in some intelligent designer, that doesn't mean they're right. Nor does it make it a scientific claim. Also, I don't think anyone here dismisses anything off-hand, the fact we have a religion and philosophy forum, and that we quite extensively allow for those debates to be carried out there, shows we too are quite open minded about it. The burden of proof, according to science, is on the person(s) making the claim, and those person(s) -- being 90% of the american population or not -- did not seem to reach that burden. That said, let's try to separate the religious claims from the scientific ones. Even if the abiogenesis "scientific claim" turns out to be unfounded, it doesn't necessarily mean the supernatural is the only alternative. That would be a false dichotomy -- there might be other theories that work even better than either one. Which is why we try to avoid religion in mainstream science threads and concentrate on evidence but if you want to discuss either one of those claims about the population and religion/dismissal claims, you are more than invited to start a thread about thsi in the religion forum. Let me know if you do, I'll join in there. ~mooey

Yeah I agree that this definition doesn't make sense. Even the basic definitions of "life" include some sort of extra property, like response to the environment and/or having a metabolism. For that matter, computer viruses replicate and can have variations in the replication. Cancer is the replication with (anomalous) variation. Is cancer life? I think the definition is lacking. That's a bit ironic, though. You're saying you believe in a much less plausible and less explainable explanation but demand that the explanation that actually has some merit in reality be explained fully? I say it has merit in reality because we do know, and have witnessed, and can replicate, the *individual* steps that we suspect happened that led to the emergence of life (abiogenesis). That's more than what we can say about any kind of monotheistic belief. You have a right to believe whatever you want, but if you say you hold your belief in one theory until there's proof, you should hold your belief in general until there's proof, and there's a whole lot more circumstantial evidence to abiogenesis than there is to any sort of magical creation story. All hail consistency ~mooey

Sure. But we have an idea of what kind of natural processes could have led to abiogenesis, and we know that each of those events is plausible naturally; we don't have that kind of judgment about divine intervention. By okham razor alone, abiogenesis is natural. ~mooey

I am not sure we can answer this question, though. I mean, as far as abiogenesis is concerned, life didn't just "happen" and definitely NOT by chance. What would you define "life" for this exercise, a single-celled organism? The chances this would just "happen" by chance alone is ridiculous; and yet, that's not what anyone is suggesting has happened at all. I don't think anyone one is saying abiogenesis happened by luck alone, so the question is misleading, seems to have a false premise, and I"m not entirely sure we define life in such a way where we can answer it properly to begin with. Then again, life *did* happen, which makes the answer 100% possible. The chances that something that happened has happened ... are 100%. ~mooey

! Moderator Note A non-mainstream numerology post by nrh0904 was deleted. nrh0904, you have a post already in existence for numerology gimatria 'stuff'. Stick to it, and do NOT answer other threads with this as if it's proper science. It's not. Please resume the proper topic in the original post. Don't make things worse by replying to this moderation note, stick to your thread and follow our rules.

Well, we *are* a science forum. Might as well do some back-of-napkin calculations when talking about something sciencey

Okay, so assuming air friction is too marginal to affect the bullet on these distances (a few meters to a couple of dozens of meters) we will assume the bullet hit the helmet at that initial speed. For convenience, I switched units to meters per second. Also, just for the sake of argument (and also since this too would likely be rather marginal) I am ignoring downwards force, and am assuming a perfectly horizontal trajectory. That would mean the bullet would hit the helmet at velocity of 1220 feet/second = 371.856 m/s We will assume the tactical helmet stopped the bullet (otherwise there's no point anyways to this discussion since the guy would be dead). I will also assume it stopped the bullet as "far" as it could go, so I'll take about 1 cm travel distance until the bullet stopped assuming it got embedded in the helmet. (It's been a while since I did these, verify I didn't miscalculate anything here) [math]v_0=371.586 \text{ m/s}[/math] [math]v_f=0 \text{ m/s (complete stop)}[/math] [math]x = 0.01 \text{ m}[/math] I'll use this equation - [math]v_f^2 = v_0^2 + 2a(x_f-x_0)[/math] Rearranged to this: [math]a = \frac{v_f^2 - v_0^2}{2(x_f-x_0)} = \frac{0 - 371.586^2}{2(0.01)} [/math] [math]= \frac{-138076}{0.02} = -6903800 \text{m}/s^2[/math] So, assuming mass of a bullet as 15g [math] F=m*a = 0.015\text{kg}*( -6903800 \text{m}/s^2) = -103557 N = -103 KN[/math] I'm not sure how much force is needed to cause a concussion. Also, we should take into account that helmets (especially tactical helmets) are especially designed to absorb the majority of this force, so the head will NOT experience this amount. How much do they absorb? no clue, but even things like motorcycle helmets can save a head from an injury that would otherwise break the skull, so I would guess it's quite a significant amount.. Someone will have to pick it up from here, since I am not too sure what to compare this force to. ~mooey

I love Gematria. We used to play with it when I was a kid all the time. We used to do it on paper, in the actual hebrew (as it's meant to be done) but it is quite fun. For example, I was born in 1982. Did you know this means "תורת ישראל כוזבת" which literally means "False Israel torah". That's a bit ironic, since my name means "God is my teacher" in hebrew. It can also be extremely fun to play around with the numbers and values. See, for instance, the phrase "אלוהים קיים" (God exists) is the same value as "אני גם לא בפלה" (I am also not a waffle). This is very meaningful, because "בפלה" has the exact same value as the word "אוטופיה" (Utopia) and is only 3 points short of the word "אחמדינגד" (Ahmadinejad), the ruler of Iran. The number 3 (ג) is special in the bible, as is the number 7 (ז), which together give us 10 - Which gives us the word "אגו" (Ego) which is God's way of saying that if you're egotistical enough to claim that God is not a waffle, you will have utopia with Ahmadinejad. Those were 20 seconds about idiotic meaningless numerical values, their connection to themselves, and lack thereof to any meaningful statement. Cheers, שבת שלום Oh, also: מואי (mooey) = 57 = כלבה (female dog, or bitch) = יהוה אל (god / divine) = גג אדום (red roofing) = מזבח (altar) Which obviously means I'm a divine bitch on a red altar. I can live with that. P.S, I used this calculator: http://www.c2kb.com/gematria/index.php but I used to play around with it by hand. It's quite fun, especially since there are so many combination, you can find almost ANY meaning you want. Which is also why it's ridiculous.

Not at all, it's just very frustrating when you seem to toss very "extreme" type claims into the mix without checking them first. We're trying to have this discussion as emotion-clear as possible and as rationally as possible, and those don't help. If it's from the front, it can be the killer. I don't think a gas mask and goggles stop that bullet. I think we might be underestimating how good you might need to be (and stable) in this situation to actually aim and shoot that relatively small space, while he's moving, and while you're surrounded by panicked injured people and tear gas. But I think that if anyone COULD make that head-shot to the front, it would be the killer. To the back, I'm not sure, but it would likely be a great distraction... it would probably get him to pause for a bit, enough to maybe jump him. BTW, we can calculate that quite easily. Anyone knows what speed a .45 travels with as it goes out of the barrel? I'm not sure. If we know that, and estimate the distance, it's possible to calculate the force it would impact on the helmet and see if it's enough for some significant trauma.