zorro

Moo hasn't been active at this site for quite a while and is certainly not posting in this thread. To whom are you referring? Me?

.

 

No no. Moo is posting here see # 83 above. So let him speak instead of a lacky.

Hmm, it would seem strange to demand a first human ancestor as a leading question to "debunk" evolution, as the biblical account has all of humanity arising from Adam and Eve - therefore it's impossible to escape intra-population evolutionary divergence, even if you are a new earther. Black, white, brown, yellow etc people all have a common ancestor, and yet back people don't give birth to white babies.

 

While we're on the unreasonable demands bandwagon, can you direct me to the graves of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, so we can verify the biblical account of the origin of humanity? Seems only fair given you're demanding others account for the precise identification of a pair of prehistoric individuals.

Thanx for trying to let Moo wiggle out of his own thought. So let him reply. ..... BTW I do not debunk evolution here I skip over it entirely to keep it simple for Moo. So Moo;; what happened in the gap from zip to the first reproductive pair and how did they arrive and get a full set of genes??

O

^Translation: I am unable to answer the question you asked me, so I will evade it completely and try to distract attention from that fact by asking you a separate and unrelated question.

You are the king of wrong so what is your answer to the gap .... Blank like Moo .... The ball remains in your courts. We await also your answer as to how we got to the original reproductive pair from you????

Can you offer any positive empirical evidence of that world salad you call a post or are you just going over the edge due to inability to come up with anything but "I can't understand it so it couldn't have happened that way"?

 

Mine is obvious and you have eyes of your own to cross ceck. I await your explanation of the first reproductive pair and the first sympathetic environment. Does your Higher Order Deity appear anywhere.

 

 

Irreducible complexity is horse feathers zorro, the complexity of the many eyes that have evolved independently in animals on our Earth is easily explained by evolution, in fact examples of all stages of eyes from eyes no better than light detectors to eyes that make the best sighted humans legally blind by comparison are present on the Earth right now... Your void argument is based in ignorance and incredulity and is either trivially falsified by demonstrable natural processes or simply unknown at this time and unknown does not equal goddidit... I suggest you learn the difference between deity and diet, how complexity arises out of chaos, not to mention positive feed back loops and what does Genome and emotions have to do with each other? ...

 

 

You must be the devil's advocate on the forum. ..... Hell bound to the pearly gates as the king with no clothes.

 

You seemed to sidestep all my points with gibberish innuendoes. When was your first ancestor born.? Where is it'a Support Environment ?? Dismissivity on your part shows streams of ignorance's of the void arguments.

 

The eye is one of the immaculate creations and you dismiss it because are blinded to this argument. It was in the Ammonites 450 M years ago and still works now. The eyes see color and distance, feed themselves from the body, cleanse themselves, attract a mate, sees motion and 3D on a flat plane, crank down to sunlight and open to the dark, focus to the infinity and bend and reverse light. If that isn't a miracle then Hummingbirds don't fly.

 

Yes the Higher Order does miraculous things that none other can and even offers eternity. ...... does yours ???

This doesn't follow with your previous statement. If anything it shows a fear from religion of science (not always the case and an entirely different discussion as well). That's an odd statement considering that a great number of nobel prized are awarded to multiple people and not a single individual. Scientists collaborate all the time, your argument is one from ignorance of how scientists actually work. What religion sciences?

I have worked with many scientists an as a engineer sad the struggles to bring their works to make them usable . Like the engineer. Scientists prefer to work alone thinking. When in a social setting they avoid the word God like Jews do but if outed, they preferrer Higher Being.

Interesting take zorro, let me get this straight, you are asserting the completely natural process of child birth confirms god or they are voids? Hmmm... no sorry makes no sense what so ever to me... care to try again?

No! Wait! I guess it does support my vast Brobdingnagian creature that mindlessly excretes universes as part of it's natural digestive system... whew! Almost missed that one...

 

BTW what does the complexity of the eye have to do with anything?

 

Come on zorro, don't ignore me, you've made some serious assertions here, how does a void before the beginning of the universe have anything to do with the completely natural process of child birth? I have personally been present for child birth from beginning to end nothing supernatural about it, no miracles, no faith required and definitely no void...

Again you can't read me and barbel my thoughts. The void is a higher entity Diet from zero to your first ancestor . Your mother came first I wound guess down to the first reproductive pair. So thy void is to tell us hoe te pair got the with Genome and all emotions in place. Well it time for you to step up and plain this. The eye is just one of billions of Complexity that confirms a Higher Entity Diet and you need only to look in a mirror.

Zorro Comments Above :-

 

 

It's difficult to read through the many pages of this thread, and his thread posts on ( theistic scientists by unit 3 +) without tripping over all the Ack, Ack, fire. But this opening statement by Zorro seems to be suggesting Science is a tool for exploring and explaining the Universe in a way that enables an appreciation of God.

 

I asked ( on one of Zorro 's threads ,) how many scientists believed in a higher power , which seems to be unresolved.

 

I think there is a " Kings suit of clothes" phenomenon at work here.

 

While a number of prominent scientists speak openly of their detestation of anything to do with a god ( Like Richard Dawkins, and a few others) Who wants to stand up and say " look , the king has got no clothes on" .

 

I propose that IF a prominent Scientist Said openly that they had a change of heart say with good reason , a lot of other scientists would jump ship fairly quickly. [ perhaps the percentages would become clearer and include the 'behind the scenes' believers in a higher power ]

 

I have read a few books lately , by well known science names , where respected scientists are HINTING at something for and with due reasons . Just hinting, but with arguable reasons. Perhaps their reasoning and hints are a pre-cursor to something else, BUT ..may be not.

 

Mike

 

I think that most Scientists who are "outed" per say from a belief I a higher deity would fear criticism by the vocal few Since I am a novice Scientist / Engineer My view floats the wind like a leaf. Your proposal is good as the sciences and philosophers reach beyond reality to the infinite all the time to find a beginning . To preserve that zeal and to run into a Higher Order must be possible. The philosopher is satisfied with close the Scientist must have the singularity in the Petri Dish.

 

Society pays the sciences well to find Mother Natures secrets and hand these discoveries over to the Engineer to make useful products and warring. The Petroleum industry has civilization by the neck and time is running out in my view. Science must deliver the furnace options and investigating close to the higher order is necessary.

Instead of both sides vehamently saying YES NO. no yes

 

Can we not ask the question :-

 

" Is there anything in evidence by observation of the state or workings of the cosmos, either locally or in deep space and deep time from the infinite past to this moment, among the very small or very large, " ?

 

" that can in any way be viewed as evidence of some form of Higher Power being(s) than us humans.? " Say like the monoliths in 2001 a space odessy or something funny in the DNA or something that can not be chance , but deliberate, or some control mechanism .

 

Leave for the time being putting a name on it/them . As that immediately puts some form of presupposed ( loved or hated image of it/them/he/she ) .

 

If we find we have some form of positive answer, then we can ask. Yes but How much higher, how much more informed, how much older than our civilisation .

 

If we draw a complete BLANK . Then we can decide what to do next ! or what does this mean ?

 

Mike

Nothing we can view in the cosmos would prove a higher Deity. We will likely find a new life form before a dirty. We now have the complexity of the eye as well as order of the elements wherein light frequency lines and redshift the same thought the Cosmos . We have argue that energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed so that back before our ancestor or first God Particle something big and intelligent happens. If you have faith that something was void then you must argue that you, your mother and child are void. That is too much faith for me.

"The Sun’s surface is so crushed that the Hydrogen is now denser than Iron on Earth. "

No it isn't.

The density of the photosphere is about 0.0002 kg/cubic metre

The density of iron on the earth's surface is about 8000 kg/cubic metre.

You are wrong by a factor of about forty million.

We know this from spectroscopic studies.

 

Why don't you stop posting nonsense and try learning stuff instead?

 

You steal my thunder now chill to the end of this thread. Take your spear to the ref I provided before you sit on it

 

We are talking the Granulations of the Photosphere and how are they attached. In there attachment a process of insutation we need in a working reactor????

!

Moderator Note

 

Zorro - your last few threads have been closed due to a lack of evidence. Please bear this in mind with this latest iteration. BTW do not open speculative threads in the main fora.

 

 

I plan to keep this thread on the Granular structures and delve into how energy passes. We have many waco's members and Mods on this forum, that you won't castigate, who just want a battle. I am not interested in their witt, so close it now before I waste a bit of my time. I have this subject in other places that are considerate forums as well. So why don't you just ban me now, and make my good & interesting posts go elsewhere.

 

Now consider the fact that the surface of the Sun is that wispy gas, crushed down thousands of times more densely than the deepest core of the Earth. The Sun’s surface is so crushed that the Hydrogen is now denser than Iron on Earth. It’s so dense that the electrons in the atoms cannot hold their shape, and matter starts to collapse in upon itself. The electrons and nuclei of the gas break apart, and as a result, the gravitational pressure forces the material to elevate its energy to the forth state of matter and become super-heated plasma. But that’s literally just the surface.

http://sargosis.com/articles/science/what-solar-power-fusion-and-manned-space-exploration-have-to-do-with-each-other/

Question: Is surface tension holding the photosphere together more than the Gravitational fields ???

Judging by the way Solar storms rip thru the Photosphere then contracting back to reform, it seems that the Photosphere is more in surface tension not gravitational compression.

http://solarscience..../feature1.shtml

Storm watching:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=91H4qgFCauQ

zorro

Mod

 

Ok close it .

 

Fusion / Fusion containment is a separate subject particularly in the Photosphere. I use this thread as trash to try the clumsy Multi Quote and iPhone commands.

 

Zorro

 

 

 

Test photo insertion on iPhone.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one.

 

 

It seems to me that science folks are frightened by Religion as well as by a loud Atheistic minority banter that is organized with a political agenda. I think it started around Copernicus’s time when he was reluctant to publish until his deathbed. …..Then in the Inquisition time, Science Leaders were chastised, punished and either banned from their work or killed. …. Then it was the affair of Religion vs. Galileo wherein he was punished, not for his Science, but for his audacity to reveal that he can and does interpret the Bible. This all for the struggle to place religion as the only contact with God and sidetrack sciences. ….Then to Darwinism and it’s effect / controversies surrounding biological evolution. ……. Now this fear is carried by Guru Priest as Richard Dawkins against God and to eliminate God altogether and thrash Religion.

 

Scientists want to do their work in isolation and see who gets the Nobel. But most Scientists find the Universe and Species to be complex and elegantly arranged. They are afraid to confront the Atheists and so Sciences, God and Religion are splitting. They have a notion of origination and have formed: evolutionary thought, the God Particle and Big Bang and notions to pull sense into their works.

 

Now because all seem comfortable with Higher Order Deities, we have Religion Sciences, God Sciences and Higher Order Deities that could be separated to various forums more comfortably as stated above.

That site is not a reputable source. Wal Thornhill is an electric universe crank. For a start he would flatly contradict that stars are nuclear fusion powered - as solar fusion was the base of two of your recent threads this could cause a little bit of a contradiction. What that site says is only really evidence for what Wal Thornhill reckons ...

 

 

Test of multiquote zz

 

Thanx Imatfaal, I deleted it I mostly chose it for the pictogram. zorro

Test of multiquote wxx

 

----- parts deleted. .. zorro -----

 

There are hundreds of good sites out there dealing with physics and cosmology - try Nasa for a start.

Test of inter aranging reply

 

Thanx Imatfaal, I deleted it I mostly chose it for the pictogram. zorro

Testing multiquote thanx

 

 

zorro note

very clumsy system in member quote arranging.

 

 

..............................................................

 

Testing double insert swipe and dangles

 

My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK.

 

 

Actually it's a rather textbook example: You start with the premise that no one's version of God is evil - therefore doing evil acts in the name of God is not possible. When presented with evil acts done in the name of God, you make a false distinction between religion and belief in God (belief in God is a FORM of religion) and claim that they were done in the name of religion, not God. Classic no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

thanx, You may have taught me something here. ...... zorro

 

No true Scotsman fallacy

No NO. this supportive fact assertions on Religion in keeping with forum rules, Not an A then .... c.

Much of this contraversy would go away if Folks particularily the Scientific community realized the vast differences between God and Religion. Religion has done more damage to the belief in GOD than the damage it has done to Modern Sciences. : examples....

More Christians have been killed by other Christians than anything else.

The war on Terrosim forments the Civil World against God.

The Crusaded were mostly a Barbarian massacre attack on other Christians of Byzantium.

Inquisition

Jim Jones "Jonestown" poisoned his own flock.

Orthodox split from the Catholic and the infighting of the Council of Nicaea has yet to end.

Europeans consume Jews.

Jews Massacre Islam and viceversa.

Evangelic preachers convicted of Graft, sex crimes and others

Priests convicted of sex crimes with children.

.......... on and on and on.

 

This is not anyones God, .... this is pure evil.

 

God Folks should be judged on breakage (Madness) based on whats is left of them after a "Religious" experiences.

 

God is: one, loving and ...... created everything from nothing.

The Ancient of Days by William Blake

 

 

 

JC: Have you actually got anything right yet?


Zorro in red: My Shih Tzu Doggie, want a pic??

 

 

JC: Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.


Z: I pattern my Science skills after Richard Feynman. Everything I do is backed by what I investigate especially here at the Spec. Forum.

 

JC: You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.


Z: I have impeccable and interesting evidence and stuff but many do not enjoy my levity.

 

JC: You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't. 
For example you say that you first post is "stunning"
 Well, here it is




"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."


 

Z: That is a misquote but it is still beyond stunning. If we had a fusion reactor in place today the world would be beyond a petro crisis, Nuke Weapons, Economy zinging with low gas prices, clean energy, no climate CO2 crisis. …… I could go on and on. So what

 

JC: So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.
 Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"
It's not stunning, it's silly.

Z: All I want a Clean cheap furnace and only Fusion will deliver it before petro runs out..

Zorro,

Have you actually got anything right yet?

Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.

You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.

You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't.

For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning"

Well, here it is

"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."

So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.

Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"

It's not stunning, it's silly.

.

 

You seem to spend your tome on my great posts Thanx Read and learn bro.

The speculation forum does not mean meaningless bullshit and ignorant hand waving.

 

Your 'razor messages responses'? You haven't posted a single correct sentence since you started your nonsense.

.

 

I am up on Speculation what can you contribute to this OP ?? (From my iPhone on the head)

This belongs in a religion forum, not in speculations, which is supposed to have at least a passing reference to science, and not empty, ignorant personal preaching.

Yes and no. I feel that both sides are interested in the Big Bang so should sit across the same table. Here in Speculations both are more comfortable and Creation or the first 20 **-64sec is opened up.

There is a need to have a separate forum for God, and a Higher Being. ...... Completely separate from Religion.'!!!!!!!!!!! Religion has been detrimental to both God (Higher Being) and Science.

The topic mentions God's creations. ....It is generally agreed that a Singularity hit at time zero. This event has been called the Big Bang. Science backs into it from Hubble's Expanding Universe down to the singularity, Theists start infinitely before the BB wherein planning and creation and goals are tested. There is agreement from just after the BB( say 10**64sec) to the making of man.

 

This casm is consuming the debate because of religion politics (where religion is not God) in history. Given that Mass and Energy are here to stay, what is the ultimate goal of the production of all stuff. To cool to a Dark Matter dust and then disappear or to revert to prior BB existence's forever in another Universe.??

 

Both take "faith" as does investigating the Singularity. The tipping point is to be drawn to a higher order then jump to where your comfort zone is them criticize everyone else. Both sides are exclusive or on autopilot to Dark ash.

Scientists can investigate only the existing, Philosophers the, so what. Why can't either explain a higher order without demeaning the other.

That site is not a reputable source. Wal Thornhill is an electric universe crank. For a start he would flatly contradict that stars are nuclear fusion powered - as solar fusion was the base of two of your recent threads this could cause a little bit of a contradiction. What that site says is only really evidence for what Wal Thornhill reckons ...

 

There are hundreds of good sites out there dealing with physics and cosmology - try Nasa for a start.

Thanx Imatfaal, I deleted it I mostly chose it for the pictogram. zorro

zorro

Harassment is one thing but not justifying my post errors is against Forum rules. The critics have a chip on themselves rather than responsible debate. They can send a private message for a clarification if necessary. I think that the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff can understand and enjoy my post's well. For example, posts #1, #10, #12, above are stunning to a general audience and I get many comments.

 

I mean no conspiracy to make an entertaining but yet poignant point on Fusion or other subjects, particularly those that I am Interested in. ... What is my gain for that.

 

AGC 52 is just flat wrong here:

 

" None of the above critics posts above illuminate they only degrade.

Why is this still going on? This is just Zorro denying well understood fusion reactions and claiming that it's a mystery. He provides no evidence or support other than vague hand waving and conspiracy shrouded statements.

He has stated that he doesn't understand the reactions, yet he keeps making pontifical statements regarding them. "

He/She knows full well that we are in the SPECULATION Forums so a general audience feels more comfortable confronting his chilling posts. .....No they prefers to blindly slug away and take their tears to mods instead of my razor messages responses.

zorro - 10 Rep

 

 

Zorro Comments Above :-

 

 

It's difficult to read through the many pages of this thread, and his thread posts on ( theistic scientists by unit 3 +) without tripping over all the Ack, Ack, fire. But this opening statement by Zorro seems to be suggesting Science is a tool for exploring and explaining the Universe in a way that enables an appreciation of God.

 

I asked ( on one of Zorro 's threads ,) how many scientists believed in a higher power , which seems to be unresolved.

 

I think there is a " Kings suit of clothes" phenomenon at work here.

 

While a number of prominent scientists speak openly of their detestation of anything to do with a god ( Like Richard Dawkins, and a few others) Who wants to stand up and say " look , the king has got no clothes on" .

 

I propose that IF a prominent Scientist Said openly that they had a change of heart say with good reason , a lot of other scientists would jump ship fairly quickly. [ perhaps the percentages would become clearer and include the 'behind the scenes' believers in a higher power ]

 

I have read a few books lately , by well known science names , where respected scientists are HINTING at something for and with due reasons . Just hinting, but with arguable reasons. Perhaps their reasoning and hints are a pre-cursor to something else, BUT ..may be not.

 

Mike

 

hello mike

My post #46 shows a 51% Theist among scientists. The article goes on to say some 60% to 70%may be a better number.

http://articles.lati...sci24-2009nov24

According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. .......

Question: Is surface tension holding the photosphere together more than the Gravitational fields ???

 

Judging by the way Solar storms rip thru the Photosphere then contracting back to reform, it seems that the Photosphere is more in surface tension not gravitational compression.

 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/feature1.shtml

 

Storm watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91H4qgFCauQ

 

zorro