It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423





Not sure what multi universes have to do with this, but here you go. They've already been created in the lab:


This is fascinating.

You are saying that scientists created a multiverse.

When I go to the research paper it says: Experimental demonstration of metamaterial "multiverse" in a ferrofluid

Why do they put "multiverse" in quotations like that?




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423





It is not ATP. ATP is not a machine. The Krebs Cycle is the machine


I'm just trying to understand this.

I didn't say ATP was a machine.

The video said ATP Synthase was an amazing molecular machine that synthesizes ATP

Some sites call ATP Synthase a motor or engine.

It seems to me that the Krebs cycle is more of an action, and ATP Synthase is more analogous to a machine.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Okay, will upload the biochemical mechanism. Will take a few minutes - sometimes the terminology gets confusing.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The quotations are used to emphasize that there are hypothetically an infinite number of universes hence the term "multiverse". This goes to quantum theory which says essentially that all things are possible and infinite numbers exist.
The article below goes a little deeper - remember this is high end quantum mechanics with all the mathematical bells and whistles. Not my field, but I've read the articles. It is fascinating because our sense of reality may not be real at all.

www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

Wasn't able to upload the complete jpg so here's the link: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The "synthase" enzyme recycles ATP by way of a proton pump gradient. It's more correctly called oxidative phosphorylation.
From the link: The energy used in the electron transport change pumps protons across the inner mitochondrial membrane from the inner matrix to the intermembrane space, producing a strong hydrogen concentration gradient. This process was called chemiosmosis by its discover, Peter Mitchell. This difference in proton concentration produces both an electrical potential and a pH potential across the membranes. The protein complex ATP synthase then makes use of this membrane potential to accomplish the phosphorylation of ADP to ATP.

The terminology may get somewhat confusing, but enzymatic reactions and hydrolytic reactions are what occur at each step in the process, whether it's glycolysis, Krebs Cycle or ATP Synthesis.
The Krebs Cycle is also a cascade of enzymatic reactions. So there's really no fundamental difference between the action of the ATP Synthase and all the other enzymatic reactions that occur in the Krebs Cycle.

I guess you can call ATP Synthase a "machine", but in fact, it's a pump. All the other steps in energy production also require enzymes.
The total energy production comes from 3 sources: Glycolysis, the Krebs Cycle and Oxidative Phosphorylation (proton pump)
The total energy yield is: Glucose: 686 kcal/mol, ATP: 7.5 kcal/mol, 7.5 x 36 = 270 kcal/mol for all ATP's produced, 270 / 686 = 39% energy recovered from aerobic respiration. To my mind, that's the machine - the total energy production. I realize that the word "machine" is used for enzymatic reactions, but in fact they are catalytic events - as in the case of ATP Synthase. As an enzyme, it acts as a catalyst i.e. it triggers some reaction without changing it's own structure or function.

The diagram in the link shows how these events cascade and integrate to produce energy to the cell. Remember this is AEROBIC respiration, not ANAEROBIC respiration - the difference of course is the inclusion of O2 in aerobic respiration.



edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-12-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Santa Claus is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Santa talks to you in your sleep and when you ask him for presents and all that, then you are insane.

If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Jesus Christ (or whatever, really) is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Jesus talks to you in your sleep and when you pray to him at night and all that, then you are a sane and good, upstanding member of the community.

Although the creationist/darwinian arguement is a fun one to have, I think everyone should be a lot more worried that the insane are running the asylum. They regulate our schools, are elected to government, teach our children, and push us to war. They believe the world is amde of magic, and they are willing to kill and inprison those who disagree.


You hit the nail on the head with that one. I couldn't agree more. It's about insanity and the fact that it is encouraged rather than frowned upon. No, I'm not calling all religious folk insane, but it does apply to the absolutist science deniers.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




This goes to quantum theory which says essentially that all things are possible and infinite numbers exist....

....It is fascinating because our sense of reality may not be real at all.


If that's the case, then what's the point of these arguments?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

And we have evolution to thank for it.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: Phantom423

Looks like I'm preaching to the choir here, but here goes.

The universe is too vast for most people to comprehend, and I mean that in the most basic sense of the words. Some just cannot HANDLE it, at all, even a little bit. Their minds are just not built for it.

To speak of religion, I would like to say only this -

If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Santa Claus is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Santa talks to you in your sleep and when you ask him for presents and all that, then you are insane.

If you are an adult and you believe with all certainty that Jesus Christ (or whatever, really) is real, really damn believe it and practie that belief and think Jesus talks to you in your sleep and when you pray to him at night and all that, then you are a sane and good, upstanding member of the community.

Although the creationist/darwinian arguement is a fun one to have, I think everyone should be a lot more worried that the insane are running the asylum. They regulate our schools, are elected to government, teach our children, and push us to war. They believe the world is amde of magic, and they are willing to kill and inprison those who disagree.

Be worried. Dissenting voices are not tolerated.


Wow. Beautifully said.

It reminds me of something Sam Harris once said during a debate with William Lane Craig -

"[Religion] allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own.

If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic.”



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423





The quotations are used to emphasize that there are hypothetically an infinite number of universes hence the term "multiverse".


Or is it possible that it could indicate that they did not create a multiverse, but only a proposed model of a multiverse? link


edit on 23-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT
Read the original post.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423






His chicken-and-egg proposal is ridiculous - which came first ATP or the "engine" that he refers to (incorrectly BTW). ATP is ubiquitous in nature.


I am still trying to understand what is ridiculous about this guys assertion.

I fast forwarded the video to the ATP part.


He clearly references ATP synthase at 36:37 in the video as a "machine" and a "motor"

I guess I don't understand why you have a problem with that.

Now he also said that the ATP Synthase required ATP to operate.

Is that untrue?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

From your link: ......Thus, thermal fluctuations in a ferrofluid look similar to creation and disappearance of
individual Minkowski spacetimes (universes) in the cosmological
multiverse. This theoretical picture is supported by experimental
measurements of polarization-dependent optical transmission of a cobalt
based ferrofluid at 1500 nm.
____________________________________

The optical transmission would seem to support the experiment. More than that, I can't say as I don't do that kind of work. This type of research is obviously very young so I would imagine that there are physicists who will attempt to duplicate this work to verify it.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

The man understands nothing about chemistry. He's taken a few snippets and made a big story out of it, an erroneous one at that.
His chicken-and-egg statement about ATP is ridiculous. Neither adenine nor phosphorus are in short supply to my knowledge. Nucleosides have been found even in meteorites! Phosphorus is found in most mineral compounds. It is not a rare earth metal.

He's got his long chain polymerization chemistry totally backwards! Very few long chain alkane compounds dissolve in water because they are lipophilic. Take beta carotene - a long chain carotenoid polymer. Enzymatic catalysis breaks the chain in two to form 2 moles of vitamin A. Here, read this: pslc.ws...

Look, if you want to know chemistry, go to a good source - like a book or online course. This guy hasn't seen the football since the kickoff.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   


From your link: ......Thus, thermal fluctuations in a ferrofluid look similar to creation and disappearance of individual Minkowski spacetimes (universes) in the cosmological
multiverse.



This is the source material from the article you said demonstrated that a multiverse had been created.

This is all way over my head, but it looks like they didn't create a multiverse but only a representation.




Not sure what multi universes have to do with this, but here you go. They've already been created in the lab:



Some people claim that multiverses cannot be tested or observed.


Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts.

These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations
link

Why did you claim multiverses had been created in a laboratory?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

The reaching for leaves hypothesis is unlikely since females have much shorter necks than males, the species would have gone extinct if only the males could reach the high branches as the feeding strategy hypothesis describes. Sure, the male can reach the high leaves, but that is clearly not the only thing that long neck is used for.



It seems you think that I'm providing THE reason when I'm only providing A reason of 1000s. My point is external reasons mostly drives evolution. Whether it is survival of the fittest, radiation, environment etc, life adapts, and those adaptations that are successful continue forward into future generations.
edit on 23-12-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1

Shorties would still have had young trees and shorter plants to be eat.

Taller giraffes die faster in drought conditions.


Maybe so, but starvation conditions do accelerate changes. A study on the Hopi Indians was done as to why they are mostly very heavy set people.


With extreme hardship and often starvation, it is the people with extra fat deposits that are generally the survivors under these conditions. Since the Native Americans migrated here long ago from China and Russia via the land bridge over the Bering Straits, these same hardships happened to them, as well. This 'culling' process caused the survivors to be more genetically predisposed to fat.


With the case of giraffes, though I said there were 1000s of external influences to change, who survives when all the easy lower leaves are gone?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




The man understands nothing about chemistry.

Neither adenine nor phosphorus are in short supply to my knowledge. Nucleosides have been found even in meteorites!



Nucleosides or do you mean Nucleobases were found in meteorites?

I thought the guy in the video was talking about Adenosine Triphosphate, Adenosine and Phosphates.

Isn't the adenine that you said was found in meteorites, just a building block of Adenosine?

Also isn't the phosphorus you brought up, just a building block of Phosphate?


edit on 23-12-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




It seems you think that I'm providing THE reason when I'm only providing A reason of 1000s.


No, I think that you are providing an INCORRECT reason. There maybe 1000 reasons, but reaching high leaves is NOT one of them.



With the case of giraffes, though I said there were 1000s of external influences to change, who survives when all the easy lower leaves are gone?


If the giraffe's long neck is what allows them to survive "when all the easy lower leaves are gone" then the giraffe as a species won't be one of the survivors. Female giraffes do NOT have long necks - if the females don't survive, the species doesn't survive.

I'm just saying that you have to look somewhere else for the purpose of the long neck - it should not be your 'go to' example because it just isn't a viable explanation.
edit on 24/12/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




I had made a comment earlier that may have not made sense due to the complicated subject called evolution . Is it a theory or a fact ?


Evolution is observable fact. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the theory that describes the best explanation for how evolution proceeds. The MES makes no claim to being the last word, only the best word so far. The MES itself evolves - that is, it changes over time - as new facts are observed and need to be accounted for.



The Big Bang not so much . Unless you are a mathematician and use probabilities in your equations .


Incorrect. For one thing, the Big Bang is a MODEL, not a theory, Therefore it does not predict values of parameters that can constrain the type of Universe we inhabit - it is just a mathematical and word 'picture' to help us understand the beginning of the Universe. "Earth as the center of the universe" is also a model, not a theory. "The Sun as the center of the solar system" is also a model, not a theory. Yes of course, people do call the Big Bang a theory, but that is just laziness; it works fine as long as you know the difference, but most laymen don't.

Cosmologists predicted that we should be able to detect the leftover radiation (Cosmic Background Radiation; CBR) from the Big Bang (if there was such a thing) and low and behold, some decades later it was discovered - quite by accident - and found to be precisely the predicted temperature. It wasn't until the CBR was discovered that the Big Bang became the accepted model.

Edit : I hit submit too soon... I'm working on more for this post
Edit2: nah... forget that... i've said enough


edit on 24/12/2014 by rnaa because: I just don't know when to quit sometimes.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join