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.

 

The blowhole

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The teleological argument isn't so easy to dismiss without a multiverse which is unknown

If the weight of carbon was slightly different.

No universe.

Multiverse gets you into super strings and boson theory and a multidimensional reality.

Then there are simulation theories.




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes thats right I've said repeataedly before "creationism is ONE of the answers that might be what happened".

This is a thread which can really only have two sides:

(a) The Blow hole is the result of evolution
or
(b) God did it.

That is the way this thread was set up. As a polytheist, I am willing to accept the possibility of a creator, but I am unwilling to accept it is the ONLY one. Evidentually, there is no evidence for deity being involved. Only faith (gnoses). Gnoses are not testable, and thus you can't argue science with them



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

How would there be evidence to something we barely understand?

A "diety"/ alien could have written a code that unfolds.

We already genetically modify because we have cracked part of the code.

A code obviously exists or we couldn't do so.


edit on 18-12-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Why only one deity? If I must accept that there is a chance a deity (or many) created the universe, why can it not be equally likely none were involved.

If you can not test for something, its not really something testable, and thus makes it not something science needs concern itself with.

Genetics are not infallible, as evidence by the great many genetic conditions that are seen.

The argument that there is a "code' (its not a programming language, its a bunch of chemicals) thus there had to be a coder is not logical, its conformation bias, as those who claim it, believe that there is a coder (God) and anything is evidence. As opposed to looking at the evidence, then looking at the results, and making a conclusion.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Lol, there is a code. It's the laws of physics. Not too familiar with cosmology I guess.

Random chemicals without specific atomic weights can not create life without several universes. This has been modeled.

It's like throwing a dart in the universe and expecting to hit a bullseye.

Of coarse it could be gods. It could be science students in a simulation too.

And yes science is concerned with non testable science. It's called theoretical. Like theoretical physics.

Don't act like a know it all.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"You Guess".

"Random chemicals with out specific chemical weights"... oh boy, as a chemist, that phrase is painful. Do you understand that those "atomic weights" are an approximation, based on our observations? You picked on Carbon. We have three main isotopes, 12, 13, anad 14.... Carbon 14 is a wee bit controversial with creationists
Carbon 13 I use a lot in charactarising the pharmaceuticals I make. However the atomic weight of carbon is an average of the atomic abundances, and it gets readjusted on occasion.

"Modelling universes". You of course can cite all this? So we can talk about the science right?

You perhaps don't understand what theory and theoretical (and hypotheses) mean in science? I've said it before and I will say it again, I (and others who post here) work in the sciences.

Theoretical physics, still works using the laws we can test. They don't just pull something from their rear, and test it, they test things, that can be verified.

I am not acting like I know it all. I am acting like someone who actually commits science for a living neighbour. You clearly don't do you.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Applied scientists often have trouble with this stuff.

So the carbon atom could be 14 atomic units and still come from the sun?


Sure the anthropic principle is at play.

Personally I am a Spinozaist if I had to categorize my beliefs. So you can stop the asumming I am a creationist. In reality I am agnostic.

Yes theory is based off of math. The reason for dimensional reality in bosonic theory is for symmetry. However, once you go down the rabbit hole of cosmology you can see it isn't exactly so simple as chemical bonds.

Furthermore, if humans were to face a human disease that wiped out the species and a new species of intelligence and reason we're to evolve do you believe they would know we have altered and modified animals and plants?

Post one of mine says bare with me my back round is philosophy. We are still used in cosmology and theoretical physics (like time and space etc..).

Having a discussion apparently is not something some applied scientists can do as they need observable facts.

Thank goodness for the theoretical physicists at the time before the electron microscope or we would have never invented the machine. Once we did some of the stuck in the mud applied scientists had their world view blown.

www.perimeterinstitute.ca...

Edit. Mixed words on the sun.

Also fixed au to say atomic units.
edit on 18-12-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"Applied scientists" that is so cute. No understanding whatsoever..

Carbon creating a sun? Neighbour, stars are mostly Hydrogen and Helium, perhaps a little helium. Carbon is neither here nor there as far as I know. It will be synthesized in the fusion... eventually. But the early universe was without carbon.

Now 14 is grams per mol (g mol-1 though it really should be Kg mol-1 for SI) or AMU/amu, perhaps even Daltons. AU is astronmical units, something quite different.

You are really munting this discussion.

I've not assumed you are a creationist, I am talking to your points which are creationist, no matter how you try to argue using semantics.

The rest of your post is nonsense. You don't understand the science, as demonstrated by your use of the units in my first paragraph of reply.

I'm a polytheist neighbour I've said a deity or deities creating the universe is an option, its not the only one, and it has no evidence.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Neighbour a number of molecules are able to self assemble



All molecules act according to specific electromagnetic laws that are mathematically predictable. Take from that what you will. Evidence points to an ordered, non-random universe.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I just fixed my sentence.

My points are not creationists,..you just haven't read any cosmology.

And I am talking cosmology. Something you have proven to not understand.

I meant atomic unit.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again your wordings make me doubt your science education "specific electromagnetic laws" .... name them. If you really have a science education, that includes chemistry, you learned those names. No I am not providing them for you.

Your own biases point you in the direction you are implying.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You don't know what my education in cosmology is or is not. I will give you a hint however. I've passed exams in Physics (where cosmology sits), as well as read the pop science you are quoting. When you get the science right, I will acknowledge it.

Atomic unit is not AU or au, it is as I said AMU/amu, g mol-1 (I can't superscript here) or Daltons (Da).



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Again your wordings make me doubt your science education "specific electromagnetic laws" .... name them. If you really have a science education, that includes chemistry, you learned those names. No I am not providing them for you.

Your own biases point you in the direction you are implying.


Dude, you really need to step down from the pedestal. Not everyone who disagrees with you is scientifically illiterate. You are quite impossible to have a conversation with.

Electromagnetism, along with gravity, strong and weak molecular interactions are the four fundamental forces of nature. These keep our universe intact and act according to mathematically predictable equations.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It is no pedestal. You have made the claim to hold a degree in chemistry, then can't actually talk to chemistry. I have plent of conversations with people here, it is only those who are clearly not willing to engage who have a problem. You have refused to do so. Even when I've repeatedly pointed out, I acknowledge the chance of a Divine creator or creators (and that last bit irks you, you don't like me suggesting polytheism as a possibility).

You have yet to mention the bonding forces in the chemicals. Instead you've talked about the fundamental forces in the universe. Come now, its not that long ago, I will give you a hint. Ionic, covalent, mention two others, you know you can.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

So carbon weighing 100 Da wouldn't be a problem then.

When you can't argue points move to falacy of definitions or grammar...

.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

If humans were wiped out and we had genetically altered say goats to spin silk would a new evolved being 1 million years later know we did so?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

What are the odds the big bang was random and produced random results?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That is right, because we don't know of any isotopes of Carbon that weigh that much. Molecules of it sure, we know of a number isopmorphs that have 1000s of Da of weight. But you were talking about isotopes, which by definition is single molecules. Hydgrogen, Deuterium Tritium are more apropos to Suns than Carbon.

When you can talk to the science,get back to me.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Who knows? We know nothing of what was before the big bang, we only know the results after. I thought you were educated in cosmology, or had at least READ about it.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

When you can answer the question without a galaxy let me know.

Until then I will assume your stalling because you know the answer.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join