Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: OK Kevin I understand you can read but you do not understand full sentences. ***OK Lennart I realize you have a tremendous need to start out your posts with zinger insults, but don't really have the intelligence to generate worthwhile ones. I do not want to eliminate anyone. ***Of course you do. You're just not honest about it. I do not want to discuss religion with you or others at Vortex. ***Then don't. Just ignore it. Trying to censor it off Vortex is among many of your strategic followership mistakes. I am not going to take your advice as I am already old enough to have an established opinion. ***And I'm old enough to have mine. Of course, mine is more open minded than yours. And it represents true strategic leadership rather than the PC pablum you push. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart: Trying to weed out religion would whittle down Vortex to about 3 members. Because secular humanism is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Scientism is a religion. Heck, one of my favorite cold fusioneers sued the US Patent Office because he believed in cold fusion, like as in a religion. http://etheric.com/LaViolette/EEOC.html Best of luck with all 3 of those vorts who have zero religion. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not worth the paper it is written on (Not). I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several: 1. You are not qualified. 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless. (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am. At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value - in my opinion. Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is you. You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to insult are not even hitting in the right county. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:  The answer to this question is 100 million. That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)
RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Greetings Jojo, my ancient respected nemesis from the past. I do not believe my previous comments implied that I am rejecting God and Heaven. The conflict, if there really exists one between us, seems to be that we may have slightly different intellectual perspectives as to what God and the Kingdom of Heaven might consist of. IMHO, both reside within us. http://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm In terms that I hope may establish a way for you and I to find some common ground in which to stand on I would submit that God and the Kingdom of Heaven is an eternal dance of Unity. To my way of thinking and feeling, that eternal dance includes sexuality. I include the expression of sexuality because, in my view, it is one of the most obvious, primal forces of Cosmic Creation that conscious sentient beings can experience. The ultimate expression of sexuality is Unity. When it comes to expressing Unity, I suspect God is not a prude, nor do I suspect has the Kingdom of Heaven banned Dirty Dancing. It seems to me that only humans have learned how to behave prudishly when it comes to the infinite creativity sexuality bestows upon sentient creatures like us. Fortunately, I suspect God is very patient about such foibles. I don't know if my comments about sexuality have possibly offended you or not. Be that as it may, in the end I think we must remain True to Our Own School. That means we must live our Own School as best we can. We must be responsible for expressing our own POVs as clearly as we can so that others can evaluate them at their own pace and level of comprehension. That is the only way I know how common ground can be found amongst each other. Likewise, it is not our responsibility nor sacred duty to attempt to manipulate, coerce, or force our POVs, or Our Own School onto others. Again, it would appear that only sentient creatures, like us, seemed to have learned how to do that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are missing out on a lot of things. We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation. We debate arcane subject matters like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises. And I think you do to. The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. So, imagine an existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable riches of Christ for eternity. You will never finish searching everything there is to know. To me, that would be an enjoyable existence. One will not have time to dance, nor would one want to. So, dancing would be the last thing you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise and singing to worship God. I am not referring to that; I am referring to carnal sexual dancing we indulge in.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Steven, I appreciate your point of view. I will respond this last time on this subject matter here and then I will move the discussion to VortexB and if you are willing to continue this discussion, meet me over there. I think it's fun to try to understand another's point of view. Regarding dirty dancing - which is really most forms of dancing we have nowadays. Would it surprise you that I support dirty dancing. Yes, I think dirty dancing is OK in the eyes of God if it is done under the following conditions: 1. It is done with the proper individual/partner (husband or wife; Male husband with female wife), not with your same sex, multi-sex, or androgenous partner. and not with someone who is not your wife or husband. There is no sexual sin if sex is done with your husband or wife. Dirty dancing is not dirty if done with your husband or wife. 2. It is done in the privacy of your own home. No one else can see you. Displaying your dancing in public is tantamount to commiting that same dirty dancing with the person looking at you. 3. It is done to the tune of proper Godly music. Not rock and roll, punk rock, heavy metal or whatever. Music is part of the dancing and in fact, it is the biggest component of dancing. Proper music is not sin. So, in fact, since we are not married in Heaven, there will be no need for dancing, let alone dirty dancing. There will be Godly dancing associated with Godly music of praise and worship. Not dancing and music to satisfy carnal lust. No, comments about sexuality do not offend me. Why should it? Sexuality is a God-given desire and need; and God gave us abundant resource to express it with our own husbands and wives. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 5:45 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Greetings Jojo, my ancient respected nemesis from the past. I do not believe my previous comments implied that I am rejecting God and Heaven. The conflict, if there really exists one between us, seems to be that we may have slightly different intellectual perspectives as to what God and the Kingdom of Heaven might consist of. IMHO, both reside within us. http://biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm In terms that I hope may establish a way for you and I to find some common ground in which to stand on I would submit that God and the Kingdom of Heaven is an eternal dance of Unity. To my way of thinking and feeling, that eternal dance includes sexuality. I include the expression of sexuality because, in my view, it is one of the most obvious, primal forces of Cosmic Creation that conscious sentient beings can experience. The ultimate expression of sexuality is Unity. When it comes to expressing Unity, I suspect God is not a prude, nor do I suspect has the Kingdom of Heaven banned Dirty Dancing. It seems to me that only humans have learned how to behave prudishly when it comes to the infinite creativity sexuality bestows upon sentient creatures like us. Fortunately, I suspect God is very patient about such foibles. I don't know if my comments about sexuality have possibly offended you or not. Be that as it may, in the end I think we must remain True to Our Own School. That means we must live our Own School as best we can. We must be responsible for expressing our own POVs as clearly as we can so that others can evaluate them at their own pace and level of comprehension. That is the only way I know how common ground can be found amongst each other. Likewise, it is not our responsibility nor sacred duty to attempt to manipulate, coerce, or force our POVs, or Our Own School onto others. Again, it would appear that only sentient creatures, like us, seemed to have learned how to do that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are missing out on a lot of things. We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation. We debate arcane subject matters like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises. And I think you do to. The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. So, imagine an existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable riches of Christ for eternity. You will never finish searching everything there is to know. To me, that would be an enjoyable existence. One will not have time to dance, nor would one want to. So, dancing would be the last thing you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise and singing to worship God. I am not referring to that; I am referring to carnal sexual dancing we indulge in.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! ***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on Vortex... Who makes crop circles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
sorry the whole biblical stuff does bot belong here. everybody is entitled to their own believe. Why do we want to find out who is right? Live by your believes and let others live by theirs - end of story. Tired of the biblical or Islamic or Buddha ways of thinking. Tell you what you are all wrong in the right way. All religions end up at the same place. Stop.religion - just stop. All of you. Please. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! ***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on Vortex... Who makes crop circles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful scientific manner. All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is not a constructive way to discuss issues. I am sorry but I will not be able to respond to your inputs without more detailed information. Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the other theories concerning time and space are wrong. New concepts are proposed frequently and they must eventually stand on their own. That is the only proof that can be demonstrated. Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future. They achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of communications. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. ***Perhaps you should. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary? ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an opposite manner. Please show me a sound basis for this belief ***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see. and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. ***Interesting postulation. But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists that have figured out through various
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Who are you to say it does not belong? Perhaps you would throw out all of historicity of the bible, even on mundane events? You'd throw out ALL of reliable history when you do so, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How incredibly close minded for such an open minded group. I see you don't key up on the other (far less historical) religions. Your antichristian bigotry is as ugly as anything ever witnessed on Vortex, and your attempt at censorship highlights your soul's breach. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: sorry the whole biblical stuff does bot belong here. everybody is entitled to their own believe. Why do we want to find out who is right? Live by your believes and let others live by theirs - end of story. Tired of the biblical or Islamic or Buddha ways of thinking. Tell you what you are all wrong in the right way. All religions end up at the same place. Stop.religion - just stop. All of you. Please. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! ***And yet, such an accomplishment has been greeted with a yawn on Vortex... Who makes crop circles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 1:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful scientific manner. ***Well, maybe if any of your questions were posed in a useful scientific manner, they'd get answered. You didn't even read the wikipedia article, did you? All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is not a constructive way to discuss issues. I am sorry but I will not be able to respond to your inputs without more detailed information. ***That wikipedia article offers far more detail than your ridiculous placement of if in front of scientifically invalid presumptions. Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the other theories concerning time and space are wrong. New concepts are proposed frequently and they must eventually stand on their own. That is the only proof that can be demonstrated. ***There's nothing new about your proposal that the universe is infinitely old. Your postulation has been demonstrated to be wrong, time and again, by the weight of the evidence. Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future. ***Dude. Look through my posts. I rarely start with the insults, unless it's an easy target like Lennart. In this thread YOU started with the insults. Can't take the heat, huh? They achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of communications. ***Then why did you start? Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. ***Perhaps you should. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:  The answer to this question is 100 million. That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)
RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned upon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not worth the paper it is written on (Not). I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several: 1. You are not qualified. 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless. (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am. At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value - in my opinion. Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is you. You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to insult are not even hitting in the right county. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:  The answer to this question is 100 million. That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Dave-- As seems to be the case frequently, I tend to agree with you sentiment that Vortex invites fresh ideas about nature, not the nature of people, however. As a result I do not consider comments regarding individuals participating in Vortex and do not respond. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Saturday, August 30, 2014 12:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com You failed to answer any of the questions I posed in a useful scientific manner. All you have generated is a continuous stream of insults and that is not a constructive way to discuss issues. I am sorry but I will not be able to respond to your inputs without more detailed information. Also, for some strange reason you seem to imply that I must prove the other theories concerning time and space are wrong. New concepts are proposed frequently and they must eventually stand on their own. That is the only proof that can be demonstrated. Please make a strong effort to eliminate the insults in the future. They achieve nothing of importance and result in the closing off of communications. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 30, 2014 1:40 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. ***Perhaps you should. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary? ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote: Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension So far, so good. and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension. That's not clear at all. First, God (I'll capitalize it as a proper noun) is described (not in the bible) as omnipitent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere, presumably at the same time), and eternal. But eternal means that he lasts for ever, not that he can move backwards and forwards in time. Your statement about angel's habitation implies that they exist in a finite volume of n-space and, like God, move only forward in time. Likewise, their penetration into a volume of our 3-space is a finite 3-space volume. Therefore your argument that they take up a zero 3-space volume is invalid (or 2-space, if we restrict the solution to the surface of the head of a pin). It may be at the planck scale, but it's still a volume or area. I do agree that the finite number of angels (100+ million) provides a practical upper limit. For example, we could say (and I'm picking these numbers out of the air), that 100 Billion people could stand in a thousand-square mile area -- but the actual number is limited by the world's population. I see no evidence that angels, NOT being omnipresent, can occupy the same volume of n-space, so the exclusion principal applies: they must occupy separate volumes in n-space and, as a sub-set, in 3-space. Next, we come to standing or dancing. The Bible has nothing to say about whether heavenly beings dance or not, but some human dancing is endorsed (and some is declaimed.). But I cannot conceive of a heaven filled with the sound of musical instruments, and the listeners of that celestial movement being required to stand still. In any case, you argue that the 3-D size of an angel is vanishingly small. It will most likely also be subject to a N-dimensional Heisenberg uncertainty principal. By setting their velocity to zero (no dancing) you set the uncertainty of their position to infinity, so you can no longer claim with certainty that they are ON the head of the pin.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
at the Planck size. Hence, it would make sense that the smallest manifestation they can have would be the Planck size. Hence, even if Angels can not occupy the same space and time as I originally speculated, they can still be as small as the Planck size, hence 100 million of them would still fit on the head of a pin. Regarding dancing, I was referring to carnal dancing that our generation indulges in. Angels have no need nor desire to engage in carnal dancing, (at least the non-fallen ones). Jojo - Original Message - From: Alan Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote: Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension So far, so good. and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension. That's not clear at all. First, God (I'll capitalize it as a proper noun) is described (not in the bible) as omnipitent (all powerful), omnipresent (everywhere, presumably at the same time), and eternal. But eternal means that he lasts for ever, not that he can move backwards and forwards in time. Your statement about angel's habitation implies that they exist in a finite volume of n-space and, like God, move only forward in time. Likewise, their penetration into a volume of our 3-space is a finite 3-space volume. Therefore your argument that they take up a zero 3-space volume is invalid (or 2-space, if we restrict the solution to the surface of the head of a pin). It may be at the planck scale, but it's still a volume or area. I do agree that the finite number of angels (100+ million) provides a practical upper limit. For example, we could say (and I'm picking these numbers out of the air), that 100 Billion people could stand in a thousand-square mile area -- but the actual number is limited by the world's population. I see no evidence that angels, NOT being omnipresent, can occupy the same volume of n-space, so the exclusion principal applies: they must occupy separate volumes in n-space and, as a sub-set, in 3-space. Next, we come to standing or dancing. The Bible has nothing to say about whether heavenly beings dance or not, but some human dancing is endorsed (and some is declaimed.). But I cannot conceive of a heaven filled with the sound of musical instruments, and the listeners of that celestial movement being required to stand still. In any case, you argue that the 3-D size of an angel is vanishingly small. It will most likely also be subject to a N-dimensional Heisenberg uncertainty principal. By setting their velocity to zero (no dancing) you set the uncertainty of their position to infinity, so you can no longer claim with certainty that they are ON the head of the pin.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
My friend, if this is the only reason why you reject God and heaven, you are missing out on a lot of things. We vorticians enjoy intellectual stimulation. We debate arcane subject matters like number of angels on the head of a pin. because we enjoy thinking, analysing, deep analysis and other mental and intellectual exercises. And I think you do to. The Bible talks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. So, imagine an existence where you can indulge in this exercise of seaching the unsearchable riches of Christ for eternity. You will never finish searching everything there is to know. To me, that would be an enjoyable existence. One will not have time to dance, nor would one want to. So, dancing would be the last thing you would want to. Although there is a form of dancing associated with praise and singing to worship God. I am not referring to that; I am referring to carnal sexual dancing we indulge in. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 5:55 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned upon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Neither would I, especially since God commands us to dance with joy before Him. https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+verse+%22dance+before+the+lord%22oq=bible+verse+%22dance+before+the+lord%22gs_l=serp.3..0i22i30.18129.22824.0.23022.25.22.1.0.0.0.185.2078.17j5.22.00...1c.1.52.serp..3.22.1984.XWyRUcZ51Y8 On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: I would not want to live an eternity in heaven where dancing is frowned upon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6K7OC-IKnA My cousins are one-half Greek. The parties are memorable. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Lennart: Trying to weed out religion would whittle down Vortex to about 3 members. Because secular humanism is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Scientism is a religion. Heck, one of my favorite cold fusioneers sued the US Patent Office because he believed in cold fusion, like as in a religion. http://etheric.com/LaViolette/EEOC.html Best of luck with all 3 of those vorts who have zero religion. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not worth the paper it is written on (Not). I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several: 1. You are not qualified. 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless. (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am. At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value - in my opinion. Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is you. You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to insult are not even hitting in the right county. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:  The answer to this question is 100 million. That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
OK Kevin I understand you can read but you do not understand full sentences. I do not want to eliminate anyone. I do not want to discuss religion with you or others at Vortex. I am not going to take your advice as I am already old enough to have an established opinion. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart: Trying to weed out religion would whittle down Vortex to about 3 members. Because secular humanism is a religion. Atheism is a religion. Scientism is a religion. Heck, one of my favorite cold fusioneers sued the US Patent Office because he believed in cold fusion, like as in a religion. http://etheric.com/LaViolette/EEOC.html Best of luck with all 3 of those vorts who have zero religion. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Kevin, don't think to hard, it just makes tired. Your response is not worth the paper it is written on (Not). I am not talking about any religion. I am not telling you how it is. I am not asking you to verify my opinion. The reason are several: 1. You are not qualified. 2. If I wanted to talk religion I would join a religious vortex group and there I would say that having a discussion about LENR would be worthless. (They probably are less knowledgeable about LENR than I am. At least have a big flag so I just can delete messages with zero value - in my opinion. Your way of debating is so poor that the only one identifying himself is you. You have no idea about my preferences in any regard so your attempt to insult are not even hitting in the right county. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 07:55 PM 8/29/2014, Jojo Iznart wrote:  The answer to this question is 100 million. That was a very good answer (based on the available sources.)
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. ***You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. And you're stlll unclear. Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you. Sunil: An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system? ***Those are not examples. They're not even worth laughing at. Anyone can submit a CONCEPT with a question mark. You're not even clear enough to submit simple EXAMPLEs. The rest of your writing is a set of examples of the classic fallacy of obfuscation. Until you can avoid classic critical reasoning fallacies and present simple examples, your writing is best avoided. On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Hi, sorry if I was being unclear. Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. I am pointing out the weakness in a calculation based on severe assumptions. I am not trying to prove them (or you) wrong. The prediction: Jojo said I was going to call him/her a fool and say I'll never come back. Nobody's a fool. Btw, what is settled science? An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system? Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you. Why would you want (or need) to laugh at me? I am not laughing at you, or Huxley. most likely doesn't mean a hunch. As with all exploratory science, different methods are being used, so some are more right than others. That is also the basis for saying they are using the wrong methods. Illegitimate assumptions? I can't say (and don't need to say) they are illegitimate, but I can emphasize that that is what they are: assumptions. James Coppedge makes assumptions about how proteins are synthesized from amino acids (http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm), ie, his starting point is that it is a completely random process. Making assumptions like that changes everything. /Sunil -- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:15:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. From: kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Well, your prediction is wrong. ***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? ***because he worked out the math. Unlike your response. But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? ***The chemistry is straight forward. Coppedge worked it out to 1 in 23 trillion trillion that a polypeptide would form into an amino acid, and we need hundreds of thousands of those for life to spontaneously arrive from non-living tissue. That's one of the reasons why brilliant thinkers such as Steven Hawking have turned to panspermia as the solution. First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). ***typically those assumptions are quite conservative, such as assuming that every molecule on earth was available during the 12 billion years in question to help along the chemical reaction, when we all KNOW that such a thing couldn't be the case, it would only be molecules relatively close to the surface. Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. ***Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you over your assertions? Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely ***Most likely? MOst LIKELY? Your refutation is based on a hunch, an OPINION? What a crock of shit. using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! ***Go ahead and demonstrate it. Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. ***If these are illegitimate assumptions, point them out. You don't because you can't. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 *** Oops. Starting with 1/10^23 is far too generous. It’s 1/10^161. http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/creation/crea-evol.html DeNouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material volume equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require “10^243 billions of years.” Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed, requiring compound probability
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one dayis with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
You just Unified Science and Religion! Who makes crop circles? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do. They are also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting. Once in awhile those things need to tuned. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! Who makes crop circles? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
At 10:18 AM 8/29/2014, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. But that's post-creation, where the deity is crossing from (let's call it) heaven into our space-time (earth). Is the deity omnipresent in terms of being everywhere at all times, or is he/she/it only at one place at one time, but can instantly change time and position? My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is there a metaphysics to describe it. ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I haven't found any in Georgia or Alabama, are you sure? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do. They are also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting. Once in awhile those things need to tuned. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! Who makes crop circles? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Simple answer: Rednecks in Georgia Alabama aren't smart enough... or aren't bored enough... etc. Also, the beam weapons would be focused on strategic locations. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:34 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't found any in Georgia or Alabama, are you sure? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Crop circles are formed by rednecks with nothing better to do. They are also formed by microwave beam weaponry from satellites orbiting. Once in awhile those things need to tuned. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You just Unified Science and Religion! Who makes crop circles? On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Yup. The bible says a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I haven't been following this thread. But can somebody please give me an estimate of the average rate of deity-formation. (That is, an omnipitent, omnipresent deity capable of creating a universe -- or maybe even a multiverse -- and then diddle with DNA over a coupla/few billion years.). Would the deity-creation rate be femto-deities per Age? Or do time and space only apply in our current universe (and are possibly emergent properties from a finer structure). The only scaling factor I can find is But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day*is* with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. -- but that's post-creation. The only comparable methodology I can find is the emergence of a Boltzman Brain in our current universe, which also seems statistically unlikely.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
But that's post-creation, ***During those first 6 days of creation, it was not post-creation. And there's a bible verse that says something to the effect that God continues to create, which is a good clue about why our universe is still expanding. where the deity is crossing from (let's call it) heaven into our space-time (earth). ***I think a better expression is that the deity is CREATING our space-time. Is the deity omnipresent in terms of being everywhere at all times, ***Probably. or is he/she/it only at one place at one time, but can instantly change time and position? ***Such a deity would appear omnipresent even by today's terms. This is a question we won't be able to answer in our lifetimes. My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. ***Well, I answered your original question. Now you want to expand it into areas where I have diminishing interest. There's basically no scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion. Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is there a metaphysics to describe it. ***There certainly isn't a metaphysics for it. But the bible is far more relevant to this discussion than other supposed spiritual works which describe earthquakes as the result of elephants jumping up down. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 10:18 AM 8/29/2014, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Science today tells us that someone travelling the speed of light (the twin paradox) for a year would return to his twin back on earth, and the twin would have aged 100 years. Is God restricted to the speed of light? NO WAY. He no doubt travels faster than that, and so for him to spend a day on creation would look like billions of years to an observer on earth. All verified science. Think about it. But that's post-creation, where the deity is crossing from (let's call it) heaven into our space-time (earth). Is the deity omnipresent in terms of being everywhere at all times, or is he/she/it only at one place at one time, but can instantly change time and position? My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. Is there a meta-space and meta-time, and if so, is there a metaphysics to describe it. ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Between one and 30 vigintillion angels. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. ***Well, I answered your original question. Now you want to expand it into areas where I have diminishing interest. There's basically no scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion. Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I doubt that. I know there's a lot of focus on the first few seconds or milliseconds of creation, but focusing on the universe prior to that the level of information is asymptotic to zero. We'll get no better than the earth was formless and void. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. ***Well, I answered your original question. Now you want to expand it into areas where I have diminishing interest. There's basically no scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion. Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
At 11:28 AM 8/29/2014, you wrote: I doubt that. I know there's a lot of focus on the first few seconds or milliseconds of creation, but focusing on the universe prior to that the level of information is asymptotic to zero. We'll get no better than the earth was formless and void. Gravitational Waves Reveal the Universe before the Big Bang http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2014/04/03/gravitational-waves-reveal-the-universe-before-the-big-bang-an-interview-with-physicist-gabriele-veneziano/ What Came Before the Big Bang ? | DiscoverMagazine.com http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point Before the Big Bang ? - The Official String Theory Web Site http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html ... etc etc ...
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion years BBB? If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past. There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of it has passed since that zero point. Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time passage and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is no concern about how long it might take life to take form. There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band since that was an infinite amount of time ago. In this scenario we take advantage of the behavior of infinite processes. To expand on this idea. Perhaps the present assumption of a period of universal inflation is really just a patch to make the time frames fit into our best guess for the age of the universe. Our perception of the rate at which time passes is established by the world around us and ensures that we will find it difficult to imagine a universe of infinite time duration. The same can be said of our perception of an infinite space. With the proposition I am outlining above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and can fit into our observations. I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so simple, and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. ***Well, I answered your original question. Now you want to expand it into areas where I have diminishing interest. There's basically no scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion. Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
At 01:17 PM 8/29/2014, David Roberson wrote: Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion years BBB? Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time passage and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. At Multiverse Impasse, a New Theory of Scale http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140818-at-multiverse-impasse-a-new-the ory-of-scale/ Mass and length may not be fundamental properties of nature, according to new ideas bubbling out of the multiverse. (I'm not sure if that article addresses time, which may also be -- in the way WE experience it -- emergent. At the lowest level it might just be a click from one state to another. At present the clicks are so regular that we see them as a smooth flow. At some earlier configuration a billion of our years could pass between clicks.)
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion years BBB? ***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what happened a billion years before time was created is like asking what's the difference between a duck? It is useless. Like I said, diminishing returns. If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever ***This ain't scientific inquiry any more. If we choose to believe that unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists. then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past. There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of it has passed since that zero point. ***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here, we're all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity. Maybe it's fun for you to think like that but it is a waste of time. Like I said, diminishing returns. Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? ***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion years. According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time passage ***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of time passage. The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near close enough to stop it. and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. ***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into existence, as He has claimed to do. So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is no concern about how long it might take life to take form. ***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think this way. And a waste of time. BTW, you're still arguing on this side of the big bang, not a billion years before it. There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band since that was an infinite amount of time ago. In this scenario we take advantage of the behavior of infinite processes. ***Then why did you bring it up earlier? To expand on this idea. Perhaps the present assumption of a period of universal inflation is really just ***really just a buncha baloney. a patch to make the time frames fit into our best guess for the age of the universe. Our perception of the rate at which time passes is established by the world around us and ensures that we will find it difficult to imagine a universe of infinite time duration. The same can be said of our perception of an infinite space. With the proposition I am outlining above, both of these dimensions are allowed to be unbounded and can fit into our observations. ***But they DON'T fit into our observations. I make no claim that this idea is original since the principle seems so simple, and I personally tend to consider it open minded thinking. ***Of COURSE you consider it open minded thinking. And no doubt you'd consider other options to be closed minded thinking. That's because you disagree with the end result. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. My question is about the metaphysics of where/how/what heaven was before creation. ***Well, I answered your original question. Now you want to expand it into areas where I have diminishing interest. There's basically no scientific (and probably very little spiritual) value in such a discussion. Contrariwise : pre-big-bang is one of the hottest areas of physics right now.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Between one and 30 vigintillion angels. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576 about the origin of that question: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin Harry
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary? Please show me a sound basis for this belief and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner. Why limit it to some well defined starting point just because we can not prove so far that it exists prior to that point. Unfortunately we are quite limited in our ability to understand the true nature of the universe. I appreciate people that want to contribute to the discussions but when someone comes forward with an attitude of ridicule, it is preferable that they keep their negative thoughts to themselves. Your comments typically fall into that negative category. Try to look at the positive aspects of issues and most of us will respond in a like manner. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion years BBB? ***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what happened a billion years before time was created is like asking what's the difference between a duck? It is useless. Like I said, diminishing returns. If we choose to believe that time has been passing forever ***This ain't scientific inquiry any more. If we choose to believe that unicorns poop skittles then we'll need more dentists. then there would be plenty of time for life to develop during the past. There is sufficient evidence that everything we see today was produced during and after the assumed big bang, but what if time itself was slowed down at the initialization of the big bang such that an infinite amount of it has passed since that zero point. ***And what if time is just an illusion, you aint here and I aint here, we're all just plugged into a matrix to generate electricity. Maybe it's fun for you to think like that but it is a waste of time. Like I said, diminishing returns. Our measurement techniques and assumptions lead us to believe that 13+ odd billion years has elapsed, but what if we are wrong? ***Then maybe 14 billion years have elapsed, but not 500trilliontrillion years. According to relativity, immense mass concentration slows down the rate of time passage ***In order for your theory to be true, it would have to stop the rate of time passage. The entire mass of the known universe wouldn't even be near close enough to stop it. and it is difficult to imagine a more dense concentration than that of the initial big bang mass of the entire known universe. ***Then imagine something even more dense that CREATED it, spoke it into existence, as He has claimed to do. So, if an infinite amount of time has passed since the big bang there is no concern about how long it might take life to take form. ***Other than the fact that your supposition is baloney, it's fun to think this way. And a waste of time. BTW, you're still arguing on this side of the big bang, not a billion years before it. There is also no need to be concerned about what was before the big band since that was an infinite amount of time ago. In this scenario we take advantage of the behavior of infinite processes. ***Then why did you bring it up earlier? To expand on this idea. Perhaps the present assumption of a period of universal inflation is really just
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
The answer to this question is 100 million. It may come as a surprise to many but the Bible may have an answer to this question. I am answering this not to show how biblically knowledgeable I am, but to show the skeptic that the Bible has many many answers to many many difficult questions if one simply takes the time to study it and evaluate the evidence it presents with an open mind. To try to answer this question - the question of how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? I need to lay some groundwork. But before I do that, let it be clear to everyone that Angles don't dance. That carnal behavior is beneath them. So, the proper question is - How many Angels can stand on the head of a pin. 1. First, let's understand that the Bible teaches that our 3.5 dimensional world (3 space dimensions, plus 1/2 of time dimension - 1/2 because we can only travel in that dimension 1 way - only towards the future, we can't move back in time.) - that our 3.5 dimensional world is but a part of a reality that is composed of maybe up to 10 dimensions. Paul talks of being taken to the third heaven - this is another place of existence inaccesible to us mortals. Maimonides, an ancient Jewish Scholar, believed that we live in a 10-dimensional world only 4 of which was knowable. John, when describing the New Jerusalem, talks of the streets of being made of Pure Gold like clear glass. How can pure gold be like clear glass other than there is another dimension wherein this pure opaque gold exists wherein one can see thru it. Jude, when describing angels talks of how fallen angels left their habitation, which imply that they have another type of habitation (Body). Jesus in his ressurection body was able to pass thru doors and appear and disappear at will, and also float up to heaven at his ascension. Jesus at the transfiguration was transformed to a bright and shining form of body. Even our latest science tells the same story. There are many scholar who believe that our reality is but a projection - a hologram, a simulation of a larger multi-dimensional reality. Doesn't Dawkins talk of a multiverse? He is reflecting the sentiment of many scholars, who may not necessarily, and in fact, are not Christians. Doesn't our Latest String Theory talk of a 10-dimensional Universe? So, the point of my first point, is that there is reason to believe from the Bible as well as from Science that we live in a Universe which may be up to 10 dimensions. Thus, Angels are in fact multi-dimensional creatures. They can come and go into our dimension, assume any shape they like in our dimension and can occupy the same space at the same time in our dimension. 2. Second, to begin to answer how many Angels can fit on the head of a pin, let's examine the broader question of how many Angels there are. Revelations 5.11 has this to say. As far as I know, this is the only place in the Bible where the number of Angels is explicitly mentioned. It says 10 thousand times 10 thousands and thousands of thousands. Rev 5:11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; I don't know what thousands of thousands is, but I do know that 10 thousand times 10 thousand is 100 million. Hence, the answer to the question is 100 million Angels can fit on the head of pin. If you count fallen Angels in the mix, the number would be 150 million because 1/3 of the Angels followed Satan in the fall leaving behind 2/3 which is 100 million. Jojo - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Between one and 30 vigintillion angels. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576 about the origin of that question: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin Harry
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
, 2014 9:56 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ps Did anyone ever figure out how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Between one and 30 vigintillion angels. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comicsid=2576 about the origin of that question: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin Harry
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. ***Perhaps you should. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary? ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an opposite manner. Please show me a sound basis for this belief ***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see. and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. ***Interesting postulation. But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists that have figured out through various means how old the universe is. I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner. ***And your speculation is crap. But in your close-mindedness, you have raised your hackles. If YOU are just speculating, why do you denigrate me for what you perceive as MY speculating? Shouldn't speculation be wrong for both sides in a debate, or right? In this case you're arguing that it's okay for you but not for me. What an INCREDIBLY closed mind. -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Lets call time before the big bang as BBB. So what was around 1 billion years BBB? ***Time was created at the beginning of the big bang, so asking what happened a billion years before time was created is like asking what's the difference between a duck
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Good place to start for wormhole stuff http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=through-the-wormholeepisode=s01e02 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, Apparently you have your fixed concepts of how the universe began ***Apparently you do not accept scientific evidence. It is you who has a fixed concept of how the universe began. and have a difficult time relating to flexible ideas. ***There is none so inflexible as a crackpot pushing some ridiculous , unsupported and unscientific idea such as the universe has existed forever. The reason I asked about 1 billion years before the big bang was to open discussion about the problem now facing our understanding of time before that event. It was just rhetorical. ***It was stupid. And if it were truly rhetorical, you'd have stated that upfront rather than go into insult mode. How can you be sure that time or the universe has not been existing forever? Why don't you just start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe and tell me where they went wrong?And since you're the one saying you need proof, provide proof of your supposition. You won't because you can't. Reference to the bible is not scientific and I know you are aware of that. ***Feel free to refute that wikipedia article, especially all its dangerous biblical references. If you choose to think otherwise, then let others among us think with an open mind. ***It would appear that you think having an open mind is by throwing the word if in front of a completely unsupported statement, then later on claiming it was just a rhetorical question. Your mind is closed. Is it your intent to stop creative thought? ***Is it yours? Why do you go down unscientific paths of thought and then at the same time denigrate biblical evidence? Because your mind is closed, not open. Please explain how you can prove that the universe truly began approximately 13+ billion years ago. ***Start with the wikipedia article. Try to learn something. The measurements that have been conducted are continually subject to correction. Unless God speaks directly to you then you are merely speculating. ***Tell that to the multiple scientific disciplines that have narrowed down the range of time over the years. Tell them they're merely speculating, and that unless God speaks directly to them, they are incorrect. Good luck with that. Have you looked into the time dilation expected to occur near black hole event horizons? ***A little bit. Do you accept the science surrounding it, or are you going to backtrack when it is shown to you that the same kind of science that talks about that is also the science that leads us to a 14B year old universe. Most black holes are not considered to have a mass that is anywhere near as great as the entire universe yet they are capable of bringing time to a standstill. ***No, they are not. They are capable of slowing time down, not bringing it to a standstill. On what basis do you claim that there is insufficient mass within the universe to reach that threshold? ***The latest lecture by Dyson, for one thing. And other cosmologists. Perhaps you should review your statement and offer correction. ***Perhaps you should. Do you consider the universe to be contained within some physical boundary? ***This has no bearing on the discussion. You're just fishing because you're all riled up, you don't know what you're talking about, your supposition is proven ridiculous, and you're anti-biblical to boot. That's a lot of close-mindedness for someone who looks at himself in such an opposite manner. Please show me a sound basis for this belief ***Already proceeding down a straw argument path, I see. and just because we can not see beyond a certain distance does not mean that it doesn't exist outside of our viewpoint. ***Interesting postulation. But it has no bearing on the discussion at hand, so perhaps you should take up your discussion with all the scientists that have figured out through various means how old the universe is. I am just speculating that time behaves in a similar manner. ***And your speculation is crap. But in your close-mindedness, you have raised your hackles. If YOU are just speculating, why do you denigrate me for what you perceive as MY speculating? Shouldn't speculation be wrong for both sides in a debate, or right? In this case you're arguing that it's okay for you but not for me. What an INCREDIBLY closed mind. -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 29, 2014 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Hi, sorry if I was being unclear. Please understand, that I am not really taking one or the other side. I am pointing out the weakness in a calculation based on severe assumptions. I am not trying to prove them (or you) wrong. The prediction: Jojo said I was going to call him/her a fool and say I'll never come back. Nobody's a fool. Btw, what is settled science? An example of errors in small numbers being fatal, might be: weather prediction? The butterfly effect? An astable system? Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you. Why would you want (or need) to laugh at me? I am not laughing at you, or Huxley. most likely doesn't mean a hunch. As with all exploratory science, different methods are being used, so some are more right than others. That is also the basis for saying they are using the wrong methods. Illegitimate assumptions? I can't say (and don't need to say) they are illegitimate, but I can emphasize that that is what they are: assumptions. James Coppedge makes assumptions about how proteins are synthesized from amino acids (http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c06.htm), ie, his starting point is that it is a completely random process. Making assumptions like that changes everything. /Sunil Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:15:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. From: kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Well, your prediction is wrong. ***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? ***because he worked out the math. Unlike your response. But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? ***The chemistry is straight forward. Coppedge worked it out to 1 in 23 trillion trillion that a polypeptide would form into an amino acid, and we need hundreds of thousands of those for life to spontaneously arrive from non-living tissue. That's one of the reasons why brilliant thinkers such as Steven Hawking have turned to panspermia as the solution. First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). ***typically those assumptions are quite conservative, such as assuming that every molecule on earth was available during the 12 billion years in question to help along the chemical reaction, when we all KNOW that such a thing couldn't be the case, it would only be molecules relatively close to the surface. Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. ***Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you over your assertions? Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely ***Most likely? MOst LIKELY? Your refutation is based on a hunch, an OPINION? What a crock of shit. using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! ***Go ahead and demonstrate it. Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. ***If these are illegitimate assumptions, point them out. You don't because you can't. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 *** Oops. Starting with 1/10^23 is far too generous. It’s 1/10^161. http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/creation/crea-evol.html DeNouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material volume equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require “10^243 billions of years.” Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed, requiring compound probability calculations for each successive molecule. His logical conclusion is that “it is totally impossible to account scientifically [naturally] for all phenomena pertaining to life.”32 Even 40 years ago, scientist Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and Evolution, wrote that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.”33 Noted creation scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, authors of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 × 10191.34 “Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Well, your prediction is wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. Best Regards, Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS. Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field? OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution. My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether you like it or not. Jojo PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man. Wait Wait Wait for it ... Here it comes: You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. You should be banned from this forum because you do not accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Well, your prediction is wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. Best Regards, Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day. I hope that clears things up. On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest. But since Huxley is a known staunch Darwinian Evolutionist, you say he is incompetent. How can one discuss science in the face of such INTRACTABLE RIDICULOUSNESS. Do you honestly feel that you are more qualified to make the computations than Julian Huxley, who is a long term researcher in this field? OK, I'll bite. How off do you think Huxley was in his computations. Was he off by a factor of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 200,000? Even if he was off by a factor of 299,000 (we take out 299,000 zeroes from the number), that probability is still 10^1000. Still impossible. (I presume you know that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in our Universe and that anything above 10^50 is considered a impossible event.) Any sensible man would recognize the mathematical improbability of Darwinian Evolution. My friend, if you are objective, you need to accept all results whether you like it or not. Jojo PS: Did you even read my first link? If you did, you would realize that I do not accept the result of one man only, as that first link contains computations from many people. In fact, I deliberately included another link to illustrate more computations, this time from another man. Wait Wait Wait for it ... Here it comes: You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. You should be banned from this forum because you do not accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - *From:* Sunil Shah javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','s.u.n@hotmail.com'); *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Well, your prediction is wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. Best Regards, Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jojoiznar...@gmail.com'); To: vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com'); Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. *http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability* http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
... - Original Message - *From:* Sunil Shah *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Well, your prediction is wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. Best Regards, Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied the math acknowledge that the mechanism for Darwinian Evolution just won't happen. Only ignorant folks like you mouth off as if you knew something Here's further reading if you are inclined to continue embarrassing yourself. *http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability* http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ Jojo PS: I can already predict your reaction. You: Jojo you're a fool, Evolution is settled science, I am not going to debate this anymore. I will not debate with someone who can't accept basic science. Me: Whatever!!! LOL... - Original Message - *From:* Sunil Shah *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:12 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) Why are you assuming changes are sustained? Why are you assuming changes are observable? The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There are facts here. The facts are that human, fly and worm appears to have some common genomic processes. These are facts that I will not deny. This is the interpretation. That human, fly and worm have a common ancestor. The interpretation of the facts is just an opinion. It is not a fact that human, fly and worm have a common ancestry. That is simply an interpretation, a conclusion, of what the person thinks it means. Evolutionist like to conflate their interpretation with the facts and promote their interpretation as fact. This is the reason why so many people are deluded. They do not think enough to separate the facts from the interpretation of what the facts mean. If you are still confused as what my point is: FACT: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common INTERPRETATION: reflecting their shared ancestry. I could just as easily said: MY INTERPRETATION: reflecting a common designer. Hence: YOUR VIEW: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. MY VIEW: Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting a common designer. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their shared ancestry. The findings, appearing Aug. 28, 2014, in the journal Nature, offer insights into embryonic development, gene regulation and other biological processes vital to understanding human biology and disease. Consortium studied how gene expression patterns and regulatory proteins that help determine cell fate often share common features. Investigators also detailed the similar ways in which the three species use protein packaging to compact DNA into the cell nucleus and to regulate genome function by controlling access to DNA. The insights gained about the workings of model organisms' genomes greatly help to inform our understanding of human biology. One way to describe and understand the human genome is through comparative genomics and studying model organisms, said Mark Gerstein, Ph.D., Albert L. Williams Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and the lead author on one of the papers. The special thing about the worm and fly is that they are very distant from humans evolutionarily, so finding something conserved across all three – human, fly and worm – tells us it is a very ancient, fundamental process. Investigators showed that the ways in which DNA is packaged in the cell are similar in many respects, and, in many cases, the species share programs for turning on and off genes in a coordinated manner. More specifically, they used gene expression patterns to match the stages of worm and fly development and found sets of genes that parallel each other in their usage. They also found the genes specifically expressed in the worm and fly embryos are re-expressed in the fly pupae, the stage between larva and adult. The researchers found that in all three organisms, the gene expression levels for both protein-coding and non-protein-coding genes could be quantitatively predicted from chromatin features at the promoters of genes. A gene's promoter tells the cell's machinery where to begin copying DNA into RNA, which can be used to make proteins. DNA is packaged into chromatin in cells, and changes in this packaging can regulate gene function. If Darwinian Evolution was considered an Absurdity, this work would not have been done. Such is the danger of religious precipice in science. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day. I hope that clears things up. On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist, you would say he is biased and not objective or not honest
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever seen. Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. Then why don't you go to the effort of dismantling it? And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in arguments like these: The failure to realize what a big number is. ***And I see, time and time again, all kinds of commentary but really very little of substance when someone postulates something supposedly so refutable. First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. ***Then, by all means, we should be seeing observable changes every few seconds, since there are so many more possible. Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. ***What a poorly worded refutation. What entity? Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just proved something. May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. ***May I suggest: Your refutation is worthless. So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. ***Perhaps you should have another go, and learn how to write understandably before you engage such heavy sarcasm. Let your argumentation facts speak for themselves, similar to the DNA evidence being discussed. (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one change every 140 hours is fast.) ***And yet, we've studied hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit fly and the only thing we've seen come of it is... another generation of fruit fly. Why are you assuming changes are sustained? ***Because it appears to be necessary for the theory of evolution to be valid. Why are you assuming changes are observable? ***Because Darwin did, and the converse is an argument from silence. The math would say: A very small change x A rather long time (from your perspective) = An unobservably small change. ***Argument from silence. Historically considered invalid in critical thinking classes. You can do better. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote: Well, your prediction is wrong. ***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong. Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? ***because he worked out the math. Unlike your response. But who is to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question?? ***The chemistry is straight forward. Coppedge worked it out to 1 in 23 trillion trillion that a polypeptide would form into an amino acid, and we need hundreds of thousands of those for life to spontaneously arrive from non-living tissue. That's one of the reasons why brilliant thinkers such as Steven Hawking have turned to panspermia as the solution. First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers (probabilities that things will occur). ***typically those assumptions are quite conservative, such as assuming that every molecule on earth was available during the 12 billion years in question to help along the chemical reaction, when we all KNOW that such a thing couldn't be the case, it would only be molecules relatively close to the surface. Large errors in small numbers tend to make equations explode you know. ***Why don't you show us an example so we can simply laugh at you over your assertions? Secondly, and much, much worse, is that they are making assumptions about How Things Work. In other words, they are most likely ***Most likely? MOst LIKELY? Your refutation is based on a hunch, an OPINION? What a crock of shit. using the wrong algorithm, the wrong equation, the wrong mechanism! ***Go ahead and demonstrate it. Since we (humans) don't KNOW what equations to use for things like Life, we make assumptions, and that is what Huxley et al are doing. ***If these are illegitimate assumptions, point them out. You don't because you can't. They are picking numbers and equations as they seem fit! Are they correct? Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Reviews-Creationist-Books-Liz-Hughes/dp/0939873524/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409140674sr=1-1 *** Oops. Starting with 1/10^23 is far too generous. It’s 1/10^161. http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/creation/crea-evol.html DeNouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He assumes 500 trillion shakings per second plus a liquid material volume equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require “10^243 billions of years.” Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed, requiring compound probability calculations for each successive molecule. His logical conclusion is that “it is totally impossible to account scientifically [naturally] for all phenomena pertaining to life.”32 Even 40 years ago, scientist Harold F. Blum, writing in Time’s Arrow and Evolution, wrote that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.”33 Noted creation scientists Walter L. Bradley and Charles Thaxton, authors of The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, point out that the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 × 10191.34 “Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.”35 Now, if a figure as “small” as 5 chances in 10191 is referenced by such a statement, then what are we to make of the kinds of probabilities below that, which are infinitely less? The mind simply boggles at the remarkable faith of the materialist. According to Coppedge, the probability of evolving a single protein molecule over 5 billion years is estimated at 1 chance in 10161. This even allows some 14 concessions to help it along which would not actually be present during evolution.36 Again, this is no chance. You see, you have fallen into the same trap that many do, namely accepting the results of one person/team as correct. To be honest, most science doesn't work like that. ***But you seem to work like that. So it's okay for you but not for others. Best Regards, Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:58:30 +0800 OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000 zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles in the Universe, I'd say those odds are impossible, wouldn't you say? This just goes to show that those who are experts and have studied
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Liberal assumption? That's news to me. There's a conservative assumption, which means a cautious assumption, which doesn't take outlier data as true until more data is accumulated. This is not at all related to conservative/liberal politics. 2014-08-26 12:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (jojoiznar...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DuONUUUvdTn%252Ftb2%252BYoSSh69jOEgaJHdNijIOGHFBhywNEADcfsYdOSlELBWk2wo0VNMOq%252FtRQ4J8YfM6Bb7KmoJmt%252F6qJ3B4wR84qBdy4DvQPK3ads9gFXw50y61igR2nrk2rvilzFNmE7jJ2e49YHw%253D%253D%26key%3DFESCqLVrtX9ss%252F3IyweaZLnYsBpmT222nb%252BMTrzV5XA%253Dtc_serial=18373412774tc_rand=372860256utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18373412774tc_rand=372860256utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Interesting argument that I had not seen before. And it starts with life being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago. That makes it a very conservative theory. Working backwards, we should see the kind of change you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. Can it have something to do with a increasing level of crackpottery at this site? On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Interesting argument that I had not seen before. And it starts with life being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago. That makes it a very conservative theory. Working backwards, we should see the kind of change you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - FROM: Jed Rothwell [2] TO: vortex-l@eskimo.com [3] SENT: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM SUBJECT: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed Links: -- [1] mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com [2] mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com [3] mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com [4] mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
If it's so easy to label his argument as crackpottery then it should be just as easy for you to prove it. So far, no one has addressed his argument, just a bunch of sniping commentary. Perhaps if there was more rational discussion of classical arguments, and less sniping, there'd be less unsubscribing. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:06 AM, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. Can it have something to do with a increasing level of crackpottery at this site? On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting argument that I had not seen before. And it starts with life being present at the beginning, whereas the earliest life postulated by abiogenesis proponents is about 5 Billion years ago. That makes it a very conservative theory. Working backwards, we should see the kind of change you postulate once every 2 days, not 6 days. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being 16,000,000,000 years. (504576 seconds) Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell lifeform. Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences between man and single cell lifeform.) This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 days (504576/1) for it to evolve into Man. This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why that is the case. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I have it on good authority that the origins of Christianity and Anthropomorphic GM is the common fungus Amanita muscaria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YD06vjg0Jg And if you would kindly stick to the topic, or, at least otherwise label your posts [OT] in the heading so that they might be easily filtered, we would have fewer people leaving the list. And now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others? 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DaAnxdVWPjC40D43h1e%252BG9Z3%252Fci%252Fl%252Fqm4p8DOd34qMTgqELceqBScpC%252F3k3m91alTvre1LcZSwsAQ6BI4SVItD0i1FQSulTq5GFBXj1AgT00UFYLH7BWYbT2mWL62e%252BeTfe%252FOSfNj5apxU%252BS9%252B272dg%253D%253D%26key%3DXLGrslO6UOY4%252B7OL9egrIf%252B%252FtGVSvcnacDpxaVYy21o%253Dtc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Hi all I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see him other than when he is mentioned in others posts. Kind Regards walker On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others? 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DaAnxdVWPjC40D43h1e%252BG9Z3%252Fci%252Fl%252Fqm4p8DOd34qMTgqELceqBScpC%252F3k3m91alTvre1LcZSwsAQ6BI4SVItD0i1FQSulTq5GFBXj1AgT00UFYLH7BWYbT2mWL62e%252BeTfe%252FOSfNj5apxU%252BS9%252B272dg%253D%253D%26key%3DXLGrslO6UOY4%252B7OL9egrIf%252B%252FtGVSvcnacDpxaVYy21o%253Dtc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution.
Hi all If everyone adds him to their spam filters he will disappear back in to his own little fairytale world of utter irrelevance. See Evolution works thank Darwin. Kind Regards walker On 26 August 2014 22:15, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all I just added Jojo the fairytale numpty to my spam filter I no longer see him other than when he is mentioned in others posts. Kind Regards walker On 26 August 2014 21:37, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just saw 1 unsubscribe. Where did you see others? 2014-08-26 15:06 GMT-03:00 torulf.gr...@bredband.net: [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (torulf.gr...@bredband.net) Add cleanup rule https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DaAnxdVWPjC40D43h1e%252BG9Z3%252Fci%252Fl%252Fqm4p8DOd34qMTgqELceqBScpC%252F3k3m91alTvre1LcZSwsAQ6BI4SVItD0i1FQSulTq5GFBXj1AgT00UFYLH7BWYbT2mWL62e%252BeTfe%252FOSfNj5apxU%252BS9%252B272dg%253D%253D%26key%3DXLGrslO6UOY4%252B7OL9egrIf%252B%252FtGVSvcnacDpxaVYy21o%253Dtc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 | More info http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=18374517824tc_rand=1647164304utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001 Its have been lots of unsubscribing in the last time. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com