crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church

[RCG Trader]

Not to get into the middle of this ontological argument, but the Bible documents that Moses married an Ethiopian.

Now, I could be wrong here, but Ethiopian and white do not exactly go together.

So does that not invalidate the interracial argument right there?

Just sayin.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

This is a synopsis review of one of the six numbers...

"We now discuss the main contents of Martin Rees’ book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. The main thesis of this book is that the evolution (both physical and biological) of our universe is remarkably sensitive to the values of six numbers. If any of their values was ‘untuned,” there would be no stars and life as we know it in our current universe.

We will now discuss these six numbers, and the next section will discuss several interpretations based on the conclusions of this section.

N = Relative strength of electrical force over gravitational force (e.g., electrical force between 2 protons/gravitational force between 2 protons) = (approximately) 1036, i.e., the gravitational force is extremely weak compared with the electrical force.
Matter is made up of atoms and molecules which in general are neutral because they are made up of equal numbers of protons (positively charge) and electrons (negatively charge), and some neutrons (neutrally charge). Therefore, even though the electrical force is so much larger than the gravitational force, the aggregate force governing the macroscopic structure of matter is the gravitational force, and not the electrical force. This self gravitational force will pull the matter inward into smaller and smaller spheres. When they get smaller and smaller, its temperature gets hotter and hotter, because temperature is due to the collision of atoms with each other within the matter, and there will be more collisions if the spheres are smaller. When the interior temperature gets hot enough, nuclear fusion reactions can occur as in our sun. These nuclear fusion reactions release energy and therefore outward pressure which can counteract the inward pressure from gravitation. That keeps the matter from continuous collapse and allows stars like our sun to shine from the released energy.

However, If the gravitational force were larger, e.g., a million times larger, i.e., if N=1030, then the matter spheres would collapse much faster into smaller spheres when they reach the temperature which can generate the nuclear fusion reactions and stabilize the matter. Under these circumstances, galaxies would form much more quickly and would be much smaller in size (due to less time for the universe to expand). Instead of the stars being widely dispersed, they would be so densely packed that close encounters would be frequent, thus precluding stable planetary systems, which are a prerequisite for life. Furthermore, when gravity is so strong (relatively speaking), no animals could get much larger than very tiny insects, because gravity would cause any larger living organism to collapse.

We can conclude that instead of having 36 zeros after 1 in the value of N, if there were only 30 zeros after 1, then the universe would be very much different from the current universe, and life as we know it would not be able to exist. Note: On the other hand, if the gravitational force were even weaker, i.e., if N is even larger (having more than 36 zeros after 1), then it would take longer to form galactic structure, and galactic structures would be less densely populated, and larger and perhaps more complex life organisms, different from current life organisms, could exist."

http://www.dontow.com/2010/01/revie...bers-the-deep-forces-that-shape-the-universe/

----------------------

There are five more numbers to read about in the review.

Note I have already given you the info about the cosmological constant. Which was the finding that moved most of the scientists in the world into our universe appears finely tuned camp.

You are an asshole no thinker if you keep trying to say that I am giving you religion. I am giving science.

have you been caught lying about what another scientist is telling you?no intelligent design:


Martin Rees: I've got no religious beliefs at all
Another point is if you are teaching Muslim sixth formers in a school and you tell them they can't have their God and Darwin, there is a risk they will choose their God and be lost to science. So those are two respects where I would disagree with the emphasis of the professional atheists, as it were.

IS: Do you see an importance in trying to diffuse some of the conflict that sometimes gets stoked up between science and religion?

MR: I think they can co-exist. They are very different activities. Obviously one opposes Creationism and such-like, but it's fairly clear that there are some scientists for whom religion is important and most of us for whom it isn't, but again I think they can be co-existent.


IS: What is your take on how schools should deal with Creationism and Intelligent Design?

MR: I have no unconventional views on this at all.

IS: Should they be taught within the religious aspects of a curriculum, or do they have a place in the science curriculum?

MR: Science teachers have to address them if they are brought up, but I am rather opposed to faith schools in general.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview

 

[jem]

how dense are you no thinker?

I have been telling I am presenting science not religion.

When you quote Rees saying he has no religion at all... you make my point.

The appearance of fine tuning in our universe has been observed by our top scientists.... many of whom are atheist or agnostic.

How you explain the fine tunings... that is where faith and speculation may come into play.

 

[jem]

My response to your lunacy is above.

Quote from Free Thinker:

have you been caught lying about what another scientist is telling you?no intelligent design:


Martin Rees: I've got no religious beliefs at all
Another point is if you are teaching Muslim sixth formers in a school and you tell them they can't have their God and Darwin, there is a risk they will choose their God and be lost to science. So those are two respects where I would disagree with the emphasis of the professional atheists, as it were.

IS: Do you see an importance in trying to diffuse some of the conflict that sometimes gets stoked up between science and religion?

MR: I think they can co-exist. They are very different activities. Obviously one opposes Creationism and such-like, but it's fairly clear that there are some scientists for whom religion is important and most of us for whom it isn't, but again I think they can be co-existent.


IS: What is your take on how schools should deal with Creationism and Intelligent Design?

MR: I have no unconventional views on this at all.

IS: Should they be taught within the religious aspects of a curriculum, or do they have a place in the science curriculum?

MR: Science teachers have to address them if they are brought up, but I am rather opposed to faith schools in general.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview

 

[jem]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Not to get into the middle of this ontological argument, but the Bible documents that Moses married an Ethiopian.

Now, I could be wrong here, but Ethiopian and white do not exactly go together.

So does that not invalidate the interracial argument right there?

Just sayin.

That argument never got started. We told no thinker that it was ridiculous that he was always pointing out the outlier nut cases.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

how dense are you no thinker?

I have been telling I am presenting science not religion.

no. you are taking a gap in our knowledge and sticking your god in it even though the people you use as your evidence directly say you are wrong. you are making up falsehoods about what you are reading in a dishonest attempt to find a gap where you can say "god did it".

this video has many of the people you quote. you seem to not be able to comprehend what they write. can you find a way to lie about what they say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuxgdkqvuRE

The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively sceptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god. This is a compilation of some of the best examples of such individuals with their thoughts on the divine. They include in order of appearance:

Professor Stephen Hawking is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, and was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years.

Lord Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.

Dr Sam Harris is an American author, neuroscientist and CEO of Project Reason. He holds a PhD in neuroscience from UCLA, and a BA in philosophy from Stanford University.

Professor Richard Feynman was an American physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT and well known as one of the fathers of modern linguistics.

Stephen Fry is an English actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet, comedian, television presenter and film director.

Professor Leonard Susskind is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory.

Sir Bertrand Russell was an English philosopher who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians.

Dr Richard Carrier is an American historian who received his PhD in ancient history from Columbia University.

Sir David Attenborough is a broadcaster and naturalist. He studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge, and his distinguished career in broadcasting now spans more than 50 years.

Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History and Visiting Research Scientist and Lecturer at Princeton University. He attended Harvard College (B.A), University of Texas (M.A.) and Columbia University (M.Phil.), (Ph.D.).

Professor Vilayanur Ramachandran is a neuroscientist, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, and Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Neurosciences Graduate Program at the University of California, San Diego. He obtained his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge.

 

[jem]

How many times do I have to educate you.

Hawking starts the video off and states M theory does not disprove God.... but eliminates the need for him.

Do you know what Hawking is referencing? He is referencing Susskind's work in which Susskind used to Polchinsky's 10 to the 500 solutions to speculate (guess) there could be almost infinite universes. We have already discussed this - I will post the review of suskinds book again.

The next scientist on your list is Rees.

Rees... wrote the six numbers book. He was one of the guys who pointed out the careful fine tunings.

 

[jem]

How many times do I have to educate you.

Hawking starts the video off and states M theory does not disprove God.... but eliminates the need for him.

Do you know what Hawking is referencing? He is referencing Susskind's work which Susskind used M theory calculations by Polchinsky to (guess) there could be almost infinite universes.

I will post a NYT review next...

Note the second guy on your list is Rees... he wrote the 6 numbers book. Do you see how ignorant you are No thinker... you are citing scientists who state the universe appears designed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/b...w/15powell.html

What troubles Susskind is an intelligent design argument considerably more vexing than the anti-evolution grumblings recently on trial in Dover, Pa. Biologists can point to unambiguous evidence that evolution truly does happen and that it can account for many otherwise inexplicable aspects of how organisms function. For those who take a more cosmic perspective, however, the appearance of design is not so simply refuted. If gravity were slightly stronger than it is, for instance, stars would burn out quickly and collapse into black holes; if gravity were a touch weaker, stars would never have formed in the first place. The same holds true for pretty much every fundamental property of the forces and particles that make up the universe. Change any one of them and life would not be possible. To the creationist, this cosmic comity is evidence of the glory of God. To the scientist, it is an embarrassing reminder of our ignorance about the origin of physical law.

Until recently, most physicists took it on faith that as they refined their theories and upgraded their experiments they would eventually expose a set of underlying rules requiring the universe to be this way and this way only. In "A Brief History of Time," Stephen Hawking recalled Albert Einstein's question "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" before replying that, judging from the latest ideas in physics, God "had no freedom at all." Like many leading physicists at the time, Hawking believed that scientists were closing in on nature's essential rules - the ones that even God must obey - and that string theory was leading them on a likely path to enlightenment.

Although string theory resists translation into ordinary language, its central conceit boils down to this: All the different particles and forces in the universe are composed of wriggling strands of energy whose properties depend solely on the mode of their vibration. Understand the properties of those strands, the thinking once went, and you will understand why the universe is the way it is. Recent work, most notably by Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has dashed that hope. The latest version of string theory (now rechristened M-theory for reasons that even the founder of M-theory cannot explain) does not yield a single model of physics. Rather, it yields a gargantuan number of models: about 10500, give or take a few trillion.

Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse."

 

[traderwann]

Quote from Free Thinker:
you made the claim that you had indisputable evidence that the bible was god inspired. we are waithing. i think you are fos and just made it up.

i think you are fos and make everything up, really, do you have anything besides BS to offer that all of scripture is a myth? if you think i said i have "indisputable" please show me where i said it ... otherwise, well, i never said that so there ya go, do you have anything else to offer i never said? i seem to remember admonishing you for paying attention and following along just a few posts ago and here we go again, no offense but what's wrong with you?

i have written thousand of words, you are correct, if you have not gotten anything out of them that is a reflection on you

i'm still waiting to have a reasonable conversation, for example you'll distract from the point i'm making, then i point it out you are doing that, and you say i'm babbling and then go on to say whatever else you want to, attention deficit disorder doesn't even start to explain it!

 

[traderwann]

Quote from Free Thinker:
wtf. another babbling rant. you are dangerously close to getting put on ignore for idiocy. i expect a minimal level of logical thinking ability in order to waste my time on you.

i agree! if you are not able to understand what i am saying, please point out where specifically you are confused and i will explain

calling an articulate post "babbling" only serves to show everyone your grade level of English comprehension which clearly can be challenged by any intelligent teenager

lol ... ignore whoever you want! please hurry up actually, then at least i can converse with reasonable people