BS: in the beginning and now

Subject: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 08:21 AM

In a moment of inspiration/epiphaney I saw that the big bang was so dense that time was at a near standstill similar to what we see near super massive black holes today. What we call inflation today looks like the universe suddenly popped into existence in no time. Well it did because time was virtually stopped by the unimaginable density.
This ( my/Occams Razor,) view of the big bang is not recognized by mainstream comologists to my surprise. This expansion of the universe eventually gave way to what we see as a steady expansion that has slowly evolved into a more accelerated expansion of the universe in the recent billions of years.

I interpreted this as an effect of the growing number of black holes that act like small regional partial big bangs and is respondsible for the dark energy that pushes space in an acceleration BECAUSE black holes have the ability to transform matter into space. This is quite different from stars transforming matter into energy.

So the universe expanded in no time at first and went along steadily and now again is speeding up.

A small boy from England grew up with an inquisitiv mind and has now shown how matter can turn into space inside black holes. His name is Roger Penrose. Its fair to say he is unpopular in some circles.

This is part of his contribution that causes me to see that a transformation of matter into more spacetime is a possibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83yGeDri0ds

This is not as hard as it may first seem. Just add an extra step of the transformed matter energy tunneling out of BHs in the form of space energy and the question of WHAT IS DARK ENERGY becomes something simple to understand.

In the beginning something did not come from nothing
it came from something, partially like the black holes that create more space, and may be the elusive dark energy which is the cosmological question of our time.

The ultimate Black Hole may be the big bang

The future is unknown as to if all matter will ever be drawn to a single point again if everything continues to accelerate apart, but it looks doubtful. It looks like we are in a one shot universe.
Cosmological reincarnaion does not look like it has a chance here. That may be up to a different universe in the multiple universe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 10:48 AM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/kids/video/new-type-of-black-hole-may-be-the-smallest-ever-discovered/vi-AAJQnhp?ocid=spartandhp
There are more surprises to come

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 02:10 PM

Some cosmologists believe that in a million trillion years when the universe is cold with no more stars, matter or even black holes that slowly radiated away, there is still the inherent energy of space itself that could have a quantum event that might reignite matter energy into existence again.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Joe_F
Date: 10 Nov 19 - 05:55 PM

The universe is a rotten vacuum. In the beginning there was nothing, which decayed.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 19 - 08:18 AM

Entropy rules like Joe says

Enter THE BIG RIP

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 02:36 AM

So the Universe dies?

R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 06:34 AM

die? well...It goes to a lower energy level which bears no resemblance to what we see now. We or our remants will go the way of this olde universe. Old acquaintance will be forgot as space and particals rip apart obeying new fundamental weaker forces.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 08:46 AM

but the future is off topic.
The above interpretation of the mystery of the theory of inflation was based on Eienstienian principles. The Dark energy fluctuation mystery goes beyond Albert and goes deep into how space time and matter change inside black holes.

While a BH sucks up matter gravitationaly, it spits out space.
For simplicity sake there is alot wrong with that statement but it serves to get a handle on what Eienstein could not elucidate. The Penrose diagram (googleable) shows how matter and space change places inside a BH.

Am I guilty of cherry picking? Yep

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Nov 19 - 09:18 AM

Black Whole cherries?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 19 - 07:00 AM

If egg heads want to solve the mystery of dark matter they will have to bring the Hadron collider to the point of destruction and smash a gram of anti protons with protons and look for the remnants.
Dark matter is the remainder of the post big bang annihilation of matteer and anti matter. It didn't all turn into E. THE magnitude of that explosion was unthinkable and only left the slight remainder of 1 or 2% of visible matter.
3 great mysteries solved in 3 days, next?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: BobL
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 02:12 AM

The existence of dark matter is postulated to account for anomalies in various astronomical quantities such as distance, speed and mass, that cannot be measured directly.
Be funny if the methods for measuring them indirectly turned out to be wrong, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 09:54 AM

Ah

James Clerk Maxwell said long since.

To measure is to know. - mind you we have measured and we still don't know, but at least we know we don't know! So we know it is a known unknown.............

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 11:11 AM

We have measured by type 1A and approximate candle power as well as other means but we all know light moves at different speeds in different mediums.

All I know is that I can't see it except for gravitational lensing.
The damn dark stuff has no electromagnetic radiation.

They say right before the annihlation of matter vs. antimatter there were 1 billion and 1 particles of matter and only 1 billion particles of antimatter. Visible matter barely won, but the left over debris and energy is in my opinion the dark matter.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Nov 19 - 11:19 AM

If dark matter is complex enough, it may have grown life. Would we be invisible to dark matter life? Would dark matter life even evolve vision? etc. all the way down a silly rabbit hole.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: banjoman
Date: 16 Nov 19 - 06:45 AM

Mind boggling. I have given much thought to this post and I think I can just about get what your getting at. However, I still believe that creation was an act of will by some superior entity, call it whatever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:11 AM

We ARE made of the universe and we are somewhat conscious
ergo the universe has and is consciousness banjo man.
Its our universe and anyone may play with its understanding.

Measuring fundamental forces, spacetime and that which is within our our senses and instruments is for experts.

Albert E was smart enough to derive thought experiments but more often than not others did the math for proof whether it was his wives or international experts. Some say his brain was unique with twice as much white matter (connective neurons) and a normal amount of grey matter (cortex) . Mainly he was dysleic by current standards.
Like I say anyone can play.

We call life 20 miles beneath our feet and 20 miles above our heads extremeophiles. We are pretty extreme ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:36 AM

They (astrophyicists) say that Albert's math and predictions break down inside black holes. What that means is that when you apply his math step by step you end up with an answer resulting in a repeating infinity + a repeating infinity + a repeating infinity...

Well why not?
We have assumed that infinities must be wrong

Now that we can explain how matter and space can change places inside a black hole and space is still being generated today...

I bet Albert E would be delighted.


Warning = this is just the way I saw it about 15 years ago
Over time I have improved my ability to explain this to people which is like learning a foreign language to me. I reserve the right to be wrong ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:01 AM

What is needed is an equation like E=MC2 where a little tiny bit of matter can become a great great deal of Energy,
BUT inside a great deal of energy like a black hole...
A tiny bit of matter can become a great great deal of space time.




It would explain dark energy and aspects of a multiverse.

'

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:43 PM

How spacetime tunnels out from the center of a black hole is one thing I can not visualize in a 3D universe. That space is drawn into a black hole faster than the speed of light and that a black hole slowly evaporates by some process like Hawking radiation or by Donuel spacetime radiation is easy to conceive of compared to space 'tunneling'.

That space is being generated in a black hole and goes 'somewhere' seems to take a more dimensional mind's eye than mine. Or as most people might rightly think, 'thats where the idea breaks down and falls apart'. But everything is not intuitive. Some scientists prefer the 'unintuitive' because they get more grants whether they prove a theory or not.

Soon we will be able to measure the horizon of the visible horizon of space with infrared telescopes but to take a measuement inside a black hole in our own back yard is like reaching the unreachable star.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 03:46 PM

Must confess I know very little of all these hypothesis , except that dark matter dark energy etc are unobservable fudge factors , and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe .   Me of course, I’ll go with Genesis !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:24 PM

Let there be light!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 04:25 PM

Bud light.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mo the caller
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 06:28 PM

In principio et nunc et semper.

Sorry, could help myself;should have known that if it was Bach (which I've been practising for weeks about the house, and singing in a concert last night) it would have been above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 07:30 PM

I get it.
I've been listening to music to make love by.
Some Indian ragas are hot but Howard Hanson's symphony #2 The Romantic Symphony is positively pornographic.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 08:10 PM

In the beginning was the Bay of Naples, the centre of the world. As for now we have Beethoven's late quartets, the last three sonatas and the Diabelli variations. The alpha, the omega, the beginning and the end of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:00 PM

This is the second time you brought up those damn genius variations.
He was just showing off.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Nov 19 - 09:25 PM

And it won't be the last. He out-Goldberged Bach whilst paying explicit homage to him.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 07:03 AM

He was fugal even when it came to finances.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 10:29 AM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Er not exactly. If seeing is believing then gravitational lensing is real, measurable, and photographable. After that there is hypothesis because what causes it may not be seen, in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

What is more, given the right distances to stars/galaxies and the unseen thing, if there is relative motion the lensing will appear to move also. Given enough time.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:09 PM

For dark matter that is true enough. Acceleration of the universe by dark energy is my major thrust here. That too can be seen. I believe the mystery of WHY will be solvable. I offer one partial scenario. Partial because I know space can break many of our human conceived laws like the speed of light. How is simply a question that is on the verge of being measured.

When how what and why are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and satisfies scientific scrutiny we will believe it, but not because we 'believe'.

Even if the human mind is incapable of a solution I believe our humanly perseverence will continue to reveal new things

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 01:22 PM

'HOW' is simply a question on the verge of being measured.

Several things will be learned at the same time;
The rate of black hole formation
The number/size of black hole mass in the universe
The proportion of black hole mass to new space formation

The new questions that will be raised are limtless

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 18 Nov 19 - 02:49 PM

and as you say yourself it’s a matter of believe

Science is not something one "believes in". We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 09:07 AM

Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose. Asking the questions is a wonder'ful thing to do. Insisting others must 'follow one path' is just arrogant, but no one has done that here Mossback. Commendable.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Nov 19 - 07:07 PM

Sure there are measurements that can be made , but it still comes down to what you believe ; how those measurements are interpreted. If you can suggest that the speed of light ‘law’ might be more flexible to account for cosmic evolutionary problems , why dismiss it for a special creation?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 19 - 11:00 AM

The speed of light can only slow down due to the medium it is in. Space energy is not bound by a speed limit when acted upon by gravity.
In turn space is shaped by mass' gravity. Good for you Pete, Space-Gravity-Time is flexible.
We still even have a huge discrepancy in answers from measuring the mass/size of a proton. The limits of knowing is omnipresent.

I wouldn't dismiss your special creation since I think creations are special.
You might see a conscience whim as a creation and I might see a sea of space energy that had finally absorbed all the mass type energy in existence and having a tiny quantum event, begin a release of the stored energy.

Since I was 6 I had a repeated dream of my own begining like a comet having to make a 'perfect' impact and location on Earth. That child like wordless sensation of perfection felt like a profound urgency.
I think differently now although I am probably not uninfluenced by my early thinking.
You can't dismiss my dream and I can not dismiss yours. :^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 06:46 PM

5 Mysteries the Standard model can't explain

1. Why do neutrinos have mass?
Three of the Standard Model’s particles are different types of neutrinos. The Standard Model predicts that, like photons, neutrinos should have no mass.

However, scientists have found that the three neutrinos oscillate, or transform into one another, as they move. This feat is only possible because neutrinos are not massless after all.

“If we use the theories that we have today, we get the wrong answer,” says André de Gouvêa, a professor at Northwestern University.

The Standard Model got neutrinos wrong, but it remains to be seen just how wrong. After all, the masses neutrinos have are quite small.

Is that all the Standard Model missed, or is there more that we don’t know about neutrinos? Some experimental results have suggested, for example, that there might be a fourth type of neutrino called a sterile neutrino that we have yet to discover.


2.

What is dark matter?
Scientists realized they were missing something when they noticed that galaxies were spinning much faster than they should be, based on the gravitational pull of their visible matter. They were spinning so fast that they should have torn themselves apart. Something we can’t see, which scientists have dubbed “dark matter,” must be giving additional mass—and hence gravitional pull—to these galaxies.

Dark matter is thought to make up 27 percent of the contents of the universe. But it is not included in the Standard Model.

Scientists are looking for ways to study this mysterious matter and identify its building blocks. If scientists could show that dark matter interacts in some way with normal matter, “we still would need a new model, but it would mean that new model and the Standard Model are connected,” says Andrea Albert, a researcher at the US Department of Energy’s SLAC National Laboratory who studies dark matter, among other things, at the High-Altitude Water Cherenkov Observatory in Mexico. “That would be a huge game changer.”

3.

Why is there so much matter in the universe?
Whenever a particle of matter comes into being—for example, in a particle collision in the Large Hadron Collider or in the decay of another particle—normally its antimatter counterpart comes along for the ride. When equal matter and antimatter particles meet, they annihilate one another.

Scientists suppose that when the universe was formed in the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have been produced in equal parts. However, some mechanism kept the matter and antimatter from their usual pattern of total destruction, and the universe around us is dominated by matter.

The Standard Model cannot explain the imbalance. Many different experiments are studying matter and antimatter in search of clues as to what tipped the scales.


4.

Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Before scientists were able to measure the expansion of our universe, they guessed that it had started out quickly after the Big Bang and then, over time, had begun to slow. So it came as a shock that, not only was the universe’s expansion not slowing down—it was actually speeding up.

The latest measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency observatory Gaia indicate that galaxies are moving away from us at 45 miles per second. That speed multiplies for each additional megaparsec, a distance of 3.2 million light years, relative to our position.

This rate is believed to come from an unexplained property of space-time called dark energy, which is pushing the universe apart. It is thought to make up around 68 percent of the energy in the universe. “That is something very fundamental that nobody could have anticipated just by looking at the Standard Model,” de Gouvêa says.

5.

Is there a particle associated with the force of gravity?
The Standard Model was not designed to explain gravity. This fourth and weakest force of nature does not seem to have any impact on the subatomic interactions the Standard Model explains.

But theoretical physicists think a subatomic particle called a graviton might transmit gravity the same way particles called photons carry the electromagnetic force.

“After the existence of gravitational waves was confirmed by LIGO, we now ask: What is the smallest gravitational wave possible? This is pretty much like asking what a graviton is,” says Alberto Güijosa, a professor at the Institute of Nuclear Sciences at UNAM.


These five mysteries are the big questions of physics in the 21st century, Ramos says. Yet, there are even more fundamental enigmas, he says: What is the source of space-time geometry? Where do particles get their spin? Why is the strong force so strong while the weak force is so weak?

There’s much left to explore, Güijosa says. “Even if we end up with a final and perfect theory of everything in our hands, we would still perform experiments in different situations in order to push its limits.”

“It is a very classic example of the scientific method in action,” Albert says. “With each answer come more questions; nothing is ever done.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 19 - 07:15 PM

Which came first, waves or particles?
I still can not reconcile all aspects of the double slit experiment even after watching a macro version of it happening in real time.
I see the beauty in cosmic systems but the moment I ask why,
understanding usually evaporates to nothing. Certainty becomes uncertain like an optical illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Nov 19 - 07:08 AM

We'll leave that to the god-botherers who prefer to live in a fact-free and/or reality averse universe.

You missed-out Politicians - mind you I contend politics is a religion (aka belief system).

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 06:13 PM

I admire your knowledge of the subject Donuel , even though I differ from your position, but I appreciate your humility before all the problems of standard cosmology .

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 19 - 07:27 PM

"Whether one approaches cosmological questions from religion or science, the cosmology proceeds unconcerned and uninterrupted.

I support anyone's quest to understand the cosmic questions from any perspective they choose."

Bullshit. I support anyone's quest to understand any questions, cosmic or otherwise, from the standpoint of requiring evidence. You won't answer any cosmic question, or any other scientific question, by applying faith or evidence-innocent belief. I think you know this. So let's not cut the God Squad any slack on this. We've indulged them enough for far too many centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 03:57 PM

Oh dear Steve ; still crusading atheist ....    “....applying faith ....unless it’s atheist faith in a Godless explanation , it seems !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:29 PM

A "crusading atheist" - whatever that is supposed to be - is infinitely preferable to a crusading moron.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 08:32 PM

I'm no crusading atheist, Bill. I merely shrug and ask for evidence. Invariably, I then shrug some more...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 19 - 10:18 PM

"Atheist faith" is a category error. It is a misunderstanding of what atheist actually means.

Faith means belief IN something....usually referring to some theological position. Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position.

I prefer to NOT be called an atheist, because it is usually taken to mean DISbelief... or denial, and I simply can't prove anything about such claims. When people make assertions about some particular 'belief' system, my stance is to be skeptical... to doubt... to need better evidence than is usually offered.
   I understand why many people DO accept some theological position... all sorts and all kinds... from all over the world throughout history. I personally just don't **need** some absolute answer to 'the meaning of life' in order to live a decent, happy life.... but I am also resistant to anyone suggesting that I should--- and when those who DO have such beliefs attempt to insert their brand of belief system into either my life, or my country's political system, I object. I always feel it is reasonable to meet claims with explanations of why such claims fail to convince. There are good reasons to doubt and to expect that 'beliefs' be respected... but restricted to areas which do NOT impinge on how I live my life.

   I have debated all this before here.... there is little doubt about my position(s)..or lack of positions. It is kind of disappointing to see it rise over & over.

I was trying to read Donuel's speculations about new discoveries in physics and cosmology, when religion again crept in. I'll go back and try again...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 04:13 PM

"Atheist simply means NOT believing in such a position."

Not to me does it. If I were to say I don't believe in your position, I'm arguing on your territory. Instead, I'm just saying that if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence if it's to be on my radar for consideration. I do get directly interested when I'm told that evidence-innocent notions have "deep truths" or when such notions are foisted on young people in schools or on the citizens of countries that are led by religious zealots. Otherwise, have fun with your "beliefs." Reality is far more colourful and far more beautiful.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 05:20 PM

"...if you have a position you wish to promote then you need to argue it with evidence..."

In that, we agree. I understand your personal use of the term, and as you remember, I also respond with concern when someone's 'faith' requires them to ignore, distort factual scientific research. That is another issue from the one on popular definitions of the word atheist.

In practice, my position looks & feels very similar to atheism... I just prefer agnostic as a label. I simply do not "know" about certain things like "in the beginning"... so *shrug*

I know the arguments for.. and against.. the rationale that "all things that exist must have a "cause", therefore something must have 'caused' the Universe." Cosmologists speculate.. and theologians insist. I am neither. I would bet that the answer is technically un-knowable.... but I don't even "know' that.

Meanwhile, watching the science and semi-science puzzle over it at least is more interesting reading than rehashing convoluted theological contortions.

Onward....

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 19 - 06:52 PM

I agree with all that. The trouble with atheism is that it's seen as a sort of absolutist concept. Here's where I am: if you tell me that little seven-legged blue men have an outpost on the outer rings of Saturn, well I can ridicule you and make you the butt of a million jokes and laugh in your face, but what I can't do is prove that you're wrong. The reason I can't is that you've proposed a notion that, ridiculous though it is, can't be checked. You may have done that either because you're deluded or, far more vexatiously, that you want to be a contrarian. I see the proposal that there's a God who can neither be explained (because he's been deliberately put beyond science), nor can explain anything, as a similar concept. All I can say is that I don't know whether you're right or wrong. But that isn't to say that I'm squarely on the fence. If the word atheist is to have any practical use, it must be acknowledged that those of us who adhere to it must accept that we have to shrug and admit that we can't prove your ludicrous notion, mainly because you've chosen to make it ludicrous.

And even Richard Dawkins admits that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 10:50 AM

I see Steve having ceased his eclectic knowledge quest and settled for the closest paradigm he is arguably comfortable with argueing.

New findings are strange because of our incomplete knowledge be that of 9 billion light years distant black holes or sculpted carvings several centimeters away from our eyes.

for example:
I am now stymied by the remarkable similarities between the sculpted artifacts of a unique handled device in the left hand of Assyrian 'gods' and the same devices in the hand of South American carvings of 'Kings'. There is even a rider on the Indian Garuda flying giant bird carrying this rectangular 'thing'. As far back as the Olmec sculptures there is evidence of a multicultural cosmopolitan civilization and evidence of India, chinese and African traditions.

It seems:
We are still in a dark age of assumptions regarding human culture and technology.

The religious can be enlightened as an astrophysicist and visa versa. I have heard Vatican priests that see past all the absurd insistant BS and scientists at NIH who are too religious for their own good.

I don't confuse my own awe at the mysteries we are immersed in and humility. The mysteries are so enormous that one has no other option than to be humbled.

The miracles of our current grasp of tech are awe inspiring and beyond grasp of any one person. There is the possibility we are in the midst of a hive evolutionary mind.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 11:08 AM

When I say Steve has personally ceased his eclectic knowledge quest, I am speaking generationaly in which we are all bounded our times and limited discoveries and relative enlightenment. Steve is just fun to use as an example because he is so insistant in his own inimical way.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 05:10 PM

I entertain myself by coming up with different scenarios for the elimination of various ancient or future civilizations due to natural disasters, climate, leadership and failure of a 2 cent piece of hardware or even a software mistake.

Good or bad Leadership makes for the best villains but other life forms (monsters be they virus or behemouths) are always popular.

I can think of nothing nerdier. Its like the ultimate Debbie Downer movie some would lable as action sci fi adventure.

Religious leadership of the Mayans were killers in one scenario and scientific mistakes did in millions in other imagined extinctions.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition or a 80 year old Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 06:12 PM

You are an idiot who thinks he's a clever idiot. In fact, you are just a plain idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 07:30 PM

Naaww, Steve.... Donuel can be confusing in his rhetoric at times, but he is no idiot. He lives near me, and I actually met him for lunch a few years ago. I wish I could visit YOU in person... but this ocean..(and I'd like to meet Pete too. We'd never agree on some things, but I have known people personally that I consider much harder to talk to.)
Don has so many interests that he can barely focus on just one... or rather, his focus shifts as he reads about new stuff. (Mine does too... but at my age, I have learned to just browse.)
   Remember when Don linked to cartoons that he created?...usually based on current events. Some of those were really brilliant.
You, Steve, are also pretty durned smart and aware... but you have a pretty short fuse when you think someone is wrong or careless. I prefer to debate and critique positions, not personalities. Over 20 years here have given me... ummm.. perspective. *grin*
   Your post yesterday at 6:52 Mudcat time was right on. We agree on everything except detailed usage and definitions. It's just a matter of emphasis...

again.. onward

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 19 - 08:38 PM

I have a short fuse when I'm being patronised. That's for sure. This chap revels in self-regarding obscurantism, which is a ploy I've always detested in anyone who's tried it on. True scientists are communicators, who are able to speak about their mission in simple and direct language, but Donuel revels in deliberately tortuous verbiage, which confirms that he's maybe read a lot but actually knows very little. As with all of us, he has dimensions in real life that don't come across on a forum. Next time you have dinner with him, give him my love. I'm sure he's a luvly feller. I hope that this message will confirm to him once and for all that I find him to be an irritant who would be well advised to try to not wind me up. He's an idiot now but that doesn't mean that he's beyond redemption. I also can patronise, see.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 07:34 AM

I see your perspective clearly but it may be overtaken with first impressions in which I daresay I did write obscurities decades ago, epecially when testing the waters. A new idea often comes to me while casting about. The new idea is rarely new but is only new to me.

I remember meeting Bill and recall I made an effort to tone it down.
I only regret not singing in my weak baritone average voice. There are many such voices.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:40 AM

Well let's see how it goes from here. I prefer not to be a target, right?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 09:44 AM

Bill your knowledge of the principles and arguments of the question of 'what is truth' is imo more valuable today than ever before in your lifetime. The conspiracy theory conundrum confounds society in a similar manner as it did 90 years ago.

It seems to me you do not speak BS and you don't like to hear it.
Your analysis may be at least a footprint in the sand and at its most a credo for the future but the world needs to hear it.

Only you know the best format to present truth, whether its an anthropormorphic metaphorical tale or a succint statement of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 05:58 PM

I do not like BS... and you are correct that I don't like hearing or reading it. The question is what to do.. and when.

BS from some quarters comes with blinders on which makes responding useless--except for occasional addition of clarification and facts for any who 'might' be confused. Direct arguing with those wearing blinders is mostly useless (like the joke about trying to teach a pig to sing).

Conspiracy theories are especially awkward to deal with because they usually/often include.. and rely on... circular arguments about why we can't find the 'truth'. **(There was a cast, complex set of evil planning to blow up building on 9/11.. apart from Saudis and airliners! Why can't we prove it?.. Why because experts at high levels have hidden the evidence!)** Likewise the 100 MPG carburetor. The oil companies didn't want it, so the specs were hidden!.

Resident Trump may not know the formal names for bad rhetoric that I studied, but he has all the instincts for deploying it.

Mudcat has been a real boon to my continued education, as I have 20 years of examples of all levels of debate to compare & use.
   Some may remember this bit from a number of years ago... I saved it as a paradigm of jaw-dropping BS.. and I 'think' it was totally sincere..but *shrug*
   "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning"
   No form of argument can combat that.

I have no idea how long I will follow Mudcat... Max says he'll keep IT going, but what will keep ME going?

Y'all take care.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 06:11 PM

Genuinely begs the question, Bill... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 02 Dec 19 - 10:48 PM

Bill D speaks of having met Donuel in person,
Donuel corroborates same.
The post about that meeting makes great good sense to me,
even though Donuel and I have never met.

I would not express myself as Donuel does,
nor would I take it all that personally that he does his thing.

My experience is one of growing up in a household
where even though we were all blood relatives,
we were wildly different from each other in some respects;
and you could either let it drive you demented,
or you could observe each other's differences with benevolent interest.
What I did come to understand was that
there was no way on God's green earth
that my relatives were going to alter
the ways that they expressed themselves.

I had one relative who seemed to have
five simultaneous channels of input, in terms of
perceptions. "Scattered" is putting it mildly!
But it was never personally intended to drive anybody crazy.

Me, I pretty much have one dedicated channel of input
and I can appear inflexible and intolerant because of same.

I can't really comment on the opening threads in this post,
I sort of read through them,
and nod, and keep going.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 11:47 AM

My husband, known here as CET and elsewhere online as Himself, recently started working on a doctorate in law. The other day, he brought me a draft of a document his advisor calls a "framework statement" though it looks to me remarkably like a thesis proposal. It's about a Canadian legal case called Stillman and its effect on the jurisdictional reach of courts martial and the civil rights of military personnel.

I strongly believe that even the most complex idea can be stated in simple declarative sentences using basic words. I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative etc. I was able to read the thesis proposal, replete as it is with terms of art, and restate it in plain words, thus probably earning a gig as a thesis editor.

But that's how I earned my living for more than thirty years. I'm an editor, and most of my clients were professionals whose projects typically end with extensive reports, especially engineers and program managers. Much of that time, I worked in the Department of National Defence, known to many as Jargon Heaven. Editing is painful and exacting, especially when its purpose is to convey complex information to intelligent but uninitiated readers who have a lot of competition for their time and attention. My clients knew they needed me if they wanted their projects to be funded. Many did not enjoy the editing experience, and some resisted it quite fiercely. These latter clients most resented the "dumbing down" of their special language, seeing it as an attack on their professional standing and authority.

But the few clients who sought out and even enjoyed the editing process had one important thing in common: they all wanted to share their ideas and experience, first with me, and then with any and every other person in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 01:32 PM

I discovered literary and philosophy theory in graduate school, and I discovered that some writers heap in such complex words in extremely long sentences (filling entire paragraphs) that it takes a dictionary and breathing exercises to get through their tomes. And there are others who speak clearly, give excellent examples, and when needing to quote the pompous writers, keep it extremely brief or paraphrase.

Both types can claim important positions in their academic worlds, but I know which ones I'd much rather read.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: keberoxu
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:00 PM

Himself is retired, and pursuing a doctorate?!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:10 PM

We finally measured gravity waves and it is a big deal
HOWEVER
Now that we have measured ufos and putting an end to the senseless lies, I claim it is a much bigger deal on the effect it can have on our planet. Having our entire population work out the technology that has been called impossible can help pure research and applied back engineering. I say 'can' because there are still those who want to throw road blocks in the way.

Folks this is no alien autopsy hoax.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:12 PM

"I also believe that one does not fully understand any concept until one can state it in simple declarative .."

In some thread a few years ago, I was commended for some post I made about arguments. I can't remember my exact clever phrase right now, but it was something like: "One cannot really defend one's own point unless one can clearly and accurately state the opponent's point."

All too often people intent on a position will argue right past each other.... both failing to see what the other is saying in their haste to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:26 PM

One can take a metaphorical approach with comedic relief such as:

The Prophet by Donuel Gibran

And then a man stepped from the group of villagers and asked the Prophet “In these troubled times behind this veil of tears what should we be most wary of?” The Prophet said, “Beware the great long lasting lies and those who defend those lies. With this in mind, keep an eye out for the man who builds fake golden towers and temples so people may worship, pay and obey him. Having a Canadian Passport is also not a bad idea.”

Then a young woman approached the Prophet. She looked up at his pleasing appearance and asked ,”why do men seek to possess and control my body?” To this the Prophet said, “ Some men covet the divine curve, the flower of creation and some men want to have power over a woman's body in a misguided attempt to have power over creation and an advantage in the work space.”

Then a child asked, “why are some things beliefs and others just exist?” The Prophet said, “One demands evidence and the other does not. The standard of evidence should be the same but there are some who lack the reason to argue the evidence.”
“How will I ever know the difference?” asked the concerned child.
Donuel said “Unfortunately that is up to your free will in the long run.”

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:45 PM

It’s no surprise to me that atheists deny having faith in their beliefs .                                 “A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched ideology”. Sir Karl Popper

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 02:47 PM

A succint declarative:

Albert showed how Mass can be turned into energy.
I claim that with enough energy you can transmute mass into space time inside a black hole and further separate time and space, stopping time and generating space. This is my explanation for dark energy accelerating and generating more space.

dealing with 6 variables is hard to make succint.
nevermind :^?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

Pete..Karl Popper was right of course... the operative word being "may". Most scientists do not think so carelessly... and Popper himself knew the difference.

Popper on religion

Much more in the article.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 03:26 PM

keberoxu — Himself is no longer in the Army, having passed the magic kicking-out age of 60, but he’s hardly “retired”. He’s still practising law, for one thing, so he goes to court and all that. And yes, he’s pursuing a doctorate. I think he has quite enough credentials for one lifetime, but that’s how he chooses to while away the hours. On the whole, I would rather have a legal scholar in the house than, say, somebody who’s fixated on (shudder) golf.

BillD, I completely agree with you on stating the opponent’s point; however, have you not noticed how often your point is re-stated in the most hostile terms your opponent can muster? In some battles of wits, that’s when the gloves hit the ice and the fight is on.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 19 - 04:14 PM

Charmion... Oh, sure.. it's just similar to U.S. politics right now. I'll roll with the punch until someone goes to mostly personal insults. At that point, I usually stop.
   I enjoy trading opinions, but I only debate seriously with those I respect in general.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Dec 19 - 06:21 PM

I skimmed the article Bill. He seems to contradict himself a bit , though it’s probably not as straightforward as that . On the one hand he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven , and on the other that it has been tested - though not saying how !                      As you correctly point out . My quote was qualified by an indefinite , though I could provide more definite quotes from others

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 12:24 PM

I think thread drift is good and natural
however...

What makes sense to me is that:
In the beginning there was no beginning, we are still beginning.

A new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. How can this be?

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many folks confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’
The new model – in which our universe has no beginning and no end – comes from Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University in Egypt and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
Their paper looks at a result derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity known as the Raychaudhuri equation. WTF?

Basically his equation describes how a volume of matter changes over time, so its a great way of finding where physical singularities exist in your model. But rather than using the classical Raychaudhuri equation, the authors use a variation with a few quantum tweaks. This approach is often called semi-classical …

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model.

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new take does nothing to question its legitimacy.

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

There is ample evidence to show that the universe did undergo an early inflation in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, I explain this away as a artifact of what it looks like when time was at a virtual stand still do to gravitation stopping time in a black hole. The universe is thought to have expanded by a factor of 1078 in volume. For one, the universe is still expanding in every direction. The farther away an object is, The faster it appears to move away from an observer, suggesting that space itself is expanding (rather than objects simply moving through space at a steady rate). Soon we will see beyond our observablecurrent horizon of the farthest galaxies with new infra red telescopes.

Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is thought to be heat left over from this great cosmological event. It can be observed in every direction and has no single origin point. Scientists think the CMB began propagating through the universe about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when atoms began to form and the universe became transparent, says the ESA. I bet no one has read this far, so kofefe is found to be coffee.

What this new look at the beginning allows is the old cyclic universe theory which allows for an infinite existence with no beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 02:50 PM

"...he seems to say that Darwinism is far from proven.."
It depends on whether you trust the scientific method or not. Absolute 'proof' is for math. Details in evolution theory change, but saying that means 'unproven' is a subjective use of the language.
    Evolution (not "Darwinism", which refers obliquely to what Darwin himself worked out), has been studied, refined, examined, re-examined and re-explained for many decades as various aspects of geology, anthropology, bio-chemistry and DNA research and even astronomy are refined with new and ever changing data. Details change.. but so far, evolution in general stands up to scrutiny as a description of HOW biological entities change. Those who wish preface it with a separate "WHY" are free to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:02 PM

Excellent bullshit-buster of a post, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:22 PM

The word WHY did it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 11:18 AM

Dead stars are exploding all around the universe and we aren’t really sure why – but now a pair of researchers think that minuscule black holes made from dark matter might be to blame.

Burnt out stars known as white dwarfs can ignite into a type Ia supernova when they gather matter from a neighbouring star or merge with other astronomical objects. Exactly how this works is still open to interpretation. “The dirty secret of supernovae is that in the computer models, we can’t ever actually get them to do the dark matter bomb.

For something as ubiquitous and non interactive as dark matter, maybe they have different properties under an immense gravitational crush. The earliest black holes are thought to be all dark matter.
BOOM --> go directly to black hole. do not pass GO



https://www.newscientist.com/article/2226326-black-holes-formed-from-dark-matter-could-be-making-dead-stars-explode/#ixzz67LL6e7E7

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 01:47 PM

Einstein had a hard time comparing or contrasting anything to an immense black hole until Hiesenberg suggested a small white penis.

Hipparchus, Copernicus, and Galeleo walk into a bar and meet Newton Herchel, Maxwell, Kepler and Einstein when Maxwell chides "you guys were suppose to be here first, you're late.
Einstein tells Maxwell, not if time stopped sufficiently for you late newcomers Max.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:08 PM

“Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background ..”    what do you make of the horizon problem Donuel ?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:19 PM

I agree Bill , that absolute proof is not scientific language , it’s just that certain atheists speak as though it is when it comes to the ‘fact’ of evolution. Seems to me Bill , that you come close to it in your affirmation of evolutionism .                I rather suspect that we will differ on what constitutes the scientific method relating to evolution . I would say that you cannot do experiments on the past and make repeatable observations , and so the evolutionist has to extrapolate from what is observable       “Details change “ I would say that was an understatement , and ask why something that has to undergo so many changes and retractions can be thought of being so tried and true !                                  But I appreciate your civil discussion Bill

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:43 PM

However we can take future observations and extrapolate. That is much the same as using past indicators to see the present changes.

I don't know anyone here who wants to wrest your beliefs away. Well I know Steve a little. I prefer addition of knowledge over subtraction.
At least for a short while.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 06:56 PM

I have no interest in wresting anyone's beliefs away. I don't mind challenging them of course. The anti-evolution post just before this one is such garbled, ignorant nonsense that I'm amazed that its perpetrator could be so daft as to want to expose his idiocy by posting it. Now it's time for you to do your good cop bit, Bill... ;-)

I was at the house of some good friends today. They have one of those beautiful potted orchids that have become very popular. What a lovely, beautiful, intricate, delicate thing, came the remark (they're fine Christian people). Sez I, it is. A tiny part of the beauty, complexity and diversity of life on Earth. But, sez I, adding a slightly less romantic though pertinent note, just like us that orchid flower is the fruit of four billion years of evolution*, a process that progresses in tiny juddering steps. I think that anti-evolutionists have real difficulty in getting their heads round that terrifying time span. Well I know they have. They appear, some of them, to have invented 4004 BC...


*With a bit of artificial selection tweaking, of course...
.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:24 PM

Knowing why there was such a 7*'s post, contains more wisdom than having a atheist diatribe by Steve who I mentioned in jest.
aside
Today I learned about Steve stars

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:31 PM

What are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:48 AM

You're kidding? Have you lost your memory?
It would be callous to bring up the glorius tragic anguish which was soothed by faith and guided all concerned. Let it be said folks chose the best path for them and remained faithful in the midst of a momumental challenge and gift. Real human events rise above arguments that are pithy in comparison. The freedom to choose your own medicine is a key to a pursuit of happiness. If a person wielded their truth/lie like a club you should probably arm yourself but I don't see that happening.
If you still do not understand Steve, let it be.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:59 AM

I've never had an issue with people who follow their own private paths through life as long as they don't use it as a stick to control others with (children in particular). I do have a big issue with people who come on to this discussion forum propagating ignorant and unscientific nonsense. Pete gets his wisdom from creationist websites and he hasn't got even the faintest clue as to what evolution is, let alone evolutionary theory. Do try to be clear-sighted enough to realise that. He's a propaganda mouthpiece, naive in that shall we be kind enough say, for some very nasty, very controlling people.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:00 AM

At least he uses a pen/keyboard while you use a club.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 AM

Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:14 AM

Ooh it's a music thread now!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:50 AM

Pete.. "experiments ON the past" is not a fair way to characterize what scientists do. In one sense, any experiment done today IS on the status of some material as it 'was'... even if that's only minutes, hours or days ago.
When bones are found..or even buried carcasses of Wooly Mammoths...or Otze the Ice Man.., science can do radio-carbon dating and determine approximate age. That, in one clear sense, is an experiment on the past.
   I know you have objected to that sort of science because you 'believe' that dates over 8000 years or so are precluded by religious texts... but we will of course differ on that. Scientists WILL continue to refine techniques and measure "the evidence from the past". Some aspects of *now* don't make sense without it.

(good cop, Steve?. Just a quick reminder to Pete that he is outnumbered... which he already knows.)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 01:05 PM

Steve:

You do realize you'd have better luck "debating" a Scientologist, a Holocaust denier, or even a Trumpist.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

While it is true that any experiment done in the present is then immediately in the past , that is not the point is it . The experiments done in the present , and even in the recent past, are observed , verified, and recorded. Granted, there have been frauds, and many ‘peer review’ have initially slipped through the net, and been passed. Who knows how many have not been uncovered . But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher, which often a priori excludes other explanations                “Science can do radio carbon ...”      indeed it can , but only by making assumptions about past conditions do they arrive at whatever date , and if they don’t like the date , they reject it and try another method , and if they can’t get the result they want , they can put it down to the continuous development of science

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:30 PM

He likes being outnumbered, Bill (x2) in a perverse "last man valiantly standing" role. What he lacks in that role is a sword of truth to wave.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:25 PM

"No one expected the Scopes Trial inquisition in 2019"
But there is still a buck to be made at Creationist museums as animatronic pet dinosaurs are petted by cavemen around the campfire.
"Sit Dino sit"

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 PM

Obscurantist tripe from Donuel, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:23 PM

" But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher,..."

*grin* like ancient parchment scrolls? Were they really 'recorded'..or just re-told until they were accepted? *shrug*
   No one doubts that they were physically written down by men.. and the same stories were told differently by different men. We have only their crumbling documents to assure us that the stories were given to some by some spiritual being in some metaphysical way. There is certainly no way to 'test' that!
   Science at least is willing to adjust its findings when new data is discovered. I don't think the religious tenets of any belief system... Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist..etc. are often updated. The Catholic Pope in the 2nd Vatican Council was given the right to rule **Infallibly** on matters of faith & morals... and that has been an awkward and argued thing ever since. Several Muslim groups are seriously at odds over who the rightful successor to Muhammad was. A couple of Buddhist groups differ markedly on basic doctrines. And Christians even argue about which Books of the Bible were left out and how they were chosen by King James' preferred scholars.
I just shrug and try to keep up with the various sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 12:03 PM

Sigh. Faith is belief *without* evidence. Atheists and other skeptics require evidence to believe.

And no scientist says Prove. We demonstrate.

Also if you say We evolved from X and we have consciousness therefore X had consciousness, you understand neither evolution nor consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 03:50 PM

Well yes on the whole, but I don't require evidence to "believe," thanks. I require evidence to assess and come to a judgement. I don't need any evidence at all to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 04:01 PM

Actually, "we demonstrate" doesn't chime with me either. I remember my first year at university being severely told off for heading a write-up "Experiment to demonstrate..." Science isn't about demonstrating: it's about investigating then communicating your findings.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:27 AM

Here is the Creationist Museum with anamatronic evolutionary BS

Truth often looks like sarcasm but since I do both I understand your confuson Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 04:33 PM

My "confusion" is as nothing alongside yours, you patronising git. You are the most confused and uncommunicative person around here by a country mile, one who routinely tries to bullshit us with the latest bit of some complicated book or other you've recently managed to half-digest, bullshit ill-concealed in your cod-obscurantism. You would do really well to resolve never to mention me by name in your posts. I may have suggested that before. Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:23 PM

No one is ever as smart or clever as they would like to think. I know I am below 100IQ but I keep tryin, whats your excuse?
Live briefly and go bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:25 PM

That posts for you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:31 PM

My excuse is that my IQ was measured at 178 and that I know that the measure is complete bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:35 PM

The old ploy of trying to get theads closed is old fashioned and out of place when Steve rails at me. I rather enjoy the frustration of a staunch control freak grade school teacher having a tantrum. I see it as deserved pay back for the psychological torture some of your students had to endure. I am not sure they are better people ego-wise for the experience but I hope so. You never speak more truth than your communications with me. :^?

But surely I jest.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 06:47 PM

That clinches it: you are an idiot. Goodnight.

(I wonder whether I might get a PM from a mod telling me to treat you gently, that you have issues, that I shouldn't upset you, just in case...)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 06:59 PM

I don't need a foil but it is fun/entertaining to have a comedic feud and still tell the truth. Things can be learned. Now back to the feud

I'm good at curious speculation. Scientists must have enormous patience to plod through years of crunching numbers to arrive at a provable fact. While I admire that perseverence I can not begin to imagine I could ever be that focused. Life is too short and I am not suited for such a long and winding road. Languages and proper names escape my memory but for some reason geometry just comes to me. I'm like a playful otter and Steve is a perplexed pedigreed poodle.
I often say I can not imagine a fully activated and talented person but I expect they exist. Perhaps it is Steve. In which case I would be dissappointed.

Live briefly and go bankrupt

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:30 PM

No scientist is interested in "provable facts." Your remark confirms once and for all that you are neither a scientist, nor do you know what science is.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:10 PM

Of course I am no scientist. I have never claimed such a thing.
However it is possible for a non scientist to make contributions.

The King's speech therapist comes to mind. No credentials.

wysiwyg

Do you know how many Phd's Tesla had?

We probably have the same number Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:25 PM

You're a bloody comedian, that much is true.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:52 PM

Correction: I did try 20 years of (self indulgent) cartooning with mixed results. People like serious silly villain characters like you stiff upper lipped staunch English twits. John Cleese made a career of it.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 09:02 PM

But enough about me, other than cooking and eating and its aftermath, what about you and your endeavors.

(The rest of my bio is in the UFO measurements thread)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 19 - 08:16 AM

Steve, you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 03:19 PM

I’m not sure that Donuel claimed that scientists arrive at “provable facts” : it looked a bit ambiguous to me . Of course , if he really did mean that, it seems we agree to some measure on that , but then it just goes to show Steve , that your evolutionary beliefs are not “provable facts “ either !!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 04:02 PM

I have neither "evolutionary beliefs" nor am I remotely interested in "provable facts." The fact that you incessantly repeat these things in spite of my constantly contradicting you marks you out as as vexatious troll.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 05:38 PM

Pete.. you use your personal concept of the notion of 'proof' like a bludgeon. The way you use it, almost nothing beyond pure mathematics can be definitely 'proven'.

   Various sorts of data gathered by science are evidence in a never ending search for better understanding. Rejecting a pretty clear set of data that conflict with your belief system because they don't adhere to your narrow idea of proof is just that... narrow and personal.
   I don't know any other way to say it. Steve is pretty blunt... but his basic understanding of science is the same as mine... and of 98+% of all scientists.
Believe what you wish, but coming up with rhetorical ways to refute science is not going to wash.

   **Further, deponent sayeth not**

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 06:14 PM

I don't mind debating with people who disagree with me, Bill. Can't recall specific examples now but you and I have occasionally been at loggerheads. I like to think it's been more a question of perspective and approach than of "stance"...

But it's always the same old stuff with our mutual friend. He posts and I (and you) respond to the same points I've (we've) responded to dozens of times before, often with the most cogent arguments I (we) can muster, which is highly respectful. But, dammit, there's a limit. And here he is again, being anything but respectful. But we had a lovely sunset this evening and I've stocked up on well-priced red wine for Christmas...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 07:18 PM

“...anything but respectful...” so is the estimation of one who religiously holds to evolutionism.          Bill , if I seem to be using my arguments like a bludgeon, could it be that that there is some force behind the argument . I agree that evidence is more reasonable a term to use , but we all have the same evidence , but interpret it differently “...rejecting a pretty clear set of data ...’    it’s begging the question who is rejecting clear data .....             and it’s not just creationists that have a ‘belief system ‘ : even evolutionists themselves have admitted as much .    “98+%’....”. I’m pretty sure they said the same to all those in the past that were later deemed right after all , and the fact that evolutionists have to appeal to the unscientific idea of consensus science , rather than evidence their belief ,speaks volumes .   Consensus ‘science’ “is not going to wash” !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 07:59 PM

",,,could it be that that there is some force behind the argument"
Not really.

"it’s not just creationists that have a ‘belief system ‘ : even evolutionists themselves have admitted as much . "

Whatever 'some' may have said, they certainly didn't mean what YOU do... IF they actually said 'belief'. All decent scientists 'believe' that the scientific method is the best approach, but that is not nearly the same as 'believing' that they thereby have some sort of eternal truth as you seem to do about yours. I don't know where YOU picked up the term "consensus science", but no scientist would use it.

You might read this article about it. It pretty well shows that 'consensus' is way different that what you'd like it to mean.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Joe_F
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 08:30 PM

Quine, quoting Neurath, says: Revising our beliefs is like repairing a ship at sea: you can take any part out and work on it, but you can't take it all apart, or it will sink.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 08:36 PM

*grin* that's why one 'believes' in dry dock...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 19 - 08:31 AM

I’ve read your link Bill.   1, explain how that applies to my position and not to yours , and ,2, explain how the GTE leads to genetics and then to dna discovery , as the stricken claims

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Dec 19 - 09:50 AM

I too believe in dry docks :^/
One can see I borrowed the term 'provable facts' from 7 stars to have some communication in common, and then probably use it against him later. Amusing thread drift did not allow that but it is just as well.

Evolution is not completely understood/knowable as in the case of the crocodile whose evolutionary path appears to have stopped. I say it hasn't really stopped. I bet if we look more closely, it may have unexpressed genes to adapt to different conditions that are millions of years old and subject to mutation we could not predict.

When 99% of a subject is knowable but 1% is not, it does not mean that we should negate the 99%. This is my version of the uncertainty principle ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 19 - 04:47 PM

GTE? I don't get the reference. YOU used the term "consensus science", I just found a place discussing the concept of consensus in basic science and I am suggesting that you don't truly understand the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 09:55 PM

Our central air blower decided it was done after 60 years.
They don't make bearings like that anymore.