# The Multiverse????



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

1. What the heck has happened to science??

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?


Prologue;
Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'

Whatever comes out of the mouths.....computers.....of scientists is given the same acceptance as was once attributed to the utterances of priests.


You know, there are more working 'scientists' today than the total of all of 'em in earlier times....so, perhaps the glut, the overabundance, has done to intelligent exploration just as the government's working the monetary printing presses overtime has done to the value of money.

Science today suffers from inflation.


How else to explain *the nonsense that passes for science today?*





2. Case in point: at one time, science endeavored to discover the laws that explain our world, our universe, and how it came into existence. Science, today, seems content to accept every crackpot view with a thoughtful look and sincere stroking of one's chin, as though it actually made sense.



a. "The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them." 
Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



3. Brian Greene, "an American theoretical physicist and string theorist. He has been a professor at Columbia University since 1996 and chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008. (Brian Greene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

 "*The Hidden Reality *is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and *the possibility of parallel universes.* It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012. 
(The Hidden Reality - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia"

a. From an Amazon review of the book: 
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently *accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.*
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been *no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory *after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears *not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method, *although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable."
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos




4. Science today. 
Well, OK....'scientists' have to make a living, too. But* there are dunces who not only accept this nonsense, but they try to use this kind of ordure as an attack on religion. *You can see an interview with Greene about this book, here: Book Discussion Hidden Reality Video C-SPAN.org

Asked to elaborate about the multiverse theory, or about any experimental proof, the professor would say *"the math tells us so, and I believe the math." Faith in a new religion.*


a. Dr. Berlinski points out the absurdity of using the new religion of 'science' in hypothetical mathematics, and using it to attack religion:

 "Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
 David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five.




So.....how many scientists can dance on the head of a pin??


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely. 

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> 
> There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.
> 
> Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com




Could you point out what it is you've gleaned from the OP that I don't understand?


No?

Of course not.



1. But I can easily prove the absurdity of the multiverse theory, and, at the same time, that you are a moron talking through his hat.

Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

See what I mean? 
You're a moron.

2. In short....there will never be a time when you understand more than I.


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'


What's your interpretation of the difference between "faith" and "belief"?

Faith vs Belief ethicsdefined.org Ethics Defined


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2015)

Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

georgephillip said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'
> ...





I'm gonna stick to this thread...and you may benefit from what it will contain before I conclude....

....but you may wish to review this one:
America Without God No Moral Facts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.





Because I understand the concept and you don't.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory.


No, actually there isn't.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Mar 29, 2015)

Political Chic, when the foundation is faulty?  The builders work will be faulty.  And nothing shall stand.  That is what you are seeing.

 These Scientists are godless men albeit some will promote a false religion out of their hatred of God.  They are building their work on sinking sand - not on the Rock  - the ONLY Rock - Jesus Christ which is the true foundation.  All else is sinking sand.  ALL else is sinking sand.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> *1. But I can easily prove the absurdity of the multiverse theory, and, at the same time, that you are a moron talking through his hat.*


Prove it then.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand.  That doesn't mean it isn't science.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2015)

Pc can disprove the multiverse about as precise as rush limbaugh can disprove addiction as a phenomena.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 29, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america



You should stop obsessing over PC


----------



## G.T. (Mar 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america
> ...


You should stop projecting your baiting material onto other people pope francis.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america
> ...





I kinda like it......

I get the fool to jump through hoops, like any trained seal.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand.  That doesn't mean it isn't science.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's scientific.

Sometimes bullshit is simply bullshit.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Mar 29, 2015)

There is no question that God could have created multiple universes or that He will in the future but that will never change the fact that we are the first to be created "in His Image and after His Likeness" and when one considers that - we must also consider that those who are His and are called kings and priests - (born again Believers) that will rule and reign with Him - one must consider that everything we are doing now is being recorded and will perhaps one day be studied and known throughout the universe on other planets - imagine the honor God offers His children?  To be recorded and studied by others for thousands of years to come -because we are his first creation, His first fruits as it were - made in His Image.  We are truly blessed for such a great opportunity and how grieved will people be to learn what they could have had?  What might have been?  But missed it because of pride, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life!  Imagining this I can only surmise they will regret tremendously all the time wasted pursuing other things.  
There should be only one pursuit in life.  Not to find other universes but to Know God and Worship His Son.  There is no higher calling.  NONE. 

If the works of the disciples of Christ and their words were studied throughout the world since Christ was crucified and resurrected - what do you believe the works of the disciples of Christ will be to the universe (s) in the future considering we are not the first wine but the last?  The best wine for last was the new wine!   The ones chosen to be here during the end times - ushering in the Great Tribulation?  I cannot imagine it - but truly it is great!  Very, very great!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> Political Chic, when the foundation is faulty?  The builders work will be faulty.  And nothing shall stand.  That is what you are seeing.
> 
> These Scientists are godless men albeit some will promote a false religion out of their hatred of God.  They are building their work on sinking sand - not on the Rock  - the ONLY Rock - Jesus Christ which is the true foundation.  All else is sinking sand.  ALL else is sinking sand.




And!

I don't want us to forget the motivation for so many of these godless atheist scientists....


" The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes..." Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

...wherein *each has physical laws which contradict those of other universes...*.

Absurd, unprovable, untestable....clearly without a foundation....but not without an agenda.




5. One can see several* reasons why atheists would embrace a theory such as 'the multiverse,' after all....if there were an infinite number of universes, well, ours is hardly a big deal....and there is less a necessity to bend one's knee to a Creator. *

a. And, there is this....*the real dunces don't understand that there is no science behind the theory, *and believe that they have some sort of 'I know something you don't know' leg up on the theological folks.



6. When one looks as the conglomeration of scientific atheists, for whom *antipathy for religion is their sine qua non,* there are two characteristics that seem to appear with metronomic regularity:

a. *They tend to be Marxist,* whose love affair with materialism makes them automatic enemies of any spiritual view.

b. They offer and champion* truly crackpot ideas.*





7. Marxism cannot co-exist with belief in God.
Take as an example of Marxism in science, the most famous neo-Darwinist, and popularizer of evolution, Stephen Jay Gould:

"He was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the work of Science for the People, and of* the New York Marxist School. *
He* identified himself as a Marxist* but, like Darwinism, it is never quite certain what that identification implies. Despite our close comradeship in many things over many years, we never had a discussion of Marx’s theory of history or of political economy. More to the point, however, by insisting on his *adherence to a Marxist viewpoint*, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the* validity of a Marxist analysis."*
Stephen Jay Gould What Does it Mean to Be a Radical


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand.  That doesn't mean it isn't science.
> ...



And sometimes science is science.

I have little idea how a computer, the internet, the cloud etc -  these days works.  I depend on others for expertise in that area.  However, the evidence that it works in a logical (albeit frustrating) manner is compelling and I know there isn't some wizard waving a wand somewhere directing his hamster minions to operate my machinary.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> > Political Chic, when the foundation is faulty?  The builders work will be faulty.  And nothing shall stand.  That is what you are seeing.
> ...




So prove it doesn't work.  The rest of this is irrelevent.


----------



## Freewill (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> 
> There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.
> 
> Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com



Without a google search, can you first admit to accepting the theory as possible and what evidence for a parallel universe do you feel is the most convincing?


----------



## Freewill (Mar 29, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Pc talking about science is like mike huckabee talking about growing up a black inner city atheist in america



Or Obama.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> ...



Most convincing evidence for multiverse theory (I know about) is how galaxies and other structures are all drifting towards a point they shouldn't be as if being attracted by a stronger gravitational influence. 

Though this may turn out to be the case, my complaint about the theory is it doesn't answer my big question of why's the universe here in the first place? Seems to just multiply the problem without actually attempting to answer anything.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...





" (I know about)"


Case closed.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



I await your proof with a cup of coffee


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?
> 
> ...



The problem is not 'the math', it is the postulation of what the math means...

String theory originated from the failure of 'the math', as science got closer to the singularity.   Meaning that Math as it defines our world does not remain accurate in the quantum world and this has to do with the limited three dimensional aspect of our world.  String recognizes more dimensions... and when they applied the defining abstracts of String, they were able to run equations back to the moment of creation, and the math worked.

I think what you're saying is valid, to the extent that what Quantum Science is considering is beyond human relevance. 

However, with that said, as far as I can tell, what Quantum Science is doing is PROVING GOD.

And what you're seeing in the postulation which claims the universe is a constant without beginning or end, is the hysterical reaction by the anti-theists; with Neil deGrasse Tyson being chief among them... in hopes of turning the discussion from Quantum Science proving God.

Multiple dimensions, wherein every possible scenario is played out simultaneously, explains in fairly simple terms how a being, who is capable of moving within such 'verses', could be everywhere, with everyone, all the time.

And for those who believe that it's their job to replace God, by knowing 'how' everything works, it is imperative that they get others to believe that same thing.  The problem that they have is that they have no idea how it works, but even if they did, knowing HOW something works and WORKING IT... are two entirely different things.

The deceit that they're playing is they need you to believe that the two are synonymous, as such leads you to the erroneous, but heartfelt belief, that THEY are God.  Which of course is a HUGE MISTAKE.

They simply speak Math... and my guess is that in a world which is nearly entirely populated by people who do NOT speak math, its pretty easy to fool people into believing ya do.  And at some point, the fakes become such that there's no way to tell a fake from the genuine article, because the fakes become the majority and the legitimate Math speakers, become the freaks.

Now... who would like to tell the class what THAT represents?

GIVE ME AN E
GIVE ME AN V
GIVE ME AN I
GIVE ME AN L

Whatta ya GOT?  E V I L !

Which is the same crapola that is infecting every other facet of human existence.  


Now is that _crazy ironic_, or WHAT?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



I understand that such is within the realm of possibility, but that's only because we lack the means to prove otherwise.  I don't actually think that the multiverse requires that such would be the case... but as I said earlier, much, if not most of such is well beyond the scope of human relevance, in that; as you noted, there is no way to test for such and there is no means for humanity to ever 'BE' anywhere but present.  So, not sure how that effects us, and even if we were sure, we couldn't do a dam' thing about it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.

Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> ...




I wish I could give this one a check and a smiley face!
Fine work!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

The OP began with the query *"What the heck has happened to science??*

I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?"

The suggestion is that there are are so very many working under the appellation of 'scientist,' all having to put food on their tables, that* any ol' conjecture is accepted as science.*


8. An example of famous and respected scientists advancing nutty ideas is the following:

Well, Dr. Francis Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book _Life Itself_. *This co-discoverer of DNA instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains: Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, *almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that *life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization*., 
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 141



How about* like Fred Hoyle*, who was an _*atheist*_, anti-theist and Darwinist,and *Chandra Wickramasinghe,* atheist, mathematician, astronomer and astrobiologists. These two scientists discount the belief that any alien spacecraft brought life to this planet. They instead *propose that complex genes, the genes that appear early and abruptly in earth's history, were manufactured by some intelligence and released into space. *Those genes then were set adrift into space like dandelion seeds on windy spring day.

At select moments in history, and perhaps in the future, these genes, acting like highly sophisticated and autonomous computer programs, "rain gently from space into the environment, each fragment being a small program in itself."

Those that survive entry into the atmosphere waft across the planet, eventually coming into contact with one or more pre-established organisms. Upon contact, the new gene reprograms the old organism such that, when the organism reproduces, the organism's offspring will exhibit improvements proportionate to the degree of the genetic upgrade installed by the incoming gene. 
Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981, p109


Yet there are dolts.....several in this thread....who will bow to the brilliance of such nonsense.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

Keep in mind, that for all intents and purposes, the people to whom you're referring, are the same people who would look you right in the eye and tell you that those people who's reasoning compels them to pursue sexual gratification from people of their same gender; reasoning which represents a 180 degree deviation from the human physiological norm... IS PERFECTLY NORMAL!

Now, be honest, if they are insufficient to come to understand something so present and utterly verifiable... how can one reasonably trust their postulations on those things which can NEVER BE VERIFIED?  Which means that if what they say on one thing is demonstrably false, and what they claim on the other thing can neither be proven to be true or false, they simply cannot be trusted.  

Which leads us to where?

The same place everything else in this crippled reality leads us:

Let's review: 

_Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes._

_It is through this perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.  _


_And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice._

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> The OP began with the query *"What the heck has happened to science??*
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e., the vaunted Scientific Method?"
> 
> ...



Well, I have some bad news for these would-be 'fellows'.  They're defining God.  But they desire to do so in such a way which dismisses what they're claiming from the ever-over-hyped notion of the_ Super Natural.

In truth, God is nature... _thus God sets the standard for nature.  Therefore what is natural is defined by what is God.  Now... sadly for us, that doesn't make God SUPER-NATURAL.  It makes us, SUB-Natural, or subnature.

They are doing precisely the same thing that every other originator of every other religion has done.  They're trying to explain the origin of human life, which operates as nothing more than a backdoor program plotting to determine where we are going, from where we have been.  

But they need to breech the kinship of humanity from the God of old... and place it with the God of new, which predictably, as the subjectivism of Relativism requires, is THEM! 

That "Some Other Race" or "some other life form seeded the universe with life", is a given.  In Judea / Christianity we refer to that other form of life as God. OKA: The Supreme Being.   

I think that its a fair bet that SPACE/TIME is eternal... and I think that its just as fair a bet that what is present in any given aspect of such, be it in our 'present' or not, is optional.  With the purveyor of that option being God.

How that changes ANYTHING in our present, is unknown to us and likely will always be unknown to us.  Thus the exercise is pointless.  

Yet it is almost impossible to NOT CONSIDER IT.  Crazy, huh...?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong.  Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Oh!  Now that's good stuff right there... . 



​


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

PC, you don't think there could be dimensions and entities *outside* the visible light spectrum?

I don't know what, but there has to be.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

If anyone would like to see a classic example of the effect of the non-math-speakers, trying to pretend to be math-speakers, take a moment to examine this page.  The content is irrelevant, but look at the nature of the contest... and see if you can identify the two elements:

#1231  - 1237 or so...

It's a micro-example of the OPs point.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> PC, you don't think there could be dimensions and entities *outside* the visible light spectrum?
> 
> I don't know what, but there has to be.




Not sure how you are applying this to the idea of a multiuniverse....where the laws of physics work in exact reverse.....

....but, absolutely...

1.....our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

2. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.                                                                                                                                                    
3. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth? Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?                                                                                                                                   Absolutely.                                                                                                Chapter nine of Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





The proof, of course, is there.

The prob is that you aren't all there.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
*Thomas Paine*


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

Maybe the ability to see a bigger light spectrum would enable that part of your brain that would allow you to see Multiverses and Entities (if they even exist)

I dunno', but it's interesting to think about.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Maybe the ability to see a bigger light spectrum would enable that part of your brain that would allow you to see Multiverses and Entities (if they even exist)
> 
> I dunno', but it's interesting to think about.




I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....

a. that there are planets that operate via anti-gravity...things fall away from mass

b. that friction produces cold.


Would the ability to see more of the spectrum entice you to accept those premises?


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> I'm gonna stick to this thread...and you may benefit from what it will contain before I conclude....
> 
> ....but you may wish to review this one:
> America Without God No Moral Facts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


You said "In actuality, the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'" 

If you're serious about sticking to this thread, please be good enough to define your key terms.

Do you believe faith and belief are overlapping or separate spheres?

Do you believe faith is irrational, i.e., a belief that can not be tested?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

9. Then there is the argument  called *'the anthropic principle:'*


"In astrophysics and cosmology, the *anthropic principle*(fromGreek _anthropos_, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it...* the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. .*..

.... *the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life."  *
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Theological evidence* that the universe has been 'made' for us, for mankind?


Well...how do the* atheists* defend against this arguement?

Answer: the *Multiverse Theory.*


a.  "…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.

 For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe* that water is necessary.* On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. 

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. *Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life*. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other *fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. *The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. 

Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. *No life of any kind would exist." *http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Get that? 

The multiverse theory is an attack on the view that a Creator put our universe together to benefit his creation, mankind.

So....*.atheist scientists can ignore how the parameters of our universe fit perfectly conditions necessary for mankind by saying that we just happen to be one of an infinite number of universe.*



So...which is there more proof for...the existence of God, or the existence of an infinite variety of universes?

For which is there less evidence?


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.
> ...



That is the funniest thing I've read today.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Funny how things she understands are cut n pastes.


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> 
> There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.
> 
> Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com



I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

georgephillip said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna stick to this thread...and you may benefit from what it will contain before I conclude....
> ...





Do you believe in the 'Multiverse Theory'?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You're so cute   But...you're getting a bit boring.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> ...



Science is a magical marxist plot.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Just so you are not quickly identified as the moron you are....could you explain what 'cut and paste' has to do with this thread, other than the way the material is presented and supported?


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You don't say, I would have sworn she was a close professional associate of Michio Kaku.


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Plus we don't want science getting in the way of God's will.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Coyote said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...





Is that what you....believe....I almost said 'think'....this thread indicates?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Liminal said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> ...





I've seen your posts.

I suspect there isn't enough band width to list all of the things you wonder about.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nah.  It's not Marxists.  It's hamsters running the great cosmic wheel.

And then...the big Hamster Bang.

It was messy...but...it conquored the Dark Matter

and He said Let there be Light

and the Great Hamster was reborn unto us to bring us salvation in the form of Multiverse redemption.

Or...maybe it was actually gerbils...they aren't clear on that point


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....
> 
> a. that there are planets that operate via anti-gravity...things fall away from mass
> 
> ...


Like I said, I don't know. The effects of a Wider Light Spectrum on the Brain and it's functions haven't been studied as that isn't even possible for a Man *in his current state*.

Also, the Laws of Physics were made by a Man here on THIS Earth in THIS Universe. *Perhaps* there is a Different set of Laws for *other* Universes that cannot be verified by the current Scientific Method?

I don't know but again, it's interesting to think about.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 29, 2015)

poor PC


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



The things you wonder about don't take any space at all.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.
> 
> There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.
> 
> Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...








WHAAAAAAAAAT?!


----------



## georgephillip (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> " The *multiverse *(or *meta-universe*) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes..." Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...wherein *each has physical laws which contradict those of other universes...*.
> 
> ...


What a surprise.
Another conservative with a need to kneel.
What would the 1% do without devout conservatives?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Sheesh.  You don't understand science real well do you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

The coolest part of this thread, is how perfectly the Left's responses over; certainly the last few pages, have proven the OP hypothesis, perfectly, with their being absolutely CLUELESS that they've done so.

It's BRILLIANT!


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Well enough to know when people are joshing fortunately.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 29, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....
> ...



LOL! 

The Laws of physics were made by a man?  

ROFL!

Are you sure?  

ROFLMNAO! Man... come on!  
_
You're better than that..._


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....
> ...





"...the Laws of Physics were made by a Man here on THIS Earth..."

So...you don't accept either science nor the scientific method, huh?

Each to his own.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The coolest part of this thread, is how perfectly the Left's responses over; certainly the last few pages, have proven the OP hypothesis, perfectly, with their being absolutely CLUELESS that they've done so.
> 
> It's BRILLIANT!



ROFL!

Take the few posts since I offered this... dead center proof of the OPs point.   They're truly as clueless as they are helpless... .


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





You have just been catapulted to the lead in the category of "Unintentional Humor."

I don't 'wonder.'

I study, learn, and consider.



You should try it.

Some adult might help you get a library card.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Now that we've gotten the fools to expose themselves......
.... let's get all the dolts who are willing to accept the Multiverse Theory on the *details that that belief encompasses. *



While a religious individual would look at *the fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us,* scientific atheists, such as Brian Greene, say that the existence of one planet with such parameters suggests that there are other places with variations on these conditions and laws, i.e., the multiverse theory.
Does it?

*Is there any such evidence?*

That is the key to it being 'science,' isn't it? Evidence, testable in the lab, predictive in nature.....
*Conjecture is not science....even if you hid it behind imaginary mathematics, you know, to fool the imbeciles*.



10. "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that *there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. *

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. *Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental  physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.* And- the entire gargantuan structure *scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.” 
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7



Man.....that is funnnnnyyyyy!

"...statistical improbability...."???
God is less probable than "*an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours."*
Really??? By what metric?



According to statistics, the average human being has one breast and one testicle.
Jenner....you out there???


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

Ok not "man made" but "MAN INTERPRETED" by his CURRENT understanding of the Universe.

Compared to what's out there, man has an extremely limited capacity to even BEGIN to understand it all.

That's why I mentioned the Narrow light Spectrum.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Ok not "man made" but "MAN INTERPRETED" by his CURRENT understanding of the Universe.
> 
> Compared to what's out there, man has an extremely limited capacity to even BEGIN to understand it all.
> 
> That's why I mentioned the Narrow light Spectrum.





No....not 'interpreted.'

If laws of physics....provable in the laboratory.

....as opposed to the Multiverse Theory.


Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it is related to reality.

You know, like that recurring dream you have about you and Kate Upton....


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

Kate's hot but not my type. I like Latinas and Asians. Besides, I don't like chicks who are popular.

As far as the Multiverse Theory, I said (maybe not well enough) that a Multiverse could be possible just based on the fact that we haven't seen all of what's out there. It's within the realm of possibility.

And just to be clear, I'd there ARE Multiverses out there, well I'm sure God created them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Kate's hot but not my type. I like Latinas and Asians. Besides, I don't like chicks who are popular.
> 
> As far as the Multiverse Theory, I said (maybe not well enough) that a Multiverse could be possible just based on the fact that we haven't seen all of what's out there. It's within the realm of possibility.
> 
> And just to be clear, I'd there ARE Multiverses out there, well I'm sure God created them.




Asians?

Go, you!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> No....not 'interpreted.'
> 
> If laws of physics....provable in the laboratory.
> 
> ...



WAIT!  Are you saying that Kate Upton is only theoretical?  

Suddenly my world no longer makes sense... .


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > No....not 'interpreted.'
> ...





Wait....maybe she has a sister.....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Kate's hot but not my type. I like Latinas and Asians. Besides, I don't like chicks who are popular.
> ...



Right!  My first little crush was on little Suzy Ho.  (True Story... 1st grade.  She was a super sweet kid until third grade, when 'Ho' was defined _colloquially_... at which point she began her first_ rough patch_.  Not to worry she came out of it fine, graduated first in our class.  Last I heard she graduated from MIT, got married and was some big shot chemist... collecting some major bank.)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...





y'know.....rumor has it that there might be a few more Asians around.....


....don't give up hope.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Mar 29, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Kate's hot but not my type. I like Latinas and Asians. Besides, I don't like chicks who are popular.
> 
> As far as the Multiverse Theory, I said (maybe not well enough) that a Multiverse could be possible just based on the fact that we haven't seen all of what's out there. It's within the realm of possibility.
> 
> And just to be clear, I'd there ARE Multiverses out there, well I'm sure God created them.



Kate Upton is every man's "Type".  She looks like an experiment made from a men's suggestion box~!  She's tall, and "PERFECTLY ROUND"... and I'm talking "Baby-bear's porridge" perfect... Put it to ya this way, if she hits 50 and still has it 'goin' on'... she could very possibly bump Jennifer Anniston from her delightful perch.  

_But we're talking *crazy theoretical crap* here my friend. _ <<<(Did ya see what I did there?  Brought a seemingly TOTALLY OFF TOPIC comment right back to dead center topical!  The Great One's power-thru... .  )


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

11. It is, arguendo,* as difficult to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove God's existence....*yet the scientist- atheists see the attempt as their _raison d'être. _

_As hypothetical and unprovable as IT is, *they embrace the 'multiverse' because it appears to support their thesis. *At it's core is the view that the laws of physics and mathematics lead to the creation of the universe out of nothing, and, it follows, it could happen over and over again. Hence....a multitude of universes.



I hate to burst their bubble (I don't really hate to) but, if there were an infinite number of universes, then, whatever created them, must be far more powerful than even what we imagined it to be, i.e., God.


Einstein famously said "Always seek out the simplest possible solution – but none simpler."  Imagine the calculations, explanations, parameters necessary to account for all of the values throughout a multitude of universes.
_
Bear in mind, if tempted to accept the multiverse in place of the religious view, is that* there is absolutely no way to validate the theory through experimentation or to obtain any data that might verify same.*
The mathematical calculations used simply don't apply to any real world physical phenomenon.



Acceptance of the Multiverse Theory relies on the same thing as religion does: *...faith.*


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 29, 2015)

.

Well personally, I watch the Science channel quite a bit, and the idea of a multiverse sounds pretty freaking cool to me.

Nothing wrong with being curious and letting the mind wander.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Well personally, I watch the Science channel quite a bit, and the idea of a multiverse sounds pretty freaking cool to me.
> 
> ...





Y'know....I was thinking the same sort of thing when I learned to spin straw into gold.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 29, 2015)

Coyote said:


> There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand.  That doesn't mean it isn't science.


Imagine what an exciting time it must be to be in that field right now.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > There is a whole range of science, mostly physics, that I lack the mathmatical capacity to understand.  That doesn't mean it isn't science.
> ...





"Imagine" is the operative term.


----------



## Liminal (Mar 29, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Imagine is the only thing you can do, because you obviously don't know any science.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 29, 2015)

PC you know what the Corpus Callosum is and what its used for? It brings the Left/Logical side of the brain together with the Right/Creative side so that we may "see" where we are on this earth and (gasp!) *IMAGINE* what it must be like somewhere out there! Blasphemy I know!


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


There's a great deal of imagination in mythology, too.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...





1. Prove you're not a lying gutter snipe by providing any ......ANY.....examples of my being incorrect, about science, in the thread.


2. Wipe that drool off your chin.
It's disgusting.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

Thinking of Family Guy's "Road to the Multiverse" PC, somewhere there's a universe where you actually know what you're talking about.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Thinking of Family Guy's "Road to the Multiverse" PC, somewhere there's a universe where you actually know what you're talking about.





Could you give any examples of me not knowing what I'm talking about?

No?

So, in reality, you've been shredded and resort to a drive by, vapid, sophomoric attempt to regain the face you never had.


Actually, you are the reason I come to the board. My doctor is treating me for Low Tolerance Syndrome....she hopes that within a few years I'll be able to put up with morons like  you.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking of Family Guy's "Road to the Multiverse" PC, somewhere there's a universe where you actually know what you're talking about.
> ...



Well you're in luck!

"Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." But I say, "The unchallenged faith is not worth sharing. For just as vigorous exercise causes microscopic tears in muscle, and fractures in bones which then grow back stronger than before, so does having our faith in things challenged, struck, shaken, and scutinized, after which, it reforms stronger precisely because it was attacked."" - Me


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Could you give any examples of me not knowing what I'm talking about?
> No? So, in reality, you've been shredded and *resort to a drive by, vapid, sophomoric attempt to regain the face you never had*.


Which make up 50-90% of the responses to your threads PC.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


A curious mind is a very, very good thing.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...





"Could you give any examples of me not knowing what I'm talking about?"

You were given the opportunity to defend your charge....of course you couldn't.

So....w*ith very little effort you have become our main source of greenhouse gases.


It remains my fondest hope that you end up the way the Hindenburg did.....and for the very same reason.*


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Unless you're a cat.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nice to know little pokes and prods upset you so much you spend an hour or so fuming and replying to them. Have you considered a decaffeinated brand?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...





I admit I have very little patience for low life gutter snipes.


Perhaps if you were to warn me in advance by changing your avi to 'Low Life Gutter Snipe,' I might be persuaded to count ten before I provide what you deserve.


----------



## Liminal (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



If only you were capable of something more than cut and paste, someone might think you have thoughts of your own.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.


Go.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?





Au contraire....and, as a bonus, proved that you are a moron.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So...still haven't managed to disprove the Multiverse?
> ...



Thus far the only thing you've proved is you're incredible ability to obfuscate, duck and weave


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Isn't it dangerous to use one's entire vocabulary in a single post?


----------



## Liminal (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Prove I'm not an imbecile?  That figures.   You'd like me to prove a negative premise, sort of like how you imagine you've proved there's no multiverse.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

Is she still at it?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You're still alive aren't you?


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 30, 2015)

Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...



If you poke it, will it explode?


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes i wonder if it's a bot...
> ...


It's always on a conundrum cycle...


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Kind of like permanent press?


----------



## Moonglow (Mar 30, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


It's suppose to be wash and wear but it's not............


----------



## Coyote (Mar 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Shrunk did it?


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 30, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Prologue;
> Since the Enlightenment, the attempt has been made to replace religion with science, and the view that mankind can explain, and, ultimately replace, God and religion. In actuality,the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'



Proceeds from a false assumption. The job of science isn't to disprove God, but rather to figure out how the universe functions. It's not the job of science to tell anyone they are following the wrong God, to prove God, that people are abusing kids by teaching them religion, or anything of the sort. If God is killed in the process because science discovers something that contradicts someone's holy book or doctrine, that's not science's fault. It's got nothing to do with Marxism, Socialism, Atheism, or any other -ism beyond Methodological Naturalism. That some scientists are Marxists, Socialists, Atheists, or some other -ist isn't a fault of science or the scientific findings, but rather it's just a fault in human beings.

Also, there is a difference between experimental science and theoretical science. The scientific method we all learned in 7th Grade is great, but isn't quite so cut and dried when actual cutting edge science and scientists are involved.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





You must have missed this, you imbecile.

Every single thing I post is a direct result of my thoughts.

*The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?*

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate *what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.*


Go.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Prologue;
> ...





Please provide where I said it was "The job of science isn't to disprove God."


What I proved.....PROVED.....is that faux scientists value the same faith that religious folk have in God, for the multiverse.


And all of you God-haters went wild!


----------



## Liminal (Mar 31, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



God, another subject you know nothing about.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...





Hmmm....let's see....you made a comment, and now you're running from it....


Wanna try again?

*The only criticism you can come up with is the manner of presentation, cut and paste?*

So....every single thing I posted is correct, huh?


Now....just to prove you aren't the imbecile that I believe you are, elucidate *what, if any, problems you have with that manner of presentation.*
*

Of course, you could simply change your avi to "The Imbecile"*


----------



## Liminal (Mar 31, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nothing you've posted has ever been correct.  That's because it's always tainted with the stench of ideology.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





Wasn't it fun how you posted some vague criticism of cut and paste, and I rammed it down your throat?


----------



## Liminal (Mar 31, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Is that what you did?  I must have missed that part.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Liminal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...





So....you're a liar, too?


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 31, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You've done nothing of the sort. Science in neutral; it doesn't have anything to say about God one way or another. Your lack of education and ignorance of the material make you think that the likes of Hawking and Krauss and Greene and every other theoretical scientist is some kind of faux-scientist because they aren't running experiments. That isn't their job. I know what you were told in Jr. High about the scientific method, but your missing the key point which is that theoretical scientists are just coming up with hypotheses based on the evidence at hand. The are leaving it up to the experimental scientists to come up with a way to test the hypotheses. Until then, or until a better idea comes along, that's the best we can do. It doesn't mean that the theoretical scientists are frauds; it means they are sticking to their particular specialty, which is doing a lot of complicated math and coming up with a hypothesis.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...





Imagine......if you actually understood what science is, and what is is not.

We live in a secular age where dunces like you accept Leftist philosophy and call it science....and don't even realize it, and you, are being used to attack the basis of Western civilization.


Here, a part of your education that is sorely lacking, an explanation of science:


"I have imposed upon myself, as a law,* never to advance but from what is known to what is unknown; never to form any conclusion which is not an immediate consequence necessarily flowing from observation and experiment; *and always to arrange the fact, and the conclusions which are drawn from them, in such an order as shall render it most easy for beginners in the study of chemistry thoroughly to understand them." 
Antoine Lavoisier, "The Elements of Chemistry," 1790  Antoine Lavoisier



In short, there is no such scientific conception known as 'the Multiverse."

None.

To accept such as science obviates the very basis of actual science.




Tell me.....does your diploma actually say "Fool"?


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 31, 2015)

I know you never bothered to walk across campus to visit the Biology Department to ask about evolution, but would it be too much to ask you to walk across campus to the Physics Department and ask them to explain how Theoretical Physics work and just why theoretical scientists say the things they do?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> I know you never bothered to walk across campus to visit the Biology Department to ask about evolution, but would it be too much to ask you to walk across campus to the Physics Department and ask them to explain how Theoretical Physics work and just why theoretical scientists say the things they do?





Trying to educate you is like trying to grip smoke.

I am certain that many of your teachers had the very same impression.


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 31, 2015)

You don't like their conclusions so you think they don't do science the way you think it should be done based on your understanding of the scientific method. You simply don't know enough about the sciences to understand why you are wrong. It's not a crime to be ignorant, but you embrace it like it's some kind of virtue.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2015)

Steven_R said:


> You don't like their conclusions so you think they don't do science the way you think it should be done based on your understanding of the scientific method. You simply don't know enough about the sciences to understand why you are wrong. It's not a crime to be ignorant, but you embrace it like it's some kind of virtue.




It's not science, you dope.

It's bloviation in order to receive a pay check.

It's morons like you who are quick to accept and call science, any conjecture ad absurdum.
*The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes Paperback – September 13, 2005*
by Dean H. Hamer

*Zeroing in on the “Gay Gene”http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41472/title/Zeroing-in-on-the--Gay-Gene-/*

*A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss*






"You simply don't know enough about the sciences...."

The truth is that I'm somewhere between you and understand all there is to know about science.


----------



## Steven_R (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## Liminal (Apr 1, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I doubt you can even begin to distinguish between reality and fiction.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 1, 2015)

There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad. 

Let us talk about serious science now - particularly string theory as that appears to be the topic of this thread. Both theory of relativity and quantum field theory have established themselves as well accepted theories that are supported by evidence. However, there is a gap between the two. As we know, theory of relativity is good at explaining things at large distances and speeds nearing that of light but it sucks at explaining things at quantum level. That is where quantum field theory comes into play. This leaves a gap between the two. That gap needs to be filled. This is where string theory comes in. String theory postulates that everything in our universe and I mean everything such as energy, matter, gravity, etc. is made of one dimensional vibrating string. Prior to string theory which came out in 1980s, our understanding was that quarks were the most basic building block. Prior to arrival of Edward Witten on the scene, there were five competing string theories. This was problem for the credibility of the theory. But in 1995, Edward Witten successfully demonstrated that all those five theories were simply special cases of one string theory which was called M-theory. M stands for membrane. Prior to M-theory, string theory postulated that our realities existed in 10 dimensions. M-theory adds one more dimension to this bringing the total dimensions to 11. So our universe is made of three dimensional membrane which is made of one dimensional vibrating string. There is no limit to these membranes aka universes. When we think of multiverse, we tend to think of multiple universes at vast distances. That is not always the case actually. There could be a membrane right next to you but you cannot reach it even if it is right next to you because it could be at a higher dimension than yours. So it is not the distance which is always separating us from other membranes (universes) but the dimensions as well. We are nothing but the prisoners to the dimensions in which we exist. For example, us humans are limited to four dimensions. But even today we know of particles that defy common sense. For example, bosons can exist in multiple places at the same time. Positrons can go back in time. Last but not least the curious behaviors of entangled particles seem crazy. 

The same of kind of disrespect that some people are showing towards string theory and its contributors was shown towards Satyendra Nath Bose (Indian theoretical physicist) when he in 1920 proposed that there is a possibility of a particle which can exist in two places at the same time. This was a revolutionary idea as it violated Pauli's Exclusion Principle. He received a lot of ridicule for his idea till Einstein backed him. Now bosons are reality. No body disputes that. 

You have reasons to be skeptical about M-theory. There is nothing wrong with that skepticism. However, you have to realize that science is about proposing ideas and deliberating on them. That is how we advance as a society.

Keep in mind, it may be hard for us to prove M-theory for now but with the advent of next generation particle smashers, we may be able to pickup on signatures of gravitons which is a prediction of M-theory (string theory).


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad.
> 
> Let us talk about serious science now - particularly string theory as that appears to be the topic of this thread. Both theory of relativity and quantum field theory have established themselves as well accepted theories that are supported by evidence. However, there is a gap between the two. As we know, theory of relativity is good at explaining things at large distances and speeds nearing that of light but it sucks at explaining things at quantum level. That is where quantum field theory comes into play. This leaves a gap between the two. That gap needs to be filled. This is where string theory comes in. String theory postulates that everything in our universe and I mean everything such as energy, matter, gravity, etc. is made of one dimensional vibrating string. Prior to string theory which came out in 1980s, our understanding was that quarks were the most basic building block. Prior to arrival of Edward Witten on the scene, there were five competing string theories. This was problem for the credibility of the theory. But in 1995, Edward Witten successfully demonstrated that all those five theories were simply special cases of one string theory which was called M-theory. M stands for membrane. Prior to M-theory, string theory postulated that our realities existed in 10 dimensions. M-theory adds one more dimension to this bringing the total dimensions to 11. So our universe is made of three dimensional membrane which is made of one dimensional vibrating string. There is no limit to these membranes aka universes. When we think of multiverse, we tend to think of multiple universes at vast distances. That is not always the case actually. There could be a membrane right next to you but you cannot reach it even if it is right next to you because it could be at a higher dimension than yours. So it is not the distance which is always separating us from other membranes (universes) but the dimensions as well. We are nothing but the prisoners to the dimensions in which we exist. For example, us humans are limited to four dimensions. But even today we know of particles that defy common sense. For example, bosons can exist in multiple places at the same time. Positrons can go back in time. Last but not least the curious behaviors of entangled particles seem crazy.
> 
> ...





"There is nothing wrong with that skepticism. However, you have to realize that science is about proposing ideas and deliberating on them. That is how we advance as a society."

You left off "....no matter how absurd."




Hmmm......can't seem to find any mention of the multiverse theory......


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2015)

Can't find any mention of multiverse theory?

AOL Search

682,000 entries.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 2, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?
> 
> ...


The multiverse is just one possible and plausable alternative possibility of answering questions we've always asked. An alternative to the must be god answer. Does it threaten your beliefs?

I suggest even if a multiverse wouldnt change your beliefs just like finding out we aren't the center of the universe didn't.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 2, 2015)

It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life. 

The idea of multiverse did not arise from vacuum. It has history. It started with Alan Guth proposing the idea of inflationary universe which was verified through astronomical observations later. 

Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin took it one step further by suggesting that the inflation has to come to rest at some point and that it cannot come to rest at once. So we have places where inflation is still taking place. He coined the term eternal inflationary universe aka multiverse. Unfortunately Alex Vilenkin did not receive much support till string theory came along. 

As a matter of fact, the book on multiverse would have probably closed if it was not for the arrival of string theory and making the prediction for multiverse. String theory especially in the form of M-theory is solid. It explains workings of our universe in detail and supports it through mathematics. Just like any other theory, it makes some fundamental assumptions and makes predictions. In less than 100 years or so, we will know whether those predictions are valid or not. 

In defense of multiverse though, it is supported by three independent fields: inflationary universe (verified by observation), dark energy (verified by observation) and last but not least the M-theory (string theory). The idea of multiverse is gaining traction and to quote Andrei Linde, "Genie is out of the bottle."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 3, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life.
> 
> The idea of multiverse did not arise from vacuum. It has history. It started with Alan Guth proposing the idea of inflationary universe which was verified through astronomical observations later.
> 
> ...





There are morons who will believe anything.....ANYTHING......and claim it to be 'science.'

Raise your paw.


Did you just quote 'Russian scientist Alex Vilenkin'?????


This guy claims that the universe came from nothing.


Nothing!!!!



Another 'scientific' theory you embrace?????



You guys......all charter members of "Imbeciles United"


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 3, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > It takes incredible amount of arrogance to allude that the idea of multiverse is somehow more abusrd than the premise of this thread. If your religion is so constrictive that it is choking your creativity then may be it is time to shop for a new religion. Choking your mind is no way to live your life.
> ...



Vilenkin's toenail is smarter than your brain. I do not think you are capable of understanding the work of Vilekin or anyone. You did not even understand my posts  

There is a pattern in your replies. You just desperately twist people's posts to make it sound like as if you are making a rebuttal. It is your thread which is product of an imbecile mind; it does not even belong in Science & Technology section.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 4, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...





I just proved I am familiar with his, and Krauss' work, you moron.


Let's cut to the chase: which is based on* faith?*

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine

The proof of everything that I've posted will be in the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.



I detect, in your post, the hostility that is always the result of suddenly realizing that your entire worldview has been based on lies and fabrications.


 Did you leave the stove on? Cause you just got burned.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 4, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad.
> 
> Let us talk about serious science now - particularly string theory as that appears to be the topic of this thread. Both theory of relativity and quantum field theory have established themselves as well accepted theories that are supported by evidence. However, there is a gap between the two. As we know, theory of relativity is good at explaining things at large distances and speeds nearing that of light but it sucks at explaining things at quantum level. That is where quantum field theory comes into play. This leaves a gap between the two. That gap needs to be filled. This is where string theory comes in. String theory postulates that everything in our universe and I mean everything such as energy, matter, gravity, etc. is made of one dimensional vibrating string. Prior to string theory which came out in 1980s, our understanding was that quarks were the most basic building block. Prior to arrival of Edward Witten on the scene, there were five competing string theories. This was problem for the credibility of the theory. But in 1995, Edward Witten successfully demonstrated that all those five theories were simply special cases of one string theory which was called M-theory. M stands for membrane. Prior to M-theory, string theory postulated that our realities existed in 10 dimensions. M-theory adds one more dimension to this bringing the total dimensions to 11. So our universe is made of three dimensional membrane which is made of one dimensional vibrating string. There is no limit to these membranes aka universes. When we think of multiverse, we tend to think of multiple universes at vast distances. That is not always the case actually. There could be a membrane right next to you but you cannot reach it even if it is right next to you because it could be at a higher dimension than yours. So it is not the distance which is always separating us from other membranes (universes) but the dimensions as well. We are nothing but the prisoners to the dimensions in which we exist. For example, us humans are limited to four dimensions. But even today we know of particles that defy common sense. For example, bosons can exist in multiple places at the same time. Positrons can go back in time. Last but not least the curious behaviors of entangled particles seem crazy.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, except you cant quite dismiss Hawkings' work like that. It stands on its own, independent of the surrounding celebutant hoopla.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 4, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > There are quite a few people who are using science to attain some sort of celebrity status. They have tendency of writing books and appearing in TV shows that are more appealing from the perspective of science fiction and therefor tend to draw a large audience who otherwise may not be interested in science. I would even put Hawking in that category. However, disrespecting guys like Edward Witten just because your religion compels you to do so is very sad.
> ...



Hawking is alright. He has done some good work in the field of theoretical physics. Furthermore, he does a very good job of bringing cutting edge science to  average folks. 

I just distaste folks who parade as scientists but in reality they are nothing but celebrities. I prefer scientists who stay out of limelight.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 4, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You are an idiot. Just because your life revolves around faith or lack of faith does not mean everybody is that way. Grow up and get yourself a new religion


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 4, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




The proof of everything that I've posted is the fact that you will not answer the above honestly.
Let's cut to the chase: which is based on* faith?*

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



As you have declined to respond, the obvious conclusion is that you recognize the clear answer is *"all three."*

None of them can be shown to be provable in the laboratory.


I guess this little 'experiment' shows you to be both the liar and the idiot.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You have to brush up your comprehension skills before anyone can have a meaningful discussion with you. You are a religious fundamentalists who lacks understanding of how science works. People including myself have given your numerous examples of ideas and theories that were considered bizarre once but are well accepted now. When Einstein came around and suggested that there was nothing absolute except for the speed of light in vacuum. This meant that even space and gravity were not absolute. This new idea (theory of general and special relativity) drew considerable criticism from illiterates like yourself. Look at it today though, pretty much every prediction of Einstein including black holes have been validated by observations. Indian American scientist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar provided exact calculation that would lead to formation of black holes. His work was independent. He was not member of a conspiracy club to prove Einstein right. 

You have fairly similar situation here. Three different fields of study: inflationary  universe, dark energy and string theory; they all point to the idea of multiverse. This is yet another revision of our understanding of the world we live in.These revisions are nothing new. Not too long ago, there were fundamentalists religious people like yourself who used to think that Sun revolved around the Earth. We all know how that turned out


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 5, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




Let's cut to the chase: which is based on* faith?*

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine



You can run, but you can't hide.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Cut to chase and learn to read. That stupid agenda of yours has been addressed at least twice by me alone. For the last time, there is no faith involved in string theory. It is a new work. It was unified in 1995. It is a work in progress. As far as inflationary universe and dark energy are concerned, they are both supported by observations. So, we have three independent investigations that point to multiverse. Two of them are supported by observations. BTW, it is you who is hiding behind ignorance. I am beginning to get an impression that you are either unable or reluctant to comprehend complex ideas. Either way, an exchange with you appears to be an exercise in futility.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 5, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




Let's cut to the chase: which is based on* faith?*

a. the multiverse theory
b. the universe from nothing
c. any religious doctrine


String Theory....you moron???

From an Amazon review of the book:
"...on the state of post-relativistic physics and cosmology as it is currently *accepted by the majority of the academic physics community.*
That is just the problem. None of string theory may be true at all. There has been *no experimental verification of any of the elements of mathematically based string theory*after 30 years or so of work, and, in fact, the theory may not even be "falsifiable." That is, it appears *not to be subject to the rigors of the experimental scientific method,*although the string theorists hope that with higher energy colliders and the like it may, someday, be testable." 
Amazon.com Customer Reviews The Hidden Reality Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




String theory came out in 1980s. However, the theory had credibility issue because there were five different competing string theories. This problem was solved by Edward Witten in 1995. He was able to unify the theory by demonstrating that each competing theory was simply a specialized case of single string theory. He called it M-theory. After that, the theory started to gain credibility. There is a very good possibility that Edward Witten will go down in the history as one of the greatest minds of theoretical physics once we have tools that can perform accurate measurements at planck level. 

I think I understand your discomfort as a fundamentalist religious person that may come from Hawking's book where he claims that M-theory proves that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. That is his opinion. If you have problem with it, you can take it with him. Don't bad mouth M-theory because Hawking did not develop it and you don't even understand it. Heck, you cannot even understand posts written in plain English.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalSpice doesn't care for the Enlightenment which brought about the very creation of this great nation's founding document?  Quelle surprise.....NOT!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 5, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...





Change the subject because I'm totally correct?
All three are based on* a religious faith.*

Now...the next absurdity.....String theory.

String theory only exists as a bunch of equations with no testable predictions. If science is based on experiment, observation, and empirical knowledge, then it isn’t science.


'When scientists appeal to various unobservable entities-  universal forces, grand symmetries, twice-differential functions as in mechanics, Calabi-Yau manifolds, ionic bonds, or quantum fields- the shovel is in plain sight, but _what_ is about to be shoveled is nowhere to be seen. Why physicists should enjoy inferential advantages denied theologians is not explained.'
Berlinski, “Devil’s Delusion"

"So, to accept the doctrine of the twenty-four elementary particles, one requires the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives. 
What better elucidation of faith!"
Ibid.


Let's face it....you are no more than a mind-numbed drone who will accept any dish placed in front of you.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I'm surprised you're "quoting" Berlinski as he only serves to devalue your typically valueless cutting and pasting.

As you know, Berlinski is a failure at so many things and has been reduced to shilling for the charlatans at the silly Disco'tute. 

You whacked out religious fundamentalists do seem to find the worst examples of fraud and failure to make your failed attempts at argument. 

Maybe just do yourself a favor and drink the Kool-Aid?

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...






So sorry, but you're not equipped to engage in this discussion.


Please return when the issue under consideration is favorite 24-hour Cartoon Network.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I was certain you would be reduced to stuttering and mumbling as your only tactic.

Because you're clueless, I'll advise that the charlatan, Berlinski, is not an astronomer and is as clueless regarding astronomy as you are. 

Sorry, but your typically pointless cutting and pasting of goofy "quotes" from pointless frauds such as Berlinski and the Disco'tute make you an accomplice to fraud.

Your Kool-Aid is waiting.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




See what I mean.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 5, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I do. You're stuttering and mumbling like a bumbling moron.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 5, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Copying and pasting: That explains why are posts are so incoherent. It is almost next to impossible to make any sense of her posts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





I detect that you have begin to sense your defeat.

Let's remind all.....what you call 'science' is no different from what other folks call religion.


There is no laboratory proof of God's existence.....

But neither is there any proof of:

The mulitiverse theory
String theory
The HIggs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


You can obfuscate all you like, about me, about how I choose to post factual material, but the truth is exactly what I wrote above.
There is no proof of any of those 'beliefs.'

Clearly, I understand science far better than you do.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I thought that the Large Hadron Collider had found the evidence of the Higgs boson recently.  Were the articles about that untrue?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




*"When the Large Hadron Collider at CERN Laboratory in Geneva closed down for upgrades in early 2013, its collisions had failed to yield any of dozens of particles that many theorists had included in their equations for more than 30 years. The grand flop suggests that researchers may have taken a wrong turn decades ago in their understanding of how to calculate the masses of particles.*

*Yet decades after their prediction, none of the supersymmetric particles have been found. “That’s what the Large Hadron Collider has been looking for, but it hasn’t seen anything,” saidSavas Dimopoulos, a professor of particle physics at Stanford University who helped develop the supersymmetry hypothesis in the early 1980s. “Somehow, the Higgs is not protected.”*


*....many physicists have grown increasingly convinced that the theory has failed. Just last month at the International Conference of High-Energy Physics in Valencia, Spain, researchers analyzing the largest data set yet from the LHC found no evidence of supersymmetric particles. (The data also strongly disfavors an alternative proposal called “technicolor.”)"
Radical New Theory Could Kill the Multiverse Hypothesis WIRED
*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

And, a trip down memory lane...

"Kaku explained the importance of the God particle this way in a radio interview, *"If we don't find the Higgs boson we are in deep trouble. We are in deep doo-doo.* The reason is that the subatomic particles in the Standard Model are the basis, the foundation of everything we know about the Big Bang, everything we know about the universe, cosmic rays (and) black holes. So if that theory is wrong, then we are really in trouble. It means we have to throw out what is called the Standard Model — and even string theory would be in danger because string theory also has a Higgs boson. Steve Hawking, my colleague, said, "Well, if we don't find the Higgs boson things would be very interesting.' No. It will be a disaster if we don't find Higgs boson, because basically the entire edifice of modern physics depends upon it." Creation theory may be wrong collider hasn t found God particle


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 6, 2015)

Higgs found Science News

Where the Higgs -- or God particle -- was found - CNN.com

Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions

Higgs Boson Confirmed God Particle Found

These are the kinds of articles I'm talking about.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

You can believe this......

"A group of researchers, however, has casted doubt on whether or not the supposed particle discovered during experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest and most powerful particle collider in the world, is the long sought after Higgs Boson.
The researchers found that while scientists agree that the experiments with the CERN particle accelerator resulted in the discovery of a new particle and that the calculations indicate this newly found particle is the Higgs Boson, there was no conclusive evidence that proves the particle was indeed the God particle.

Although it is possible that scientists at CERN have indeed detected the Higgs particle, Frandsen said that there can be other possible explanations for the data since these can also be gathered from other particles.

"The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is. It could be a number of other known particles," Frandsen said."
Did or did not CERN discover Higgs Boson particle We deserve to know SCIENCE Tech Times


Or you can believe this:


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Blow it out your poop shooter Toots.  America is a moral nation?  Really? 

America could be a moral nation but so far since it's inception it has been anything but.

It was a good idea to get out from under the British rule but that's about when this moral took a side ways turn towards greed and immorality.  Certainly the rest of the influences from other nations had enormous effect on the path we took colonizing the rest of the land we call America today, but seriously, how we accomplished this was the most vile destruction of a civilization as we saw world wide in the 18-1900's. 

You think your faith gives you a free pass on morality?  Get real.  Faith has been the cause of more debauchery than just about any human concept since we were able to stand on two legs.

Even now we are reaping the reward for being such a moral nation turning the rather spectacular police matter known as 9/11 in major destruction of two sovereign nations in the mid-East because that idiot Bush and his daddy believed in GAAAWWWDDD.

Moral?  No, we are most certainly NOT moral by any standard.  We are rich and still greedy, We are well fed and still deny food to those that cannot feed themselves, our rich are well cared for by high priced medicine designed to make a profit not to heal, and denied to those that haven't participated in the greed fest. 

Moral?  You are the worst kind of hypocrite.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...





" Faith has been the cause of more debauchery than just about any human concept since we were able to stand on two legs."

Not only have you proven to be truly stupid....but you represent the result of government schooling and total acceptance sans any thinking.

As America slips further and further into the abyss....folks like you will be the grease that speeds it along.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> You can believe this......
> 
> "A group of researchers, however, has casted doubt on whether or not the supposed particle discovered during experiments with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the largest and most powerful particle collider in the world, is the long sought after Higgs Boson.
> The researchers found that while scientists agree that the experiments with the CERN particle accelerator resulted in the discovery of a new particle and that the calculations indicate this newly found particle is the Higgs Boson, there was no conclusive evidence that proves the particle was indeed the God particle.
> ...



Even if I believe the article, it leaves the possibility that yes, the Higgs boson was found with the LHC.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You can believe this......
> ...





Some people will believe anything.



But you have given me an idea for a thread exposing the ignorance you evince re: science, and the reasons for said ignorance.

You have inadvertently become my muse.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Either you believe the article you provided as evidence, and it is possible the research at the LHC found the Higgs boson, or you don't believe the article, so why did you provide it as evidence of your point?

The article clearly says it is possible that the Higgs boson was found, just that it isn't certain.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





*".... says it is possible that the Higgs boson was found, just that it isn't certain."


We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!!*


----------



## Hollie (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> And, a trip down memory lane...
> 
> "Kaku explained the importance of the God particle this way in a radio interview, *"If we don't find the Higgs boson we are in deep trouble. We are in deep doo-doo.* The reason is that the subatomic particles in the Standard Model are the basis, the foundation of everything we know about the Big Bang, everything we know about the universe, cosmic rays (and) black holes. So if that theory is wrong, then we are really in trouble. It means we have to throw out what is called the Standard Model — and even string theory would be in danger because string theory also has a Higgs boson. Steve Hawking, my colleague, said, "Well, if we don't find the Higgs boson things would be very interesting.' No. It will be a disaster if we don't find Higgs boson, because basically the entire edifice of modern physics depends upon it." Creation theory may be wrong collider hasn t found God particle


Creation theory may be wrong? That's a bit of a stretch as there is no "creation theory" aside from from silly claims screeching out "the gawds did it".

The reason that christian fundies react so negatively to science investigation such as that being done with LHD is that your beliefs in magic and supernaturalism are directly challenged. Knowledge has incrementally stripped your gawds of so much of their authority that they're left with little more than paper shuffling tasks.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Wrong Little Missy!

Your belief if fairy tales is the thinking that has been the rails of this crazy train.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You find it humorous that the article you use to show the Higgs boson wasn't found claims that it may have been?


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have detected that you lack basic knowledge of science. You are not qualified to start a thread in science and technology section. You do not even have rudimentary sense to know the difference between science and religion. What you are attempting to discuss can only be characterized as religion. There is nothing wrong with that though but you should take that discussion to religion section. My annoyance with you is that you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





I find it humorous how gullible folks like you are.

But I'll soon post an OP about what science is and what science is not....

Hope you'll read it/comment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




"I have detected that you lack basic knowledge of science."

Now...you know that's a lie.

What you found is that you are unable to honestly respond to the logic of my point.

BTW....I'm more versed in science than you.



And, proof that you've been embarrassed to the point that you feel the need to lie is that you wrote....
"My annoyance with you is that you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs."

....let's see you quote where I provided any of my religious beliefs in the whole thread.

If you cannot.......you've established my veracity and your deceit.


That was easy, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...






See....this is my problem, Huggy.....


I can't conceive of this once great nation surviving if we go on raising folks as stupid as you are.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Right back at ya Sugar Tits.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

Bucky has tiny balls.

That's all I have to say about THAT!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





I appreciate another opportunity to discuss proof of your stupidity.

You wrote:
_"Moral? You are the worst kind of hypocrite." 

I knew exactly what sort of imbecile I was dealing with when I read that.
Obviously you were trying for some sort of insult...but it escaped your notice that you are unaware of the definition of 'hypocrite.'_


Government school grad?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Home school?

I usually dig Asian chicks but you make it hard..NOT!  

I guess stupid comes in all nationalities.  

Let's just say I can write my name in the snow and you can't.  Kay-Kay?

I would suggest that you just stick to popping out babies but that would be a hard road for any children you created.

You don't REALLY want to compare IQs do you?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How gullible folks like you are?  You are wonderful at throwing out very general insults in nearly every post, but usually you do so without being clear about your point.

You consider it gullible to think the Higgs boson may have been found?  Why?  Do you think it is gullibility to think the Higgs boson can even exist, or that someone may have been able to observe it in experiment?

Or is it that the appellation 'god particle' offends you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...






Yes...I'd be happy to compare IQ's, education, whatever.
Of course, anyone reading a series of each of our posts wouldn't require such in-depth analysis to identify you as an imbecile.

Could you define _'hypocrite'?

Then...show it to apply to me, as you mis-stated?

Shall I wait, or go on with a long, happy,and successful life?

_


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Can you explain all of the scientists who have claimed that the Higgs boson was not found?

That's why you are gullible.


"...to think the Higgs boson can even exist, or that someone may have been able to observe it in experiment?"

Wait....you are not just gullible...you're ignorant.

No one ever claimed that the Higgs boson was 'observable.'

Do you know how long it is projected to exist?

"The Higgs lives for 10^-25 seconds, so beams are impossible...."
Google


What does that say about folks who know nothing of the 'facts' to which they subscribe?

Yup...gullible.

When I construct the OP I promised you, I'll go on to explain why you 'believe' as you do.
Perhaps you should consider that question as well.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nigga PUUULLEEEEZZZ!!!!!  Koreans, especially the women but the men aren't far behind, are the most angry unhappy people on the planet. They are a poor man's Chinese without the smarts.  Just about ALL the Pacific Rim Asians have it over Koreans.  

Seriously.  The biggest joke on the planet are the N. Koreans and the onliest thing in the world that separates your people from them is the US Military.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





Could you define _'hypocrite'?

Then...show it to apply to me, as you mis-stated?

Shall I wait, or go on with a long, happy,and successful life?_
_

By changing the subject,....that means I've beaten you into submission, huh?


Did you actually say you were smart????_


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No I didn't say I *was* smart.  

Did I call you a hypocrite? I don't believe I did.  But I'm sure I called Christians hypocrites.  I don't know what religion you subscribe to.  If it's a believer in people coming back from the dead after two days or so and burning bushes and let us not forget that the Christians believe they are a moral lot and all of the other nonsense that Christians spout then OK you are a hypocrite. If you are a Morman then of course we can add child molester, incest partaker and in general bat shit crazy.

Beaten ME into submission?  Not my gig Sweet Cheeks. We may as well live on different planets.  Koreans eat dogs...right?  I think that practice is illegal in the USA.  If I catch one of you freaks lickin their lips while eye balling my Pits some Korean ass is gonna get kicked.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...





This, from your post #164: "You are the worst kind of hypocrite."


And, you attempted to make the topic my religion, my county of origin, my gender, my IQ, ....

...everything possible to change the subject from the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.

Clearly, you're as dumb as asphalt.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sorry, that someone may have been able to observe evidence of it in experiment.

It should be fun to have you explain why I believe as I do, considering I haven't stated much in the way of belief.  What, specifically, do you think I believe that you are so much more knowledgeable about (or at least less gullible about)?  That numerous scientists have claimed the Higgs boson has been proven to exist?  That other scientists have claimed it is still an open question?  Is there something about the idea of the particle itself you feel only the gullible will accept?

As per usual, you continue to toss around insults and innuendo in a very general fashion while avoiding anything specific for which you might be held accountable.  You prefer to use the words of others and do as little speaking for yourself as you can.  What is the truth you think I am too gullible to see?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





You wrote ""...to think the Higgs boson can even exist, or that someone may have been able* to observe it* in experiment?"

Now you'd like to change it by adding the word 'evidence'?

Great.

I taught you something already.




"you continue to toss around insults and innuendo..."

Not I don't.
I'm very specific with my insults.

But if you can be smarter,I can be nicer.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You are the opposite of specific with your insults.  You have claimed I am being gullible, but declined to specify in what way.  You've talked about explaining why I believe as I do, without actually saying what you think those beliefs of mine are.  You make snide comments about intelligence without actually pointing out a lack thereof.  It is something you do not only in this thread but in almost every thread I've seen you make.  You project a great deal of condescension toward anyone who dares disagree with you, or comes to a different conclusion than you, or even shows any appearance of not thinking exactly as you do.

Once again I invite you to explain what it is you think I believe that is so incorrect, what I have been so gullible about which you, in your wisdom and experience, know better about.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2015)

One thing to keep in mind is that branes and brane worlds can be very small, and exist inside of other dimensional realities. The concept of a multiverse is not at all far fetched.Micro universes on the TeV scale would go a long way to explaining the behavior of quarks and the question of weak attractive forces in gravity.

I'm not a physicist, but I am fucking brilliant, so in my humble opinion, I see brane cosmology as the most rational explanation of why the quantum world behaves as it does.

From the master of it all herself;

THEORIES OF THE BRANE LISA RANDALL Edge.org


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So what is your complaint exactly?  

Is it that you resent being called "the worst" kind of a hypocrite.  I can understand how a Korean could be incensed by such an allegation.  Koreans have huge egos and cannot tolerate being "worst" at anything.  

Would being labeled the "best" kind of a hypocrite feel better?

Surely you can find little fault with my description of the nation of North Korea being head over starvation in love with that little fat fuck they call their divine leader as being the joke of the world.  There is no difference genetically between the North Koreans and the South Koreans.  It is obvious that Koreans in general cling to very bad thinking and blind loyalty to ridiculous ideas.  Nuff said on THAT. 

Just the fact that you couldn't just ignore my silly posts and obvious taunting belies your proclivity towards argument and anger miss management.

I don't even know you.  Yet you act like I had some inside secret knowledge about some truth you must defend yourself against.

It's the internets.  You would be well advised that much of what is presented on these interwebs is either outright false or purposely provocative for it's own sake.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 7, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The entire premise of this thread is a foolish attempt to establish that theoretical physics is a faith based discipline just like the religion you subscribe to. This is complete nonsense. And, to aggravate the issue further, your written communication skill is virtually nonexistent. You construct meaningless incoherent posts by  copying and pasting articles from portals that lack credibility and are known for promoting religious fundamentalism.

I have nothing against your religion as long as you keep the discussion in the religious section but you love to spam in science & technology and that I consider nothing but an attempt to proselytize people. In order to discuss science and technology, at minimum, you need the ability to communicate. You need to start there first before you can embark on discussing M-theory. M-theory is way above your head for the time being.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 8, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Pointless. This is just another of your pointless threads that is as pointless as those before it. 

You revile science because you feel it threatens your fundamentalist religious beliefs. Really dear, you should just stay out of the science forums and limit your cutting and pasting from the articles you find at Harun Yahya to the religious forums


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...





I nailed you in post #175, exposing the fact that you lie.

From same:

And, proof that you've been embarrassed to the point that you feel the need to lie is that you wrote....
"My annoyance with you is that you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs."

*....let's see you quote where I provided any of my religious beliefs in the whole thread.*

If you cannot.......you've established my veracity and your deceit.


*....let's see you quote where I provided any of my religious beliefs in the whole thread.*
*


So....the current post is essentially an admission that you are a lying sack of sewage.

*
Your real disagreement is that you recognize that I understand science to a far greater extent than you do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 8, 2015)

PoliticalShit, classic Dunning-Kruger


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 8, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


lets roll. You first PoliticalSpice starting with the last education you completed  high school


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...




 "So what is your complaint exactly? 

Is it that you resent being called "the worst" kind of a hypocrite."

I have no complaint, you imbecile.

I merely identified you by pointing out that you used an attempted insult that included a term you were unable to define.



2. The dodge of trying to hide your ignorance by bringing up nationality is another sign of your embarrassment.

That was what I meant to accomplish....and I did.


Be sure to drop back the next time you feel in need of a beating.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalShit, classic Dunning-Kruger





Where you raised in the gutter, foul-mouth?


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 8, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Go back and start reading from the beginning of this thread. You have in numerous posts alluded that theoretical physics is a faith based discipline just like the religion (you subscribe to). I do not have time to be rereading the garbage you have posted.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 9, 2015)

Many in the Gaaawd Squad claim that faith in religion is equal to faith in science. 

Just that very concept as stunning in it's ignorance goes to the core of the problem with the thinking process of religists. 

Most of the scientific theories can be tested against real evidence.  NONE of the religious faith can be verified.  There is no emperical evidence with which to substantiate religious faith.

The desire to equate the two worlds is completely one sided.

I have yet to see where it is written that a scientist or one that follows scientific methods desires that faith in science be equated to faith in religion, god, Jesus or any religious study.

There is no "argument or discussion" on this.  It takes two to maintain a discussion or an argument and it is ONLY those of religious interest that maintain there is or should be equality of faith in the two worlds.

What it boils down to is basic ability to think clearly.  AKA intelligence.  A person that has a higher ability to process information can understand what it is like to NOT be able to use their mind well.  This happens when an intelligent person is drunk or impaired by medication.  A person that has a brain that is less able to process information can NEVER know what it feels like to be an exceptionally intelligent person.  On that person's best day they may still not get it. 

Someone like PC WANTS to believe that we are all playing on the same even field intellectually.  We are not.  It is really THAT simple.  As much as she would LIKE to believe that her thinking process is on par with everyone else it is just not true. 

Stubbornness and persistence is not the path to clearer thinking.  It may help build muscles that help her perform some physical tasks better but it will not help make her brain give her better solutions.

Unfortunately some people really MUST take others "word for it" when they struggle to find what others find obvious.  Equally unfortunate is that some people that have a difficult time finding the best answers on their own choose the wrong source for information.  They simply just do not know any better.  These people have put their trust in bad information.

Personally I find the number of people that make it through respectable colleges with degrees amusing, simply by repeating information back to their professors and getting good grades in that fashion.  That is not saying that these individuals did not work hard and learn and take notes well to get these good grades.  It still often is assumed by these gifted "note takers" that they are smart.  Often that is not the case.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 9, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...




"My annoyance with you is that *you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs."*

....let's see you quote where I provided any of my religious beliefs in the whole thread.

If you cannot.......you've established my veracity and your deceit.


This is the third time I've challenged you to support your lie..."My annoyance with you is that *you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs."*



Come back when you are prepared to apologize for being a lying sack of sewage, and beg forgiveness.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Apr 9, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> Many in the Gaaawd Squad claim that faith in religion is equal to faith in science.
> 
> Just that very concept as stunning in it's ignorance goes to the core of the problem with the thinking process of religists.


Answer me this Religiphobe: Is the Big Bang Theory "settled science" or is it just a theory? A "belief"?

(30 seconds)


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 9, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Many in the Gaaawd Squad claim that faith in religion is equal to faith in science.
> ...



I believe that the evidence is clear that at some point in time all the matter that we know of minus the space between electrons, neutrons and protons in each atom could have been about the size of a beach ball. 

Things get a little fuzzy as to how this beach ball expanded to what is now our universe.  I haven't heard of any serious scientist dispute the above description of just before "the bang" and what we observe today.

Is the above information a theory?  Well, the experiment to replicate the event will never happen.  In that narrow sense since it cannot be proven, yes, it is still a theory.  Is it a theory like "god created the heaven and earth"?  No it is not.  That is pure speculation put in place by those needing a fact to explain the Christian and Jewish bibles.  

Many millions of people choose to believe this pure theory.  That popularity alone makes in no more true than if one person saw these events in a dream and scribbled it down.  

Playing word games to make claims that a theory is a theory and until replicated all are the same suggesting equal status can be ignorant or purely dishonest. 

Playing word games with silly name calling adds nothing to the religist's argument. I resist all lies.  I resist all make believe.  The Big Bang is almost entirely if not wholly 100% factual.  The myths of Gods is zero % true based on the complete lack of facts supporting those theories.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 9, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You are an uncivilized savage who has added nothing of any value to your own thread. Your obnoxious attitude coupled with your lack of communication skills has spiraled this thread into nothing but a name calling festival. Your urgency should be directed towards learning to communicate effectively first. Get some education. Lean tools like abstract algebra, non commutative geometry, etc. for they are your eyes and ears when you venture into the wold that spans more than 4D.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 9, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?
> 
> ...


The cosmos is everything in and beyond our universe. Can you imagine an infinite cosmos? See I dont say universe because we are just a pea or grain of sand in our entire universe because it is huge. But its only 13 billion years old. And it will only last about another 100 billion years. But eventually every star in our universe will die. So what? What about all the other universes being born every day a google distance from our universe or the universe beyond that? An infinite distance. Unimaginable unthinkable but probable. Were in a big lava lamp.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 10, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...






Do you really imagine that you are going to get away with lying about me, about my posts?


Wrong.


"My annoyance with you is that *you are spamming science and technology section with your religious beliefs."*

....let's see you quote where I provided any of my religious beliefs in the whole thread.

If you cannot.......you've established my veracity and your deceit.

Obviously you lied, I posited no religious beliefs.....but proved.....PROVED....that your so-called beliefs are religious...and are based on faith alone.
I love rubbing your face in it.....and you lie in response to losing.



You have been exposed as a lying sewer rat.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 10, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> ...





So sad that you are clueless to the fact that your well-composed post has nothing....absolutely nothing to do with my OP...the one to which you linked and, supposedly, responding to.


Maybe a nice poem next time?

Thanks for dropping by.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 10, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



"Do you really imagine that you are going to get away with lying about me, about my posts?"
More evidence about the misplaced anger management from the Korean.

Agree with me or die you Yankee scum!

PC's true secret love interest! :


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 11, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The major issue here is that your posts have nothing to do with science for obvious reasons.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 11, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I agree.  Their motivation is desperation.  Scientists are not on the run.  The religists are.  Threads like this are the verbal IEDs left in the road of information attempting to prove these people are good little religists that will say just about anything to keep their one sided debate alive. Their cause is lost and only those blinded by snake oil salesmen persist.  All they have to offer has been disproved and reduced to myth.  

Notice something?  No scientists are on this debate.  There is nothing for them to defend.  The facts are clear and no amount of name calling can change them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





Actually, your dishonesty is your major issue.

Bet everyone who knows you recognizes that.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 12, 2015)

Vikrant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I don't think anyone here cares what you think is a major issue, when you have been caught lying repeatedly.   Credibility matters a ton when you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Thank you, 

I hope you have the time to take a look at this thread...I plan to post it over the course of the day.

Science And What Science Isn t US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Credibility certainly matters, as does evidence. Those elements and a host of other relevant components of a supportable argument are what's missing from the silly ID'iot Creationist/Christian fundamentalist/religious loon argument.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2015)

HUGGY said:


> Many in the Gaaawd Squad claim that faith in religion is equal to faith in science.
> 
> Just that very concept as stunning in it's ignorance goes to the core of the problem with the thinking process of religists.
> 
> ...



Remember someone can be brilliant in math science trivia or anything else and still believe in god. For the simple reasons like cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking.

And it seems to most people that even though we dont know, something must have created all this. So even people who dont believe the Abraham god is real they do believe in "something". Pretty vague but they simply choose to believe there is like we choose to believe there probably isnt. At least they stopped sacrificing people to their gods. But they do still kill in his name. Being a christian in the middle east will get you killed.

A lot of people dont realize they've been brainwashed since birth. Took me 30 plus years.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Vikrant said:
> ...


The first christians were catholic right? At least that's what they say. The first pope was Peter? Anyways, if that's where the Jesus fairytale comes from no the have zero credibility. Every other christian is gullible for believing. Lutherans protestants baptists Presbyterian etc.

Dont just take my athiest word for it ask Jews Mormons and Muslims.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 12, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The very claim that you and your side has all the answers regarding our universe based on religious books written when the mankind was still in dark ages is the pinnacle of dishonesty.


----------



## Vikrant (Apr 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The issue is not that I care what you think. The issue is you are playing tag team in here with that silly woman as your teammate. If arrival of new ideas like M-theory are making you lose sleep then it is time to consider subscribing to a new religion which will let you live your life.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 12, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Many in the Gaaawd Squad claim that faith in religion is equal to faith in science.
> ...



For me it was amazingly simple.  When I was 7 or so and sitting in church listening to the pastor speak of the Jesus and the miracles and such I would break out laughing. This kept happening and before I knew it my parents were asked to not bring me to church.  Clever eh?  Just simple honest children's laughter was all it took to get rid of those folks.  They thought I was being punished.  In truth I was set free from the nonsense.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 14, 2015)

.

The various religions of the world say (and have always said) that they have The Answer, which is what is written in their books and practiced in their traditions.

Science willfully, happily, gleefully admits that it's just scratching the surface, that we're curious and learning more all the time, and still have a long, long way to go.

Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

,


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?
> 
> ...



There could be an infinite number of universes.  This is more speculative theory than a fact, but several branches of mathematics, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics have all come to similar conclusions: our universe is just one of many and we actually exist in a ‘*multiverse*’.  

There are different ideas of how this could be, one being the concept of atoms only capable of being arranged in a finite number of ways in time and space, ultimately leading to the repetition of events and people. 

Other theories propose bubble or parallel universes that hover just out of reach of the dimensions we experience. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE.  

Although these concepts seem like the far-fetched ideas of science-fiction, they are actually proving to be the most elegant solutions to problems thrown up by our discoveries of how the universe works.

I don't know why these possibilities scare you other than they contradict what your religion says.  And if that's true, this is why people believe religion is anti science.  Anything science that contradicts what religion says is challenged.  But the fact is, no amount of science will ever prove god doesn't exist.  It will only prove your religions are made up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> ...





"There could be an infinite number of universes." 

What a perfect example of the deterioration of science understanding and the ascendancy of government schooling.

What the evidence for that absurdity that surpasses evidence for these equally sophomoric pronouncements?

The moon may be made of green cheese.
The universe was formed out of nothing.
Unicorns exist.
If the oceans rise, human beings will develop gills.
You may develop an actual understanding of that 'knowledge' is?


Evidence, please.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The various religions of the world say (and have always said) that they have The Answer, which is what is written in their books and practiced in their traditions.
> 
> ...





It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?


Or are you one of the acolytes of the new religion known as 'science'?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



This is more speculative theory than a fact, but several branches of mathematics, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics have all come to similar conclusions: our universe is just one of many and we actually exist in a ‘*multiverse*’.

At least they admit it.  Why do you doubt it so strongly?  Does it contradict what your religion says?  How?  And if this is the source of your objection, please provide us evidence of your religions theory.  

Why do you have a problem with an infinite number of universes?  Makes perfect sense to me. 

Which universe do we live in?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


I can tell you when the first new species of higher life was produced.  In the last few days of the year of the cosmic calendar.  






December 25th.

You seem to not realize that the reason we can't answer some of your questions is that we just don't know.  You claim to know.  You keep asking questions suggesting you don't understand evolution.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


There was no first human

There was no first human


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


And keep in mind you could convince them that multiple universes could exist, in fact you could prove to them that they do exist and all they would say is


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


The beauty of science (well,* one* of its beauties) is that it is full of curiosity and observation and experimentation and innovation. 

Science doesn't claim to have The Answer To Our Very Existence.  It has to be humble, it has no such ego.

Unlike religion.  And hardcore partisan ideology.
.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



The material from a supernova eventually disperses throughout interstellar space. The oldest stars almost exclusively consisted of hydrogen and helium, with oxygen and the rest of the heavy elements in the universe later coming from supernova explosions.  We know that stars make heavy elements, and late in their lives, they eject gas into the medium between stars so it can be part of subsequent stars and planets (and people).  

So, all life on Earth and the atoms in our bodies were created in the furnace of now-long-dead stars.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





"....speculative theory...."

Sort of like this?
The moon may be made of green cheese.
The universe was formed out of nothing.
Unicorns exist.
If the oceans rise, human beings will develop gills.
You may develop an actual understanding of that 'knowledge' is?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...






sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



"You keep asking questions suggesting you don't understand evolution."
Really?

Well...then, why don't you take a shot at this query?

It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.


Thank you.

Ironically, as I understand it, Christians are supposed to be humble also.

I don't see much of that around here.
.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I have no doubt that there are many and fundamental reasons for you to be humble, fency.
> ...




Now...why would you go there?

Could it be to avoid this?
It's been over a century and a half since Darwin advanced his theory of evolution...and, with more 'scientists' at work today than the cumulative total of same for all of history before.....

....do you have a timetable for when the first new species of higher life will be produced?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Clearly you didn't watch the video
There was no first human

a short video explaining to non-scientists why there was no first human.

If you go back far enough. trace your fathers all the way back to your first father (and mother of course), we know that modern humans came from Mesolithic man.  Mesolithic man came from Paleolithic man.  Then Homo Erectus.  But 25 millions of years ago we were more like monkeys, then before that squirrels.  Before that we came from Hylonomus.  That was more like a reptile.  

Point is there was no first human.  Paleolithic man eventually evolved into Mesolithic man.  It didn't just happen one day.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





".... but several branches of mathematics, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics have all come to similar conclusions: our universe is just one of many and we actually exist in a ‘*multiverse*’."

Hardly.

While a religious individual would look at*the fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us,*scientific atheists, such as Brian Greene, say that the existence of one planet with such parameters suggests that there are other places with variations on these conditions and laws, i.e., the multiverse theory.
Does it?

*Is there any such evidence?*

That is the key to it being 'science,' isn't it? Evidence, testable in the lab, predictive in nature.....
*Conjecture is not science....even if you hid it behind imaginary mathematics, you know, to fool the easily led*.



 "[Richard] Dawkins [outspoken atheist and author of 'The God Delusion], among others, has embraced the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that *there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natu*ral laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe.*Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos.*And- the entire gargantuan structure*scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.*

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter 7


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





I don't believe I referred to any 'first human.'

Why would you?


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Sure don't.  

Someone may.

Why is this so important?
.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



"Why is this so important?"

Because it suggests that Darwin's theory is incorrect as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.

And....if you had the courage to rock the boat, it might cause you to question why Darwin's theory is taught in government schools as the nearest thing to fact.

And...if you really wanted to live dangerously....you might wonder why this practice is so very important to the powers in our society.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


*Speciation* is the evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct species.  

How do you think giraffe started out?  Do you think they started out as adult giraffe?  How were they born?  Do you see the fatal flaw in your theory.  If you deny evolution then you probably believe a god poofed them into existence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




Gads, you're a dunce.

1. Maturation has nothing to do with speciation, nor with evolution.

2. _._ "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16

Hence....your post.."*Speciation* is the evolutionary process by which biological populations evolve to become distinct species" fits the definition of 'imaginary.'

3. "If you deny evolution..."
I deny Darwin's theory of evolution.
See item #2 above.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 1, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> ...


You're a fucking idiot.

Why can't you comprehend what the prefix "uni" means???? What is the difference between "uni" and "multi"???

You are very challenged from an intellectual standpoint. I pointed out that fact to you a long time ago.


----------



## anotherlife (Apr 1, 2016)

No, there cannot be a multiverse. There is only one universe. Subversive dogs, the Party will get you reunited, just wait.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> While a religious individual would look at*the fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us*



Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?

For that matter, do the various religious beliefs that people hold agree on just what each religion's creator(s) did, in fact, provide?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 1, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Perhaps it does suggest what you say, but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time, in the context of that theory; and considering we neither know every species on the planet now nor all those that have existed prior to now; and considering we cannot keep track of every place or every animal on the planet, it seems only a small suggestion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > While a religious individual would look at*the fact that the parameters of the world are exactly what a Creator would have provided for us*
> ...





"Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


a. Physicist Alan Lightman has written this:

"…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. 

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



b. "Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: *“The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”.*.. 

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that *the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” *That is “_a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros._”
Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’


Would you care to comment on any of those analyses?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




"...but considering the less than 200 years since the theory of evolution was proposed is an extremely short period of time,..."

1. The less than 200 years is one factor.....combined with the factor of how many scientists are at work currently.
a. ...and the fact that one loses grants, status, and livelihood if one posits that Darwin was wrong.


2. Darwin said this:
*“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”*

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.*To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”


3. This is the heart of Darwin's thesis:
. The *universal common ancestry *of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)


There are numerous examples which show the very opposite of Darwin's theory.
 "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler.*




So...*if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true..*.and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

*This is not the case.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

One would hope that the intelligent observer would recognize these problems with Darwinian theory......and begin to wonder why is is pushed so fervently.


There is an answer.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You 'said nothing of the sort'?  I'm not sure how you can say that after reading your own quote.  One must know what a creator would provide to say that something is exactly what a creator would provide.  

I find it odd to look at life, which obviously already exists, and discuss how unlikely it is for life to arise.  The universe is as it is.  If it were different, life as we know it might not exist.  Of course, if it were different, we have no idea whether some other form of life would have arisen.  If an omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe, is there any reason to think such a being could not create a different kind of life in a universe that follows different rules?

I question the basis to calculate the odds of life arising without a creator, but whatever the odds may be, life is here.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory?  Evolutionary theory has changed over the years.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Why do you think a religious individual would know what a creator would provide?"

I said nothing of the sort, Monty.

The import of the post, of the series of posts, is that noted scientists have stated that he particular perimeters extant are exactly.......exactly.....what would be dictated to support life.

Scientists....whether religious or not.


The quotes are from scientists, speaking as exactly that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



"Does anyone claim that Darwin was correct in all aspects of his theory?  Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Of course they do.

1. Infectees of public school education come away with the belief that Darwin's theory is a law of some sort.


2. While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, *"There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution."* This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards.Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T.Texas education board debates teaching of evolution._Dallas Morning News,_January 21, 2009....

a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of *one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.*
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.


One would hope that the intelligent observer would recognize these problems with Darwinian theory......and begin to wonder why it is pushed so fervently.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





"Evolutionary theory has changed over the years."

Would you mind supporting your claim?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I don't want to get into an in depth debate on evolution, but clearly we have knowledge of things related to evolution which were unavailable, perhaps unimagined, in Darwin's time.  Our understanding of DNA, for example, was something Darwin did not have.  As such, he could not take it into account in his theory.

Here, though, is a simple search which gives plenty of different sites to look at on the subject :
how evolutionary theory has changed since darwin at DuckDuckGo

Whether one believes in evolutionary theory or not, it clearly is not exactly the same as what Darwin proposed.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Most of the observable universe is actually antithetical to life as we know it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




I need no "different sites to look at on the subject..."

I'm an expert on the subject....as shown by the fact that every single thing I've posted is correct and accurate.


And....rather than hot air....whenever you're ready....provide changes in Darwin's theory that are presented to students.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





What does this post of yours have to do with anything????


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You'll forgive me if I don't lend much credence to Stephen Meyer.

I do not subscribe to the idea that there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory.  That seems to be a silly statement.

What attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory are you talking about?  If it is a matter of not teaching intelligent design as science, or not teaching the views of the Discovery Institute, I would disagree with your assessment.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



If you want to bring up the idea that the universe is exactly what would be needed to support life, it seems entirely relevant to point out that most of the universe is inimical to life as we know it.  What is hard to understand about that?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



An expert on the subject?  

You have fun with that.  I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin.  I both gave an example of how human understanding has grown regarding subjects directly related to evolution, and I also gave a link to a search about how evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin.  If you are unable to see that this is just what you asked for, you might want to rethink your claims of expertise.  Actually, you should probably rethink those claims either way.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Are students taught that Darwin's theory has never been documented in either the laboratory or in nature?

How about the fact that the fossil record, specifically the Chengjiang discoveries and the Burgess Shales show the very opposite pattern from that of Darwin's proposals?


And this:
"You'll forgive me if I don't lend much credence to Stephen Meyer"
No, I won't because you haven't read his well documented tome....I have....nor can you state why he is incorrect.


And...your link from the Smithsonian....
Perhaps you don't know that they fire any who dispute Darwin.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 2, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





" I provided what you asked for, that being evidence that evolutionary theory has changed since first proposed by Darwin."

Of course you did no such thing.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sure I didn't.  

Why don't you go read some Discovery Institute silliness, I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> 
> I mean real science, the kind that is based on testable ideas, with real data, reproducible experimental results....i.e.,  the vaunted Scientific Method?
> 
> ...


Isn't your area politics? This branch of science helped  created the PC you are using, and the a-bomb and the orbits of comets 3 thousand years from now. It isn't voodoo, and if they are wrong, they will figure it out. It isn't dogma.  Like a RELIGION or something...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 3, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




"I have no desire to argue with your 'expertise'

How about you tell the truth and say 'ability' rather than 'desire.'


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 3, 2016)

MaryL said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What the heck has happened to science??
> ...



There is 'science' and there is 'science'.....let's see if you are actually teachable.


1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are *no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.
*
Thanks to government schooling, gone are the days when the scientific method was the Litmus Test of what is, and what is not, science.



What you have accepted as 'science,' that which encompasses global warming and Darwin's theory, are no more than aspects of a political agenda designed to round up and herd the less astute.


2. "Isn't your area politics?"
The world is my 'area,' and everything in it.

*Antonio Gramsci,* Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that _all_ life is "political."

And so it must be to those of us opposed to communism and oppression.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 3, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are *no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.*



It's funny that you would bring up philosophy, considering Stephen Meyer, who you used as a source earlier, has a PhD in philosophy of science.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 3, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



In either case, the quotation marks are to indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 3, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Frequently I have posted critiques of what is contemporaneously known as 'science.' It has become a catchall phrase that covers a multitude of areas, may of which are *no more than conjecture, philosophy, foolishness, and a healthy dollop of Marxist materialism.*
> ...




And that has what to do with whether or not he is correct?

You appear to be struggling to find some way to disagree that mitigates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Don't your hands hurt from holding on by a thread for so long?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 3, 2016)

Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.


Montrovant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...






"...indicate that the terms are what you've used, not what is actually true."

Well....then, you should have no trouble quoting things I have said about Darwin's theory that are not true.


Shall I wait for you to do so....or simply go ahead with a long and eventful life?


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 3, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Why don't you find something to cut and paste?  It's what you're good at.  Perhaps something from the eminently legitimate Discovery Institute.  

Your implication that the theory of evolution has undergone no changes since it was proposed by Darwin is enough to see how laughably foolish you are going to be about this subject.


----------



## sealybobo (May 15, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


If this is the only universe what is beyond our universe and why do you put God in a box?


----------

