rmt1:
As for life: The universe has made alcohol all on its own.
The universe also came up with people all on its own. It should have stopped before Miley Cyrus though.
Are we alone?
by Xanthippe 38 Replies latest jw friends
-
Jeffro
-
Julia Orwell
Lol it would better have stopped before Hitler. At least miley is just a flash in the pan annoyance like every other pop tart and boy band before her. Now if Mr Dawkins could explain why evolution vomited them up! Hitler and radio-controlled aliens I understand but not miley and her ilk.
-
Space Madness
you are trying to make it personal And deviate from the issue, you said the big bang had been refuted. Site your paper and journal.....
I cited a book in a previous post. Again, "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, the best I seen thus far but there are plenty of others.
It is a bit of an embarassment on your part, the telescopes mission was to photograph the radiation from the big bang, which it did. I really don't want to be unkind, but what other way is there to say what you said is just oxymoronic.... It dissporved the big bang by photographing the big bangs radiation?
I never told you what image I was reffering to so how could you possibly know what the images show and that i was wrong? Also your using circular logic, your saying the image you saw proves the big bang happened because it shows radiation that came from the big bang.
This observation of the quasar(Redshift z= 2.11) between the galaxy(Redshift = 0.0025) and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy. This is one of many examples that shows that Hubble's theory that objects with higher redshifts are a farther distance from the earth is incorrect. This false theory was the foundation of the big bang theory.
Ok so laws of chemistry and physics, wow you shocked me here. This is science 101 and certainly chemistry 101. I assume you know the laws of chemistry are based on the laws of physics? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics? They shpuld have been chapter one in your chemistry book.
That is not correct. Chemistry has been practiced since the the 17th century while quantam physics didn't start until the 20th century. And as wikipedia states "Chemistry is a branch of physical science but distinct from physics." I'll assume the last sentence was a joke, as thermodynaics isn't even convered in the first semester of general chemistry.
As for evidence, you do appreciate what evidence is right? For example long before we saw an atom we had established they existed and even attempted tomanipulate them.
No one has ever seen an atom.
You say there is no evidence, there is! If you were watching the universe from the outside looking in and I said is there possibly life in this universe and you said "i dont know" and then you looked a little longer and saw earth .....then said "yes look there is life" if i then said is it possible there is life elsewhere that likewise arose in this universe .... how could you deny that the planet you have already found teaming with life was not evidence of it being possible elsewhere?
As I said in my previous post, it is of course possible for some form of life to exsist on one of a billion planets. But that's just an opinon based on feeling. Every form of test has showed no signs of life. I will side with evidence over feeling.
-
cofty
Space Madness - did you really join an ex-JW support group so you could promote pseudoscience? How about an introduction.
-
70wksfyrs
snare&racket and space madness, I have really enjoyed your ineterchange of knowledge. I have taken sides and must admit although very interesting snare&racket's information is less sustantiated than space madeness information.
-
snare&racket
Thankfully science is not a democracy.
Ignoring his appaling knowlege of science, amazingly as a chemistry major....chemistry being the science of stoms...space madness says we are yet to even see an atom.... This one really takes the biscuit lol....come on spacemadness, tellthe truth who are you really? You obviously are a forum member who set up a new account in order to insert some weird objections and ideas.....
Not only have we seen atoms we can see the bonds between them now too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19584301
You can google thousands of images of atoms.......we have evene arranged atoms to write words etc for advertising in photographs such as the famous IBM image from ......32 years ago!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/IBM_in_atoms.gif
Still think they are telling the truth......? Up to you, I don't mind. What were you doing for s living this afternoon guys? I was doing bio-chemistry , specifically the interaction of potassium and calcium channel blockers and p450 enzymes.
Bemore careful who you lie, exaggerate, twist the facts with....
snare x
-
DATA-DOG
I love it! Let me know who wins and earns the right to mate. As to the original question, I don't believe we are, but I can't prove it.
-
DATA-DOG
Don't diss Miley Cyrus. As a born-in and emasculated JW, I am a huge fan of twerking! It proves that I have some sex-drive left, and that helps me get through the day! LOL!!
-
Space Madness
Ignoring his appaling knowlege of science, amazingly as a chemistry major....chemistry being the science of stoms...space madness says we are yet to even see an atom.... This one really takes the biscuit lol....come on spacemadness, tellthe truth who are you really? You obviously are a forum member who set up a new account in order to insert some weird objections and ideas.....
Atoms are signifactly smaller than a wavelenght of light which makes them impossible to see.
Not only have we seen atoms we can see the bonds between them now too!
See the bonds? Atoms are connected due to overlapping orbitals or electron clouds. You seem to be implying that atoms are bonded via straight lines which couldn't be more false.That should of clued you in that the image you posted was a computer model of an molecule, not an actual molecule.
You can google thousands of images of atoms.......we have evene arranged atoms to write words etc for advertising in photographs such as the famous IBM image from ......32 years ago!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/IBM_in_atoms.gif
Every image you see on google is a computer model of an atom, not an actual atom. These models are created by measuring electrical charge and creating an image based on that data or bouncning electrical currents of an object and mapping its shape. They are all 3D models and none of them are actual pictures of atoms. In the case of IBM they used a scanning tunneling microscope. A snippet from wikipedia about how a scanning tunneling microscope works: "First, a voltagebias is applied and the tip is brought close to the sample by coarse sample-to-tip control, which is turned off when the tip and sample are sufficiently close.....In this situation, the voltage bias will cause electrons to tunnel between the tip and sample, creating a current that can be measured. Once tunneling is established, the tip's bias and position with respect to the sample can be varied (with the details of this variation depending on the experiment) and data are obtained from the resulting changes in current." As you can see the image of the atoms is nothing more than a model based on the measurements of electrical currents.
Also feel free to addrress the image in my previous post concerning the alleged relationship between redshifts and distance.
-
cofty
As you can see the image of the atoms is nothing more than a model based on the measurements of electrical currents.
As I read your waffle photons are striking my retina stimulating opsin proteins on my cone receptors. The difference in stimulation between different cones are changed into an electro-chemical signal that is sent along my optic nerve and interpreted as a lot of letters by my visual cortex.
Did you really join JWN in order to preach risible pseudoscience like "the big bang has been disproven". FFS!
Who are you really? It's good manners to introduce yourself on a forum.
This exchange made me chuckle...
Site your paper and journal..... - Snare&Racket
I cited a book in a previous post - You
Priceless!
