disillusioned Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 How did this turn into a high school science class? Seems to happen a lot around here. On topic (sorry): Bottom line is, With God all things are possible, unless they're not. Exactly, if all things are possible with God then one must accept that all things are not possible. Thus one should always hold open the possibility of things until they have the principle which defines that which is not possible. Some call that the law of truth. Man can not make up principles, only discover them. Likewise a principle is true, was true and will be always true, it does not change or evolve over time. Hence the high school science class, if temperature of a molecule is relative to the motion of its atoms then a molecule of water will be liquid when the motion of its atoms are moving at a rate greater than a temperature of 32 degree (F) and slower that 212 degrees (F). Of course external factors affect the thermal energy of the water molecule, you add heat and the water temperature rises to 212 degrees (F) where it converts to a water vapor [gas] or lower the temperature to 32 degrees (F) and it solidifies and becomes ice [solid]. Bottom line is that atheists simply make up their own rules. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science . . . Well I did not expect such a humble and frank admission. So why not simply accept the explanation of others on maters of science and admit your religion is a mater of faith? So why don't you answer the question posed to the Professor and Rogue, or are you afraid to lay it on the line. Then STFU and listen to the music. If you are talking about that video about water in a vacuum then I'm not sure what part of it you find confusing. It struck me as strait forward and clear. If you wanted me to answer sooner then you should have addressed it to me sooner and using clearer questions. I'm going to guess that you don't understand why the water boiled. It that isn't the point of confusion then please forgive me and explain the problem better. With that said, I will proceed. Remember what I said earlier about boiling water and air pressure? Believe me they didn't create a perfect vacuum. Instead they lowered the air pressure until the boiling point was room temperature. It's very strait forward and clear. Look at the graph you posted in message #71. The principle doesn't stop working above 30,000 feet. If you use a vacuum chamber to simulate the air pressure found at 100,000 feet above sea level you can follow the line on the graph and estimate how much lower the boiling temperature would be. Of if you want to go the data route you can google boiling temperatures at very low air pressure. Does that clear everything up for you? So the water boiled as the air pressure was lowered yet no external heat was applied. LOL The water temperature was lowered as the vacuum was applied, not increased. The water did not boil, it bubbled as the loose gas molecules trapped within the aggregate of liquid water were drawn out by the vacuum. Thus why did it stop "boiling" as you say. That's it. I'm out. Justus clearly has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. He has no understanding of science, and he has no desire to learn. If anyone other than Justus (ie, lurkers) wants any of this explained, please let me know and I'll oblige. But as far as Justus is concerned, I'm done. Not worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Like this please, Justus. A working link to the page where the quote was taken from... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules#.VqJYyfmLRD8 ...and then the quote itself, cut and pasted so that it can be verified by others. (The highlighted text is to draw your attention to what this forum's Moderators expect of you.) Quote mining/Information PiratingDefinitionQuote mining is when text from different sources are used excessively and the person is not adding any input or opinion of his own, while at the same time pretending the quote is something he or she made up.There's nothing wrong with quoting sources, but it's extremely important to make a note that it is in fact a quote, and also include the reference from which the quote was taken, and preferably a link to a web page with the full article. Thank you, BAA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At what point in the post did I ever pretend to make up the quote. The veracity of a quote remains undecided until we can check it. I did reference the website it was taken from. The website, but not the page. You are expected to reference the exact page where your quoted material originates from. Hell all you had to do is google it, or am I suppose to spoon feed you. The Mods expect those members doing the quoting (that would be you) to reference their quoted material properly. Plus, do you believe everything you read on the internet. I proceed on a case-by-case basis. Plus you are in the Lions Den so please stop your bitch ass whining, it's annoying. LOL I'm sorry but I'm unable to entertain your polite request Justus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 So the water boiled as the air pressure was lowered yet no external heat was applied. LOL The water temperature was lowered as the vacuum was applied, not increased. The water did not boil, it bubbled as the loose gas molecules trapped within the aggregate of liquid water were drawn out by the vacuum. Thus why did it stop "boiling" as you say. I can see why you learned no science past 8th grade. If you don't want to understand then why rage against everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjn Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I invited a friend to this thread. Unlike certain other people, he's real friendly and might provide some actual answers: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 24, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2016 ^I actually did laugh out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 24, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2016 Justus, When you make positive claims, the onus is upon you to support those claims with verifiable evidence. This principle becomes especially important when you are making claims about a person, because of the potential injury you might inflict upon the reputation of the individual in question. BAA has been patiently attempting (without success I'm afraid) to bring you to an understanding of this; but you seem unwilling to accept his help. You have made the following claims about me: 1. That I claimed evolution must be believed in order to be understood 2. That I called you a christian 3. That I had a propensity for lying 4. That I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. The onus is now upon you to substantiate the claims you have made against me. I note, again, and with much disgust, that in this thread, as in the thread for which I provided the link, you accuse me of lying. This is not a charge that I take lightly. Fortunately, we all have access to the same internet. This means that anyone who wishes can comb the webs looking for proof of the claims you have made against me, just as you can also. When those claims are proven, time and again, to be false, it will be quite evident which one of us deserves to be hung with the moniker of "liar". Go forth, now, little boy, and find the proof you need to support your scandalous libel, or be known for the liar you have proven yourself to be. Happy hunting, TheRedneckProfessor. Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Justus, When you make positive claims, the onus is upon you to support those claims with verifiable evidence. This principle becomes especially important when you are making claims about a person, because of the potential injury you might inflict upon the reputation of the individual in question. BAA has been patiently attempting (without success I'm afraid) to bring you to an understanding of this; but you seem unwilling to accept his help. You have made the following claims about me: 1. That I claimed evolution must be believed in order to be understood We'll get around to the ridiculous creationist claim that "life came from non-life" later. For now, stay focused on the subject at hand. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66240-an-appeal-for-justus/?p=1017001 Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter. Source: https://www.google.com/search? 2. That I called you a christian Lurkers, especially those of you who might still lean toward christianity, observe the patterns you see in Justus and ask yourself, "Is this the best my religion has to offer?" http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71158-with-god-all-things-are-possible/?p=1091423 3. That I had a propensity for lying pro·pen·si·ty prəˈpensədē/ noun an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way. 4. That I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. See the principles of human reproduction and cell fusion. Of course there is always the school of hard knocks. [Advisory Warning: Contains graphic material which may not be appropriate for children] The onus is now upon you to substantiate the claims you have made against me. I note, again, and with much disgust, that in this thread, as in the thread for which I provided the link, you accuse me of lying. This is not a charge that I take lightly. Fortunately, we all have access to the same internet. This means that anyone who wishes can comb the webs looking for proof of the claims you have made against me, just as you can also. When those claims are proven, time and again, to be false, it will be quite evident which one of us deserves to be hung with the moniker of "liar". Go forth, now, little boy, and find the proof you need to support your scandalous libel, or be known for the liar you have proven yourself to be. Happy hunting, TheRedneckProfessor. Bump. STICKS AND STONES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 6, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2016 Justus, When you make positive claims, the onus is upon you to support those claims with verifiable evidence. This principle becomes especially important when you are making claims about a person, because of the potential injury you might inflict upon the reputation of the individual in question. BAA has been patiently attempting (without success I'm afraid) to bring you to an understanding of this; but you seem unwilling to accept his help. You have made the following claims about me: 1. That I claimed evolution must be believed in order to be understood We'll get around to the ridiculous creationist claim that "life came from non-life" later. For now, stay focused on the subject at hand. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66240-an-appeal-for-justus/?p=1017001 Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter. Source: https://www.google.com/search? Nowhere in any of this do I make the claim that you have to believe in evolution in order to understand it. You cannot support your claim because it simply isn't true. 2. That I called you a christian Lurkers, especially those of you who might still lean toward christianity, observe the patterns you see in Justus and ask yourself, "Is this the best my religion has to offer?" http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71158-with-god-all-things-are-possible/?p=1091423 At no point here do I call you a 'christian'. You cannot support your claim because it simply isn't true. 3. That I had a propensity for lying pro·pen·si·ty prəˈpensədē/ noun an inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way. Nice definition, but this offers no support for your claim that I have a propensity toward lying. You cannot support your claim because it simply isn't true. 4. That I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. See the principles of human reproduction and cell fusion. Of course there is always the school of hard knocks. [Advisory Warning: Contains graphic material which may not be appropriate for children] I've forgotten more about human reproduction and cell fusion than you'll ever learn, son. This, however, does not alter the fact that you cannot support your claim that I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. You cannot support your claim because it simply isn't true. The onus is now upon you to substantiate the claims you have made against me. I note, again, and with much disgust, that in this thread, as in the thread for which I provided the link, you accuse me of lying. This is not a charge that I take lightly. Fortunately, we all have access to the same internet. This means that anyone who wishes can comb the webs looking for proof of the claims you have made against me, just as you can also. When those claims are proven, time and again, to be false, it will be quite evident which one of us deserves to be hung with the moniker of "liar". Go forth, now, little boy, and find the proof you need to support your scandalous libel, or be known for the liar you have proven yourself to be. Happy hunting, TheRedneckProfessor. Bump. STICKS AND STONES None of this supports the claims you made about ME. Just because you can google things doesn't mean you have proven the statements you made. You cannot support your claims because they are simply NOT true. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Try again. He didn't try the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Trolls like Justus are best ignored, except when it's entertaining to respond to his nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 7, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2016 Trolls like Justus are best ignored, except when it's entertaining to respond to his nonsense. Or when lurkers might benefit from seeing the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts