Jump to content

pantheory

☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • Content Count

    1,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by pantheory

  1. (underline added to your quote) What they are talking about here is they believe one female was the mother of a DNA change that defines our species homo sapiens from the human species that came before us and is now extinct. This change supposedly happened about 200,00 years ago and was not necessarily passed down to all of this female"s offspring, but probably to most or all of her female offspring. What they determined concerning this DNA difference was not explained. It may have nothing to do with the appearance of the individual. But this DNA change caused her descendants in time to look more like modern humans of today and probably eventually led to smarter offspring of both sexes.
  2. Yes, quite interesting. But too much emphasis IMO on man-made global warming which is only a hypothesis. There are contrary views in science such as NASA's prediction of global cooling in the coming decades or longer.
  3. You might say that none, including Jesus, have ever had the gift of healing. The biblical person of Jesus probably never existed in the first place as well as God of the bible. As for me, I don't believe in any kind of God. The only gifts for healing are education and experience where through the application of technology, medicines, diagnostics, transfusions, therapy of different types, sleep, rest etc., some people can be healed.
  4. The Rosetta Stone text was written about 200 BC and relates to Egyptian administrative business and Ptolemy the 5th. It was a decree passed by a council of Egyptian priests celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of Ptolemy V Epiphanes as king of Egypt. The Ptolemian rulers of Egypt had no Egyptian blood in them. They were decedents of Ptolemy the first who was a bodyguard and general of Alexander the Great. He was made ruler of Egypt after Alexander and the Macedonians concurred and left Egypt excepting for a small army left behind to control Egypt. Ptolomy the 1st was thought to be the most educated and cultured General of Alexander. Alexander was also very well educated himself and was tutored by Socrates. The Ptolomian rulers of Egypt were required to pass a great many years of never ending education and all spoke many languages. Cleopatra was also their direct descendent thought to be wholly of Macedonian blood. Incest amongst the Ptolomian rulers was almost required to keep the bloodline “pure.” This was maybe 1,200 years after the Egyptian biblical times of the Bible and the reigns of Pharaohs Seti and Ramesses. The science of it was the extensive archeology involved and the translation of hieroglyphics into modern languages. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02Tmxw4eiKoF8d8BdgJz3i3IWNGUA%3A1594054201876&source=hp&ei=OVYDXz3Msiy0PEPi5ipuAU&q=what+was+the+text+of+the+rosetta+stone&oq=what+was+the+text+of+the+rosetta+stone&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDIGCAAQFhAeOgQIIxAnOgIIADoFCAAQsQM6CAgAELEDEIMBOggIIRAWEB0QHlC2CFjMaGCffWgAcAB4A4AB3QOIAaQvkgEKOS4xOS42LjIuMpgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXo&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwis-M_TirnqAhVIGTQIHQtMClcQ4dUDCAg
  5. "When above the Earth, water is in the form of water vapor which forms into clouds." Dense clouds of water vapor will form tiny droplets of water or ice within them by condensing upon fine particulates in the upper atmosphere such as dust, smog, bacteria, etc. When these minuscule water/ice droplets become densely packed together we observe them as clouds. If the droplets within dense clouds become large enough and cool enough, it will rain, snow, or hail. Because the temperate in the upper atmosphere is much colder than the Earth's surface, most rain in the winter starts as ice or snow in the upper atmosphere and melts on its way down becoming rain. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/condensation-and-water-cycle?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
  6. SeaJay, "There are some scientists who have speculated that before the flood there was a thick sheet of water surrounding the earth up in the atmosphere." From the quote you posted, shown above, I can realize that there is no validity in it. No PhD scientist in geology would believe or even speculate as to the flood of the bible being possible, or to the possibility that a thick sheet of water could have surrounded the entire Earth within the existence of humankind. As you probably realize, the flood of the Bible would have happened less than twelve thousand years ago. In geologic studies of the Earth there has probably never been a time when a thick sheet of water surrounded the Earth, at least not in the last 50 million years. When above the Earth, water is in the form of water vapor which forms into clouds. With or without a surrounding atmosphere of gases, water above the surface of the Earth spreads out as a gas and cannot stay together as a liquid. Very thick clouds can create a lot of rain, but PhD scientists in these related fields believe the flood of the bible is just a fantasy which might have had its basis in the pre-history floods of Mesopotamia. Such a world-wide flood was originally written in the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh before the old Testament was written. Of course religious people could say that God can do anything including removing the evidence for any such occurrences. But if you believe there is any credible scientist that believes in the possibility of the above quote, post the link to such speculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
  7. I understand that some can understand algebraic equations, but IMO the readership in general here would not be interested in equations requiring LaTeX. But if they agree with such a plug -in then great
  8. I agree. That's why I chose not to post any link in the first place. In our forum we express our opinions or try to explain things, not post equations or links that would be gibberish to most readers unless appropriate.
  9. Yes, the example that I thought of posting was: the sum of an infinite series of fractions of 1 with successive divisions by 2: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .....etc.. also equals exactly 1.
  10. Yes. If I thought posting a related link involving mathematical symbols I would have chosen this link concerning types of infinity in mathematics. Calculus I https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calcI/typesofinfinity.aspx For positive infinity, infinity plus or minus any number equals infinity; Infinity plus infinity equals infinity. Any positive natural number multiplied times infinity equals infinity. Positive infinity multiplied time positive infinity equals infinity Infinity divided by a positive number equals infinity. For negative infinity algebraic rules apply. in division infinity (countable) divided by infinity (uncountable) equals zero. Infinity (uncountable) divided by infinity (countable) equals infinity. All of this is likely to be viewed as gibberish for most people unless they understand and have need to do the related mathematics.
  11. Pretty cool. I see a Crusader' cross in the lower left hand corner. After finally losing the holy land in the second and third crusades, the sailors of the third Crusade might have realized his religion was a failed model
  12. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Max Planck Unfortunately your quote has a lot of truth to it. But occasionally these scientific truths are not new, just unknown, discounted, bypassed, or believed to be disproved. But in time all truths will come to the surface and float in the sea of other truths. All in time will be recognized at least from one perspective. I realize you were responding to Justus concerning his wording "theoretical philosopher, whatever that is? " As to your posting and Justus' theoretical philosopher, IMO all philosophies and theories are perspectives of reality, not reality themselves. Some of them have their basis in truths. But no philosophy or theory is ultimately true as a whole, but many are based upon numerous truths. As to religions and their belief in an infinite God, the value to them is unrelated to their beliefs IMO. Many do good charitable works around the world, create goodwill within the community, and many have moral-value teachings which can lead to a better life for individuals and their society as a whole, whether or not one believes in their God or religious teachings. Religions and their aggressive followers, however, have also been the perpetrators of many wars in the name of their religion and countless psychological damage to some of their believers.
  13. Justus, I gave you an "I like" above because I agreed with what you said. But remember that God is also supposed to be infinite, and I think that the belief in infinity is essential to the belief in God. The concept of infinity including the belief in a god of any kind seems to be necessary for the multitudes, most of which have minimal educations or understandings of scientific reality.
  14. No. Infinity is not a round number. In mathematics infinity minus one would still be infinity, just a lesser degree of it. Infinity minus any number would still be infinity. Just consider that infinity is an almost indispensable mathematical concept, not necessarily a part of reality.
  15. Infinity is a concept, not necessarily a reality. In certain aspects of mathematics the concept of infinity is used to solve problems that would be much more difficult to solve without it. In the mathematics of calculus, for instance, the concept of an infinite limit is used in both differential and integral calculus. Calculus is used in many aspects of both science and engineering. In mathematics, infinity can be graded as to its relative size compared to another infinity if its rate of growth is at a faster rate of growth or expansion. But no, infinity does not have to expand to be infinite. Most scientists believe that the universe of matter is not infinite, but most also believe that the universe of space is infinite. But others believe that space is no more than the distance between matter and the volume matter occupies. If this is correct then where matter ends in volume, if it does, then space also ends. Rene Decarte, the famous French philosopher and scientist, believed that space is best defined and described as an extension of matter. In any case there may be no such thing as infinity in reality, just an indispensable mathematical concept. If so then everything has a limit to it. Of course the Big Bang model (BB) of the universe today is accepted by maybe 98% of astronomers and theorists, and even a greater percentage believe the universe is expanding. But this is not fact, it remains theory. The evidence for this expansion is that there is a direct correlation between the redshift of galaxies to their distance from us first discovered by Edwin Hubble. But this is not certain evidence for an expanding universe. There are many other hypothesis explaining redshifts other than an expanding universe. Hubble himself believed that the universe was not expanding and that there was another reason for galactic redshifts other than an expanding universe. Here is a quote concerning his beliefs: "Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings, he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature. There are other factors also that make most scientist believe the universe is expanding, but there is also much evidence against its expansion. In an expanding universe, for instance, galaxies in the past should have been closer together. But no matter how far back in time they look, distances between galaxies appear to be the same or even greater in the past. This is totally contrary to the BB and an expanding universe. There are a great many other reasons to conclude that the BB is wrong and that the universe is not expanding. I am a cosmologist and an associate and I wrote and published a pier reviewed paper on the almost countless problems with the Big Bang model which you can see in a link below. Probably the only reason why the BB still remains the preferred cosmology is that cosmologists do not know of any other model that they believe meets all their requirements other than the BB model. But maybe 3 to 10 years from now when the James Webb space telescope is up and properly placed, it will be able to see much farther than the Hubble telescope or most any ground based scopes including radio telescopes. After that, there may be many reasons why the BB model will seriously begin to fall out of favor and a replacement non-expanding universe hypothesis may then be considered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/problems-with-big-bang-cosmology-300107094.html
  16. Such decisions IMO should not be solely based upon medical science. Many other sciences, humanities, and economics should be part of the equation. Although I am pissed at the way it was handled as far as the lockdowns generally being too long IMO, as far as the lockdowns in general I probably would have done the same thing if I were in power, with the initial info that they had to start with, excepting for shorter lockdowns. Unfortunately there probably will be a resurgence of Covid in the northern hemisphere this coming winter. It won't be as bad however since there is a lot of heard immunity out there now. It is almost the beginning of winter now in the southern hemisphere so I expect they will get an increased share of Covid in the coming months. Next winter in the Northern hemisphere many counties will be pushing to release a vaccine. I know of at least one vaccine of the many dozens in test around the world, which I believe is totally safe and effective for those that have taken it in trial. After vaccination they have the same amount of antibodies in their blood as people who have already had the disease. Come next winter in the US Trump will still be in power at least until the first of next year. I believe win or lose he will try very hard to have a vaccine released while he is still in power. If not approved as yet he will push for a much bigger trial so that for those most vulnerable, it they want to be part of a trial they could. I also read that at least half the population will choose not to take a vaccine when it is available. This is about the same amount of people that choose not to take the flu vaccine every year. As one can imagine, religious people are more likely not to take vaccines in general according to my readings. We still don't know how long immunity lasts after having Covid. This period of time is only roughly one year for the flu. This is also how long immunity lasts after taking a flu shot, hence we take flu shots every year. Hopefully a Covid vaccine will provide immunity for a longer period of time. If antibodies against Covid remain in the blood for a longer period of time then we may not need to have a Covid shot every year like flu shots. They are working on a universal flu vaccine whereby it will be effective against nearly all strains of the flu so that a different vaccination every year to cover the most prevalent flu strain may not be needed. It is also possible that a Covid shot can be combined with the flu shot for those who want it that way for convenience sake.
  17. How goes it Bhim? Nice to talk to you again. As for Covid 19 and the lockdown, I agreed that flattening the curve via a lockdown was necessary based upon the information we had at the time. In retrospect based upon the trillions of dollars just the US has spent so far, I would have instead spent a lot of money individually isolating the high risk individuals instead of locking them down as well as everyone else. If those individuals didn't wish to comply, then their sickness or death would be on them. Most such people would have probably complied if they received a big financial motivation to do so. And we would have spent far less money and I think fewer would have died based upon this strategy. As to Covid 19, I believe it will end up very similar to the flue, influenzas A and B, and the dozens of variations of it. After we have vaccines for Covid 19 I don't think it will be any more dangerous than the flu. We are already coming up with a number of anti-viral drugs that can reduce the severity of Covid 19 if one gets it, just like we have prescription enfluenza drugs such as Tamiflu (oseltamivir phosphate, also available as generic) Rapivab (peramivir) Relenza (zanamivir) Xofluza (baloxavir marboxil). I think some counties, states and provinces were mandated to lockdown too long including the US. Lockdown was a financial disaster for all countries, states and provinces which may have caused more deaths than Covid 19, via personal financial disasters, stalling off cancer and other serious medical treatments, not wanting to go to the doctors, many dentists closed down, continuing suicides, reasons to riot to get out of lockdown, etc. I think far too many people lost their jobs unnecessarily around the world. Next time a Pandemic comes along I hope they concentrate more exclusively on the more vulnerable people via their total isolation from all others and let most other people make their own decisions.
  18. Never heard of teleological thinking but obviously it often flies in the face of thinking when one fully understands and believes in the scientific facts which are supported by a truck load of evidence. Science makes mistakes also but not as obviously wrong as teleological thinking. I'm sure your friends have more to offer than just their religious views or stupid teleological thinking. When they start getting into conspiracy theories or religious dogma you could steer the conversation to another subject that you are both interested in. As for me, I have religious friends that know better than to discuss religion with me since all know that I am an atheist. They know that I will mock silly or trivial conversations excepting for their jokes, so usually they get the gist not to talk to me of such things. If they want to talk religion with me after a reminder that I'm an atheist, I would be more gentle with them by simply making a joke of it such as, "you're barking up the wrong tree, dog." If they really are my friend they would not be offended by my joke. If they were to talk about conspiracy theories to me I would make a joke of what they are saying, even though I'm sure a few of such ideas are true, but I let them know I don't want to hear them. I wouldn't get rid of a friend unless he couldn't cope with my continuous making fun of him because of his lack of logic. Even though he believes these ideas are true, he begins to realize what not to talk to me about it if he doesn't want me to mock him. I never argue or explain my own point of view unless they ask my opinion and then I don't hold anything back. Afterward if they do not accept my opinion and knowledge I will not argue my point further. I would just tell them to talk about something else that we both might be interested in such as any science, any academic subject, Covid 19, lockdown, vaccinations, protesting and riots, drinking, women, movies, abortions, etc.
  19. After a brief perusal, your link does look like interesting reading.
  20. Yes, good point, but many or most government and elected officials who made the US and most of the decisions around the world, came out of the climate of academia and generally have little consideration of possibilities outside their own fields of expertise. The lockdown decisions of Covid 19 were generally a medical decision, where such discussions and decisions should have also involved other aspects of academia IMO, since the lock-down effects have cost many other lives and have had a very broad disastrous scope. With tongue in cheek, churches, temples and mosques, for instance, should have been allowed to remain open, maybe a smooth way to deplete their numbers.
  21. I read Leon Lederman's interesting book the God Particle. In his book Lederman said he wanted to title it "That God Damned Particle" but his publishers wouldn't allow it The particle has now become known as the Higgs particle, which you probably know was named after one of the physicists that predicted it. Unfortunately IMO I think the whole "discovery" ordeal, and the Standard Model in general, is a disaster. The so-called "Higgs" appeared several time in the large Hadron Collider for several trillions of a second and that was enough for them to claim the god particle's discovery ("the" particle giving mass to all other particles). It could take many decades IMO to undue the countless mistakes within the standard model including this one.
  22. I did not disagree with the logic of lockdown in general. At the time to some extent, but event more in hindsight, I disagree with the way that it was done and the length of it. I believe other very important considerations of psychology, sociology, mental health, economics, social unrest, etc. were not seriously considered to the extent they should have been. Everyone of these unfortunate effects have likely cost a great many more non-considered and overall unknown deaths and temporary or permanent damage in the U.S. IMO, a much larger and more diverse population than in NZ, granted, where such considerations would unexpectedly be less than in the US.
  23. The problem the way I see it is that pandemic-wise we only have been looking at the science of medicine, and even then following the worst case scenarios. There is much more science involved in Covid than what most e are observing and discussing IMO. The sciences of psychology, mental health, sociology, economics, etc.as a result of lock-downs and social distancing, have pretty mush all been ignored. The results have hurt all countries that have had lock-downs, which IMO have experienced more damage from these lock-downs than from the deaths from Covid 19. For instance, with lock-downs some people that would otherwise not protest, will do anything just to get out of their houses. Although police are sometimes brutal and abusive and not for good reason, this brutality often can involve any race or nationality, not just blacks and Hispanics. As to speech and science decisions based upon ignorance and religion rather than science, in one large recent poll concerning Covid 19 vaccination, less than half of Americans (48%) said that they plan to get a vaccination for Covid within the first year after vaccine(s) are available, and some said for religious reasons. This is very similar to the rate that adults annually get flu vaccinations, even when there is little or no cost to the individual. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18681930/religion-vaccine-refusal
  24. Answering the question, where did God come from? Your answer to them, "How convenient." I think that is the best answer they can give, and yours, a good reply to their answer. Unfortunately science has a similar problem concerning the beginning of the universe. Many or most scientists today believe that in the beginning of the universe there was no such thing as time. In such a beginning time would be a simple concept. As such, an interval of change would not only create, but be the definition and measurement of time. The universe consists of an almost infinite series of cause and effect events. For this explanation of time, in the beginning there would have been the potential energy within a beginning entity to change itself, which would be a presently unknown dimension of reality. This is my preference concerning science's available answers. Such a beginning could involve a Big Bang entity according to many (but not my preference). The potential energy within such a beginning entity would have caused this entity to change its form accordingly creating time. Time therefore would be a measurement of such a dimensional change. Space would have started as the volume this first entity occupied, but the meaning of that volume would only have a meaning when compared to the new volume that matter would have created by its change. In an entity devoid of change there wouldn't be any meaning to the word time.Space also would have no meaning if there was nothing to compare it to. Other cosmologists believe that there was a time before a hypothetical Big Bang beginning believing that the Universe was created spontaneously from quantum fluctuations in some pre-existing background field like the known Zero Point Field, a kind of vacuum or aether with virtual particles within it. Following this line of thought, the Universe would be a fluctuation within a vacuum in the sense of quantum field theory used in quantum physics today. Other cosmologists believe in multiverse "theory," where our universe was created from interactions within another universe. This idea also has the same problem of infinite regression like religion where one could not ask, where did this other universe come from since there would be never ending questions of regression. Others believe in an infinite universe in both time and space , or an infinite series of expansions and contractions (Big Bounce theories). Like the "where did God come from" question, neither of these models could be questioned concerning the beginning of the universe since there would have been no beginning. Since we seemingly could never observe the actual beginning of the universe, all of these "theories" are solely unfounded speculation, but if some of today's cosmologists are correct at least one of these speculations have merit.
  25. Yours are all good comments. An argument against life's continuous creation here on Earth is that the chemistry now is very different from the Earth's beginning. Just a little oxygen can destroy fragile elementary cells, even dissolved in water as needed by fish. Another argument against life first evolving here on Earth is that all life that is now known is very complicated. The most elementary life now that we know of has scores of different parts and functions, as well as multiple hundreds of different chemical and other DNA/ RNA reactions and functions to them. Beginning life would have to be able to eat something where no life existed before. They could consume organic compounds, but only chlorophyll, a complicated molecule within plants, can use sunshine to create food and eat non-living minerals. Hydrothermal bacteria in the oceans and volcanic pools with sulfur might do without sunlight to create their energy from the sulfur combined with other minerals. If the most elementary life developed before our solar system then there could have been many billions of years more time for beginning life's complicated evolution and development inside a very large comet or small ice moon. Such evolution would involve those characteristics necessary to survive the beginning ocean's chemical and hotter ocean surroundings, derived from the rain of comets or comet collisions with the oceans which could have seeded beginning life. Still most scientists believe that life on Earth first evolved here on Earth, which still may be the likeliest possibility despite the complicationa of the simplest known life today.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.