Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Good night SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 See, you made me look up the DC 200/500. DC 200/500 is silicone oil? Thirty percent by weight on Chromosorb P, 80 to 100 mesh, acid washed. Not sure the chemistry involved....had always understood it as a physical separation. GC is physical separation! I am seriously asking, do you have a bachelor of science in chemistry? No, don't think it is totally. It is!This is an excerpt from a UC Davis Analytical Chemistry course: Gas chromatography is a physical separation method in where volatile mixtures are separated. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Analytical_Chemistry/Instrumental_Analysis/Chromatography/Gas_Chromatography My question, do you have a bachelor of science in chemistry? Partition coefficients between the mobile and stationary phases. I'm guessing the silicone oil and the helium. Yes. It is still physical separation. Partition coefficients mean diffusion, distillation. Those mean physical! Those you learnt already in physical chemistry courses. You see that is why those courses are called physical chemistry? By zeus, it means a degree doesn't mean that person understand the courses. Are you still denying GC is a physical separation? I hereby declare you are not a sound scientist. I am not even a chemist and I am confident my chemistry knowledge is better than yours is. We haven't even touched inorganic chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? It's not about winning. It's about the meaning of science. The problem is that End3 doesn't grasp this. He instinctively perceives it to be about winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Google is like the machine who produces pieces of difficult puzzle. You still have to arrange the puzzle yourself in order to see the picture. If you don't know what picture it is supposed to be, having the pieces of puzzle doesn't help you worse you might have a totally different picture. Do you care to try answering the question with the help of google? It will be fun, a good exercise. About winning, mymistake answer above is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Google is like the machine who produces pieces of difficult puzzle. You still have to arrange the puzzle yourself in order to see the picture. If you don't know what picture it is supposed to be, having the pieces of puzzle doesn't help you worse you might have a totally different picture. Do you care to try answering the question with the help of google? It will be fun, a good exercise. About winning, mymistake answer above is good. If there isn't a picture on the box the puzzle came in and you can arrange the pieces however you see fit, then have a happy. But wait! You have a picture of how it's all supposed to be, so you'll know when your puzzle looks like it should. But that's your picture in your mind. Has science figured out the mind, too? Do you know? Does science know? That's all E3 is asking, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Google is like the machine who produces pieces of difficult puzzle. You still have to arrange the puzzle yourself in order to see the picture. If you don't know what picture it is supposed to be, having the pieces of puzzle doesn't help you worse you might have a totally different picture. Do you care to try answering the question with the help of google? It will be fun, a good exercise. About winning, mymistake answer above is good. If there isn't a picture on the box the puzzle came in and you can arrange the pieces however you see fit, then have a happy. But wait! You have a picture of how it's all supposed to be, so you'll know when your puzzle looks like it should. But that's your picture in your mind. Has science figured out the mind, too? Do you know? Does science know? That's all E3 is asking, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. If you find remains, bones, of a dead boa that died right after eating a bird, can you be creative and say that you find a new animal species that is a hybrid of a boa and a bird? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Ok End, Here's that news I mentioned. It's about you, so how you take it is up to you. Item # 1. Methodological Naturalism, or MN ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism) limits scientific research to the study of only natural causes and always excludes the supernatural. The analytical methods you use in your work are based upon the scientific method, which is what MN is. The study of the natural, not the supernatural. So, for however many years you've worked in analytics, you've been employing MN without knowing it. You've been excluding the supernatural and studying only the natural - probably without even knowing that you were doing so. Yesterday I asked you if you practiced MN in your analytics work and said No, you didn't. You also said that you'd never heard of it. End, you were wrong to say that you didn't practice MN. You... DO ...practice it and have done so for as long as you've been doing analytics. Analytical chemistry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Analytical_chemistry) is a major sub-discipline of the science of Chemistry. Any branch of the sciences that uses the scientific method (like analytical chemistry) uses MN. If you've never heard of MN and sincerely believe that you've never practiced it, then I submit that you are seriously uninformed about the work you do. Methodological Naturalism... is ...the work you do. Item # 2. In this thread I've explained to you that you cannot ask cross-disciplinary questions, ones that freely mix science and religion. Yet, for as long as you've been performing scientific analysis in your work lab, you've been carefully keeping the disciplines of science and religion separate from each other. In the same way as item # 1, you've probably been doing this without knowing it. Yet that is what professionals who work in the sciences do. They keep their personal, religious beliefs separate from the science work that they perform. So, for as long as you've been arguing in this forum that science and religion can work together - you've been keeping them totally separate in your work. Once again, probably without knowing you were doing so. Which means that while you've been here, arguing for one thing - in your place of work, you've been doing the opposite. Needless to say, someone who unintentionally compromises themselves like this undermines their own argument. Arguing one way and getting paid for doing the opposite severely weakens their credibility. And that's putting it mildly. Item # 3. "If you are going to criticize something, which is better - to be ignorant of it or to understand it?" This question highlights the fundamental problem with your criticisms of science, End. As items 1 and 2 clearly show, you really don't have much of an understanding of science. To make a successful argument about which questions can be asked by science and which ones can't - you first need to understand what science is, how it works, what it can do and what it can't do. And even though you claim to have it, you don't possess that understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Ok End, Here's that news I mentioned. It's about you, so how you take it is up to you. Item # 1. Methodological Naturalism, or MN ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism) limits scientific research to the study of only natural causes and always excludes the supernatural. The analytical methods you use in your work are based upon the scientific method, which is what MN is. The study of the natural, not the supernatural. So, for however many years you've worked in analytics, you've been employing MN without knowing it. You've been excluding the supernatural and studying only the natural - probably without even knowing that you were doing so. Yesterday I asked you if you practiced MN in your analytics work and said No, you didn't. You also said that you'd never heard of it. End, you were wrong to say that you didn't practice MN. You... DO ...practice it and have done so for as long as you've been doing analytics. Analytical chemistry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Analytical_chemistry) is a major sub-discipline of the science of Chemistry. Any branch of the sciences that uses the scientific method (like analytical chemistry) uses MN. If you've never heard of MN and sincerely believe that you've never practiced it, then I submit that you are seriously uninformed about the work you do. Methodological Naturalism... is ...the work you do. Item # 2. In this thread I've explained to you that you cannot ask cross-disciplinary questions, ones that freely mix science and religion. Yet, for as long as you've been performing scientific analysis in your work lab, you've been carefully keeping the disciplines of science and religion separate from each other. In the same way as item # 1, you've probably been doing this without knowing it. Yet that is what professionals who work in the sciences do. They keep their personal, religious beliefs separate from the science work that they perform. So, for as long as you've been arguing in this forum that science and religion can work together - you've been keeping them totally separate in your work. Once again, probably without knowing you were doing so. Which means that while you've been here, arguing for one thing - in your place of work, you've been doing the opposite. Needless to say, someone who unintentionally compromises themselves like this undermines their own argument. Arguing one way and getting paid for doing the opposite severely weakens their credibility. And that's putting it mildly. Item # 3. "If you are going to criticize something, which is better - to be ignorant of it or to understand it?" This question highlights the fundamental problem with your criticisms of science, End. As items 1 and 2 clearly show, you really don't have much of an understanding of science. To make a successful argument about which questions can be asked by science and which ones can't - you first need to understand what science is, how it works, what it can do and what it can't do. And even though you claim to have it, you don't possess that understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAA, I doubt many people have heard of MN. Not sure many people have heard of a logical positivist. Not going to send someone through the wringer for that. Thank you for telling me about MN. I will attempt to put it in my knowledge base. I'm sorry you don't want to accept the analogy I am making. Last time I checked, an analogy doesn't mean that the comparison being made is equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Google is like the machine who produces pieces of difficult puzzle. You still have to arrange the puzzle yourself in order to see the picture. If you don't know what picture it is supposed to be, having the pieces of puzzle doesn't help you worse you might have a totally different picture. Do you care to try answering the question with the help of google? It will be fun, a good exercise. About winning, mymistake answer above is good. If there isn't a picture on the box the puzzle came in and you can arrange the pieces however you see fit, then have a happy. But wait! You have a picture of how it's all supposed to be, so you'll know when your puzzle looks like it should. But that's your picture in your mind. Has science figured out the mind, too? Do you know? Does science know? That's all E3 is asking, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. If you find remains, bones, of a dead boa that died right after eating a bird, can you be creative and say that you find a new animal species that is a hybrid of a boa and a bird? I don't think so. What does that have to do with the Moses analogy I am making, the analogy you don't even understand? What D is referring to is reductionism. If we could open the skull for research without inconveniencing someone, there is a damn good chance we might be able to get a picture, via science, of what correlates to morality. Your views are so incredibly short sighted. Take an instantaneous look at "this arrangement", "this chemistry". You must be miserable within the rules you set for yourself each day. I'll pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Can I jump in to ask, what will it prove if he does answer? You already said that you are going to use Google. Don't you think that any one of us with a big enough passion for winning couldn't also use Google and then post here? Google is like the machine who produces pieces of difficult puzzle. You still have to arrange the puzzle yourself in order to see the picture. If you don't know what picture it is supposed to be, having the pieces of puzzle doesn't help you worse you might have a totally different picture.Do you care to try answering the question with the help of google? It will be fun, a good exercise. About winning, mymistake answer above is good. If there isn't a picture on the box the puzzle came in and you can arrange the pieces however you see fit, then have a happy. But wait! You have a picture of how it's all supposed to be, so you'll know when your puzzle looks like it should. But that's your picture in your mind. Has science figured out the mind, too? Do you know? Does science know? That's all E3 is asking, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. If you find remains, bones, of a dead boa that died right after eating a bird, can you be creative and say that you find a new animal species that is a hybrid of a boa and a bird? I don't think so. What does that have to do with the Moses analogy I am making, the analogy you don't even understand? What D is referring to is reductionism. If we could open the skull for research without inconveniencing someone, there is a damn good chance we might be able to get a picture, via science, of what correlates to morality. Your views are so incredibly short sighted. Take an instantaneous look at "this arrangement", "this chemistry". You must be miserable within the rules you set for yourself each day. I'll pray. Thank you for your prayer. Now answer my question above please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Turns out there are numerous ways to investigate the brain...i.e. brain mapping using mice. Wow, imagine what science may discover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Ok End, Here's that news I mentioned. It's about you, so how you take it is up to you. Item # 1. Methodological Naturalism, or MN ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism) limits scientific research to the study of only natural causes and always excludes the supernatural. The analytical methods you use in your work are based upon the scientific method, which is what MN is. The study of the natural, not the supernatural. So, for however many years you've worked in analytics, you've been employing MN without knowing it. You've been excluding the supernatural and studying only the natural - probably without even knowing that you were doing so. Yesterday I asked you if you practiced MN in your analytics work and said No, you didn't. You also said that you'd never heard of it. End, you were wrong to say that you didn't practice MN. You... DO ...practice it and have done so for as long as you've been doing analytics. Analytical chemistry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Analytical_chemistry) is a major sub-discipline of the science of Chemistry. Any branch of the sciences that uses the scientific method (like analytical chemistry) uses MN. If you've never heard of MN and sincerely believe that you've never practiced it, then I submit that you are seriously uninformed about the work you do. Methodological Naturalism... is ...the work you do. Item # 2. In this thread I've explained to you that you cannot ask cross-disciplinary questions, ones that freely mix science and religion. Yet, for as long as you've been performing scientific analysis in your work lab, you've been carefully keeping the disciplines of science and religion separate from each other. In the same way as item # 1, you've probably been doing this without knowing it. Yet that is what professionals who work in the sciences do. They keep their personal, religious beliefs separate from the science work that they perform. So, for as long as you've been arguing in this forum that science and religion can work together - you've been keeping them totally separate in your work. Once again, probably without knowing you were doing so. Which means that while you've been here, arguing for one thing - in your place of work, you've been doing the opposite. Needless to say, someone who unintentionally compromises themselves like this undermines their own argument. Arguing one way and getting paid for doing the opposite severely weakens their credibility. And that's putting it mildly. Item # 3. "If you are going to criticize something, which is better - to be ignorant of it or to understand it?" This question highlights the fundamental problem with your criticisms of science, End. As items 1 and 2 clearly show, you really don't have much of an understanding of science. To make a successful argument about which questions can be asked by science and which ones can't - you first need to understand what science is, how it works, what it can do and what it can't do. And even though you claim to have it, you don't possess that understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAA, I doubt many people have heard of MN. Not sure many people have heard of a logical positivist. Not going to send someone through the wringer for that. Thank you for telling me about MN. I will attempt to put it in my knowledge base. I'm sorry you don't want to accept the analogy I am making. Last time I checked, an analogy doesn't mean that the comparison being made is equivalent. End, I can't accept the analogy you're making because, from yesterday's evidence, I don't consider you competent to make it. To make a proper analogy one needs to properly understand the issues in question. And I don't see that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 End, I can't accept the analogy you're making because, from yesterday's evidence, I don't consider you competent to make it. To make a proper analogy one needs to properly understand the issues in question. And I don't see that you do. Was a difficult impasse to reach, but I'm glad we are there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 End, I can't accept the analogy you're making because, from yesterday's evidence, I don't consider you competent to make it. To make a proper analogy one needs to properly understand the issues in question. And I don't see that you do. Was a difficult impasse to reach, but I'm glad we are there.... Well that kind of unnecessarily confrontational attitude speaks volumes about you, End. You're actually glad we've reached an impasse. So be it. . . . If you're glad to just sit and stew in your stubborn, ignorant defiance, then I won't bother showing you something else (important to you) that passed you by not so long ago. Stay right where you are if that makes you "glad". Stay ignorant and inflexible. Stay unaware and blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 End, I can't accept the analogy you're making because, from yesterday's evidence, I don't consider you competent to make it. To make a proper analogy one needs to properly understand the issues in question. And I don't see that you do. Was a difficult impasse to reach, but I'm glad we are there.... Well that kind of unnecessarily confrontational attitude speaks volumes about you, End. You're actually glad we've reached an impasse. So be it. . . . If you're glad to just sit and stew in your stubborn, ignorant defiance, then I won't bother showing you something else (important to you) that passed you by not so long ago. Stay right where you are if that makes you "glad". Stay ignorant and inflexible. Stay unaware and blind. If you all are so flexible about your views, then why has there not been ONE response to my neuro-science series of questions? SL: END3, I challenge you to a subject....YOUR CHOICE Me: brain science SL: No, I'm challenging you again. Me: Neuro science SL: No, I'm challenging you again regarding what you can remember from 25 years ago. Me: Ok, let's talk GC analysis So what do you really think each of your motivations are. It has nothing to do with helping me. It has everything to do with inflexibility...just like me. Hell, you just said in the post before that you could participate in a conversation because I wasn't qualified. So do you wish to participate in a conversation or not. I'm fine with my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Stay right where you are if that makes you "glad". Stay ignorant and inflexible. Stay unaware and blind. If you would like to say something expressly to this point, then say it very carefully and concisely. Like: END3, this is what I think you are missing exactly: I'm fine with statements like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 And how about answering my statement about reductionism? What I gathered from your line of questioning BAA was you were more interested in tricking me with renaming and "do you perform the scientific method" questions. It's rather transparent BAA. Y'all own your behavior and I shall own mine. Otherwise, we are at an impasse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 End, I can't accept the analogy you're making because, from yesterday's evidence, I don't consider you competent to make it. To make a proper analogy one needs to properly understand the issues in question. And I don't see that you do. Was a difficult impasse to reach, but I'm glad we are there.... Well that kind of unnecessarily confrontational attitude speaks volumes about you, End. You're actually glad we've reached an impasse. So be it. . . . If you're glad to just sit and stew in your stubborn, ignorant defiance, then I won't bother showing you something else (important to you) that passed you by not so long ago. Stay right where you are if that makes you "glad". Stay ignorant and inflexible. Stay unaware and blind. If you all are so flexible about your views, then why has there not been ONE response to my neuro-science series of questions? SL: END3, I challenge you to a subject....YOUR CHOICE Me: brain science SL: No, I'm challenging you again. Me: Neuro science SL: No, I'm challenging you again regarding what you can remember from 25 years ago. Me: Ok, let's talk GC analysis So what do you really think each of your motivations are. It has nothing to do with helping me. It has everything to do with inflexibility...just like me. Hell, you just said in the post before that you could participate in a conversation because I wasn't qualified. So do you wish to participate in a conversation or not. I'm fine with my perspective. You see end3, I stated since beginning my purpose to challenge you is to establish your credibility in science. When you picked neuroscience you admitted you are not well versed in it, you are not an expert. This means you don't have much credibility in talking about neuroscience. Now, you mentioned you have credibility in chemistry. Now can you please answer my last questions to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Thank you for your prayer. Now answer my question above please. Please answer this question. I would like to see whether your claim of an expert in chemistry hold true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 How about molecular configurations? Does the most compound of natural gas only have 1 type of configuration? Why? Does the most in terms of volume the same as the most in term of mole? Bump. Answer this end3. Thank you for your prayer. Now answer my question above please. Please answer this question. I would like to see whether your claim of an expert in chemistry hold true. You don't read well. I have NEVER stated that I was an expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Just saying, if each of you would wish to convict me of something, convict me with science, not subjectivity. Problem is, you can't do it, but claim you can. Textbook I make a living by doing science Jeff. You? Why would you think I am textbook anti science? end3, Since you keep touting your science credibility, I am going to challenge you here. What subject do you want to discuss? Your pick. ICP? Which ICP are you going to pick? I am going to give a disclaimer first. I am going to use google heavily and analyze the results it returns. I am also going to be upfront with my motive. I want to probe how far your understanding in chemistry. Then, maybe just maybe, we can discuss your idea of feeling glowing Moses that you perceived via ICP. Are you up to this challenge? Here's the post. In order to for you to understand my analogy, you must understand what happens to a sample when it enters the plasma. Go do that (USE GOOGLE). I am not an expert in ICP nor the theory. Will be glad to discuss that so you might understand my analogy. Please read the definition of analogy as well so you won't hold my comparison to some science certainty. That is NOT what I was trying to achieve. And pretty sure I've asked you to do this already, have I not? You were hell bent on defending Jeff rather than understanding my analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Stay right where you are if that makes you "glad". Stay ignorant and inflexible. Stay unaware and blind. If you would like to say something expressly to this point, then say it very carefully and concisely. Like: END3, this is what I think you are missing exactly: I'm fine with statements like this. Matthew 7 : 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 And how about answering my statement about reductionism? What I gathered from your line of questioning BAA was you were more interested in tricking me with renaming and "do you perform the scientific method" questions. It's rather transparent BAA. Y'all own your behavior and I shall own mine. Otherwise, we are at an impasse. Matthew 7 : 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts