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. Matthew 7 : 6 yeah, I already told y'all you were turning science into a god... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Matthew 7 : 6 is (allegedly) a quotation of your God, End. Sound advice too. I won't be giving you any more pearls in this thread. 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. You don't read well. I have NEVER stated that I was an expert. You claim of having bachelor of science in chemistry, which equals to being an expert in my eyes. However you don't demonstrate a capability of understanding sophomore level of chemistry. This means either you don't have a BS degree in chemistry or you are an incompetent chemist. Either way this means you don't have a good grasp of chemistry, a science field that you claim you know the most since you said you do science for work. This also means you don't have a good grasp of chemistry. Thus, anybody can dismiss your claim of seeing god in science because you are not even a competent scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking 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. I understand what analogy is. I don't dispute if you make analogy between ICP and Moses... as long as you chalk it up as your religious experience. That I have no issue. What I have issue is once you bring that religious experience and claim that you see religion in ICP and you start push that as true to even a single other human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest 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. I understand what analogy is. I don't dispute if you make analogy between ICP and Moses... as long as you chalk it up as your religious experience. That I have no issue. What I have issue is once you bring that religious experience and claim that you see religion in ICP and you start push that as true to even a single other human being. Everything End sees is subjective, SL. 'nuff said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 SL, I'm sure you understand what analogy is.... Reasonably sure you don't understand THE analogy. Pretty sure a bachelors degree does not constitute an expert. Regardless of my knowledge base, I'm an excellent analyst and make a pretty good living at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End I'm sure you are a fine chemical analyst. However that doesn't mean you understand squat about science. You choose ignorance every time science conflicts with your religion. If you read the parts of the Old Testament that conflict with chemical analysis then you would have to find a new career. But you can choose to not read those parts and pretend they do not exist. Hey it is your life so you can choose to live it any way you want but you are not going to impress anybody here when you serve up nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 SL, I'm sure you understand what analogy is.... Reasonably sure you don't understand THE analogy. Pretty sure a bachelors degree does not constitute an expert. Regardless of my knowledge base, I'm an excellent analyst and make a pretty good living at it. Yes, a bachelor's degree is an expert in this case. Good for you for making a good living, really I am happy for you. I don't doubt you are an excellent analyst in your work but I doubt your scientific claim. You have demonstrated that you don't have a good grasp of basic chemistry so I doubt your claim of having a bachelor of science in chemistry. You can elevate or delay my doubt by answering my last questions on chemistry. You don't understand science thus you should stop making claim of you do science for a living so you are a scientist. Lastly, when people presented their case about your misunderstanding of science because you mix it with religion you cannot claim otherwise. As I have enough evidence in the last previous pages that you really don't understand chemistry, the science subject that you are supposed to be best at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 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. Can you answer this now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 SL, I'm sure you understand what analogy is.... Reasonably sure you don't understand THE analogy. Pretty sure a bachelors degree does not constitute an expert. Regardless of my knowledge base, I'm an excellent analyst and make a pretty good living at it. Yes, a bachelor's degree is an expert in this case. Good for you for making a good living, really I am happy for you. I don't doubt you are an excellent analyst in your work but I doubt your scientific claim. You have demonstrated that you don't have a good grasp of basic chemistry so I doubt your claim of having a bachelor of science in chemistry. You can elevate or delay my doubt by answering my last questions on chemistry. You don't understand science thus you should stop making claim of you do science for a living so you are a scientist. Lastly, when people presented their case about your misunderstanding of science because you mix it with religion you cannot claim otherwise. As I have enough evidence in the last previous pages that you really don't understand chemistry, the science subject that you are supposed to be best at. I tell you what, you make an effort at understanding my analogy, and I will answer your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3, I acknowledge you are buying time to answer my question. Feel free to google it and ask other people irl or online. You always jump at the chance to display your knowledge and now you are delaying. It is extremely suspicious. I doubt your claim of having chemistry degree even more now. Regardless, okay end3, I am willing to play your game. However, I will still call it out when it is not science or technology. What specific ICP image do you want me to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3, I acknowledge you are buying time to answer my question. Feel free to google it and ask other people irl or online. You always jump at the chance to display your knowledge and now you are delaying. It is extremely suspicious. I doubt your claim of having chemistry degree even more now. Regardless, okay end3, I am willing to play your game. However, I will still call it out when it is not science or technology. What specific ICP image do you want me to see? There is no image to be seen that I am aware. Please look into ICP theory. It should be easily googleable. ICP OES...no mass spec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I will do it tonight. What aspects do you want me to look into? The procedure and the how to run it? Or the how it works and why it works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I will do it tonight. What aspects do you want me to look into? The procedure and the how to run it? Or the how it works and why it works? There is really not much to look at. The sample excitation via the plasma produces EMR. The analogous version is Moses produced EMR via the excitation from being in the presence of God. To me, it's just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I want to clarify. If I were to claim expertise in anything, it would be the skillset regarding analytical chemistry...and certain methods only.....not the knowledge base. I think you(SL) are assuming my expertise in the knowledge base. I don't remember every saying this and would appreciate documentation. Otherwise... Not really sure where y'all have a problem with me "understanding science". True, I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3's pattern recognition facilities are well endowed and, not surprisingly, biased towards elements of his religious indoctrination. Can we go home now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3's pattern recognition facilities are well endowed and, not surprisingly, biased towards elements of his religious indoctrination. Can we go home now? You are a lawyer type, right. Please use whatever language they are speaking to relate my message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I will do it tonight. What aspects do you want me to look into? The procedure and the how to run it? Or the how it works and why it works? There is really not much to look at. The sample excitation via the plasma produces EMR. The analogous version is Moses produced EMR via the excitation from being in the presence of God. To me, it's just curious. I have read articles on ICP OES already. From what I read it is said it is a good detector for trace substances. It works by introducing the samples into a plasma so the sample molecules are hit by charged particles. The molecules will break down into its charged elements and during the process the elements will give off radiation (electromagnetic radiation). These radiation, or EMR as you prefer to call it, are at different wavelength for different elements and the more intense it is the higher the concentration of the element is. This is how we can tell what are in the original sample and how much they are. The reason why the elements produce EMR is because when the sample is introduced into the plasma the molecules are bombarded with electrons and ions, which the bonds among the elements are broken first. This of course produces energy. First law of thermodynamics. Then the electron configurations of the elements are themselves at an exited level or higher orbitals, which is unstable so the electrons want to go to lower orbitals so of course when the electrons go to lower orbitals EMR are produced, again first law of thermodynamics. What you see as glowing is the energy or EMR. I am pretty sure I have the general understanding correct. If I am not mistaken we have a PhD in Physics here, Bhim. I am going to PM him to see whether he would be interested in conversing with you about this. I am sure his understanding about electromagnetic is much superior than mine is. Now, how do you connect this with Moses again? I am not well versed in the Bible, I am an ex-Catholic and Catholics are not famous for memorizing the Bible, so which passage says Moses was glowing in the presence of God? I want to clarify. If I were to claim expertise in anything, it would be the skillset regarding analytical chemistry...and certain methods only.....not the knowledge base. I think you(SL) are assuming my expertise in the knowledge base. I don't remember every saying this and would appreciate documentation. Otherwise... Not really sure where y'all have a problem with me "understanding science". True, I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method. You claim to have a bachelor's degree in chemistry, this is a knowledge base. (Post #325 where you replied yes to my question whether you have a BS in Chemistry) A BS in Chemistry is a knowledge base. So far you haven't shown that you have the knowledge in chemistry that is why I have the doubt of your claim. Beside that point, I am not equating having a degree with competency to discuss science. You don't have the competency in discussing science WHEN you are conflating science and religion, which you do a lot here. When you conflate science and religion, it is not a scientific discussion anymore. Now, I really need to be off to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3 wrote... "I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method." Correct. Science's methodology is independent of it's limits. It is science's methodology that excludes the supernatural, not it's limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3 wrote... "I don't dismiss the current limits of science but do refuse to acknowledge them as permanent boundaries." End3 also wrote... "I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method." That is correct. The limits of science are not permanent boundaries. But it's limits/boundaries are independent of it's methodology. However the boundaries change, science's independent methodology will still require the supernatural to be excluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 End3 wrote... "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." Science's methodology always excludes the supernatural. Therefore, this observed 'morality' would be a purely natural phenomenon. Only naturalistic analogies could be made about this phenomenon. Any analogies drawing supernatural conclusions would (by definition) not be scientific ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Any analogies drawing supernatural conclusions would (by definition) not be scientific ones. Why wouldn't they re-write the definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Any analogies drawing supernatural conclusions would (by definition) not be scientific ones. Why wouldn't they re-write the definition? You've already answered that question, End. Here, I'll quote you. "...I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method." The process/method is independent of whatever science's limits are. You said it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Any analogies drawing supernatural conclusions would (by definition) not be scientific ones. Why wouldn't they re-write the definition? You've already answered that question, End. Here, I'll quote you. "...I refuse to put a limit on the current limits of science, but that is really independent of the process/method." The process/method is independent of whatever science's limits are. You said it yourself. No, with the limits of our understanding being enlarged, the definitions could be modified. For example, if I concluded via the scientific method that this particular biological arrangement and chemistry correlated with a significant population, then why could we not add to a given definition, i.e. "joy" is this feeling AND this particular physiology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 We modify all the time base on data. The moon is cheese. No the moon is actually x,y, and z. Oh cool, the moon is x,y, and z. Why would we hesitate or balk at modifying emotions, feelings, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts