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. 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. 48 hours ago you told StillLooking that you knew... nothing ...about neurochemistry. Yet today you want me to take your uninformed speculations about the human mind seriously enough to consider completely re-writing science's methodology? Are you joking, End? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest 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? We don't totally trash the existing methodology - we work within it. 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. end3, what is the connection again? 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. 48 hours ago you told StillLooking that you knew... nothing ...about neurochemistry. Yet today you want me to take your uninformed speculations about the human mind seriously enough to consider completely re-writing science's methodology? Are you joking, End? 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. 48 hours ago you told StillLooking that you knew... nothing ...about neurochemistry. Yet today you want me to take your uninformed speculations about the human mind seriously enough to consider completely re-writing science's methodology? Are you joking, End? I don't. But I'm smart enough to go Google. Turns out there are probably a dozen or so methods they are using already. What you just said is about equivalent to: You want me to consider the moon is not cheese? Are you crazy? Starting to think it might be y'all that have the science issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Please do show us what these other methods are, End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Sorry to butt in. I think SL is looking for chapter and verse re: glowing Moses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit 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. This sounds like pure speculation, though. Besides, you can't SEE electromagnetic radiation on someone, unless you're saying it gave him 3rd degree burns so his face was red. But I don't understand why you would want to say such a thing. It doesn't make the myth any more true. I mean, the stories in the Bible can be interpreted as valuable myths that give us a window into the history, culture, and worldview of humans 6,000 years ago but there's no reason to try to pretend that they are accounts of actual events. From being on this site you've seen enough debunking and historical evidence to know that the Old Testament stories aren't literally true. The earth wasn't made 6,000 years ago, it is far older, as we know by many sources of data and measurement. So why would you assume the other stories are true? They don't have to be literally true to have some value to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Wouldn't he have to be on fire to emit light? Think about the physics of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I don't. But I'm smart enough to go Google. Turns out there are probably a dozen or so methods they are using already. What you just said is about equivalent to: You want me to consider the moon is not cheese? Are you crazy? Starting to think it might be y'all that have the science issues... Please provide a link where we can read about these dozen or so methodologies of science, End. This is something we cannot accept on faith. Evidence to back up your claim please. 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. This sounds like pure speculation, though. Besides, you can't SEE electromagnetic radiation on someone, unless you're saying it gave him 3rd degree burns so his face was red. But I don't understand why you would want to say such a thing. It doesn't make the myth any more true. I mean, the stories in the Bible can be interpreted as valuable myths that give us a window into the history, culture, and worldview of humans 6,000 years ago but there's no reason to try to pretend that they are accounts of actual events. From being on this site you've seen enough debunking and historical evidence to know that the Old Testament stories aren't literally true. The earth wasn't made 6,000 years ago, it is far older, as we know by many sources of data and measurement. So why would you assume the other stories are true? They don't have to be literally true to have some value to them. Actually, I think humans emit light....will have to find the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Wouldn't he have to be on fire to emit light? Think about the physics of it. No, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again? What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Sorry to butt in. I think SL is looking for chapter and verse re: glowing Moses. Exodus 34 there about 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. This sounds like pure speculation, though. Besides, you can't SEE electromagnetic radiation on someone, unless you're saying it gave him 3rd degree burns so his face was red. But I don't understand why you would want to say such a thing. It doesn't make the myth any more true. I mean, the stories in the Bible can be interpreted as valuable myths that give us a window into the history, culture, and worldview of humans 6,000 years ago but there's no reason to try to pretend that they are accounts of actual events. From being on this site you've seen enough debunking and historical evidence to know that the Old Testament stories aren't literally true. The earth wasn't made 6,000 years ago, it is far older, as we know by many sources of data and measurement. So why would you assume the other stories are true? They don't have to be literally true to have some value to them. I just think it curious that God is in the business of revealing our higher nature.....knowing who we are after the chaff is gone.....and we employ something analogous to identify/quantify "stuff". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 end3, what is the connection again?What connection please SL? The analogy I am making? Yes. I am asking what part of Moses story that involved glowing something as in the EMR that you see in the ICP. Samples emit light (not always visible) when introduced to the plasma. The analogous comparison would be that Moses face "glowed" after being in the presence of God....he emitted light. Sorry to butt in. I think SL is looking for chapter and verse re: glowing Moses. Yes, duderonomy is right. I look around Bible gateway and I didn't find any verse about Moses glowing in front of God. You might and certainly can make up a story about how Moses glowed in front of God but it means it is a story made by you. I will give that you have a creative mind. Now, you make an analogy between your story and ICP. As I wrote above, the samples emit EMR because the electrons are moving back to lower energy orbitals after being bombarded with energy in the plasma. If you want your analogy stays, this means Moses were receiving energy from God then he glowed when he felt less excited. The glow died down and he received more energy from God and he felt excited again. And then he felt less excited and released energy. Do you think it makes sense? This sounds as if Moses was having bipolar episodes every fraction seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Now, as you promised, answer my chemistry questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit 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. This sounds like pure speculation, though. Besides, you can't SEE electromagnetic radiation on someone, unless you're saying it gave him 3rd degree burns so his face was red. But I don't understand why you would want to say such a thing. It doesn't make the myth any more true. I mean, the stories in the Bible can be interpreted as valuable myths that give us a window into the history, culture, and worldview of humans 6,000 years ago but there's no reason to try to pretend that they are accounts of actual events. From being on this site you've seen enough debunking and historical evidence to know that the Old Testament stories aren't literally true. The earth wasn't made 6,000 years ago, it is far older, as we know by many sources of data and measurement. So why would you assume the other stories are true? They don't have to be literally true to have some value to them. I just think it curious that God is in the business of revealing our higher nature.....knowing who we are after the chaff is gone.....and we employ something analogous to identify/quantify "stuff". I'm not sure I get what you mean. Can you clarify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Now, as you promised, answer my chemistry questions. yes, I will. I am about to go pick up my son for visitation...this is 1.5 hour away...so if it is not this evening, I will get it tomorrow. Off the cuff, methane is the largest component. One configuration that I remember. There are several different hydrocarbons in natural gas....not sure what dictates the proportions. Will have to make sure I get the mole question right. Has been years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Exodus 34 there about It must be this then, just to get it out there. This is from the NIV: Exodus 34:29-35New International Version (NIV) The Radiant Face of Moses 29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord.30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the communitycame back to him, and he spoke to them. 32 Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34 But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord. From here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034:29-35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Now, as you promised, answer my chemistry questions. yes, I will. I am about to go pick up my son for visitation...this is 1.5 hour away...so if it is not this evening, I will get it tomorrow. Off the cuff, methane is the largest component. One configuration that I remember. There are several different hydrocarbons in natural gas....not sure what dictates the proportions. Will have to make sure I get the mole question right. Has been years. Good end3. I give kudos to you to answer methane. You should be able to answer the gas question in less than 1 minute because the answer is supposed to be in your mind already. It should be as if I ask you what 10 + 10. You don't have to answer my question anymore. I conclude you don't have a bachelor degree in Chemistry. If you do, you suppose to know much much more than I do about chemistry. Even though it has been a while those information should stick in your mind. Like I wrote before, you don't have a good understanding of science, so you should listen when people told you that you don't understand science or else people are not going to take you seriously. Anyway, it is the weekend. Enjoy your time with your son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Exodus 34 there about Thank you. The analogy still doesn't hold because the EMR emitted from the elements in ICP-EOS is instantaneous. I would suggest, for the analogy, you better compare it with phosphorescence. However, still this doesn't mean you see God in phosphorescent materials. As you said yourself, this is an analogy. In conclusion, there is still no God in science. No, you don't see God's presence in your work, end3. Also, science and God still don't mix together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 I don't. But I'm smart enough to go Google. Turns out there are probably a dozen or so methods they are using already. What you just said is about equivalent to: You want me to consider the moon is not cheese? Are you crazy? Starting to think it might be y'all that have the science issues... Please provide a link where we can read about these dozen or so methodologies of science, End. This is something we cannot accept on faith. Evidence to back up your claim please. If you could post a link to those dozen or so methodologies of science, sometime tomorrow, that would be appreciated End. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 We modify all the time base on data. We modify theories and models all the time, based upon new data. The moon is cheese. The moon was never considered to be cheese by science. That was an article of folklore. No the moon is actually x,y, and z. Oh cool, the moon is x,y, and z. No, the moon is not cheese, it's surface has been sampled and found to be a mixture of silica, alumina, lime, iron oxide, magnesia, titanium dioxide and sodium oxide. Why would we hesitate or balk at modifying emotions, feelings, etc? Because emotions and feelings play no part in the scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts