Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists



 Religions > Atheism > Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 6 of 13

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 

8

 

9

 

10

 

11

 

12

 

13

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Budikka"
Date: 07 Aug 2004 07:31:08 AM
Object: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/07/27/bc.japan.yawningchimps.ap/index.html
reveals that chimpanzees yawn just like we do, uncovering yet another
example of just how much like chimps we are (or they like us). Not
only is our DNA almost identical, most of our behaviors are, too. As
Tetsuro Matsuzawa, professor at the Primate Research Institute at
Kyoto University says int he article: "Humans have a strong belief in
our differences. Objectively, we should be one member of the apes."
Budikka
.

User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:16:49 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



David Jensen wrote:

In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...

No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.

Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:38:55 PM
Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


David Jensen wrote:


In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...


No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.

Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new physics.
.
User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:53:17 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:PttWc.50092$UYx.47418@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


David Jensen wrote:


In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...


No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.



Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new physics.

If the new physics are what you have been spouting off the last few weeks,
no one else in the world of science has a clue either.
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:56:51 PM
Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:PttWc.50092$UYx.47418@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:


"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


David Jensen wrote:



In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...



No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.



Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new physics.



If the new physics are what you have been spouting off the last few weeks,
no one else in the world of science has a clue either.

Typical of the sociopath, claim the 'whole world' is on their side.
.
User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 06:00:26 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:DKtWc.50284$UYx.46783@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:PttWc.50092$UYx.47418@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:


"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


David Jensen wrote:



In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...



No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I

do

not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.



Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new

physics.



If the new physics are what you have been spouting off the last few

weeks,

no one else in the world of science has a clue either.

Typical of the sociopath, claim the 'whole world' is on their side.

Strangely I had never considered the characteristics of a sociopath. After
reviewing many of the characteristics I can't see that they apply to me,
however, many of them certainly would apply to you. Aren't projecting just a
wee bit are ya laddie?
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 06:01:42 PM
Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:DKtWc.50284$UYx.46783@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:


"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:PttWc.50092$UYx.47418@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:



"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



David Jensen wrote:




In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...




No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I


do

not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.



Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new


physics.


If the new physics are what you have been spouting off the last few


weeks,

no one else in the world of science has a clue either.



Typical of the sociopath, claim the 'whole world' is on their side.



Strangely I had never considered the characteristics of a sociopath. After
reviewing many of the characteristics I can't see that they apply to me,
however, many of them certainly would apply to you. Aren't projecting just a
wee bit are ya laddie?

All you do in every single one of your posts is project and smear. That
is typical of the Usenet sociopath.
.
User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 06:04:27 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:qHuWc.51185$UYx.43040@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



Tom wrote:

"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:DKtWc.50284$UYx.46783@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:


"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:PttWc.50092$UYx.47418@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


Tom wrote:



"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



David Jensen wrote:




In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave

<pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>

wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...




No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any

gods

exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I


do

not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Speaking of pathetic "Mad", your posts keep going downhill.



Awww...poor plagiarizer, still upset he has no clue about the new


physics.


If the new physics are what you have been spouting off the last few


weeks,

no one else in the world of science has a clue either.



Typical of the sociopath, claim the 'whole world' is on their side.



Strangely I had never considered the characteristics of a sociopath.

After

reviewing many of the characteristics I can't see that they apply to me,
however, many of them certainly would apply to you. Aren't projecting

just a

wee bit are ya laddie?



All you do in every single one of your posts is project and smear. That
is typical of the Usenet sociopath.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!! You capitalized 'Usenet'. There is hope for you yet
:-)))).
.

User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 11:22:04 PM
In alt.talk.creationism, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
<qHuWc.51185$UYx.43040@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:



Tom wrote:

....

Strangely I had never considered the characteristics of a sociopath. After
reviewing many of the characteristics I can't see that they apply to me,
however, many of them certainly would apply to you. Aren't projecting just a
wee bit are ya laddie?



All you do in every single one of your posts is project and smear. That
is typical of the Usenet sociopath.

I've read enough of Tom's work to know that your claim is wrong, but I
can understand why he wouldn't bother to take your silliness seriously.
.







User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:17:00 PM
In alt.talk.creationism, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
<LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:



David Jensen wrote:

In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...

No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.

Creationists have already abandoned the scriptures with their
interpretation. I realize that Pastor Dave is a sociopath, but he
doesn't like it when you call him one.
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 23 Aug 2004 04:19:03 PM
David Jensen wrote:

In alt.talk.creationism, Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in
<LUsWc.9698$izj1.462@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:


David Jensen wrote:


In alt.talk.creationism, Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com>
wrote in <Xns954E931159178pastordave38nospamya@195.131.52.135>:
...


No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure whether God created the stars,



You rely on picking at the edges of science when you have a glaring
problem, you cannot point to a single piece of evidence that any gods
exist. A Christian would abandon the hypocrisy that you practice. I do
not expect you to stop being a hypocrite.


Ahh the real colors show forth. Abandon the scriptures is the real
point of these sociopaths. Plainly obvious to anyone reading their
pathetic responses.



Creationists have already abandoned the scriptures with their
interpretation. I realize that Pastor Dave is a sociopath, but he
doesn't like it when you call him one.

Many people have a linear understanding of both science and religion.
That is not what makes them sociopathic, its what makes them blind.
Sociopaths on the other hand demonstrate altogether different qualities.
.


User: "Pastor Dave"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 14 Aug 2004 06:36:50 PM
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on 12
Aug 2004 20:52:02 -0700,

(ShrikeBack) screamed out:

Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qi0nh0ls26c7l88kir7r210up6c4ov6ru7@4ax.com>...

While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:40:23 -0500,


(smiller) screamed out:

In article <bjmmh0tov720h770gb42t7riko5s9vukcd@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

[topic: contradictions in the bible]

>Which you believe are there, because you read it
>on a web link


Not always, Poseur Dave. My own belief, that the bible contains
contradictions, are due to a year of organized Bible study when
I was about 12 years old.


Then cite them. Quote here the passages you question
and tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS why they are
contradictions AND be ready to back it up AND be ready
to admit when they are shown to be other than
contradictions. Are you willing to do that, or is all
you have web links?


It should be quite obvious to you. Christians metaphysics includes
a belief in predestination and a belief in free will. This is an
inherent contradiction.

For instance:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names
have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that
was slain from the creation of the world. (Rev 13.8)

This implies that those who would not worship the beast have already
been written down -- since the beginning of time, no less.

And, of course, the whole idea of prophecy is that God knows the
future. If he is omniscient, he must know the future, in any
case.

If a choice can be known prior to the making of the choice, it is
absurd to call the choice an act of free will. As if an automaton
has free will.

You have not done a thing for your case. I didn't say
anything about free will and you've only quoted one
passage, so how could you possibly be providing a
contradiction?

Your is a typical
weak minded approach. You can't prove either, so you
demand that someone prove a negative.


Well, we can prove the universe is over 6000 years old.
Just point at a star more than 6000 light years away.
There's your proof.

No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure that when God created the stars, He did not create
a path of light at the same time.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "Precision"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 15 Aug 2004 10:57:26 AM
"Pastor Dave" <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lm6th05v54oc3g558hcite4tf2cpu6vvce@4ax.com...

While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on 12
Aug 2004 20:52:02 -0700,


(ShrikeBack) screamed out:

Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:<qi0nh0ls26c7l88kir7r210up6c4ov6ru7@4ax.com>...

While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:40:23 -0500,


(smiller) screamed out:

In article <bjmmh0tov720h770gb42t7riko5s9vukcd@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:

[topic: contradictions in the bible]

Which you believe are there, because you read it
on a web link



Not always, Poseur Dave. My own belief, that the bible contains
contradictions, are due to a year of organized Bible study when
I was about 12 years old.


Then cite them. Quote here the passages you question
and tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS why they are
contradictions AND be ready to back it up AND be ready
to admit when they are shown to be other than
contradictions. Are you willing to do that, or is all
you have web links?


It should be quite obvious to you. Christians metaphysics includes
a belief in predestination and a belief in free will. This is an
inherent contradiction.

For instance:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names
have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that
was slain from the creation of the world. (Rev 13.8)

This implies that those who would not worship the beast have already
been written down -- since the beginning of time, no less.

And, of course, the whole idea of prophecy is that God knows the
future. If he is omniscient, he must know the future, in any
case.

If a choice can be known prior to the making of the choice, it is
absurd to call the choice an act of free will. As if an automaton
has free will.


You have not done a thing for your case. I didn't say
anything about free will and you've only quoted one
passage, so how could you possibly be providing a
contradiction?


Your is a typical
weak minded approach. You can't prove either, so you
demand that someone prove a negative.


Well, we can prove the universe is over 6000 years old.
Just point at a star more than 6000 light years away.
There's your proof.


No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure that when God created the stars, He did not create
a path of light at the same time.

Surely you are you questioning the basic laws of physics regarding the speed
of light?
Such a "path of light" that could travel instantaneously from the stars to
Earth, thereby disproving the age of the universe, would violate all known
laws of physics... light from the stars would have to travel at infinite
speed in order to make a case that the universe was created very recently.
Do you have any evidence to support your theory the Earth was created in a
literal week?
Are you rejecting the belief that one of the Earth's creative "days" in
Genesis could be referring to a vast geologic timeframe?
Precision

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\


"Even if all the evidence pointed to an intelligent
designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic." - Scott C. Todd



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

.
User: "Pastor Dave"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Creationists 15 Aug 2004 12:01:37 PM
While skydiving off of the Empire State Building on
Sun, 15 Aug 2004 08:57:26 -0700, "Precision"
<precision@Usenet.com> screamed out:

Your is a typical
weak minded approach. You can't prove either, so you
demand that someone prove a negative.


Well, we can prove the universe is over 6000 years old.
Just point at a star more than 6000 light years away.
There's your proof.


No scientist on Earth can say for sure exactly how
light travels through space. You also cannot say for
sure that when God created the stars, He did not create
a path of light at the same time.



Surely you are you questioning the basic laws of physics regarding the speed
of light?

Don't be so arrogant. There have been questions as to
whether or not light has always traveled at the same
speed, but even assuming it has, there are competing
theories as to how light travels through space and what
the time frame involved would be, given different
methods of travel. I really don't have the time, nor
the desire, to even discuss this issue with someone who
is stupid and arrogant enough to think that these
questions have been answered with absolute certainty.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"Were they ashamed when they made an abomination?
They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know
to blush. So they shall fall among those who fall.
At the time I visit them, they shall be cast down,
says Jehovah." - Jeremiah 6:15
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
The church does not determine what Scripture teaches;
Scripture determines what the church teaches.
If a tradition or experience is contrary to the
teachings of Scripture, it is not of the Lord.
Reason is a significant authority. But it too,
must be placed under the dominion of Scripture.
In other words, we cannot seek Biblical truths,
while questioning the authority of the Bible.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 15 Aug 2004 12:44:20 PM
Pastor Dave wrote:

Surely you are you questioning the basic laws of physics regarding the speed
of light?



Don't be so arrogant. There have been questions as to
whether or not light has always traveled at the same
speed, but even assuming it has, there are competing
theories as to how light travels through space and what
the time frame involved would be, given different
methods of travel. I really don't have the time, nor
the desire, to even discuss this issue with someone who
is stupid and arrogant enough to think that these
questions have been answered with absolute certainty.

Well there may not be absolute certainty over about how material moves
through space, but the speed of light is pretty much known with absolute
certainty. In fact the speed of light is recorded in the Old Testament
which absolutely connects with the role and function of the Messiah, so
I can absolutely say that 'light speed' is a universal constant utilized
not only in the creation of our universe but also in the function of the
Resurrection.
---
Making space travel simpler with interplanetary highway
NASA NEWS RELEASE
Posted: July 21, 2002
Artist's concept of interplanetary superhighway. Credit: NASA/JPL
A "freeway" through the solar system resembling a vast array of virtual
winding tunnels and conduits around the Sun and planets, discovered by
an engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., can
slash the amount of fuel needed for future space missions.
Called the Interplanetary Superhighway, the system was calculated by
Martin Lo, who used his theory to design the flight path for NASA's
Genesis mission, which is currently using this "freeway in space" on its
mission to collect solar wind particles for return to Earth.
Most missions are designed to take advantage of the way gravity pulls on
a spacecraft when it swings by a body such as a planet or moon. Lo's
theory mixes in another factor, the Sun's pull on the planets or a
planet's pull on its nearby moons. Forces from many directions nearly
cancel each other out, leaving paths through the gravity fields in which
spacecraft can travel.
Each planet and moon has five locations in space called Lagrange points,
where one body's gravity balances another's. Spacecraft can orbit there
while burning very little fuel. To find the Interplanetary Superhighway,
Lo mapped all the possible flight paths among the Lagrange points,
varying the distance the spacecraft would go and how fast or slow it
would travel. Like threads twisted together to form a rope, the possible
flight paths formed tubes in space. Lo plans to map out these tubes for
the whole solar system.
Lo has turned the theory of the Interplanetary Superhighway into a tool
for mission design called "LTool," using models developed at Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Ind. The new LTool designed the flight path
for the Genesis mission, the first space mission to use the theory of
the Interplanetary Superhighway. Genesis launched in August 2001.
The flight path was designed for the spacecraft to leave Earth and
travel to orbit the Lagrange point. After five loops around this
Lagrange point, the spacecraft will fall out of orbit without any
maneuvers and then loop around Earth to a Lagrange point on the opposite
side of the planet. Finally, it will return to Earth's upper atmosphere
to drop off its samples of solar wind in the Utah desert, at the Air
Force's Utah Testing and Training Range.
"Genesis wouldn't need to use any fuel at all in a perfect world," Lo
said. "But since we can't control the many variables that occur
throughout the mission, we have to make some corrections as Genesis
completes its loops around a Lagrange point of Earth. The savings on the
fuel translates into a better and cheaper mission."
"It has been exciting and challenging to develop this field. Our work on
the Genesis mission is definitely a high point," said Kathleen Howell,
co-creator of LTool, and a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at
Purdue. "The theory has been known for some time, but this is the first
time it has been applied to a space mission."
"For all missions going to a Lagrange point, LTool will speed up
computations," Lo said. "Designing the Genesis spacecraft's flight path
with traditional methods used to take eight weeks, but now we can design
a new flight path in less than a day -- we have redesigned a whole
mission in a week."
Illustration of the Genesis mission track. Credit: NASA/JPL
Lo envisions a place to construct and service science platforms around
one of the Moon's Lagrange points. Since the Lagrange points are
landmarks for the Interplanetary Superhighway, spacecraft could easily
be shunted to and from the station for repair. A team at NASA's Johnson
Space Center, Houston, working with the NASA Exploration Team (NEXT),
proposes to someday use the Interplanetary Superhighway for future human
space missions.
"Lo's work has led to breakthroughs in simplifying mission concepts for
human and robotic exploration beyond low-Earth orbit," said Doug Cooke,
manager of the Advanced Development office at Johnson. "These
simplifications result in fewer space vehicles needed for a broad range
of mission options."
Lo's and Howell's work on the Interplanetary Superhighway for space
mission design was nominated for an annual Discover Innovation Award by
Discover magazine editors and an outside panel of experts.
Spacecraft are not the only users of the Interplanetary Superhighway:
asteroids and comets are known to travel on it. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
collided with Jupiter when it took an off-ramp toward the giant gas
planet. Scientists think the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs could
have followed Genesis' flight path -- an iridium deposit at the crash
site shows the asteroid traveled fairly slowly. Just what we might
expect from an asteroid on the Interplanetary Superhighway, Lo said.
JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0207/21highway/
.
User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 16 Aug 2004 08:07:50 PM
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<UhNTc.1731509$Ar.1506661@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Well there may not be absolute certainty over about how material moves
through space, but the speed of light is pretty much known with absolute
certainty. In fact the speed of light is recorded in the Old Testament
which absolutely connects with the role and function of the Messiah, so
I can absolutely say that 'light speed' is a universal constant utilized
not only in the creation of our universe but also in the function of the
Resurrection.

Of course, iof there were any evidence at all which supports this
*****, I'm sure it would have been presented before now.
Budikka
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 16 Aug 2004 08:22:05 PM
Budikka wrote:

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<UhNTc.1731509$Ar.1506661@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...


Well there may not be absolute certainty over about how material moves
through space, but the speed of light is pretty much known with absolute
certainty. In fact the speed of light is recorded in the Old Testament
which absolutely connects with the role and function of the Messiah, so
I can absolutely say that 'light speed' is a universal constant utilized
not only in the creation of our universe but also in the function of the
Resurrection.



Of course, iof there were any evidence at all which supports this
*****, I'm sure it would have been presented before now.

Budikka

Mankind is just beginning to understand quantum physics (which is really
a new science) as it relates to biology and astrophysics. In that sense
electromagnetic spectrum understanding will be seen to offer amazing
insights into both biology and consciousness evolution. I do not
support evolution as depicted by Darwin or Lamarck because I find it too
simplistic and a denial of the Higher Intelligence. However evolution
of stars, galaxies, planets and human consciousness is a fact. So much
information could be provided that does prove that a Higher Intelligence
created mankind in all of the evolutionary stages that it usually
overwhelms the reader who is unprepared for it and s/he ends up doing
nothing but mocking and insulting the information - that is the main
reason I do not provide detailed information - not because it doesn't exist.
For example it is already known that the Pineal gland begins to rotate
slowly after sunset and producing immense hormonal changes which allow
more 'creative' thought to take place - this gives conclusive evidence
how the solar field plays a role in human consciousness from a spectrum
biomolecular genetic point of view. Our earth is not the only place in
the universes with life placed upon it because the Higher Intelligence
are testing biological processes of evolution from a consciousness
development point of view. Humanity is really nothing more than a
highly complex 'lab animal'.
.
User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 18 Aug 2004 01:15:48 AM
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<15dUc.1754567$Ar.111056@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Mankind is just beginning to understand quantum physics (which is really
a new science)

If you can call something that's close to 100 years old new, then
fine.

as it relates to biology and astrophysics.

Just how does it relate to biology and astrophysics and what does this
have to do with Evolution and our kinship with the apes?
As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point, which is why so many
theorists (notably the string theory advocates and the quantum loop
gravity afficcionados) are trying so hard to follow Einstein's
footsteps and unify the whole thing.

In that sense
electromagnetic spectrum understanding will be seen to offer amazing
insights into both biology and consciousness evolution.

Another unsupported claim.

I do not support evolution as depicted by Darwin or Lamarck

No one in their right mind supports evolution as depicted by Lamarck,
and the fact that you include this as part of evolution demonstrates
your lack of understanding of the very subject you pretend to be such
an expert upon. But since Darwin's theory has been supported over and
over again by scientific discoveries from many fields of research for
almost 150 years, then your position is untenable.

because I find it too
simplistic and a denial of the Higher Intelligence.

Now we get to the truth - you have no scientific argument against
evolution, just a blind faith one, and so you make the classic
creationist blunder of dismissing the Theory of Evolution because (you
claim) it has no scientific support, while blindly swallowing whole
this fairytale of a god, which (unlike evolution) has literally zero
scientific support. What could be more simplistic than chanting
"godidit"?

However evolution
of stars, galaxies, planets and human consciousness is a fact.

The evidence behind current cosmology is no stronger than the evidence
supporting the Theory of Evolution (and in fact is arguably weaker),
yet you swallow the cosmological camel and strain at the genetic gnat.
How hilarious!

So much
information could be provided that does prove that a Higher Intelligence
created mankind in all of the evolutionary stages that it usually
overwhelms the reader who is unprepared for it

And yet you can offer not a shred of it to support your case and are
too cowardly to debate it despite this "overwhelming evidence" you
claim to have? What nonsense.

and s/he ends up doing
nothing but mocking and insulting the information

Well you haven't provided any useful information and sure as hell
haven't provided any support for your claims, so this statement is
also another unsupported claim.

- that is the main reason I do not provide detailed
information - not because it doesn't exist.

***** and lies.

For example it is already known that the Pineal gland begins t rotate
slowly after sunset and producing immense hormonal changes which allow
more 'creative' thought to take place - this gives conclusive evidence
how the solar field plays a role in human consciousness from a spectrum
biomolecular genetic point of view.

Where is your support for this claim? I notice a complete lack of
references. The pineal gland is a 1cm organ rather reminiscent of a
pine cone in the middle of the brain (towards the front) which has no
muscles attached to it so how does it rotate?
It's chief purpose appears to be melatonin regulation, allowing it to
peak around midnight and vanish by dawn. Melatonin is derived from an
amino acid called tryptophan and is the only hormone the pineal gland
produces to my knowledge (and it can do this without rotating).
Melatonin has to do with sleep cycles and perhaps with puberty. Hows
does any of this support your claim of the pineal gland promoting more
creative thought? Are you at your most creative when you sleep?
Judged by your messages, you probably are - most of them look like
they were dreamed-up out of nothing.
Even assuming we do have a rotating pineal gland, how does this
constitute evdence for a god/higher intelligence at work? What is
your evidence that evolution alone could not have arranged a pineal
gland? Are you aware that humans are not the only organisms which
have a pineal gland? Of course, please don't feel you have to
"cow-tow' to me and actually support your arguments! God forbid any
creationist should ever have to offer scientific support for anything
they say.
If that's the quality of your evidence, I'm not overwhelmed. This
"evidence" of yours, though, is worthy of Duped. Maybe you and he
should get together and ***** each other. You're a perfect couple:
both completely clueless as to what constitutes evidence.

Our earth is not the only place in
the universes with life placed upon it

Another unsupported claim.
[new age ***** completely erased while stifling a laugh.]
If you can ever support any of what you claim, I would *love* to hear
it.
Budikka
.
User: "le ténébreux"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 18 Aug 2004 05:22:30 AM
(Budikka) wrote:

As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point

What about things like black holes and Hawking radiation?
.
User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 23 Aug 2004 07:03:27 PM
"le ténébreux" <prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie> wrote in message news:<41233296$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:

As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point


What about things like black holes and Hawking radiation?

I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos. The
point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.
Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life refusing to accept that
"'God' plays dice with the universe' and that "spooky action at a
distance" was the bottom line. He didn't really like quantum
mechanics and wanted to bring it under the umbrella of general
relativity, but he failed, as has everyone else in this field so far.
That's where string theory and loop quantum gravity, a part of quantum
geometry, enter the fray.
Doubtlessly scientists will find where the two meet, but it hasn't
happened yet. Mad (appropriately named) Scientist (so-called) is too
stupid to know that, and so clueless that he thinks Einstein (or
Eintsein as he calls him) invented LQG.
Budikka
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 23 Aug 2004 07:46:33 PM
Budikka wrote:

"le ténébreux" <prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie> wrote in message news:<41233296$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:


As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point


What about things like black holes and Hawking radiation?



I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos.

Here is where the blasphemer tries to backtrack on his idiocy.
The

point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.

And he said there was no relationship between QM and astrophysics.
Again he tries to backtrack just like the plagiarizer Tom and the
blasphemer John and their little insane camp of supporters.


Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life refusing to accept that
"'God' plays dice with the universe' and that "spooky action at a
distance" was the bottom line. He didn't really like quantum
mechanics and wanted to bring it under the umbrella of general
relativity, but he failed, as has everyone else in this field so far.
That's where string theory and loop quantum gravity, a part of quantum
geometry, enter the fray.

Here is where the little blasphemer tries to explain Einstein's
'failure' and state that no one understands. How ironic it is that
sociopaths like him and his ilk are 'allowed' to say what science
understands and does not understand when are others get jumped on for
saying the science doesn't understand certain things.


Doubtlessly scientists will find where the two meet, but it hasn't
happened yet.

Too bad this guy remains oblivious to recent discoveries where the two
are unified and show why Einstein's theories remain intact.
Mad (appropriately named) Scientist (so-called) is too

stupid to know that, and so clueless that he thinks Einstein (or
Eintsein as he calls him) invented LQG.

Budikka

This guy is a blasphemer, sociopath, liar, fraud and poseur. Nothing he
says has any ring of truth to it whatsoever.
.
User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 23 Aug 2004 08:09:27 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:JdwWc.54878$UYx.3081@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...



Budikka wrote:

"le ténébreux" <prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie> wrote in message

news:<41233296$1@duster.adelaide.on.net>...


budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote:


As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point


What about things like black holes and Hawking radiation?



I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos.



Here is where the blasphemer tries to backtrack on his idiocy.

It is?? Can you support that? You accused me of that for days and didn't
provide the first f**cking piece of evidence.

The
point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.

And he said there was no relationship between QM and astrophysics.
Again he tries to backtrack just like the plagiarizer Tom and the
blasphemer John and their little insane camp of supporters.

You are just too stupid to understand what he meant, aren't you?

Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life refusing to accept that
"'God' plays dice with the universe' and that "spooky action at a
distance" was the bottom line. He didn't really like quantum
mechanics and wanted to bring it under the umbrella of general
relativity, but he failed, as has everyone else in this field so far.
That's where string theory and loop quantum gravity, a part of quantum
geometry, enter the fray.

Here is where the little blasphemer tries to explain Einstein's
'failure' and state that no one understands.

No one understands what??? Make yourself a little clearer here "Mad".

How ironic it is that
sociopaths like him and his ilk are 'allowed' to say what science
understands and does not understand when are others get jumped on for
saying the science doesn't understand certain things.

He doesn't say what science understands. He just presents what science says
and you present...well...you present something but it certainly isn't
science.


Doubtlessly scientists will find where the two meet, but it hasn't
happened yet.


Too bad this guy remains oblivious to recent discoveries where the two
are unified and show why Einstein's theories remain intact.

Not only this guy but every mainline scientist in the world and every
scientific minded person in the world who can read, Tell me about this
glorious scientific discovery, "Mad".

Mad (appropriately named) Scientist (so-called) is too

stupid to know that, and so clueless that he thinks Einstein (or
Eintsein as he calls him) invented LQG.

Budikka


This guy is a blasphemer, sociopath, liar, fraud and poseur. Nothing he
says has any ring of truth to it whatsoever.

Truth hurts doesn't it? He has spoken the truth but you are just too stupid
to understand it. Forget all of this crap, "Mad", I want to see your support
for the statement to support the recent discoveries that unite quantum
theories and classical physics.
.

User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 25 Aug 2004 08:16:30 PM
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<JdwWc.54878$UYx.3081@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos.


Here is where the blasphemer tries to backtrack on his idiocy.

What I said was that quantum mechanics and relativity have not yet
been mated up. This is a fact. Of course, completly moronic
assfucks, who think someone called "Eintsein" invented Loop Quantum
Gravity could not possibly begin to even dream of grasping the
complexities of this material. My prediction is that they'll run away
from serious questions, avoid responding to challenges because any
science challenge is over their head, and simply resort to meaningless
non-sequiturs and gratuitous insults. Oh, wait, you already did all
of that. QED.

The point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.


And he said there was no relationship between QM and astrophysics.
Again he tries to backtrack just like the plagiarizer Tom and the
blasphemer John and their little insane camp of supporters.

So what is the relationship? Can't tell? Of course you can't because
there isn't a relationship that's yet been forged between relativity
and quantum mechanics as world of physics freely acknowledges. Of
course you'd have to be both literate and have intelligence to grasp
that. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated how tragically far you
fall from success in both categories, you lose. Deal with it Loser.

Here is where the little blasphemer tries to explain Einstein's
'failure' and state that no one understands. How ironic it is that
sociopaths like him and his ilk are 'allowed' to say what science
understands and does not understand when are others get jumped on for
saying the science doesn't understand certain things.

I merely repeated what scientists themselves are saying:
http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_4_24.html
"Einstein was well aware of the contrast between gravity and
electromagnetism, and spent a good deal of the later part of his life
trying to formulate a unified field theory in which gravity and
electromagnetism would be combined into a single 'geometric' field
theory. In this quest he was ultimately unsuccessful, but general
relativity remains a monumental achievement."
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/unified_field_theory.html
"The aim of researchers now is to discover whether the strong force
can be unified with the electroweak force in a grand unified theory
(GUT)."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=15070
"He then began work on his unified field theory, which attempts to
explain gravitation, electromagnetism, and subatomic phenomena in one
set of laws; the successful development of such a unified theory,
however, eluded Einstein."
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406825
"However, attempts to unite the strong and electroweak theories in a
grand unified theory have failed, as have attempts at a
self-consistent quantum field theory of gravitation."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ei/Einstein.html
"Although he was one of the leading figures in the development of
quantum theory, Einstein regarded it as only a temporarily useful
structure. He reserved his main efforts for his unified field theory,
feeling that when it was completed the quantization of energy and
charge would be found to be a consequence of it. Einstein wished his
theories to have that simplicity and beauty which he thought fitting
for an interpretation of the universe and which he did not find in
quantum theory."
http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xeinstei.html
" Until the end of his life Einstein sought a unified field theory,
whereby the phenomena of gravitation and electromagnetism could be
derived from one set of equations. Few physicists followed Einstein's
path in the years after 1920. Quantum mechanics, instead of general
relativity, drew their attention. For his part, Einstein could never
accept the new quantum mechanics with its principle of indeterminacy,
as formulated by Werner Heisenberg and elaborated into a new
epistemology by Niels Bohr. Although Einstein's later thoughts were
neglected for decades, physicists today refer seriously and awesomely
to Einstein's dream--a grand unification of physical theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
"In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the
fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles
into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein
who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with
electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive
and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the
Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for
physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and
behavior of all matter"
Get it now, you ignorant, supercilious, vacuous sack of *****?

Too bad this guy remains oblivious to recent discoveries where the two
are unified and show why Einstein's theories remain intact.

Too bad I just showed up this lie for what it's (not) worth.
Too bad you cannot support a single one of these insane claims you so
grotequely salivate over. What do you use to clean your keyboard
after you've jerked off while writing moronic bullhsit like that?

This guy is a blasphemer, sociopath, liar, fraud and poseur. Nothing he
says has any ring of truth to it whatsoever.

Yet still you're compelled to keep coming back and learning from me,
aren't you?
Budikka
.
User: "Mad Scientist"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 25 Aug 2004 08:41:42 PM
What you fail to grasp is what i said. You said there was no
relationship with QM to astrophysics. Can't you even remember your own
statements blasphemer?
Budikka wrote:

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<JdwWc.54878$UYx.3081@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...


I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos.


Here is where the blasphemer tries to backtrack on his idiocy.



What I said was that quantum mechanics and relativity have not yet
been mated up. This is a fact. Of course, completly moronic
assfucks, who think someone called "Eintsein" invented Loop Quantum
Gravity could not possibly begin to even dream of grasping the
complexities of this material. My prediction is that they'll run away
from serious questions, avoid responding to challenges because any
science challenge is over their head, and simply resort to meaningless
non-sequiturs and gratuitous insults. Oh, wait, you already did all
of that. QED.


The point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.


And he said there was no relationship between QM and astrophysics.
Again he tries to backtrack just like the plagiarizer Tom and the
blasphemer John and their little insane camp of supporters.



So what is the relationship? Can't tell? Of course you can't because
there isn't a relationship that's yet been forged between relativity
and quantum mechanics as world of physics freely acknowledges. Of
course you'd have to be both literate and have intelligence to grasp
that. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated how tragically far you
fall from success in both categories, you lose. Deal with it Loser.


Here is where the little blasphemer tries to explain Einstein's
'failure' and state that no one understands. How ironic it is that
sociopaths like him and his ilk are 'allowed' to say what science
understands and does not understand when are others get jumped on for
saying the science doesn't understand certain things.



I merely repeated what scientists themselves are saying:

http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_4_24.html
"Einstein was well aware of the contrast between gravity and
electromagnetism, and spent a good deal of the later part of his life
trying to formulate a unified field theory in which gravity and
electromagnetism would be combined into a single 'geometric' field
theory. In this quest he was ultimately unsuccessful, but general
relativity remains a monumental achievement."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/unified_field_theory.html
"The aim of researchers now is to discover whether the strong force
can be unified with the electroweak force in a grand unified theory
(GUT)."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=15070
"He then began work on his unified field theory, which attempts to
explain gravitation, electromagnetism, and subatomic phenomena in one
set of laws; the successful development of such a unified theory,
however, eluded Einstein."

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406825
"However, attempts to unite the strong and electroweak theories in a
grand unified theory have failed, as have attempts at a
self-consistent quantum field theory of gravitation."

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ei/Einstein.html
"Although he was one of the leading figures in the development of
quantum theory, Einstein regarded it as only a temporarily useful
structure. He reserved his main efforts for his unified field theory,
feeling that when it was completed the quantization of energy and
charge would be found to be a consequence of it. Einstein wished his
theories to have that simplicity and beauty which he thought fitting
for an interpretation of the universe and which he did not find in
quantum theory."

http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xeinstei.html
" Until the end of his life Einstein sought a unified field theory,
whereby the phenomena of gravitation and electromagnetism could be
derived from one set of equations. Few physicists followed Einstein's
path in the years after 1920. Quantum mechanics, instead of general
relativity, drew their attention. For his part, Einstein could never
accept the new quantum mechanics with its principle of indeterminacy,
as formulated by Werner Heisenberg and elaborated into a new
epistemology by Niels Bohr. Although Einstein's later thoughts were
neglected for decades, physicists today refer seriously and awesomely
to Einstein's dream--a grand unification of physical theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
"In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the
fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles
into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein
who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with
electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive
and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the
Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for
physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and
behavior of all matter"

Get it now, you ignorant, supercilious, vacuous sack of *****?


Too bad this guy remains oblivious to recent discoveries where the two
are unified and show why Einstein's theories remain intact.



Too bad I just showed up this lie for what it's (not) worth.

Too bad you cannot support a single one of these insane claims you so
grotequely salivate over. What do you use to clean your keyboard
after you've jerked off while writing moronic bullhsit like that?


This guy is a blasphemer, sociopath, liar, fraud and poseur. Nothing he
says has any ring of truth to it whatsoever.



Yet still you're compelled to keep coming back and learning from me,
aren't you?

Budikka

.
User: "Tom"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 25 Aug 2004 10:00:52 PM
"Mad Scientist" <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message
news:qdbXc.31097$UTP.22441@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

What you fail to grasp is what i said. You said there was no
relationship with QM to astrophysics. Can't you even remember your own
statements blasphemer?

His statements is a public record as well as yours. Are you not aware of
that fact? We can clearly see what was said and it isn't what you think was
said. Are you a liar or just stupid?

Budikka wrote:

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message

news:<JdwWc.54878$UYx.3081@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...



I didn't say that we do not see quantum effects in the cosmos.


Here is where the blasphemer tries to backtrack on his idiocy.



What I said was that quantum mechanics and relativity have not yet
been mated up. This is a fact. Of course, completly moronic
assfucks, who think someone called "Eintsein" invented Loop Quantum
Gravity could not possibly begin to even dream of grasping the
complexities of this material. My prediction is that they'll run away
from serious questions, avoid responding to challenges because any
science challenge is over their head, and simply resort to meaningless
non-sequiturs and gratuitous insults. Oh, wait, you already did all
of that. QED.


The point I was making is that there is a disconnect between the very
large as represented by astrophysics, and the very small as
represented by quantum mechanics.


And he said there was no relationship between QM and astrophysics.
Again he tries to backtrack just like the plagiarizer Tom and the
blasphemer John and their little insane camp of supporters.



So what is the relationship? Can't tell? Of course you can't because
there isn't a relationship that's yet been forged between relativity
and quantum mechanics as world of physics freely acknowledges. Of
course you'd have to be both literate and have intelligence to grasp
that. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated how tragically far you
fall from success in both categories, you lose. Deal with it Loser.


Here is where the little blasphemer tries to explain Einstein's
'failure' and state that no one understands. How ironic it is that
sociopaths like him and his ilk are 'allowed' to say what science
understands and does not understand when are others get jumped on for
saying the science doesn't understand certain things.



I merely repeated what scientists themselves are saying:

http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_4_24.html
"Einstein was well aware of the contrast between gravity and
electromagnetism, and spent a good deal of the later part of his life
trying to formulate a unified field theory in which gravity and
electromagnetism would be combined into a single 'geometric' field
theory. In this quest he was ultimately unsuccessful, but general
relativity remains a monumental achievement."

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/unified_field_theory.html
"The aim of researchers now is to discover whether the strong force
can be unified with the electroweak force in a grand unified theory
(GUT)."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=15070
"He then began work on his unified field theory, which attempts to
explain gravitation, electromagnetism, and subatomic phenomena in one
set of laws; the successful development of such a unified theory,
however, eluded Einstein."

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406825
"However, attempts to unite the strong and electroweak theories in a
grand unified theory have failed, as have attempts at a
self-consistent quantum field theory of gravitation."

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ei/Einstein.html
"Although he was one of the leading figures in the development of
quantum theory, Einstein regarded it as only a temporarily useful
structure. He reserved his main efforts for his unified field theory,
feeling that when it was completed the quantization of energy and
charge would be found to be a consequence of it. Einstein wished his
theories to have that simplicity and beauty which he thought fitting
for an interpretation of the universe and which he did not find in
quantum theory."

http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/xeinstei.html
" Until the end of his life Einstein sought a unified field theory,
whereby the phenomena of gravitation and electromagnetism could be
derived from one set of equations. Few physicists followed Einstein's
path in the years after 1920. Quantum mechanics, instead of general
relativity, drew their attention. For his part, Einstein could never
accept the new quantum mechanics with its principle of indeterminacy,
as formulated by Werner Heisenberg and elaborated into a new
epistemology by Niels Bohr. Although Einstein's later thoughts were
neglected for decades, physicists today refer seriously and awesomely
to Einstein's dream--a grand unification of physical theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
"In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the
fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles
into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein
who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with
electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive
and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the
Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for
physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and
behavior of all matter"

Get it now, you ignorant, supercilious, vacuous sack of *****?


Too bad this guy remains oblivious to recent discoveries where the two
are unified and show why Einstein's theories remain intact.



Too bad I just showed up this lie for what it's (not) worth.

Too bad you cannot support a single one of these insane claims you so
grotequely salivate over. What do you use to clean your keyboard
after you've jerked off while writing moronic bullhsit like that?


This guy is a blasphemer, sociopath, liar, fraud and poseur. Nothing he
says has any ring of truth to it whatsoever.



Yet still you're compelled to keep coming back and learning from me,
aren't you?

Budikka


.

User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 26 Aug 2004 06:40:52 PM
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<qdbXc.31097$UTP.22441@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

What you fail to grasp is what i said. You said there was no
relationship with QM to astrophysics. Can't you even remember your own
statements blasphemer?

Better than you can apparently. The first thing I did was ask
**YOUR** explanation, which you failed to give, unsurprisingly:
"Just how does it relate to biology and astrophysics and what does
this
have to do with Evolution and our kinship with the apes?"
Until and unless you answer that question intelligently (I won't hold
my breath) you're not in a position to challenge anyone else on
anything, unless you want to be thought of as a complete *****.
Immediately after that I said this: "As far as I know the problem with
quantum mechanics is that it *doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this
point, which is why so many theorists (notably the string theory
advocates and the quantum loop gravity afficcionados) are trying so
hard to follow Einstein's footsteps and unify the whole thing."
So, no, I didn't say specifically state that there was "no
relationship" as you claim. I said they *do not relate*, and I
clarified this repeatedly, specifically to the point that there is no
unifying theory, something that Einstein had fruitlessly pursued for
the last 30 years of his life.
You doubtlessly will fail to recall that this was tied in with your
clueless lie about Albert "Eintsein" inventing loop quantum gravity.
So do you want to clarify your own position now, or shall we just mark
it all down to the fact that you're a vacuous, supercilious, odorous,
loathsome, worthless, clueless, degenerate, blathering, mindless,
braindead, ignorant, arrogant fundie *****?
Budikka
.







User: "Budikka"

Title: Re: Another (Yawn) Blow to Evolutionists 18 Aug 2004 01:16:01 AM
Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<15dUc.1754567$Ar.111056@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

Mankind is just beginning to understand quantum physics (which is really
a new science)

If you can call something that's close to 100 years old new, then
fine.

as it relates to biology and astrophysics.

Just how does it relate to biology and astrophysics and what does this
have to do with Evolution and our kinship with the apes?
As far as I know the problem with quantum mechanics is that it
*doesn't* relate to astrophysics at this point, which is why so many
theorists (notably the string theory advocates and the quantum loop
gravity afficcionados) are trying so hard to follow Einstein's
footsteps and unify the whole thing.

In that sense
electromagnetic spectrum understanding will be seen to offer amazing
insights into both biology and consciousness evolution.

Another unsupported claim.

I do not support evolution as depicted by Darwin or Lamarck

No one in their right mind supports evolution as depicted by Lamarck,
and the fact that you include this as part of evolution demonstrates
your lack of understanding of the very subject you pretend to be such
an expert upon. But since Darwin's theory has been supported over and
over again by scientific discoveries from many fields of research for
almost 150 years, then your position is untenable.

because I find it too
simplistic and a denial of the Higher Intelligence.

Now we get to the truth - you have no scientific argument against
evolution, just a blind faith one, and so you make the classic
creationist blunder of dismissing the Theory of Evolution because (you
claim) it has no scientific support, while blindly swallowing whole
this fairytale of a god, which (unlike evolution) has literally zero
scientific support. What could be more simplistic than chanting
"godidit"?

However evolution
of stars, galaxies, planets and human consciousness is a fact.

The evidence behind current cosmology is no stronger than the evidence
supporting the Theory of Evolution (and in fact is arguably weaker),
yet you swallow the cosmological camel and strain at the genetic gnat.
How hilarious!

So much
information could be provided that does prove that a Higher Intelligence
created mankind in all of the evolutionary stages that it usually
overwhelms the reader who is unprepared for it

And yet you can offer not a shred of it to support your case and are
too cowardly to debate it despite this "overwhelming evidence" you
claim to have? What nonsense.

and s/he ends up doing
nothing but mocking and insulting the information

Well you haven't provided any useful information and sure as hell
haven't provided any support for your claims, so this statement is
also another unsupported claim.

- that is the main reason I do not provide detailed
information - not because it doesn't exist.

***** and lies.

For example it is already known that the Pineal gland begins t rotate
slowly after sunset and producing immense hormonal changes which allow
more 'creative' thought to take place - this gives conclusive evidence
how the solar field plays a role in human consciousness from a spectrum
biomolecular genetic point of view.

Where is your support for this claim? I notice a complete lack of
references. The pineal gland is a 1cm organ rather reminiscent of a
pine cone in the middle of the brain (towards the front) which has no
muscles attached to it so how does it rotate?
It's chief purpose appears to be melatonin regulation, allowing it to
peak around midnight and vanish by dawn. Melatonin is derived from an
amino acid called tryptophan and is the only hormone the pineal gland
produces to my knowledge (and it can do this without rotating).
Melatonin has to do with sleep cycles and perhaps with puberty. Hows
does any of this support your claim of the pineal gland promoting more
creative thought? Are you at your most creative when you sleep?
Judged by your messages, you probably are - most of them look like
they were dreamed-up out of nothing.
Even assuming we do have a rotating pineal gland, how does this
constitute evdence for a god/higher intelligence at work? What is
your evidence that evolution alone could not have arranged a pineal
gland? Are you aware that humans are not the only organisms which
have a pineal gland? Of course, please don't feel you have to
"cow-tow' to me and actually support your arguments! God forbid any
creationist should ever have to offer scientific support for anything
they say.
If that's the quality of your evidence, I'm not overwhelmed. This
"evidence" of yours, though, is worthy of Duped. Maybe you and he
should get together and ***** each other. You're a perfect couple:
both completely clueless as to what constitutes evidence.

Our earth is not the only place in
the universes with life placed upon it

Another unsupported claim.
[new age ***** completely erased while stifling a laugh.]
If you can ever support any of what you claim, I would *love* to hear
it.
Budikka
.