Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2021, 03:29:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 60 »
1  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: December 12, 2017, 12:46:45 PM

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

Cool

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

Cool

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

Cool

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Cool

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".

But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.

But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.
2  Other / Off-topic / Re: Aliens are Existing. on: December 12, 2017, 12:16:31 PM
Aliens probably exist.

They probably have not visited earth.

Did I just blow your mind?

Mr Vod, I agree with you 100%.

There probably are aliens, but we can never know for sure (or even begin to put an estimate on the likelihood of them existing), until we discover alien life on another planet/moon.

For the moment we just have a single data point - life on Earth. And while it's probable that there is other alien life in the Universe, the chances of us even finding it are miniscule.

It's possible that life is abundant in the universe; it's also a possibility that life on Earth was a huge fluke, and we are the only lifeforms in the whole cosmos.

Another factor to consider is the vast timescales involved, and how long an alien civilisation would exist - perhaps there has already been an intelligent alien civilisation that existed billions of years before Earth even formed, and has since become extinct. We may never know...
3  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: November 28, 2017, 05:21:51 PM
For now there is no 100% scientific proof of God existence, but I believe even science will lead us to God existence.

Cause and effect exists in everything. There is no pure random. The thing we call random or probability arises from our inability to see tiny details, like which molecules move a leaf as it twists in the summer breeze.

Cause and effect are like programming. Cause and effect all by itself almost proves that God exists, and programed everything to be what it is.

When you add complexity and entropy to the way things exist and operate, the only way they could exist and operate is through God. If God didn't exist, none of the universe would exist as it does.

None of this explains what God is in detail. We can draw some conclusions about the nature of God from science and observation of nature. But the details are limited without direct revelation from God, Himself.

Whatever brought the universe into existence, no matter what form or qualities He has, It is still God.

Cool

if I had a nickel for every time BADecker mentions "cause and effect" and "entropy" without fully understanding the concepts of them I'd be a millionai... Oh wait I own some bitcoin.

Nice.
4  Other / Politics & Society / Re: USA MEDDLING IN BREXIT on: November 16, 2017, 10:54:44 PM
protokol if your British you should be ashamed of yourself Kiss Cheesy..

You remember this you weak spineless British pudding..

Rule Britannia (w/lyrics) - YouTube
Video for rule britannia lyrics▶ 2:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l65_1S3qNBw
18 Mar 2014 - Uploaded by TV-94
Note this isn't the whole song, there's a few more paragraphs in it. Rule, Britannia! Proud to be British .

Yeah like a stupid song has anything to do with geopolitical and economic ties with other countries.

Oh but I guess everything will turn out alright if we sing "Rule Brittania" and "God Save the Queen", just watch those jobs and money roll in!

Wise up mate  Roll Eyes
5  Other / Politics & Society / Re: USA MEDDLING IN BREXIT on: November 16, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
I honestly don't what you're on about, you're not the most articulate guy I've ever met, to say the least...

Your whole thread is based on a single comment made by the boss of Goldman Sachs, who is obviously just saying it to make more money for his bank (and himself of course). He's worried about losing the financial power and infrastructure that is based in London.

This is nothing to do with the USA meddling in UK affairs, just a prime example of crony capitalism from a big bank.

And I'm from the UK btw, not that it matters.
And I'm from the UK btw, Well you wouldn't think so Wink..

Sound like a french guy..OR a LONDONER Roll Eyes Kiss..

Post-Brexit UK still at back of the queue on trade deals, says Obama
https://www.ft.com/content/63d42778-7273-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a
4 Sep 2016 - Barack Obama has reiterated that the UK remains at the back of the queue as Washington seeks major new trade deals, while lamenting June's ..

Hillary Clinton claims Brexit was won on a 'big lie' | London Evening ...
https://www.standard.co.uk › News › Politics
15 Oct 2017 - Hillary Clinton has said that Brexit was won on a “big lie” as she ... MPs can block no-deal Brexit, says shadow chancellor John McDonnell.

JP Morgan: we'll only move jobs from UK after Brexit if EU forces us ...
https://www.theguardian.com › Business › JP Morgan
11 Jul 2017 - The worldwide boss of JP Morgan has said othat the Wall Street bank would only have to move thousands of jobs out of the UK in response to Brexit if ordered to do so by the EU. ... Some 16,000 staff are employed by JP Morgan in the UK – including 4,000 in Bournemouth – and around ..

Goldman Sachs .. Do you see who worked for them Roll Eyes..
Not like it's BOB your local butcher or car mechanic ..

ALL POLITICAL ..Easy to make money by doing dirty undemocratic deeds and the list below says it all..

The list of former employees

 Goldman Sachs who moved on to government positions includes former U.S. Secretaries of the Treasury Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson; current United States Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin; current chief economic advisor Gary Cohn; European Central Bank President Mario Draghi; former Bank of Canada Governor and current Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney and the current Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull. In addition, former Goldman employees have headed the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, and major banks such as Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.

Goldman Sachs boss calls for second Brexit referendum | Business ...
https://www.theguardian.com › Business › Lloyd Blankfein
5 hours ago - The Goldman Sachs boss wants a second referendum to test whether a consensus still backs leaving the EU. Photograph: Daniel ..


Big businesses lay in bed with politicians and both agree to finger the rest up the butt hole..

So in other words they both are the same as you can see who goldman sachs employs then puts in
GOVERNMENT ..

Like the MAFIA getting someone in the white house  then can do deeds for the MAFIA..

Just the same as GOLDMAN BALL SACKS..

Now remember you said 9/11 was no inside job?..

WELL that proves your a LIAR and have no clue except your greedy little mind..


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but the links you just posted are pretty much evidence that the UK will be worse off after leaving the EU.

UK remains at the back of the queue - no good trade deals when we leave.

Banks moving jobs away from the UK. Maybe JP Morgan will only do it when the EU orders it, but the EU has all the power in these negotiations, not to mention many other banks have already said they're moving to the continent. Also many manufacturing companies will move to Europe because they will simply make more money there.

The EU is far from perfect, but the UK will be fucked in a year or two IMO, it has nothing much to offer - the big money comes into the UK from the financial sector and they are already making moves to other European countries.

I find it hilarious how you're spewing all this hate for banks and big business, yet still using comments by them to try and prove your point. It stinks of cognitive dissonance.
6  Other / Politics & Society / Re: USA MEDDLING IN BREXIT on: November 16, 2017, 09:20:28 PM
I honestly don't what you're on about, you're not the most articulate guy I've ever met, to say the least...

Your whole thread is based on a single comment made by the boss of Goldman Sachs, who is obviously just saying it to make more money for his bank (and himself of course). He's worried about losing the financial power and infrastructure that is based in London.

This is nothing to do with the USA meddling in UK affairs, just a prime example of crony capitalism from a big bank.

And I'm from the UK btw, not that it matters.
7  Other / Politics & Society / Re: USA MEDDLING IN BREXIT on: November 16, 2017, 06:22:39 PM
Sort out your formatting, you spastic. And maybe try and make a cohesive post with an actual point.
8  Other / Politics & Society / Re: RUSSIA NEVER HACKED BREXIT IMPOSSIBLE .. on: November 16, 2017, 06:15:52 PM
When the media talks about the US elections (or the Brexit referendum) being hacked, they are being sensationalist. If you look into it, no-one is actually saying that Russia hacked the actual polling stations, or votes.

What they mean is that Russian propagandists infiltrated social media, news sites and comments etc, to influence the result. I think this is objectively true (at least for the US election). It has been proven that many fake accounts were actively influencing peoples' behaviour in these supposedly democratic decisions.

Not only that, but some accounts were promoting division and hate for the opposite side, to cause rifts between voters acting in a 2 party system (or in the case of Brexit, a yes/no binary vote). This increases contempt and instability in a country.

I actually think that leaving the EU was a fucking dumb thing to do, especially for Britain (which doesn't have much to offer in the way of exports and economic power, other than the financial hub of London) but that's off topic.

The thing to learn from this really, is that people should not just "upvote" and "like" every fucking comment they see on facebook or reddit, and base their votes on those sources, without actually researching a little into the subject. It's our own fucking fault, and we should all be very careful about where we get our information, and be very wary of the "filter bubble".

Quote
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill




I remember your the same person that said 9/11 was done by terrorist and not BUSH Cheesy..
So we can safely say your a BUM LICK for the rotten scum bag MONEY MONSTERS..


Uuh OK then I guess I'm a "bum lick", whatever that means. I hate banks for what it's worth.

Quote


I actually think that leaving the EU was a fucking dumb thing to do, especially for Britain (which doesn't have much to offer in the way of exports .. Cheesy WRONG..

We have a sea a ocean with FISH the EU doesn't then if you step in our waters and fish we will FIRE Cheesy.
And the eu puts tariffs on us we slap tariffs on them meaning we gain 7 billion pounds..

Yes we have a sea and ocean, but due to geopolitical regs we can only fish in these waters due to an agreement with the EU. When we leave, we could be banished to only the seas surrounding the UK.

Of course the EU has seas and fish, you fucking idiot, the northern seas are basically fished by all Scandinavian countries, and the Mediterranian has a bunch of sea too, what are you on about?

Quote

And on a last NOTE when we go the rest will follow the UK the rest are shit scared to go they want to see the UK leave and then the EU will be no more..

WANT TO BET Wink Wink..

The EU is a money making machine for the political elite and big businesses and no one else..

The politicians lovely day out on our expense ..And all to talk shit..Because they do nothing..

I was better off in 1970s and that's saying something..

Ok you can buy good plastic goods in this day and age BUT..

To see a doctor
pay on transport
buy a home
roads full
no free school  stuffs like free milk free food free clothes ..

And when it comes down to making things IT'S ALL IN YOUR MINDS.. Wink Wink..

I dream and when i dream i can make it so..
NOT IN THE EU..

They stop dreamers because they want the dream..

I have never been so excited to leave like starting a new job a new MISSION IN LIFE..

Corruption costs EU 'up to €990 billion a year' – POLITICO
https://www.politico.eu/.../corruption-costs-eu-990-billion-year-rand-study-fraud-fun...
22 Mar 2016 - Study says public procurement corruption alone costs the EU €5 billion per year. ... The EU has a corruption problem that could cost it up to €990 billion a year, according to a .... Romanian ruling party chief indicted for fraud.

I don't know why your trying to make us SCARED ..Lived in 1970s how worse can it be Kiss..

Oh and me gran parents lived in the TRENCHES .. Wink..

I see a new UK one that going to make thhe world notice how life should be..
JUST got to get rid of the unwanted cost of LORDY SHIT FACES and the EU..



OK I don't really know what you're babbling on about here, but I will say that some of the other EU countries (eg Scandinavian countries, Germany, the Netherlands) have far better public services and benefits than the UK. The reason that the EU is making it difficult for the UK to leave is because they obviously don't want other countries leaving. Of course, that would weaken their economy and the euro currency.

But that doesn't mean that it was a good idea to leave. Wales, for example, was given many grants from the EU to create things like parks, bicycle trails, leisure centres. Now where will that money come from; Westminster? I'd be surprised if Wales continued being funded in the same capacity...

And similar projects occur across the UK, payed for by money from the EU. Not everything is about cold hard cash, many projects the EU financially support give a better quality of life to UK citizens.

Anyway this is off topic, I already explained how Russia didn't actually "hack" the vote, but they may well have influenced voters through deceptive channels, i.e. social media.

Discord and division in the EU and USA would be very beneficial for Russia, there is motive and evidence for their nefarious influence in democratic issues in both of these countries.

PS my grandad fought in the war too, I don't think it's relevant to brag about how your grandparents "lived" in the trenches. Sounds like you're grasping at patriotic straws matey  Cheesy
9  Other / Off-topic / Re: Luffy vs Onepunch. Who's gonna win? on: November 15, 2017, 04:08:33 PM
The clue's in the name dude, I don't think a bit of pirate rubber will stop Saitama!
10  Other / Off-topic / Re: Flat Earth on: November 15, 2017, 03:52:51 PM
To me  i research Newton theorized and it is now commonly taught that the Earth’s ocean tides are caused by gravitational lunar attraction. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, however, using their own math and “law,” it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth’s greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon’s lesser gravity to supersede the Earth’s gravity, especially at Earth’s sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon’s.

So you researched "Newton theorized" and now think you know more about something than 300 years of rigorous scientific testing. OK.

You're correct in stating that the Earth is bigger than the Moon, but that doesn't mean that the larger object just attracts the smaller object. Both bodies have influence on each other, and Newtonian physics perfectly predicts how the two objects interact. Although the gravitational pull of the Moon is smaller, it still exists.

The Moon's gravitational pull doesn't need to "supersede" the Earth's to have an effect on it, and therefore that is what we observe - a very slight attraction of the liquid water on Earth, that coincides with the position of the Earth and Moon.

In fact the concept of the Moon being responsible for tidal activity is reinforced when we study spring and neap tides, which change the tidal level depending on the position of the Sun. But I'm sure you already knew that, seeing as you're such an expert on Newtonian physics.

Please explain why spring and neap tides occur, without involving the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon.
11  Other / Off-topic / Re: Flat Earth on: November 15, 2017, 02:56:16 PM
Just a little half hour documentary about gamma ray bursts, fast radio bursts and gravitational waves, caused by neutron star collisions. And the scientists that detect them. Yes, if your flat Earth theory is correct these guys in the documentary are all in on the conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnYPFMQNyL0

Really? Do you actually think that these guys are just making it up, and are in collusion with a worldwide group of fake astrophysicists?

If so they must be very good actors  Cheesy

It's a cool doc, worth watching whatever your opinion.
12  Other / Politics & Society / Re: RUSSIA NEVER HACKED BREXIT IMPOSSIBLE .. on: November 15, 2017, 01:57:53 PM
When the media talks about the US elections (or the Brexit referendum) being hacked, they are being sensationalist. If you look into it, no-one is actually saying that Russia hacked the actual polling stations, or votes.

What they mean is that Russian propagandists infiltrated social media, news sites and comments etc, to influence the result. I think this is objectively true (at least for the US election). It has been proven that many fake accounts were actively influencing peoples' behaviour in these supposedly democratic decisions.

Not only that, but some accounts were promoting division and hate for the opposite side, to cause rifts between voters acting in a 2 party system (or in the case of Brexit, a yes/no binary vote). This increases contempt and instability in a country.

I actually think that leaving the EU was a fucking dumb thing to do, especially for Britain (which doesn't have much to offer in the way of exports and economic power, other than the financial hub of London) but that's off topic.

The thing to learn from this really, is that people should not just "upvote" and "like" every fucking comment they see on facebook or reddit, and base their votes on those sources, without actually researching a little into the subject. It's our own fucking fault, and we should all be very careful about where we get our information, and be very wary of the "filter bubble".

Quote
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill



13  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 08, 2017, 05:14:26 PM
I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution.

Also don't get passive-aggressive with me, if I don't reply to you, you think that means I agree with you? Such an assumption is a sign of huge arrogance. Perhaps I just didn't log in for a few days, or maybe I just couldn't be fucked to talk to someone who doesn't recognise actual scientific evidence.

That's not how science works, sonny jim.
14  Other / Off-topic / Re: Flat Earth on: October 08, 2017, 05:01:18 PM
...[belch]... Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC. ...[hic]...


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg/1280px-Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg

Flat Earth map drawn by Orlando Ferguson in 1893. The map contains several references to biblical passages as well as various jabs at the "Globe Theory".




#1 - That's a fucking bowl, it's not flat; the Bible says God stretched a flat and level line across the Earth during its construction. -- Job 38:5


#2 - The Sun's rays don't hit the Earth in parallel, that's a theory breaking assumption that has to be made if one accepts Aristotle's evidence.  



You're a bowl.
15  Other / Off-topic / Re: Disclosing the only correct and ultimate reality of this universe on: October 08, 2017, 04:59:24 PM


And paragraphs. And less shouting. And evidence. and.... less words.
16  Other / Off-topic / Re: Recommendations of the best horror movies on: October 08, 2017, 04:47:38 PM
The scariest film I've watched is Ringu. I think Asian horror movies are probably some of the scariest films, they seem to do horror very well. Some horror films are just gory and full of jump-scares, but I prefer films that are more psychologically scary, the ones that make you think and stay awake at night with weird images etched into your brain...

I would also recommend:

Audition
Oldboy (thriller with horrific elements)
Tetsuo: The Iron Man (insane cyberpunk body-horror)
Guinea Pig 1 & 2 (uncomfortable body-horror, not for the sqeamish)

Non-Asian films:

Eraserhead (classic David Lynch madness)
[REC]
Nightcrawler (not a classic horror but psychologically disturbing)

Comedy horror and slasher films:

Evil Dead 2
Hausu (insane 70s Japanese comedy horror)
Tokyo Gore Police
Yakuza Apocalypse (Takashi Miike vampire ninja slasher)
Ichi the Killer (More Takashi Miike madness)
Gozu (Takashi Miike again)

Honourable mention for the most weird and fucked up film I've probably ever seen goes to:

Visitor Q (as you can tell I like films by Takashi Miike...)
17  Other / Off-topic / Re: My Great Talk with the God on: October 08, 2017, 03:59:18 PM
So you found out the "ultimate reality of the universe and the secrets to become the Übermensch" but then you stopped and made it a secret, because god spoke to you?



But to be fair, your philosophy of life seems pretty good, and wholesome. I think if everyone followed a similar philosophy, the world would be a better place, whether they believe in a god or not.
18  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Your quote about sea salt and oil, having an effect on our bodies can easily be considered an anecdotal quote caused by the placebo effect.

Chopra's idea about consciousness driving evolution could be true, but the evidence is lacking. Also like I said, he is considered a laughing stock in the science community, because he misunderstands actual quantum theories, that have been proven by actual quantum physicists.
19  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 08, 2017, 10:06:59 AM

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...


Mediumship is a phenomenon that can be tested. A supernatural or discarnate entity can be shown to be the simplest explanation of certain evidence, like in the paper "The Problem of Seth's Origin" or the case of the dead chessmaster who communicated details of his life and played a game characteristic of the prior personality. The hypothesis that is used to explain the existence of this type of personality is called 'survival'.
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

The problem with this type of research is that it's not repeatable, and in terms of scientific evidence it's very flimsy. Similar to the articles you posted about Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, they have various theories (some of which do make sense) but it's mostly just speculation. And I don't tend to trust speculation very much when it comes from Deepak Chopra, who as I said is clueless about things like quantum entanglement...

Don't know much about Hameroff, I'll look him up.

Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.
Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!

There are replication studies in Parapsychology. Also:
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".
I expected a response from YOU, protokol.

Since you did not reply then it is implied that you agree with me that Chopra is right to say that consciousness drives evolution. Also, you did not dispute the idea that a discarnate being is the simplest explanation for cases like Seth and the dead chessmaster.

Orch-OR theory has been validated by evidence. You can even test it yourself (like a real skeptic) by ingesting qubits which will dramatically improve the performance of your local quantum computer or "brain".

A very strong and simple method is just to put Raw Sea Salt in a bottle, say two spoons in a half liter empty mineral bottle, then to fill it with a good cooking oil; then after 2 days waiting, you can just put ONE DROP on your tongue and feel the effects … I was very surprised to find it SO STRONG ! I let you try.

Anyway, for the scientists, it is THE PROOF THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE SEA SALT, and that when immersed in oil, it migrates to the oil ! And it has an immediate (after 2-3 minutes) effect on our human body after ingestion. You can even just put the oil on your skin and the ORMEs will make there way to your blood and you will also feel them very strongly after a short while.
That’s amazing no ? This ORMES/ORMUS are for real, and just next and whitin us.

OK I didn't reply, but not because I agree with Chopra. You are jumping to conclusions my friend, something that people like Chopra do... And yourself.

Your link about "ormus water" is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. This leads me to believe it is not a reliable source, and some of the chemistry is sketchy at best. It literally says
Quote
If you look in any physics or chemistry text book for an explanation of what’s going on here, you will look in vain.

So why do you think that is the case? I think it's because the hypotheses are unrepeatable, and to be frank, woo.

You cannot ingest qubits. They are a conceptual idea of information, not an actual physical thing. Like the classic "bit" they are just a form of information, not a physical, tangible piece of matter that you can hold or eat.

Orch-OR is an interesting hypothesis, like I said, but there is not enough evidence for the concept to be taken as fact. This is similar to other hypotheses, such as string theory or the multiverse theory. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is not enough evidence to say you are right.
20  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 06, 2017, 11:57:19 AM

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...


How do you prove that empty space/nothing/outerspace exists? After all, you can't really grab hold of space/nothing/outerspace and analyze it chemically or electronically or something. You prove it is there by analyzing the material things within it or that it is inside of.

Same with God. We see no source for the complexity of the universe. Such complexity can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.

Cool

You can easily show scientific evidence that empty space/nothing exists, I already mentioned one example - adding sodium chloride to water causes the volume of water to decrease.

You can use things like vacuum chambers to electronically or chemically analyze the vacuum, for example by measuring how quickly light passes through it. Quantum theory is another example of evidence for empty space in between subatomic particles - we can predict exactly how atoms will behave, based on our knowledge of their structure (i.e. a nucleus, with electron clouds very far away, and a huge amount of empty space between).

I don't know where you've got this idea from, you don't need to be able to grab hold of something to show it exists...  Roll Eyes

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

Cool

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 60 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!