I've read it and as I recall there really wasn't a "why" in there. It just says it happened and it was "good".

How come I don't live 600 years?

Tony, you don't live 600 years because there has been so much "begatting" between Noah's time and our own. The first people in the bible would have to have some crazy diverse genetics to allow for all the "begatting".

Oh there is why. We were created to glorify God of our own free will. The angels glorify Him automatically. But God wanted a creature that would do it because they wanted to. Hence, why God created man.

Because sitting in front of a computer takes 567 years off your life.

Ever since Twinkies were invented.

Read wha???? never heard of it...;-) How'd I know the first post would be a'religionist'?

That's anti matter looking to collide again. Watch out.

Tony,

Everybody knows that the people in the Bible are calculating their age in "Bible Years", kind of like dog years if you know what I mean. So, if you calculate your age in Bible Years you're probably well over 400 years old right now!

The reason the Biblicons (that's a new phrase I just coined for people who believe the Bible literally true, use it as often as you like) believe the earth is only 6500 years old is because they are using the REVERSE of Bible Years for calculating the time.

The earth is actually eleventy-seven-hundred-bazillion years old (in actual scientific measurement and it's a number too large for the average human brain to comprehend) you divide that by "X" (Which is the reverse bible years formula) and you get 6500 (which is a number a tiny monkey brain like mine can comprehend, it's simple really).

See it's verifiable, scientific and explainable.

Sheesh, what's all the controversy about?

The best quote I ever heard was attributed to a Pastor. "God is the why, science is the how."

Thanks Skip. I feel so young now.

American for Israel

Oh there is why. We were created to glorify God of our own free will. The angels glorify Him automatically. But God wanted a creature that would do it because they wanted to. Hence, why God created man.

What sort of omnipotent deity would create the universe, merely to be "glorified"...?
What sort of an insecure God do you worship...?

economykiller

Okay.

But who's god?

Yours? Why yours?

If not yours ... who's?

That quote is metaphorically beautiful. But, I'm afraid it just doesn't offer much in the way of an explanation.

"We were created to glorify God of our own free will. The angels glorify Him automatically. But God wanted a creature that would do it because they wanted to. Hence, why God created man."

That's the reason?! Really? Does anyone else think that this makes the purported creator of the entire universe seem incredibly shallow and co-dependent?

God: man all these things think I'm awesome because i programmed them that way... :(

God: I kno! I'll create something that doesn't HAVE to think I'm awesome, that way, some of them are bound to think I'm awesome! that will PROVE I'm an okay guy!

Is god really nothing more than a depressed popular actor in Hollywood?

You're welcome Tony, glad to help.

one fairy tale book or another - life is an accident and the MYTHICAL sky daddy is just that - A MYTH - just like all of the OTHER MYTHS from history.

Bugs Bunny said it best "What a maroon..."

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as "Why are we here." It makes as much sense as a surfer thinking the ocean was meant for him to surf on. The surfer can surf on the ocean but the ocean wasn't there just so that one day it could be surfed on. We are the users of a universe that would be unaware that we came about by its nature as it would be unaware of destroying us by its nature. Meaning came about on earth when humans came up with the word meaning. Same thing with gods. They didn't exist until humans came up with the word god. The only reason they came up with the word god is because they came up with the word meaning, but didn't know how to use it properly. You can't blame them though, because at that time everything was god. The sun, the ocean, the volcano, the animals, the lightning, the earth, the sky, the things we tried to give meaning to we turned them into gods to make them more like us. An angry volcano that would punish us like a angry man would to his offspring. A nurturing and yet harsh sun that gives us warmth when it likes us and droughts us in unfaver. Understanding became the ban of illogical conclusions, to people not like Pat Robertson anyways, and the volcano was an act of heat and pressure that had nothing to do with us or our behaviour. So god went to hide above the clouds, because to be up there was an impossible thing for us. And then we made it particule and common. So god ran hide in the depths of space. Until we started looking outward to find no signs of him. So god ran and hide outside of reality itself! All because we abused the word meaning and asked illogical questions and came up with gods to calm down volcanos.

since HUMANS invented the concept of the mythical sky daddy - what's your point?

Actually, my theory is that God (who/what ever He/She/They/It may be) created this and other Universes (call it the Multiverse, using all the different dimensions that the String Theorists provide) and then realized that He/She/They/It did not have anyone else to check out, explore and see the beauty and wonder of what He/She/They/It did and so created LIFE (here and elsewhere/everywhere) to do just that. Science can do the work of figuring out the laws of what is and explore the beauty and mysteries of what WE can see and detect on and from lil ol Earth, and in time I am sure that we will meet up with other explorers of The Multiverse who are doing the same thing and will be able to compare notes. Of course, their notebook will likely be fuller than ours but that is part of the beauty of the whole thing!

Again, why are we still stuck on the angry volcano? The volcano isn't angry. The tornado isn't out to get us. It does not rain for the flowers. Nor does the sun shine for our warmth.

Chad, at least it was a single step in the right direction. "God is the why, science is the how." Let us be somewhat satisfied with that. We can't have it all at once, now can we? We can only support those little baby steps and maybe someday they will run with the wolves.

I don't even know what the hell that means. Maybe if you defined your god it would be something more than an empty word that means and contributes nothing to understanding. You say god exists than break down the studies for us about this conclusion.

Of course you don't know what grump means Skepology because you wish to be obtuse. You want grump to break down the studies about the existence of God but there are a multitude of things your precious sciences can't explain. Perhaps they will someday but that day is not today and so while the scientists scratch their heads we can believe that these things exist because there is a God. After all you can't prove there is not. Said it before and I'll say it again: I would rather live as if there is a God, die and discover there is not; than live as if there is no God die and discover there is and I've pissed him/her off.

I bet you would also jump around on a leash and wave a big leaf around for a king that was more powerful and capable than you too Utter. That seems to be the whole reason for you to worship such a thing. You believe you can't kill it, so it's best to act like the scared little insignificant peon you think yourself to be, just so he will throw you a few bones here and there. It's not my place to prove your claim. You have to prove the claim you make. And if you can't I have no reason to believe you. So, yes Utter I DO want grump or yourself to break down your studies about god's existence.

A single person that does not know anything, but has the curiosity to find out, is far more powerful than a thousand people that have faith, but is afraid to find out. Just like the good ol saying: Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

Sounds to me that god has an inferiority complex. If he/she/it were so powerful then why in the world would it care one stinking bit if I or anyone else gave a damn about it? I don't need to live and will not live in fear or praise of some omnipotent being for 'in case' of what happens to me after death. I know and understand how to be a morally sound person. I treat others as I want to be treated. I have and will continue to live my life the way I see fit with regard to those around me and that I care for. I will make the best decision I can with the tools and knowledge I have available at that moment. If some supposedly 'all powerful' being wants to chastise me after death for not praising it... then so be it.

@Skep I won't even address the unneccessary condescension in your post. Apparently anything that can be killed or destroyed by you does not deserve any repect. Guess what you fall into that category too so mayhap you do not deserve any respect.

I don't need to prove my claim to you because I am not trying to convert your beliefs. You have science. I have science and faith because when the former fails I have the latter. As I cannot prove that God exists you cannot prove God does not exist and I would rather live in fear of an omnipotent being and imagine that someday my soul, energy, spirit or what have you will be in contact with people I loved so much in life. You are free to become worm food or dust and cease to exist as you see fit.

I didn't know that's how it worked. So if "seeing it fit" constitutes as a reality, can I than just become god himself instead of a worshiper of one? I think I could make a lot better universe than this one.

I'm being too much of a pompous ass right now. You're right, when I die I'll be worm food. Or burn in hell. Maybe turn into a worm itself. Possibly get my own Peguses and go on a great adventure. I've never been dead before. All I know is that there once was a time when I did not exist. Billions of years without a single thought from me. When I didn't exist before myself there is nothing I recall because all our recalling takes brain cells. Therefore, before my conception I had no brain cells which means I have to recall. Gives me good reason to think it will be the same way when you die. You're brain cells will stop working and they will decay back into the organic matter it once was. There will be nothing there for me to recall.

1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·pol´los for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other. 7 For who makes you to differ from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, now, you did indeed receive [it], why do you boast as though you did not receive [it]?

8 YOU men already have YOUR fill, do YOU? YOU are rich already, are YOU? YOU have begun ruling as kings without us, have YOU? And I wish indeed that YOU had begun ruling as kings, that we also might rule with YOU as kings

2 cor 4:1 That is why, since we have this ministry according to the mercy that was shown us, we do not give up; 2 but we have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God. 3 If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 5 For we are preaching, not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as YOUR slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God is he who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate [them] with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not that out of ourselves. 8 We are pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out; 9 we are persecuted, but not left in the lurch; we are thrown down, but not destroyed.

16 Therefore we do not give up, but even if the man we are outside is wasting away, certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. 17 For though the tribulation is momentary and light, it works out for us a glory that is of more and more surpassing weight and is everlasting; 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting.

Utter,

Whether you like it or not, we will ALL return to the Earth from which we came. If you or anyone else wants to believe in an all knowing, all powerful, whatever that's fine with me. But, I will not live or believe in something out of fear of what MIGHT happen. IF there's such a being then it will understand my point of view and not condemn me for it. Rather, it will grade me on how I spent my time while I was here, NOT how often or how much I worshiped it.

I think both Skep and Garrett are reading my posts as if I said anything specifically religious such as going to church or reading a Bible or anything along those lines. Kindly reread what I have said and tell me where I have said anything about worshipping? In fact I have specifically only said living my life as if I believe in God. No where did I mention what that constituted. It shows both your prejudices. Clearly you are both taking my posts to mean I am some kind of religious zealot. Climb down from your soap box and take a closer look at what I have actually posted and perhaps you may find the time to ask me what I mean by that as opposed to making leaps based on the aspects of religion or faith that you dislike. I don't care if you question my faith as I feel ok in questioning your lack thereof but please don't presume to know what my faith inspires me to do.

Utter

Prejudice is NO fun when one has to do a climb down ;-)

Ecclesiastes 9:4 For as respects whoever is joined to all the living there exists confidence, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.

For those that Think... they Know what the BIBLE says ;-))

@ Eagle

LOL True indeed!

Utter,

I think you're reading more into my post as well. Nowhere did I call or even compare you to any type of "zealot" nor did I say anything about you worshiping or not. I was simply stating my point of view on religion and IF there's an all powerful being how it should grade my life. Nothing more, nothing less.

I even stated that if you, or anyone else, believes in an all powerful deity that's fine by me. I, however, don't share in that belief and will not live my life worrying if there is or if there is not one. I believe you have a few prejudices of your own and, whether you believe so or not, you're on the same rung of that ladder as I.

To refresh your memory Garrett:

Rather, it will grade me on how I spent my time while I was here, NOT how often or how much I worshiped it.

My post wasn't prejudiced as it is based on your post. You and Skep both mentioned "worshipping" as if I said that was the way to live when you belive in God. I said nothing about worshipping. Again, I said I would live my life as if there is a God. Nothing about even praying muchless worshipping. For me that constitutes helping my fellow man where I can and not spitefully harming others. This is a very basic idea of what I believe but your statement as quoted above is directed at my post and it implies that you think I believe worshipping is the way make God's view of me favorable, which is an inaccurate interpretation of what I posted. Oddly we are on the same page but the problem is your disdain for the fact that my motivation is different that yours.

Utter,

Please, and again, you're reading more than there is into my post. Your attempt to prove me wrong is in vain. That statement was NOT directed at you, rather my personal interpretation of IF there's an 'all mighty' how it should judge me. Period. Those are my own personal feelings and if you think that was directed at you, well I'm not quite sure what to tell you.

I know you didn't say anything about worshiping/praying and if you thought I was implying that you did, well I suppose you took my statement out of context. I live by the same rules as you, treat others as you wish to be treated, and to not cause harm to anyone/anything with direct intention. Pretty simple rules from my point of view. I feel the only difference we have is you believe in a 'higher power' and I, not so much.

Garrett,

You start your post with "Utter" yet it was not directed at me? Your posts references what I said repeatedly but it was not directed at me? And I'm supposed to be the irrational one. I'm done.

Utter,

I meant you or anyone else who believes as you no disrespect in any way. I tried to convey my personal thoughts and feelings on the subject at hand and in doing so I obviously offended you. I visit these boards frequently and am interested in discussing the topic at hand, NOT offending people. It's often very hard to express feelings or sincerity simply writing. At least for me it sometimes is. I honestly hope we can discuss another topic at a later date. Maybe we'll see more eye-to-eye on something else. I wish you good fortune and no hostile feelings toward you.

Utter,

Let's not be purposefully misleading here. We all know what you meant (and so do you.)

I would rather live as if there is a God, die and discover there is not; than live as if there is no God die and discover there is and I've pissed him/her off.

This couldn't be more of an "obtuse" utterance if you tried.

So you have no "specific" faith, or claim any specific adherence of dogma ... yet you live your life as if there is an omnipresent being you don't want to "piss" off?

I'm curious, how does one do this?

I hope it's not by "doing unto others as you would have them done unto you." That's from the Analects of Confucius ... no deity necessary. So please enlighten me ... what pearl of moral wisdom can you provide that we couldn't have otherwise obtained through secular, social-evolutionary means? Or, simply put. How are you any different from an atheist who does the best they can, with what they have?

Saying you don't want to "piss off god," when you provide no established moral compass from which said deity reveals, is the very definition of a circular argument.

Why do christians (even the cafeteria, christian-LITE breed), distance themselves from christianity so much? Nevermind ... I already know the answer to that.

You have science. I have science and faith because when the former fails I have the latter.

Okay. But what is this supposed to clarify? If the game you like to play is to simply inject god into equations we can't quantify or understand yet .... well, all your god is, *is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that keeps getting smaller and smaller with every new discovery we make.

*Neil Tyson Degrasse

@Garrett, no hard feelings retained. Hopefully see you on other vines to engage in other "spirited" debates ;-)

@chad,

Let's not be purposefully misleading here. We all know what you meant (and so do
you.)

Actually chad you assume you know what I mean but it is JUST your opinion and therefore
subject to being inaccurate. Further perhaps you should speak for yourself and don't assume you speak for the entire vine. It's just plain pompous and condescending. Being faithless and being flippant are not synonymous.

I would rather live as if there is a God, die and discover there is not; than live as if there is no God die and discover there is and I've pissed him/her off.

This couldn't be more of an "obtuse" utterance if you tried.

Obtuse– annoyingly insensitive or difficult to understand. When I used the word my intent was the first definition. My best guess is you mean the second definition. I am not surprised you find my position difficult to understand being that you came in ready to take on a bible-thumper or some such. I’m not
anything like that so you armed for the wrong type of foe. Even if I were a religious zealot, short of harming others, I would have the right to be that way.
Just as you have the right to assume you know what my inner motivations and thoughts are behind my posts. Perhaps you fancy yourself clairvoyant? Isn't that a form of spirituality or mayhap a super power? Yes I am intentionally being obtuse here because you need to really stop and examine what you THINK you know versus the fact of what I posted.

So you have no "specific" faith, or claim any specific adherence of dogma ... yet you live your life as if there is an omnipresent being you don't want to "piss" off? I'm
curious, how does one do this?

Oh no my beliefs are very specific. They are specifically mine. I believe I mentioned the very basic idea of my faith in a previous post but did you misinterpret that or just skip it because it doesn't bolster your argument?

I hope it's not by "doing unto others as you would have them done unto you."

Why would you hope that? My belief is that God put us here for a reason, that we are meant to help our fellow humans and yes do as Confucius says by treating others the way I would like to be treated. Is there something about that dogma your super IQ finds bothersome? You have a problem being disrespected right back when you are being disrecpectful? Perhaps you don't want anyone assuming they know you when they don't as you have assumed you know me.

That's from the Analects of Confucius ... no deity necessary. So please enlighten me ... what pearl of moral wisdom can you provide that we couldn't have otherwise obtained through secular, social-evolutionary means? Or, simply put. How are you any different from an atheist who does the best they can, with what they have?

I never offered you any pearl of wisdom as I merely stated part of my belief but never offered to convert anyone. As I stated in my previous post my behavior/actions may not be any different than an atheist doing the best they can with what they have, but my motivations may be different than an atheists. An atheist is accountable only to him/herself. I feel accountable to a higher power than myself and use that to my advantage to keep going. Not sure why that would pose a problem for you.

Saying you don't want to "piss off god," when you provide no established moral compass from which said deity reveals, is the very definition of a circular argument.

I don’t have to provide an established moral compass. Morals as we all know are primarily determined by society and an individual. Some lean on what is popularly accepted as morally correct while others have no such compunction. My behaviour is based on a combination of what I have been taught is right or wrong and my own spiritual beliefs. I go on what feels right to me just as you are going on what feels or seems right to you. I'm not always right, are you? You can sit in judgment of me until the cows come home but it doesn’t make you right or me wrong. Just because you have a problem with religion and most likely your experiences have colored your biases, does not mean every person who has faith is religious or overzealous or whatever the specific idiosyncrasies are that have offended you. I have yet to mention a specific religion and yet here you go trying so hard to label me so that you can attempt to tear me down based on whatever established hatred you have for that specific label. Too bad for you I don’t fit into your little box so no you can’t attack me for being Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist or whatever else you were hoping to rip apart. I believe that Science shows us the how and God will eventually let us know the why.

You don’t feel you have a higher purpose then that is your issue and not mine. I believe I am here for a purpose. To be an inspiration to someone. To offer a shoulder to cry on. To help an elderly neighbor get her grass cut or her walk shoveled. Maybe I'm missing my purpose for all I know but I won’t be punished for it because I sincerely tried. I am going with what feels right since your are doing the same where do you get off trying to condemn me for it when I have caused no harm?

Why do christians (even the cafeteria, christian-LITE breed), distance themselves from christianity so much? Nevermind ... I already know the answer to that.

Ahh and so here you reveal what you are hoping I am. Christian. Is that your least favorite religion? I don’t know or care why you hate Christians but take heart and know just as all religions have their arrogant and offensive types every religion has the humble, loving and helpful type too.

You have science. I have science and faith because when the former fails I have the latter.

Okay. But what is this supposed to clarify? If the game you like to play is to simply inject god into equations we can't quantify or understand yet .... well, all your god is, *is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that keeps getting smaller and smaller with every new discovery we make.

Game eh? My life is no game, chad but do I interject God in situations I can’t quantify or
understand? Sure. When my fiance died unexpectedly, science could not explain
it away or give me any comfort unless you have an equation you want to tell me about? Perhaps a pill you'd like me to pop? My faith that I will someday feel the love and goodness that emanated from him helps me stay sane. I have no problem using that as a crutch to get through each day. If you don’t have a crutch you are either

have no problems,

are amazingly strong or

on the floor.

Not sure why you felt so much hostility or so vitriolic towards me but I do hope you find some other way to channel that energy and perhaps help make a new helpful discovery in science since you are so determined to help my God disappear into that ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Give it your best shot, chad. Let me know when you have quantifiable proof that God does not exist. See you on the other side. Or not.

Utter

Well done keep " walking in the FAITH"!! :-))

Utter,

That's quite the reply. Judging from the length, maybe I hit a nerve?

Look, I'm not trying be viscous here. I thought my post was pretty clear. My comment was actually rather simple, and in regards to how someone says they don't want to "piss off god", but then rally against the definitions of said entity. Which, you still haven't given. You're still playing .... am I a Christian .... ohh, maybe, maybe not....

Did you create your own religion? If not, I'm afraid your notions of faith (no matter how broad) are centrally based (whether you care to admit it or not) on archaic traditions created by tribal men.

As far as "trying to make your god small". You do that yourself. Remember? In your first post? Maybe reread it again.

I have no god, but if I did ... it would be a rather large entity. It would be one that encompasses the beauty and mystery of the entire universe. Not one that meddles in petty, human affairs. And certainly not one I could "piss off". Can we get more of a manmade concept involved then that?

Finally Utter. If it's your position that a secular individual "can't" or doesn't know the meaning of life, or feel one with a higher purpose within the symmetry of life ... well, I'm afraid you're even more gone than initially thought.

Thanks Eagle! The faithless are so hostile that some would like them to convert yet some are just as zealous and vicious and text book thumping as any I have seen and so angry when they can't convert others to their own beliefs.

I won't bother to address most of the nonsense in that last post as it is clear he just looking for a fight meanwhile he states that he is not "trying" to be viscious and yet he is far from benign. His post is littered with quotation marks:

"trying to make your god small".

"can't"

but I'm not sure where he is getting most of the quotes he is directing at me because they aren't mine. His statement boild down to he does not have a god but if he did his would be better than mine. Really? Is that the crux of the issue? This more than anything makes it clear chad is incapable of having a debate without resorting to condescenion therefore there is no justification for having continued discourse with him. Apparently I'm not the only one on here who has some strange things going on their head so I am done with him too. Feel free to keep posting to your heart's content chad.

Atheists are some of the most fervent "Evangelists". Seriously, if Christians or Muslims spent as much effort to convert.....

Tam! You are a sight for sore eyes :) and so on point with that post!

I miss you on the othe vines!

Utter

Point at hand His quote "Did you create your own religion? If not, I'm afraid your notions of faith (no matter how broad) are centrally based (whether you care to admit it or not) on archaic traditions created by tribal men." Chad seems to be so ignorant that he does not understand that " ANY Religions IS Personal" and His religion is so DoGmatic!!! :-))

I think that the Isue here is excess IQ and " running on empty" a lot of potential but nothing to use it for!

So any one here for a Science chat?

@Eagle, EXACTLY right! chad doesn't realize his own beliefs are very personal to him whether they are religiously based or not. The thing is he is great at scoffing but has no idea how to focus it on the points. He is too scattered for me but if you are up to the task then feel free to try to help him understand there are perspectives besides his own. Hugs Eagle!

Tam my darlin I'm on my way :)

Wow.

That's quite a critique. An all around assault of epic proportions.

Usually when I receive those, it's a lack of IQ being referenced within my position (not an "excess").

But, as the immortal Patrick Swayze once said: "Opinions vary"

The true irony of course is that the majority of "atheists" I know, are leaps and bounds more spiritual then anything I've read ... from any of you.

But that's okay. I'll let you posture as the victor of righteousness (sincere or otherwise).

Thanks gentlemen. It's been stimulating, comical, and ironic ... all at once. I thank you for that

I have no opinion.

LOL, thanks for the update, Tony.

LOL, thanks for the update, Tony.

I know it seems like so little compared to the long views expressed, but maybe there is a message in mine as well. LOL

Seriously, you continue to crack me up. <psst, justasecond already reregistered>

Oh no he did not! Where is he. I have more than 4 words for that character.

I hadn't followed the actual science, but I have heard the matter/anti matter collision theory for years. I actually thought it was already considered proven. Good to know we are closer to understanding"everything".

Mob Just had the Privilege of watching a Net Cast of the national press club speech, by Bolden and astronaut Kelly just retired,And I think they both empasizeed what this article is about the " Need to keep exploring" and the new instrument on the ISS will indeed help with that, we just have to be flexible so that our " dogmas do not get in the way of reality" The Alpha particle detector will shed some new light as to what might or might not be possible, and as with any " new findings" one will always get the Fanatics!

Tony a Theory is not " Proven" that is why it is a theory, if it is " Proven" then it will be a Fact and no longer a theory

Eagle -- No, that is not what theory means in science.

Hey Mob - I asked Michael on another thread about the AMS-02 and he said to expect seeing information on early findings in about 6 months.

TReed, Michael is right, there's pantloads of data coming down, 10 megabites per second (I think), and it's going to just keep on collecting more and more data. It will take time to analyze all that raw data and coordinate it into something the masses can understand. So, 6 months should be enough time to collate some data and release it. But, the AMS-02 started getting particle "events" right away, so I'm very exited to see what kind of data is released and what the labcoats think of that data. Ever since I heard about the AMS I knew it would reveal some major new understanding and as near as I can tell it is on track to do so. I can't wait!

Eagle, I'm not sure, I think you are talking about the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory". Here is what wikipedia has to say about it.. "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."

You say tomato, I say tomato. (that saying doesn't quite work in written form, does it)

Mob " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" in this case it seems definition has the same " rose coloured glasses" here is the example your quote: ""Eagle, I'm not sure, I think you are talking about the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory". Here is what wikipedia has to say about it.. "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.""

Concepts=–noun

1.
a general notion or idea; conception.

2.
an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

3.
a directly conceived or intuited object of thought.

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."

Continues "

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably." chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

True Scientist understand what a Theory IS and its Limitations, the Only ones that Do not are power mongers, so in the end " does it really mater"

To me chat in forums as this is to " share the limited light each individual has" to some a flicker can be a flood, some love the comfort of a candle light, other get upset from the " Light for it exposes.." thank you Mob

Eagle

Try again.

Chad " you Can Ride a Horse to water, but you can not make it drink", " You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear", so what do you want Chad?

After all some of those that know me do call me " Eagle the Miracle maker" and i have a sign that says "Impossibilities we do immediately miracles take a little longer " :-)

Scientific Theories are made of laws and facts Eagle. Scientific Theories do not turn into facts just like a brick wall doesn't turn into one huge single brick. In fact a Scientific Theory without facts to form it is just a as pointless as an empty fire extingusher and just as harmful to user believeing it to be full. Example, creationist theory is an empty fire extingusher. Pointless and harmful to those who believe it useful. It's like slaping dr. in front of your name when you don't have degree just because you think your bs should be accepted by science. For example dr. kent hovind. Pointless and harmful to those who believe it useful.

Skepology, I agree with you.

Eagle, the difference between the common use of theory and the scientific use is that a scientific theory explains a large body of observed data (facts) using previously formulated laws in such a way as to be testable and falsifiable. Common use of the word is essentially the same as the scientific use of the word "hypothesis". All scientific theories have stood up to rigorous investigation that has either supported or failed to disprove them. Herein lies the difference b/w faith and science. Faith cannot be falsified (this does not mean it is invalid), scientific theory can be falsified.

I also like the quotes above about God providing the why and science the how.

Even a common man using the common term theory will usually not be respected on his claim unless he can provide facts that support his theory. I'll want the facts and evidence that lead someone to say for example: "I have a theory your wife is cheating on you." There is reasons and data collected for him to make that theory. If there is not however, than he is harmful to both the wife and husband. Like creationist theory is to its believers. You CAN make up @!$%# and slap powerful words in there to make it sound like your on to something, but if you CAN'T bring forth the data leading up to those words than you are nothing more than a liar and you are just trying to mislead people.

Superb. Someone else out there has a brain. thankyou.

Excellent comment Chad. I agree with everything you've said, although I would add that, in my opinion, the question "why we are here" IS actually sophisticated for the very reason that it means different things to different people.

Personally, the answer is fairly straight forward, even if it sounds like a line from the movie "the Matrix". I am here as the result of an eventuality. Through a series of biological processes here I am. Beyond that the same question is asked for the beginning of those biological processes, and the answer is still pretty simple. Life is the result of an eventuality. Some process gave rise to another process. Some chemical, geologic process set the stage for the rise of biological processes. Isn't that about the jist of it?

Chad, may the forth be with you.

i like the first line of Dhammapada: We are what we think.............As for myself i ask Why do we need a why? Can't it be enough just to be. Why this look for a purpose. Lack of Purpose does not mean lack of Spirit. I admit I can not prove an eternal soul much less the existance of a creator. I am fascinated by science and always will be. Ultimatly though the question of the soul will either come or not. Think peace and love for as Buddha said "We are what we think" Peace and buddhahugs and a tip of the cap to ol' Confucius too.

D G Moore

It is the WHY in life that has allowed many en explorer, make new discoveries, it is the WHY in many a child life that generated a Scientist, it is the WHY that makes many a housewife go though a tough day with a Smile and come out victorious, it is the WHY that allows ANY human to see a " Hard time and come out harder then Nails" you still want to know WHY ?

"Why" I think is good when addressing things that run on a "why" bases. Why does Tim like reading? However, outside of that it's an illogical question. Why is the sun warm should be addressed as how is the sun warm. It's a habbit that even I fall prey to sometimes. The sun isn't hot for any personal reasons of its own, but is warm due to vairables that WE can reason out. It's also useless when addressing life an objective term. The first life forms didn't have "why" to it and was only going through chemical reactions. Same thing with "purpose". It has no meaning outside of something that can think of a concept. Actually, I would think "purpose" is a luxiary term. We've gotten to the point where we aren't constantly running from predators or hunting for food so with so much time to do none essential things its become common pratice to think. With thinking comes concepts and purpose was one of them. However, nature is a reality check outside of our comforts. Nothing is going to stop our species from being wiped out because nothing else but us cares enough to try.

" Nothing is going to stop our species from being wiped out because nothing else but us cares enough to try."

Another Fatalist...... oh GOD Why? :-))

99% of species that have ever inhabited this planet have become extinct. What, Eagle, makes us so special as to think that we will continue on forever?

Garrett

A Number of things 1) Ability to use technology to change the enviroment to suit us

2) Ability to use technology to move to different habitation Sites.

3) Some with the wisdom and foresight to prepare for day of the " Doom Sayers" allow them to have their " day" and get them out of the way ;-))

4) Being Ably to " Terraform Mars" and Other places in way that they CAN rather then " dream of Pie in The Sky" ways that they cannot. (See Album Making Mars Habitable)

I'm not a Doom Sayer it's just the simple fact that there is nothing special about us or our planet outside of our very own minds. This planet holds no concern for us and the universes holds no concern for our planet. Things can and have happened here that drasticly changed the way life was and almost killed it off. I have hopes for our species, which is why I'm in such support of this "precious" science that seems to leave a nasty taste in some peoples mouths.

I think humans like to think they are a higher being, and thus there must be an even higher one. We are not any different than anything else on this planet. Our conscious is simply electrical signals that gives us our own perspective of the world. Can our consciousness evolve further? Probably, because the brain is still evolving. But what we perceive as a higher being is just our desire for immortality. No one wants to say "That's it?"

Yeah ... conscious creatures ... neurons firing.

We are biochemical machines, cells abound. We contemplate the "why" ... because we can. If the Earth disappeared today, the universe wouldn't bat an eye.

For some, that will never be enough. They see that concept as a threat, and it makes them feel small.

For others, the exact opposite is true. When I think of how insignificant my life is (in the G R A N D scheme of the universe), I feel quite lucky to be here. I think of the unimaginable odds of being so. And, that actually makes me feel rather large.

"So, all you are is what you feel? Your brain, your cognition? That's it?!"

Heh, that's rather quite a bit.

I actually meant to post that reply to the topic above (The religious one), but hey its still good. LOL

Eagle,

Those are, for the most part, fine points but there's a few problems I see with them.

1) We already do that to such an extent that, in many cases, we've caused more harm than good and have had to spend more time and money to revert the environment back to its original form.

2) This can also fall under my point for number one. Plus, with the ever increasing population there's only so many places we can colonize. We can't keep building cities/neighborhoods every where there's an empty patch of ground. We have to set some of it aside for wilderness and agriculture. Correct?

3) Not really sure what or how to respond to that point :P, but I'll give it a shot. Granted, there's a large number of folks who think the 'end of days' are upon us. Personally I believe we are the ones that are creating that day now. If we could regulate our population in such a way feasible for the majority to agree upon it it would be beneficial for all of us. A house of cards can only get so big before it eventually collapses upon itself. Each one of us is a 'card' and the foundation we are on seems to be starting to crumble beneath us.

4) We are a looooong ways from being able to terraform anything, especially an entire planet. Hell, we're not doing to good of a job taking care of this one much less trying to take care of two! As you've claimed in a few of your other posts, we haven't directly analyzed another planet or extraterrestrial body, only indirectly with rovers or telescopes. So the first step is to build a ship/propulsion system to shorten the travel time. Secondly, setup a base for long term habitation. Third, do LOTS of direct analysis. Honestly, do you think we are anywhere close to doing any of this!? I say 20-30 years minimum just for the testing phase of a propulsion system, another 30 for the base and 100 for attempting to terraform an asteroid. But that's just my view point.

Garrett

Nice response, the fact that we have moved from one Continent to another allowed us to continue in existence, imagine if we could not do that what would have occurred.

There is NO over population on Planet earth, the earth can manage 160 BILLION with little problem, the real issues is mismanagement and Waste, Cities Should be as Much Underground as above Ground, every 13 Floor should be dedicated as water storage, that will assist as earth quake mitigation as well as water saving and power as ther would be no need to pump water to lower levels, ALL roof tops on high rise and for that mater ALL buildings should be " Green Zones" and Facets should be PV panel covered.

Habitation on Other Planets IS viable NOW, if we do it in the way we " can and not the way we dream off" did you look at the album mentioned " Making Mars Habitable" some of those Photos are over 30 years old from studies done at NASA and other universities that spend years looking at how to grow food in close controlled " lockers"

Fatalism, is when some one says " It Cannot be Done and I give Up" we shall never do that shall we?? ;-)

Garrett

As an example imagine we on Mars in the huge Lava Tunnels and the Ventssome as large as 30 meters in Diameter adn 40 meters deep, are sectioned into modes, each mode is sealed from its neighbour and robots are used to get lichen and moss to start growing, as a starter one needs to provide liquid water and some fertilizer but as the lichen develop and the Moss spread, then the system will be come self sufficient, that is why i called this stage " HerbiVoreum" and not Arboreum as arbour takes a lot more energy and that would be stage 2 so as the herbivoreums become functional some of the nutrients can be used to set up a Arboreum with worms that studies have prove to be ably to survive, if you recall a number of those worm cultures survived the explosion of the Orbiter on reentry and i am sure some from that seeding group as even now being studied.

Eagle,

I understand the want/need to expand our horizons and the reasons behind exploration of past generations. I also understand what would've happened if that didn't occur. It eventually would have taken place either way you look at it. It's mans desire to push his boundaries into the unknown, that's what has gotten us to the point we're at now.

WHAT!? 160 BILLION!!??? How in the world did you arrive at that enormous amount!? We're currently pushing 7 billion and are having to manipulate nature in ways, that some would say are immoral and unethical, in order to sustain that amount. I agree that we are a wasteful species, but could you imagine the amount of refuse from a population of that size!? WOW! I don't even want to think about that.

You've got a couple of good ideas, but (sorry to sound pessimistic) I see blatant flaws in your ideas. Imagine a city the size of Houston, TX (4th largest in US) and trying to put as much of it below ground as is above. First off you have to consider the geology, or substrata, of the area. Along the Gulf Coast the underlying geology is primarily clay and the water table is quite high in relation to the surface. This poses huge building and construction issues in that anything underground has to be reinforced so heavily that it's simply not cost effective. And, with the water table so high you'd have to install bilge pump systems throughout the complex or it will be completely filled with water within a few years. This is a primary reason there's no cellars/basements throughout the Gulf Coast region.

As far as storing water every 13th floor, are you proposing putting the entire building underground? If so then you run into another problem...temperature. The geothermal gradient is, depending on location, approximately 1 degree F for every 100 feet. This in turn will create a need for air movers/AC at depth (actually anywhere underground) which will negate power reduction/conservation. However, in colder climates this will be beneficial reducing the need for heat generation. Only as long as it's not in an area with permafrost then there's a whole other problem. Trust me I'm not trying to 'pee on your parade', I'm just a realist.

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with installing PV cells on building facades! I actually had a discussion with a few people about this very topic on another thread a couple of weeks ago. My idea is that whatever excess power is not consumed could be transferred to a 'storage block' of some sort and tapped in times of high demand. If spread over a large enough area would in turn block the need to build large 'solar farms' because the infrastructure is already in place! It's just a matter of retrofitting buildings with the PV cells. The cost would be high in the first stages, but as the infrastructure grew the cost would decline in relation.

Sorry, didn't look at the album but will try to make time and get back with you on them.

'Fatalism', (ding ding ding ding) aahh, now the light goes off! OK, I got you now ;-)). If at first you don't succeed, try try again!

Tony - Anti-Helium is the heavyist so far.

Source? I ask because I would like to know if anti matter is still being created today naturally, or if all we see are left over from, well you know.

I believe it was from one of the LHC feeds I get.

Sorry... My Karma ran over your Dogma...

well according to what is stated mater is negative electrons positive protons neutral neutron so reverse the polarity and you have antimatter nothing to do with mass just electrical charge.

The other issue here is when mater and anti mater come to close proximity it is like when you bring the Positive wire from you car battery too close to the negative one POW!!!! Sparks and... well if you do not know lets just say some " side effects", so when a hydrogen of mater was created during the Big Bang that also created an anti-hydrogen unless something separatedthem, guess what would have been the end result? Err ,, that reminds me of the early amino acids test hmm if i remember right the amino acids created by the first electrical sparks would have been turned to tar in the following sparks if not removed .. hmm another " Failed miller experiment" ahh well back in the " Lab of FAITH"!!! lol

Car battery works via means of isotopes, or atoms with too many or too less electrons than is naturally stable in a certain environment, balancing each other out into stable forms. You give it a path way and those with too many electrons will flow to those with too less. Matter and antimatter is nothing like that. It doesn't require an isotope of any degree and it doesn't become two individually stable atoms because the cancel each other out instead.

Now obviously antimatter and matter did seperate from one another, but instead of concluding fairy dust lets try to understand how. Just like amino acids did survive the kick it needed to go through chemical processes, hence why we are here today, only it's better to not conclude fairy dust once again and instead try to explain how it happened. You keep shoving your god into places we can research then he is going to be pushed out of the way like the non existant wall he is. At one time god was a volcano until we learned otherwise.

WOW!!!! Someone that understand electromagnetism in molecules and the power of electrovolt to mass defect as well as they understand GOD!!! i am so pleased.

Ions are a more better word than isotopes. My apologies.

Gridkeeper WOW just the one i been searching for ALL my life to help me find the answers to this 1) Mass defect 2)Entropy Please Ohh Please give me the answer with many thanks Eagle.

We do exists. That's why 2 is wrong. We wouldn't have been able to contemplate 2 if 2 was what happened after all. So I agree. Stuff does indeed exists and it would be impossible for it not too. Hence why we are here.

Bright - actually antimatter has mass equal to its counter particle, the difference is that the particles have opposite charges and opposite spin.

Thank you TReed.

Interesting theory, never heard it put in quite that way!!! ;-)

I see so life existed During the Ice age,how and when did it start,?

Dennis How Much of the Universe have You traveled, or anyone else for that mater to KNOW what is and what is Not in the universe? How Much of the Universe have been been catalogued,classified,tested and analysed? 90%? 70%? So how do we come upon the " Universal laws" the facts are based on what % of the " Analytical science?

Eagle dude you've got some wacky perspective going on. Why do you think we even have science? It's not because we know everything, but because we don't know everything. What's the best way to achieve that goal? Science! Researching, learning, understanding, forming facts and laws into theories and then building upon those theories with hypothesis. It's how, Eagle, we are living in the comforts of today. It's how we even find the notion that we are stuck on a sphereical object without falling off intriguing. Science is not for "know it alls" because "know it alls" are worthless when it comes to progression. They think that what we know right now is the only knowing we are capable of and that any further attempts at better more accurate knowledge is only an attack on their comfort of static knowledge. Just like your statment implies. You think we only analysed 70%-90% of the universe, which sounds very low to me to be honest, but instead of supporting the progress to further knowledge you deem it unworthy because your god has to rest in there somewhere. You're nothing new Eagle. In the past we didn't hardly know our own solar system and people just like you slaped their gods into that unknowing only to kick and scream and even prosacute those who dared to look up with an inquisitive eye not satisified with their cultures ALL knowing, UNquestionable, UNmeasurable, gods.

Skepology

lol Just as i thought "You think we only analysed 70%-90% of the universe, which sounds very low to me to be honest, but instead of supporting the progress to further knowledge you deem it unworthy because your god has to rest in there somewhere." Seems your dreams are for you reality. have a nice dream, lol

Look all I'm saying is that there is a lot of people who had faith that you would fall off the end of the world if you ventured outside the comforts of the known world and there are people who didn't know so set sail to find out.

Skepology

All you are saying is what you been brainwashed TO say, Tell me of all the civilizations in the world HOW many thought that the " earth was flat"?

Then tell me of the ones that " knew that the earth was a circle and hanged upon nothing" How many understood eclipses, and knew the season ebbs and tides so well that their very existences relied upon it? Then help figure out how the Mayan calender built around THREE circular Stones with 144.000 Year axis was and still is so accurate and how where they so able to work that accuracy?

The earth is not a circle. A coin or a pizza could be considered a circle, but the earth is spherical. And even though it does not hang from anything it does not rest on a foundation deep in the waters either like a flat surface would. Nor would you be able to see a tree in the center of the world, regardless of how tall it is, by standing at the (and I quote) "ends of the earth". Plus no matter how high of a mountain you would not be able to see the entire surface of the earth like jesus. Nor could a pissed off god shake the wicked by grasping the ends of the earth. Unless you thought it was flat of course.

I wouldn't trust their understanding of weather either. They think there is a storehouse of snow and a treasury of hail. Plus they think that god has a palace floating on a body of water from where he (and I quote) "opens a floodgate to water the mountains." Or trust their astronomy either since they was afraid that we would build a tower above the (and I quote) "highest stars".

I don't know what you are talking about with the Mayans. Are you one of those 2012 people?

Buddy I was reading from your bible. Why don't you explain this ignorance of mine to me? You tell me what the bible says since reading it obviously is not good enough for you.

Again, I have no damn idea what you are trying to ask, but I'll try to go along with this. We have collected and studied samples taken from Luna, samples from Mars that came to Earth, samples from Mars that the rovers are collecting, meteroites found on Earth, samples of solar radiation from Sol, samples of background radiation from the Big Bang, samples of gamma radiation that came from black holes. We have the Voyager probes going into the heliosphere collecting data, which is exciting because it shows it to be more of a bubbling mesh than a smooth sheath as previously thought. We are collecting radio waves sent from the center of our galaxy and from other near by galaxies. What they tell us about elements is that it's not uncommon to find the same elements found on Earth found on other bodies of planets. Studying the sun shows us how elements like hydrogen can form into helium.

Skepology

ok i take one at a time.

Samples from the Moon the moon is 384.400km from earth Mars? sorry NO samples from Mars Yet.

So tell me what did we learn from the Soils samples from the moon and you earlier mentioned isotopes you mistook for Ion so what Isotope existed and exists on the moon that Science was not aware of that changed our view of it?

Meteor Soil Collection Last I read and i have the Data on My Photo Album, The Samples are confusing to Science again, because once more they are not what they thought they be, as an example "And, "Lutetia has been a mystery for many years. Ground telescopes have shown that it presents confusing characteristics. In some respects it resembles a ‘C-type’ " http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Rosetta/SEM44DZOFBG_0.html

So once again seems that Science is looking for information but as of NOW we have NONE other then guesswork. I will share with you some other data about what was " thought to be there and what IS there, but this i will do in a rhetorical way and if you do the reasearch you knowledge with reward you for a life time, do some searches for TITAN and what was thought about Titan and it " Methane oceans that covers it surface" and then what was the result when Cassini and when Heugens landed on it, and then let me know what thios once again shows about what we " know and what we assume"

On Voyeuger 1 ans 2 read the past " thoughts" they had as the Craft reached different " mile stones" a little about " helioshock, heliopause and now Solar System border" and once again how the assumptions meassured up to the data once the crafts reached a point, mind you some of that Data is still " Reviewed" and remember some will see what they want to see"

""You think we only analysed 70%-90% of the universe, which sounds very low to me to be honest, but instead of supporting the progress to further knowledge you deem it unworthy because your god has to rest in there somewhere."" So you think that our solar system makes more then 90% of the Universe??? care to explain that to me, yes i would accept the fallacy that we have " explored our Solar System" just to make it eassier for you.

To Be Continued.....

Eagle, we do have pieces of Mars here on Earth. I'll let you figure out how happened. The rovers Spirit and Opportunity are on Mars right now collecting samples too.

Once again I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're getting at, but I'll try anyways. First off, the whole ion and isotope thing was just an explanation of why matter and antimatter coming together is not at all like a car battery. How you tied that descusion to the moon I have no idea. However, Eagle, I can inform you that if we did detect isotopes on the moon it would mean something is decaying radioactively and sometimes that decay is useful for measuring age or can itself be a signature of certain elements. I don't know of any isotopes found on the moon I'll have to do some research. If you want to know why we are even studying the moon at all, which I have a growing suspicion is the case, or anything else outside of Earth for that matter. The easy answer is because we want to understand how things work and how they came to be and what impact it has on us. You see the Earth is apart of the universe so understanding as much as possible in the universe can actually tell us a lot about ourselves and our planet.

You will have to tell me what exactly the scientist are confused about. There is nothing wrong with being confused, because it usually means you are looking at the results with an honest eye and it is a result you did not expect. What happens after the confusion is what really matters. When something surprising and counter active happens in an experiment or observation its best to understand how that happened by repeating the experiment a decent number of times. If the results keep happening and you couldn't find any unwanted or unnoticed vairable to your experiment or observation then you simply form a new hypothesis and search for the facts that then support it or even disprove it again.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. Obviously whatever was wrongly assumed with Titan is now not thanks to scientific research.

Yes, the voyager probes are finding a lot about the heliosphere. That is exactly the purpose of science. What that is, my friend, is science at work. You see we seemed to have been detecting the heliosphere for a long time now, but we wanted know MORE. So now we are using the probes to do just that. Wrongful assumptions will be corrected, correct assumptions will gain support, and new hypothesis will be made in order to further our research on the heliosphere. I don't get your beef with that. That's the way science has always worked.

You will have to point out where I said 90% of the universe is our solar system.

Skepology

Never Mind this is getting circular.

ALH 84001 is another Arse Umpion so are the Other 18 so called " Mars meteors" once again you prove my point about " Faith" and that in all facets of life there are the " Blind Faithful" for any one to believe that 18 pieces of rock " took of from Mars traveled for 16 Million years in the solar system and then decided to Visit earth" that does required a lot of " Blind Faith Dogma" the Data from those 18 or so pieces of " rock" show that they came from the same mother stone, lol somone " made a killing" with that one.

WTF is a mother stone? Look kid, stay in school. Focus real hard on reading comprehension, typing skills, and your basic science courses. Maybe take down the tin foil covering your room so it won't seem so dark and depressing in there. And if you cross a street be sure to look both ways. Maybe hold onto a parents hand. Okay have a good one!

Actually Skep, Eagle is absolutely correct on the 'mars Rocks' thing, they are ASSUMED, based on some not-terribly-rigorous-science that they came from Mars. Until we have a KNOWN Mars Rock delivered back here from the planet itself, and not still there in some rover, which can only do very limited testing, then it is only a theory that they came from Mars. I am extremely science minded, no matter that I posted my version of 'the beginning' above, but to continually bash someone just because they have different ideas than yours is rather immature, no matter which side of the argument you take. Eagle has valid reasons for stating what he has and even has valid scientific skepticism regarding the so called Mars Rocks. Also, Isotopes do not necessarily come from radioactive decay, it merely describes the fact that some elements may have differing weights, even in the same element, due to a differing number of neutrons in it's nucleus. Sometimes it is from radioactive decay, where it has decayed down to a certain weight, sometimes the isotope is stable and has been that way for millions or billions of years, unchanged from when it was created in the fusion forge of a star or supernova.

The way you belittle Eagle does Not make Eagle look bad, but merely makes yourself look childish and petulant with the way that you refuse to look at valid scientific argument and resort to name calling instead...Grow Up Please.

I'd like to know why it's "not-terribly-rigorous-science that they came from Mars." What did you read that lead you to this claim B. Honest? If it turns out not to be from Mars it will be through science that figures it out. As of right now they give credible reasons why they think they are from Mars. Eagle, and I think you are too, are saying they have faith that they are rocks from Mars. No, they do not have a need nor a want of them to be from Mars. That conclusion was not based on a blind assumption because they wanted it to be that way. It was first examined, tested, and compared with other data that LEAD to that conclusion. You are right though, I did word it as if it was an absolute. No, but it does have a lot to back it up.

Yes, you're right about isotopes. You're wrong about what I said. So I will say it again: However, Eagle, I can inform you that if we did detect isotopes on the moon it would mean something is decaying radioactively and sometimes that decay is useful for measuring age or can itself (the isotopes themselves) be a signature of certain elements. That was for a question that I did not understand fully. There is so many grammar errors and sloppy typing, along with run on sentences, that it was hard for me to figure out what he was really asking. I'm not perfect myself, far from it, so I usually don't say anything about grammar since most of the time I can pretty much figure out what they are saying. However, I can't do that with Eagle. It's like he is typing with a sludge hammer!

No, I don't think Eagle has a valid reason for his statments. He most certainly has the right and freedom to post them, but there is nothing valid about his statments. The jest of his statment is that we don't know everything, therefore I can make up anything I want and expect people to respect it. I even explained to him that the reason why we have science IS because we don't know everything! Plus he has some grudge against them trying to figure out more. Apparantly since the knowledge we have is so little compared to what we don't know, we should stop trying to progress and pop god there and stop. I then tried to explain to him that it's a progress. What we know right now we didn't back then. There is a reason for that. We studied and learned and if we continue doing so we should know MORE in the future than we do today.

Science has nothing to do with being fair on view points. You either present the reasons for your claims or you don't expect scientist to respect them.

i'd say let Eagle go. He obviously has some strange ideas about science and is either not understanding you or trying to provoke you. Either way, he's not making much sense. Arguing with people like that is like trying to argue with a creationist.

oh, by the way Eagle, we don't need to directly sample other cosmice bodies to understand what they are made from or to observe that they are governed by the same laws as we are on Earth. Astronomy can use light from distant objects and their relative motions to tell us all kinds of things about them without directly sampling. The martian rovers can test martian material directly using the same laws as here on earth. If inferential reasoning could not provide useful information then very little of our science would be useful.

I'll trust the scientist who have given us electricity, clean water, computers, gps, vaccines, antibiotics, and anti cancer therapies over a dusty old book any day. Not to say there aren't some good moral lessons to be learned in scripture as well, though.

Agreed,

Although, Eagle is the very type of creationist you warn about. His tactics are always the same, I've read many posts on many different stories and the same tired arguments are presented time after time (the entropy claims, etc.)

Even when they are answered time and time again, he'll incorporate them on different posts to see how far he can poison the well. Sometimes I think maybe The Creation Museum has "plants" on these sites to try and spread as much misinformation as they can.

Oh well ... so it goes.

TJW

I am so enthralled you understand spectroanalysis and TOTAL trust and FAITH in it, but can you tell me what is its accuracy? say 90%? 5% or even Less then 5%? If you do not know and have never looked into it,what does that say about your " science"?

Chad

What a Privilege to have such an ex spert as you about .

For those that are truly interested in Science Look up EROS and have a look at what they believed they Knew about the " space rock" thought spectra analysis prior to the landing, that included studies done to the Light by Telescopes from earth for decades before hand, to those done in space by light captured by satellites and then compare the data from what they got back from the analysis AFTER landing. then come back to me.

Eagle - Sources?

TReed

www.dtm.ciw.edu/users/lrn/preprints/mccoy_cde.pdf

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/12977/1/01-1393.pdf

Eagle - I believe you have asked or made comments on Mass Defect and Entropy before on this topic. Are you asking because you don't know or is this a topic of discussion that you want to have?

in the early 90's, the funding in the U.S. for the supercollider came to a halt when the senators misinterpreted the signifigance of the "God Particles" (boson higgs) and thought that the science behind it was to prove the existance of a god.

Ignorance can hurt science in many ways..

TReed

I find that to understand anything one has to understand Basics, so do you not think that the Basic building block other then electrovolt is mass defect?

Yes the basics need to be understood. Well an electronvolt is just a measure of energy which can be used in trying to determine the energy and by that the mass lost during the process of mass defect. With the entropy, this is a big point with creationists and the second law of thermodynamics. The point that is missed is the thought the universe was 3 dimensional at creation. The current theories have the big bang starting out as 1 dimensional space and quickly evolving to three dimensions. This would account for the four fundamental forces being wrapped together as one force. The second law of thermodynamics is only vaild in 3 dimensional space. The math has to work and math is the basic language of science.

TJW - I believe you are talking about the SSC that was started in Texas but never finished. It substantially larger than the LHC with energies up to 40 TeV. Thankfully there is a repeal effort underway in Louisiana the law that would allow creationism to be taught due to a loophole. And they wonder why they are at the bottom of so many lists.