Billions of Dollars still being wasted on Mars Probes and, back to the Moon missions.This is all insanity!

[daveman]

I already gave you estimates of the size of the observable universe. And it keeps going from there.

So you agree with my numbers of around 6,000 light years?

And there have been no satellites launched to "the furthest reaches of the universe", like you repeatedly claimed.

Which backs up what I have been claiming. That the atheist scientists have been miserable failures. Are you a failure daveman or is your science based on past successes?

You think the observable universe is only 6,000 light-years in radius?

You're a moron. It's 45.7 billion light-years in radius.

You really don't know what any of this means, do you?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. It is based on past failures I see. The confetti satellites and its failed laser propulsion are on your side.

To have a radius, then we have to have a center. Are you saying our universe has a center? Where is that? C'mon idiot. Give us the answer haha.

OTOH, my cosmology can have a 6,000 light years radius.

He made the case for Intelligent Design, but doesn't know it.

ID and creation science are quite different, but we both believe that fundamental parts were designed by a designer as there is much intelligence behind it. Certainly, not randomly. That would be too much chance and moronic thinking.

Oh, my goodness, you're not bright.

The center of the observable universe is, of course, the Earth. You know why? Because we can see the same distance in all directions. I never said the Earth is the center of the universe.

If you're in a forest, and you can see 50 feet in all directions, the center of the observable forest is...you. You may be 51' from one edge of the forest and 50 miles from the opposite edge, but you don't know, because you can only see 50' in all directions.

You're way too dumb to be having this conversation.

 

[daveman]

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?
Not very imaginative, are you?

Please demonstrate to the breathless readers here YOUR *imaginative" building blocks of life, and YOUR justification for such brilliant imaginative musings.
Much better educated people than you or me have discussed building blocks at great length and gotten nowhere. To the extent that you pretend otherwise, please present your evidence, your genius.

I am imaginative enough to have earned millions of dollars; imaginative enough to have had letters published in the Wall Street Journal, correcting experts in their own fields of expertise, viz., corporate finance and valuations, to name but one. In another thread I created today which happens to be the birthday of Lothar Meyer, a German chemist, I pointed out that all chemistry departments across America call Meyer's and Mendeleev's creation "the periodic table of the elements" when in fact there is nothing periodic about the table. Its proper name should be "the table of periodic elements." They are periodic, NOT the table.

Now stop shooting off your mouth until you can back up what you have to say.

Thank you proving my assertion that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

Your insistence that the only possible building blocks of life are terrestrial proteins is remarkably closed-minded. And it's your own fault.

 

[ChemEngineer]

daveman
Diamond Member
JoinedJun 25, 2010Messages59,645Reaction score9,145Points2,030LocationOn the way to the Dark Tower.
19 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #162

You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content

 

[ding]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[daveman]

daveman
Diamond Member
JoinedJun 25, 2010Messages59,645Reaction score9,145Points2,030LocationOn the way to the Dark Tower.
19 minutes ago

• Add bookmark
• #162

You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content

I see you lack the courage of your convictions.

Not at all surprising, really. Some people get upset when their asses aren't kissed in the manner to which they believe they're entitled.

 

[daveman]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

There have been terrabytes of science fiction about living things not based on terrestrial chemistry. Some of it's the bug-eyed monster variety with little basis in science...but much of it has been written by scientists who know what they're talking about.

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

I think a quote from Heisenberg...a very intelligent man of science -- is apropos here: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

 

[ding]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

There have been terrabytes of science fiction about living things not based on terrestrial chemistry. Some of it's the bug-eyed monster variety with little basis in science...but much of it has been written by scientists who know what they're talking about.

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

I think a quote from Heisenberg...a very intelligent man of science -- is apropos here: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

Whereas I see the universe as an intelligence producing machine so to speak and if there is other intelligence out there it would look very much like the intelligence that exists here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?
Not very imaginative, are you?

Please demonstrate to the breathless readers here YOUR *imaginative" building blocks of life, and YOUR justification for such brilliant imaginative musings.
Much better educated people than you or me have discussed building blocks at great length and gotten nowhere. To the extent that you pretend otherwise, please present your evidence, your genius.

I am imaginative enough to have earned millions of dollars; imaginative enough to have had letters published in the Wall Street Journal, correcting experts in their own fields of expertise, viz., corporate finance and valuations, to name but one. In another thread I created today which happens to be the birthday of Lothar Meyer, a German chemist, I pointed out that all chemistry departments across America call Meyer's and Mendeleev's creation "the periodic table of the elements" when in fact there is nothing periodic about the table. Its proper name should be "the table of periodic elements." They are periodic, NOT the table.

Now stop shooting off your mouth until you can back up what you have to say.

Thank you proving my assertion that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

Your insistence that the only possible building blocks of life are terrestrial proteins is remarkably closed-minded. And it's your own fault.

When you are too good at highlighting his idiocy, he tends to put you on ignore.

 

[james bond]

Oh, my goodness, you're not bright.

I caught you in a MISTAKE haha, so now you're resorting to ad hominems. Typical for those who can't admit when they made a mistake haha.

You're way too dumb to be having this conversation.

So now you're running away like the chicken shit you are b/c I have outsmarted you haha.

Thank you proving my assertion that "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

C'mon, now you're arguing semantics which is boring AF just b/c you lost an argument. Run, run, run away you lil crybaby.

Your insistence that the only possible building blocks of life are terrestrial proteins is remarkably closed-minded. And it's your own fault.

Answer his question. What ARE the building blocks of life then?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Recently, Stephen Hawking, Yuri Milner, and Mark Zuckerberg sent hundreds of tiny satellites to explore the far reaches of the universe and nothing.

LOL!

Liar.

 

[james bond]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Let daveman answer for himself. Does he need his daddy to spreak up for him?

 

[toobfreak]

When are we as Americans going to wake up and stop wasting money on these Mars Probes and rovers, and now they are talking about going back to that skyless dead rock the Moon. When are we going to start spending money here on Earth to help humans with , homes, food for the unemployed. Let us stop wasting money on these pie in the sky Mars, and Moon missions.?! Your thoughts.

Go soak your head. To be fair, I DO get your notion, these missions are not cheap. but out of them come several things:

1. Trickle down technology. Half the stuff in your life right now are directly or indirectly, wholly or partly related to space programs.
2. The eventual mining of asteroids for minerals we need.
3. The long term need to move man out into space so that if anything happens to the Earth, all of mankind is not destroyed. An asteroid just last week missed us by only 1800 MILES and we never even saw it coming.
4. By studying and understanding what happened on Mars, we can much better understand the Earth, and possibly save it.

In a better world, we could cut massively from the military budget for more help with people.

 

[Markle]

When are we as Americans going to wake up and stop wasting money on these Mars Probes and rovers, and now they are talking about going back to that skyless dead rock the Moon. When are we going to start spending money here on Earth to help humans with , homes, food for the unemployed. Let us stop wasting money on these pie in the sky Mars, and Moon missions.?! Your thoughts.

You're just trolling. I understand the temptation but why expose yourself as someone so incredibly ignorant?

 

[james bond]

If someone in science says something is impossible, or the science is settled, that's not science -- it's religion.

That's just plain wrong and stupid AF. Uniformitarianism and evolution are impossible except for natural selection. The Earth is a sphere is settled science. Evolution is religion as there is no science in it (again except for natural selection which creation science has). You believe in religion and not science.

 

[Markle]

We did gain much technology from going to the moon the first time. But lets remember, that while we were at it the Japanese were improving their industries and by the time the Arab oil embargo came around, less than a year after our last moon landing, the Japanese began to capture our auto market.

 

[Markle]

I think the “Man to the Moon” program was complete madness. “Splendid madness” some will say, but still madness based on a false purpose of recapturing and re-affirming our leadership against the Soviets. A giant P.R. campaign cooked up by Kennedy and serving our MIC in particular.

The proof it was economically absurd Is that all these decades after the final Apollo Mission we still have not returned a man to the moon — not even once. Why would we? After the 1492 “discovery” of America there were constant and repetitive return voyages — for gold, silver, furs, whale oil, for colonial expansion, new crops, and soon the sought after trade with the East. That all came at great risk and cost, but at least made economic sense. It changed the world dramatically, but in doing so of course brought problems like the commercial slavery so necessary for plantation economies.

All the useful offshoots of Apollo would have come anyway, from GPS to faster and smaller computers to cellphone technology. Space exploration today can be done with robots far more cheaply and safely than with men. Granted, some space research is important to humanity as a whole, and we are better able to put men and women into space today. But space programs should serve real economic purposes. Space resources and extraterrestrial objects should be defined as international and not just carved up into national or corporate property. Nor should space be weaponized to help wage war on earth.

As I said this whole insane idea that we have to go back to the Moon, and send humans to Mars is all insanity, and absurdity. All those billions spent on the Moon mission, and now there is talk about sending humans to Mars. This Mars mission absurdity, would also be a suicide mission, as once you land on Mars, you would become to heavy to lift off for the return mission back to Earth. Moreover, the mission would expose the astronauts to deadly radiation, and it would take to long to get there. And the cost would be in the billions of dollars. To many risks, to much money. to be spent.And Mars is just to far.

You'd have REALLY had a problem with the Vikings and Christopher Columbus, OH MY GOSH!

 

[HaShev]

When are we as Americans going to wake up and stop wasting money on these Mars Probes and rovers, and now they are talking about going back to that skyless dead rock the Moon. When are we going to start spending money here on Earth to help humans with , homes, food for the unemployed. Let us stop wasting money on these pie in the sky Mars, and Moon missions.?! Your thoughts.

A lot of that money goes into the technology that eventually helps us here on earth and experiments in space and on surfaces advance many things on earth as well.
And then there's the fact when you are looking for a place to send your backpack hoodie wearing kids to school, you might wish there was a far off planet to drop them off where they can have all the rocks to throw that they want, and a total socialist structure to rule themselves by, because everybody can start off equal with 2 cases of tang and a box of slim jims.

 

[shimon]

When are we as Americans going to wake up and stop wasting money on these Mars Probes and rovers, and now they are talking about going back to that skyless dead rock the Moon. When are we going to start spending money here on Earth to help humans with , homes, food for the unemployed. Let us stop wasting money on these pie in the sky Mars, and Moon missions.?! Your thoughts.

A lot of that money goes into the technology that eventually helps us here on earth and experiments in space and on surfaces advance many things on earth as well.
And then there's the fact when you are looking for a place to send your backpack hoodie wearing kids to school, you might wish there was a far off planet to drop them off where they can have all the rocks to throw that they want, and a total socialist structure to rule themselves by, because everybody can start off equal with 2 cases of tang and a box of slim jims.

This might be to old for most people here but on the honeymooners the show with Jackie Gleason he used to threaten his wife by sending her up to the moon By giving her a liftoff of sorts...lol..Of course this would be totally politically incorrect today as most people would see him as a misogynist but I am sure there are plenty of parents that feel this way on one occasion or another with regards to their kids

 

[Markle]

52ndStreet is a sometimes poster who seems to just want to throw up something like a troll and see what happens.

Sunni Man mentioned that for every dollar invested in NASA we have received seven dollars back. That's probably an understatement today as we continue to reap great benefits from things developed decades ago.

What hasn't been mentioned is that we need to drastically increase our research that failed former President Barack Hussein Obama put on hold.

Prior to the love affair between China and former President Bill Clinton, China's rocket and space program leaped ahead by decades due to Clinton making our rocket motors and guidance systems available to them, China could not hit the Pacific Ocean with their rockets. Today they have precision rockets, nuclear warheads and have rockets that can easily destroy satellites in orbit.

Just prior to WW-II it was believed that a war would be fought on the ground, (blitzkrieg) and on the sea with gigantic battleships and other warships. What happened? The war was won by superior AIRPOWER. The huge battleships were taken out early between the Hood (England) the Bismark and Tirpitz (Nazi). Others followed suit.

Some of the biggest sea battles were fought with neither of the belligerents ever seeing the ships of the enemy. The entire battles were fought with aircraft. Japan showed us the way with their attack on Pearl Harbor. The war could easily have been over before it started had our aircraft carriers been in port too.

Our massive military has kept relative peace n the world for over 70 years.

Does anyone believe for a second that any future war will not be fought in and from space?

 

[ding]

What happened to daveman? He ran away after stating scientific beliefs from the 80s or was it the 60s that there are too many solar systems and galaxies that one would have to have aliens. It's like he missed the 40 - 60 years of scientific advancement.

Titin muscled him out. (Post #137)

The naturalistic original synthesis of titin depends on a probability of 1/20 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power, times 1/2 to the 33,450th power.

Then there are ~20,000 proteins in just the human body, all with staggering numbers that make his "trillions" sound like five pennies.

Mathematics drives physics, as Einstein learned with great reluctance from Georges Lemaitre.
Likewise mathematics drives Darwinism, right into the dustbin of fake science.

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

Do you really think Earth-style proteins are the only possible building blocks of life?

Not very imaginative, are you?

George Wald responds, but in a nutshell, yes. And I would have to concur.

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Let daveman answer for himself. Does he need his daddy to spreak up for him?

He can do whatever he wants. Just like I can. So you post how you want to post and I'll post how I want to post.