Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Wuwei]

You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.

I have read several books and sites on the metaphysics involved in science. Yes I know all about multiverses and I have a book that covers the deeper physics of Linde's theory. Yes I read about a computer simulated universe. I read original papers on the MOND theory, an alternate to dark matter. Physicists try to cover all bases of the nature of the universe. Yes, some of them seem far fetched, but most of them are largely consistent with physical law, but remain unproven beyond doubt by observation.

However your metaphysics is very alien to mine, and you demeanor is reduced to outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists". I have no interest in quarreling about Biblically constrained metaphysics.

.

 

[Frannie]

You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.

I have read several books and sites on the metaphysics involved in science. Yes I know all about multiverses and I have a book that covers the deeper physics of Linde's theory. Yes I read about a computer simulated universe. I read original papers on the MOND theory, an alternate to dark matter. Physicists try to cover all bases of the nature of the universe. Yes, some of them seem far fetched, but most of them are largely consistent with physical law, but remain unproven beyond doubt by observation.

However your metaphysics is very alien to mine, and you demeanor is reduced to outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists". I have no interest in quarreling about Biblically constrained metaphysics.

.

Books on multiverse

God you are moronic

 

[Wuwei]

old science never was science in the first place.

Look up the definition of science.
.

 

[TomParks]

old science never was science in the first place.

Look up the definition of science.
.

Evolution is junk science

 

[Frannie]

old science never was science in the first place.

Look up the definition of science.
.

No need, if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

old science never was science in the first place.

Look up the definition of science.
.

Evolution is junk science

But you know less than nothing about it, so your opinion of it is worth less than nothing.

 

[the other mike]

Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .

I'm not interested in your personal mockery.

What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.

That's right science evolves.

Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.

I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?

My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.

Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded or replaced. New lines of investigation are opened up.

Creationism is a static and narrow science. It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, or the other forces of physical nature.

.

Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.

 

[Frannie]

old science never was science in the first place.

Look up the definition of science.
.

Evolution is junk science

But you know less than nothing about it, so your opinion of it is worth less than nothing.

Lol now tell us how you know that

Drumroll idiot ahead

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

now tell us how you know that

Because I have read his posts on it. How did you think, ya moron?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science

Nah, that's just yet another madeup , crybaby fantasy by a frustrated, angry religious goober.

 

[Frannie]

now tell us how you know that

Because I have read his posts on it. How did you think, ya moron?

Lol as if I care what you read

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

now tell us how you know that

Because I have read his posts on it. How did you think, ya moron?

Lol as if I care what you read

Yet you just asked for that info. Frannie, this may be an anonymous message board, but you can't pretend NOT to be a moron, when you are a moron.

 

[Frannie]

if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science

Nah, that's just yet another madeup , crybaby fantasy by a frustrated, angry religious goober.

Dude it used to be accepted science that the earth was the center of the universe.

Was this right or stupidity

 

[Frannie]

now tell us how you know that

Because I have read his posts on it. How did you think, ya moron?

Lol as if I care what you read

Yet you just asked for that info. Frannie, this may be an anonymous message board, but you can't pretend NOT to be a moron, when you are a moron.

And you can not pretend not to be schizzo

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, next up for the planet hunters:

Finding planets with water.

Astronomers Find Water on an Exoplanet Twice the Size of Earth

 

[Frannie]

So, next up for the planet hunters:

Finding planets with water.

Astronomers Find Water on an Exoplanet Twice the Size of Earth

There is no way to identify water on any planet out of this solar system

 

[james bond]

Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.

See Angelo, it's like I said you do not know science. One does not have to teach a dog how to see in 3D. We and dogs do not see in 3D, but our brains are created to be able to add depth.



That's okay. Not all of us can succeed like I do in my movies.

 

[Frannie]

Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.

See Angelo, it's like I said you do not know science. One does not have to teach a dog how to see in 3D. We and dogs do not see in 3D, but our brains are created to be able to add depth.



That's okay. Not all of us can succeed like I do in my movies.

I used to pull my kids that way but using a body board. Because of the curve it would not go airborne but dive like a trolling lure

Those were the days

 

[james bond]

You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.

I have read several books and sites on the metaphysics involved in science. Yes I know all about multiverses and I have a book that covers the deeper physics of Linde's theory. Yes I read about a computer simulated universe. I read original papers on the MOND theory, an alternate to dark matter. Physicists try to cover all bases of the nature of the universe. Yes, some of them seem far fetched, but most of them are largely consistent with physical law, but remain unproven beyond doubt by observation.

However your metaphysics is very alien to mine, and you demeanor is reduced to outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists". I have no interest in quarreling about Biblically constrained metaphysics.

.

Are you sure you read and understood these metaphysics books you read? Name a few titles. If you know about multiverses, then you should be able to tell metaphysics from theoretical physics. I would say cosmology, metaphysics, and religion are all under philosophy. To me, you are a nerd. A nerd to the point of not having common sense. Thus, you have read an impressive list of subjects, but cannot explain to someone who may know much about it.

I know my creation science, which isn't metaphysics, but hard science, is alien to you. All you can see of the Bible is that it is a religious book. You have been brainwashed by secular or atheist science since the 1850s. Secular science wasn't like that before then. There was a period that creation science ruled science. That's why I stated you claim to have an open mind, but do not. You may have the software, but lack the hardware in computer science terms.

Anyway, I tried, but you're just not well rounded enough to learn from others. Your interests are very narrow. That's why I asked if you went to college or university. One would be required to learn subjects they aren't interested in in order to get a well rounded view of the world. What can I say?

Finally, how do you get outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists" from what I wrote?

What I was doing was mocking you. It's derogatory to state I was discussing religion when I tried nicely to explain creation science and the Bible theory. The Bible has its religious side, but I didn't discuss any of it. God and creation is part of science. God and creation is the truth, but you are too narrow minded to recognize it as such.

Have a good night, sir.

 

[Frannie]

You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.

I have read several books and sites on the metaphysics involved in science. Yes I know all about multiverses and I have a book that covers the deeper physics of Linde's theory. Yes I read about a computer simulated universe. I read original papers on the MOND theory, an alternate to dark matter. Physicists try to cover all bases of the nature of the universe. Yes, some of them seem far fetched, but most of them are largely consistent with physical law, but remain unproven beyond doubt by observation.

However your metaphysics is very alien to mine, and you demeanor is reduced to outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists". I have no interest in quarreling about Biblically constrained metaphysics.

.

Are you sure you read and understood these metaphysics books you read? Name a few titles. If you know about multiverses, then you should be able to tell metaphysics from theoretical physics. I would say cosmology, metaphysics, and religion are all under philosophy. To me, you are a nerd. A nerd to the point of not having common sense. Thus, you have read an impressive list of subjects, but cannot explain to someone who may know much about it.

I know my creation science, which isn't metaphysics, but hard science, is alien to you. All you can see of the Bible is that it is a religious book. You have been brainwashed by secular or atheist science since the 1850s. Secular science wasn't like that before then. There was a period that creation science ruled science. That's why I stated you claim to have an open mind, but do not. You may have the software, but lack the hardware in computer science terms.

Anyway, I tried, but you're just not well rounded enough to learn from others. Your interests are very narrow. That's why I asked if you went to college or university. One would be required to learn subjects they aren't interested in in order to get a well rounded view of the world. What can I say?

Finally, how do you get outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists" from what I wrote?

What I was doing was mocking you. It's derogatory to state I was discussing religion when I tried nicely to explain creation science and the Bible theory. The Bible has its religious side, but I didn't discuss any of it. God and creation is part of science if that is the truth, but you are too narrow minded to realize as such.

Have a good night, sir.

What is there to know about multiverses