I Missed That Day in Physics Where Chaos Naturally Evolves Into Order

[Fort Fun Indiana]

conjecture is a major component of science.

Yes, that is called "a hypothesis". Wow, you have caught up to 7th grade science! Kinda.

Actually it’s called a “theory”, Albert.

Wrong.

 

[ding]

Me too.

It is built into the laws of nature so to speak. Since the beginning of time the one constant has been complexification. The universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium (cosmic evolution). Hydrogen and helium formed structures such as stars and galaxies (stellar evolution). The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion (chemical evolution). Life making the leap from inanimate matter to single celled organism and evolving into evermore increasing complex life forms (biological evolution) up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose (evolution of consciousness).

Every step along the way matter and energy complexified and was controlled by and predestined by the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence arose, the universe is literally an intelligence creating machine.

to bad there is no proof of that,,,which we all know makes it a religion and not science,,,

Don't be silly. Everything I wrote is based on science. I've been a practicing engineer for 35 years. I don't think you want to get into a science argument with me.

science is based on observation,,,and last I heard no one living or dead observed what you said,,,thats why its a religion not science,,,

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

What part of what I wrote is not supported by science?

It is built into the laws of nature so to speak. Since the beginning of time the one constant has been complexification. The universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium (cosmic evolution). Hydrogen and helium formed structures such as stars and galaxies (stellar evolution). The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion (chemical evolution). Life making the leap from inanimate matter to single celled organism and evolving into evermore increasing complex life forms (biological evolution) up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose (evolution of consciousness).

Every step along the way matter and energy complexified and was controlled by and predestined by the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence arose, the universe is literally an intelligence creating machine.

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

 

[progressive hunter]

to bad there is no proof of that,,,which we all know makes it a religion and not science,,,

Don't be silly. Everything I wrote is based on science. I've been a practicing engineer for 35 years. I don't think you want to get into a science argument with me.

science is based on observation,,,and last I heard no one living or dead observed what you said,,,thats why its a religion not science,,,

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

What part of what I wrote is not supported by science?

It is built into the laws of nature so to speak. Since the beginning of time the one constant has been complexification. The universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium (cosmic evolution). Hydrogen and helium formed structures such as stars and galaxies (stellar evolution). The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion (chemical evolution). Life making the leap from inanimate matter to single celled organism and evolving into evermore increasing complex life forms (biological evolution) up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose (evolution of consciousness).

Every step along the way matter and energy complexified and was controlled by and predestined by the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence arose, the universe is literally an intelligence creating machine.

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

 

[Weatherman2020]

conjecture is a major component of science.

Yes, that is called "a hypothesis". Wow, you have caught up to 7th grade science! Kinda.

Actually it’s called a “theory”, Albert.

Wrong.

theory
The definition of a conjecture is a theory. An example of conjecture is the belief that climate change will result in sea levels rising. Conjecture means to make a guess at something. An example of conjecture is a scientist coming up with a theory about something.


Conjecture dictionary definition | conjecture defined

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. Everything I wrote is based on science. I've been a practicing engineer for 35 years. I don't think you want to get into a science argument with me.

science is based on observation,,,and last I heard no one living or dead observed what you said,,,thats why its a religion not science,,,

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

What part of what I wrote is not supported by science?

It is built into the laws of nature so to speak. Since the beginning of time the one constant has been complexification. The universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium (cosmic evolution). Hydrogen and helium formed structures such as stars and galaxies (stellar evolution). The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion (chemical evolution). Life making the leap from inanimate matter to single celled organism and evolving into evermore increasing complex life forms (biological evolution) up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose (evolution of consciousness).

Every step along the way matter and energy complexified and was controlled by and predestined by the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence arose, the universe is literally an intelligence creating machine.

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

Then you are denying the generally accepted scientific consensus which I am certain is based upon observations and evidence.

 

[daveman]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

He's ignorant, and damn smug about it. LOL!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

conjecture is a major component of science.

Yes, that is called "a hypothesis". Wow, you have caught up to 7th grade science! Kinda.

Actually it’s called a “theory”, Albert.

Wrong.

theory
The definition of a conjecture is a theory. An example of conjecture is the belief that climate change will result in sea levels rising. Conjecture means to make a guess at something. An example of conjecture is a scientist coming up with a theory about something.


Conjecture dictionary definition | conjecture defined

No, sorry, that is not the definition of scientific theory. Again 7th graders learn this. That is "hypothesis". I take back what I said ..you would still be laughed out of a 7th grade science class.

 

[progressive hunter]

science is based on observation,,,and last I heard no one living or dead observed what you said,,,thats why its a religion not science,,,

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

What part of what I wrote is not supported by science?

It is built into the laws of nature so to speak. Since the beginning of time the one constant has been complexification. The universe started out as subatomic particles and very quickly formed hydrogen and helium (cosmic evolution). Hydrogen and helium formed structures such as stars and galaxies (stellar evolution). The supernovas of stars created all of the elements and compounds that we see through fusion (chemical evolution). Life making the leap from inanimate matter to single celled organism and evolving into evermore increasing complex life forms (biological evolution) up to the point that beings that know and create eventually arose (evolution of consciousness).

Every step along the way matter and energy complexified and was controlled by and predestined by the laws of nature. It's not an accident that intelligence arose, the universe is literally an intelligence creating machine.

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

Then you are denying the generally accepted scientific consensus which I am certain is based upon observations and evidence.

consensus is whats used when the science fails,,,

 

[daveman]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

 

[ding]

I am going to post this to highlight a trend I see occurring over and over again so that it may be brought into the proper context of the individuals doing it.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

What part of what I wrote is not supported by science?

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

Then you are denying the generally accepted scientific consensus which I am certain is based upon observations and evidence.

consensus is whats used when the science fails,,,

I see. So have you looked into any of this personally?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

 

[progressive hunter]

the part where none of it has been observed,,,

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

Then you are denying the generally accepted scientific consensus which I am certain is based upon observations and evidence.

consensus is whats used when the science fails,,,

I see. So have you looked into any of this personally?

yes

 

[ding]

So you don't believe the scientific community believes or has evidence to believe in cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution?

so far all I've seen is speculations based on assumptions,,,

Then you are denying the generally accepted scientific consensus which I am certain is based upon observations and evidence.

consensus is whats used when the science fails,,,

I see. So have you looked into any of this personally?

yes

So what is red shift and the CMB evidence of?

 

[daveman]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

You mindlessly repeating your religion's dogma is not "knowing about science".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

You mindlessly repeating your religion's dogma is not "knowing about science".

Poor Davey. Now, when you are done whining, make sure to post again that you agree with what I said, ya freak ..

 

[ding]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

You mindlessly repeating your religion's dogma is not "knowing about science".

That's a true statement.

I am having a conversation right now in this thread where a guy is denying science. Hell, he even just denied biological evolution.

 

[ding]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

You mindlessly repeating your religion's dogma is not "knowing about science".

Poor Davey. Now, when you are done whining, make sure to post again that you agree with what I said, ya freak ..

Why is it that every conversation you are involved with devolves into name calling? How old are you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WhY StarS oRdEr IntO sPherOidS?!?!

 

[daveman]

Fort Fun Indiana's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims, fail to back them up and then criticize you for not finding what he should be providing in the first place.

The reason he doesn't provide the basis of his beliefs is that he totally takes out of context what he reads. So if he provided the links, it would be easy to show the flaws in his logic.

He is not being intellectually dishonest, he's just being plain old dishonest. He's not an intellectual. Which partially explains why he behaves like a spoiled child in discussions.

What a freakish post. You agree with me (and with physicists) 100%. Yet you managed to whine like a little baby anyway.

Hey, speaking of which, scientists have recently discovered the world doesn't revolve around you.

I'll give you a moment to deal with the shock before I start laughing at you again.

Aw, poor Davey. Knows nothing about science at all, so is reduced to biting ankles.

You mindlessly repeating your religion's dogma is not "knowing about science".

Poor Davey. Now, when you are done whining, make sure to post again that you agree with what I said, ya freak ..

Will somebody tell Indie he's the smartest guy in the room? Although he's desperate for validation and will go away once he hears it, I don't like to lie.