Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Ah so you can enter a mind and determine what is or is not imagination? Is it possible that "everything" in a mind is nothing but imagination? Or how does a figment in one mind become a figment in another mind?
I can conclude that your statement is your opinion and nothing more.
I'm from Missouri.
What are you blabbering about? They claimed that their 'GOD' had no attributes. Who am I to disagree?
You have my condolences.
It looks like I'm blabbering about your blabber.
As worthless as they are, thank you. But I remain from Missouri, so show me that wave collapse is uncaused.
LeGrande, you were quoting Wheeler here as if you agreed with his statement, or more accurately, as a proof of your position. When bb observes that there is no communication involved between space-time and matter you say that proves your point of no cause and effect and then declare it an "Aha, eureka!" moment. Was your purpose for posting the Wheeler statement to say he was full of it? It didn't seem that way. In keeping with your history you seem once again to be practicing linguistic gymnastics.
Now here is the trillion dollar (inflation you know) question, does the observer 'cause' the results? This becomes even more interesting when time and nonlocality come into play. Future and/or past events can change the results, nullifying and changing the 'cause and effect' of the event. These paradoxes falsify 'cause and effect'.
Once again, being unburdened with knowledge seems a blessing. The answer to these appear simple to me.
Since position is a fixed point and momentum is movement one obviously cannot measure both at the same time because they can't both exist at the same time. Yet, as is always the case, they are both part of the whole.
The two slit experiment also seems elementary to me. If you want to see a particle you experiment with one slit, a wave with two. However, I do not know, and apparently no one else does either, why a wave would not go through a single slit. I assume it has to do with Newton's Law of Conservation of Energy. I guess that is the one, it sounds like it is.
Since it is obvious that subatomic particles are both particle and wave, because they can be seen as both, (they are Newtonian particles and Einsteinium waves) then they adapt to their environment and use whichever form is appropriate to their environment and the task at hand. Since they travel at the same speed a particle cannot split in two when faced with two choices so it converts to waves and accomplishes the goal. I am sure that must be wrong but to the untrained it seems right.
I also see the same in man and his two natures, physical and spiritual. The physical is his Newtonian self and the spiritual is his Einsteinium potential.
Listening to jello blather - place marker
Dont’ feed the idiot troll, MM. It does no good with the brainwashed like him.
Thank you for sharing your insights!
Wrong again! If you weren't being such a jerk I would let you off as having a faulty memory but your frequent logical slights of hand and linguistic tap dancing requires me to know you are simply lying to evade blame.
We said our God contains ALL attributes as He created the whole thing and still resides in and supervises every aspect of it. You told be to name an attribute and you would falsify it. When I said He was all attributes you responded that my God was full of crap since that is an attribute, another of your purposeful misdirections, and I said that was not an attribute of God since He is above all that but He did create a world in which you could be full of crap. Perhaps that will refresh your memory.
You also use the term that you will "falsify" a point of view, i.e. Au contraire. My God is all attributes so just pick one and disprove it.
How funny : ) So your GOD is full of crap (an attribute) I don't see him crapping in my toilet (he would have to be crapping eternally in all toilets) Therefore I have falsified your concept of GOD.
Is it really possible to prove a negative? If so, then you will be the first to accomplish it. If not why are you insistent on it?
No, that is why I asked for a definition of God. I can falsify that. If you say that GoD is undefinable I say fine it is a meaningless tautology then, which is just as good as a falsification.
I assume that is another of your tricks in that falsifying something is not the same as proving it false. In fact, the dictionary defines falsifying as
1 alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead.
1 forge, fake, counterfeit, fabricate; alter, change, doctor, tamper with, fudge, manipulate, adulterate, corrupt, misrepresent, misreport, distort, warp, embellish, embroider; cook.
That is exactly what you have been doing!
I am tired of playing your game, LeGrande, and if I didn't enjoy visiting with the intelligent people here I would have left long ago.
Sounds great! Which channel is it on?
Likewise at post 376 you said:
Wave function collapse is a causal event.
Evidently you have presumed that a causal event requires an intelligent agent. It does not.
I just read my husband some of the “statements” and asked him what he thought. (My science is lacking, accept political). Anyway, he started laughing and said they made little to no sense, generally convoluted and lacking in any knowledge or common sense.
As a side note he is a materials engineer for more than three decades, I trust his judgment here.
Well, I was with you until you called evolution “junk science.”
The theory of evolution is as fundamental to biological science as the theory of electromagnetism is to physical science. There is no moral component or consideration to either theory; they just are.
The theory of evolution is not fundamental to biological science. It is junk science and it does have a moral component. If the TOE didn't have a moral component, it would have been abandoned long ago.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Who dat??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.