Invention

D

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Hey I have an idea for an invention. You take tobacco that is green. You put it in a cylinder with a crystal. Nicotina(organically grown) is a healing plant. The crystal will produce a vapor effect so its not harmful. The plant must be green (full of water) to be healthy and work properly. I wish I was an engineer so that I could invent it myself.
 
yahoo is not a reliable source of information. I don't understand why you keep coming back to "I did research on it years ago when...", research is not the same as "I read something on the internet".
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
yahoo is not a reliable source of information. I don't understand why you keep coming back to "I did research on it years ago when...", research is not the same as "I read something on the internet".
Click to expand...

She cannot respond to this ACOT. It is imperative for her sense of self that she ignore anything that does not confirm or validate her world view, or schema.
This includes understanding what science is and what it is not. Since she has obviously invested a great deal of emotional energy in being right it doesn't matter that she confuses intuitive and rational thought processes. Even explaining the difference between a rhetorical argument and an evidence based argument will most likely result in a great deal of reactance.
 
I think my comments are annoying bits in a huge mass of negative energy for her. But We just started a privet conversation on the subject of science where we, hopefully, can take our time without distractions and find the roots to our disagreements.
 
Yahoo and wikipedia are, if not perfect, acceptable citations for seconday sources. Unfortunately, one must read and understand those and their footnotes.

For instance in her posting #24 on "Greek mythology vs. Adam and Eve" she cites Can Something Come From Nothing? » LiberatedMind as if the author (claimed to be an astrophysicist) supports ID. First let me quote in detail:

"We’ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist’s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can’t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: “well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?”

They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of “physics” governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.
Additionally, when a theist states that “something cannot come from nothing” and then states that a god created the known universe, he still hasn’t solved his own question. Is god “something”? Why, yes, god is something. Then where did he come from? Theists usually state that god is eternal, and always existed and was never created. This statement violates the first assumption they make that “something cannot come from nothing”. God is a “something” and they are supposing he came from “nothing”. All this supposing gets us nowhere, which is why we turn to evidence and the scientific method of inquiry to find answers. When we do not know the answer, we continue searching, testing and finding evidence for what is actually real, while admitting that we do not know the answer until we have evidence."

If you missed it the author states that "something from nothing" is the rule for expalining the universe, whether theologically or according to physical cosmology. The exact opposite of what donnann's thesis was.

Second, the author is anonymous (not as astrophysicist, as claimed).

Third, the only astrophysicist cited is Lawrence M. Krauss, who is pretty well known for his very hard core belief in the Big Bang theory--creatio ex nihilio, the exact thing donnann is ranting against (see the paragraph noted Scientific Work on the linked page).

I have read his A Universe from Nothing and can attest that he is a huge (one of the biggest and most influential) believers in the "creation from nothing" donnaann obsesses against (with not one valid reference yet).

Like everyone here has said, it is just scientific fact.
 
Paladin said:
She cannot respond to this ACOT. It is imperative for her sense of self that she ignore anything that does not confirm or validate her world view, or schema.
This includes understanding what science is and what it is not. Since she has obviously invested a great deal of emotional energy in being right it doesn't matter that she confuses intuitive and rational thought processes. Even explaining the difference between a rhetorical argument and an evidence based argument will most likely result in a great deal of reactance.
Click to expand...
I do understand what science is. There already is a lot of information and data out on intelligent design. Do some research on it. I could provide references but right now my health isn't too good.
 
donnann said:
I do understand what science is. There already is a lot of information and data out on intelligent design. Do some research on it. I could provide references but right now my health isn't too good.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people here who are poking holes in your claims, logic dictates that you should listen to what is being said.

I hope you return to full health soon and join the discussion here and our privet one.
 
Hope you get well, donnann. I am not dumb (nor art thou) but I can find no serious scientist who supports either intelligent design or the notion that "nothing can come from nothing" (which, after all, is the real basic issue).

Did a pretty thorough Google Scholar and Nexus/Lexus search. Nada.
 
radarmark said:
Yahoo and wikipedia are, if not perfect, acceptable citations for seconday sources. Unfortunately, one must read and understand those and their footnotes.

For instance in her posting #24 on "Greek mythology vs. Adam and Eve" she cites Can Something Come From Nothing? » LiberatedMind as if the author (claimed to be an astrophysicist) supports ID. First let me quote in detail:

"We’ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist’s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can’t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: “well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?”

They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of “physics” governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.
Additionally, when a theist states that “something cannot come from nothing” and then states that a god created the known universe, he still hasn’t solved his own question. Is god “something”? Why, yes, god is something. Then where did he come from? Theists usually state that god is eternal, and always existed and was never created. This statement violates the first assumption they make that “something cannot come from nothing”. God is a “something” and they are supposing he came from “nothing”. All this supposing gets us nowhere, which is why we turn to evidence and the scientific method of inquiry to find answers. When we do not know the answer, we continue searching, testing and finding evidence for what is actually real, while admitting that we do not know the answer until we have evidence."

If you missed it the author states that "something from nothing" is the rule for expalining the universe, whether theologically or according to physical cosmology. The exact opposite of what donnann's thesis was.

Second, the author is anonymous (not as astrophysicist, as claimed).

Third, the only astrophysicist cited is Lawrence M. Krauss, who is pretty well known for his very hard core belief in the Big Bang theory--creatio ex nihilio, the exact thing donnann is ranting against (see the paragraph noted Scientific Work on the linked page).

I have read his A Universe from Nothing and can attest that he is a huge (one of the biggest and most influential) believers in the "creation from nothing" donnaann obsesses against (with not one valid reference yet).

Like everyone here has said, it is just scientific fact.
Click to expand...

About the big bang, dose science state that there there was noting before big bang? I always assumed that it was the start of the universe 'as we know it' and that is just impossible to see beyond the bang. Is their anything that indicate that nothing caused the big bang? It's all philosophical to me and I don't pretend to know enough to about it to take a stand one way or another.

Also, I do think that you, and even Paladin, are a bit harsh to donnann. I think the topic is frustrating for everyone since we are divided by very different backgrounds and outlooks.
 
Niel de grasse tyson put out an interesting video on our Net Zero flat universe.... he and scientists he agrees with believe the universe to be flat (remember when we thought the earth to be flat? ) and anyway that the universe has to be flat for if it had more positive energy than negative energy it would be round, and if it had more negative than postive ...saddled....and since (?) it is balanced with equal amounts it is flat, and since it is flat and balanced that means prior to its existence there could be nothing ....for if there were something we'd be positive and less than nothing we'd be negative...I am sure they have it together, and I am sure in 500 years it will be wrong...but it all sounded quite circular to me.
 
donnann said:
I do understand what science is. There already is a lot of information and data out on intelligent design. Do some research on it. I could provide references but right now my health isn't too good.
Click to expand...

I've already done a good deal of research on it. I've honestly tried to help you understand what an actual scientific reference is, and others have pointed out that you are misunderstanding a great deal about the scientific method, all of which you have rejected or ignored. My feeling is that somewhere along the line you have had to pretend that you understand something even when you didn't to save face, and protect yourself. Clearly these issues go deeper than just feeling personally attacked in a public forum when in fact people are only attacking your ideas, not you personally. Since you seem to self-identify with your ideas my guess would be that continued discussion will only result in pain. Therefore, I am bowing out of the conversation altogether.
 
wil, the entire all cosmological physicists were utter shocked when that evidence comes in. So we have three basic cosmologies: eternal universe (flat), a big-bang universe (just one instance of the bang, which could be one universe or an infinite number -- as in multiverse), or a cyclic one (big-bang, big crunch.... ad infinitum).
WMAP- Shape of the Universe has a good summary of the WMAP results and (at this point in time) how cosmologists see it. If you look at some of the quantum gravity theories and some of the more exotic models which "explain" the dark matter and energy conundrum in other ways... Then the WMAP results really are not decisive.

That's the problems with us physicists, especially those who do not realize we are trying to explain perceptual or mental or metaphysical issues... there is always more than one theory.

ACOT, the "normal" big bang theory postulates nothing existed before it because the universe is a space-time continuum, so the was no time as well as no space, let alone anything in it. See the first part of WMAP's Introduction to Cosmology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top