The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[Moonbeam]

LoL. I think I understand only about 10% of what Moonbeam posts. It is like he is talking a different language. There are times when I think he has insulted me but I am simply not intelligent enough to figure what the insult was. On the other hand, when Boberfett calls me a stupid drooling fucktard.... that I do understand.

"Moonspeak" is an extremely difficult dialect to master and sadly I am no closer to breaking that language barrier than when I first experienced it. If we had a Rosetta stone on this forum to interpret his posts it would be of much value.

Not making fun of you at all. I know exactly were you are and how you see things. Everything you say I agree with. But I also see something else, something I couldn't see until I actually fully surrendered to the fact that life has no meaning. Think about it. I can't hand you the key. Everything is without meaning. Do you see that you are free? Why do you suffer from the fact that life has no meaning? What is the source of your pain. Try to find it. The source for me was a delusion I believed. Do you have one too? I am telling you I went from abject misery to total peace in a single second of realization. I believe that can happen to anybody. I found the strawberry and it tasted so good, and was I ever surprised, Heheheheh

 

[Paratus]

I specifically told you that the street car is a photon of light and the thought experiment is to jump onboard that. If I leave a point at the speed of light and you leave later you will never catch me. Special relativity has nothing to do with this. This is a classical d=rt problem. Furthermore, from the point of the destination, you will not see me till I get there. I can't shine a flashlight ahead of me because I'm the light ray itself. Flashlights riding on photons are verboten.

D=rt does not work for anything traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light.

That's the whole point behind relativity. Newtons laws of motion are almost exactly the same as relativity until the velocity of the object(s) approach c.

 

[Moonbeam]

D=rt does not work for anything traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light.

That's the whole point behind relativity. Newtons laws of motion are almost exactly the same as relativity until the velocity of the object(s) approach c.

What? How could the speed of light be 186,000 miles a second if d for light didn't equal rate times time? How the hell did they determine the speed of light without measuring how far it goes in a second.

 

[BxgJ]

What? How could the speed of light be 186,000 miles a second if d for light didn't equal rate times time? How the hell did they determine the speed of light without measuring how far it goes in a second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Reading that may help.

 

[Moonbeam]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Reading that may help.

You should try it. v= d/t. The velocity of light is a constant, 186000 miles a second. 186000 miles a second = 186000 miles/ sec. Any photon on vector xyz can never be caught by a photon that leaves on that same vector a second later, It will always be 186000 miles behind it. It will never catch up much less pass it at 186000 miles a second.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You should try it. v= d/t. The velocity of light is a constant, 186000 miles a second. 186000 miles a second = 186000 miles/ sec. Any photon on vector xyz can never be caught by a photon that leaves on that same vector a second later, It will always be 186000 miles behind it. It will never catch up much less pass it at 186000 miles a second.

jESUS SAID I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.....I MEAN...WELL YOU KNOW...

 

[Moonbeam]

jESUS SAID I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.....I MEAN...WELL YOU KNOW...

Probably why I have an impossible time trying to catch up to him. The harder I try the heaver the load.

 

[Moonbeam]

Einstein was trying to solve a paradox and was defeated by it. He had one set of ideas that said if a policeman chased a car going the speed of light, even at 99% of the speed of light and even if observers on the road saw him really close behind, he himself would see the car fly away from him at the speed of light, and another that he imagined, that if he were in a streetcar flying away from the clock tower at 100% of the speed of light, if he were a photon, he would see the hands on the clock stop because no light from the clock could ever catch up to him. The realization he had was that time relative to motion, that for the observers watching the cop chase the car only a little way behind, and the cop seeing it disappear at the speed of light was because time was passing much more slowly for the cop. Einstein realized that time was relative and not fixed. The insight happened because the usual assumptions about the nature of time collapsed in a breathtaking leap of imagination and a depression and failure at first to resolve what was, without the shift in understanding, an impossible paradox.

 

[Omar F1]

First you need to understand what evolution is and is not.

Evolution does not mean one day a lizard formed wings to fly. Evolution cannot think. Evolution is when one trait gives an advantage.

Say mouse has a mutated gene that gives it darker fur in a snowy place. That dark fur makes it easier to spot by prey. It will be less likely to to survive and thus less likely to breed. Its dark gene is not likely to be passed on.

Now, say that same mouse lives in Pinacate Peaks where lava flows have made part of the desert have dark streaks. The dark hair gene would give an advantage in those dark streaks, but not the normal colored mice. So, the gene then will likely be passed on because the advantage of the dark fur benefits the mice on the dark spots. Mice that live on the light spots would be at a disadvantage.

Given enough time, you get will get 2 very different looking mice. The dark spots will be filled with the dark mice, and the light spots filled with the light mice. This is what we see with the Rock Pocket mouse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjeSEngKGrg

This is a quick 10min vid on this very thing.

First of all, I hope you do realize that it's Evolution theory vs. God existence. So lets not portray that theory as innocent-scientifically-driven one because it isn't. Whether its defendants like it or not, it's clearly motivated by atheism agenda.
That's obvious why it avoid all the common sense around, which undermine or else conflict with that theory conclusions.


Although, as it's already been established & pretty obvious, that I'm being ignorant about the specific details or DNA basics, however, I'm aware of its basic assumptions, overall concept and its conclusions drawn by the researchers, which is my main concern.

 

[WelshBloke]

First of all, I hope you do realize that it's Evolution theory vs. God existence.

LOL. That's religions fault for picking the wrong turf to fight on. Seriously, most people that study evolution couldn't give a crap about your religion.

So lets not portray that theory as innocent-scientifically-driven one because it isn't. Whether its defendants like it or not, it's clearly motivated by atheism agenda.

It's clearly motivated by a desire to find out the truth. If you feel that finding out the truth is an attack on your religion then that says more about your religion than it does about science.

A quick question; do you think that everything that refutes something in your religion comes from one agenda?

That's obvious why it avoid all the common sense around, which undermine or else conflict with that theory conclusions.

LOLwhat.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So "answer" means hitting bottom so hard that believing in magic is the only strategy that one's mind can imagine to cope with reality?

Sounds special.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may not know nearly as much as you think you do?

 

[WelshBloke]

Has it ever occurred to you that you may not know nearly as much as you think you do?

I have always thought that if you don't know something you try and find the reason and truth of it rather than go "Fuck it! Too hard must be magic."

 

[Paratus]

First of all, I hope you do realize that it's Evolution theory vs. God existence. So lets not portray that theory as innocent-scientifically-driven one because it isn't. Whether its defendants like it or not, it's clearly motivated by atheism agenda.
That's obvious why it avoid all the common sense around, which undermine or else conflict with that theory conclusions.


Although, as it's already been established & pretty obvious, that I'm being ignorant about the specific details or DNA basics, however, I'm aware of its basic assumptions, overall concept and its conclusions drawn by the researchers, which is my main concern.

This is nothing but your own incorrect interpretation. Darwins theory on the origins of species though evolution came about to describe the observations he made in the Galapagos.

Evolution is both theory AND fact. The theory describes the facts. I'm also betting that you actually would have no issue with each individual part of the theory.

• Children are not direct copies of their parents, (for any species)
• Some will be born and/or grow stronger, faster, smarter, better adapted to their environments than others.
• The stronger, faster, healthier better adapted animals will tend to survive long enough to procreate, more often than the less adapted.
• After 100's, 1000's or more generations the animal has changed enough that the current generation animal couldn't breed with the original and is now a new species.

That's it.

 

[BxgJ]

You should try it. v= d/t. The velocity of light is a constant, 186000 miles a second. 186000 miles a second = 186000 miles/ sec. Any photon on vector xyz can never be caught by a photon that leaves on that same vector a second later, It will always be 186000 miles behind it. It will never catch up much less pass it at 186000 miles a second.

Yes I know, just saying that d=vt does not work at velocities near c

per the previous link

The transformations describe how measurements related to events in space and time by two observers, in inertial frames moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, are related. They reflect the fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events. They supersede the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). The Galilean transformation is a good approximation only at relative speeds much smaller than the speed of light.

d=vt may work for you in your reference frame, but a different observer will get different results.

 

[Omar F1]

No, I am very serious. If you cannot answer the questions I put before you, you do not have a workable idea of "intelligent design." That's the bottom line.

I thought most of your replies were comments rather than questions, and I read it all. If I left questions unanswered then it wasn't intentional and my apology.

I have to wonder where you acquired your animal mind-reading abilities that give you such confidence to make these astonishing claims. It is by no means a fact at all that "only the human" has "materialized and emerged victorious with full freely-thinking mindset, while all others are only acting in such very limited and scripted-like way."

Honestly I'm lost here.
Intelligence-wise, a human peer had never existed. A simple look over the animals living conditions and behavior reveals a severely restricted mindset. Sorry but, I can't grasp our disagreement here.
The vast human advances can't be possible related to evolution process (speaking of DNA), as basically the biological structure is same for current humans and those who lived since thousands of years ago (albeit they were much stronger than us).

No, it isn't debatable. We made it to the present as an immensely populous and dominant species without the ability to fly. Clearly, it wasn't necessary.

With all due respect, I believe you're trying to twist the facts in order to support your case.
Why aircraft was invented in the first place, to bombard your enemies? deliver nukes? or greatly shortening travel times?
Common sense, no matter what degrees you do hold, are desperately from your side.

What in the world are you talking about?

That was Ardi, the female human found near Ethiopia and estimated dead since four million years ago.


I'd return for another point to discuss, in case you could give it a chance or otherwise discard it altogether.

 

[WelshBloke]

The vast human advances can't be possible related to evolution process (speaking of DNA), as basically the biological structure is same for current humans and those who lived since thousands of years ago (albeit they were much stronger than us).

Take a child and raise it in the wilderness with no education. Do you think it would be more or less technologically able than, say, the ancient Egyptians?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have always thought that if you don't know something you try and find the reason and truth of it rather than go "Fuck it! Too hard must be magic."

Good. Then I hope you learned something....but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes I know, just saying that d=vt does not work at velocities near c

per the previous link



d=vt may work for you in your reference frame, but a different observer will get different results.

May work in your frame of reference????? May work????? It absolutely does work in your frame of reference, always woks in you're frame of reference. Nowhere in what I said was there any talk of a second observer. The guy on the thought-

idealized streetcar traveling away from the clock tower at the speed of light was the only frame of reference referred to in that case. The thought experiment was never about a streetcar moving at some huge fraction of the speed of light but at light speed itself. The whole point of it was that on such a streetcar the hands on the clock tower would stop because the light from the tower reflecting a later time could never catch the streetcar.

The fact that light has a finite velocity had been known for hundreds of years, and that it is a constant for every observer in any frame since around 1900. It was the realization by Einstein, from the fact that light from the clock tower could never catch him in that frame of reference, but others would see something different that led to the insight that the explanation for this was that time itself is what varies.

People kept arguing as if the streetcar was going less than the speed of light and trying to apply relativity to say that the light from the clock tower would pass the streetcar at the speed of light. That's what Einstein's theory explains, but that theory was reached by Einstein's mind as it traveled on a streetcar that was going the speed of light where the light from the clock tower because it couldn't catch up would indicate that time at the clock tower had stopped. The velocity of light can be a constant in two frames of reference only if clocks in the frames are running at different speeds.

 

[WelshBloke]

Good. Then I hope you learned something....but somehow I doubt it.

I've learnt that some people get very defensive if they have to give any rational reasons for their beliefs.

Its totally your prerogative to believe whatever the hell you like but to pretend that there's some hidden truth that only becomes clear if you don't think to hard about it seems... well it seems a bit desperate TBH.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have always thought that if you don't know something you try and find the reason and truth of it rather than go "Fuck it! Too hard must be magic."

That's all well and good but in your case you don't know something and you don't know you don't know it, nor do you want to because you have no need but a considerable amount of conceit, thinking you know when you don't know something.

Don't get mad. Imagine how lucky you are to now have something new to find out the reason and truth of. Of course you can still decide that what I'm saying is just too hard and must be magic.

 

[BxgJ]

May work in your frame of reference????? May work????? It absolutely does work in your frame of reference, always woks in you're frame of reference. Nowhere in what I said was there any talk of a second observer. The guy on the thought-

It does work of course, for you in your reference frame, poor wording on my part.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I've learnt that some people get very defensive if they have to give any rational reasons for their beliefs.

Then that should be your first clue...that there is no "rational" reason.

Its totally your prerogative to believe whatever the hell you like but to pretend that there's some hidden truth that only becomes clear if you don't think to hard about it seems... well it seems a bit desperate TBH.

I'm not pretending anything....but you apparently don't see this because you're unable to understand anything outside the paradigm you live in.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've learnt that some people get very defensive if they have to give any rational reasons for their beliefs.

Its totally your prerogative to believe whatever the hell you like but to pretend that there's some hidden truth that only becomes clear if you don't think to hard about it seems... well it seems a bit desperate TBH.

As long as you are focused on yoyos and bananas you won't measure up.

 

[realibrad]

First of all, I hope you do realize that it's Evolution theory vs. God existence. So lets not portray that theory as innocent-scientifically-driven one because it isn't. Whether its defendants like it or not, it's clearly motivated by atheism agenda.
That's obvious why it avoid all the common sense around, which undermine or else conflict with that theory conclusions.


Although, as it's already been established & pretty obvious, that I'm being ignorant about the specific details or DNA basics, however, I'm aware of its basic assumptions, overall concept and its conclusions drawn by the researchers, which is my main concern.

Science is innocent such as a shoe is innocent. It breaks down to this.

Evolution fits the data we have, and makes predictions that we can verify. Its logical and rational. If your argument is that it conflicts with god, then you have to accept that god made a world that would point to evolution, but evolution still being wrong. That simply means that you can not use logic and rational argument in support of god, if his very existence conflicts with what is logical and rational. You must accept that you believing god exists is not logical or rational.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Please try to keep that in mind, because I think you think evolution has something to say about god.

 

[Moonbeam]

It does work of course, for you in your reference frame, poor wording on my part.

Thank you. My only issue was that folk were arguing relativity for a streetcar traveling at the speed of light. No such actual streetcar could exist, one has to visualize a photon instead, and in that case one photon can never ever catch another traveling on the same vector and having different times of origin. The notion that such a photon could be caught much less passed at the speed of light is absurd and just a moment of reflection would tell one that in ones guts. It's just simple fact that two things traveling at the same velocity and at different distances can't outrun or overtake each other and if something is traveling as fast as it is possible to travel, can't be caught by anything.