Light created Life [Archive] - Page 3

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th September 2006, 08:40 PM

The original "sodium chloride" post was designed to show you how the "fallacy of composition" worked. Unfortunately, you completely ignored that and went off on a tangent about how your example wasn't about chemistry. Now you are upset because people are assuming that you are so ignorant that you don't know what sodium chloride is?

If you don't want to be the target for insults, don't make yourself such a big target.
If I was afraid of that, why wouldn't I google it? How would you know? And what does that have to do with anything? I am trying to show that I am not going to chase any stick you throw.

This dog is JREF-Lassie, and she's trying to save LCL-Timmy from falling down the well of ignorance. You'd be smart to see what she has in her mouth. (See, I can make bad analogies too!)
See there you go again, trying to show you have a bigger head.

If you had time to make up this bizarre line of reasoning, then you have time to check its accuracy. Many a product has been recalled at great cost of both time and money because it was sent out with bad mistakes.
And you are here to help? Good. You are saying that one of those mistakes is that math considers the "big four" the 4 basic operations of math, right?
Another one is that the two gender thing is wrong. But aren't asexual lifeforms a blend of the two? Aren't they showing male and female energy at work because of the very lack of too much physical? A machine that does both because they are not separated to slow, (or make more complex) the reproductive process?

Are you going to let people post their comments on your website? How can we be sure you are not screening them?
You can see it. I wouldn't put there anything you do not say. Like above. You don't think that I got the 4 basics right, right?

Well, that's all very noble of you, but right now, you haven't explained how this is going to work. Do people e-mail you to comment? Are you going to set up your own forum?
Oh. You want the ability to bend space and time. That is what I have come to realize. You see, anything can be augued from another point of view. That is fair. But if I say that math said these are the 4 basic operations, and you don't think it is, we will see what is.
Now what I think is going on is that you and others are saying that yes, math does say that, (though you can not get yourself to use those words) but "we" think this is more basic. Fine. But I am not wrong in what I said, there is just another "minority" opinion. Of which I will say "but I am not wrong" and there is no reason for me not to use what I got.

But I applaud your acknowledgement that you could be wrong. That is the first step to combatting ignorance. Let us hope it won't be your last. But really, take a course in basic physics. That would be a really BIG step. Let us know how things go.
Wasn't I the one who said I didn't know algrebra, or some word or another? When have you? I think you got yourself trapped with the "big four" thing and can't let go.

And there you go trying to help me again. Fine. Find something that I said wrong about physics and I will post it at the site. By the way, am I using the words there right in what I added on? If particles are not interacting as I said, tell me how they are interacting. What do you think science meant when they said a particle or electron is "captured"? It is hold right? Like a person who is captured is held. Of course in one case it is by energy, and the other case it might be a jail. But they are both describing something "held" right?

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th September 2006, 08:41 PM

That's a nice fantasy. You keep telling yourself that. What book are you reading right now?
You.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th September 2006, 08:46 PM

LCL, I've largely given up hope that you will respond in any reasonable fashion. I seriously doubt anyone cares. "Keep things on track"? I'm sorry but this train has been stuck since page 2. Any hope of getting it on track is a false one to be sure.

Interesting that you don't have any time to respond to this post but here you are responding to it. Rather odd.
Remember you are many and I am one. I do what I can. You do see the difference? The job is harder for the one, but I think I can do it. A little patience will help. Afterall, you are trying to help me, right?

Loss Leader

24th September 2006, 08:49 PM

Another one is that the two gender thing is wrong. But aren't asexual lifeforms a blend of the two? Aren't they showing male and female energy at work because of the very lack of too much physical? A machine that does both because they are not separated to slow, (or make more complex) the reproductive process?

LCL, I believe that you are still reasoning by analogy. Just because some species reproduce by separating out male and female tasks does not mean that an asexual species is a "blend" of male and female. There is no reason to believe that the asexual creature blends male and female characteristics.

A major function of sexual reproduction is the mixing of genes to create greater diversity (and survivability) within a species. An asexual creature does not mix genes within itself - its offspring are all clones. There is no genetic selection at all. Your analogy that an asexual creature is a blend of male and female traits is just wrong.

It's also a little bizzare. I mean, this is really simple stuff. Maybe you should lay off the thinking for a while and get a soda or something.

RandFan

24th September 2006, 08:49 PM

You.The Antichrist --Nietzsche

You?

RandFan

24th September 2006, 09:03 PM

Remember you are many and I am one. I do what I can. You do see the difference? The job is harder for the one, but I think I can do it. A little patience will help. Afterall, you are trying to help me, right?LCL, here's a little experiment for you to try. Click on search/advance search and enter "RandFan" in the User Name field then click search now. Scan the results pages for the first 6 pages. You will notice that I am involved in more than 6 different threads simultaneously. In a period of just two days I have posted 131 times and debated at least 6 different subjects with many different people.

Now, do the same for you. In the same period of time you have posted a grand total of 6 posts on a single subject in a single thread.

Don't give me that crap.

I'll cut you some slack but don't go crying about how difficult it is to debate a subject. You haven't even gotten started yet.

Kochanski

24th September 2006, 09:06 PM

The energy of the mind is some pretty unique stuff. Look at the intelligent work that it does through us? Look at science and technology. If anthing could do the unexpected, it can. Can you really put anything pass it? It stays together befcause it spent a lifetime learning how. If only 1% of all out of body experiences are real, then we have liftoff.

You have not answered my questions.

You have not addressed your misconceptions about evolution. There is no intelligence behind it. It is design from the bottom up. It does not require a plan. It does not have to produce us. It does not aim to produce us. We are not the be all and end all of the universe.

You are making vague statements that say nothing.

You provide no evidence for your statement. Just because amazing things seem possible doesn't mean that you can just assume that they do really happen. We do not operate on wishful thinking here. You must provide evidence to support statements.

How does intelligence stay together after death? Through what agent? Where does it go? How does it get there?

If you want to get anywhere with your ideas you have to be prepared to ask yourself the tough questions. You have to be prepared for others to ask the tough questions. And you have to answer them, truthfully, without evasion. And if you find your idea wanting, if you find that it does not answer these questions then you have to either revise it or scrap it.

If you want help from the people here. Stop wining. Stop evading. Stop behaving like a child and listen to what people are saying, really listen.

If you just want people to applaud you and say how wonderful your idea is so you can bask in the glow of your brilliance, you have come to the wrong place.

bruto

24th September 2006, 09:16 PM

You know me better than you think. Contrary to popular belief I live in books. One of my better habits is to read when I eat. Sought of killing two birds with one stone. You may not have noticed in our last exchange, that while you were only engaging me here, I was engaging you all. Remember that time that I said I was only answering Tricky, I hit overload. The confused state when I fist started was the same thing. I have found a better method now. I am going to use the site to keep track. What was some of your points again? I am now recording them.

Well, then you can record this: so far you have given no evidence that your site contains anything but musing, speculation, metaphor and unwarranted assumptions. You have dodged the most difficult questions, and answered most other questions with further assumption, misunderstanding, arguments from absent premises, teleological speculation and just plain nonsense.

One thing you cannot seem to grasp is that nobody needs to refute or disprove your ideas, in order to say "I don't buy it" or "I think it's nonsense." If I were to tell this forum "LCL's hovercraft is full of eels," the world would not have to stipulate that it is until you disproved my statement! It would be incumbent on me to prove that my statement is true. That you cannot disprove it does not validate it! I cannot jump up and down and say "I win" because nobody can demolish my so-called theory! And if others asserted that my statement was nonsense, it would also be incumbent on me to prove that it is not. If Tricky were to ask me, "What do you mean by that statement" and I were to answer "I mean that my nipples explode with delight," this would not be an improvement.

Your theory, if it can be called that, and your explanation of it, and your pictorial representations of it, are all nonsense. Until you can develop the background knowledge to understand what you're talking about, and the rhetorical skills to explain it, nonsense it will remain.

zizzybaluba

24th September 2006, 09:18 PM

Another one is that the two gender thing is wrong. But aren't asexual lifeforms a blend of the two? Aren't they showing male and female energy at work because of the very lack of too much physical? A machine that does both because they are not separated to slow, (or make more complex) the reproductive process?

Oh, for the love of Ed! Asexual lifeforms a blend of male and female? Where do you get this stuff? Oh yeah, google, oracle of oracles...

Please explain exactly how the reproduction of a bacterium by mitosis is a "blend" of male and female.

Geez, if you believe everything you get out of google, you might as well believe Elvis is alive and JFK was shot by Martians... :boggled:

btw, you still haven't adequately answered my questions; here's a link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1945889#post1945889) back to the original post.

RandFan

24th September 2006, 09:28 PM

...you might as well believe Elvis is alive...Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

Tricky

24th September 2006, 10:06 PM

If I was afraid of that, why wouldn't I google it? How would you know? And what does that have to do with anything? I am trying to show that I am not going to chase any stick you throw?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you aren't going to respond to questions?

See there you go again, trying to show you have a bigger head.Hey, you were the one who first used the metaphor. I just "dogged" your footsteps.

And you are here to help? Good. You are saying that one of those mistakes is that math considers the "big four" the 4 basic operations of math, right?
Wrong. That was just pointing out to you that you were oversimplifying things. One big mistake is that you have not shown evidence that mathematical operations of any kind have anything to do with your pictures or your ideas.

Another one is that the two gender thing is wrong. But aren't asexual lifeforms a blend of the two?No, they are not. Asexual forms do not share genetic information at all. As I say, I will be glad to discuss this further if you show a willingness to learn.

Aren't they showing male and female energy at work because of the very lack of too much physical? A machine that does both because they are not separated to slow, (or make more complex) the reproductive process?
Asexual organisms do not "do both". Sexuality evolved as a way for different individuals to share genitic material, and there are numerous effects of this. Before the evolution of sexuality, there was no sharing. Asexual organisms, in the past and in the present, are not a combination of male and female.

Let me give you an example from the plant kingdom. If a plant has flowers then it may recieve pollen from a different plant, either by insects, wind or other methods. There is an exchange of genetic material. However, some plants have alternate methods of reproduction. For example, you may take a cutting off of a plant, place it in water, and it will grow roots, allowing you to start a new plant. But there is no exchange of genetic material. The cutting is genetically identical to the plant you took it from. For some plants, this is the only way they reproduce. They don't even have flowers. They are not sexual organisms.

Plants born from seeds have some gene content from both the plant with the flower and the plant that sent the pollen. Plants that reproduce by budding have only the genes of the plant it budded from.

You can see it. I wouldn't put there anything you do not say. Like above. You don't think that I got the 4 basics right, right?In case you didn't notice, I already said I will concede that point to you, meaning that I agree that ASMD are the four "basic" operations. But you still have shown nothing to give evidence that they are related to love, hate, attraction and repulsion. Nothing. That is one of the problems with your pictures, not that you can't identify "the big four".

Oh. You want the ability to bend space and time. That is what I have come to realize. You see, anything can be augued from another point of view. That is fair. But if I say that math said these are the 4 basic operations, and you don't think it is, we will see what is.
Not all "points of view" are equal, LCL. Some are supported by evidence. Yours is not. Not because of what the basic operations are, but because you fail to make any logical or evidencial connection between them and the characteristics of energy, force or emotions.

Now what I think is going on is that you and others are saying that yes, math does say that, (though you can not get yourself to use those words) but "we" think this is more basic. Fine. But I am not wrong in what I said, there is just another "minority" opinion. Of which I will say "but I am not wrong" and there is no reason for me not to use what I got.
You are wrong in many of the things you said. We are not just "ganging up on you". There is a reason why we all agree that you are wrong.

See, here is the problem with the "use what you got" strategy. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Similarly, when all you have is "the big four", you think you can solve any problem with them. I assure you that you cannot build a skyscraper with just a hammer. Get some more tools, LCL.

Wasn't I the one who said I didn't know algrebra, or some word or another? When have you? I think you got yourself trapped with the "big four" thing and can't let go.
You don't understand algebra, nor can you spell it. Algebra is taught in the ninth or tenth grade of high school even in Alabama. This is another reason why I think you have a minimal educational background. For some reason you seem to think you don't need it, but you are wrong. The reason they teach it in high school is because everybody needs it. You may not need biology or calculus or physics, but algebra is used for everyday situations, from the grocery store, to figuring how much time you need to complete a series of tasks.

It would be another good tool to have in your belt.

And there you go trying to help me again. Fine. Find something that I said wrong about physics and I will post it at the site.
Okay, how about this
The characteristics of the electrical part of light are negative and positive, those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Several knowledgable people here have pointed out this glaring error. It shows an incredible lack of knowledge about electromagnetics. And there are many other examples. In fact, there is almost nothing on your site that is scientifically correct.

By the way, am I using the words there right in what I added on? If particles are not interacting as I said, tell me how they are interacting.
It is a hodgpodge of bad information. What "particles" are you talking about? Electrons? Atoms? Molecules? What kind of "capture" do you mean? Why do you think all energy interctions involve particle capture? (Hint: they don't.) "Charged" does not mean a particle has energy. (You are thinking of batteries).

I appreciate that you are trying to incorporate the concepts that you have been shown here into your "model", but you are tilting at windmills. You cannot make your model work, because the charicteristics of the universe have nothing to do with human emotions. Humans are a tiny speck in the universe. However, we are a very complex tiny speck, and so your attempt to model highly complex human patterns on highly simplified concepts of energy, mathematics, gender, force etc. are doomed to failure.

Instead of trying to make a "Theory of Everything", start out with a "Knowledge of Some Things". Pick a single field you like (I highly recommend biology) and pursue it in some depth. You'll learn a lot about the other things along the way.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th September 2006, 10:15 PM

You appear to not understand evolution. You speak of humans being the apex of a quest. Well, no, evolution did NOT have to produce us. It was not seeking to produce us. It is NOT design from the top down it is design from the bottom up. No intelligence is necessary for evolution to occur. Evolution by natural selection does not require it. And if it were to start all over again there is no guarantee it would produce us.
When I said us, I meant higher life no matter what it happened to look like. "We" may have been dinosaurs if that rock hadn't got them.

As for your notion of the mind staying together after death, proof? Where? How?
All I need is for 1% of all near death experiences to be true.
It is the responsible for us to be as smart as we are, all it needs is one more step and the universe opens up. Can you really put anything pass it?
And what is the harm of thinking positive. Wouldn't it be a good idea to assume there is an after? If there isn't no harm done.

You need to stop being so in love with your idea that you listen to what people here are telling you. You came here for help and people are giving it but you do not see it.
Your help is for me to throw that thing away and start over, right? That everything it says is wrong.

RandFan

24th September 2006, 10:25 PM

All I need is for 1% of all near death experiences to be true.Fallacy. What you need is proof. Besides, Near Death has been thoroughly debunked. It can easily be replicated using a centerfuge like those used to test astronaughts.

Also,

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1827038

TobiasTheViking

24th September 2006, 10:41 PM

RandFan

24th September 2006, 10:55 PM

It can easily be replicated using a centerfuge [sic] like those used to test astronaughts [sic]. Damn! It was all for naught. That'll let the the air out of my sails real quick.

wollery

24th September 2006, 10:55 PM

So, even though they are in the name of it, light is not made up of them, it is made up of them interacting? Wouldn't they have to be there in order to interact?Again, your reading comprehension lets you down. I said "electric and magnetic interactions", not "interactions between electric and magnetic fields". This is important, because EM radiation can be emitted without any interaction between the two. For instance, in a light bulb the light is emitted by the de-excitation of electrons which have been excited into unstable high energy levels by electric current. Electric interaction, but no magnetic field interaction.

In fact gamma rays (very high energy EM radiation) are emitted during the nucleosynthesis process in which Nitrogen is turned into Neon in Red Giant stars. This is a process which involves the strong nuclear force.

Oh, hang on, that's one of the other forces, what the heck is it doing being responsible for EM radiation? Unless of course EM radiation isn't simply a combination of electric and magnetic. But you couldn't be wrong about that, could you.

You wish you could find a silver bullet like that. Here we are on the 11th page and you are just getting around to something you claim was so obvious? Those two things are in the name, and you agree that they are there "interacting" but light is not a combination of the two?
Okay. It is a phenomenon that results from a combination of electrical and magnetic interactions.You were told in the first few pages that you were totally and utterly wrong about EM radiation. And there's no need for a silver bullet, or any sort of bullet, you work is already dead.

There is a math code linked to it, but it is not here. And you know I have been saying it had math in it, but since some saw no numbers I agreed with them that there was not math. Afterall, there are no numbers. Still, even the maths in the code requires only 1 of its basic operations.So does it involve maths or doesn't it? :confused:

Tricky understood it. It is the element most linked to organicl life. It is there that inoganic crosses to organic.Umm, no. Organic material is a highly complex system which requires a large number of different elements, including oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, chlorine....

Terrestrial life is sometimes referred to as Carbon-based, but this is to differentiate it from hypothetical life which could use Silicon to do exactly the same job as Carbon. The fact that Silicon can do the same job clearly makes Carbon less essential for life than other elements.

You guys have a serious problem. Everybody wants to be a teacher, but there is nothing new that you can learn. I did not come seeking help, and no one tried to help me. All that "bull" that came at me in the beginning you call help?No, I call it honest assessment of your website. Since then many people have tried to educate you about maths, science, biology, philosophy & logic, but you have chosen to ignore all of that information.

You keep saying that the characteristics you use are the ones that science gives to light and life, but you have been told, by working scientists, that you are wrong about these characteristics. That you choose to ignore these people (including me) shows that you have no interest at all in learning anything.

If I had wanted some, it would have been plain that I could not find any here. You guys are only about showing how much more intelligent you are, and you are not doing a good job at that.:nope:

If all you are going to do is ignore scientists when they tell you about science, and instead rely on populist websites that may not be written by scientists then there really is no hope for you ever to learn any actual science.

Where were you when things were said to me? :rolleyes: I never said that things weren't said to you, but it's a little off to be telling people off for calling you names when you've been doing the same yourself.

Taffer

24th September 2006, 11:01 PM

Time light cube?

RandFan

24th September 2006, 11:17 PM

Time light cube?:D I caught the similarities also. See page 1.

Taffer

24th September 2006, 11:35 PM

I saw "Life is light" and skipped right to the last page. :)

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th September 2006, 11:48 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you aren't going to respond to questions?
It means that I am not going to run to the dictionary to look up salt simply because you say so. Especially if it has nothing to do with that graph.

Wrong. That was just pointing out to you that you were oversimplifying things. One big mistake is that you have not shown evidence that mathematical operations of any kind have anything to do with your pictures or your ideas.
I knew my new method would bear fruit. You were just trying to help me see? Simplifying things is what the graph is trying to do. It says, if there is a soul, what would be basic to it? And the things that I have listed there are basic to it. As I said before, what would you list there that is more basic?
The universe is as based on math, as much as it is on anything else. That is why science knows that there is a mathematical formula to explain it. And it is why science can sling spacecraft around planets to have them arrive when, and where, it wants.

No, they are not. Asexual forms do not share genetic information at all. As I say, I will be glad to discuss this further if you show a willingness to learn.
Genetic information is not all there is to it. I am talking about an energy base before biology. The one matter and biology is based on.

Asexual organisms do not "do both". Sexuality evolved as a way for different individuals to share genitic material, and there are numerous effects of this. Before the evolution of sexuality, there was no sharing. Asexual organisms, in the past and in the present, are not a combination of male and female.
Again I am talking about the energy base. A base that has to physically go through one, before it can be two.

Let me give you an example from the plant kingdom. If a plant has flowers then it may recieve pollen from a different plant, either by insects, wind or other methods. There is an exchange of genetic material. However, some plants have alternate methods of reproduction. For example, you may take a cutting off of a plant, place it in water, and it will grow roots, allowing you to start a new plant. But there is no exchange of genetic material. The cutting is genetically identical to the plant you took it from. For some plants, this is the only way they reproduce. They don't even have flowers. They are not sexual organisms.
I know these things to be true, but as the site shows, I have always been talking about the energy base moving through inorganic, to organic. At the base level of organic it is a blend of them both. The energy on which matter is based.

In case you didn't notice, I already said I will concede that point to you, meaning that I agree that ASMD are the four "basic" operations. But you still have shown nothing to give evidence that they are related to love, hate, attraction and repulsion. Nothing. That is one of the problems with your pictures, not that you can't identify "the big four".
I reworked the center box here, will at the site to say that while I believe that those things are emergent properties of the energy ay work at the base, that the things in the center box are of what I think to be basic to the soul of life and them seeming to relate to each other must be a coincidence. Though it is strange how that coincidence happened 8 times. And I decided to put the soul there because the lines of the graph crossed there at the center.

Not all "points of view" are equal, LCL. Some are supported by evidence. Yours is not. Not because of what the basic operations are, but because you fail to make any logical or evidencial connection between them and the characteristics of energy, force or emotions.
Science defined their characteristics and it is not hard to relate the characteristics of one with another. Attraction is easy, the two magnets look like they are embracing. You look over at two lovers and they have to sometimes be pried apart too. And since we owe how....
What is wrong with that logic?

You are wrong in many of the things you said. We are not just "ganging up on you". There is a reason why we all agree that you are wrong.
Yes someone said, this is what you all do here, debunk different ideas. You have a certain view, and all else is wrong. You support each other attacks. A couple of people chimed right in on the math this, and held it just as firmly.

See, here is the problem with the "use what you got" strategy. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Similarly, when all you have is "the big four", you think you can solve any problem with them. I assure you that you cannot build a skyscraper with just a hammer. Get some more tools, LCL.
I don't need to know how to swim if I stay in 5 feet of water. If I need to leave it I can always rent a boat. I got throught electronic school using a calculator.

You don't understand algebra, nor can you spell it. Algebra is taught in the ninth or tenth grade of high school even in Alabama. This is another reason why I think you have a minimal educational background. For some reason you seem to think you don't need it, but you are wrong. The reason they teach it in high school is because everybody needs it. You may not need biology or calculus or physics, but algebra is used for everyday situations, from the grocery store, to figuring how much time you need to complete a series of tasks.
Be careful, that is the type of statement that will end up on the site. The grocery store does not require algebra, and telling time is all that is need to calculate tasks.

It would be another good tool to have in your belt.
More is always better, but you use what you got.

Okay, how about this
Several knowledgable people here have pointed out this glaring error. It shows an incredible lack of knowledge about electromagnetics. And there are many other examples. In fact, there is almost nothing on your site that is scientifically correct.
So we can start there. Electrical energy does not have positive and negative as chacteristics/properties. And not attaction or repulsion for magnetism, right?

It is a hodgpodge of bad information. What "particles" are you talking about? Electrons? Atoms? Molecules? What kind of "capture" do you mean?
If an electron, is captured, or an atom is captured, or a molecule, wouldn't it all mean that it was being held by something. The word still means the same thing. It is not like it would change to mean neutral.

Why do you think all energy interctions involve particle capture? (Hint: they don't.) "Charged" does not mean a particle has energy. (You are thinking of batteries).
Capture is just an easy example, hard to get around what is being said. And I listed lots of other things that science said that they were doing at the site.
So you are saying that when science says "charged particle" that it does not have more energy, for some reason, than another? And since I said charged in relation to particles, I was not thinking battery. I know. When I think battery, that is what I will say.

[quote]ciate that you are trying to incorporate the concepts that you have been shown here into your "model", but you are tilting at windmills.
There your head goes again. Ask that downunder guy someone was talking to, I have been saying the same thing everywhere I go. I don't know how he found me here, with the name being different and all. I am going to have to ask him. No. I added to the site because you all still seem to be unable to grasp the simple. So I am making it simpler. And you said yourself how resistant I am to anything new. I already have what I need, you see more, when I say more. And I am never at a lost for something to say.

not make your model work, because the charicteristics of the universe have nothing to do with human emotions. Humans are a tiny speck in the universe. However, we are a very complex tiny speck, and so your attempt to model highly complex human patterns on highly simplified concepts of energy, mathematics, gender, force etc. are doomed to failure.
Not human emotions, lifes' emotions. Logic and emotions are probably what led to the whole drama to begin with. And don't worry so much about me so much, I'll be okay. And if not, I tied.

Belz...

25th September 2006, 04:59 AM

The energy of the mind is some pretty unique stuff. Look at the intelligent work that it does through us? Look at science and technology.

That doesn't mean that it's some new form of energy.

See there you go again, trying to show you have a bigger head.

Do you have an inferiority complex ?

But aren't asexual lifeforms a blend of the two? Aren't they showing male and female energy at work because of the very lack of too much physical?

Er... no.

The universe is as based on math, as much as it is on anything else.

Actually, it's the reverse.

Again I am talking about the energy base. A base that has to physically go through one, before it can be two.

That doesn't even make sense.

I reworked the center box here, will at the site to say that while I believe that those things are emergent properties of the energy ay work at the base, that the things in the center box are of what I think to be basic to the soul of life and them seeming to relate to each other must be a coincidence. Though it is strange how that coincidence happened 8 times. And I decided to put the soul there because the lines of the graph crossed there at the center.

I hope you realise what this means: your "graph" is arbitrary.

I don't need to know how to swim if I stay in 5 feet of water.

You won't find the truth that's at the bottom of the abyss, though.

So you are saying that when science says "charged particle" that it does not have more energy, for some reason, than another?

Yes. It doesn't.

Tricky

25th September 2006, 06:54 AM

I'm going out of town for about a week, so I leave it to others to demolish your fantasies, LCL. I wish I had time, but that's life.

One quick thing. You have not (and cannot) show that there is any relationship between sex or gender and your poorly-described and probably imaginary "energy base". It's good that you keep changing your story as you find out how wrong the previous one was, but unfortunately, you just change to something else that you are ignorant about.

Oh, and if a hydrogen atom loses an electron, you wind up with two charged particles, each less than the original uncharged molecule. So you see, particle charge has nothing to do with how much energy they have. A basic knowledge of chemistry is all one needs to know that you are clueless about this.

Maybe I'll check in from time to time to see how ridiculous you have gotten. My morbid curiosity, I guess.

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 09:54 AM

That doesn't mean that it's some new form of energy.
Show it does. I don't you know that all chemical reactions also have energy reactions?

Do you have an inferiority complex ?
coming from someone who has a picture of themselves as some sought of huge demon. Don't worry about me. I have no need to feel inferior to anyone here.

Google says: "In physics a charaged particle is a particle with an electric charge,"

I hope you realise what this means: your "graph" is arbitrary.
There is that catch word again, name me something that can't be seen as arbitrary?

You won't find the truth that's at the bottom of the abyss, though.
Can any method be used to find everything?

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 10:10 AM

I'm going out of town for about a week, so I leave it to others to demolish your fantasies, LCL. I wish I had time, but that's life.

Convenient, but I will probably still be here. I will miss you.

One quick thing. You have not (and cannot) show that there is any relationship between sex or gender and your poorly-described and probably imaginary "energy base". It's good that you keep changing your story as you find out how wrong the previous one was, but unfortunately, you just change to something else that you are ignorant about.
I have always talked about the energy base behind what is physical. And the characteristics of electrical and magnetic energy "may" just be that link.

Oh, and if a hydrogen atom loses an electron, you wind up with two charged particles, each less than the original uncharged molecule. So you see, particle charge has nothing to do with how much energy they have. A basic knowledge of chemistry is all one needs to know that you are clueless about this.
Google says: In physics a charged particle is a particle with and electric charge. And I did not say how charged, I said charged, and you agree. The one appears to have been balancing the others. If those particles were people, it sounds like the two left are upset about the one leaving.

Maybe I'll check in from time to time to see how ridiculous you have gotten. My morbid curiosity, I guess.
You do that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 11:52 AM

"If light needed to become life in order to achieve consciousness then how could it have formed the intent to educate itself before it was capable of sentient thought?"
Whatever put the forces together so that they made the universe made it possible for energy to accumulate/evolve/become individual intelligent being through life. Light is the one of the four that characteristics match those of our mental/emotional nature. Therefore, light can logically be said to be the one most tied to the creation of life.
But even if there was no "designer" and the 4 forces "just happened" to land with what it took to do everything on their own, there would still be room for the "thought" of a designer of how and why the 4 landed the way they did. I think that there is room for at least one, that provided a plan to convert energy into individual, intelligent beings.

Are you still ignoring it?
As I have said many times before, I am one, you are many. I will get to everyone and everything, but it will take time. Skipping someone one purpose would be too easily seen to work as a method.

Again, you are making the error of argumentum ad populum.
What does that mean? I don't know any latin.

The above link will explain it, and others, in detail. Just because we live in the "much more modern world" does not mean that the human population has purged itself of irrational beliefs. In our much more modern world a startling number of people believe in ghosts and alien abductions.
Yes, but because a lot of those things are not true does not mean that all the things that are thought to be out there are not.
I for one believe in life in the universe, but not that any has visited here. But some believe that because they are in the universe, they had to have visited here. I just don't like the idea of them coming here in secret, but then not turning out the lights of their ships when they fly around at night. Military planes do when they don't want to be seen, why not them?
But while I don't believe them to be here, I can only rule it out to 99%.

The soul is a different subject, life has a mental/emotional nature, and since everything physical has energy to thank for how it looks and behaves, why not life? As I said, the characteristics of those energies, as defined by science, "seems" to relate to the social interactions of life.

Put another way: Say during the mid 16th century a supporter of Copernicus and a supporter of Ptolemy are arguing about heliocentrism. The Ptolemyan says that the Geocentric model is widely held to be true. The Copernican then says "argumentum ad populum" and points out that prior to about 500 b.c.e. the notion of a flat Earth was widely held to be true. The Ptolemyan then says "The Geocentric model is still widely held even in our much more modern world".
Religion may be a myth that science will never make a minority opinion. But that is because it is built on something that may be a part of us. There isl another side to life that cannot be spoken for through logic alone. Remember, there were people who thought that life here was part of a "grander" plan long before science introduced the universe. Likewise there were those who talked about an invisible world all around us that governed how and why things happened. They called it a spirit world, science knows now that there is "another" world of energy that does in fact do a lot of the things that had been said of it. Not all, or even how things were once said to have been done, but there.

Do you see what I'm getting at?
I think I do. Majority opinion does not always make truth. Especially opinions not grounded in science. I fault how unchanging religion is in the face of all that science has now shown us to be true. Still, if you strip away all the "ego stuff" of what God looks like, what it thinks, and who it likes best, there is a core feeling/push for the finer actions of humans. And while those feelings have not always lived up to their ideals, (to put it kindly) where else would those things be addressed?

RandFan

25th September 2006, 11:58 AM

Whatever put the forces together so that they made the universe made it possible for energy to accumulate/evolve/become individual intelligent being through life. Light is the one of the four that characteristics match those of our mental/emotional nature. Therefore, light can logically be said to be the one most tied to the creation of life.

But even if there was no "designer" and the 4 forces "just happened" to land with what it took to do everything on their own, there would still be room for the "thought" of a designer of how and why the 4 landed the way they did. I think that there is room for at least one, that provided a plan to convert energy into individual, intelligent beings.That's all well and good... no, wait, that's not all well and good but it is beside the point. Could you answer the question? It was a damn good question.

Mashuna

25th September 2006, 12:07 PM

I've tried to stop reading this thread, but I keep getting pulled back in a voyeuristic way.

There's not really much I feel I can add to what the other posters have already said. I can sympathise in a way, I was putting up wallpaper at the weekend, spending hours pushing on air bubbles. . .

Anyway, all I was wondering was this. Lightcreatedlife, have you ever presented your ideas to people who agreed with them, or thought they made sense in any way? If so, did they think that they made sense as a kind of metaphor, or literally, as an explanation for the universe?

Belz...

25th September 2006, 12:10 PM

Show it does.

Nuh-huh. Your claim. Your proof.

coming from someone who has a picture of themselves as some sought of huge demon.

Hint: it's not a picture.

There is that catch word again, name me something that can't be seen as arbitrary?

Gravity.

Can any method be used to find everything?

The scientific one's been pretty successful so far.

zizzybaluba

25th September 2006, 12:20 PM

Google says: In physics a charged particle is a particle with and electric charge.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, address the fact that Google is a search engine, and not a reference work, for science or any other disipline.

TobiasTheViking

25th September 2006, 01:13 PM

GzuzKryzt

25th September 2006, 02:39 PM

... If this does not fly for you, tell me what else would have the universal reach to do the job?

A multiversal reacharound while doing a job.

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 06:28 PM

A multiversal reacharound while doing a job.And you ain't got nothing else to do? If you had something to say, I guess you would have said it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 06:40 PM

That's all well and good... no, wait, that's not all well and good but it is beside the point. Could you answer the question? It was a damn good question.
The question was If light needed life to become conscious...
Who said that light needed life to become conscious? The energy could be conscious already, and achieve individual "physical consciousness" though life. Or, of the four forces, light could be the delivery system of consciousness in accordance with a plan that involved them all. The ingredients for it to happen, written into that energy.

GzuzKryzt

25th September 2006, 06:43 PM

And you ain't got nothing else to do? If you had something to say, I guess you would have said it.

And you ain't got nothing else to do? If you had something to say, I guess you would have said it.

wollery

25th September 2006, 06:46 PM

Any chance of you ever addressing my post?

It's here. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1950271&postcount=519)

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 07:21 PM

Yet again you ignore me...

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -. <- Refrased to remove the word "pole", can you now answer the question?

2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves. <- my question may have been badly formulated considering your last reply. I guess it would be better to formulate the question "In what way do we have the same characteristics as light".

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.
Here is the rework. I won't repeat it. In drawing the graph, when the two life forces crossed in the center, I thought that that would be where the soul of life would be found. So I put there all the things that I thought best represented the soul of life.
First there is the 4 characteristics of the two parts of electromagnetism and they are the same as I put there. The lines of the graph showed me where to put them. The mental/emotional nature of life came next and they too are the same as I put there. And as it turned out, math also fit the say way. Now there are other things that I can add to that center box that would also represent the soul, the 4 parts of DNA for instance because the soul reaches to include everything, but I decided to stop with what I have there. But if you can think of something that better represents the soul than what I have put there, please tell me.

Now, while I believe that the things in the center box are "emergent properties" of the energy base, I can understand how others might not see it that way. And it is really amazing to me the way they all fell into place. When I went to place them in the box, I followed the pattern where the words seemed to relate to each other. In a sense, they told me how to place them. But them being related to each other "may" be nothing more then a huge coincidence. One that just happened to happen 8 times. When does a coincidence stop being a coincidence? Oh well. Wouldn't it be something if they really were related to each other? I am going to have to look into that further.

As for question number 5? Magnets have no choice in the way they act. Life however has a layer of biology that gives them more control over their energy base. This gives the highest forms of life "somewhat" of a choice over how and when they act. A person can be highly attracted to someone and reason themselves away from stalking them, others however may have less control. They may reason that they love someone so much that they have no other choice but to kill them.
Still, when people say things like good girls liking bad boys, and the other way round, aren't they saying that opposites attract? And in doing so are they not showing their energy base?

RandFan

25th September 2006, 07:30 PM

Who said that light needed life to become conscious? I can't find the quote. Sorry. I was reasonably certain you said it. I'll withdraw my request until Foster can address it.

The energy could be conscious already, and achieve individual "physical consciousness" though life. What is non-physical consciousness?

Or, of the four forces, light could be the delivery system of consciousness in accordance with a plan that involved them all. The ingredients for it to happen, written into that energy. "Could be"? There is an infint set of possibilities within "could be".

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 07:35 PM

[quote=wollery;1950271]Again, your reading comprehension lets you down. I said "electric and magnetic interactions", not "interactions between electric and magnetic fields". This is important, because EM radiation can be emitted without any interaction between the two. For instance, in a light bulb the light is emitted by the de-excitation of electrons which have been excited into unstable high energy levels by electric current. Electric interaction, but no magnetic field interaction.
{/quote] Your examples are of how EM radiation can be emitted without any interaction between the two, but you left out examples where it is. And isn't it true that any electrical action has a magnetic action, and the same going for magnetic actions? I think that is why electrical energy can be used to make electromagnets and magnetism is used at power plants to make electricity.
I actually have to go to where you are posted to see what I said. Give me a second. I will answer the rest.

Loss Leader

25th September 2006, 08:12 PM

And it is really amazing to me the way they all fell into place. When I went to place them in the box, I followed the pattern where the words seemed to relate to each other. In a sense, they told me how to place them. But them being related to each other "may" be nothing more then a huge coincidence. One that just happened to happen 8 times. When does a coincidence stop being a coincidence?

LCL, I have bolded part of your post in order to highlight to you what I think is very clear to everyone but you: This chart of yours is nothing more than reasoning by analogy.

You are creating analogies (male and female are opposites like negative and positive charge are opposites). But there is no reason to believe that these analogies are really similar phenomena. Males characteristics and female characteristics are not opposites, they're just different. Violence and nurturing are not opposites; the same person can do both and, in fact, can do them at the same time.

It is not a coincidence that you've found eight pairs to fill in your chart. It is, actually, expected. After you found one or two situations you thought were analogous, you went out and looked for more, disregarding whether there was good reason to. After we see two busses pass one after the other, we look for the third.

The fact that we popularly call women the opposite of men has no bearing. The opposite of a man is an inside-out man.

Please consider whether there is any reason to believe that just because the things on your chart "seem" like each other, it doesn't mean that one caused the other.

zizzybaluba

25th September 2006, 08:16 PM

Here is the rework. I won't repeat it. In drawing the graph, when the two life forces crossed in the center, I thought that that would be where the soul of life would be found. So I put there all the things that I thought best represented the soul of life.
First there is the 4 characteristics of the two parts of electromagnetism and they are the same as I put there. The lines of the graph showed me where to put them. The mental/emotional nature of life came next and they too are the same as I put there. And as it turned out, math also fit the say way. Now there are other things that I can add to that center box that would also represent the soul, the 4 parts of DNA for instance because the soul reaches to include everything, but I decided to stop with what I have there. But if you can think of something that better represents the soul than what I have put there, please tell me.

Now, while I believe that the things in the center box are "emergent properties" of the energy base, I can understand how others might not see it that way. And it is really amazing to me the way they all fell into place. When I went to place them in the box, I followed the pattern where the words seemed to relate to each other. In a sense, they told me how to place them. But them being related to each other "may" be nothing more then a huge coincidence. One that just happened to happen 8 times. When does a coincidence stop being a coincidence? Oh well. Wouldn't it be something if they really were related to each other? I am going to have to look into that further.

As for question number 5? Magnets have no choice in the way they act. Life however has a layer of biology that gives them more control over their energy base. This gives the highest forms of life "somewhat" of a choice over how and when they act. A person can be highly attracted to someone and reason themselves away from stalking them, others however may have less control. They may reason that they love someone so much that they have no other choice but to kill them.
Still, when people say things like good girls liking bad boys, and the other way round, aren't they saying that opposites attract? And in doing so are they not showing their energy base?

Once again, a meaningless diatribe. It does not even remotely address Tobias' questions.

Taffer

25th September 2006, 08:27 PM

LCL: you do realize that electromagnatism is one thing, right?

lightcreatedlife@hom

25th September 2006, 08:47 PM

In fact gamma rays (very high energy EM radiation) are emitted during the nucleosynthesis process in which Nitrogen is turned into Neon in Red Giant stars. This is a process which involves the strong nuclear force.

Oh, hang on, that's one of the other forces, what the heck is it doing being responsible for EM radiation? Unless of course EM radiation isn't simply a combination of electric and magnetic. But you couldn't be wrong about that, could you.

It is possible. You obviously know more than me. And I simply do not believe that you would make such a thing up. I will have to look into it. (I hate that.) But even I know that light is not the only source of EM radiation. And I never said that EM radiation was "simply" a combination of the two. It can be as complex as it needs to be. What you say though sounds logical to me. But you know what sounds even more logical? Science named light electromagnetic radiation. Are you saying that they did this because they liked the name? They also say that it has wave/particle characteristics. That sounds like those very same things interacting with one another.

You were told in the first few pages that you were totally and utterly wrong about EM radiation. And there's no need for a silver bullet, or any sort of bullet, you work is already dead.
Okay, here is totally and utterly wrong for you. I googled up electromagnetic radiation and Wikipedia said: "Electromagnetic radiation is generally described as a self-propagating wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components oscillate at right angles to each other and in the direction of propagation, and are in phase with each other." You were saying?
And of course you must have already known that. If all that stuff you said above is right, you had to know this. Even I knew this. I do not believe the length some of you will go through in order to be right? And you wonder why I stand by what I said. I stand by it because it is right, and you all will stop at nothing to make it appear wrong.
I think I am going to have to put this little bit of "shuffle" up at on my site, so that others will not waste my time. What are you doing? And why did you think I would not look?

So does it involve maths or doesn't it? :confused:
Of course it does. I would not say it if it didn't. Unlike some people.

Umm, no. Organic material is a highly complex system which requires a large number of different elements, including oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, chlorine....
I think I said carbon with the help of others. You have just named the others, thanks. I did not go into depth because that was not what I was trying to get across at the time.

No, I call it honest assessment of your website. Since then many people have tried to educate you about maths, science, biology, philosophy & logic, but you have chosen to ignore all of that information.
Honest assessment? I have seen what some here call honest assessment. But I am not ignoring anybody, I can't afford too.

You keep saying that the characteristics you use are the ones that science gives to light and life, but you have been told, by working scientists, that you are wrong about these characteristics. That you choose to ignore these people (including me) shows that you have no interest at all in learning anything.
I am learning something alright.
I look where they say and often find the same thing you just tried to do with electromagnetic radiation. Some of your egos are getting in the way of your logic, and what you think is right. And some of you think you represent sceince? News flash, right is right no matter how you personally feel about it.

zizzybaluba

25th September 2006, 09:09 PM

I will have to look into it. (I hate that.)

That's plainly obvious.

TobiasTheViking

25th September 2006, 11:30 PM

Atleast you replied.. if only you had also answered.

Here is the rework. I won't repeat it.

I don't want you to repeat it, because it is all irrelevant and nonsensical. I've asked you many times to answer, you have yet to do that. This is, once more, a reply, not an answer.

In drawing the graph, when the two life forces crossed in the center,

I am not talking about your graph, i don't care one bit about your graph, the graph is evidence of nothing, it shows nothing, it is totally irrelevant.

I thought that that would be where the soul of life would be found.

You have yet to give evidence of the soul, but since i'm only allowed to ask 5 questions at a time, i won't ask you for evidence of it. Also, i doubt you would answer it. Maybe reply, but not answer.

So I put there all the things that I thought best represented the soul of life.

Wait.. you PUT it there? So you just arbitrarily made a graph and you just PUT it there??????

First there is the 4 characteristics of the two parts of electromagnetism and they are the same as I put there.

Irrelevant

The lines of the graph showed me where to put them.

The graph is irrelevant

The mental/emotional nature of life came next and they too are the same as I put there.

Again irrelevant

And as it turned out, math also fit the say way.

It does? i would ask for evidence but i can only ask 5 questions.. But you have shown no evidence to prove that

Now there are other things that I can add to that center box that would also represent the soul,

Again you just want to arbitrarily add something to the graph.

That is not how it works. That makes your entire graph null and void.

the 4 parts of DNA for instance because the soul reaches to include everything, but I decided to stop with what I have there.

Wait, you just stop.. So first off you arbitrarily make a graph that proves nothing, but then at the same time you just arbitrarily cut off the data that you claim is relevant for the graph.. That graph just becomes less and less usefull(if that is possible)

But if you can think of something that better represents the soul than what I have put there, please tell me.

Sure, here you have what i think represents the soul better

Nothing, as there is no soul.

Better?

Now, while I believe that the things in the center box are "emergent properties" of the energy base,

Your belief is irrelevant, only data and facts are relevant.

I can understand how others might not see it that way.

Because others want reality, want to see the world as it is, and not just pollute their view of the world with arbitrary and irrelevant graphs that prove nothing.

And it is really amazing to me the way they all fell into place.

When you arbitrarily make a graph, of course it will fall into place.

When I went to place them in the box, I followed the pattern where the words seemed to relate to each other.

That is not how one makes a scientific graph. Again, you have made your graph a moot point.

In a sense, they told me how to place them.

Who are they?

And if by they you mean the energy bases, then how did they do that?

But them being related to each other "may" be nothing more then a huge coincidence.

You have yet to show how they relate to each other. Till you have shown that they do any reason for relation between them(or lack of same) is irrelevant since we aren't sure if they relate.

Don't sell the hen untill you have it bagged.

One that just happened to happen 8 times.

Just "happened" to "happen" when you arbitrarily make a graph.

Talking of a selffullfiling prophecy

When does a coincidence stop being a coincidence?

First off, you have yet to show there is a coincidence.

Once that is done we can try to see when it stops being a coincidence.

For now, there is not even evidence of correlation, without correlation there can be no coincidence.

Oh well. Wouldn't it be something if they really were related to each other?

Yeah, it would be a whole new area of science. Which i would welcome, since science tells us how the world works. If we get a better understanding off how the world works, we reach a higher pinnacle.

I am going to have to look into that further.

I fail to see why you investigating it would matter since you have shown time and time again that you are inept when it comes to data gathering, data analysis and the entire scientific approach.

But do what you like, just don't tell us it is the gospel truth without proof.

As for question number 5? Magnets have no choice in the way they act.

If they have no choice over the way they repulse and attract, and we are "based on them", then why would we have a choice?

Life however has a layer of biology that gives them more control over their energy base.

In what way?

This gives the highest forms of life "somewhat" of a choice over how and when they act.

How?

Got any evidence for that statement?

A person can be highly attracted to someone and reason themselves away from stalking them, others however may have less control.

So you are saying that i am right, and that human behavior is NOT the same as magnetic attraction and repulsion?

They may reason that they love someone so much that they have no other choice but to kill them.

Wait, how does that relate to magnetic attraction and repulsion. I've never seen a magnet commit magneticide.

Still, when people say things like good girls liking bad boys, and the other way round, aren't they saying that opposites attract?

So you are saying that i am wrong, and taht human behavior IS the same as magentic attraction and repulsion?

Which is it?

And in doing so are they not showing their energy base?

No.

As i have said many times, human behaviour and emotion is not just one of two options, there is an entire palett of human emotion to draw from.

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Solus

25th September 2006, 11:46 PM

RandFan

25th September 2006, 11:47 PM

Anacoluthon64

26th September 2006, 02:55 AM

Belz...

26th September 2006, 04:40 AM

Who said that light needed life to become conscious? The energy could be conscious already, and achieve individual "physical consciousness" though life.

Is that supposed to make sense ?

Or, of the four forces, light could be the delivery system of consciousness in accordance with a plan that involved them all.

Do you have anything save for speculation ?

when the two life forces crossed in the center, I thought that that would be where the soul of life would be found. So I put there all the things that I thought best represented the soul of life.

It's time for that word again: Arbitrary. In other words, you DECIDED where you "should" put those elements on your doodle. Here, I'll make one too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

First there is the 4 characteristics of the two parts of electromagnetism and they are the same as I put there. The lines of the graph showed me where to put them. The mental/emotional nature of life came next and they too are the same as I put there. And as it turned out, math also fit the say way.

The point is, you can't just "decide" where these elements are going to go just because you "think" that they ought to be together on a "graph". Your "theory" does not make useful predictions or explain anything. It just makes a pretty picture that you might be able to sell to a modern art museum.

And it is really amazing to me the way they all fell into place.

You might want to try and find out why.

In a sense, they told me how to place them. But them being related to each other "may" be nothing more then a huge coincidence. One that just happened to happen 8 times. When does a coincidence stop being a coincidence?

It isn't a coincidence. You DECIDED.

But if you can think of something that better represents the soul than what I have put there, please tell me.

The what ?

Life however has a layer of biology that gives them more control over their energy base. This gives the highest forms of life "somewhat" of a choice over how and when they act.

"Higher" forms ? Based on WHAT criteria, again ? Bacterium have to highest rate of reproduction, for example. Some divide once every two minutes.

A person can be highly attracted to someone and reason themselves away from stalking them, others however may have less control. They may reason that they love someone so much that they have no other choice but to kill them.

Now, that's just frightening, Light.

Taffer

26th September 2006, 07:16 AM

As for question number 5? Magnets have no choice in the way they act.

Excuse me, but what? "Magnets have no choice"? You already assume a consciousness to magnets for them to 'have no choice'.

Life however has a layer of biology that gives them more control over their energy base.

Life is biology. It doesn't "have a layer of biology".

This gives the highest forms of life "somewhat" of a choice over how and when they act.

Hoo boy. As Belz... has said above, what criterion are you using for "highest"?

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 08:35 AM

That's plainly obvious.
Yeah, but when I did look what happened to him? What he did was borderline lying.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 08:46 AM

Excuse me, but what? "Magnets have no choice"? You already assume a consciousness to magnets for them to 'have no choice'.
Who said magnets were conscious? They are inorganic. They are part of the conditions for life, share the soul of life, but I don't think that are conscious. Not in any sense that is put to the word. When the unlike poles of 2 magnets come together, they have no choice but to come together. You think they have a choice? Choice begins at the life level. Very little at the lowest levels, a whole bunch at our level. But then you must know that, right?

Life is biology. It doesn't "have a layer of biology".
A planet has to evolve to the point that it can support life. And the planet is well recognized to have a biosphere. That means the biology is one of the later levels of a process.

Hoo boy. As Belz... has said above, what criterion are you using for "highest"?
You can start a mammal, and of them we are the highest.
I think science also uses intelligence. But then you already know this, right?

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 09:15 AM

It's time for that word again: Arbitrary. In other words, you DECIDED where you "should" put those elements on your doodle. Here, I'll make one too:
Your use of the word "arbitrary" is going to earn you a spot at my site. Do you agree that all words are arbitrary? And anything that a person makes to represent something is also arbitrary. My question is, since everything is arbitrary, how come you are just using it as a label for me?

The point is, you can't just "decide" where these elements are going to go just because you "think" that they ought to be together on a "graph".
Sure I can. What I put there just has to work for that graph. I made none of the words that went there up, and how else is anyone suppose to show the relationship of anything, to anything without being able to draw something up?

Your "theory" does not make useful predictions or explain anything. It just makes a pretty picture that you might be able to sell to a modern art museum.
It predicts that life continues, whether it actually does or not. It shows that life is part of an energy conversion plan.

You might want to try and find out why.
I have alreay stated that the reason that they fit together is because they are emergent properties of the energy base. The characteristic at the particle level, that science "arbitrarilly" labelled negative, becomes what we consider to be negative, and mentally "no" and mathematically subtraction at our level.

It isn't a coincidence. You DECIDED.
If you had to give the bases for the soul of life, tell me the things that you would choose other then its mental/emotional nature, math, and energy? And when you find that those things are basic, tell me why you think that they line up that way.

"Higher" forms ? Based on WHAT criteria, again ?
I think that science uses intelligence, don't they? I know this is not the first time you heard that life is divided into higher and lower forms. Don't you consider humans to be the highest form of life on this planet? Why do you think that is?

Bacterium have to highest rate of reproduction, for example. Some divide once every two minutes.
Are you saying that bacteria are a high form of life? plase say yes so that I can put your answer on my site.

Now, that's just frightening, Light.
I didn't mean to frighten you. But you do know that those things happen in our world don't you? People doing harm to the ones they love because they don't want to let them go? If not, you need to get out more.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 09:25 AM

The madness continues still?

There is a grey area separating warranted tenacity from unpardonable pigheadedness, which area was simply jumped over, oh, about 550 posts ago. The difference between the two can be measured in the mass of earwax involved, and lightcreatedlife@hom could easily start his own two intracranial apiaries.

I did not know that there was a limit. And do you think your use of words like these "intracranial" "apiaries" make you sound smart? Since this has to do with the written word, instead of the spoken word, it does not matter how much wax is in my ears. It is things like; the 4 basic operations of math not being what I said, and someone saying that there is no electrical or magnetic interactions in electromagnetic radiation that has kept this this going. The people here are using anything they can to stop it, even border line lying. And look at what you just used-"nothing." Don't you know the number of posts are arbitrary? Tell him Belz.

Belz...

26th September 2006, 09:35 AM

Who said magnets were conscious? They are inorganic. They are part of the conditions for life, share the soul of life, but I don't think that are conscious.

They are not part of the conditions of life.

Also, a soul is pretty much, by definition, conscious, though it's never been proven to exist. Much like the following statement:

Han Solo shot first.

Not in any sense that is put to the word. When the unlike poles of 2 magnets come together, they have no choice but to come together. You think they have a choice? Choice begins at the life level. Very little at the lowest levels, a whole bunch at our level. But then you must know that, right?

Wrong. Free will is an illusion.

Also, as some have said: male and female aren't opposites.

A planet has to evolve to the point that it can support life.

No, it doesn't. Look at Mercury.

You can start a mammal, and of them we are the highest.
I think science also uses intelligence. But then you already know this, right?

That wasn't the question. What is your criteria to determine what the "highest" is ? How are we the "highest" of mammals ?

Your use of the word "arbitrary" is going to earn you a spot at my site. Do you agree that all words are arbitrary?

I'm not talking about WORDS or languages. I'm talking about your arbitrary choice of methodology. You basically decide what goes where without justification. THAT's arbitrary.

Sure I can. What I put there just has to work for that graph. I made none of the words that went there up, and how else is anyone suppose to show the relationship of anything, to anything without being able to draw something up?

I'm going to chalk that one up as evasion. I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about : that's not how science works. Mayhap you should look at MY graph and tell me if this is the proper way to describe superstitious beliefs.

It predicts that life continues, whether it actually does or not. It shows that life is part of an energy conversion plan.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't predict anything. It just throws random words which YOU think share similar caracteritics, and arranges them in a neat way.

I have alreay stated that the reason that they fit together is because they are emergent properties of the energy base.

NO! They fit together because you PUT them together. Like so :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

If you had to give the bases for the soul of life, tell me the things that you would choose other then its mental/emotional nature, math, and energy?

I wouldn't, because there is no such thing as a soul, and we already know what life is, chemically.

I think that science uses intelligence, don't they?

Science has no say whether or not humans are "higher". The only claim it could make is that humans are more intelligent than other life forms and are better adapted for what they do. Since other animals have different lifestyles and niches, it follows that the criteria will change, making intelligence less useful, if not completely useless in some cases.

Don't you consider humans to be the highest form of life on this planet? Why do you think that is?

Yes, because my criteria are biased towards intelligence. But I would never claim that this is an objective point of view.

Are you saying that bacteria are a high form of life? plase say yes so that I can put your answer on my site.

If your criteria for determining a life form's superiority is solely reproduction, then yes, bacteria are among the superior forms of life.

But I repeat: there is no objective set of criteria to determine species superiority.

I didn't mean to frighten you. But you do know that those things happen in our world don't you? People doing harm to the ones they love because they don't want to let them go? If not, you need to get out more.

What is frightening is you trying to justify that kind of behaviour, telling me that you might not be completely stable, mentally.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 09:47 AM

This thread is wacked out, 14 pages telling this guy the same thing over and over, and yet he refuses to understand. This is either a troll or a delusional person, amusing nevertheless.

All I can say is even though I've never studied computers I certainly know more about them than those "bighead" computer scientists.;) What good is all that fancy edumaction, I know because I know! Don't tell me RAM is involved with memory. RAM is used to ram the processor's bus drive through the windows and it is because I say so. I don't need to look it up to know that!:D

sounds like someone we know perhaps...
What do you say to some of what I was told here? That there is no electrical or magnetic interactions in electromagnetic radiation, or that the 4 basic operations of math are not basic? Or that the simple words like "capture" and "violates" that science used to define the interactions of particles don't really have the meanings that we all know they do, but "strong" and "weak" does? This is the type of logic that has failed to impress me. And every time that I do look up what is said here, it always supports me, because I am saying nothing that science has not said already.

And I have not heard from you yet, what logic have you? Does any of the examples above, that people have said here impress you? Or do you agree with them? But be careful. If what you say makes as much nonsense as those I have just mentioned, I am going to post them at my site.
What say you? Here is your chance to say something other then the nothing you just did. And you know, what you said would have had more impact if you had used a real example from that graph. I think you would have too, if there was one you could have used. Why make up an example if you have so many real ones to choose from?

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 09:49 AM

As a matter of fact it does.
Are your fingers tired? Come on, give me some nonsense so that I can make you immortal.

Belz...

26th September 2006, 09:58 AM

Are your fingers tired? Come on, give me some nonsense so that I can make you immortal.

Okay:

Light created life.

TobiasTheViking

26th September 2006, 10:11 AM

Yet again you ignore me.

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533 547

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

lightcreatedlife@hom

26th September 2006, 10:27 AM

Atleast you replied.. if only you had also answered.

[quote]Nothing, as there is no soul.
You don't believe in God either, do you? So nothing in that graph would even be considered by you?

You have yet to show how they relate to each other. Till you have shown that they do any reason for relation between them(or lack of same) is irrelevant since we aren't sure if they relate.
You see no relationship between Negative, No, and subtraction? No and negative are literally used in place of each other in common speech. And subtraction means that numbers are moving in a negative direction. The negative sign (-) literally means subtraction. And I can do this same thing for everything in the center box. And you mean to tell me that you see no relationship between them? Please say you don't because that will earn you a place on my web site.

Just "happened" to "happen" when you arbitrarily make a graph.
An arbitrary graph in which the things in it shows the proper relationship to each other, and tell the whole story. Granted, a story that you didn't believe before you came here, and won't be changed by it.

First off, you have yet to show there is a coincidence.
All the words in the center box lining up are either emergent properties, or a coincidence because they relate.

If they have no choice over the way they repulse and attract, and we are "based on them", then why would we have a choice?
They are inorganic we are organic, we have biology, they don't. We can think and act on our thoughts, they can't. You do think you are smarter than a rock don't you?

So you are saying that i am right, and that human behavior is NOT the same as magnetic attraction and repulsion?
NO. I was simply side stepping auguing the point. But it is obvious that human behavior is based on energy. Why? Because everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy.

Wait, how does that relate to magnetic attraction and repulsion. I've never seen a magnet commit magneticide.
You do understand the concept of being based on don't you? You have cells in you body that reproduce through dividing, can you do that?
You understand that oganic matter has more options in what it does, and what it does not do, than inorganic matter, don't you? But you should also know that organ matter is based on inorganic matter.

Are you making your replies long in order to make yourself seem smart? I have what I call a "line item veto" when I think something is too stupid, I just don't answer it, so give your fingers a rest.

I less than three logic

26th September 2006, 10:39 AM

Anacoluthon64

26th September 2006, 10:47 AM

I did not know that there was a limit.Nor did anyone else until you crossed it.

And do you think your use of words like these "intracranial" "apiaries" make you sound smart?It's a heads-up for you, honeybee. :D

Since this has to do with the written word, instead of the spoken word, it does not matter how much wax is in my ears.Ever heard of the term "metaphor?"

It is things like; the 4 basic operations of math not being what I said, and someone saying that there is no electrical or magnetic interactions in electromagnetic radiation that has kept this this going.No. It is your imperviousness to reason and other posters' patience that has kept this going.

The people here are using anything they can to stop it, even border line lying.And you're using anything you can to preserve it, even blatant misrepresentations of scientific and mathematical concepts. Start paying attention to what you are being told and try to be less attached to your ideas so that you can look at them more objectively.

'Luthon64

zizzybaluba

26th September 2006, 10:48 AM

Yeah, but when I did look what happened to him? What he did was borderline lying.

He did nothing of the sort. Just because you don't understand what someone tells you (and obviously you don't) does not make that person a liar.

I less than three logic

26th September 2006, 11:06 AM

He did nothing of the sort. Just because you don't understand what someone tells you (and obviously you don't) does not make that person a liar.
Agreed, his unsupported assertions are getting old; especially so when those assertions are used to accuse someone of dishonesty.

I believe his accusation of “borderline lying” was because wollery said light isn’t simply a combo of the electric and magnetic as is somewhat implied by the name. LCL then went on to cherry pick a description of electromagnetic energy as a self propelling oscillation between electric and magnetic force. This is but one description of electromagnetic radiation, and is a somewhat outdated one at that, based on Maxwell’s equations. It does alright for describing the wave form properties, but doesn’t account for the particle properties, that electromagnetic radiation also exhibits, at all. In fact, that description doesn’t really consider relativity or quantum mechanics. It was formed before either of them were discovered.

TobiasTheViking

26th September 2006, 11:50 AM

You don't believe in God either, do you? So nothing in that graph would even be considered by you?
1) That your graph doesn't make sence has nothing to do with me believeing or not believeing in god.
2) YOU brought up the graph, my questions aren't relevant to the graph in as much as i asked them BEFORE watching the graph. And you should be able to answer them without refering to the graph.

But your graph makes no sence, so it is all void.

You see no relationship between Negative, No, and subtraction?
In english usage i see between negative and no. But negative and no in PHYSICS, have nothing to do with each other. What so ever.

Subtraction and negative also might appear common in the english language. But in PHYSICS have nothing to do with each other.

No and negative are literally used in place of each other in common speech.
Yes, common speech. Not in science.

And subtraction means that numbers are moving in a negative direction.
Sure, but that is NOT what negative means when talking about magnetism. You are using the words outside of their context.

The negative sign (-) literally means subtraction.
As i have made clear IN ALMOST EVERY POST. The sign "-" is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. They might just as well have chosen #, and if they had chosen # in what way would it relate?

Or they might have chosen 0 or 1 instead of - and +

And I can do this same thing for everything in the center box.
Irrelevant, your graph is senceless, useless, redundant, and irrelevant.

And you mean to tell me that you see no relationship between them?
You have made some incorrect and irrelevant relationships, but they are wrong, and have nothing to do with the real world. So no, i see no relationship between them.

Please say you don't because that will earn you a place on my web site.
What does that mean? is it a threat?

An arbitrary graph in which the things in it shows the proper relationship to each other, and tell the whole story.
Well, you are telling a fairytale story that has nothing to do with the real world.

Granted, a story that you didn't believe before you came here, and won't be changed by it.
I doubt anyone believed that story either before or after you came here.. that is, anyone but you.

All the words in the center box lining up are either emergent properties, or a coincidence because they relate.
In what way, you have yet to show that.

They are inorganic we are organic, we have biology, they don't. We can think and act on our thoughts, they can't. You do think you are smarter than a rock don't you?
So, wait, you are saying we are based on them, and yet you also say we work in a way COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THEM.

NO. I was simply side stepping auguing the point.
Ah, good you admit just side stepping the issue and ignoring the questions.....

But it is obvious that human behavior is based on energy.
In what way? You have yet to explain that.

Why? Because everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy.
That doesn't mean what you say it means.. Or atleast you haven't given any evidence for that yet.

SOO.

You do understand the concept of being based on don't you?
Sure i do, you don't understand the concept of research do you?

You have cells in you body that reproduce through dividing, can you do that?
It is not the same, not even remotely the same. At all. It is two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. That by COINCIDENCE have the same name.

Question: Does integrate have anything to do with integrating people. I mean, integrate have something to do with MATH, and is a word talking about finding the area below a line drawn in a graph. How does that relate to integrating people into society? In any way? Totally different things, that have the same word.

Just like your usage of divide.

You understand that oganic matter has more options in what it does, and what it does not do, than inorganic matter, don't you?
No. I understand that non organic matter have no choices. And i am unsure of how much choice organic matter has. Got proof we have any?

But you should also know that organ matter is based on inorganic matter.
Relevance?

Are you making your replies long in order to make yourself seem smart?
No, are you ignoring me and not making replies to seem more stupid?

I am making my replies long in order to ANSWER your questions(something you have yet to return), and explain the questions i want you to answer. And to show you what you haven't answered, and what i don't understand, and where i believe you to be wrong.

I have what I call a "line item veto" when I think something is too stupid, I just don't answer it, so give your fingers a rest.
YOU have something called that, i don't. If i had i wouldn't have replied to your initial post.

Please ANSWER MY POSTS.

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533 547 561

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Solus

26th September 2006, 11:56 AM

What do you say to some of what I was told here? That there is no electrical or magnetic interactions in electromagnetic radiation, or that the 4 basic operations of math are not basic? Or that the simple words like "capture" and "violates" that science used to define the interactions of particles don't really have the meanings that we all know they do, but "strong" and "weak" does? This is the type of logic that has failed to impress me. And every time that I do look up what is said here, it always supports me, because I am saying nothing that science has not said already.

And I have not heard from you yet, what logic have you? Does any of the examples above, that people have said here impress you? Or do you agree with them? But be careful. If what you say makes as much nonsense as those I have just mentioned, I am going to post them at my site.
What say you? Here is your chance to say something other then the nothing you just did. And you know, what you said would have had more impact if you had used a real example from that graph. I think you would have too, if there was one you could have used. Why make up an example if you have so many real ones to choose from?

Of course you would miss the entire point of that paragraph… Ever heard of something called a parody? If you can’t even see the joke this really explains why this thread has been going on so long. But perhaps I shouldn’t have used computers as an example let me try another one that people unfamilar with computers should hopefully understand…

All I can say is even though I've never studied medicine I certainly know more about it than those "bighead" doctors. ;) What good is all that fancy edumcation, I know because I know! Don't tell me the heart is used to pump blood throughout the body, the heart is where our “soul” is kept and it is because I say so! I don’t need to read books or do any research I know because that’s what my gut tells me!

Now to answer your questions

What do you say to some of what I was told here? That there is no electrical or magnetic interactions in electromagnetic radiation, or that the 4 basic operations of math are not basic?

I know very little about mathematics but I can certainly believe it’s possible that the four basic operations of math are not the most basic. That they are called basic is arbitrary, the four basic operations are ones we learn first at school but that doesn’t mean they are the most “basic” levels of math. Teaching abstract concepts to young children is impossible so we all start with 1+1=2, very simple to learn.

However the key difference between you and me is that if I was told something like this I would go and research it rather than arguing for 15 pages on an internet forum. Instead of arguing with scientists about what they say is true or not why don’t you go find out for yourself using actual printed research?

And course of science has different definitions for words than colloquial english. Surely you realize the same word can have different meanings (I hope)? For example bull can mean a male bovine animal, nonsense (like this thread), or a papal letter. Spam can mean a type of canned food or it can mean junk that is on the internet (like this thread).

Belz...

26th September 2006, 12:12 PM

You don't believe in God either, do you? So nothing in that graph would even be considered by you?

So, basically you're assuming your conclusion and working from there ?

If your graph assumes the existence of God, you can bet you'll be asked by the folks here to prove your assumption.

You see no relationship between Negative, No, and subtraction?

Nope. "No" means the opposite of yes. It's basically a boolean operator. Subtraction can lead to negatives. In real life, "negative" is, litterally, an arbitrary term.

Please say you don't because that will earn you a place on my web site.

For your information, no one cares enough about your site either way to either want to be on it or not.

An arbitrary graph in which the things in it shows the proper relationship to each other, and tell the whole story.

So, you admit it's arbitrary. Ergo, it tells NO story at all.

Granted, a story that you didn't believe before you came here, and won't be changed by it.

Are you trying to prove your superstitions with logic ? Here's that graph, again:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

All the words in the center box lining up are either emergent properties, or a coincidence because they relate.

False dichotomy, again.

They are inorganic we are organic, we have biology, they don't.

The whole question of choice is meaningless when applied to magnets or rocks. I don't see why you brought it up in the first place.

You do think you are smarter than a rock don't you?

For the first time, I agree with you.

But it is obvious that human behavior is based on energy.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

You understand that oganic matter has more options in what it does, and what it does not do, than inorganic matter, don't you?

Nope. Free will is an illusion. Don't you read what I post ?

But you should also know that organ matter is based on inorganic matter.

Which is why the distinction is pointless, at the "base".

Are you making your replies long in order to make yourself seem smart?

You seem to constantly comment on other people trying to be smart. Again, I have to ask about a possible inferiority complex on your part.

Solus

26th September 2006, 12:23 PM

Are you making your replies long in order to make yourself seem smart?

You seem to constantly comment on other people trying to be smart. Again, I have to ask about a possible inferiority complex on your part.

Exactly why would anyone care about seeming smart on an internet fourm?
That would be pretty pathetic to say the least.

I less than three logic

26th September 2006, 12:31 PM

Exactly why would anyone care about seeming smart on an internet fourm?
That would be pretty pathetic to say the least.
What do you mean pathetic? It is the only place I can pull it off. :D

Tricky

26th September 2006, 02:45 PM

What do you mean pathetic? It is the only place I can pull it off. :D
I hate to break this to you, but you're not doing it there either.:D

I less than three logic

26th September 2006, 03:05 PM

I hate to break this to you, but you're not doing it there either.:D
Oh, and here I thought I was doing so good. :blush:

Well, then the Internet is the only place the chance, however slim, still exists for me to appear smart. 'Cause, trust me I don't stand a chance any where else. :D

Tricky

26th September 2006, 03:12 PM

Oh, and here I thought I was doing so good. :blush:

Well, then the Internet is the only place the chance, however slim, still exists for me to appear smart. 'Cause, trust me I don't stand a chance any where else. :D
JK, of course, i<3. I've learned from you, just finding out what your damn name meant.

Now a question for LCL:

If light is reflected, does it become negative light? What happens if it hits something like this? (I'm in Chicago and this is one of the most incredible things I've seen in my life.)

RandFan

26th September 2006, 03:19 PM

JK, of course, i<3. I've learned from you, just finding out what your damn name meant.

Now a question for LCL:

If light is reflected, does it become negative light? What happens if it hits something like this? (I'm in Chicago and this is one of the most incredible things I've seen in my life.)What the hell is it? It looks like a UFO or one hell of a big IUD.

Tricky

26th September 2006, 03:28 PM

What the hell is it? It looks like a UFO or one hell of a big IUD.It is this big sculpture that everyone calls "The Bean" which is nearly perfectly reflective on every side. Walk underneath it and things really become surreal.

bruto

26th September 2006, 07:36 PM

I'm going to be out of town and probably out of internet range for the next week or so. I'm sure this thread will continue its downward spiral without my help. May the energy be with you.

Taffer

26th September 2006, 08:12 PM

Who said magnets were conscious? They are inorganic. They are part of the conditions for life, share the soul of life, but I don't think that are conscious. Not in any sense that is put to the word. When the unlike poles of 2 magnets come together, they have no choice but to come together. You think they have a choice? Choice begins at the life level. Very little at the lowest levels, a whole bunch at our level. But then you must know that, right?

Already addressed by Belz...

A planet has to evolve to the point that it can support life. And the planet is well recognized to have a biosphere. That means the biology is one of the later levels of a process.

Planets do not evolve in the sense you are trying to use the word. Only living things evolve. Planets change over time, but so does everything else, so it is useless to use that as an argument.

You can start a mammal, and of them we are the highest.
I think science also uses intelligence. But then you already know this, right?

Why are we the highest? No, 'science' does not use intelligence to mean we are the 'highest'. In fact, it is pretty much accepted that 'highest' is a meaningless distinction.

CardZeus

27th September 2006, 12:24 AM

You see no relationship between Negative, No, and subtraction? No and negative are literally used in place of each other in common speech. And subtraction means that numbers are moving in a negative direction. The negative sign (-) literally means subtraction. And I can do this same thing for everything in the center box. And you mean to tell me that you see no relationship between them? Please say you don't because that will earn you a place on my web site.

You display a staggering lack of knowledge in mathematics. So subtraction means that numbers are moving in a negative direction?? Then what is the answer to this simple subtraction?:

5 - (-3) =?

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 08:28 AM

JK, of course, i<3. I've learned from you, just finding out what your damn name meant.
I like the name, the message there is straightforward and simple, but the packaging it is presented in is incoherent and exposes my inner geek. :)

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 08:35 AM

Belz...

27th September 2006, 09:10 AM

I like the name, the message there is straightforward and simple, but the packaging it is presented in is incoherent and exposes my inner geek. :)

What does it mean, anyway ?

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 09:24 AM

What does it mean, anyway ?
<3 is an emoticon for love, as it somewhat resembles a sideways heart.

RandFan

27th September 2006, 09:32 AM

<3 is an emoticon for love, as it somewhat resembles a sideways heart.:D

Damn, I had it pegged for some deep philosophical meaning.

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 09:48 AM

:D

Damn, I had it pegged for some deep philosophical meaning.
Oh, I’m sure there are probably a couple of those in there too. Deep philosophical meanings are always added after the fact, and always without the author’s consent… much like all those literary concepts. :D

Belz...

27th September 2006, 09:53 AM

<3 is an emoticon for love, as it somewhat resembles a sideways heart.

...your heart is upside down, Logic. Smileys are (were, before the internet corrupted them to actual graphic things) meant to be looked at with the left as the top.

Therefore, I suggest a change of name. "I E Greater than logic" :D

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 10:02 AM

...your heart is upside down, Logic. Smileys are (were, before the internet corrupted them to actual graphic things) meant to be looked at with the left as the top.

Therefore, I suggest a change of name. "I E Greater than logic" :D
Looks a bit blocky, doesn’t it? E>

Maybe "I small epsilon greater than logic"? ε>

I like that quite a bit actually, far more incohearant.

Anacoluthon64

27th September 2006, 10:13 AM

I'm worried - it's been almost 24 hours without a tirade. Where's lightcreatedlife@hom? At home? Seeing the, er, light?

'Luthon64

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:01 PM

You took a few concepts you see as related and their antonyms, proceeded to place the first set apart from each other horizontally, the second vertically, and amazed yourself when you formed a perpendicular line between them? This is the source of your great discovery? Why not place them both horizontally and from the amazing parallel lines? The soul, of course, exists between the lines and exists there forever never touching any lines. That’s way more exciting, wouldn’t you agree?
I don't understand what you are saying up there, but here is what I did do. Because everything physical owes how it looks and how it behaves to energy, I reasoned that the mental/emotional nature of life (how we behave) must have an energy base. With that I looked to the characteristics of the 4 basic forces of the universe, and science defined them as I already stated. Of the 4 I noticed that light had the most to do with life, and its characteristics (as defined by science) fit the characteristics of life's mental/emotional nature, the base nature of the 2 genders and what appears to be the bases of math. When I drew those things on a graph it fit together and answered all the questions surrounding the whole drama flawlessly. From the big bang, through Adam and Eve, the soul , through judgement and on to balance.
I base that graph on what science said was the characteristics of the four forces. If they are not as I have quoted science, can you tell me what they are?

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:03 PM

Belz...

27th September 2006, 12:05 PM

Looks a bit blocky, doesn’t it? E>

Maybe "I small epsilon greater than logic"? ε>

I like that quite a bit actually, far more incohearant.

You can drop the "small". Then we have a winner.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:09 PM

Nor did anyone else until you crossed it.

It's a heads-up for you, honeybee. :D

Ever heard of the term "metaphor?"

No. It is your imperviousness to reason and other posters' patience that has kept this going.

And you're using anything you can to preserve it, even blatant misrepresentations of scientific and mathematical concepts. Start paying attention to what you are being told and try to be less attached to your ideas so that you can look at them more objectively.

Did you noticed that there was nothing there for me to answer? The things that I have said happened, they are all written here. but you think it is my fault for not listening to the out of the way stuff that those people have said.
Let us recap here. Briefly show me the logic that you say that I am avoiding, so that I can see what you are talking about.

Belz...

27th September 2006, 12:11 PM

I don't understand what you are saying up there, but here is what I did do. Because everything physical owes how it looks and how it behaves to energy, I reasoned that the mental/emotional nature of life (how we behave) must have an energy base.

And did you test that reasoning ?

With that I looked to the characteristics of the 4 basic forces of the universe, and science defined them as I already stated.

Which forces are those, according to you ?

Of the 4 I noticed that light had the most to do with life, and its characteristics (as defined by science) fit the characteristics of life's mental/emotional nature, the base nature of the 2 genders and what appears to be the bases of math.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. All 4 forces are involved with life, and light doesn't have two "genders". It's neutral. If you're refering to electromagnetism in general, you must be refering to electrons, which aren't energy.

Also, how is light "emotional" ? Hoes does it share those characteristics with life ?

When I drew those things on a graph it fit together and answered all the questions surrounding the whole drama flawlessly.

This also fits together, and you haven't adressed it yet :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

From the big bang, through Adam and Eve, the soul , through judgement and on to balance.

Most of those are christian myths. How do they relate to your graph, if it's supposed to represent reality ?

I base that graph on what science said was the characteristics of the four forces. If they are not as I have quoted science, can you tell me what they are?

All four forces have to do with attraction and repulsion. Why light, then ?

Do you understand anything about science ?

At what grade did you drop out of school, exactly ?

zizzybaluba

27th September 2006, 12:12 PM

I have answered these all the time that I have been here. Now I am ignoring you.

No, you haven't. As I pointed out earlier, your mindless diatribes are not answers to our questions.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:23 PM

He did nothing of the sort. Just because you don't understand what someone tells you (and obviously you don't) does not make that person a liar.
Then if he agreed with me that what I said is what is considered the 4 basics of math, where did all of that drama come from as he and others tried to convince me that they were not? And remember that guy who offered to take a poll of you all about which of us was right on the point? What was that all about?
I know. It has to do with the fact that smart people think that they are so smart that they can make even wrong appear right if they wanted to. My weapon against this though is that at that site I am say nothing that science has not said. So anybody who seeks to augue the point is not auguing with me but with what science said. The characteristics is the nuclear forces (as defined by science) are what I use to say that they are the base of what is considered the forces of good and evil.

And if the characteristics of light and the nuclear forces are not what I wrote science said, can you tell me what they are. And save us both some time. I know that you can give me a definition that showinig nothing that I have stated. But when you do, is mine wrong, and the one you give right, or will they both be right? If so, I would still be right in using mine. Afterall, it is not mine, it is one that I got from science.

zizzybaluba

27th September 2006, 12:26 PM

I know. It has to do with the fact that smart people think that they are so smart that they can make even wrong appear right if they wanted to. My weapon against this though is that at that site I am say nothing that science has not said. So anybody who seeks to augue the point is not auguing with me but with what science said. The characteristics is the nuclear forces (as defined by science) are what I use to say that they are the base of what is considered the forces of good and evil.

You keep going on and on about 'smart people' and their 'big heads'. Do you suffer from an inferiority complex?

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:36 PM

Agreed, his unsupported assertions are getting old; especially so when those assertions are used to accuse someone of dishonesty.

I believe his accusation of “borderline lying” was because wollery said light isn’t simply a combo of the electric and magnetic as is somewhat implied by the name. LCL then went on to cherry pick a description of electromagnetic energy as a self propelling oscillation between electric and magnetic force. This is but one description of electromagnetic radiation, and is a somewhat outdated one at that, based on Maxwell’s equations. It does alright for describing the wave form properties, but doesn’t account for the particle properties, that electromagnetic radiation also exhibits, at all. In fact, that description doesn’t really consider relativity or quantum mechanics. It was formed before either of them were discovered.
The question was whether or not electromagnetic radiation had those properties? How could it not? Science is pretty good at saying what it means. What Wollery was trying to do was bend space and time to suit what he had to say.
And I didn't cherry pick anything, Google Electromagnetic Radiation yourself, and Wikipedia gives what I quote in the very first sentence. Cherry picking would be me picking one that suited me much further down. And you see how you all are "joined at the head?" What has what went on between us have to do with you?

zizzybaluba

27th September 2006, 12:44 PM

And I didn't cherry pick anything, Google Electromagnetic Radiation yourself, and Wikipedia gives what I quote in the very first sentence. Cherry picking would be me picking one that suited me much further down.

What you did is the very definition of cherry picking. You picked the first sentence in the wikipedia article, not the article in its entirety. Did you even bother to read the entire article?

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 12:48 PM

The question was whether or not electromagnetic radiation had those properties? How could it not? Science is pretty good at saying what it means. What Wollery was trying to do was bend space and time to suit what he had to say.
And I didn't cherry pick anything, Google Electromagnetic Radiation yourself, and Wikipedia gives what I quote in the very first sentence. Cherry picking would be me picking one that suited me much further down. And you see how you all are "joined at the head?" What has what went on between us have to do with you?
Cherry picking has nothing to do with how far down you look or where you pick yours from. It is picking the one that agrees with you and pretending the others don’t exist.

The truth is science doesn’t really know exactly “what” light is. We have a few theories, each of them seem to work in one line of thought but not the next. Your cherry picked explanation of electromagnetic radiation is but one of many. It works alright when thinking of it as waves, it doesn’t explain why light also behaves as a particle. There are other explanations that involve quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics, but these are a bit beyond my ability to properly explain. Perhaps some of the QM buffs can help out. These are the sort of things the real Theory of Everything is attempting to decipher.

TobiasTheViking

27th September 2006, 12:50 PM

I have answered these all the time that I have been here. Now I am ignoring you.
Evidence?

When and where did you do that? because you certainly never answered to me.

And now you choose to ignore me. Aww, ain't that cute, running away crying like a little baby because you can't answer my questions..

Here, have a lollypop. Oh, you don't want it? ah, you don't like big boy food like lollypops. Ok, i'll get you some fake breastmilk that you can drink. Happy now?

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533 547 561

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:54 PM

Of course you would miss the entire point of that paragraph… Ever heard of something called a parody? If you can’t even see the joke this really explains why this thread has been going on so long. But perhaps I shouldn’t have used computers as an example let me try another one that people unfamilar with computers should hopefully understand…

Are you saying that because I didn't laugh, I didn't understand what was say? I did understand, it wasn't funny, and it is not what I did at that site or here.

I know very little about mathematics but I can certainly believe it’s possible that the four basic operations of math are not the most basic. That they are called basic is arbitrary, the four basic operations are ones we learn first at school but that doesn’t mean they are the most “basic” levels of math. Teaching abstract concepts to young children is impossible so we all start with 1+1=2, very simple to learn.
I believe it is possible too. But not knowing math myself, I am going to stick with what science/math says it is like glue. I can't afford to be swayed by anything anyone happens to say. If I had came here saying that something else was more basic everyone here would have been on me about what science/math said it was.

However the key difference between you and me is that if I was told something like this I would go and research it rather than arguing for 15 pages on an internet forum. Instead of arguing with scientists about what they say is true or not why don’t you go find out for yourself using actual printed research?
how much research has already went into what science says? Science has been over that particular question for hundreds of years. I know science knows what it is talking about, I cannot say the same thing about anyone on this forum.

And course of science has different definitions for words than colloquial english. Surely you realize the same word can have different meanings (I hope)?
Of course they do. But I have provided the examples of what they said, and in the context of how they said it at the site. Go there, tell me if they did not mean those words the same way we all do? If I had miss used the words there, no one would have to make up an example like you did here, they would be using the examples of what I actually did say.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 12:57 PM

Exactly why would anyone care about seeming smart on an internet fourm?
That would be pretty pathetic to say the least.
Yes but it still happens.

TobiasTheViking

27th September 2006, 01:00 PM

Yes but it still happens.
Ah, so you finally admit that you are just pretending to be smart and that you really aren't.

Well, atleast it is out in the open.

Maybe you are more mature than you thought.. sure you don't wanna try to take the BIIIG step from fake babymilk to a lollypop?

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533 547 561 600

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 01:04 PM

You display a staggering lack of knowledge in mathematics. So subtraction means that numbers are moving in a negative direction?? Then what is the answer to this simple subtraction?:

5 - (-3) =?
You are right of course, there are no absolutes. But am I wrong? Subtraction usually reduces a number. And we have positive numbers, and a whole world of negative numbers with the negative sign in front of them(-3) on the other side of the number line.

TobiasTheViking

27th September 2006, 01:13 PM

You are right of course, there are no absolutes. But am I wrong? Subtraction usually reduces a number. And we have positive numbers, and a whole world of negative numbers with the negative sign in front of them(-3) on the other side of the number line.

Wow, you admit to being WRONG about something.. Amazing.. You are behaving more and more as an adult.

Hm wait. Sorry, i hadn't read past the first sentence. I guess you are still behaving like the little spoiled brad that you are..

How do you feel about trying a lollypop? still on the fake mothermilk? Such a little innocent kid you are.. aww. i'm going to pinch you, yes i am, yes i am.

But i WON'T, i repeat WON'T change your diapers..

------------------------------------------------------------

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209 242 286 293 309 344 358 362 381 470 476 517 533 547 561 600 603

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive aspects of magnetism and electricity they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # and ¤ instead of + and -.

2 - In what way do we have the same characteristics as light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 - How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th September 2006, 02:14 PM

So, basically you're assuming your conclusion and working from there ?
Science does that all the time. They see something and "figure" that there is something else behind it. Columbus "thought" the world was round before he left. And science "knows" that there is a unity formula thought they have yet to find it. So it is not very much out of place for me to "see" order in nature and think there is sothing behind it.

If your graph assumes the existence of God, you can bet you'll be asked by the folks here to prove your assumption.
Remember, it is not just a concept that I just made up. And Why is that subject so touchy, is this an athiest forum?

Nope. "No" means the opposite of yes. It's basically a boolean operator. Subtraction can lead to negatives. In real life, "negative" is, litterally, an arbitrary term.
Have you ever heard someone say negative in place of "no?" The military makes it an art form. And yes, negative is an arbitrary term, but it has come to have a widely accpected meaning, usually hanging out around bad. And all before I found it.

For your information, no one cares enough about your site either way to either want to be on it or not.
I know. It is not a reward. When people try to "bend space and time" by going against what science has stated, I am going to post what they say there to keep track of it. But it also works in the reverse. If they are right about what they are saying, it will be me who suffers for it, and it will be by my own hand. You see, if I am that wrong and think that I am not, I am going to put the credit for showing where I am wrong, where it is due.

[qoute]So, you admit it's arbitrary. Ergo, it tells NO story at all.
[/quote] Says you. All the terms there were well established before I came to them, and that site shows most them in the relatioship they have always been. As I said, without change, it shows the drama of life from over 100 angles. Those things are related, it shows a possible way how and why. And it uses logic that is not at all hard to follow.

Are you trying to prove your superstitions with logic ? Here's that graph, again:
You just reminded me. There is another version where the second half has another look. I will add it soon.

The whole question of choice is meaningless when applied to magnets or rocks. I don't see why you brought it up in the first place.
I agree. I was auguing there against someone talking about the difference between them and us. And he gave them more, not me.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.
If everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, why would that also apply to physical life? Biology though, and in the case of humans, an advanced brain, gives them more control over how they look and behave.

Nope. Free will is an illusion. Don't you read what I post ?
So me sitting here typing is not my choice? I will read it now.

Which is why the distinction is pointless, at the "base".
You don't think there is a difference between organic and inorganic? Boy I have to read your posts. Either way though, I am just going by what science says.

You seem to constantly comment on other people trying to be smart. Again, I have to ask about a possible inferiority complex on your part.
Oh. Is that where that came from? No. I do not have an inferiority complex. But you have seen all that have been directed against me claiming that I am inferior, and they do it while they spout their own schooling. But thanks to the internet everyone has a vast amount of knowledge under very quick access.

zizzybaluba

27th September 2006, 02:34 PM

I less than three logic

27th September 2006, 02:50 PM

Science does that all the time. They see something and "figure" that there is something else behind it. Columbus "thought" the world was round before he left. And science "knows" that there is a unity formula thought they have yet to find it. So it is not very much out of place for me to "see" order in nature and think there is sothing behind it.
You apparently have a very poor understanding of science. The “conclusions” first need to be based on some logic and evidence; this is called forming a hypothesis. Then the hypotheses, more precisely the predictions they make, are tested against the evidence. There were plenty of reasons for Columbus to think the Earth was round before he set off. The empirical evidence for this has been around since the time of the Ancient Greeks. He didn’t just wake up one morning and think that round was his favorite shape, so therefore the Earth is also round.

Have you ever heard someone say negative in place of "no?" The military makes it an art form. And yes, negative is an arbitrary term, but it has come to have a widely accpected meaning, usually hanging out around bad. And all before I found it.
Yes the military says negative in place of no. However, how do you get positive is yes from this? You may note that the military does not say positive for yes, but affirmative. I think you’re thinking that since no and yes are opposites, positive and negative are also opposites, and that no and negative have similar meaning in some context (i.e. the military) that yes and positive must have similar meanings. This is simply fallacious logic. More accurately it is the fallacy of equivocation. Take this following argument.

Feathers are light.
Light is the opposite of dark.
So feathers are not dark.

See a problem here?

wollery

27th September 2006, 06:46 PM

And if the characteristics of light and the nuclear forces are not what I wrote science said, can you tell me what they are. And save us both some time. I know that you can give me a definition that showinig nothing that I have stated. But when you do, is mine wrong, and the one you give right, or will they both be right? If so, I would still be right in using mine. Afterall, it is not mine, it is one that I got from science.Once again.

EM radiation is not electricity and magnetism, it is electromagnetism. There is a difference.

I tell you what, if you want to do some real science you can try to show how EM radiation has the characteristics of positive, negative, attraction & repulsion. Take a laser pointer (a low power tight beam visible coherent EM radiation generator) and try to affect the beam with a magnet or an electric field generator. Seriously, give it a go. If light has the characteristics you claim it should be easy to show by doing this. If you can't affect the beam you may want to consider why not.

You keep asking what the characteristics of light are if not what you say. Well I've posted them before, but just for you I'll post it again.

The characteristics of light are;

Frequency,
Wavelength,
Energy,

Also possibly,

Flux,
Intensity.

And just in case you're still missing the fact, I'm an astronomer, I spend a large part of my working life dealing with light, its effects and behaviour.

Anacoluthon64

28th September 2006, 02:29 AM

Did you noticed that there was nothing there for me to answer?Yes. It was entirely intentional.

The things that I have said happened, they are all written here.How perspicacious of you. Are you muslim?

but you think it is my fault for not listening ... Yes!

... to the out of the way stuff that those people have said.The only "out of the way stuff" here is ... oh, what proctalgia!

Let us recap here.Let's not. It's too painful.

Briefly show me the logic that you say that I am avoiding, so that I can see what you are talking about.What for? It'd be a complete waste of breath. After all, there are presently more than 600 posts in this thread, about half of which have unsuccessfully attempted just that.

'Luthon64

Belz...

28th September 2006, 04:33 AM

I know. It has to do with the fact that smart people think that they are so smart that they can make even wrong appear right if they wanted to.

See a psychologist about that, Light. Until then, stick to the argument.

My weapon against this though is that at that site I am say nothing that science has not said.

Mayhap, but you're rearranging it in a non-scientific way.

The characteristics is the nuclear forces (as defined by science) are what I use to say that they are the base of what is considered the forces of good and evil.

Exactly how nuclear attraction and desintegration could be seen as an analogy of good and evil is beyond me.

Cherry picking would be me picking one that suited me much further down.

Nope. It doesn't matter WHERE you pick the sentence that suits you.

I believe it is possible too. But not knowing math myself, I am going to stick with what science/math says it is like glue.

Science says nothing about good or evil. Liar.

Belz...

28th September 2006, 04:44 AM

Science does that all the time.

No, it doesn't. It makes observations, constructs theories and, get this, TESTS them. If the theory or hypothesis doesn't hold, it is REJECTED. If science assumed its conclusions, no theory would ever be replaced.

You don't even have a high-school level understanding of science.

Remember, it is not just a concept that I just made up. And Why is that subject so touchy, is this an athiest forum?

Touchy ? I don't know what "tone" you gathered from my sentence. Just because the concept isn't made up BY YOU doesn't make it non-fictional.

Have you ever heard someone say negative in place of "no?"

In english ? Yes. Mayhap you should learn about other languages before you make such sweeping statements.

I know. It is not a reward. When people try to "bend space and time" by going against what science has stated, I am going to post what they say there to keep track of it.

Seeing as how you don't know anything about science, that would be an impossible enterprise on your part.

Says you.

No, says YOU :

An arbitrary graph

You admit it is arbitrary, and therefore not scientific.

As I said, without change, it shows the drama of life from over 100 angles.

It doesn't show anything from ANY angle. It's just a doodle. It only has ONE angle. Yours.

Those things are related, it shows a possible way how and why. And it uses logic that is not at all hard to follow.

Yeah, just like this, which you are yet to adress:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

If everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, why would that also apply to physical life?

Your premise is false.

So me sitting here typing is not my choice?

Physically ? No. Random quantum fluctuations aside, there was no possible outcome but that which occured.

You don't think there is a difference between organic and inorganic? Boy I have to read your posts. Either way though, I am just going by what science says.

That's not what I said. You said "organ" matter is based on organic matter. I said a distinction between the two is pointless in this discussion. I said nothing about inorganic matter.

No. I do not have an inferiority complex. But you have seen all that have been directed against me claiming that I am inferior, and they do it while they spout their own schooling.

That's what I'm saying. No one is saying you are inferior, but IGNORANT. It happens to all of us, Light. What you should do, is realise your ignorance, and LEARN from that experience so you can be NON-ignorant in the future.

A while back I didn't "believe" in relativity because I didn't understand it. Now, with better understanding of how it works and what it means, and the evidence in its favour, I can't help but accept it, even if I don't completely get it. That's getting rid of ignorance.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 07:23 AM

No, it doesn't. It makes observations, constructs theories and, get this, TESTS them. If the theory or hypothesis doesn't hold, it is REJECTED. If science assumed its conclusions, no theory would ever be replaced.
Okay, I made an observation. Since everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, then that also has to apply to life.
And behold, the characteristics of light fits the characteristics of the mental/emotional nature of life. And light is also linked to the nature of the two genders. That means that the energy is split/divided at some point. And sense life results fromo the balance between a planet and star, (among other things) and they too fit the nature of the two genders(though not in the human sense) I can see the flow of two life forces.

Okay theory: life is tied physically, emotionally and physically to one of the four forces in particular-light-while the others are more tied to the conditions for life. With the two parts of light as the life forces, the thoughts of people about Ying/Yang, balance, and the other things people have thought may have something to them. From that: the graph resulted.

Test. Does life have a mental/emotional nature? Does light have those characteristics? Is the planet female? Are there out of body experiences that can suggests that life continues? I think the answer is Yes on all these, what do you think? I don't see any reason to throw it out, and at the forums where people know(or say they do) they are unable to logically say that it can't be. On the contrary, at least two who thought they had something went down in flames with those things.

Touchy ? I don't know what "tone" you gathered from my sentence. Just because the concept isn't made up BY YOU doesn't make it non-fictional.
Yeah, touchy. Remember I only asked, and I was not only referring to you. Believe it or not I have nothing against that belief. I think a lot of people who think that way have been turned off by the images and creeds of religion, none of which work. In fact I think atheist are best suited to accept an afterlife. From what religion has told them, a lot of people will be unable to accept anything else they see find their, but to an atheist, anything there only shows that they are were wrong.

So the people here are generally atheist?

In english ? Yes. Mayhap you should learn about other languages before you make such sweeping statements.
You ever hear how the Russians say no? it is "nyet" It sounds just like negative.

Seeing as how you don't know anything about science, that would be an impossible enterprise on your part.
Do you have a superiority complex? How can I possibly not know anything about science and fight you all to a stand still? If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me?

It doesn't show anything from ANY angle. It's just a doodle. It only has ONE angle. Yours.
Come on, peoples around the world have talked about two life forces in different ways long before me. I just tied them to light. Something alot of them were saying anyway. The soul, that is not my idea. And the after life thing is also not mine.

That's not what I said. You said "organ" matter is based on organic matter. I said a distinction between the two is pointless in this discussion. I said nothing about inorganic matter.
So you were reacting to a misspelled word? Too bad, what I thought you said was silly enough to earn you a place in the hall of silly I am creating at the site.

That's what I'm saying. No one is saying you are inferior, but IGNORANT. It happens to all of us, Light. What you should do, is realise your ignorance, and LEARN from that experience so you can be NON-ignorant in the future.
That is what I am trying to do, but it seems that you are too IGNORANT to realise it. I am quoting science in most all I say, yet I am worng while science remains right. Oh I miss used the words science used, can you show me some exact examples of that? What I said is at the site, show me the words. Then show me what science really meant when they used it.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 07:28 AM

Do you have a superiority complex? How can I possibly not know anything about science and fight you all to a stand still? If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me?
:dl:

zizzybaluba

28th September 2006, 07:29 AM

Test. Does life have a mental/emotional nature? Does light have those characteristics? Is the planet female? Are there out of body experiences that can suggests that life continues? I think the answer is Yes on all these, what do you think? I don't see any reason to throw it out, and at the forums where people know(or say they do) they are unable to logically say that it can't be. On the contrary, at least two who thought they had something went down in flames with those things.

These are not tests, at least not in the scientific sense; they are vague pseudo-philosophical questions. You cannot design an experiment that will give an unambiguous yes or no answer to them.

And how in the heck do you sex a planet? Where are its genitals?

Anacoluthon64

28th September 2006, 07:36 AM

But not knowing math myself, I am going to stick with what science/math says it is like glue. I can't afford to be swayed by anything anyone happens to say.:covereyes :D

'Luthon64

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 07:39 AM

See a psychologist about that, Light. Until then, stick to the argument.
Well that is what some people here have tired.

Mayhap, but you're rearranging it in a non-scientific way.
Okay, show me how I am doing that.

Exactly how nuclear attraction and desintegration could be seen as an analogy of good and evil is beyond me.
You saw what I did, one has the characteristics of a saint and the other does not. The police call it "profiling." But then it may be beyond you. You are probably suffering from willful ignorance, that will make you unable to see even simple things. But don't worry, I am here to help.

Nope. It doesn't matter WHERE you pick the sentence that suits you.
So in other words it didn't matter what I did. I am going to add what you just said to the site.

Science says nothing about good or evil. Liar.
Science provided the definition, the profile of the nuclear forces. And you just pointed out part of the problem. There is more to life then science. If good and evil are terms well use, and thought of in everyday life, and science does not cover them, doesn't that say that there is more to life then science? No one thing can cover everything.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 07:45 AM

You saw what I did, one has the characteristics of a saint and the other does not. The police call it "profiling." But then it may be beyond you. You are probably suffering from willful ignorance, that will make you unable to see even simple things. But don't worry, I am here to help.
You’ve got to quit doing this… my side is starting to ache.

So, you “profiled” the strong and weak nuclear forces and determined one is saintly? Then, based on this “profile” determined the other must be evil?

wollery

28th September 2006, 08:20 AM

Okay, I made an observation. Since everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, then that also has to apply to life.That's a bald assertion, not an observation.

And behold, the characteristics of light fits the characteristics of the mental/emotional nature of life. And light is also linked to the nature of the two genders. That means that the energy is split/divided at some point. And sense life results fromo the balance between a planet and star, (among other things) and they too fit the nature of the two genders(though not in the human sense) I can see the flow of two life forces.Sigh, they aren't the characteristics of light. And what do you mean by "the balance between a planet and star". Are you talking about the trojans?

Okay theory: life is tied physically, emotionally and physically to one of the four forces in particular-light-while the others are more tied to the conditions for life. With the two parts of light as the life forces, the thoughts of people about Ying/Yang, balance, and the other things people have thought may have something to them. From that: the graph resulted.That's not a theory, I don't think it even qualifies as a hypothesis. Supposition maybe.

Test. Does life have a mental/emotional nature?Some does, some doesn't, not much of a test.

Does light have those characteristics?No, it doesn't.

Is the planet female?No, it isn't.

Are there out of body experiences that can suggests that life continues?People have out of body experiences, but these could just as easily be hallucinations brought on by hypoxia. Occams razor suggests the hypoxia hypothesis is more likely.

I think the answer is Yes on all these, what do you think?See above.

I don't see any reason to throw it out,It's illogical, based on bad interpretations of populist innacurate science and poor analogies of things which bear no relation to each other. Is that enough?

and at the forums where people know(or say they do) they are unable to logically say that it can't be.Yes, we are able to. We have.

On the contrary, at least two who thought they had something went down in flames with those things.No flames anywhere but your neck of the woods.

You ever hear how the Russians say no? it is "nyet" It sounds just like negative.The Chinese say "bu", which sounds like "boo". The Greeks say "ochi" which sounds like okay, which is a positive word. What was your point again?

Do you have a superiority complex? How can I possibly not know anything about science and fight you all to a stand still? If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me?That we have far more patience than you probably deserve?

Come on, peoples around the world have talked about two life forces in different ways long before me.Long before you people around the world were talking about dragons, unicorns, elves.........

I just tied them to light. Something alot of them were saying anyway. The soul, that is not my idea. And the after life thing is also not mine.Of course not, you haven't offered anything original.

That is what I am trying to do, but it seems that you are too IGNORANT to realise it.You're getting fond of that word. Shame you're ignorant of its meaning.

I am quoting science in most all I say, yet I am worng while science remains right.Correction, you are misquoting science.

Oh I miss used the words science used, can you show me some exact examples of that? What I said is at the site, show me the words. Then show me what science really meant when they used it.We have, several times.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 08:31 AM

You're getting fond of that word. Shame you're ignorant of its meaning.
This seems to be the crux of his problems. He seems to grow fond of using some words without bothering to understand their meaning(s).

RandFan

28th September 2006, 08:38 AM

How can I possibly not know anything about science and fight you all to a stand still? If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me? "To a stand still"? What the hell does that mean? Your ideas have been demonstrated to be pointless time and again

We are talking to you because we don't want your nonsense to be left unanswered. We do this with a lot of people with silly ideas. That we do it proves nothing.

Interesting thing I should tell you. Though there are many, many out there like you every once in a awhile one of them realizes that they have been spewing nonsense.

We can only hope.

Loss Leader

28th September 2006, 08:40 AM

And light is also linked to the nature of the two genders. That means that the energy is split/divided at some point.

LCL, you have created a tautology. You say that light has a dual nature, just like gender. Then you say that the fact that light's nature is like gender means that light has a dual nature. Each statement is the sole support of the other, making both statements meaningless.

Does life have a mental/emotional nature?

Not all life. Not even most. Going purely by biomass, hardly any.

Does light have those characteristics?

Good heavens, no.

Is the planet female?

This harsh rock that throws up earthquakes, tempests, volcanoes and floods? No. This planet is not female.

For that matter, there is nothing about "female" that equals "nurturing." Many females are not at all nurturing. The females of many species give birth to and then utterly abandon their young. And the majority of the biomass on earth is asexual.

Are there out of body experiences that can suggests that life continues?

No.

You ever hear how the Russians say no? it is "nyet" It sounds just like negative.

No it doesn't. It sounds like "jet" or maybe "not." The Hebrew word for no is "Lo." The German word is Nein."

However, this shows very clearly that you are still reasoning by analogy. You are reasoning by how things seem to you on their surface, what they sound like and what images they conjure in your mind. This reasoning is fraught with peril as many analogies do not bear themselves out. For example, there is nothing female about being nurturing.

If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me?

Well, you got me there.

Belz...

28th September 2006, 09:27 AM

Okay, I made an observation. Since everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, then that also has to apply to life.

Again, your premise is false.

And behold, the characteristics of light fits the characteristics of the mental/emotional nature of life.

emotions don't travel at the speed of light. Light cannot be affected by hormones. How exactly do they fit ?

And light is also linked to the nature of the two genders.

Explain how.

And sense life results fromo the balance between a planet and star, (among other things) and they too fit the nature of the two genders(though not in the human sense) I can see the flow of two life forces.

Wow. You've managed to build an invalid AND unsound argument.

Okay theory: life is tied physically, emotionally and physically to one of the four forces in particular-light-while the others are more tied to the conditions for life. With the two parts of light as the life forces, the thoughts of people about Ying/Yang, balance, and the other things people have thought may have something to them. From that: the graph resulted.

That's not what I would call reasoning. You're still just taking terms and concepts that SEEM good to you and patching them in your doodle.

Test. Does life have a mental/emotional nature? Does light have those characteristics? Is the planet female? Are there out of body experiences that can suggests that life continues? I think the answer is Yes on all these, what do you think?

It doesn't matter WHAT I think. That's not "testing", that's still conjecture.

Yeah, touchy. Remember I only asked, and I was not only referring to you. Believe it or not I have nothing against that belief.

Atheism is not a belief. Is there ANYTHING you understand about anything ?

I think a lot of people who think that way have been turned off by the images and creeds of religion, none of which work. In fact I think atheist are best suited to accept an afterlife. From what religion has told them, a lot of people will be unable to accept anything else they see find their, but to an atheist, anything there only shows that they are were wrong.

Atheists don't believe in gods; usually that means the afterlife goes with them, too.

You ever hear how the Russians say no? it is "nyet" It sounds just like negative.

The Japanese say "Ie". Does that sound negative ?

Chinese for "yes" sounds like "shr". Does that sound positive ?

Do you have a superiority complex? How can I possibly not know anything about science and fight you all to a stand still?

I have a slight superiority complex when debating with people like you, yes.

Refusing to budge on your ignorance is not fighting to a standstill, but it IS standing still.

If I made no sense, what does that say for the people who have been talking to me?

By opposition, it makes them make sense.

Come on, peoples around the world have talked about two life forces in different ways long before me. I just tied them to light. Something alot of them were saying anyway. The soul, that is not my idea. And the after life thing is also not mine.

Again, no conclusion can be reached from this assertion.

So you were reacting to a misspelled word? Too bad, what I thought you said was silly enough to earn you a place in the hall of silly I am creating at the site.

If you didn't mean do say "organ", then what did you mean ? How do you expect me to understand what you mean if you can't express it properly ?

That is what I am trying to do, but it seems that you are too IGNORANT to realise it.

So, our ignorance is preventing you from getting rid of yours ?

I am quoting science in most all I say, yet I am worng while science remains right.

That's because you don't QUOTE science at all. You just make it up and CLAIM that this is what science says.

Belz...

28th September 2006, 09:30 AM

Okay, show me how I am doing that.

Everywhere. I don't actually have to point to a specific post.

You saw what I did, one has the characteristics of a saint and the other does not. The police call it "profiling." But then it may be beyond you. You are probably suffering from willful ignorance, that will make you unable to see even simple things. But don't worry, I am here to help.

Don't patronize me, fool. How do the nuclear forces relate to good an evil. Clear, simple response this time.

So in other words it didn't matter what I did. I am going to add what you just said to the site.

Your reading comprehension is laughable. The fact that you've taken the FIRST thing you saw doesn't make it LESS cherry-picking.

Science provided the definition, the profile of the nuclear forces. And you just pointed out part of the problem. There is more to life then science. If good and evil are terms well use, and thought of in everyday life, and science does not cover them, doesn't that say that there is more to life then science? No one thing can cover everything.

Bolding mine. You're not using science here. I expected you to use science selectively. When it doesn't suit your purposes, you discard it. I'm not surprised.

Solus

28th September 2006, 12:04 PM

Talking to this guy is like banging your head against the wall. This thread needs more cats, in this case a big cat.

http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/mammal/sumatran_tiger/sumatran_tiger_male_02tfk.jpg

This person is being competely unreasonable unless we want this thread going for another 30 pages I think we should all do as much as we can to derail this thread.

TobiasTheViking

28th September 2006, 02:15 PM

Ok Solus.

So, who wants to look at my wang?

I mean, my chinese friend of course.. ;)

Tanstaafl

28th September 2006, 02:26 PM

Yet another commie?

TobiasTheViking

28th September 2006, 02:38 PM

i don't know, i can ask him.

Does it matter?

Though my willie.. That is, my american friend named willie, is as red as me.

Wanna shake my willie?

Tanstaafl

28th September 2006, 02:41 PM

I'll pass!

And I guess I should have put this: :D after my previous post.

TobiasTheViking

28th September 2006, 02:48 PM

awww :(

Too bad. Then you can pet my pussy a bit.

The felines so do love that.

supercorgi

28th September 2006, 04:22 PM

Cats...definately need cats....

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k22/supercorgi/ziggy_sleep.jpg

Oh, by the way, the Greek word for yes is "nei" - does that sound positive?

bruto

28th September 2006, 04:58 PM

Cats...definately need cats....

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k22/supercorgi/ziggy_sleep.jpg

Oh, by the way, the Greek word for yes is "nei" - does that sound positive?

I said I was going to be away, but find myself able to tap into a wireless network from my motel bathroom, so I continue to follow LCL's train wreck with limited capability to respond (hard to type holding the computer on the window sill). Anyway, I just wanted to say that that is a very fine cat.

wollery

28th September 2006, 06:09 PM

Oh, by the way, the Greek word for yes is "nei" - does that sound positive?Hang on a second. In Greek "ochi" sounds positive but means "no", and "nei" sounds negative but means "yes".

So when English speakers use a positive sounding word Greek speakers use a negative sounding one and vice versa. Which mans that Greeks are positive when they should be negative, and negative when they should be positive. Now science says that if a particle which would normally have a negative charge has a positive charge it is an anti-particle and vice versa, so Greeks must be anti-people. And I'm sure that I read on wikipedia that when a particle and an antiparticle meet they annihilate each other, so it follows that when a person and an anti-person meet they must annihilate each other. :eek:

Oh my god, quick, we have to quarantine the Hellenic peninsula, they'll destroy us all!!! :scared:

Loss Leader

28th September 2006, 06:18 PM

, so it follows that when a person and an anti-person meet they must annihilate each other.

I think you just decoded 4,000 years of Greek/Turkish history.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 06:18 PM

Talking to this guy is like banging your head against the wall. This thread needs more cats, in this case a big cat.

This person is being competely unreasonable unless we want this thread going for another 30 pages I think we should all do as much as we can to derail this thread.
Hey. All you need to derail this thread is to go elsewhere. No one is keeping you here. Your problem is that you have to get your way, but if you have run out of logic I understand. You talk about reason, science and logic and now we see the real you. I love it. I am recording what is going on here. Write my book for me.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 06:22 PM

Ah, so you finally admit that you are just pretending to be smart and that you really aren't.

Well, atleast it is out in the open.

Maybe you are more mature than you thought.. sure you don't wanna try to take the BIIIG step from fake babymilk to a lollypop?
Coming from the guy who choose a picture of a baby to represent himself. I am smart enough to have your collective minds in a twist trying without success to defeat something simple enough for a child.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 06:32 PM

You completely misunderstand how science works.
Science creates theories-- testable statements about how the universe works. Therories are tested by experiment; if the results fail to match the prediction, the theory is thrown away.
Your so-called 'theory of everything' is not a therory. It is not testable; no repeatable experiment could possibly be created to support or deny it. What I say can easily be observed, and is as testable as psychology. You know the pattern with people who augue against that thing follows a pattern that is easily testable. First they go after what they think they can tackle, light and the center box mostly. After they fail, they begin to say it is untestable, not a theory, but only after their logic fails them the other way. It is based on a logical observation, and the fact that everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy, why wouldn't that include life? That is a simple question that all here have avoided. And while I do not have a machine that can measure the energy interaction that happens when two people see each other, that does not mean that there isn't any.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 06:45 PM

You apparently have a very poor understanding of science. The “conclusions” first need to be based on some logic and evidence; this is called forming a hypothesis. Then the hypotheses, more precisely the predictions they make, are tested against the evidence. There were plenty of reasons for Columbus to think the Earth was round before he set off. The empirical evidence for this has been around since the time of the Ancient Greeks. He didn’t just wake up one morning and think that round was his favorite shape, so therefore the Earth is also round.
Likewise I see the way that people act and know for a fact that everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy-why not life too?

Yes the military says negative in place of no. However, how do you get positive is yes from this? You may note that the military does not say positive for yes, but affirmative. I think you’re thinking that since no and yes are opposites, positive and negative are also opposites, and that no and negative have similar meaning in some context (i.e. the military) that yes and positive must have similar meanings.
You have never heard of positive being used in place of yes? You need to get out more. The exchange goes something like this, "Are you sure? And the reply is "positive." Postive is sometimes used in the place of Yes, just like negative is sometimes used in the place of No.

Boy. That was easy. You sure you know what you are doing?

Feathers are light.
Light is the opposite of dark.
So feathers are not dark.

See a problem here?

I don't get making up examples like this. With all that I have said at the site why not use all that you say is wrong there as an example? That would have much greater impact. Can't you find one there?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 07:23 PM

Once again.

EM radiation is not electricity and magnetism, it is electromagnetism. There is a difference.

Once again. Wikipedia says: The term "electromagnetism" comes from the fact that electrical and magnetic forces are involved simultaneously, a changing magnetic field produces an electric field....Similiarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field.

You are auguing with scienc,e not me. I am just saying what they say. What other choice have I?

You keep asking what the characteristics of light are if not what you say. Well I've posted them before, but just for you I'll post it again.

The characteristics of light are;

Frequency,
Wavelength,
Energy,

Also possibly,

Flux,
Intensity.

And just in case you're still missing the fact, I'm an astronomer, I spend a large part of my working life dealing with light, its effects and behaviour.

Read the site again. I said that "Light is electromagnetic radiation, the characteristics of its electrical part are...." The graph is built around the two parts being separate. What are the characteristics of electrical and magnetic separately? That is what the site is saying. Together they have a whole another thing going on, as you put above. But the two parts have other charteristics, just like that example someone gave about the two parts of salt. Combined they have a whole nother thing going on.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 07:29 PM

What for? It'd be a complete waste of breath. After all, there are presently more than 600 posts in this thread, about half of which have unsuccessfully attempted just that.

To summerize your position for one. I don't see it as a waste, this is a forum. And you know, no one is forcing you to come to this thread.

wollery

28th September 2006, 07:39 PM

Once again. Wikipedia says: The term "electromagnetism" comes from the fact that electrical and magnetic forces are involved simultaneously, a changing magnetic field produces an electric field....Similiarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field.

You are auguing with scienc,e not me. I am just saying what they say. What other choice have I?

Read the site again. I said that "Light is electromagnetic radiation, the characteristics of its electrical part are...." The graph is built around the two parts being separate. What are the characteristics of electrical and magnetic separately? That is what the site is saying. Together they have a whole another thing going on, as you put above. But the two parts have other charteristics, just like that example someone gave about the two parts of salt. Combined they have a whole nother thing going on.Electromagnetic radiation is not electricity and magnetism, it is electromagnetism.
The two parts cannot be separated.
Electricity exists as a separate phenomenon.
Magnetism exists as a separate phenomenon.
Neither of these things is electromagnetic energy.
EM radiation does not have the characteristics of electricity.
EM radiation carries no charge.
EM radiation does not have the characteristics of magnetism.
EM radiation has no north or south magnetic pole.

Did you try the little experiment I suggested. It's relatively cheap and easy to do, and you might actually learn something.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 07:40 PM

Once again. Wikipedia says: The term "electromagnetism" comes from the fact that electrical and magnetic forces are involved simultaneously, a changing magnetic field produces an electric field....Similiarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field.

You are auguing with scienc,e not me. I am just saying what they say. What other choice have I?
You don't have a clue what science says about electromagnetism. You only know what part of a wikipedia article says about electromagnetism. Perhaps you should check out this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Failures_of_classical_electromagn etism), just a few down from where you cherry picked your explanation of electromagnetism.

I've already said this... remember?
The truth is science doesn’t really know exactly “what” light is. We have a few theories, each of them seem to work in one line of thought but not the next. Your cherry picked explanation of electromagnetic radiation is but one of many. It works alright when thinking of it as waves, it doesn’t explain why light also behaves as a particle. There are other explanations that involve quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics, but these are a bit beyond my ability to properly explain. Perhaps some of the QM buffs can help out. These are the sort of things the real Theory of Everything is attempting to decipher.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 07:45 PM

These are not tests, at least not in the scientific sense; they are vague pseudo-philosophical questions. You cannot design an experiment that will give an unambiguous yes or no answer to them.

And how in the heck do you sex a planet? Where are its genitals?
Have you ever heard of male and female connectors? Sex is applied to lots of things, and remember, I did not do it. The planet was mother earth long before I even landed on it. I think what they are getting at is that life comes from its body just like a female, and it is beautiful. Life giving is a female thing. Which is why I can't see the logic in a male God. But someone here pointed out that life was first created deep in the oceans around hot, mineral rich, vents. Seen another way, that can easily be seen as within the womb, being nurtured by its mother.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 08:02 PM

Have you ever heard of male and female connectors? Sex is applied to lots of things, and remember, I did not do it.
:dl:
Look at what they call “male” and “female” connectors sometime. Pay attention to which is which. One set has holes; the other has prongs that are inserted into the holes. I’ll let you figure it out from here.

Loss Leader

28th September 2006, 08:03 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:06 PM

Electromagnetic radiation is not electricity and magnetism, it is electromagnetism.

Wikipedia said what I wrote last time. Are you saying I should believe you over science?

Electricity exists as a separate phenomenon.
Yet an electric field can produce a magnetic one.

Magnetism exists as a separate phenomenon.
Yet a magnetic field can produce an electrical one.

EM radiation does not have the characteristics of electricity.
The definition from Wikipedia said that electromagnetic radiation has an electrical and a magnetic component working together, and then there is the name that science gave it.

Did you try the little experiment I suggested. It's relatively cheap and easy to do, and you might actually learn something.
I don't need to. Science says, I believe. Now I know that you think you are right, and that you are only trying to help me, but if the choice here is believe what you are saying, or what science is saying, I will pick science every time. What choice have I? I'm sorry. If you get them to change their view, I will have to change mine. But just because you are using bold face is not enough.

wollery

28th September 2006, 08:06 PM

Is it just my imagination, or is LCL's English getting much better? In the last few posts his spelling is almost error free, and most of his sentences actually parse correctly. :confused:

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:10 PM

:dl:
Look at what they call “male” and “female” connectors sometime. Pay attention to which is which. One set has holes; the other has prongs that are inserted into the holes. I’ll let you figure it out from here.
I did not say I agreed, and I did not name them, I was pointing out that sexual examples are used a lot. I guess sometimes wrongly. But how about the example about the planet? Did you miss that? Or did you choose the easier target? I gave both you know.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:12 PM

Is it just my imagination, or is LCL's English getting much better? In the last few posts his spelling is almost error free, and most of his sentences actually parse correctly. :confused:
Thanks. I guess. But I didn't know this was about spelling.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 08:15 PM

Wikipedia said what I wrote last time. Are you saying I should believe you over science?

Yet an electric field can produce a magnetic one.

Yet a magnetic field can produce an electrical one.

The definition from Wikipedia said that electromagnetic radiation has an electrical and a magnetic component working together, and then there is the name that science gave it.

I don't need to. Science says, I believe. Now I know that you think you are right, and that you are only trying to help me, but if the choice here is believe what you are saying, or what science is saying, I will pick science every time. What choice have I? I'm sorry. If you get them to change their view, I will have to change mine. But just because you are using bold face is not enough.
You simply do not know what science has to say about anything apparently.

That explanation is old and has been replaced by quantum electrodynamics. It fails to account for why electromagnetic radiation also behaves as a particle as well as a wave. Heck, the 4 forces model you use has been replaced by modern physics. In 1979, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize in physics (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/) for their Electroweak Theory (http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/189_69.html), which showed that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are actually one in the same. Perhaps you can you make your graph into a triangle?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:17 PM

So it's really all just analogies to you, eh? You must have done great on that section of the SATs. Hand is to arm as elecromagnetism is to ________________.
What does it look like to you? And even if the planet turned out to be female, wouldn't it still look like an analogy? I think I am going to have to put this answer on my site too.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:23 PM

You simply do not know what science has to say about anything apparently.

That explanation is old and has been replaced by quantum electrodynamics. It fails to account for why electromagnetic radiation also behaves as a particle as well as a wave. Heck, the 4 forces model you use has been replaced by modern physics. In 1979, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize in physics (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/) for their Electroweak Theory (http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node211.html), which showed that electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are actually the one in the same. Perhaps you can you make your graph into a triangle?
!979 huh. Well I googled the 4 basics and it still came back with the 4 that I used. How long does it take them to update things? When they do, I will too. What choice will I have?

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 08:35 PM

!979 huh. Well I googled the 4 basics and it still came back with the 4 that I used. How long does it take them to update things? When they do, I will too. What choice will I have?
Perhaps you should look up the Grand Unified Theory and its progress. You know, the one they’re attempting to combine with a theory of quantum gravity to form the Theory of Everything. That thing you claim to know, or know part of I guess. Perhaps, soon, they’ll discover the link needed for the quantum chromodynamic - electroweak interaction and the GUT will be established. Then, your graph will have to change from a triangle to a line. That would be awkward, wouldn’t it?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 08:56 PM

You don't have a clue what science says about electromagnetism. You only know what part of a wikipedia article says about electromagnetism. Perhaps you should check out this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Failures_of_classical_electromagn etism), just a few down from where you cherry picked your explanation of electromagnetism.

I've already said this... remember?
The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of science and Technology says: "The branch of science dealing with the observation and laws relating electricity to magnetism." And it goes on to give about the same definition as Wikipedia. I have other definitions ready, but how many of these are we prepared to go through here? I didn't look at the one that you cherry picked for yourself, but I am sure it says what you want it to. But if you passed the one that I gave to find one that you liked, isn't that what "cherry picking" is all about?

Kochanski

28th September 2006, 08:58 PM

!979 huh. Well I googled the 4 basics and it still came back with the 4 that I used. How long does it take them to update things? When they do, I will too. What choice will I have?

Perhaps you need to stop getting your science information from Wikipedia and google searches. What makes you think that these are reliable sources of science information?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th September 2006, 09:00 PM

Perhaps you should look up the Grand Unified Theory and its progress. You know, the one they’re attempting to combine with a theory of quantum gravity to form the Theory of Everything. That thing you claim to know, or know part of I guess. Perhaps, soon, they’ll discover the link needed for the quantum chromodynamic - electroweak interaction and the GUT will be established. Then, your graph will have to change from a triangle to a line. That would be awkward, wouldn’t it?
That would be awkward.. but until then, it stays the way it is.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 09:02 PM

The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of science and Technology says: "The branch of science dealing with the observation and laws relating electricity to magnetism." And it goes on to give about the same definition as Wikipedia. I have other definitions ready, but how many of these are we prepared to go through here? I didn't look at the one that you cherry picked for yourself, but I am sure it says what you want it to. But if you passed the one that I gave to find one that you liked, isn't that what "cherry picking" is all about?
Since you won't go to my link. I'll post the section here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Failures_of_classical_electromagn etism
Failures of classical electromagnetism

In another paper published in that same year, Einstein undermined the very foundations of classical electromagnetism. His theory of the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel prize for physics) posited that light could exist in discrete particle-like quantities, which later came to be known as photons. Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect extended the insights that appeared in the solution of the ultraviolet catastrophe presented by Max Planck in 1900. In his work, Planck showed that hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation in discrete packets, which leads to a finite total energy emitted as black body radiation. Both of these results were in direct contradiction with the classical view of light as a continuous wave. Planck's and Einstein's theories were progenitors of quantum mechanics, which, when formulated in 1925, necessitated the invention of a quantum theory of electromagnetism. This theory, completed in the 1940s, is known as quantum electrodynamics (or "QED"), and is one of the most accurate theories known to physics.

I less than three logic

28th September 2006, 09:05 PM

That would be awkward.. but until then, it stays the way it is.
What do you mean until then it stays the same? You already have to change it into a triangle.

Tricky

28th September 2006, 09:40 PM

Have you ever heard of male and female connectors?
Yes I have. Can you tell me LCL, if male connectors are always positive or always negative, or is this another thing about which you are ignorant?

Sex is applied to lots of things, and remember, I did not do it.
Yes, and it is often applied inappropriately, just as you are doing now.

The planet was mother earth long before I even landed on it.
Befor you landed on it? Well that may explain a lot. What planet are you from?

I think what they are getting at is that life comes from its body just like a female, and it is beautiful.
Females are considered "female" because they give birth to organisms much like themselves, not because things grow on them. What planets has "Mother Earth" given birth to? Can you call yourself a mother because you have given birth to acne?

Life giving is a female thing. You have failed basic biology. You are about the most ignorant person I've ever met.

Which is why I can't see the logic in a male God. The first reason is because you can't show that there is any God. The second reason is because you wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the major premise.

But someone here pointed out that life was first created deep in the oceans around hot, mineral rich, vents.
No they didn't. They said life existed there. It almost certainly wasn't the first place life existed.

Seen another way, that can easily be seen as within the womb, being nurtured by its mother.Only by a very great twit. You seem to fit the bill.

supercorgi

28th September 2006, 09:44 PM

I said I was going to be away, but find myself able to tap into a wireless network from my motel bathroom, so I continue to follow LCL's train wreck with limited capability to respond (hard to type holding the computer on the window sill). Anyway, I just wanted to say that that is a very fine cat.

Thank you. That is my big cat Ziggy Stardust. And he doesn't understand science either like LCL. But then he's just a cat so he has an excuse. :D

Solus

28th September 2006, 09:53 PM

Hey. All you need to derail this thread is to go elsewhere. No one is keeping you here. Your problem is that you have to get your way, but if you have run out of logic I understand. You talk about reason, science and logic and now we see the real you. I love it. I am recording what is going on here. Write my book for me.

No, my problem is you don't even know what logic means. I think your a troll who is just messing with everyone for kicks.

Is it just my imagination, or is LCL's English getting much better? In the last few posts his spelling is almost error free, and most of his sentences actually parse correctly. :confused:

No, I don't think it's your imagination I suspect this guy is just a troll playing a part and not a mentally disturbed person. For someone who calls people big head his vocabulary is not too bad. I don't think anyone can be this dense, this has to be act in my opinon.

Here's a nice Hieronymus Bosch painting. I love the imagery in these old depictions of hell. Henceforth I will use this thread to post whatever random stuff I feel like.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight/delightr.jpg

wollery

29th September 2006, 02:24 AM

No, I don't think it's your imagination I suspect this guy is just a troll playing a part and not a mentally disturbed person. For someone who calls people big head his vocabulary is not too bad. I don't think anyone can be this dense, this has to be act in my opinon.Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Although there are people who are that dense and ignorant - I present Professor Billy Wilbanks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64908).

TobiasTheViking

29th September 2006, 02:55 AM

Coming from the guy who choose a picture of a baby to represent himself.
Relevance?

I am smart enough to have your collective minds in a twist trying without success to defeat something simple enough for a child.

evidence?

Mashuna

29th September 2006, 03:59 AM

I am smart enough to have your collective minds in a twist trying without success to defeat something simple enough for a child.

It's just occurred to me who LCL reminds me of. The character was a politician from 'The Fast Show' (UK comedy programme). The sketch would go something like this,

"Minister, how do you respond to accusations of corruption?"

"I didn't do anything"

"We've got photos of you accepting money for national secrets"

"No you haven't"

"Here they are, look - right in front of you"

"No they're not"

"And here's a tape recording and a video of the meeting"

"No, they're not there either."

"Your wife said she saw you doing it"

"No she didn't, and she's not my wife"

etc. . .

His arguments were never 'defeated' either.

Belz...

29th September 2006, 04:28 AM

I see you're conveniently ignoring posters who pointed out what "yes" or "no" sounded like in other languages.

I repeat, in Japanese, "no" is "Ie", which sounds a little like "yeah". How do you explain that ?

Likewise I see the way that people act and know for a fact that everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy-why not life too?

Because YOUR PREMISE IS WRONG. NOT EVERYTHING OWES ITS BEHAVIOUR TO ENERGY. Can't you read ?

Belz...

29th September 2006, 04:33 AM

Have you ever heard of male and female connectors? Sex is applied to lots of things, and remember, I did not do it. The planet was mother earth long before I even landed on it. I think what they are getting at is that life comes from its body just like a female, and it is beautiful. Life giving is a female thing. Which is why I can't see the logic in a male God.

"Sex" is a biological thing. It is a result of chemical processes that, themselves, HAVE no sex.

But someone here pointed out that life was first created deep in the oceans around hot, mineral rich, vents. Seen another way, that can easily be seen as within the womb, being nurtured by its mother.

Some mythologies (egyptian, I believe) claimed that the semen of a god created some peoples. How do you explain that, in that myth, it is the male that gives life ?

Wikipedia said what I wrote last time. Are you saying I should believe you over science?

Wikipedia is not science.

The definition from Wikipedia said that electromagnetic radiation has an electrical and a magnetic component working together, and then there is the name that science gave it.

Mayhap you should try to learn MORE than a simple wiki definition of it before you say these things.

I don't need to. Science says, I believe.

Excellent. Science says that most lifeforms don't have a sex. Science says that EM radiation doesn't have poles. Science says there is no proof of God or the soul. Do you believe science now ? Or are you going to tell me that science isn't everything ?

Belz...

29th September 2006, 04:36 AM

!979 huh. Well I googled the 4 basics and it still came back with the 4 that I used. How long does it take them to update things? When they do, I will too. What choice will I have?

A better question would be: once they find a way to understand that those forces are really one, will your graph collapse into a singularity ?

zizzybaluba

29th September 2006, 06:58 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 07:15 AM

A better question would be: once they find a way to understand that those forces are really one, will your graph collapse into a singularity ?
When I first saw you question I thought of course it would. In keeping with what I said, I will have to follow what science says. But then, why would it need too collapse into a singularity? The graph is about the forces being united in life. While science has not found the formula, I am not sitting here dreading that they do, and when they find it I see no reason for that to change.

The graph would only suffer if the forces lost the characteristics that science has assigned to them. Someone said something about the Electroweak force combining the EMF and WNF, that would do it. Because now there would be only 3. But as I understand it, the electroweak force is something that "was" before those 2 split to make the 4 we know. It happens at very high tempertures like those within the first 3 minutes of the big bang. Or I guess when science produces that temperture.

But as the guy said, it was found in 1979. If science thought that there were only 3 forces now, they are in no real hurry to update things. Therefore I have no reason to move faster then they do. In fact I know that if I had produced a graph featuring 3 instead of 4, the people here would have said that that was wrong too. Right now, they are still considered to be separate forces working together. We know that they already work as one because the universe works. Science has just yet to find the formula. But I for one, have never expressed any doubt that they will, or shown any fear of it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 07:35 AM

good gravy!
Male connectors are referred to as male because they have an insertable part-- the connector's "penis", if you will. Same goes for a female connector's "vagina". They're referred to as such because they perform the same function as genitals. So I ask again, where is the Earth's "vagina"?
As I already stated, the question was where does sex come in, and I was showing that it is used all the time.

The term "Mother Earth" is a colloquialism. It comes from folklore, not science. You are arguing from popularity rather than fact.
I am auguing characteristics, and believe it or not, the rest of the universe may have a different model of a female than we do. When we meet them though, I think it is more then likely that "we" will consider
the one that bares life to be female. And what about what I said about life starting in the womb of the planet. A definition of female tied to life bearing, is more useful then one tied to genitals. Do the lifeforms here that are only made up of a few cells have them?

zizzybaluba

29th September 2006, 07:52 AM

A A definition of female tied to life bearing, is more useful then one tied to genitals. Do the lifeforms here that are only made up of a few cells have them?

Please name a species that has gender but does not have some form of genitalia.

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 08:05 AM

When I first saw you question I thought of course it would. In keeping with what I said, I will have to follow what science says. But then, why would it need too collapse into a singularity? The graph is about the forces being united in life. While science has not found the formula, I am not sitting here dreading that they do, and when they find it I see no reason for that to change.

The graph would only suffer if the forces lost the characteristics that science has assigned to them. Someone said something about the Electroweak force combining the EMF and WNF, that would do it. Because now there would be only 3. But as I understand it, the electroweak force is something that "was" before those 2 split to make the 4 we know. It happens at very high tempertures like those within the first 3 minutes of the big bang. Or I guess when science produces that temperture.

But as the guy said, it was found in 1979. If science thought that there were only 3 forces now, they are in no real hurry to update things. Therefore I have no reason to move faster then they do. In fact I know that if I had produced a graph featuring 3 instead of 4, the people here would have said that that was wrong too. Right now, they are still considered to be separate forces working together. We know that they already work as one because the universe works. Science has just yet to find the formula. But I for one, have never expressed any doubt that they will, or shown any fear of it.
The model has been slow to update, because the 4 force model is still useful, even if it isn’t 100% correct. The same way Newtonian physics is still used, even though it is technically incorrect. The predictions of Newtonian physics are still accurate at the low speeds we observe everyday. We could do all the calculations using the equations of relativity and get all the correct answers, but that would just make things more complicated for what is normally observed. We can use the Electroweak Theory to make just as accurate predictions as the 4 force model, but it is less complicated to use the older model under normally observed conditions.

Your "graph", on the other hand, is absolutely dependent on 4 distinct, separate forces. This isn’t correct, as we know that at least Electromagnetism and WNF are, in fact, the exact same force that behaves differently depending on the temperature. Once again, your understanding is wrong. The electroweak force is not something that was, it is something that is, always has been, and always will be.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 08:05 AM

"Sex" is a biological thing. It is a result of chemical processes that, themselves, HAVE no sex.
Yet if there were two of them, and one bared life, it would be labelled "the female" by science.

Some mythologies (egyptian, I believe) claimed that the semen of a god created some peoples. How do you explain that, in that myth, it is the male that gives life ?
Life being created in the oceans around vents is fact. Why are you comparing that to a myth?

Wikipedia is not science.
You should talk to them. They think they are science incarnated. But I agree they are not. And I went back to also give the Mcgraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology as a reference. And they pretty much agree. I did not know that I would have to wage a reference war, but I already have others lined up.

Mayhap you should try to learn MORE than a simple wiki definition of it before you say these things.
I already stated that I spend 4 years as a radar tech. I know I said 5 before, but 1 year was for school.

Excellent. Science says that most lifeforms don't have a sex. Science says that EM radiation doesn't have poles. Science says there is no proof of God or the soul. Do you believe science now ? Or are you going to tell me that science isn't everything ?
No what I am going to tell you is what you just posted, if Wikipedia can't speak for science, what makes you think you can?

As for sex and lifeforms, what does their numbers mean? I heard that insects make up most of the lifeforms of the planet, yet humans still think that they are the most important form. Would you expect to see the results of the plan at (or near) the base, or at the top?
I have provided the references for why I said what I did about EM radiation. And as for God and the soul, last I heard science could not say that there isn't, any more then they can say there is. But you have just pointed out what a lot of people in science has concluded for themselves, that there isn't, and that is part of the force driving the ID debate. The people working in science have given it an ego-theirs.

supercorgi

29th September 2006, 08:09 AM

As I already stated, the question was where does sex come in, and I was showing that it is used all the time.

I am auguing characteristics, and believe it or not, the rest of the universe may have a different model of a female than we do. When we meet them though, I think it is more then likely that "we" will consider
the one that bares life to be female. And what about what I said about life starting in the womb of the planet. A definition of female tied to life bearing, is more useful then one tied to genitals. Do the lifeforms here that are only made up of a few cells have them?

Never mind the rest of the universe, your definition of the female as recepture and life-barer doesn't even work here on Earth. Consider the seahorse (http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/2000/Cook/Reproduction.htm)- the female inpregnants the male with her organ and the male bears the offspring.

Correa Neto

29th September 2006, 08:25 AM

Most lifeforms in this planet are not multicellular with differentiated sexes. Small humble assexuated microbes are the norm. We are not. We may be more "visible" but we are not actually the most numerous. For all we know so far, most aliens lifeforms might be microbes as well. Thus, no universal "female -or male- role".

Even if one sticks to multicellular organisms, what about hemaphrodites? What about planarias? Or that lizzard species composed just by females? No polarity here.

Belz...

29th September 2006, 09:16 AM

Belz...

29th September 2006, 09:21 AM

Yet if there were two of them, and one bared life, it would be labelled "the female" by science.

Careful. The male sea horse cares for the young a good while. In fact, there's no reason why a female egg wouldn't, during procreation, be transfered TO the male, inside which it would grow. The male would still be the male but IT would be the one to bear the young. What would YOU say, then ?

Life being created in the oceans around vents is fact. Why are you comparing that to a myth?

I'm comparing one metaphor to another. Rocks have no sex.

No what I am going to tell you is what you just posted, if Wikipedia can't speak for science, what makes you think you can?

That's a very convenient way to ignore any and all data that doesn't agree with you.

As for sex and lifeforms, what does their numbers mean? I heard that insects make up most of the lifeforms of the planet

I believe bacteria win by a landslide.

And as for God and the soul, last I heard science could not say that there isn't, any more then they can say there is. But you have just pointed out what a lot of people in science has concluded for themselves, that there isn't, and that is part of the force driving the ID debate. The people working in science have given it an ego-theirs.

Careful, there. In any current scientific field, although we have no definite proof of the existence or non-existence of God or souls, the point remains that they are, always, superfluous elements. They are not required to explain anything, and therefore are not considered by science until such a time when new evidence may be presented to that effect.

supercorgi

29th September 2006, 11:37 AM

And how about creatures that change sex (http://westgroup.icapb.ed.ac.uk/SexChange.html)? How do you explain them?

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 12:16 PM

And how about creatures that change sex (http://westgroup.icapb.ed.ac.uk/SexChange.html)? How do you explain them?
I don' t know. Does it happen when the Earth shifts its magnetic poles? ;)

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 03:49 PM

And how about creatures that change sex (http://westgroup.icapb.ed.ac.uk/SexChange.html)? How do you explain them?
You know. Even though science very well expects to find the formula for everything, they very well understand that it will not explain everything. You see that graph (or whatever it is) and there is only so much that can be seen from that angle. I said that there is 4 other versions, but even they do not show that (I don't think). So if the title that I gave that graph is throwing you off, be reasonable. If that is at all possible here. I covered a lot of ground at that site, and I am better prepared to talk about that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 04:15 PM

Careful. The male sea horse cares for the young a good while. In fact, there's no reason why a female egg wouldn't, during procreation, be transfered TO the male, inside which it would grow. The male would still be the male but IT would be the one to bear the young. What would YOU say, then ?
Oh come on. I have already said, and you well know, that biology and the way life has found to do what they do is endless, but there are certain patterns and norms. Look at the strange drama between the that spider (I think the black widow) where the male is so small that he would only be a snack for the female-and usually is. Their little part of the drama of life has him having the overwhelming erge to mate, but the risk of being eaten. But in the scheme of things, what other use is there for him after mating? He don't raise the kids. Being a meal that becomes them is quite logical.

I'm comparing one metaphor to another. Rocks have no sex.
But rocks are not in the running. It is inorganic.

That's a very convenient way to ignore any and all data that doesn't agree with you.
I can say the same thing about you refuting my reference. Wikipedia is highly regard. I didn't go to Jim Bobs convenient definitions, and I used the first one offered, but I was still faulted for "cherry picking" even though the same person who said I was doing that, went past what I picked, and found one farther down that he liked.
People here have faulted me for not looking things up, but when I do, there is something wrong with that too. How is that possible?

Careful, there. In any current scientific field, although we have no definite proof of the existence or non-existence of God or souls, the point remains that they are, always, superfluous elements. They are not required to explain anything, and therefore are not considered by science until such a time when new evidence may be presented to that effect. The bases for how life behaves is not of interest to science? The mental/emotional nature of life is not of interest? I do believe you. But I simply cannot believe why that is so. Can you explain that to me?
If sceince does not cover those things and people talk about them everyday, no wonder religion has a place. Science cannot (or will not) explain everything.

Solus

29th September 2006, 04:24 PM

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Although there are people who are that dense and ignorant - I present Professor Billy Wilbanks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64908).

Wow, how could someone that ignorgant be a professor of the science department? I can't believe that guy got a PhD at legitimate college. Maybe he has PhD in philosophy but not anything science related. I've only taken one college biology class four years ago and I'm more knowlegable about the subject then this guy.

Still that professor billy is a religious zealot, LCL is being dense for no apparent reason (troll).

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 04:27 PM

Perhaps you need to stop getting your science information from Wikipedia and google searches. What makes you think that these are reliable sources of science information?
They are not on my payroll. And I can tell you that I am not well liked there. Why shouldn't I go there for common knowledge? Millions of people do. Okay. Where should I go?

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 04:50 PM

Since you won't go to my link. I'll post the section here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#Failures_of_classical_electromagn etism
Thank you. That was a lot of help. Whatever you bring here I have to read. And since I am only one person, it helps me. I cannot go, or study, everything people say to. My head would explode. But I am not avoiding anything. People say I don't look, but I do it only as much as I have to. That seems lazy or stupid to some, but they should sit in this seat. I am one. you are many. I suspect some are trying to run me around to confuse me. I have to stay focused for the graph and my own sanity.

I think that thing you showed me is saying is that QED is more accurate in explaining electromagnetism, and was completed in the 40s. If this is so (and I do believe what they say) they have 60 years to update what they are saying. I should not have even known that the other stuff existed. Now if I found what I did in some old books in the basement and quoted them thinking that I was current, that would be one thing, but the internet is new. Why would something dead since before I was born be there? Unless, it still had some meaning, or use, to science. I believe that science is "the man" he would not act like that. Is science too lazy to update? I do not believe that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 04:56 PM

What do you mean until then it stays the same? You already have to change it into a triangle.
No I don't. Science recognizes 4 fundamental forces, not 3. If the electroweak was written in concrete, in 1979, I would not be here today, and you would not have waited till the 14th page to enlighten me about it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 05:25 PM

The model has been slow to update, because the 4 force model is still useful, even if it isn’t 100% correct. The same way Newtonian physics is still used, even though it is technically incorrect. The predictions of Newtonian physics are still accurate at the low speeds we observe everyday. We could do all the calculations using the equations of relativity and get all the correct answers, but that would just make things more complicated for what is normally observed. We can use the Electroweak Theory to make just as accurate predictions as the 4 force model, but it is less complicated to use the older model under normally observed conditions.
[quote] Does under "normal observed conditions" mean the very very high tempertures needed to get those two forces together? Because if everything else was raised to that same temperture we would find life sought of hard. Please tell me that you did not just do that?

[quote]Your "graph", on the other hand, is absolutely dependent on 4 distinct, separate forces. This isn’t correct, as we know that at least Electromagnetism and WNF are, in fact, the exact same force that behaves differently depending on the temperature.
Yes, the graph is depended on those four being at "life tolerate temperates." You know. At a certain temperture a rock is no longer a rock.
Simple question. If the electroweak force existed around us like, say, gravity, would we be alive to watch cable tv?

I know you did not just just erase life on the planet, in the universe, just to be right on an internet forum.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 05:37 PM

If logic holds, chances are that there was only one fundamental force at the beginning.
Yes. Of course, (you know that could be viewed as God) but I think science is referring to 4 forces four the conditions that we have now.

No, because all this is due to a misinterpretation, on your part, of those characteristics.
Tell me what those charteristics are then.

That's encouraging, on your part.
On my part? I have never been standing here raving in the street. I have some logical bases for what I am saying. You would not be here if I didn't.

Science thinks there is only one force.
Yet they dream about uniteing 4 that they themselves defined? How dumb are they?
It's been like this for a while. I believe you're just looking in the wrong places.
You got a book showing one force? What is its name?

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 05:47 PM

Most lifeforms in this planet are not multicellular with differentiated sexes. Small humble assexuated microbes are the norm. We are not. We may be more "visible" but we are not actually the most numerous.
What is this with amounts? You know that that is important to importance. (I don't believe I said that.) Higher life forms are always few in numbers to the lifeforms that "support" them.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 05:50 PM

Never mind the rest of the universe, your definition of the female as recepture and life-barer doesn't even work here on Earth. Consider the seahorse (http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/2000/Cook/Reproduction.htm)- the female inpregnants the male with her organ and the male bears the offspring.
Are you serious? That is just one form of life. Wait. I will give you a million other like it, how would that change anything? Higher life is the product, not the base.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 05:55 PM

Please name a species that has gender but does not have some form of genitalia.
One celled life has genitalia? What about five celled? Okay. I am going to look. Though I know I am right. But even so, so what?

Loss Leader

29th September 2006, 05:57 PM

What is this with amounts? You know that that is important to importance. (I don't believe I said that.) Higher life forms are always few in numbers to the lifeforms that "support" them.

What makes them higher? Because they're more complex? Because they were later developing? More complex lifeforms are also more likely to experience failures. And new monocelular organisms are still evolving and are "newer" than even humans.

For that matter, dogs are a species that emerged after humans. Humans damn well created dogs. So if humans are darn great, the speceis humans bred must be even greater.

There's just no logic at the heart of anything you've said. You can't just make analogies based on how things seem upon first inspection and then expect them to have any predictive power.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 06:00 PM

:covereyes :D

'Luthon64
You happy you are smarter than me? I don't mind that at all. You see, I say it freely. No one knows everything.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 06:08 PM

What makes them higher? Because they're more complex? Because they were later developing? More complex lifeforms are also more likely to experience failures. And new monocelular organisms are still evolving and are "newer" than even humans.

For that matter, dogs are a species that emerged after humans. Humans damn well created dogs. So if humans are darn great, the speceis humans bred must be even greater.

There's just no logic at the heart of anything you've said. You can't just make analogies based on how things seem upon first inspection and then expect them to have any predictive power.

No logic in humans being higher life forms? I think science goes by the most complex. Are you serious?

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 06:20 PM

That's a bald assertion, not an observation.
Does matter owe its existence to the energy that holds it together? Didn't energy come first? Wouldn't matter have to be built on it?

Sigh, they aren't the characteristics of light.
They are the characteristics of electrical and magnetic energy.

People have out of body experiences, but these could just as easily be hallucinations brought on by hypoxia. Occams razor suggests the hypoxia hypothesis is more likely.
True. But if half of 1% are right...

No flames anywhere but your neck of the woods.
remind me, I'll add it too the site as my failure.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 06:32 PM

Don't patronize me, fool. How do the nuclear forces relate to good an evil. Clear, simple response this time.
Wow. The effect of you saying that and the picture of that demon that represents you, makes me think I was in the presence of one. Though not really. You can't call me a fool, you idiot. Its not nice. Why would you waste your time talking to a fool? I already answered that question at the site. They "profile" that way.

Your reading comprehension is laughable. The fact that you've taken the FIRST thing you saw doesn't make it LESS cherry-picking.
It makes it less then going down the list and picking one I like. That seems the better definition of cherry-picking to me. Plase don't answer that because I would have no other choice but to put you this on the site.

Bolding mine. You're not using science here. I expected you to use science selectively. When it doesn't suit your purposes, you discard it. I'm not surprised.
That is what you all are doing. I am hearing that the 4 forces are 3, and even one. The 4 basics are not, Electromagnetic radiation doesn't even have those 2 parts. But If I had said anything like that....

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 06:48 PM

One celled life has genitalia? What about five celled? Okay. I am going to look. Though I know I am right. But even so, so what?
First name just one life form with only 5 cells. Just one, then we can proceed.

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 06:50 PM

That is what you all are doing. I am hearing that the 4 forces are 3, and even one. The 4 basics are not, Electromagnetic radiation doesn't even have those 2 parts. But If I had said anything like that....
If you said anything like that… what? You might be correct for once?

wollery

29th September 2006, 07:03 PM

Does matter owe its existence to the energy that holds it together? Didn't energy come first? Wouldn't matter have to be built on it?Matter and energy are the same thing, just in different forms. You have heard of E=mc2 haven't you?

They are the characteristics of electrical and magnetic energy.No, they are the characteristics of electric charges and magnetic dipoles. Electric potential energy exists between two areas which have different amounts of electric charge, and electric current occurs when electric charges move from one area to another. Since most things are in electric charge equilibrium you can easily see that it's very possible to have electric charge without any electric energy. Magnetic fields result from the movement of electric charges. The attraction/repulsion of ferrous magnets are caused by magnetic dipoles of the metal atoms in the metal crystal lattice all lining up, the dipoles being due to the orbits of electrons about their nuclei. Neither of these are light.

True. But if half of 1% are right...Technically speaking, only one has to be right, but if one was right it would suggest that the majority were right, and there's no evidence that any are right. As I said, hypoxia is as good an explanation, and since induced hypoxia has resulted in identical experiences it is reasonable to apply Occam's razor and conclude that all NDE's are caused by hypoxia.

remind me, I'll add it too the site as my failure.As has been pointed out many times, the site is your failure.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 07:16 PM

If you said anything like that… what? You might be correct for once?
Like what exactly?

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 07:21 PM

Like what exactly?
I don’t know, it was your sentence. I was just helping you finish it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 07:32 PM

Matter and energy are the same thing, just in different forms. You have heard of E=mc2 haven't you?
You are right. And have helped me. That means that before matter was even "visible" it knew what it had to do.

No, they are the characteristics of electric charges and magnetic dipoles.
[quote]That is electrical and magnetic, right?
Electric potential energy exists between two areas which have different amounts of electric charge, and electric current occurs when electric charges move from one area to another. Since most things are in electric charge equilibrium you can easily see that it's very possible to have electric charge without any electric energy.
So what? I never said that that was the case. But it is a charge looking for a place to happen. Someone can be angry from the door, and any little thing will set them off. In any case, light though is always on the move.

Magnetic fields result from the movement of electric charges. The attraction/repulsion of ferrous magnets are caused by magnetic dipoles of the metal atoms in the metal crystal lattice all lining up, the dipoles being due to the orbits of electrons about their nuclei. Neither of these are light.
I keep telling you, but you can't afford to hear me, still, the 2 parts of electromagnetism is separated in the graph.

As has been pointed out many times, the site is your failure.Yes, yes, you keep telling me, but it is you who seem to be confused. All of this outpouring from your big head takes nothing away from the characteristics of electrical and magnetic energy, and the fact that I am not talking about light and those haracteristics directly.

Loss Leader

29th September 2006, 07:40 PM

No logic in humans being higher life forms? I think science goes by the most complex. Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Please cite any actual anything that supports your assertion that "science" classifies more complex creatures as "higher" forms of life.

There is just nothing there. Life evolves to survive changing environments. But the new life isn't "better," it's just able to survive in a new environment. It doesn't even mean that the new life would have faired very well in the old environment.

There were dinosaurs, they were very complex creatures. Then earth got hit by an asteroid and got very, very cold. The dinosaurs died out along with 75% of all species on the planet. The earth was left with far less complex animals but they were able to survive the cold. After a ridiculously brief period of time, the earth got warm again - warm enough to easily support dinosaurs. However, you may notice that the dinosaurs did not re-evolve.

If the dinosaurs were "higher" life forms, why did they not evolve again when the planet recovered?

Oh, I know why: BECAUSE LIFE EVOLVES TO FACE CURRENT CHALLENGES. It has nothing to do with becoming "higher" anything.

Your analogy does not work.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 07:50 PM

First name just one life form with only 5 cells. Just one, then we can proceed.
That was a joke. Proceed.

I less than three logic

29th September 2006, 08:05 PM

That was a joke. Proceed.
Sorry, my mistake. I can’t tell your believed nonsense from your make-believed.

RandFan

29th September 2006, 08:19 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 09:17 PM

LCL, can you give us (me) an example of a practical application of your ideas? Or could you tell me how or why they are significant? Please note that not all scientific discoveries result in practical applications so if there isn't any then that wouldn't prove anything but it could help me understand why you even think these ideas important or newsworthy?
Maybe you ought to tell me why you think it ain't.
This is a long running thread and I am not here talking to myself. You are just as determined to destroy it as I am to promote it. I have all ready stated at that site why I think so. I did that to help make things fast and clear. None of the things covered there were not made up by me. I wondered if there was a way that everybody could be right. (Well, almost everybody, atheist would have a problem no matter what.) I used the characteristics of the energies involved and it fit on a graph that flawlessly covers the whole drama from over 100 angles without changing it, and it has some fine built in features. To me if those things did not belong together (because they are all a piece of the puzzle) they would not fit together.

RandFan

29th September 2006, 09:46 PM

Maybe you ought to tell me why you think it ain't. I have no idea. I don't know why Mayonnaise doesn't have any practical aspects aside from being a food product. Do you?

I have no idea what your ideas are supposed to do, how can I tell you why they are not significant or that they don't have any practical benefit when I can't see what it is they are supposed to do?

This is a long running thread and I am not here talking to myself. You are just as determined to destroy it as I am to promote it. I have all ready stated at that site why I think so. I did that to help make things fast and clear. None of the things covered there were not made up by me. I wondered if there was a way that everybody could be right. (Well, almost everybody, atheist would have a problem no matter what.) I used the characteristics of the energies involved and it fit on a graph that flawlessly covers the whole drama from over 100 angles without changing it, and it has some fine built in features. To me if those things did not belong together (because they are all a piece of the puzzle) they would not fit together.I've no idea what this all means. I'd just like to understand how your ideas are applicable or how they increase our understanding of human psychology, anthropology or any science or discipline?

If I'm going through a divorce will your graph help me?
If I've got a cold will your graph help me?
I'm I'm trying to find another proof of Fermat's last theorem will your graph help me?
If I'm looking to find a cheaper and cleaner energy source will your graph help me?
If my son is having difficulties in school will your graph help me?
Will your graph help unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?

I'm not trying to destroy anything. I've looked at your graphics and I don't see anything of any use to anyone. Hey, I could be wrong. Could you help me out here?

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 09:55 PM

Yes, I'm serious. Please cite any actual anything that supports your assertion that "science" classifies more complex creatures as "higher" forms of life.
I am sure that science considers humans to be the highest lifeform on the planet. They must. So everything else must fall in some arrangement behind them, dolphins, apes etc. One celled life being last. I know I seen that stuff somewhere.

Life evolves to survive changing environments.
But the new life isn't "better," it's just able to survive in a new environment. It doesn't even mean that the new life would have faired very well in the old environment.
Okay. That is fine with me. But the highest lifeforms do see themselves as better. A lion would walk through the territory of another, but not want anyone walking through theirs. You see the proud expressions on some. And I know you have seen the "leader of the pack" acting like they are "all that."

There were dinosaurs, they were very complex creatures. Then earth got hit by an asteroid and got very, very cold. The dinosaurs died out along with 75% of all species on the planet. The earth was left with far less complex animals but they were able to survive the cold. After a ridiculously brief period of time, the earth got warm again - warm enough to easily support dinosaurs. However, you may notice that the dinosaurs did not re-evolve.
Okay. Thanks for the "mini-lesson" but I think the dinosaurs lost their place in line. Haven't you heard, "everybody wants to rule the world."

If the dinosaurs were "higher" life forms, why did they not evolve again when the planet recovered?
Good question. I never thought of that. Okay, yeah. I see below that you answered it.

Oh, I know why: BECAUSE LIFE EVOLVES TO FACE CURRENT CHALLENGES. It has nothing to do with becoming "higher" anything.
Technically, in the everything being equal world, it is not right to talk about higher and lower anything, I guess. But I am sure that science has divided life into higher and lower, if for nothing else but to study them. So, you are saying that you do not consider humans to be the highest form of life on this planet? Which is alright with me, but wrong or right it is something widely held to be true.

RandFan

29th September 2006, 10:02 PM

I am sure that science considers humans to be the highest lifeform on the planet. No.

ETA: Most scientists, particularly biologists would bristle at such a statement. It is arrogant. In our own way we are special but that is based on our own perspective. Scientists think in terms of complexity and not hierarchy, AIU. We are not the most resilient. We are not the most successful. We do not live, on average the longest. There is no reason to believe that our species will last longer than bees or cockroaches.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th September 2006, 10:21 PM

I'm not trying to destroy anything. I've looked at your graphics and I don't see anything of any use to anyone. Hey, I could be wrong. Could you help me out here?
Boy. I tell you truthfully. Of all the questions asked me here, I fear answering yours the most. I make myself brief but clear (at least what I think is clear) and when I look at your reply I feel as if I went through a shredder. No matter what I say.
It is possible that someone can walk away from that graph thinking the life has a plan. That the energies that make up the universe are behind how we think and feel. That life continues. To seek balance. To be good or else. That good and evil have a different source other than the creator. Answering how God can tolerate evil, or not help someone-it has nothing to do with them. That science and religion can be brought together. Science it strong, but it is unemotional-except when it discovers something. Religion is emotional, but not very smart. They need each other. The graph shows that no matter where we go, life throughout the universe has one soul.

RandFan

29th September 2006, 10:36 PM

Boy. I tell you truthfully. Of all the questions asked me here, I fear answering yours the most. I make myself brief but clear (at least what I think is clear) and when I look at your reply I feel as if I went through a shredder. No matter what I say.(emphasis mine) Dickens?

It is possible that someone can walk away from that graph thinking the life has a plan. That the energies that make up the universe are behind how we think and feel. That life continues. To seek balance. To be good or else. That good and evil have a different source other than the creator. Answering how God can tolerate evil, or not help someone-it has nothing to do with them. That science and religion can be brought together. Science it strong, but it is unemotional-except when it discovers something. Religion is emotional, but not very smart. They need each other. The graph shows that no matter where we go, life throughout the universe has one soul.Thank you for the answer.

I don't think that your "graph" logically compels the intellect to draw those conclusions. I could be wrong. I'm sorry. I really do appreciate your answer.

Cosmo

29th September 2006, 11:03 PM

http://i10.tinypic.com/2nuogue.jpg

lightcreatedlife@hom

30th September 2006, 12:33 AM

Yes I have. Can you tell me LCL, if male connectors are always positive or always negative, or is this another thing about which you are ignorant?
So. If someone does not know something they are ignorant? By that definition everyone is ignorant. So why do you think you need to remind me? You suppose to a a scientist? And why would I want to go off and chase the latest stick you are throwing? What does that have to do with anything? Are you are just dying to share your knowledge aren't you? I would think that you would be more at ease with it by now. Relax, no one will think you ignorant if you are not spouting information no one asked you for.

Females are considered "female" because they give birth to organisms much like themselves, not because things grow on them. What planets has "Mother Earth" given birth to? Can you call yourself a mother because you have given birth to acne?
How can a smart person act like you?
You sound like a child on the playground.
Look at this?

[You have failed basic biology. You are about the most ignorant person I've ever met.
Yet you are here talking to me. Logically now. If you are able. What does that make you? I absolutely cannot believe that intelligent folk would act the way you do. And why? Why does that thing threaten you so? It just an idea. Not personally directed at anyone.
Shouldn't our roles be reversed? You the confident, calm, voice of reason, and me the babbling fool? But it is you whop are twisting, misdirecting, name calling, and such? I have just become afraid that you are not who you say you are. That you are really an idiot pretending to be a scientist, or worst, a scientist who is an idiot.

Is this an atheist forum?

SirPhilip

30th September 2006, 01:14 AM

Is this an atheist forum? You are drawing meaningful comparisons between a very vague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) grasp of the fundamental physical forces and human behavior. This is art, not science (albeit meaningful, but only in it's own right).

Correa Neto

30th September 2006, 05:24 AM

What is this with amounts? You know that that is important to importance. (I don't believe I said that.) Higher life forms are always few in numbers to the lifeforms that "support" them.
Complex multicellular organisms evolved on this planet just because there was a certain -not yet completely known or understood- sequence of events among many other possible sequences.

Many possible alternative evolutionary paths outcomes would result in an Earth without what you call "higher lifeforms". Other would result in a planet inhabited just by arthropods, and so on.

There's no "purpose", no "guidance", no "goal" in evolution. Food networks in ecosystems are not hierarchies.

supercorgi

30th September 2006, 05:27 AM

Are you serious? That is just one form of life. Wait. I will give you a million other like it, how would that change anything? Higher life is the product, not the base.

:bwall

You can't posit universal principles if there are exceptions to those principles! That's it, you are so entrenched in your beloved "theory" that there's no getting through to you. I've wasted enough time reading this thread.

Loss Leader

30th September 2006, 06:32 AM

I am sure that science considers humans to be the highest lifeform on the planet. They must.

I understand, LCL, that the idea that humans are the highest life on the planet seems right to you. However, how things seem to you has nothing to do with how they actually are. Find some sort of "scientific" backing for your statement or abandon it. Your certainty that scientists "must" see humans as higher than all other creatures is, in point of fact, worthless. Prove your statement, point to someone else's proof or abandon it.

But the highest lifeforms do see themselves as better. A lion would walk through the territory of another, but not want anyone walking through theirs. You see the proud expressions on some. And I know you have seen the "leader of the pack" acting like they are "all that."

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that any animals besides humans "see themselves" as anything whatsoever. I notice a distinct lack of publication of philosophical tomes by lions.

Once again, you are drawing an unwarranted analogy. You are anthropomorphising lions. You see behavior that reminds you of human behavior so you ascribe to lions the same motives and thoughts humans would have if they behaved that way. Please provide any information from any zoologist who has identified anything on a lion's face as a "proud expression." Hint: there is no such information.

Okay. Thanks for the "mini-lesson" but I think the dinosaurs lost their place in line.

In a strict hierarchy, this seems impossible. 7 cannot "lose its place in line" between 6 and 8.

Technically, in the everything being equal world, it is not right to talk about higher and lower anything, I guess. But I am sure that science has divided life into higher and lower, if for nothing else but to study them.

This is the closest you have come to being right about something. Scientists do divide and classify animals (although not as "higher" or "lower"). Taxanomic classification is done for one reason alone - study. Humans just study things better by breaking them down into components and focusing on one thing at a time.

However, these divisions are done for our convenience only. They were made by us and have no meaning beyond that. Moreover, sometimes these divisions are improvidently made and actually stand in the way of our understanding of the biosphere. Some animals that look similar got lumped together when they were actually quite different. And some animals that appear very different were actually closely related.

So, you are saying that you do not consider humans to be the highest form of life on this planet? Which is alright with me, but wrong or right it is something widely held to be true.

I cannot understand why you insist that something "widely held to be true" must, in fact, be true. Popularity of opinion has nothing to do with its veracity.

Belz...

30th September 2006, 07:40 AM

You know. Even though science very well expects to find the formula for everything, they very well understand that it will not explain everything. You see that graph (or whatever it is) and there is only so much that can be seen from that angle. I said that there is 4 other versions, but even they do not show that (I don't think)

I can't help noticing that you didn't answer his question...

Oh come on. I have already said, and you well know, that biology and the way life has found to do what they do is endless, but there are certain patterns and norms.

...Nor mine, in fact. It's not about norms. Laws of physics and theories are supposed the explain ALL the phenomenas related to a field, not just "the norm". You said that energy exhibits the characteristics of gender, and then went on to compare the Earth to a female. So I ask again, do you think that the term "female" refers, biologically, to the one giving birth, or does it have to do with chromosomes ? In other words, would an XY carrying the eggs of an XX and carrying them to term be considered female by you ?

But rocks are not in the running. It is inorganic.

Not by your reckoning. You said energy exhibits the characteristics of gender, and that everything owes its characteristics to energy. You can't have it both ways and ignore what doesn't suit you.

I can say the same thing about you refuting my reference. Wikipedia is highly regard.

Any idiot and their mother can edit an article on Wikipedia. I prefer peer-reviewed articles and professional opinions.

I didn't go to Jim Bobs convenient definitions, and I used the first one offered, but I was still faulted for "cherry picking" even though the same person who said I was doing that, went past what I picked, and found one farther down that he liked.

Again, showing that you have little understanding of what's beign said to you. The point of that second reference was that you had ignored it because it didn't suit you. BOTH of them must be taken into consideration for it NOT to be considered cherry-picking.

The bases for how life behaves is not of interest to science?

Nice dodge. Science doesn't concern itself with frivolous claims without evidence. You might as well say that Odin, the all-father, is responsible for life on earth. But you can rest assured that no scientist is going to listen to you, even if your theory claims to explains the "bases for how life behaves."

The mental/emotional nature of life is not of interest? I do believe you. But I simply cannot believe why that is so. Can you explain that to me?

Sure thing. You seem to think that the "mental/emotional" nature of life is due to raw energy. You are wrong. Emotion is chemical. That's it.

no wonder religion has a place. Science cannot (or will not) explain everything.

Science does not explain the non-existent.

Belz...

30th September 2006, 07:47 AM

No I don't. Science recognizes 4 fundamental forces, not 3.

You're denying new knowledge, aren't you ? Haven't you read anything ?

If the electroweak was written in concrete, in 1979, I would not be here today, and you would not have waited till the 14th page to enlighten me about it.

1979 ? We're in 2006! Read up.

Yes, the graph is depended on those four being at "life tolerate temperates." You know. At a certain temperture a rock is no longer a rock.
Simple question. If the electroweak force existed around us like, say, gravity, would we be alive to watch cable tv?

Why does it matter ? The point is that the "4" forces are just extensions of a single force. Therefore, your graph collapses because it doesn't take that into account.

Tell me what those charteristics are then.

I'm not stupid, Light. That's not MY burden. If you want to learn, ask a professional.

On my part? I have never been standing here raving in the street. I have some logical bases for what I am saying. You would not be here if I didn't.

Wow. I make you a compliment and you respond like this ? That's the last you'll hear from me.

Yet they dream about uniteing 4 that they themselves defined? How dumb are they?

1. Science is not a person.
2. They are defined because they exist. You say so yourself.
3. They are trying to unite them because they estimate that, at the beginning, they were as one.
4. I thought you were AGREEING with science ? I see you ignore it whenever it disagrees with you.

You got a book showing one force? What is its name?

The first time I read about it was in a 1992 time-life book called Frontiers of Time. Though time-life isn't exactly scientific, the point is I've known about it for 15 years.

Belz...

30th September 2006, 07:51 AM

No logic in humans being higher life forms? I think science goes by the most complex. Are you serious?

You think wrong. Science says NOTHING about superiority of any life form. Only about their adaptation to their environment.

Also, if you're looking for complexity, dogs have more chromosomes than you.

Does matter owe its existence to the energy that holds it together? Didn't energy come first? Wouldn't matter have to be built on it?

Not necessarily. They may be simply two exchangeable side of the same coin. Ever think of that ?

True. But if half of 1% are right...

And if they're not ? We can play this game all day.

You can't call me a fool, you idiot. Its not nice.

I can do whatever I please.

I already answered that question at the site. They "profile" that way.

That's not an anwer. HOW do they "profile" that way ? Provide your reasoning, or admit that you're wrong.

It makes it less then going down the list and picking one I like. That seems the better definition of cherry-picking to me. Plase don't answer that because I would have no other choice but to put you this on the site.

You can do whatever you like. Cherry-picking means taking the information you like and discarding the rest. It doesn't matter if you take the FIRST quote or the last.

Belz...

30th September 2006, 08:00 AM

You are right. And have helped me. That means that before matter was even "visible" it knew what it had to do.

Actually, the laws of physics are probably random. Sorry.

I am sure that science considers humans to be the highest lifeform on the planet. They must.

Why "must" they ?

But the highest lifeforms do see themselves as better.

And yet bacteria can take down any other lifeform. Says a lot about superiority, eh ?

I less than three logic

30th September 2006, 09:46 AM

:bwall

You can't posit universal principles if there are exceptions to those principles! That's it, you are so entrenched in your beloved "theory" that there's no getting through to you. I've wasted enough time reading this thread.
“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” - Jonathan Swift

Seems to sum this entire thread up nicely.

SirPhilip

30th September 2006, 10:49 PM

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” - Jonathan Swift

Seems to sum this entire thread up nicely. Bingo..

SirPhilip

30th September 2006, 10:55 PM

I understand, LCL, that the idea that humans are the highest life on the planet seems right to you. However, how things seem to you has nothing to do with how they actually are. Find some sort of "scientific" backing for your statement or abandon it. Actually, there is no known (naturally-arising) lifeform known to exist equal in intelligence (or sentience) to a human, so whether this is in fact true or not remains a mystery. Given the common sensory configurations of insects and other animals, humanoids may exist throughout the universe on similar life-supporting planets.

SirPhilip

30th September 2006, 11:00 PM

Actually, the laws of physics are probably random. Sorry. Ah, but what a beautifully meaningful absurdity it can be!

SirPhilip

1st October 2006, 04:17 AM

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that any animals besides humans "see themselves" as anything whatsoever. I notice a distinct lack of publication of philosophical tomes by lions. According to a study published by Peta, the probability of a lion philosophizing is increased by 0.2% if shot with 900mg morphine followed by 30lbs of raw steak and then tea shoved into it's mouth (http://www.celestialseasonings.com/whoweare/press/images/international/madagascar_red.jpg), as opposed to 250mg methampthetamine, which is estimated to decrease the chances by at least 500%.

TobiasTheViking

1st October 2006, 02:33 PM

could you PLEASE just answer my questiosn.. GOD, it has been nineteen.. NINETEEN pages.

wollery

1st October 2006, 08:45 PM

could you PLEASE just answer my questiosn.. GOD, it has been nineteen.. NINETEEN pages.Tobias, please don't call him GOD. :p

Anacoluthon64

2nd October 2006, 02:06 AM

... So I ask again, where is the Earth's "vagina"?One? There are daft c***s all over the place!

'Luthon64

SirPhilip

2nd October 2006, 04:52 AM

One? There are daft c***s all over the place!'Luthon64 Perhaps this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/potp/img/hollow.jpg) will satisfy (sic) him?

zizzybaluba

2nd October 2006, 06:19 AM

Perhaps this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/potp/img/hollow.jpg) will satisfy (sic) him?

oh! now I understand.
Earthquakes must be due to the fact that the Earth hasn't been laid in millennia. Everything falls into place now :D

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 06:57 AM

Actually, the laws of physics are probably random. Sorry.
But if they are random, how is it that they work out so well? They not only work, but they work well, and without wasted laws, or laws that that mean nothing.

Why "must" they ?
Look at the intelligence. The difference is not just a bit, the gap is massive. Is there any other lifeform here that has the time and ability to go to the moon?

And yet bacteria can take down any other lifeform. Says a lot about superiority, eh ?
You are kidding right? What do you consider to be the highest form of life on this planet? And again. This is common knowledge. Ask anyone. I did not make this stuff up.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 06:59 AM

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” - Jonathan Swift

Seems to sum this entire thread up nicely.
So you are gone too?

I less than three logic

2nd October 2006, 07:07 AM

So you are gone too?
Well, it seems pointless to discuss anything with you since you are obviously correct. Please be sure to clue us in when you’ve won your Nobel Prize for this wonderful insight and discovery.

Belz...

2nd October 2006, 07:08 AM

But if they are random, how is it that they work out so well?

How could they not, really ?

They not only work, but they work well, and without wasted laws, or laws that that mean nothing.

How can you judge if they work well or if none of them are "wasted" ? To which other universe have you compared this one ?

Look at the intelligence. The difference is not just a bit, the gap is massive. Is there any other lifeform here that has the time and ability to go to the moon?

You've betrayed your own criterion, there. You use "intelligence" as a criterion for superiority. I see no logical reason to assume that this criterion is better than any other one.

You are kidding right?

I'm not. Bacteria can and frequently do kill just about everything else on Earth.

What do you consider to be the highest form of life on this planet?

Objectively ? None. There is no such concept.

And again. This is common knowledge. Ask anyone. I did not make this stuff up.

Just because the idea comes from someone else doesn't mean it's better than if you had made it up. Of course, you know this already because you've read the other 2 or 3 posts in which I say this.

RandFan

2nd October 2006, 07:45 AM

They not only work, but they work well, and without wasted laws, or laws that that mean nothing. :D

"Wasted"?

The law of genzxisuis is one big waste of a law.

Ask anyone. I did not make this stuff up.Bob: Steve, did LCL make this stuff up?
Steve: You can't make this stuff up!

All for the price of an internet connection. The organ plays and the monkey dances.

wollery

2nd October 2006, 09:44 AM

But if they are random, how is it that they work out so well? They not only work, but they work well, and without wasted laws, or laws that that mean nothing. :dl:

Let's all say it together, "anthropic principle".

Look at the intelligence. The difference is not just a bit, the gap is massive. Is there any other lifeform here that has the time and ability to go to the moon?I've always liked this quote from The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy;

"It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."

Douglas Adams, what a dude!

You are kidding right? What do you consider to be the highest form of life on this planet? And again. This is common knowledge. Ask anyone. I did not make this stuff up.Well the bacteria are the most diverse and successful, they've been around longer than any other lifeform, and have adapted to a much larger range of living conditions. The total mass of ants is greater than all other animals put together and they exist in almost every land ecosystem.

Whilst looking for the dolphin quote I came across another quote from THHGTTG;

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

:D

I less than three logic

2nd October 2006, 09:50 AM

I’m currently reading The Salmon of Doubt. So far I've found it to be a wonderful insight and tribute to a brilliant mind that died too soon. If you haven’t picked it up, I’d sure recommend it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 04:03 PM

How can you judge if they work well or if none of them are "wasted" ? To which other universe have you compared this one ?
I think science would agree that this universe works without any part of it having nothing to do with the overall equation. When they find something, they "know" that it is logically connected to everything thing else in some way. They know so well that they often "expect to find" before they do and are most always right.

You've betrayed your own criterion, there. You use "intelligence" as a criterion for superiority. I see no logical reason to assume that this criterion is better than any other one.
I think it is safe to say that humans are the highest form of life on this planet mentally, technologically, and emotionally.

I'm not. Bacteria can and frequently do kill just about everything else on Earth.
Humans are aware of bacteria, I don't think bacteria are aware of humans. If yoou think bacteria is a high form of life, give me an example of a lower form of life.

Objectively ? None. There is no such concept.
I agree. Objectively none. But for the sake of measurement/study, things have to be divided. Humans think that the life of a human is worth more than that of other life-mostly.

Just because the idea comes from someone else doesn't mean it's better than if you had made it up. Of course, you know this already because you've read the other 2 or 3 posts in which I say this.
Oh, I know that. But it does not matter what I say, when I say it, somehow it is made to appear as if I am the only person in the world that thinks like that. Now it might not be always right, but you had to have heard of what I am saying.

qayak

2nd October 2006, 04:44 PM

I think it is safe to say that humans are the highest form of life on this planet mentally, technologically, and emotionally.

Yes but these are only attributes that apply to humans. Lets say the goal is to live our life in the ocean, whales and other marine animals are much more advanced.

If you selectively choose the criteria you can make anything the "highest" form.

Do you really think humans are finished evolving? Do you think evolution was geared so that we would eventually show up on earth? Based on what evidence?

Humans think that the life of a human is worth more than that of other life-mostly.

But ask a gnu and he won't think your life is worth anything compared to his or that of his herd. Steve Erwin found out how much a sting ray valued human life.

Ask a racist what the best colour of skin is. Do you think they will tell you anything but the colour of their own?

Kochanski

2nd October 2006, 04:46 PM

They are not on my payroll. And I can tell you that I am not well liked there. Why shouldn't I go there for common knowledge? Millions of people do. Okay. Where should I go?

Because what you are looking for or should be looking for is NOT common knowledge. You are looking for specific scientific information which should come from reliable science sources. Google sorts things not by how reliable the source is, there is no vetting going on for the value and reliability of the sources. What you are finding there are merely the most popular things. Like looking at the best seller's section of a bookstore, it is no indication of the value of the data.

How about you do some real research and go to books?

Kochanski

2nd October 2006, 04:51 PM

On my part? I have never been standing here raving in the street. I have some logical bases for what I am saying. You would not be here if I didn't.

Will you please learn to use the correct word it is not BASES, we are not playing ball here, the word is BASIS.

Sheesh, if I see that one more time...

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 04:53 PM

Well, it seems pointless to discuss anything with you since you are obviously correct. Please be sure to clue us in when you’ve won your Nobel Prize for this wonderful insight and discovery.
I have been trying to discuss. You have been attacking. What else could I do? You say that I acted as if it is correct, but you have behaved as if it is obviously wrong, on everything. How is that even possible? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Oh wait. Let me fix that before I am attacked and called stupid. A broken military clock is only right once a day, as so is a digital one.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 05:15 PM

You are drawing meaningful comparisons between a very vague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) grasp of the fundamental physical forces and human behavior. This is art, not science (albeit meaningful, but only in it's own right).
I understand them enough to profile them from how science has defined them. What have I said that isn't what science said? If the behavior of life did not come from the behavior of the fundamental forces, where did it come from?
I can see if the behavior of life and the characteristics of energy seemed similiar in one place, but they match everywhere. Negative, positive, attraction, capture, violates, everywhere.

I figured out why the words used to describe energy interactions and social interactions are the same, they are both describing social interactions.

Those particles are in a sense socializing with each other. They have laws of behavior. They are different types of particles, with different wants and needs, and they have no other choice but to be together. When insects act collectively, we call them social, if we applied the term to particles it fits. And that is why science uses the words that it does, and it is why I say what I say.

SirPhilip

2nd October 2006, 05:25 PM

oh! now I understand.
Earthquakes must be due to the fact that the Earth hasn't been laid in millennia. Everything falls into place now :D (Sir Philip shakes a shaman's gourd rattle in celebration of this insight).

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 05:27 PM

Will you please learn to use the correct word it is not BASES, we are not playing ball here, the word is BASIS.

Sheesh, if I see that one more time...
Oh my God. I must have used that word a hundred times. Like that other word. Thank you. I could augue the point. But then the egg would stay on my face longer, wouldn't it? The same applies to anything I say. I will not stand next to something that can not reasonably stand by itself.

Kochanski

2nd October 2006, 05:36 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 05:44 PM

Because what you are looking for or should be looking for is NOT common knowledge. You are looking for specific scientific information which should come from reliable science sources. Google sorts things not by how reliable the source is, there is no vetting going on for the value and reliability of the sources. What you are finding there are merely the most popular things. Like looking at the best seller's section of a bookstore, it is no indication of the value of the data.

How about you do some real research and go to books?
I didn't get what I am talking about from google. If you notice I only goe there for reference when I have to. I have read all my life, and studied electronics. I be so sure of what I am saying (that it is common knowledge,) that google is a quick reference. I have to do quick here because I am pressed for time, (don't want to spend my whole life at this keyboard) but I did my studying as I was putting it together. I did not roll out of bed last month and jolt that thing down.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd October 2006, 05:55 PM

You are creating a false analogy here. Just because you see similarities does NOT mean the two things are in any way related.
But they are related. One is the energy interactions on which the other was built.

You go on about energy "knowing" things. How precisely? In what way?
I did not say energy knew something? I said that science "expects" to find a lot of things, before they do.

You are anthropomorphizing energy and particles just as you do with animals (as in your lion notions). This is not new and it is not science. If it is your way of understanding the way some things work, fine, dandy, peachy-keen, but it is not science.
I never said it was new, but isn't that what science did when they defined them? They used the words. I am saying that because those things "are" in a way socializing, what words could they use?

SirPhilip

2nd October 2006, 06:00 PM

I understand them enough to profile them from how science has defined them. What have I said that isn't what science said? If the behavior of life did not come from the behavior of the fundamental forces, where did it come from? I can see if the behavior of life and the characteristics of energy seemed similiar in one place, but they match everywhere. Negative, positive, attraction, capture, violates, everywhere. Being philosophically a Taoist, finding correlations between nature and human nature is considered practice. Science also has a similer term for this, called the anthropic principle (which someone else pointed out below) which essentially means a great deal while meaning nothing at all.

I figured out why the words used to describe energy interactions and social interactions are the same, they are both describing social interactions. This would only have validity as a theory if you could somehow predict human or animal behavior; in which case I'm talking to a nobel prize winner and millionare right now.

Those particles are in a sense socializing with each other. They have laws of behavior. They are different types of particles, with different wants and needs, and they have no other choice but to be together. When insects act collectively, we call them social, if we applied the term to particles it fits. And that is why science uses the words that it does, and it is why I say what I say. See above. It is simply seeing meaning in meaningless associations if you can't predict anything with it. Associative thinking is often used in poetry. A few examples, which everyone here can I'm sure relate to some degree:

"It takes both rain and sunshine to make a rainbow."

"Just about the time you think you can make both ends meet, somebody moves the ends.."

"You've reached middle age when all you exercise is caution.."

"What counts is not the number of hours you put in, but how much you put in the hours."

"The father is the head of the house. The mother the heart of the house."

All of these commonly relatable statements, however, have exceptions.