The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[whowhere]

so TB is what sense were you using the word "tunneling" to describe the possibility of an electron passing through a 3-foot brick wall? Were you strictly referring to the quantum tunneling affect or were you referring to something passing through a potential barrier? Because I believe CR was referring to the latter by the use of his language, especially the part "...or tunnelling as you say." Nevermind the current research into the quantum tunneling affect with regard to other particles, let's stick to your usage pertaining to electrons. So please, enlighten...

Do you understand the principles of power and electronic circuits? Electrons flow!! Ok? Every Dullard on this thread understand? If a connection is established, a connection made, an electron flows, case and point. This is scientific fact. Yes, by all means people continue to serve up your word salad and soup. (S)

[Oleg Bach]

Could you translate the word Dullard.

[whowhere]

Could you translate the word Dullard.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=dullard

dullard

dull·ard [ dúllərd ] (plural dull·ards)

noun

Definition:

somebody unintelligent: somebody regarded as unintelligent or slow to comprehend ( literary )

[Oleg Bach]

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=dullard

What's wrong with being slow to comprehend? Slow is better than not at all. There are those that comprehend rapidly at lighting speed..it depends on whether you have the talent or will to use the comprehension usefully or not that counts.

[whowhere]

What's wrong with being slow to comprehend? Slow is better than not at all. There are those that comprehend rapidly at lighting speed..it depends on whether you have the talent or will to use the comprehension usefully or not that counts.

It amazes me how those who platform themselves on science know nothing of science.

[Oleg Bach]

It amazes me how those who platform themselves on science know nothing of science.

Being a lowly high school drop out - I was not much for acedemic study..and I went into the arts - perhaps it was a mistake. There were two subjects that I did well in with out study.. Science was one of them - I always understood it in a natural manner and always scored in the 90s on my exams. I might not have a lofty degree but I do understand the principles.

[whowhere]

Being a lowly high school drop out - I was not much for acedemic study..and I went into the arts - perhaps it was a mistake. There were two subjects that I did well in with out study.. Science was one of them - I always understood it in a natural manner and always scored in the 90s on my exams. I might not have a lofty degree but I do understand the principles.

When I made that comment I didn't have you in mind, relax.

[charter.rights]

When I made that comment I didn't have you in mind, relax.

Yes, Oleg.....

It was a reflection on his own inadequacies....

[charter.rights]

Given how difficult they are to intercept it occurs to me that if you wanted to limit the number of potential receivers of a signal or message to only a few receivers that neutrinos would make a good candidate for a carrier.

I wonder if SETI has explored the possibility that advanced civilizations might not want to communicate with or to photon-level civilizations? SETI hasn't found a single thing looking amongst photons.

Perhaps only neutrino level civilizations can expect to survive the shock of talking to an advanced species or even a god (he said with a nod to the OP).

128 bit encryption is pretty difficult to crack. I would expect that encrypted messages could as easily be sent over a ternary system as they would a binary.

[whowhere]

Yes, Oleg.....

It was a reflection on his own inadequacies....

For someone who has zero knowledge of the stories in the OT, has zero knowledge of the facts of science and is propogating some east indian conceptualization that is inconsistent with the OT and science makes you befitting of this shoe. One fact is true I am sure, flies love you.

[charter.rights]

For someone who has zero knowledge of the stories in the OT, has zero knowledge of the facts of science and is propogating some east indian conceptualization that is inconsistent with the OT and science makes you befitting of this shoe. One fact is true I am sure, flies love you.

The Old Testament is really a piece of junk and Christianity comes from the New Testament entirely. I really don't give a hoot about the old junk cluttering up religion.

I have presented science as it is and cited to back up my presentations.

You are merely jealous of what you don't know. That is easily revealed in your responses. I would suggest that you work on the seven deadly sins and see if you can get them down to zero before you start criticizing others. Dork.

[whowhere]

The Old Testament is really a piece of junk and Christianity comes from the New Testament entirely. I really don't give a hoot about the old junk cluttering up religion.

I have presented science as it is and cited to back up my presentations.

You are merely jealous of what you don't know. That is easily revealed in your responses. I would suggest that you work on the seven deadly sins and see if you can get them down to zero before you start criticizing others. Dork.

The rant of a defeatist. Seven deadly sins? How? As christ died for the remission of sin yet there are seven deadly sins? Once again you demonstrate you are an ignoramus. Salient fact, I am not Jewish and Jesus died for the Remission of Sin, So yes I am at zero sins according to that trajectory. Of course this is contigent that jesus is legitimate. Whoever said he was legitimate other than Christian nutbars?

[Oleg Bach]

The ancients made one key statement regarding quantum mechnics and all the follows. "To God a second is a thousand years and a thousand years but a second." This statement is profound in that it shows the ancients understood eternity - timelessness - the alpha and omega circle of endlessness which is the devine. There is high science in scripture but most do not want to include science with religion - The bible will have a few glory filled statements here and there - but most of it is polical and misleading - along with glorfication of murder,plunder,land grabbing,deception and cruelty - not really a book you want to live by.

[charter.rights]

The rant of a defeatist. Seven deadly sins? How? As christ died for the remission of sin yet there are seven deadly sins? Once again you demonstrate you are an ignoramus. Salient fact, I am not Jewish and Jesus died for the Remission of Sin, So yes I am at zero sins according to that trajectory. Of course this is contigent that jesus is legitimate. Whoever said he was legitimate other than Christian nutbars?

Jesus is dead. Goof.

[Oleg Bach]

Jesus is dead. Goof.

The original jail house definistion of "Goof" was a dishonouable untrustworthy culprit..a cast away! As for Jesus being dead - you have that right - but the spirit of justified rebellion still resides in those that absorb the spirit of the Christ and that one was one of defiance and freedom..and fairness for all - Grace - the undeserved mercy of God - that is class - to be good and kind to those that don't even deserve it..it is the only way to get along and bring about change - with good will and faith.

[whowhere]

Jesus is dead. Goof.

Not only have you no knowledge of the OT, you have revealed you lack the knowledged of the NT as well. What was the last supper? dying on the cross? The resurrection? The trinity is the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost. According to the OT, the Ghost is what you release when you die, giving up the Ghost.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&version=KJV

Genesis 25 (King James Version)

8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

Jesus died on the cross for the remission of sin afterwhich he supposedly rose from the dead - A ghost, a Spirit, a something? In the Abraham sense, Jesus is indeed dead. The question becomes what is embodied in this Ghost given up?

You butcher science with half truth.

You blasphemy the OT.

You spit on your Jesus declaring him dead.

What kind of christian are you?

I suggest you start learning what the game is before you continue to reveal how much of an..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot

id⋅i⋅ot  /ˈɪdiət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [id-ee-uht] Show IPA

–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.

2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

[charter.rights]

Not only have you no knowledge of the OT, you have revealed you lack the knowledged of the NT as well. What was the last supper? dying on the cross? The resurrection? The trinity is the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost. According to the OT, the Ghost is what you release when you die, giving up the Ghost.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025&version=KJV

Jesus died on the cross for the remission of sin afterwhich he supposedly rose from the dead - A ghost, a Spirit, a something? In the Abraham sense, Jesus is indeed dead. The question becomes what is embodied in this Ghost given up?

You butcher science with half truth.

You blasphemy the OT.

You spit on your Jesus declaring him dead.

What kind of christian are you?

I suggest you start learning what the game is before you continue to reveal how much of an..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot

I'm not a Christian, goof.

Your interpretation of the OT and the NT will always be in dispute, because you lack the ability to look beyond your own mortality and sin.

By the way, Jesus - when he was alive - wasn't a Christian either, nor was he "white". He rejected organized religion and no doubt turns in his grave at the charlatan you have made yourself in His name.

Matthew 7:15-19

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I know you well, gar........

Edited February 14, 2010 by charter.rights

[whowhere]

I'm not a Christian, goof.

Your interpretation of the OT and the NT will always be in dispute, because you lack the ability to look beyond your own mortality and sin.

By the way, Jesus - when he was alive - wasn't a Christian either, nor was he "white". He rejected organized religion and no doubt turns in his grave at the charlatan you have made yourself in His name.

Matthew 7:15-19

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Not Christian? If we go back into your posts I am sure we will find you declaring otherwise. That would demonstrate you are a liar, untrustworthy in your posts, and of poor character. The OT and the NT is what it is. You can't pick and choose the parts you like and don't like, that's not how it works. Rejecting the book or the characters portrayed because it goes against your thinking is revealing of your intellect.

The only direct account of Jesus we have is what is written in the NT. To get that you would have to read it. Understanding the OT and NT and accepting and beleiving it is two different things. If you are going to talk a talk then be prepared to be refuted by what you supposedly platform yourself on.

Which is it Science or Theology?

If you are platforming yourself on science I am sure Toadbrother, gosthack, kimmy, etc will be ready cast holes into your weak grasp of science.

[charter.rights]

Not Christian? If we go back into your posts I am sure we will find you declaring otherwise. That would demonstrate you are a liar, untrustworthy in your posts, and of poor character. The OT and the NT is what it is. You can't pick and choose the parts you like and don't like, that's not how it works. Rejecting the book or the characters portrayed because it goes against your thinking is revealing of your intellect.

The only direct account of Jesus we have is what is written in the NT. To get that you would have to read it. Understanding the OT and NT and accepting and beleiving it is two different things. If you are going to talk a talk then be prepared to be refuted by what you supposedly platform yourself on.

Which is it Science or Theology?

If you are platforming yourself on science I am sure Toadbrother, gosthack, kimmy, etc will be ready cast holes into your weak grasp of science.

Nope. That makes YOU the LIAR, goof. I never stated that I was of any religion.

There is more to life than science and Christianity. I am an "other".

You haven't refuted anything presented here by anyone. All you are good at is putting your own spin on the crap you excerpt from the Bible. That isn't proof. It is heresy and it is not only proof of an inferior intellect, but it borders on psychopathy. Which is it? Are you a moron or a nutcase?

[whowhere]

Nope. That makes YOU the LIAR, goof. I never stated that I was of any religion.

There is more to life than science and Christianity. I am an "other".

You haven't refuted anything presented here by anyone. All you are good at is putting your own spin on the crap you excerpt from the Bible. That isn't proof. It is heresy and it is not only proof of an inferior intellect, but it borders on psychopathy. Which is it? Are you a moron or a nutcase?

Really, what was the christ conscious you went on about then?

[charter.rights]

Really, what was the christ conscious you went on about then?

Interconnectedness. Quantum reality. Something you don't get.

[whowhere]

Interconnectedness. Quantum reality. Something you don't get.

Now you are confusing your audience. You can't reject Christianity then talk about Christianity as if there is some consciousness to it.

[charter.rights]

Now you are confusing your audience. You can't reject Christianity then talk about Christianity as if there is some consciousness to it.

I certainly can. There are no rules to how or what one can believe.

Remember Jesus was NOT a Christian. He would have rejected it. But his followers demonstrated the Christ was with them even though they too recognized that Jesus was dead. So Jesus wasn't teaching religion. He was teaching "reality" - the reality of miracles; the reality of interconnectedness (The Trinity); the reality of God as everything.

Funny enough, that is exactly what the concept of Quantum Mechanics is about too!

I merely put the two together. And you failed the second test, gar... So which is it? Are you a moron or a psychopath. There are only two choices.

[kimmy]

Light!

Now we can see the same thing. We can "imagine" it.

Light? I'm glad you've finally had a Eureka moment here, but I talked about this 2 weeks ago...

And yet you're able to type? How come your fingers don't just pass right through the keys? Why does that mountain stay a mountain? Why doesn't air start turning into mountains? How do you eat? Why do you even bother eating? How come your body hasn't just vanished into disassociated quarks traveling in random directions at high velocities? Why does nuclear fission require work to achieve? Why does nuclear fission release so much energy? Do nuclear explosions just randomly occur where you live? Why don't they?

Ponder the answer to these questions, and then ponder how that relates to your argument, and let us know what you come up with.

...and the only response I got was some cracks about my hair color.

I am not sure. Theories and hypothesis develop, they move along. With c.r ideas, I see the medium, but I see problems with its use in the manner described. But not impossible problems, just hurdles.

No. c-r has been arguing all along against the existence of "context" as we've just described it. There's no difference between you and me, there's no difference between mountains and air, there's no difference between ions and electrons and electromagnetic waves, it's all the same, it's all part of one big amorphous mess that he has called "electron soup." He has stated this stuff over and over.

You can believe in c-r's "electron soup", or you can believe in "context" as we've just described it, but you can't believe in both because they're mutually exclusive.

Pretty close yes. But the notion of a stacked communication path is key I think.

What difference does a "stacked communications path" make?

I can tentatively agree, yes, in the sense that the meaning of communication could change.

If the collective intelligence we're discussing is a network of many independent processors, then you're with me and against c-r's idea that everything is a part of a single nondistinct entity that just "Is".

For such a system to be described as "collective", then information must be communicated between the nodes, and we can discuss the requirements for such communication to occur.

And I again argue that such communication must occur through our senses through what I earlier referred to as "social" means.

The idea that human society as a whole could be considered a single collective intelligence composed of billions of independent processors exchanging information through our mass media and internet is a concept that I'm entirely open to considering.

However, I'm not open to the idea that humans are unknowingly exchanging ideas through neutrinos and radiation and electromagnetic waves and the other pseudoscience ideas being presented here by some people.

Now in the real world we use shielding on wires to prevent crosstalk and other interference. However - as an open ended question - is it possible that noise at the quantum level can be a signal carrier?

Whatever form noise at the quantum level were to take, it would certainly represent a sum of an incalculably huge number of random processes, which would statistically guarantee a net zero "signal" would result-- so again Shannon's Law tells us that's an unworkable communication path.

Now, there could be some way of influencing those statistics to generate a non-zero result... but the signal wouldn't be "noise" anymore, the signal would be whatever influence is applied to influence the noise.

-k

[whowhere]

I certainly can. There are no rules to how or what one can believe.

Remember Jesus was NOT a Christian. He would have rejected it. But his followers demonstrated the Christ was with them even though they too recognized that Jesus was dead. So Jesus wasn't teaching religion. He was teaching "reality" - the reality of miracles; the reality of interconnectedness (The Trinity); the reality of God as everything.

Funny enough, that is exactly what the concept of Quantum Mechanics is about too!

I merely put the two together. And you failed the second test, gar... So which is it? Are you a moron or a psychopath. There are only two choices.

Jesus was supposedly a Jew preaching to Jews. It was Paul who broadened the scope to the masses of the world. On the one hand hand you can't talk of Christianity and ignore what is written by Jesus's apostles. Doing this reveals you are delusional and the real moron. For whatever reason Christianity has been linked with the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Not only that, Jesus did everything in the name of and on behalf of this God portrayed in the Old Testament. In the opening of John - NT, in the beginning there was the word. Christianity is about words and the meaning behind them. Does that fit into your model?

Calling me a Psychopath when I put forward literal passages contrary to your abstract reference to christianity is projection on your part. For anyone who knows the principles of Christianity knows it is unchristian to degrade anyone and call them names. In Christianity you are of Christ or you are of Satan. In Christianity it is either/or. In the NT the emphasis is on "works/deeds". You can beleive what you want but your actions and words is the defining fact that makes you christian or not. You can't have a christ consciousness if you are unaware of the principles of Christianity and the addition of one commandment by Jesus. If you don't know what that commandment is then you truly are a moron.