How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[AV1611VET]

(Note 'Combustion Theory' doesn't use a spell checker.)

Too bad.

It could have used it, couldn't it?

 

[Sorn]

Can you provide a citation from the QChem literature showing that a full cell can't pop into existence? How `bout just a QC calculation of a 18000 protein system?

If you are suggesting that is is possible for a cell to pop into existence via QC effect etc, then the onus is on you to support that statement with evidence just as you asked for evidence to back the statement 'a cell can not just pop into existence'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you are suggesting that is is possible for a cell to pop into existence via QC effect etc, then the onus is on you to support that statement with evidence just as you asked for evidence to back the statement 'a cell can not just pop into existence'.

I am not.

Mr. Mountainmike claims that QC has *calculated* the odds of such an event: a 18000 protein cell coming spontaneously into existence. I suggest that no such calculation of "spontaneous cell generation" has ever been done or published, because based on my understanding of the state of QC, QC isn't capable of performing such a calculation.

I've seen many "super-big number" probability claims for 1) formation of genomes, 2) generation of all proteins in the cell, and 3) the "fine tuning" of all the physical constants to make the universe suitable for life.

The calculations for the 1 & 2 usually use combinatorics for spontaneous generation of the whole genome or proteome at once. The "fine tuning" "probabilities" are typically made-up whole cloth.

 

[Astrid]

If you are suggesting that is is possible for a cell to pop into existence via QC effect etc, then the onus is on you to support that statement with evidence just as you asked for evidence to back the statement 'a cell can not just pop into existence'.

What a weird discussion

 

[Mountainmike]

I asked what you meant about the "atheist press" and rather than explaining your term, you went on a ramble about your favorite stalking horse, or rather linen cloth.

I can’t speak for the rest of the world. The UK press is notoriously atheist in outlook. The only thing it doesn’t dare criticise as much as it should is the excesses of Islam.

I gave examples of shroud coverage which has never been objective. It’s why so few people know the scope and conclusions of the science behind the shroud. Even recently I saw an article defending the discredited RC date without noting any of the science that discredits it.

But then neither is U.K. political coverage objective . It is just rather better than the USA whose news channels are so partisan they cease to be news.

 

[Astrid]

I can’t speak for the rest of the world. The UK press is notoriously atheist in outlook. The only thing it doesn’t dare criticise as much as it should is the excesses of Islam.

I gave examples of shroud coverage which has never been objective. It’s why so few people know the scope and conclusions of the science behind the shroud. Even recently I saw an article defending the discredited RC date without noting any of the science that discredits it.

But then neither is U.K. political coverage objective . It is just rather better than the USA whose news channels are so partisan they cease to be news.

It's only objective when it says what you like.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's only objective when it says what you like.

Its objective when it gives a balanced view of the science. That also happens to be what I like.

If it reports a conclusion it should report the reservations with it.

Headline " RC gives shroud date of X"

( date information)

BUT as was declared beforehand, textile dating is known to be problematic, and what appear to be 3 tests are just one sample in violation of all previously agreed sampling protocols: the daters took no notice. If theres a problem with the sample there are not three tests. There were anomalies - such as cotton threads noted at sampling time which should have given cause for concern. Many other sources of evidence including sightings in constantinople, pictures drawn before the date range are problematic because they lie WELL outside the supposed confidence intervals which are therefore demonstrated as void, Also forensic correspondence with the sudarium of oviedo demonstrate the RC date is almost certainly false. Other physiochemical dating does give first century origin and other forensics demonstrate the shroud was indeed in the jerusalem area.

It should be noted that
(a) It is not an artwork. There is still no mechanism demonstrated for how the mark came to be, but it is consistent with short burst radiation from the body , and the intensity variation and geometric distortion confirms a hypothesis of non contact.

(b) All the marks are consistent with the documented passion of Christ. It is not a forgery not least because there are big differences between iconography which would have been copied such as a bonnet of thorns and wrist nailing. No forger would have introduced differences from the normal narrative.

(c) There is no evidence of the mark beneath the blood stains. That is problematic for how any order of forgery could have occurred. The blood and serum stains are consistent with pre and post mortem pathology and forensically a real crucifixtion victim. It is also beyond reasonable doubt it is the same victim as the older sudarium.

There. That is the "objective" date article.
Not the endless repetition of "RC proves it is a fake" (it did no such thing) or "leanoardo must have faked it". WHich defies his birth dates!


Thats the scientific view.
Most of that was known at the time the date was published in nature.
Sadly even Nature magazine loses scientific objectivity faced with anything it doesn’t “ like”

 

[Astrid]

Its objective when it gives a balanced view of the science. That also happens to be what I like.

If it reports a conclusion it should report the reservations with it.

Headline " RC gives shroud date of X"

( date information)

BUT as was declared beforehand, textile dating is known to be problematic, and what appear to be 3 tests are just one sample in violation of all previously agreed sampling protocols: the daters took no notice. If theres a problem with the sample there are not three tests. There were anomalies - such as cotton threads noted at sampling time which should have given cause for concern. Many other sources of evidence including sightings in constantinople, pictures drawn before the date range are problematic because they lie WELL outside the supposed confidence intervals which are therefore demonstrated as void, Also forensic correspondence with the sudarium of oviedo demonstrate the RC date is almost certainly false. Other physiochemical dating does give first century origin and other forensics demonstrate the shroud was indeed in the jerusalem area.

It should be noted that
(a) It is not an artwork. There is still no mechanism demonstrated for how the mark came to be, but it is consistent with short burst radiation from the body , and the intensity variation and geometric distortion confirms a hypothesis of non contact.

(b) All the marks are consistent with the documented passion of Christ. It is not a forgery not least because there are big differences between iconography which would have been copied such as a bonnet of thorns and wrist nailing. No forger would have introduced differences from the normal narrative.

(c) There is no evidence of the mark beneath the blood stains. That is problematic for how any order of forgery could have occurred. The blood and serum stains are consistent with pre and post mortem pathology and forensically a real crucifixtion victim. It is also beyond reasonable doubt it is the same victim as the older sudarium.

There. That is the "objective" date article.
Not the endless repetition of "RC proves it is a fake" (it did no such thing) or "leanoardo must have faked it". WHich defies dates!




Thats the scientific view.

Just for a bit of a check on what you consider objective
science v your chosen view, do you believe in Noah's ark
and believe ToE is false?

 

[Mountainmike]

Just for a bit of a check on what you consider objective
science v your chosen view, do you believe in Noah's ark
and believe ToE is false?

Objective Science is objective science.
Putting the reservations with any postulated conclusion.
Not letting one test override overwhelming other evidence . Think shroud.

if I get a different answer to my peers, I look to see what I got wrong, not what they got wrong ( carbon daters please note) They were told by meacham the date was indicative not definitive, he said it before the test date!

There’s no such thing as a single ToE.
The rest is in all sorts of states from pure speculation, conjecture, hypotheses to theories.
Common descent, genetic theories, Micro evolution, pure conjectures about jumps. ( all that is 0.1 percent of the problem)
On the 99.9% How did a first minimum cell come to exist? It is massively complex. It’s why I highlight “ self designing factory of 10000+++ proteins.” Getting from there to a reptile is easier than getting to it from soup.

All there is is speculation.
Was it unguided? I don’t think so.

Not least experience of math modelling of optimisation shows the concept is untenable.

Do I believe the scientific model explains what things normally do? Yes, but only because a model is a net sum of experience of stuff that repeats.

Do I believe it explains what Is at a fundamental level? No. It’s a model based on projections into our sensor space. Analogy. From a 2d video can you determine the physics of a 3 d world? No. Only derivatives of it, Or is the universe a bat trapped in a cave would model the same as ours. No. Partly because you are limited to light. / sound. Partly because of an infinite potential number of invisible dimensions.

Can things happen not explainable by the model, and that never can be because they violate the foundation of it. Yes. They undoubtedly do. Lots of examples.
Science is useful, it’s not a complete answer.

The big one. Do I believe consciousness is a chemical process permanently trapped in the brain? No. And there’s plenty of evidence for that. Which case the ToE is at best only a bit part in the real question of life.

enough?

and you?

 

[Frank Robert]

Objective Science is objective science.
Putting the reservations with any postulated conclusion.
Not letting one test override overwhelming other evidence . Think shroud.

Claiming over and over again that there is overwhelming evidence for the shroud is not evidence for the shroud.

There’s no such thing as a single ToE.
The rest is in all sorts of states from pure speculation, conjecture, hypotheses to theories.
Common descent, genetic theories, Micro evolution, pure conjectures about jumps. ( all that is 0.1 percent of the problem)
On the 99.9% How did a first minimum cell come to exist? It is massively complex. It’s why I highlight “ self designing factory of 10000+++ proteins.” Getting from there to a reptile is easier than getting to it from soup.

Claiming over and over again that the ToE is "pure speculation, conjecture, hypotheses to theories," etc does make the ToE pure speculation, etc.

All there is is speculation.
Was it unguided? I don’t think so.

"I don't think so" is not evidence it is speculation.

 

[Astrid]

Objective Science is objective science.
Putting the reservations with any postulated conclusion.
Not letting one test override overwhelming other evidence . Think shroud.

if I get a different answer to my peers, I look to see what I got wrong, not what they got wrong ( carbon daters please note) They were told by meacham the date was indicative not definitive, he said it before the test date!

There’s no such thing as a single ToE.
The rest is in all sorts of states from pure speculation, conjecture, hypotheses to theories.
Common descent, genetic theories, Micro evolution, pure conjectures about jumps. ( all that is 0.1 percent of the problem)
On the 99.9% How did a first minimum cell come to exist? It is massively complex. It’s why I highlight “ self designing factory of 10000+++ proteins.” Getting from there to a reptile is easier than getting to it from soup.

All there is is speculation.
Was it unguided? I don’t think so.

Not least experience of math modelling of optimisation shows the concept is untenable.

Do I believe the scientific model explains what things normally do? Yes, but only because a model is a net sum of experience of stuff that repeats.

Do I believe it explains what Is at a fundamental level? No. It’s a model based on projections into our sensor space. Analogy. From a 2d video can you determine the physics of a 3 d world? No. Only derivatives of it, Or is the universe a bat trapped in a cave would model the same as ours. No. Partly because you are limited to light. / sound. Partly because of an infinite potential number of invisible dimensions.

Can things happen not explainable by the model, and that never can be because they violate the foundation of it. Yes. They undoubtedly do. Lots of examples.
Science is useful, it’s not a complete answer.

The big one. Do I believe consciousness is a chemical process permanently trapped in the brain? No. And there’s plenty of evidence for that. Which case the ToE is at best only a bit part in the real question of life.

enough?

and you?

Non objective research is not science at all,
more like anti science. So specifying "objective science"
makes little sense.

Your response about ToE has too many layers.
" No" would have been easier for you if "no" is it.
But never,mind.

If you had responded to the flood question that
would have told me what I wanted to know.

Cutting to the chase, I'd say that if you believe
in a literal world wide flood, backed by science
then your idea of "objective" is out the door.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can’t speak for the rest of the world. The UK press is notoriously atheist in outlook. The only thing it doesn’t dare criticise as much as it should is the excesses of Islam.

I gave examples of shroud coverage which has never been objective. It’s why so few people know the scope and conclusions of the science behind the shroud. Even recently I saw an article defending the discredited RC date without noting any of the science that discredits it.

But then neither is U.K. political coverage objective . It is just rather better than the USA whose news channels are so partisan they cease to be news.

I think the word you looking for is "secular" as in the "secular press", i.e., not the organ of a religious body, practice, philosophy or dogma.

You also seem to be confusing "atheist" with "not partisan toward my religion". It's unlike that any major/national newspaper in a western nation takes any position on the existence of any god (what atheism is) and if they do, it's probably a tacit acceptance that your god is real.

 

[Mountainmike]

ToE is layered.
It’s a ragbag of concepts , hypothesis , theories and pure speculation.
Common descent. Many theories of Molecular genetics. micro evolution. Unanswered questions in macro evolution, a gaping hole before the minimum cell.

A biggie. Is consciousness a separate thing or just a chemical process confined to the brain? If not a ToE is not a complete answer to life.

It can’t be answered yes no.


Bbreeding dogs with longer necks is a given, as is natural build of a few small molecules like amino acids. But an analogy. I can get closer to the moon by walking up a hill. That doesn’t mean I can get to the moon by walking up a hill.

Is evolution unguided? I don’t think so. Not least because of experience in sophisticated physics mathematical optimisation. Simplistic does not work.

Also The forensic evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles- assuming valid- and it’s hard to challenge - disproves Darwin’s theory using Darwin’s own test. But that doesn’t mean some evolution processes aren’t involved in arriving where we are.

Most science is nuanced. It deals with the real world, the real world doesn’t allow easy modelling.

Non objective research is not science at all,
more like anti science. So specifying "objective science"
makes little sense.

Your response about ToE has too many layers.
" No" would have been easier for you if "no" is it.
But never,mind.

If you had responded to the flood question that
would have told me what I wanted to know.

Cutting to the chase, I'd say that if you believe
in a literal world wide flood, backed by science
then your idea of "objective" is out the door.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think the word you looking for is "secular" as in the "secular press", i.e., not the organ of a religious body, practice, philosophy or dogma.

You also seem to be confusing "atheist" with "not partisan toward my religion". It's unlike that any major/national newspaper in a western nation takes any position on the existence of any god (what atheism is) and if they do, it's probably a tacit acceptance that your god is real.

I think the word you looking for is "secular" as in the "secular press", i.e., not the organ of a religious body, practice, philosophy or dogma.

You also seem to be confusing "atheist" with "not partisan toward my religion". It's unlike that any major/national newspaper in a western nation takes any position on the existence of any god (what atheism is) and if they do, it's probably a tacit acceptance that your god is real.

No . I mean actuality partisan to atheist , and often nonsense explanation. If you read the correspondence of Gove on the shroud, he had no interest in dating the shroud, his interest was determining it false.

The press lapped it up, It missed the true science.

That’s why youve heard of Gove, an incompetent halfwit called Mcrone, but youve never heard of meacham, or the real science or scientists who did it. Or the forensics of the sudarium that proves the shroud real and the shroud dating false.

but it’s up to you, you can go on the fascinating journey and discover it is an enigma. Or you can be rude to those who point out science.

I can only repeat: the shroud Mark is a thin layer that can only be reproduced by a short burst radiation. The 3D distortion only possible if the radiation was non contact body centric. that is science speaking.

I’m interested in the science.

the pre and post mortem pathology is not visible in normal spectra and is compatible with the tortures described of Christ.


The rest you can find yourself.

 

[Astrid]

ToE is layered.
It’s a ragbag of concepts , hypothesis , theories and pure speculation.
Common descent. Many theories of Molecular genetics. micro evolution. Unanswered questions in macro evolution, a gaping hole before the minimum cell.

A biggie. Is consciousness a separate thing or just a chemical process confined to the brain? If not a ToE is not a complete answer,

It can’t be answered yes know.


Bbreeding dogs with longer necks is a given, as is natural build of a few small molecules like amino acids. But an analogy. I can get closer to the moon by walking up a hill. That doesn’t mean I can get to the moon by walking up a hill.

Is evolution unguided? I don’t think so. Not least because of experience in sophisticated physics mathematical optimisation. Simplistic does not work.

Also The forensic evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles- assuming valid- and it’s hard to challenge - disproves Darwin’s theory using Darwin’s own test. But that doesn’t mean some evolution processes aren’t involved in arriving where we are.

Most science is nuanced. It deals with the real world, the real world doesn’t allow easy modelling.

I definitely don't need a science lesson
from you.

I asked you about Noah's ark not
evolution.
But I think I got my answer about your
concept of "objective".

 

[Frank Robert]

ToE is layered.
It’s a ragbag of concepts , hypothesis , theories and pure speculation.

Why: Because Mountainmike says so

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No . I mean actuality partisan to atheist , and often nonsense explanation. If you read the correspondence of Gove on the shroud, he had no interest in dating the shroud, his interest was determining it false.

The press lapped it up, It missed the true science.

That’s why youve heard of Gove, an incompetent halfwit called Mcrone, but youve never heard of meacham, or the real science or scientists who did it. Or the forensics of the sudarium that proves the shroud real and the shroud dating false.

but it’s up to you, you can go on the fascinating journey and discover it is an enigma. Or you can be rude to those who point out science.

I can only repeat: the shroud Mark is a thin layer that can only be reproduced by a short burst radiation. The 3D distortion only possible if the radiation was non contact body centric. that is science speaking.

I’m interested in the science.

the pre and post mortem pathology is not visible in normal spectra and is compatible with the tortures described of Christ.


The rest you can find yourself.

So I read a whole bunch on this including Meacham and Gove and others, I suspect the real question is what would happen if you got to design and run another sample?

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Astrid]

So I read a whole bunch on this including Meacham and Gove and others, I suspect the real question is what would happen if you got to design and run another sample?

Fat chance the church will risk it

 

[Astrid]

deleted

?