How The Multiverse Can Unite Religions

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

?

? how would Mountain approach it and what would he accept?

 

[Mountainmike]

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".

Noah’s ark seemed the detail, evolution seemed your main concern.

these posts take time to write.

in any event you have failed to acknowledge a single scientific point I’ve made - a fair reflection of state of play on the fascinating but largely unresolved science of evolution.

Ive pointed at the scientific status of shroud and sudarium. Both would be regarded as beyond reasonable doubt as relating to the same real body in a court of law. That’s how good the forensic correspondence is.

The mark chemistry is known but the only hypothesis that meets the known spatial distribution - body centric radiation leaves as many questions as it answers. Incidentally a neutrino or neutron storm would be plenty enough to wreck RC dating.

But then textiles can’t easily date. A mummy dated much younger than wrappings! How?

Noah’s ark I suspect something similar happened on a local or regional basis. The archeology of the holy land is fascinating. Much of what has been referenced as people and locations have left archeological traces.

In any event. I give respect to those I debate - your remark “ don’t take science lessons from you “ is an insult, so here ends discussion.

I thought you might be interested. Evidently not. I can only observe Most atheists worldview is so rigid it doesn’t allow new information in. sad but true.

 

[Mountainmike]

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?

the operative word is multiple samples and process properly.One sample only was the problem last time. Read meachams book.

since then - states meachams rape of the shroud - other mistakes have been made. An anti fungal coating in the box will have damaged the date permanently.

as will the replacement of backing with modern fibre almost impossible to separate from the shroud material, also covered in debris from scraping out burn marks.
Fleury Lemberg was the biggest disaster ever to befall the shroud,

I cannot think the church will engage on another test, and since the restoration a date is even less likely to be valid.

Fantis physiochemical tests, also following up Rogers lignin decomposition May yield better answers Now.

The corrspondence of sudarium, shroud, linceul are so representative of the stated torture I think inaccurate dating is no longer of value. It really is the shroud of Christ. The question of who he claimed to be is separate. I think corespondence is so good, if it had been other than him, it would never have been disputed.

the radiation mark needs explaining.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

And?

 

[Mountainmike]

And?

And what?

Meacham ( the only archaeologist who used dating ever involved! ) states dating textiles is only ever indicative.

The mistakes made by restorers in 2000 have probably invalidated future RC tests. Fleury Lemberg was an idiot who disregarded the scientific voices on restoration.

so rc date is a dead end.
Other physiochemical dates say first century. They are woryh repeating / expanding.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

And what?

Meacham ( the only archaeologist who used dating ever involved! ) states dating textiles is only ever indicative.

The mistakes made by restorers in 2000 have probably invalidated future RC tests. Fleury Lemberg was an idiot who disregarded the scientific voices on restoration.

so rc date is a dead end.
Other physiochemical dates say first century. They are woryh repeating / expanding.

Your other reply appears to have come before mine, however it appears to answer my question. While you would like "science" to agree with you, you are not prepared for it to disagree and you will find arguments to support your position. Accepted, but unless you can develop an area of science that agrees with your philosophical desires on a regular basis, you will be at a disadvantage in any forum based on scientific regularities.

 

[Mountainmike]

Spare me.

I quote the science as it is.
If you want to discuss it or challenge it go for it.
How do you say the mark was formed?
Do you even know what the sudarium is?

On the shroud - atheists are the ones with closed minds.

Your other reply appears to have come before mine, however it appears to answer my question. While you would like "science" to agree with you, you are not prepared for it to disagree and you will find arguments to support your position. Accepted, but unless you can develop an area of science that agrees with your philosophical desires on a regular basis, you will be at a disadvantage in any forum based on scientific regularities.

 

[Estrid]

Noah’s ark seemed the detail, evolution seemed your main concern.

these posts take time to write.

in any event you have failed to acknowledge a single scientific point I’ve made - a fair reflection of state of play on the fascinating but largely unresolved science of evolution.

Ive pointed at the scientific status of shroud and sudarium. Both would be regarded as beyond reasonable doubt as relating to the same real body in a court of law. That’s how good the forensic correspondence is.

The mark chemistry is known but the only hypothesis that meets the known spatial distribution - body centric radiation leaves as many questions as it answers. Incidentally a neutrino or neutron storm would be plenty enough to wreck RC dating.

But then textiles can’t easily date. A mummy dated much younger than wrappings! How?

Noah’s ark I suspect something similar happened on a local or regional basis. The archeology of the holy land is fascinating. Much of what has been referenced as people and locations have left archeological traces.

In any event. I give respect to those I debate - your remark “ don’t take science lessons from you “ is an insult, so here ends discussion.

I thought you might be interested. Evidently not. I can only observe Most atheists worldview is so rigid it doesn’t allow new information in. sad but true.

Yes, they do take time to write, and that's why I
said you dont need to give me lessons.
Which you don't.
Going straight to the negative agenda conclusion
of " insult" is hardly objective, however indicative it
may be.

As for shroud, it doesnt interest me any more.
I read enough already.
Refute points?
Dueling websites? What a delight.
In the event, you did what my dad used to call
"Smother 'em with details" more rcently termed
the gish gallpp. Only a nail or fool falls for that one.

You did the same re evolution, complete with
lots of adjectives and equivocation.
Then capped the display with that I'm closed minded
because I am an atheist.

Capable of objectivity and resson, maybe.
Inclined to display it, no.

 

[Mountainmike]

1/ none of the subjects are simple.

2/ The evolution vs creation trope is a false dichotomy.
Not least because “ evolution” is not a single cohesive theory, there are a range of aspects which status range from speculation to hypothesis to validated theory. It is not amenable to believe or not.
The details are fascinating.

3/ shroud science is complex, there is a lot of it. The mark is unique. No similar marks to compare. the forensic correspondences are vital to establishing origin.
It is not a forgery, even now it cannot be forged.

you cannot take a simplistic view.

Ive given some science and arguments in my posts. Not a single cogent response challenging any of what I have said. For people who consider themselves as reason against belief, its disappointing.

its sad the reason people think the shroud is a fraud is that they still refuse to study it.

Time to move on.

Yes, they do take time to write, and that's why I
said you dont need to give me lessons.
Which you don't.
Going straight to the negative agenda conclusion
of " insult" is hardly objective, however indicative it
may be.

As for shroud, it doesnt interest me any more.
I read enough already.
Refute points?
Dueling websites? What a delight.
In the event, you did what my dad used to call
"Smother 'em with details" more rcently termed
the gish gallpp. Only a nail or fool falls for that one.

You did the same re evolution, complete with
lots of adjectives and equivocation.
Then capped the display with that I'm closed minded
because I am an atheist.

Capable of objectivity and resson, maybe.
Inclined to display it, no.

 

[SelfSim]

Ive given some science and arguments in my posts. Not a single cogent response challenging any of what I have said. For people who consider themselves as reason against belief, its disappointing.

You seem to favour your 'mud brick houses can't assemble themselves' analogy .. but they can (by a similar analogy).

 

[Estrid]

1/ none of the subjects are simple.

2/ The evolution vs creation trope is a false dichotomy.
Not least because “ evolution” is not a single cohesive theory, there are a range of aspects which status range from speculation to hypothesis to validated theory. It is not amenable to believe or not.
The details are fascinating.

3/ shroud science is complex, there is a lot of it. The mark is unique. No similar marks to compare. the forensic correspondences are vital to establishing origin.
It is not a forgery, even now it cannot be forged.

you cannot take a simplistic view.

Ive given some science and arguments in my posts. Not a single cogent response challenging any of what I have said. For people who consider themselves as reason against belief, its disappointing.

its sad the reason people think the shroud is a fraud is that they still refuse to study it.

Time to move on.

It was before you started.
Anyone posting a gish is interested in one thing,
a cheap "win" that impresses nobody.

 

[Estrid]

You seem to favour your 'mud brick houses can't assemble themselves' analogy .. but they can (by a similar analogy).

? I don't get it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The mark chemistry is known but the only hypothesis that meets the known spatial distribution - body centric radiation leaves as many questions as it answers. Incidentally a neutrino or neutron storm would be plenty enough to wreck RC dating.

Neutron storm? Where are you getting a neutron flux?

(The less said about neutrinos, the better. Oh boy!)

 

[SelfSim]

? I don't get it.

See Stuart Kauffman's work on autocatalytic sets as a proposed mechanism for abiogenesis:

Kauffman is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection (See Origins of Order, 1993, below).

 

[Mountainmike]

See Stuart Kauffman's work on autocatalytic sets as a proposed mechanism for abiogenesis:

It’s one of the current buzzwords.
interesting conjecture.
might even play a part.

sure autocatalytic processes are found in cells.

BUT

Doesn’t alter what I said.
To hypothesise abiogenesieb
1/ the minimum cell didn’t pop into existence from a mix of ingredients.
2/ there must be at least one self developing intermediate - for which a specific structure is postulated or observed.
3/ a specific process postulated via more intermediates to arrive at living cell
4/ a specific process postulated to get to 2/ from inert ingredients .
5/ experiments needed to verify 2 and processes
6/ the biggest puzzle - why are none of the processes observable , why have no intermediates been found.

Autocatalysis is presumed by the papers to be a continuous process . As a result there should be a notional conveyor belt of intermediates. There are not.

There is nothing just speculation, abiogenesis as a process to first cell doesn’t qualify even as a hypothesis.

Autocatalysis as part of the process Is similar speculation.

anyone who wants to propose abiogenesis as route to first cell MUST define one or more intermediates, and where all the enzymes and cofactors came from.

It’s fascinating science , but don’t get ahead of its status. Conjecture.

 

[Estrid]

The fundamental difference between creationists
and other people is revealed in this thread.

ONLY a creationist ever ever suggests snything
about a "first cell popping into existence".

But they throw it up like a clay pigeon and, triumphantly,
They shoots it down! Ta Da!

Glory!

 

[SelfSim]

There is nothing just speculation, abiogenesis as a process to first cell doesn’t qualify even as a hypothesis.

Autocatalysis as part of the process Is similar speculation.

anyone who wants to propose abiogenesis as route to first cell MUST define one or more intermediates, and where all the enzymes and cofactors came from.

It’s fascinating science , but don’t get ahead of its status. Conjecture.

Not the point. You started this with:

Miller Urey at best showed how a few bricks could appear.

It doesn’t take genius to recognise bricks may be evidence of ability of a someone to build houses, it has nothing whatsoever to say about self designing self building houses.

So, I'm saying that there is hard evidence that autocatalytic reactions in organic chemistry (specific sets of them) are self-sustaining, thus drawing parallels with your analogy, whilst pointing out that autocatalytic reactants do, in fact, produce 'self designing self building houses'. Ie: your claim is falsified by this objective observation.

Autocatalysis plays a major role in the processes of present-day life .. and was also present as base chemistry before life emerged, courtesy of chemical kinetics. Autocatalysis therefore becomes known as pre-biotic chemistry for the purposes of making testable predictions (and thus is not just idle speculation or conjecture).

PS: Just for informational purposes: 'A set of chemical reactions can be said to be 'collectively autocatalytic' if a number of those reactions produce, as reaction products, catalysts for enough of the other reactions that the entire set of chemical reactions is self-sustaining given an input of energy and food molecules (an autocatalytic set)'.

 

[coffee4u]

From: String theorist Michio Kaku: 'Reaching out to aliens is a terrible idea'

Stephen Hawking said that he didn’t believe in God because the big bang happened instantly and there was no time for God to create a universe, therefore God couldn’t exist. I have a different point of view. My parents were Buddhists and in Buddhism there is Nirvana, timelessness, no beginning and no end. But my parents put me in a Presbyterian church, so I went to Sunday school every week and learned about Genesis and how the universe was created in seven days. Now with the multiverse idea we can meld these two diametrically opposed paradigms together. According to string theory, big bangs are happening all the time. Even as we speak, Genesis is taking place somewhere in the cosmos. And what is the universe expanding into? Nirvana. Eleven-dimensional hyperspace is Nirvana. So you can have Buddhism and Judeo-Christian philosophy in one theory.​

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

 

[Estrid]

Not the point. You started this with:
So, I'm saying that there is hard evidence that autocatalytic reactions in organic chemistry (specific sets of them) are self-sustaining, thus drawing parallels with your analogy, whilst pointing out that autocatalytic reactants do, in fact, produce 'self designing self building houses'. Ie: your claim is falsified by this objective observation.

Autocatalysis plays a major role in the processes of present-day life .. and was also present as base chemistry before life emerged, courtesy of chemical kinetics. Autocatalysis therefore becomes known as pre-biotic chemistry for the purposes of making testable predictions (and thus is not just idle speculation or conjecture).

PS: Just for informational purposes: 'A set of chemical reactions can be said to be 'collectively autocatalytic' if a number of those reactions produce, as reaction products, catalysts for enough of the other reactions that the entire set of chemical reactions is self-sustaining given an input of energy and food molecules (an autocatalytic set)'.

Showing how hard it is for someone to fake knowledge
of chemistry around people who don't have to pretend.

 

[AV1611VET]

ONLY a creationist ever ever suggests snything
about a "first cell popping into existence".

Why would a creationist mention a first cell popping into existence, when God "popped" some 57,308,738 square miles of angiosperms into existence in less than a day?