My Morphology Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Okay ... so man consists of mass and energy.

Anything else, according to applied science?

In other words, is there a third ingredient? fourth? fifth?

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay ... so man consists of mass and energy.

Anything else, according to applied science?

In other words, is there a third ingredient? fourth? fifth?

I'm all energy myself.

 

[Greg J.]

I'm more mass than I'd like.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Regarding applied science, there is nothing else in the universe but energy and mass, and some might argue that mass is just energy, too! The only thing that you might count is how space is warped (such as by gravity), since space is neither mass nor energy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm all energy myself.

You look like it.

 

[Stringfellow_Hawke]

I'm all muscle mass and full of energy!

 

[Heissonear]

Okay ... so man consists of mass and energy.

Anything else, according to applied science?

In other words, is there a third ingredient? fourth? fifth?

Intermixed is "time". Such ingredients changing over time.

 

[Heissonear]

Intermixed is "time". Such ingredients changing over time.

The other is man is triune- with a body, a soul, and a spirit.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm told there's plasma in there too.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The other is man is triune- with a body, a soul, and a spirit.

Citation? Or is this opinion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Citation? Or is this opinion?

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

so, a Scientific Citation is more than a claim. It's generally a link to the research paper, methodologies of the study and any datasets used to derive a conclusion. Your unsubstantiated claim doesn't even have an established author, let alone the rest of what is required of a scientific citation.

 

[AV1611VET]

so, a Scientific Citation is more than a claim.

Only insofar as it has something to cite.

It's generally a link to the research paper, methodologies of the study and any datasets used to derive a conclusion.

Groovy.

Your unsubstantiated claim doesn't even have an established author,

From a scientific perspective, I take it?

... let alone the rest of what is required of a scientific citation.

Science is myopic.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Only insofar as it has something to cite.

Like evidence and research you acknowledged with:

Groovy.

From a scientific perspective, I take it?

Correct, You care about believing true things and avoiding false things, right?

Science is myopic.

a paint brush is myopic. In fact, many tools and toolsets I use are myopic. That's a good thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like evidence and research you acknowledged with:

Yes.

Correct, You care about believing true things and avoiding false things, right?

Your version of "true" is different from mine.

Your version of "true" would say Pluto was our 9th planet from 1930-2006.

a paint brush is myopic.

Yup.

It can't paint on an easel that was never made.

Just like science shouldn't be demanding evidence of a week full of miracles that didn't generate any.

In fact, many tools and toolsets I use are myopic.

Yup.

Hammers were made for nails; screwdrivers were made for screws; monkey wr... skip that one; saws were made for wood; and so on was made for so forth.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes.

Cool, nice of you to acknowledge.

Your version of "true" is different from mine.

No, True is True regardless. There is no such thing as "versions" of true.

Your version of "true" would say Pluto was our 9th planet from 1930-2006.

A definition is not "True", it's a Definition. Nothing about Pluto changed when the definition was tightened to exclude Pluto, and the other 1800 or so objects that we've since found that match Pluto's conditions. We have definitions to make things clear, would you rather we remember 1800-ish solar objects that are synonymous with attributes identical to Pluto? Or like you and your religion, just arbitrarily and subjectively decide with no real guidance what is and isn't a planet in the Solar System?

Yup.

It can't paint on an easel that was never made.

Just like science shouldn't be demanding evidence of a week full of miracles that didn't generate any.

and certainly shouldn't find a monumental amount of evidence that disproves any "creation week" either.

Yup.

Hammers were made for nails; screwdrivers were made for screws; monkey wr... skip that one; saws were made for wood; and so on was made for etc.

Religion though, that's a presupposition of all presuppositions that in some cases dangerously interferes with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, True is True regardless. There is no such thing as "versions" of true.

In that case, from 1930-2006 you were wrong.

Furthermore, you were wrong and didn't know it.

And you didn't know it, because you didn't have tools powerful enough to catch it.

And you praised yourselves in 1930 for something that was labeled wrong.

And you sent a message out into space in 1974 from Aricebo with the wrong information on it, because it was based on mislabeling a planet that wasn't a planet like the rest.

And Thalidomide was mislabeled too, wasn't it?

And the Challenger blew up because you were wrong too.

 

[dgiharris]

In that case, from 1930-2006 you were wrong..

Did you even bother to read his response. A definition can change over time, yet that change has no bearing on the actual object in question.

Furthermore, you were wrong and didn't know it.

And you didn't know it, because you didn't have tools powerful enough to catch it.

And you praised yourselves in 1930 for something that was labeled wrong.

And you sent a message out into space in 1974 from Aricebo with the wrong information on it, because it was based on mislabeling a planet that wasn't a planet like the rest.

And Thalidomide was mislabeled too, wasn't it?

Hmmm... you seem hung up on what you perceive to be past wrongs. I'm just curious, in your mind, if you demonstrate that you were wrong about something in the past, does that mean you are now incapable about being right about anything?

And the Challenger blew up because you were wrong too.

The Challenger did not blow up because we were wrong. The Challenger blew up because of faulty O-rings operating in conditions that exceeded the specs and their design.

There is a difference between being wrong, and making a mistake.

If you want to talk science and technology and your semantic of "wrong".
Here are list of wrongs:
--Cold Fusion Generator
--Time machine
--Star Trek "beam me up Scotty" transporters

Here are a list of mistakes:
--3-mile island
--Challenger explosion
--Exxon Oil Spill

in normal conversation, the terms "wrong" and "mistake" are near identical synonyms. But in the context of the argument you are trying to have, those words are NOT synonyms the way you are using them (or intend to use them)

though I'm not sure you can see or understand that...

 

[AirPo]

though I'm not sure you can see or understand that...

or cares to.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In that case, from 1930-2006 you were wrong.

Furthermore, you were wrong and didn't know it.

And you didn't know it, because you didn't have tools powerful enough to catch it.

And you praised yourselves in 1930 for something that was labeled wrong.

And you sent a message out into space in 1974 from Aricebo with the wrong information on it, because it was based on mislabeling a planet that wasn't a planet like the rest.

LOL!

I'm not even going to pretend you're that hard of understanding, AV, but for lurkers, I'll address it.

No, Not wrong. The definition of what a planet was, included Pluto up until 2006. The problem was, that many, many other solar objects also qualified as "Planets" too even though we didn't really identify them as such, because the definition wasn't all that strict.

Again, "Definitions" aren't "Facts". Scientists are a particularly pedantic group in general, and rather like things to be specific and well-defined, especially in scientific research. so when they started noticing all these other solar object discoveries that for all intents and purposes, were duplicates of Pluto for the same reasons, then the Astronomical Society felt that the bullet had to be bit. Once the Astronomical Society met and refined the definition of a Planet, (and defined, refined, and even created a number more) Pluto no longer fell under what we defined as a "Planet". See? Easy! Nothing about Pluto changed physically, no facts changed - it didn't shrink, it wasn't outlawed, it didn't have to go into hiding, no warrant was issued for its arrest, etc.

And Thalidomide was mislabeled too, wasn't it?

And the Challenger blew up because you were wrong too.

.....what? ......just, what??

 

[Kylie]

Okay ... so man consists of mass and energy.

Anything else, according to applied science?

In other words, is there a third ingredient? fourth? fifth?

And as a woman, I am made of sugar and spice and all things nice.