Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[gaara4158]

But I never said that I am infallible or God made me infallible. And I'm not refusing to provide evidence, I would love to be able to provide it. Again, I am not able to provide evidence beyond my word. And you don't know me well enough to have enough confidence in me to take me at my word, reasonable. I got my evidence from God, but it was an internal revelation thing and not uh, data for you guys. I guess you would've had to be there.

You would have to be infallible to be so sure you couldn’t be wrong about your experience. So yes, you are in fact claiming to be infallible.

 

[Divide]

It's a mistake to lump us all together - I have no idea what the other atheists, humanists, etc., think about things beyond what they've posted here (and nor do you). Personally, I have no problem with the unseen within reasonable bounds (see my previous reply); superstition and magic - not so much.

Fair enough, I can agree with that. So an you give me any examples of unseen things to the world, that you believe are really there? Have you ever felt someone was watching you? I've heard a lot of people say this, I could feel someone watching me...is this a real phenomenon?

You're equivocating 'forces' there.

Love, like other emotions, is a concept associated with a certain mental state - it's a 'force' in the colloquial sense of something having a significant influence (in this case, on behaviour), not in a scientific sense. Also, it's only unseen in as much as it's a conceptual abstraction of behaviour we do see (and observed as emotions we do feel).

This is not the same as forces in science. There are four known fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force), and a number of non-fundamental forces that are indirect consequences of the action of those forces. Complex physiological influences on behaviour are not considered to be forces.

So, no; I think that argument is an equivocation fallacy.

Oh, it is not. It's not a concept, love is real, and I suspect that it is the most powerful force in existence. The Bible says God is love, so that would make sense. The so-called God particle that they're searching for? They will never find it because it is love, it is God.

Love is not only associated with a certain mental state. You don't have to be in a certain mental state before love could affect you. What about love at first sight? I was busy doing something...and then she walked into the room and I saw her...and she smiled...suddenly changes began talking place, all the blood drained out of my head, it began to be hard to focus and think...da da da.

So nothing of a spiritual nature takes place, when a husband and wife come together? There is no spirit to spirit transference of energy? When I even hug my wife...and focus my love upon her...the energy transference is some sort of illusion, you're saying? Huh? Have you ever been in love before? That's no simple emotion, it is a force, an energy.

How about the young mom in an auto accident and her child is trapped beneath the car...no one is around to help and her child is trapped...so she lifts the car off of the child and to the side to free the child. How did the mom overcome the laws of physics and lift the car? An emotion? not a real force you say? I think that you're mistaken.

However, it is entirely possible that there are as yet undiscovered forces. But our best physical models tell us that, given the research we've done in 'labs' like the Large Hadron Collider, we've thoroughly explored the force and particle interactions in the regime of physics relevant to everyday life. The implication is that if there are novel forces that remain undiscovered, they must either be too short-range or too weakly interacting to affect everyday force-particle interactions, or we would have seen their effect in that research.

This means that if the standard model of physics is a good model (i.e. a close approximation to how nature really behaves), and every indication suggests that is the case (no experiment has ever shown otherwise), then there is no way that voices can be 'beamed' into your head in the way you describe. Other than gravity, the only force that can significantly affect the particles that make up your brain (protons, neutrons, electrons) is electromagnetism, and it just can't do what would be required.

I'll buy that. (or they just don't have all the answers yet, to know how it all fits together and works in ways that would show an effect upon everyday "normal". I don't think voices can be beamed into your head either. Conclusion? He was there for real and actually speaking to me.

The most plausible explanation for the voices you hear/heard is that they were generated by brain processes below/outside your conscious awareness in the normal way, but were not signalled/recognised as being of internal origin, so were not filtered for sense and/or relevance, were treated as being from an external source, and so were made available to your conscious awareness as such. Your conscious awareness naturally interpreted them as voices of external origin.

I may be wrong - I'm interpreting what you've said in terms of my understanding of the current state of knowledge about such things, but if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. If you find yourself unable to accept my analysis, so be it - I'd be interested to hear reasonable arguments against it.

Hey, you guys are starting to think instead of just jab, lol. That's good. But riddle me this...if this was my brain doing flip flops on me...then why has it never happened before? Why has it never happened since then again?

Yes, but things are changing... slowly, as the powers-that-be become aware of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. For example, the efforts to isolate witnesses to prevent cross-contamination of reports, and the efforts to avoid the use of leading questions (at least in the UK - not sure about the USA).

They are researching these things. Their findings are rather surprising. Supposedly, now then can demonstrate that water has memory, and that all matter has memory. I don't know how they do it, but supposedly they can. So eventually, it will be, Mamm you do not need to take the stand today, just let us have the necklace that you were wearing that day and we'll play it back, the events of that day...

Have you ever read the book, The Secret Life of Water? (Masaru Emoto). He has demonstrated that we can affect our environment with our words. He takes water samples and sperates them into different jars, and then plays different kinds of music to them, speaks to them (one negatively the other positively, another ignored altogether...and then freezes the water so it will form ice crystals). Then he gets different types of ice crystals from them. The ones which were ignored are not very aesthetic and the ones which were spoken harshly too are downright ugly, whereas the ice crystals from the water which was exposed to positive words (love) always form intricate and beautiful crystals. Further testing revealed that the most beautiful crystals that he ever got...was from water that had been prayed over. He has a bunch of videos on youtube that you can watch. They say you can even do this experiment yourself at home but using cooked rice instead of water, and instead of freezing it you just watch the rate of deterioration of it.

 

[Divide]

You would have to be infallible to be so sure you couldn’t be wrong about your experience. So yes, you are in fact claiming to be infallible.

Awesome cut and paste job, chopping off the beginning of what I said to make it look like I said the opposite of what I said. Your tactics have destroyed any valdity hat you may have had before and is pretty juvenile.

 

[gaara4158]

Awesome cut and paste job, chopping off the beginning of what I said to make it look like I said the opposite of what I said. Your tactics have destroyed any valdity hat you may have had before and is pretty juvenile.

Ahh, I do apologize! I didnt mean to cut you off where I did, I’m on mobile and the copy-paste controls are a little tricky. I’ll fix it right away, but my response to you still stands. If you claim you couldn’t possibly be wrong about your experience, you are effectively claiming to be infallible.

 

[Divide]

"god" also revealed things to Mohammed.
"aliens" also came and abducted certain people and subsequently performed weird sexual experiments on them.

How do we, as "outsiders", differentiate between YOUR claim of "personal experience" and the claims of muslims, scientologists, hindu's, alien abductees, etc?

I don't know mohammad. I have heard about "aliens" who have abducted people, and yes, many of them say they were diddling with their reproductive systems.

How do you differentiate between all of the things on earth, religions, legends, superstitions, and personal testimonies? By paying attention. not believing anyone and talking what they at face value but filing it and then stepping back from it all to look at the big picture, and see what fits.

having done that, you will still be confused. So then you pray to the God of the universe and tell him, what a bunch of confusing deception Lord! How am I supposed to be able to tell the truth and that you're real? Please reveal yourself to me that I may come to know you and the truth that you are God...

...and if you're serious then He will do this. He promises to in the Bible. One thing that OI have found, is that you have to be humble when you do this. You can't be arrogant about it or you'll just hear crickets. And when He does do it, guaranteed it will be in a way that you consider to have been shown proof, but will have no evidence of it at all.

If they are "unseen", how could you have "seen" them??

Huh? I didn't say I seen God, I said He spoke to me. I heard Him.

Really?
So, are you "really just hoping" that there are no aliens abducting people?
Or any other thing that people believe in based on "personal experience", that you can't verify in any way?

Huh? What's this about aliens abducting people? That hasn't come up in this thread. I haven't said what I thought about aliens here. SO I don't know where you're goig with that.

Both gravity and wind have physical manifestation that can be tested for.
Unlike the "unseen" things you are claiming.

Perhaps, but when Jesus walks into the room...you'll know it.

The vast majority of which, can not possibly be correct, if YOUR particular religion is correct.
I don't think christian theology, for example, is compatible with hindu claims of reincarnation or being in touch with your inner immortal Thetan.

Exactly and that was my point. Yes, some is false, outright lies and so forth, even most of them! BUT!! They can't ALL be lies. So, the truth is out there.

I've had God "ping" my spirit before (many times actually) when I was watching a video on youboob and was wondering if ti was true or not...He pinged me to let me know that it is true.
But I can't prove that, the best I can do is to tell you to pray to God and ask him to show you the truth...and He will. That's how He rolls.

This is surprising to you? So, do you usually just believe whatever people tell you?
So, you believe that Tom Cruise is an "operating thetan" that can manipulate space and time?
Do you believe the claims of alien abductees?
Do you believe that Mohammed was visited by an angel who brought him the message of Allah?

No? Then surely, it must be rather easy for you to understand why we won't be believing your particular claims at face-value, yes?

1) No, I don't.
2) I don't know what an operating thetan is, I don't like Tom cruise and I think he's a fudge packer, so I guess the answer is no, lol.
3) I have no idea. I wasn't there, I don't read the koran, and I don't recall anything in the KJV bible about it...so no.

Yea, pretty easy to understand that.

 

[Divide]

Ahh, I do apologize! I didnt mean to cut you off where I did, I’m on mobile and the copy-paste controls are a little tricky. I’ll fix it right away, but my response to you still stands. If you claim you couldn’t possibly be wrong about your experience, you are effectively claiming to be infallible.

Oh, is that what happened? Ok.
Uh, I don't think I said I couldn't "possibly" be wrong. I said I'm not wrong. There's a difference. I'm no superhuman, not special, nothing man. The plumber. That's it. Lol. Just relayin the facts.

Anyone "can be" wrong. Most "are" wrong lol. I am not wrong about this though. He spoke to me in good authority of who He was/is!

I ever tell you about the time God texted me?

 

[gaara4158]

Oh, is that what happened? Ok.
Uh, I don't think I said I couldn't "possibly" be wrong. I said I'm not wrong. There's a difference. I'm no superhuman, not special, nothing man. The plumber. That's it. Lol. Just relayin the facts.

Anyone "can be" wrong. Most "are" wrong lol. I am not wrong about this though. He spoke to me in good authority of who He was/is!

I ever tell you about the time God texted me?

You are stating that you are unequivocally not wrong about this one thing. That requires absolute knowledge which as far as I can tell is not humanly possible. Your inability to acknowledge the possibility that you may be in error on this only makes your judgment more suspect.

 

[HitchSlap]

I ever tell you about the time God texted me?

Cool. What's his number?

 

[Divide]

It's all I need.
The alternative would be to just believe whatever anyone says.

Surely you can see how that would be a problem?
It would turn you into the dream victim of ANY con-man.

It's not good to just believe anything that anyone says. I don't. But surely this would apply to science and scientists also, yes? A few letters after ones name is no guarantee that one is going to be correct in all they say. Conversely, a lack of letters after ones name, is not conclusive evidence that they are wrong in what they say. If there's any motive for outright lying, one would consider the possible motives for lying. Does the science community have enough of a vested interest in it, to be motivated to lie about it?

On the other hand, has this man who has no letters after his name, asked you for your credit card # yet? Is he trying to make a profit somehow? Trying to do the talk show circuit maybe?

Those questions could easily be their own thread. That's a jumping off point to go down that trail.

...and strangely enough...I've never been effectively conned. They've tried to con me. But uh, I started into business for myself at a pretty young age so consequently learned to look for the red flags of cons. That's the big thing about cons...there's always a financial motive, greed. I've had contractors try to con me into doing work for them and they planned to not pay. Several times. You ever heard of a Mechanics Lien? The bad thing about them is, it takes some time to finally get your money. The good thing is, they work and they always have to wind up paying extra to get the lien released. Every single time that I have ever filed a mechanics lien, I have got my money. They have NEVER failed me. One contractor thought he'd screw me out of about 3 thousand dollars...he had to pay 4500 to get it released. That was worth the wait to me, lol.

But I digress,

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...So an you give me any examples of unseen things to the world, that you believe are really there?

I already gave you some examples that I accept on the basis of their observable influences - electromagnetic fields of many kinds, viruses, bacteria, atoms, radiation, heat, sound waves, etc., etc.

Have you ever felt someone was watching you? I've heard a lot of people say this, I could feel someone watching me...is this a real phenomenon?

Yes, I've felt that, and yes, the sensation is real; but that doesn't mean someone is watching you - any more than being spooked when alone in the house at night means there's a monster behind you/under the bed/in the wardrobe/in the next room.

We are effectively hard-wired by evolution to be on the alert for signs of sentient agency (creatures that can act with purpose), to the extent that we have a tendency to attribute unexplained sounds and movements around us to lurking creatures. This is called Hyperactive Agency Detection (HAD). It's not a rational thing, but a subconscious thing that alerts us like a sensitive alarm. A plausible explanation for this is that in earlier times (over evolutionary timescales), when there was frequent danger from predators, those who ignored a rustle in the bushes or a movement in the corner of their eye, were likely to have fewer offspring - due to untimely death - than those who were hyper-vigilant. So populations of weak, hairless, hominids evolved to be jumpy, and fast runners... we still live with that legacy.

It's probably also involved in the tendency to imbue non-sentient objects with agency (e.g. spirits) and to attribute unexplained events in terms of supernatural creatures - gods for the big stuff (weather, mountains, oceans, etc), and little creatures (fairies, sprites, gremlins, etc) for the small stuff (bad luck, lost keys, etc).

It's not a concept, love is real, and I suspect that it is the most powerful force in existence.

Of course it's a concept:

Concept:
1.4 Philosophy - An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. [Oxford Dictionaries]​

It's an abstraction that encapsulates a certain set of emotions, sensations and activities - just as anger is a concept that encapsulates a different set of emotions, sensations and activities. Yes it's real, we do experience those emotions, sensations and activities; and, like other emotions, it can be a very powerful influence on behaviour.

The Bible says God is love, so that would make sense. The so-called God particle that they're searching for? They will never find it because it is love, it is God.

That was the Higgs boson, and they found it in 2012. It wasn't supposed to be called the 'God particle', the book publisher didn't like the original title, 'The Goddam Particle'.

Love is not only associated with a certain mental state. You don't have to be in a certain mental state before love could affect you.

You're always in some mental state or other.

What about love at first sight? I was busy doing something...and then she walked into the room and I saw her...and she smiled...suddenly changes began talking place, all the blood drained out of my head, it began to be hard to focus and think...da da da.

It's real enough, although it's not quite the same thing as the love in a relationship, more a powerful attraction (see Is Love at First Sight Real?); but there are many definitions and descriptions of love..

So nothing of a spiritual nature takes place, when a husband and wife come together? There is no spirit to spirit transference of energy? When I even hug my wife...and focus my love upon her...the energy transference is some sort of illusion, you're saying? Huh? Have you ever been in love before? That's no simple emotion, it is a force, an energy.

Depends what you mean by 'spiritual' - there are strong emotions and physical sensations, and transference of energy in the form of heat, and sometimes shivering, etc.

But no, there's no evidence of some special force or energy - I already addressed the 'force' aspect, and while you can use the concept of 'energy' metaphorically, as in feeling energised and so-on, that's a description of physical arousal (not always sexual).

'Energy' is widely misused in pseudoscience - it's not some kind of 'stuff' (you can't have 'pure energy'), it's an indirectly observed quantity; a property things have by nature of their particular context, which takes a variety of inter-convertible forms.

An analogy is 'financial value' - it's not 'stuff', it's a property things have by nature of their particular context, and it takes a variety of inter-convertible forms (cash, property, currency, labour, etc).

How about the young mom in an auto accident and her child is trapped beneath the car...no one is around to help and her child is trapped...so she lifts the car off of the child and to the side to free the child. How did the mom overcome the laws of physics and lift the car? An emotion? not a real force you say? I think that you're mistaken.

It's true that in extremis it's possible to exert far more strength than you normally can, but it doesn't break the laws of physics - in emergencies the overproduction of adrenaline and extreme arousal means you can activate more muscle fibres concurrently than normally - but also risk severe injury (e.g. broken bones). See Yes, You really can Lift a Car off a Trapped Child - but note that in such cases, it's almost always a case of lifting the car to the extent of the suspension travel rather than lifting the wheels off the ground (but even lifting two wheels off the ground doesn't mean lifting the whole weight of the car).

I'll buy that. (or they just don't have all the answers yet, to know how it all fits together and works in ways that would show an effect upon everyday "normal". I don't think voices can be beamed into your head either. Conclusion? He was there for real and actually speaking to me.

Not unless he was there in person (i.e. as a real flesh-and-bone human being). The same science you 'buy' into above mandates that (outside of someone hoaxing you in some way).

Hey, you guys are starting to think instead of just jab, lol. That's good. But riddle me this...if this was my brain doing flip flops on me...then why has it never happened before? Why has it never happened since then again?

I don't know - stress? too much coffee? something you ate or drank? a reaction to something? It was probably triggered by something, some combination of circumstances. Have a look at Auditory Hallucination: transient causes.

For that matter, why did I have a repeated sense of deja-vu over a couple of weeks some years ago? Why have I only had four or five truly lucid dreams, spread over many years? Why do I occasionally get migraine visual 'jaggies' without the migraine?

These things happen; sometimes we don't get a chance to pinpoint the reason.

Supposedly, now then can demonstrate that water has memory, and that all matter has memory. I don't know how they do it, but supposedly they can.

Nope, that was debunked a long time ago. It's just bad science. See Benaviste Water Memory - Supervised Experiments, RationalWiki - Water Memory, Water Memory, a Myth that wouldn't Die, etc.

Have you ever read the book, The Secret Life of Water? (Masaru Emoto).

I've read about it - it made quite a splash(!) at the time; it too was bad science (and, probably, wishful thinking or basic BS). See Masaru Emoto - Scientific Criticism, The Water Woo of Masaru Emoto, A Grain of Truth, etc.

Water does have some interesting and unusual properties, but not those.

Many people really want to believe that there are mysterious magical, paranormal, or supernatural influences in the world, but there's no plausible evidence; and when reported mysteries are investigated carefully, they tend to disappear, or resolve to mundane explanations, or - rarely - are found to be valid additions to the body of scientific knowledge. A few remain ambiguous, e.g. the Mpemba effect, with a number of possible explanations.

 

[Divide]

Many people really want to believe that there are mysterious magical, paranormal, or supernatural influences in the world, but there's no plausible evidence; and when reported mysteries are investigated carefully, they tend to disappear, or resolve to mundane explanations, or - rarely - are found to be valid additions to the body of scientific knowledge. A few remain ambiguous, e.g. the Mpemba effect, with a number of possible explanations.

Now that is something that is right up my alley and I have tested it for myself. The Mpemba effect is total bunk. Hot water does not freeze faster than cold water. I have a dual head temperature gauge (digital), so I was able to take two glasses of water, one hot and one cold, put them both into the freezer with temperature probes in each of them and could monitor the temps in both glasses without opening the freezer door. Long story short, they froze at the same time.

Heat flows from hot to cold. The greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow. So in the beginning of the test, heat flowed out of the hot glass faster than the cold glass. The heat flow slowed down as the temperature in both glasses neared similarity...and they froze at essentially the same time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now that is something that is right up my alley and I have tested it for myself. The Mpemba effect is total bunk. Hot water does not freeze faster than cold water. I have a dual head temperature gauge (digital), so I was able to take two glasses of water, one hot and one cold, put them both into the freezer with temperature probes in each of them and could monitor the temps in both glasses without opening the freezer door. Long story short, they froze at the same time.

Heat flows from hot to cold. The greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow. So in the beginning of the test, heat flowed out of the hot glass faster than the cold glass. The heat flow slowed down as the temperature in both glasses neared similarity...and they froze at essentially the same time.

The problem is that many experiments in vating conditions show that sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. Usually a large number of replications of an experiment produce roughly the same result. That doesn't seem to be the case for this example, which suggests it's very sensitive to the experimental setup.

A number of physically plausible reasons have been suggested for why it might happen, but the exact reason, and why it varies so much (or why so many experimenters think it happens), have yet to be identified (as far as I know).

 

[Speedwell]

Now that is something that is right up my alley and I have tested it for myself. The Mpemba effect is total bunk. Hot water does not freeze faster than cold water. I have a dual head temperature gauge (digital), so I was able to take two glasses of water, one hot and one cold, put them both into the freezer with temperature probes in each of them and could monitor the temps in both glasses without opening the freezer door. Long story short, they froze at the same time.

Heat flows from hot to cold. The greater the temperature difference, the faster the flow. So in the beginning of the test, heat flowed out of the hot glass faster than the cold glass. The heat flow slowed down as the temperature in both glasses neared similarity...and they froze at essentially the same time.

Sounds like a good experiment. Now all you have to do is write it up. You would have to describe the glasses exactly: volume, what kind of glass they were made of, etc. give the exact model of thermometers you used and their calibration history; describe the freezer in full technical detail, and how you measured it's temperature during the experiment; you would have to tell us what sort of timekeeping device you used, and how you determined the exact moment of freezing and to what degree of precision. In short, you would have to describe your experiment in sufficient detail so that another experimenter could reproduce it exactly in all respects. Then, you might have something which would interest other scientists; at least it would be good enough for an undergraduate physics paper.

 

[Divide]

The problem is that many experiments in vating conditions show that sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. Usually a large number of replications of an experiment produce roughly the same result. That doesn't seem to be the case for this example, which suggests it's very sensitive to the experimental setup.

A number of physically plausible reasons have been suggested for why it might happen, but the exact reason, and why it varies so much (or why so many experimenters think it happens), have yet to be identified (as far as I know).

What it comes down to is, how good is your test equipment? I have better than average test equipment (and methods) because I use it in my trade professionally. I would think (but don't know) that the scientist types who may or may not have conducted this test, would have even better equipment than I do...but many times it prolly isn't so.

I actually did the experiment several times, demonstrating it for friends. I always got the roughly the same results.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What it comes down to is, how good is your test equipment? I have better than average test equipment (and methods) because I use it in my trade professionally. I would think (but don't know) that the scientist types who may or may not have conducted this test, would have even better equipment than I do...but many times it prolly isn't so.

This experiment and the reported results caught the imagination of the scientific community - most thinking it was down to experimental error; but when scientists who use precision calorimeters and temperature probes in their work find that the results are not consistent, it suggests some sensitivity to factors that have not been accounted for.

I actually did the experiment several times, demonstrating it for friends. I always got the roughly the same results.

Others have found the same for the opposite results - and it's still unclear exactly what the explanation is.

Here's an interesting article with one plausible explanation for it: Why hot water can freeze faster than cold.

 

[Divide]

Sounds like a good experiment. Now all you have to do is write it up. You would have to describe the glasses exactly: volume, what kind of glass they were made of, etc. give the exact model of thermometers you used and their calibration history; describe the freezer in full technical detail, and how you measured it's temperature during the experiment; you would have to tell us what sort of timekeeping device you used, and how you determined the exact moment of freezing and to what degree of precision. In short, you would have to describe your experiment in sufficient detail so that another experimenter could reproduce it exactly in all respects. Then, you might have something which would interest other scientists; at least it would be good enough for an undergraduate physics paper.

If someone wants to put me on the payroll I will, but otherwise I'm not interested. I just did it for myself alone and am not looking to get famous from it or even have a bunch of armchair quarterbacks tell me I did it wrong from their easy chair, lol. I have pretty decent equipment, I did use the same glass glasses, there were two K-type thermocouple sensors and separate digital readouts visible at the same time, but did go through the same pc of equipment and I used the kitchen clock on the wall for time. You know, one of the cheap ones from K mart, lol. I did take notes but I don't know where they're at now. I used tap temperature for cold (IIRC it was ~55° F, and the hot glass was out of the water heater ~120-125° F.

That's as good as it gets without pay, lol.

 

[Divide]

This experiment and the reported results caught the imagination of the scientific community - most thinking it was down to experimental error; but when scientists who use precision calorimeters and temperature probes in their work find that the results are not consistent, it suggests some sensitivity to factors that have not been accounted for.

And who calibrated their equipment? Because I've done quite a bit of home testing of various instruments also to mainly be able to see if more money really gets you more quality (consistency) in the equipment. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that more money doenot always mean more quality. Within reason that is. Harbor Freight is one place I will never buy anymore test equipment at. They have good deals on many things...but not test equipment! You do have spend mre than $7.50 to get a decent meter. But a $300 dollar category 3 meter isn't any better than a a 100 dollar meter.
Prolly amateur scientists too, lol.

 

[Divide]

Others have found the same for the opposite results - and it's still unclear exactly what the explanation is.

Here's an interesting article with one plausible explanation for it: Why hot water can freeze faster than cold.

I'm gonna pass on that. I tested it for myself and I have a good handle on what I know about temp flow. Hot water appears to freeze faster because it has a much faster drop in temperature in the beginnig as compared to the cold water...but as the temps get closer to each other the hot water slows the fast temp drop until the actually stabilized together a couple degrees above freezing and both hit 32° at essentially the same time. It was close enough for me, that I don't need to hear some young buck scientist try and talk me out of what I already know and did for myself!

I already know he is wrong. Why question myself now? This is something I know...and here we go again, lol! It happened. It really did. It was audible, er I mean on the meter, lol.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What it comes down to is, how good is your test equipment? I have better than average test equipment (and methods) because I use it in my trade professionally. I would think (but don't know) that the scientist types who may or may not have conducted this test, would have even better equipment than I do...but many times it prolly isn't so.

I actually did the experiment several times, demonstrating it for friends. I always got the roughly the same results.

Dude, I have to mix and pour my own agar in a tray that has a melting point lower than the temperature at which the solutes of the agar dissolve in solution (within a reasonable time frame), thus forcing me to wait and time the moment to pour; when the agar is cool enough not to melt the tray but still hot enough to be a liquid. Plus, when there are so many potential human errors and chance bad luck, the quality of the equipment alone is not enough to sufficiently guarantee success. For example, in my class we are cross checking known plant DNA sequences to check their accuracy. However, if that gene isn't expressed in the particular tissue we sample from, it is entirely possible for the process to fail even with perfect procedures and equipment.

I can't even convey entirely in words the horrors of designing workable DNA primers, but I will try. One is at the mercy of the gene sequence. The less G's and C's, the worse your chances of success. Oh no, your forward and reverse primers bond with other parts of the gene, darn, you'll have to rework them to prevent alternative splicing. Ooops, now they bind with each other. But you better try to make them 18-25 bases long, otherwise your chances of having them work begins to plummet. Oh, and they also have to have melting points relatively close to each other and higher than 50 Celsius. Agony.

 

[Divide]

Dude, I have to mix and pour my own agar in a tray that has a melting point lower than the temperature at which the solutes of the agar dissolve in solution (within a reasonable time frame), thus forcing me to wait and time the moment to pour; when the agar is cool enough not to melt the tray but still hot enough to be a liquid. Plus, when there are so many potential human errors and chance bad luck, the quality of the equipment alone is not enough to sufficiently guarantee success. For example, in my class we are cross checking known plant DNA sequences to check their accuracy. However, if that gene isn't expressed in the particular tissue we sample from, it is entirely possible for the process to fail even with perfect procedures and equipment.

I can't even convey entirely in words the horrors of designing workable DNA primers, but I will try. One is at the mercy of the gene sequence. The less G's and C's, the worse your chances of success. Oh no, your forward and reverse primers bond with other parts of the gene, darn, you'll have to rework them to prevent alternative splicing. Ooops, now they bind with each other. But you better try to make them 18-25 bases long, otherwise your chances of having them work begins to plummet. Oh, and they also have to have melting points relatively close to each other and higher than 50 Celsius. Agony.

I don't know what your talking about because it's not my trade, but I get the point and I do agree with you. It is not enough to have good equipment and perfect procedure because it will still throw you a curve ball, it sure can. I get those once or twice a year, lol. But for me, I do it so much that my method is consistent so the only variable left is equipment (and energy supplier). That's what I meant when I said perhaps amateur scientist? Because phd whatever schooling aside when it come time to do something...is it something you do all the time, or a new idea he had and so fumbled through a test. He could be Einstein and if he's not consistent in his methods with the exact experiment that he's doing then maybe that's why they got such different results and mine seemed pretty darn consistent?

I thought my work could throw me some curve balls. Your work sounds insane! Lol. Yours sounds like a real skilled trade. They say what I do is a skilled trade, but I've never believed it, lol. It's a tools trade.