Fed up of non believers

[Lockjaw]

Wonderful! You teach science all day and can't get enough so you post on here to massage your ego.

 

Ah, so you're a hypocrite too, then. You have taken people to task, on this thread and others, for doing exactly what you just did.

 

 

 

Now if you had ... explained things in a less condescending smartarse manner we might have proceeded a little more pleasantly.

 

I tried. You were too busy arguing the toss to notice. So I donned my metaphorical smoking jacket. C'est La Vie.

 

All that aside, though:

 

 

Firstly is it true that water is the only liquid that becomes lighter when frozen?

Obviously if it didn't we would have a major problem.

 

If it is true then why does it differ in that way?

 

You mean less dense, rather than lighter. Please refrain from calling me a pompous bejacketed nit-picker - It's. Just. The. Correct. Term.

 

It (water) isn't the only one - some alloys do and some of the semiconductor elements but none of these are liquid at room temperature, or STP, or whatever.

 

It does it because of the way its molecules arrange themselves when it solidifies; because of hydrogen bonding they form up into little hexagons in a repeating pattern. This arrangement takes up more space than the molecules do when they are in a liquid so it becomes less dense.

 

If it wasn't so, life as we know it would be unlikely. Be careful though. It is amazing, and yes, we would be in bother if it didn't act that way but think back to the mouldy log. The water thing is just one of the conditions which allowed life, as we know it, to come into being.

 

 

Secondly, the chemicals that were present which together formed life, has this experiment been replicated in order to prove that's what happened? Obviously, if a couple of million years is an essential part of the process I suppose the answer is no.

 

What I mean is, is it proven beyond doubt, or is it assumed best solution to the question?

 

Not a clue, I'm afraid. My understanding is that. once the required conditions were in place, life could have come into being in an instant but I'm not a biologist.

 

I find it very hard to imagine that scientists haven't attempted to replicate the conditions and "create" life but, again, I'm not especially well read on such research. The obvious question arising, though is: they did (or indeed already have) replicated the conditions and the event then what next? A bit of a can of worms opened don't you think? Especially given the most powerful (for now) nation is rather religious in character.

 

As for "proven beyond doubt", no. The only way to do that would be to replicate it, I guess. But, see previous paragraph.

 

It is fifty years since I left school and the chemistry lessons which I vaguely recall were elementary to say the least, which is probably why I have little interest in the subject.

 

Shame you didn't have me teaching you, then.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Lockjaw

[Plain Talker]

= no belief in god. Q. E. D.

 

no, not at all.

 

an Atheist may consider that there is no God (or gods) but an agnostic is someone who hasn't made their mind up yet. as was said, they do not know/ have not decided either way, as to whether there is or isn't a God or gods.

[RootsBooster]

no, not at all.

 

an Atheist may consider that there is no God (or gods) but an agnostic is someone who hasn't made their mind up yet. as was said, they do not know/ have not decided either way, as to whether there is or isn't a God or gods.

 

An agnostic isn't someone who hasn't made their mind up.

It's the position that "we will never know for sure". You can, nay, will still believe or not believe in God/s as well as being agnostic.

Edited February 28, 2014 by RootsBooster

[skinz]

There is no alignment. I just know that what they said is believable. In doing so, there should not be a "them or me". It just "is". I know what I know cos of my own experience and when I was trained as a student. I also know that I like where the OP and Janie is now, and I would give anything to undo what I was taught, cos this heavy amount of knowledge is not good for me. I also know this. I also know that sometimes you cannot see something in its simplicity if you focused too heavily on the knowledge aspect of things.

 

Non-believers? That is generalising isn't it ? I am also certain that there is a lot of actual scientists out there in this big wide world who cannot even prove anything any more, and is residing to believe in the existence of God. Some of the research and knowledge coming out of the scientific communities are more commercially driven any way. It is quite rare to find research within fields which actually enhances, helps and enrich the live of people, humanity.

 

Really?

 

So ah... you are one of these "defend my area" type person. Hm. Empathy, morality, and humanity has everything to do with belief. It means that the existence of life, which includes you and it includes me, was made, done by somebody, from either an inspiration and so forth. Even in science, some thinks that "life is chance". Chance, and randomness is God. It really links together you know. OR the fact that when something happens, it links and ties in with another, and in a "cause and effect" way spirals and draws inspiration or as I call it in IT, "abstraction" to occur. Abstraction is finding patterns in things and write a basic set of constructs to make it fit.

 

Honestly salsa you sound like Paul Whitehouse in the hippy Aviva adds.

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 19:07 ----------

 

Actually, non believers simply don't believe. For whatever reason (it can vary)

 

Being a lack or no evidence, or evolutionary scientific evidence trumps theological ramblings.

[salsafan]

Really?

Ok, I take that back, and I shall rephrase, it is hard to find research that is done purely without it then being commercialised in such a way that has a knock on effect on humanity in general. And not in the best way either.

 

The only greatest research I had seen which was very Godly was when I was exposed to was the usage of recycling of materials to add into concrete mix. A lot of R&D I am sure is done in this aspect. It is more "Godly" and "clever" because it is people thinking about their own mortality, limitation of their immediate environments, and to make best use of how to enhance their own lives, and environments too.

 

What I learnt from that was the science behind mining which I picked up in school, coupled with the chemistry which is behind limestone as a raw material within concrete, the wonderful but very niche percentage of a material which relies on water content and can be set to a varying degree and strength is also amazing too. The "strength" is reliant on water a lot. Listening to my colleagues going on about their bonding with lead, to make concretes of 1 newton. To listen to the idea of something so strong as lead, mixed with a natural element like limestone, and then added with water, into a brick. That then holds the impact of nuclear explosion so that it does not harm the surrounding areas and give off radiation is just mind blowing. Don't you find that amazing? I find it amazing.

 

To then listen to my colleague who said he was the person who controlled the amount of concrete to patch the damn from bursting in Sheffield during those days of the Flooding. Don't you think that this was Godly in some ways, and the chance for me to meet such a person whom had such an effect on my life too ? Out of 69 million people in this big country. I happened to have met this single person by chance, who was partially affecting my life too. My heart swelled so much you have no idea. Is this synchronicity, or is it chance ?

 

Honestly salsa you sound like Paul Whitehouse in the hippy Aviva adds.

Who's he then ? Hippy or heritage ? The CEO is not God you know. I hope you know that.

 

 

Salsafan

Edited February 28, 2014 by salsafan

[Guest]

Post on this thread if you are fed up of non belivers and closed minds about ghosts

because i am and i am sure there is a lot more who feel the same

 

 

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE IM TALKING ABOUT

 

Watch this space because I think I have some mobile phone footage of a spook. After watching an episode of Ghost Adventures, for a laugh our lass started filming around the house in pitch black with her phone. Its an old cheep phone so the footage is very grainy but there are some impressive "light anomalies" like the type you see on the show. When she gets round to transferring it to the laptop I'll try and share it on here.

[Obelix]

Wonderful! You teach science all day and can't get enough so you post on here to massage your ego.

 

Now if you had posted originally that you taught science and explained things in a less condescending smartarse manner we might have proceeded a little more pleasantly. .

 

Why the abuse and negativity...?

 

However, now we have established your credentials you will no doubt be able to answer a couple of questions.

 

Firstly is it true that water is the only liquid that becomes lighter when frozen?.

 

No liquid becomes lighter. Gallium, silicon, bismuth do become less dense however.

 

Obviously if it didn't we would have a major problem.

 

If it is true then why does it differ in that way?.

 

As above. You may also want to google up the strong anthromorphic principle which is indiciative here as well.

[redwhine]

no, not at all.

Yes, yes all.

 

an Atheist may consider that there is no God (or gods)...

An atheist (...no need to capitalise it; it's not a proper noun...) may consider anything they like just as long as they lack belief in god/God/gods. That's what atheism means; a(without)the(god)ism(belief).

 

...but an agnostic is someone who hasn't made their mind up yet. as was said, they do not know/ have not decided either way, as to whether there is or isn't a God or gods.

If they haven't made their mind up, they have not decided to become a theist (god believer) so they lack belief in god (which is not necessarily a belief that god/God/gods do not exist, but can be as a subset of atheism). Besides, gnosticism is concerned with knowledge and is not concerned with belief.

 

Atheism/theism; there is no middle ground (third option).

Edited February 28, 2014 by redwhine

[Harleyman]

Post on this thread if you are fed up of non belivers and closed minds about ghosts

because i am and i am sure there is a lot more who feel the same

 

 

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE IM TALKING ABOUT

 

Have you ever seen or claimed to have seen a ghost?. A family relative claimed to have seen a ghost or two but he was later diagnosed schizophrenic. Not that i'm suggesting this applies to all ghost watchers of course.

 

I try to keep an open mind but it clashes with my firm belief that there is no existence of any kind after death which goes some way to null and void the ghost theory

[mjw47]

An agnostic isn't someone who hasn't made their mind up.

It's the position that "we will never know for sure". You can, nay, will still believe or not believe in God/s as well as being agnostic.

 

Don't entirely go along with that. Yes the position is that 'we will never know for sure'.That is a perfectly reasonable position to take given the current possibility of actually finding out the truth before we die. And to that extent we have made our mind up.

 

I am almost completely certain that that will be the case in my particular circumstance. I'm not in the first flush of youth.

 

However, the outside possibility of science being able to prove there is no creator ( very doubtful ). Or alternatively God rolling up and saying ' What the bloody hell have you lot been up to since I last checked up?'( also doubtful ) cannot be discounted.

 

'Not knowing' is in my opinion the most logical position to take ( obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have taken it ) However not knowing something does not exclude the possibility, however far fetched that you may learn the truth.

 

In which case you would know and accept the truth.

 

---------- Post added 28-02-2014 at 23:31 ----------

 

Why the abuse and negativity...?

 

 

 

No liquid becomes lighter. Gallium, silicon, bismuth do become less dense however.

 

 

 

As above. You may also want to google up the strong anthromorphic principle which is indiciative here as well.

 

Do me a favour mate, butt out. Lockjaw and I are developing a close and wonderful relationship.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2014 at 00:07 ----------

 

Ah, so you're a hypocrite too, then. You have taken people to task, on this thread and others, for doing exactly what you just did.

 

 

EH?

 

I tried. You were too busy arguing the toss to notice. So I donned my metaphorical smoking jacket. C'est La Vie.

 

All that aside, though:

 

It must have passed me by, no memory of you saying you were a science teacher.

 

You mean less dense, rather than lighter. Please refrain from calling me a pompous bejacketed nit-picker - It's. Just. The. Correct. Term.

You just can't resist can you?

It (water) isn't the only one - some alloys do and some of the semiconductor elements but none of these are liquid at room temperature, or STP, or whatever.

 

[/b]Interesting, thought it was only water.

 

It does it because of the way its molecules arrange themselves when it solidifies; because of hydrogen bonding they form up into little hexagons in a repeating pattern. This arrangement takes up more space than the molecules do when they are in a liquid so it becomes less dense.

 

If it wasn't so, life as we know it would be unlikely. Be careful though. It is amazing, and yes, we would be in bother if it didn't act that way but think back to the mouldy log. The water thing is just one of the conditions which allowed life, as we know it, to come into being.

 

A bit convenient don't you think? you can understand how the religious attribute it to intelligent creation

 

Not a clue, I'm afraid. My understanding is that. once the required conditions were in place, life could have come into being in an instant but I'm not a biologist.

Nice to know you don't claim to know everything

 

I find it very hard to imagine that scientists haven't attempted to replicate the conditions and "create" life but, again, I'm not especially well read on such research. The obvious question arising, though is: they did (or indeed already have) replicated the conditions and the event then what next? A bit of a can of worms opened don't you think? Especially given the most powerful (for now) nation is rather religious in character.

 

What I was inquisitive about here was if it had been done, was it necessary to use precise amounts of ingredients, or did they just lob in a bucket full of chemicals ( do you like my scientific terminology?) and achieve a result? Obviously if the former then it makes random chance less likely whilst if the latter more likely. Agree about the fundamentalist Christian influence in America. Religious fundamentalist of any religion are seriously scary people, trying to talk logic to them is a complete waste of time.

 

As for "proven beyond doubt", no. The only way to do that would be to replicate it, I guess. But, see previous paragraph.

 

That's the thing isn't it? not being able to prove it beyond doubt leaves the door open for faith in a creative force.

 

Shame you didn't have me teaching you, then.

 

Well that would have been somewhat difficult wouldn't it? unless you were a child prodigy before you were even born we may have missed out on that particular opportunity .

Edited March 1, 2014 by mjw47