Re: A New Generation of Scientists Turning Against Evolution

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:22:07 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 21:16:45 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:39:48 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:30:08 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

A.Carlson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:25:16 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recent study, a new generation of scientists is
turning on the evolutionary scientific establishment.
According to one participant, "Evolutionists and their dogma
have become obstacles to scientific advancement".

You can STOP right there.

Yes, god forbid you let this article go on to the (false) claim
that:

"The Big Bang Theory is now accepted as scientific
fact. Evolutionists fought it because it proves that
God created all matter including all the universes,
stars and planets."

The article doesn't exactly share your own disdain for the Big
Bang theory so you just pick and choose what to represent as
relevant. How typical of you Creationist morons.

The hijacking of real science has been discovered.

This new article that you are now touting actually references a
Creationist site that claims that the ability of 'psychic'
douche bag John Edwards to talk to the dead ("verifiable" -
Really!) "disprove(s) atheism" Do you agree with them on this
point, that John Edwards is capable of actually playing 20
questions with the dead? (very poorly, I might add)

http://www.twoprophets.org/Newsletter2008-10-02_1a-ScientistsVsEvolution.htm

Good news.

Yeah, even more evidence pointing to how really fucked up
Creationist fundies are. Keep it coming.

You can run from 'The String Theory' but you cannot hide

What, in your own words, do you think string theory claims? I
don't believe for a minute that you understand it any more than
you understand anything else, which is to say, not at all. Again,
in your own words, no cutting and pasting.

Would that be like you cut/past from the TO web site?

Nice try. Answer the question.

No no.. you guys barrage others for the exact same things you do.
You quote mine, you cut/paste, etc...and then critize others for the
same because it disagrees with your perspective.

But anyway lets play since i believe you are sincere about these
discussions.

The Short answer...

Things are more then 3 dimensional when time is factored in.

I think the equation is (x,y,z + t) to locate something in time and
space.

X being Longitude, Y being Latitude, Z being elevation, and T being
the time.

The actual strings are too small to see from our perspective. Which
reminds me of motion and rest. ( i attempted a discussion on motion
and rest)

Interestingly, there are several space-time dimensions that turn
into a supergravity. These "space-time dimensions" are described as
"heavens" in the Bible. There are (3) heavenly dimensions described
in the Hebrew bible, and (7 dimensions) which includes (3
dimensions) of hell in the Koran,

Now, why run from 'The String Theory'? Afraid that God Particle may
be right? Could something exist in that all that Dark matter and
Dark energy we do not fully understand yet? Something that may prove
a creator of the laws we have discovered so far?

INSERT usual religious bashing and personal attacks here:

The above is both incoherent, and unrelated to string theory. I told
you that you didn't understand it at all.


yeag riiiighttttt

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what you think any of the above has
to do with string theory, other than that you have a vague idea that
it deals with more than three dimensions (albeit that you have no idea
what that refers to; it isn't what you're talking about here), and
that strings are very small.

What you might mean by "motion and rest", or by "there are several
space-time dimensions that turn into a supergravity" is something only
you can answer: the former doesn't make sense in the context that you
use it, and the latter doesn't make sense at all. Is there a reason
that you insist on spouting off on topics of which you have absolutely
no knowledge?

(The "God Particle", BTW, is a hypothetical part of the Standard
Model, and is unrelated to string theory per se).

.