Voyage to Atlantis

Those fotos represent TWO kinds of "luck".

The "Thin Sliced" kind, and second, the bad kind you get as the alternative to "no luck at all'.

but imply a third kind.
Any body that survived was "fortunate" indeed!

 

Atlantis or Bust!

 

What are our options if we can't find Atlantis?

We Still Have 1.75 Billion Years to Enjoy Earth’s Treasures

 

Oh yeah? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...o-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
"A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century."

 

Well, I guess that eliminates religion, supernatural entities, intelligent design, creation science, trickle down economics, etc.

But I can't see where it effects evolution, speciation, cladogenesis, etc.

If we accept your much claimed hypothesis of your high level of intelligence, it should be easy for you to 'argue very convincingly and in depth' the relation of thermodynamics to evolution, please.

I can't readily see it, but maybe the rules are different in Atlantis.

 

Although Yobarnacle has been a bit coy about mentioning alternatives to the big bang theory and evolution, I have little doubt his rebuttal to both of them would boil down to, "God did it. He made the universe, and He made mankind."

Which of course simply creates a new question: "OK... then who made God?"

But don't get your hopes up for a coherent explanation of how evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Sam.... he has yet to explain how a simple egg turning into a complex chicken doesn't violate his version of them.

 

That kind of skeptical, questioning, "don't accept what authority tells you" attitude of science — is also nearly identical to the attitude of mind necessary for a functioning democracy. Science and democracy have very consonant values and approaches, and I don't think you can have one without the other. Talk of the Nation (3 May 1996
Carl Sagan


An egg becomes a chicken because INSIDE the egg is information how to change into a chicken. DNA

1st law of thermodynamics says you cant create or destroy matter or energy, only convert them. Evolution, is predicated on the idea that chemicals self aligned into a cell and became alive, then over eons, evolved into all the life on the planet.

Something from nothing.
The concept violates natural law, therefore is supernatural, without the supernatural.
Self conflicting statement.

The 2nd law says everything entropies. Readily observable. Your car wears out, eventually you die, suns burn out or nova. Things die, rot, rust. Entropy. Disorder is inevitable.

But evolution says the opposite. Things become MORE complex, better, more ordered over time. You can't show that happening anywhere in the universe.

The scientist Douglass J Futuyma said
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possibilities for origin of living things."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Futuyma

So it's one or the other.
That's why it's ideology driving these non sciences, because they CAN'T, WON'T accept the alternative.

 

I'm not trying to argue for the existence of God on this forum.

I'm arguing for the existence of BAD science among the Good science. If you can't tell the difference...I don't know what to say to you.
I'm sorry?

 

God is God. Always has been. He wasn't made because he has always been. Too large a concept for us mere mortals to wrap our heads around.

 

No argument here Hoyt, but not my point.

My point is "objective science" is mostly a myth.

And Stephen Gould said it before me.

So it IS appropriate to question science, scientist, and their motives. And ideologies behind the science. And some simply doesn't QUALIFY as science, but philosophy masquerading as science or politics masquerading as science.

If it's not observable, repeatable, testable AND measurable...all 4, not just one of the above, then it FAILS scientific criteria. Period!

Trying to substitute "consensus" or "accepted" , or "peer reviewed" as surrogates for the scientific criteria doesn't wash and waves a red flag "BAD SCIENCE"!

 

I’ve long wondered how a ‘mere mortal’ can confidently make an assertion that a ‘mere mortal’ can’t possibly understand??? But if I were to ask that question it would probably result in the thread being shut down, and I wouldn’t want Yobarnacle to be ticked-off at me. He seems to be having such fun mixing up profound questions with trivial mistakes.

 

So that's what 'very convincingly and in depth' looks like?

Hmmm.

I thought there would be facts and stuff.

 

What other facts do you want samsam?

I've given the laws a couple of times. explained them. explained what doesn't comply with those laws, in the 'doctrine' of evolution. What more do you need?

Shall I quote scientist for you? I can.

 

Isaac Asimov in counting the Eons.

"I have faith and belief myself...I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. it is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.


http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.
Richard Dawkins 'The Blind watchmaker'

'No evidence would be sufficient to create a change of mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism."

Steven Pinker MIT 'How the Mind Works' p162

 

I can't tell if it's cooking or science as it seems to me you take some facts, roll them in personal opinions and beliefs, sprinkle them with thoughts and conjecture, half bake them and then call that truth and proof.

Quoting people's philosophic thoughts is not explaining the link between evolution and thermodynamics.

What point are you trying to make with the quotes?