Enoch2021

Royal Member
  • Content count

    2,504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Enoch2021 last won the day on June 19 2016

Enoch2021 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,827 Excellent

3 Followers

About Enoch2021

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 12/26/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Missouri
  • Interests
    The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

Recent Profile Visitors

1,200 profile views
  1. 1. Your claim wasn't about "sr" ...it was about Planck CONTRIBUTING to the "theory of relativity". (Most think "GR" when you say "theory of relativity" and YOU even confirm as much below, TWICE!) 2. What did he "contribute", specifically...? Not playing music together. lol 3. I already said Planck 'discovered' Einstein. You made the claim, "YOU" SUPPORT it. It's not "MY" Job to Support "YOUR" Claims. Confirmed from above. How did Planck, "COLLABORATE" Now ... on GR ?? And not playing 'ditties' together, lol. Found a few: a. atheism is more viable than humpty dumpty. b. evolution exists. c. astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics -- are "SCIENCES". d. 2 + 1 = 5875 You need some more? Harvard Guide to Using Sources: "There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts. Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays." http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/ icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=i cb.page346376 Your FIRST Claim was that Planck "CONTRIBUTED" to GR, not "SUPPORTED". So, go ahead...? regards
  2. So since she didn't say "ALL" then that invalidates a Stereotype Fallacy? No Problem, it's a Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless "Bare" Assertion Fallacy then. Personally, I know many Christians and have known many in my life; I never met ONE Christian that was against Science or Math. That's why I found the claim strange. ps. I can read just fine. Feigned exasperation's aren't arguments or position. Huh? What hurt? And what Method did you use to arrive at your Blind Conjecture "guessing" conclusion here...? Yes, because it was Baseless just like her Baseless Claims. It appears we're having an 'Outbreak' of Unsupported Claims in the 'Science and Faith' Forum recently. I read many of the posts here and am willing to learn new things or be corrected if people can "State Their Claim" then "Provide Cogent SUPPORT" for said claims. Apparently these days, people take issue when their challenged to SUPPORT what they say. I find that " x 1010000000000---> ". regards
  3. OK, so you said "Amen amen" to this Whole Post... "I don't understand why so many Christians and other believers are so against science and math. They are the fabric of our universe. They explain why our universe and world, our own bodies operate the way they do. There's nothing evil and worldly about it. Science and math are one of the beautiful languages of God. What's evil is when atheists take God out of science and math and believers take science and math away from God. The two go hand in hand." Just a couple... 1. I'm a Christian and I'm not against Science and Math. 2. Stereotype Fallacy. In fact, it's my contention that people who say such things don't know what "Science" is to begin with. They cloak their shortcomings then feebly divert 'project' they're problem areas onto others without warrant. So science and math are the 'Fabric' of our universe? Well 'Fabric' is Physical. Conversely, Math and Science are "Non-Physical"; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. Define our universe...? Science and Math 'Explain' ?? Do they have: Vocal Chords/Typing Skills, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence ?? Aren't both Inanimate? Ergo... another Reification Fallacy. Just to clarify, You still "Amen amen"--ing these? regards
  4. To what, specifically...? regards
  5. So you agree with Bonky?? Well 'Bonky' just "Plucked Out" this quote: "The faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." - Max Planck So I'm trying to figure out what you're 'agreeing' with here since you said: "so plucking out Max Planck quotes (or any scientist) really proves nothing more than where Max Planck's head was at when he made the quote." So how can you agree with Bonky when he just performed the very act: "Plucking Out Quotes" --- the very thing you conjectured was essentially meaningless ?? Please...? What's the difference between 'Scientific Thought' and just plain ole everyday thought...? 1. Are you referring to yourself, Bonky, other here? 2. The conversation has/had nothing to do with 'religion' at any point. 3. Which 'religion' are you referring to specifically? 'Religion' is based on "Blind Faith". Christianity is NOT a 'Religion' it's based on "Biblical Faith": (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So Blind Faith: Based on Nothing, Belief without Evidence. Christian Faith: Based on Substance and Evidence. See the Difference? "Science" is SOLELY 'based' on it's Method: The Scientific Method. Yes but NOT 'blind faith'; As evidenced by Hebrews above and... (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Come again? Define Miracles...? Huh? Max didn't mention God or any interaction with any people in either quote. Yes, The Main Thing is: 'What and Where' is this "Scientific Community"...? What does this have anything whatever to do with the discussion? Can you let us know which 'Portion' that might be...? regards
  6. I asked you: "How did Plank contribute, specifically?" You then post a "link"?? This article says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Planck contributing to gr. Probably why you just posted a "link", right? Goodness Gracious, sir. Now a "WIKI link"... with special relativity no less. smh Huh? I know, let's hold a World Conference of the Best Interpreters in an attempt to figure out what Riddle of a Mystery Planck is trying to communicate here... "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: *YE MUST HAVE FAITH*. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." Max Planck (Nobel Prize Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING?; translated by James Vincent Murphy (1932), p. 214 We'll then... hold a Vote! Next, we'll head up to Yale and badger Professor Shankar to unveil the secrets here... "The only way things change in Physics is *EXPERIMENTS*. ...Everything is based on *EXPERIMENT*, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) Hilarious regards
  7. Well Planck, for a lack of a better term, 'discovered' Einstein. "Embraced"?? Was it a Full Bear Hug or 'butt out' eyes closed wincing ?? How did Plank contribute, specifically? Not the Quantum Mechanics part. Specific Reference Please...? That's fine, did he like his Pommes Frites fried or baked?? Interesting. Did he enjoy Jogging in the Rain? What was his Favorite Color?? It's quite clear that Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics) was speaking to "Faith" in a Necessary Antecedent sense to The Consequent "Science". Don't you think... "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: *YE MUST HAVE FAITH*. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." Max Planck (Nobel Prize Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING?; translated by James Vincent Murphy (1932), p. 214 ?? regards
  8. Good 1. A Religious Man?? How so...? 2. You think this is a 'Religious Statement'... "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: *YE MUST HAVE FAITH*. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." Max Planck (Nobel Prize Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING?; translated by James Vincent Murphy (1932), p. 214 ?? Sure sounds like the Main Thrust of his thought here was "SCIENCE" and how "FAITH" was critical component of it. Well Planck didn't postulate Mytho-MatheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) as "Scientific Theories". I do give props to Einstein for the 'Photoelectric Effect'... when the subject comes up. 1. Do you have a Source? 2. How can "Science" Totally Defeat... Faith in miracles? 3. Define Miracle...? regards
  9. None of them--(Elephant Hurling Fallacies), answered any of my simple queries. Straw Man Fallacy: I never made any such request. You're telling me. Just wanted you to simply SUPPORT your claims...as it turns out, it would have been easier Resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse. Yes, you surely did. As mentioned many times...it's not "MY" Job to Support "YOUR" Claims. 1. Well, I know what The Scientific Method is. 2. "Parroting"?? So posting The Scientific Method is "Parroting", eh? At least I can Speak to it. How would you characterize just posting 'Links' without speaking to any of it?? In-Depth Knowledge? We don't need Power Points, just... Post just ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of geology...? OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? regards
  10. Your Elephant Hurling Fallacy 'Link" did not address my question: And AGAIN... Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the History of astronomy OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? You've posted more than enough. Thank You Appeal to Motive (Fallacy). regards
  11. Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law. Your Example is TEXTBOOK. Post the "Scientific Evidence"...? What's 'reaaally' crazy is people Holding onto 'Fairytale Beliefs' in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to "Actual" Scientific Laws...then Claim, it's "Science". regards
  12. Why do you quote my Entire Post; then...never speak to any of it, specifically? And AGAIN... Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed by any of these so-called disciplines...? OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? If NOT; Then...They're NOT Sciences. Voila Well if they don't use The Scientific Method --- "SCIENCE"; then...They're NOT Sciences. This is Incoherent. "Data" come from Experiments (Hypothesis Tests). Hypothesis come from "Observing Phenomenon".... which are ALL a part of The Scientific Method: Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon Step 2: Lit Review Step 3: Hypothesis Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT Step 5: Analyze Data Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis Step 7: Report Results And AGAIN... Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the History of astronomy OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? regards
  13. 1. Elephant Hurling Fallacy. Please post... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 2. Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; "Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes. You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" ! a. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions. b. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!! So can you please elaborate: How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....? You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age". It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes. Ergo... A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? Sounds like "Propaganda" to me...you? It's mind numbing. Moreover... According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct. So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. Listen closely... “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The PAST is not really the PAST until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.” Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68. So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks/Ice Cores (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped --REGISTERED and Recorded THEM (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ... Then you MUST provide the "Decay Rate", "Speed", Ice Cores (Whatever)... for a Wave of Potentialities ?? Go ahead...? regards
  14. And I'm a Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot. Ergo...he's NOT a "Scientist". Do I need to explain WHY again?? He is. He 'believes': there was Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before "The Fall", a "Local" Flood, Moon Fossils, and a whole host of other Fairytales. There is No Scientific Evidence either way...as I already explained (IN DETAIL) here, many times. So (AGAIN) pull out and post ... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? Well if you had any evidence, I probably wouldn't have requested answers to the simple queries above... for the 28th Time now. If it doesn't have the answers to my simple queries above...it's Painfully Worthless. Show where Jesus Christ said anything about creating Salamanders...? HE didn't. According to your logic, Salamanders don't Exist. Huh?? It's HERE, I posted it in this very thread... merely 2 pages ago. regards
  15. Astrophysics is not "SCIENCE" either. Here's the Whole List of Pseudo-Sciences: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics. Crocheting is more Scientific than these Clowns...."COMBINED!!!" Why?? Well they don't/can't follow 'The Scientific Method'... "SCIENCE" !!!! Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed by any of these so-called disciplines...? OR... Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? So? 1. Well to "BE" something you have to exhibit the Characteristics/Traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green, yellow, red, purple, and brown, contain complex/simple Carbs, chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6. That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries. It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast. It's the same with "Science"... "Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, "The Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science". Science without Hypotheses, Experiment--- (Hypothesis TESTS) is like Water without Hydrogen...it's Painfully Non-Sequitur. 2. Agree/Disagree have absolutely nothing to do with Science; In fact it's the Antithesis: "Science"--- (The Scientific Method) only deals with the Empirical ("Objective"), Agree/Disagree deal with "The Subjective". I'm retired Military. And your evidence here is "Hear Say". Sure and I'm a Saudi Prince and a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot. The only "ET's" are Fallen Angels or their embodied off-spring (SEE: Nephilim). All they see are Circular "Lights" and they're not from Hubble... but from "SOFIA", or CGI. Hubble Telescope is a Fairytale. Well mainly from the Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics -- (ALL Physical Laws), and Common Sense. I'll show you.... 1. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) *WITHOUT* a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ?? a. In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale "Spinning-Ball" religion... BOTH, at the same time?? b. Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...? c. Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....? 2. Are you saying the Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics -- (ALL Physical Laws), and Common Sense are FALSE?? It can be: You have a Viable Independent Variable (The Yarn) and Dependent Variable; something the Pretender Clown Pseudo-Science Clowns can only DREAM OF. 1. Key Phrase " I do not 'believe' ". 2. Conspiracy -- a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy No, this never happens!! Just Thousands of Times each day EVERY DAY throughout the Entire History of the HUMAN RACE!! 3. God certainly does...SEE Psalms 2. It's not that I 'THINK' astronomy isn't "Science", I KNOW it's NOT and have already Demonstrably showed WHY it's NOT. Try SUPPORTING your claims... the discussion usually goes much smoother then. regards