Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

What have you found unacceptable, Pickled? Whatever you told MNHQ when you reported our posts, you can tell us, too.

Have I been intolerant to Frustrated beliefs that the universe must obey his 'logic'?

Or have I shown the error of his argument a little too clearly?

Yes, debating with adults who know what they are talking about can be tough. Would you like me to kiss it better?

1. Frustrated can humiliate himself
2. Stick around, Frustrated. You will learn so much more
3. I'm not reading your rants
4. Take your time. I'm sure you'll understand them eventually and will dare give an answer
5. Why don't you educate yourself a little probably will take all night
6. Or wait for a couple of years and study Physics for A level
7. Or ask nicely and we can start your education right here, right now
8. You are just too slow to realise it
9. Get that one through your head
10. You really need to educate yourself
11. I fear your head would just explode
12. you are that 13-year-old who tried to patronise those mums over on MN
13. OK, so you can't really keep up
14. You have been banging on

All of that contravenes this:

General Ps and Qs
We'd appreciate it if you could use the same courtesy when posting messages on Talk as you would use when speaking to someone face to face. Please do bear in mind how difficult this parenting business can be, and if there's one thing all of us could do with, it's some moral support.

Post deletions
We're all for freedom of speech. That said, we'll remove posts we consider to contain personal attacks,...

"CoteDAzur, you are saying exactly what some physicists are saying. Not all."

Are you really saying that there is a physicist somewhere in the world saying that the speed of light is not constant?

It is perhaps the best known cosmological constant. Its symbol is C. As in Einstein's E=mC2.

Don't get into threads on origin of the universe if you aren't even aware of that basic fact.

I haven't reported all of them but they are not making you look like a particularly nice contributor to the thread, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone else decides to. Like I said, BigDorrit has already had a post from around 11pm last night removed, and you have repeated that same insult today, so watch this space. As I said, can't we all behave nicely to each other please?

Had you said "This isn't about God. You and I are talking about the speed of light. And on that subject, I am saying exactly what physicists are saying." then I wouldn't have posted my observation.

You didn't specify that you mean the speed of light, you actually said "This isn't about God. You and I are talking about the origin of the universe. And on that subject, I am saying exactly what physicists are saying."

Do you feel I have been too harsh, Pickled?

Would you not agree that Frustrated needs to educate himself and has been rather slow to understand the concepts I have been trying to bring to his awareness?

Has he not been banging on about "Either stuff is eternal or something's come out of nothing, and that's just illogical"? He has said the same thing over 20 times. I would call that banging on. Wouldn't you?

Has he not tried to patronise us in the earlier thread but ended up tying himself up in knots & showing himself incapable of even understanding the basics?

Please could you give me details of a physicist who doesn't think the speed of light is constant.

Oh how wonderful that you haven't reported all my posts

We were talking about the origin of the universe, but I didn't say I know all about the origin of the universe. What I have said was (1) speed of light is constant, and (2) single photon goes through two slits at the same time.

Now, if you would like to show a single physicist who would disagree with those two statements, please go ahead.

If not, feel free to take back your earlier claim "you are saying exactly what some physicists are saying. Not all."

First of all, isn't frustratedBaker female?

Secondly, yes, you have been downright rude and I suspect you don't really need me to tell you that.

Thirdly, you contravene MN P's & Q's when you respond to other people's conflicting views in an insulting way like that. So no, I wouldn't agree with your personal attacks at all.

Out of everyone on this thread, FrustratedBaker has made the absolutely best contribution in my eyes, better than my own actually, and that's saying something, because they're pretty good too .

Speed of light and single photon scenario are far removed from the long discussion about atheists believing in the origins of the universe, and whether it is eternal or whether nothing comes from nothing.

Hakaluyt, please read my post where I said if CoteDAzur had not said origins of the universe then I would not have commented. Had she said "we were talking about the speed of light" then that is not the origin of the universe in the context of what had been discussed.

BigDorrit: Pickled, I thought you were Frustrated's alternate handle

You think a lot of things.

That too.

For clarity, I am not male or teenaged. I am a lady! Secondly: Cote claimed I said something was illogical. I did not. I said "if you are telling me this is illogical I will readily accept it, but what is your point." Cote said I did something which I did not do. I pointed this out.

Cote, you still need to show that your examples challeng

A. The premise that something cannot come from nothing
Or B. The premise that something is eternal or not eternal.

Pickled, thank you so much. I do feel that many posts have been unpleasant for no apparent reason. Is it fear, do you think?

"Speed of light and single photon scenario are far removed from the long discussion about atheists believing in the origins of the universe, and whether it is eternal or whether nothing comes from nothing. "

No, they are very relevant. Those are the laws of the universe we live in and are part of the only logic that has bearing on what happened around the time it began. Not Frustrated's made-up false dichotomy of "Stuff is eternal, any alternative is illogical".

Basic laws of the universe don't comply with our Earthling logic. Matter bends spacetime. It becomes heavier and shorter the faster it travels. And however fast you go, you will still observe light at a fixed speed. Locality is a probability function, not a certainty. All these and more are at odds with our 'logic' but they are the logic of our universe.

My point, if seriously it isn't clear after so long, is that Frustrated's naive logic doesn't apply to how the universe functions and therefore is meaningless re the origin of the universe.

These basics are relevant. You cannot hope to understand the question or discuss it in a meaningful way if you don't understand the basics. Don't listen to me if you don't want to, but at least read a book.

"Had she said "we were talking about the speed of light" "

I'm sorry - did you need to be told what we were talking about?

It wasn't a private conversation.

PickledInAJar

I see you are unhappy with me saying "Evolution is mostly accepted by Christians" because it can be shown to be happening now."

On the 'happening now' it's possible to observe natural selection in very short lived organisms. Don't take my word for it, but read up on it. Apart from you not trusting me I am not a biologist.

Really though unless you believe that DNA and dog breeding are part of the same atheist conspiracy you should be able to work out the basic principles by sitting in an armchair and just thinking about it.

You know we breed dog's and other animals yes? At it's simplest we breed two fast horses to get a faster one.

What do you think happens in nature if conditions change and predators are hunting the wild horses. Do you think the faster ones might live longer and have a chance to breed?

You didn't like the "Evolution is mostly accepted by Christians" either, but that is so true that on previous threads I've been told that mentioning creationism is being abusive because it implies that Christians are ignorant enough to believe it. That's really the kind of thing Christians say about it.

Of course I agree that many Christian are lukewarm, diluted, ineffective and ditch the unpopular parts of the bible. That's inevitable really. When people started to become educated and thoughtful about morals it just became impossible to maintain the belief that the bible is both accurate and 'good'.

Btw that is interesting about the appendix and I'll read the article when I've posted this, but you understand it was an example right? Humans (and other animals) are not perfectly designed. They just mostly work long enough to breed. Even we could think of lots of improvements and we're only really understood biology for a few generations.

BackOnlyBriefly: You know we breed dog's and other animals yes? At it's simplest we breed two fast horses to get a faster one.

Natural selection doesn't prove evolution. If a horse evolved into a man then it would be evolution. A horse being bred to be a faster horse? Not evolution I'm afraid.

Natural selection is very normal and doesn't contravene anything to do with God at all.

I've heard the 'yes but it will only do small changes' before. (Because poodles and great danes are hardly different at all). So how does it know when to stop? After it's done small changes for 20-30 generations it has to know to stop now in order not to contradict the bible. Who tells it?

That's right, they're hardly different because they are both still dogs. I don't quite get your contradiction of the bible comment, could you elaborate further?

I'm sorry - did you need to be told what we were talking about?
No need to apologise. Not for that, at any rate. And yes, it is natural to take a sentence at it's face value, otherwise it rather looks like you could be changing what you said after the event.