The Genetic Code

[renniks]

It's basic logic.

If you see X as a result of Y, then that doesn't mean that Y is the only way X can happen.

So it's pure speculation... kinda like what you all say about religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The experiential evidence of consciousness out of body has no interaction, only observation. Force implies interaction. So a better expression more compliant with how those words are used in a physics context would be “ life energy” not “ life force” .

Since in physics most of the matter / energy is missing and deemed non interacting or only weakly interacting it is hardly a stretch of the imagination.


You seem very certain of what you cannot know for sure.

I spoke of "life-force" not consciousness, but if you would like to make some claim of non-corporeal consciousness then that is also ruled out.

You allude to Dark Energy/Matter. How do either of those interact with an animal's body? Both are far too weak to be any "life-force" animating the body.

The parameter space for forces that interact can with bodies is fully explored. That's why we can be certain.

 

[Mountainmike]

What a load of gobbledygook! This should be taken to the Non Mainstream sceince forum .. (where it belongs).

Behavioural science is both central and important. But People, or beings in general are not like things. They don’t always respond predictably, causally or consistently. The study of them is no less scientific because of it. It is certainly not “ gobbledygook” (sic)

Science is not clean completely defined and all encompassing as school kids are taught. It is messy I’ll defined in parts and limited in what it can easily study. Ie repeatable things. Science has bitten off the easier things to study. It is left with the more difficult.

As for “ Mainstream” that’s another arbitrary subjective invention like Sagan’s unscientific folly “ extraordinary claims” etc used to exclude topics scientific realists don’t like.

Are sexaquarks mainstream?
Since most have no idea what they are, there is no evidence they exist , there cannot be many actively studying them, they are hardly a candidate for such an arbitrary distinction “ mainstream” . But sexaquarks are clearly a legitimate source of study, even though there is a lot more evidence for the existence of out of body consciousness than there is for the elusive sexaquark.

Which brings us to the final problem in your statement. Interaction is a de facto definition not an absolute criterion. Sexaquarks existence is still in doubt because at present they don’t interact in any known way that I am aware of. The present status is not interacting.. They have not been found in cloud chambers. The day an interaction is discovered is the day their existence can be confirmed and they become de facto interacting.

Have you done simple calculations of G force yet that prove your contention about drones going from standing start To over the horizon in a second or two is absurd? You should be able to do that in your head! As I keep saying, Study first. Comment second is a very good order.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nonsense.

7% of the world population is atheist according to The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. That's not much different to the 4% you claimed, so I wonder why you consider it nonsense.

As to the 70% not believing in God, since Christians make up just 30-31% of the world population I'm again puzzled by your assertion of "nonsense". Do you have any numbers to back your claim?

 

[SelfSim]

Exactly... life can't happen by accident.

Just as its happening doesn't require a purpose.

 

[SelfSim]

Behavioural science is both central and important. But People, or beings in general are not like things. They don’t always respond predictably, causally or consistently. The study of them is no less scientific because of it. It is certainly not “ gobbledygook” (sic)

Science is not clean completely defined and all encompassing as school kids are taught. It is messy I’ll defined in parts and limited in what it can easily study. Ie repeatable things. Science has bitten off the easier things to study. It is left with the more difficult.

You've been watching to much of The X-Files.

As for “ Mainstream” that’s another arbitrary subjective invention like Sagan’s unscientific folly “ extraordinary claims” etc used to exclude topics scientific realists don’t like.

Meh .. its a polite way of saying 'put up or shut up', which is generally good advice (aka: Wisdom).

Are sexaquarks mainstream?
Since most have no idea what they are, there is no evidence they exist , there cannot be many actively studying them, they are hardly a candidate for such an arbitrary distinction “ mainstream” . But sexaquarks are clearly a legitimate source of study, even though there is a lot more evidence for the existence of out of body consciousness than there is for the elusive sexaquark.

They're predictions permissible by the theory. Mainstream thinking is needed to see that.

Which brings us to the final problem in your statement. Interaction is a de facto definition not an absolute criterion. Sexaquarks existence is still in doubt because at present they don’t interact in any known way that I am aware of. The present status is not interacting.. They have not been found in cloud chambers. The day an interaction is discovered is the day their existence can be confirmed and they become de facto interacting.

Its not the 'interacting' part that matters (that's causality .. which is a philosophical concept). Measurability of an apparent resultant matters in scientific thinking.

There are no 'absolutes' in science .. again your Truth seeking leads you to believe the opposite.

Have you done simple calculations of G force yet that prove your contention about drones going from standing start To over the horizon in a second or two is absurd? You should be able to do that in your head! As I keep saying, Study first. Comment second is a very good order.

An 'horizon' is a relative (observer frame dependent) concept. G forces produced in such a manoeuvre, are easily compensated for by unmanned drone structure designs.
You are now grasping at straws in your bogus claim that it is 'beyond' science to explain this, (whatever that is supposed to mean in the first place).

And why are you continuing a discussion which started in the 'Dark Matter' thread? Have you lost track of your own ramblings?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which brings us to the final problem in your statement. Interaction is a de facto definition not an absolute criterion. Sexaquarks existence is still in doubt because at present they don’t interact in any known way that I am aware of. The present status is not interacting.. They have not been found in cloud chambers. The day an interaction is discovered is the day their existence can be confirmed and they become de facto interacting.

At first I ignored (as I had previously) your sexaquark talk on this thread as it seems off topic, but I found something of interest hidden in it. (If you want to discuss sexaquarks as DM, reply to that thread about them and I'd be glad to discuss it with you.)

Could these sexaquarks as undetected particles be the source of spirit, soul, or life-force?

As I have insisted above, the only thing that can influence life or interact with bodies are those described by the four known forces (Strong and Weak Nuclear, EM, Gravity). Would the sexaquark represent a new force or field? No. They are made of quarks and gluons and can be described by QCD, the well established theory of the strong nuclear force. (OK, it's pedantic, but so what.)

More importantly would they interact enough with a body to impact it? Again the answer must be no. If they did they would have been detected already.

Summary, even undetected particles based on existing, known physics can't be the life-force/spirit because they would have been detected.

 

[renniks]

Just as its happening doesn't require a purpose.

Of course it does... it's far to complex to happen but chance.

 

[renniks]

7% of the world population is atheist according to The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. That's not much different to the 4% you claimed, so I wonder why you consider it nonsense.

As to the 70% not believing in God, since Christians make up just 30-31% of the world population I'm again puzzled by your assertion of "nonsense". Do you have any numbers to back your claim?

The 70 percent still believe in God or gods.

 

[Kylie]

Nonsense.

No, that's pretty accurate.

Only about 31 percent of the people in the world are Christian. So, about 70% of the world does not believe in the Christian God. SOURCE

 

[Kylie]

So it's pure speculation... kinda like what you all say about religion.

I love this.

This started out as you not understanding proof by contradiction. And now you still don't understand how you made a mistake, but you've placed the error on me instead of you.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course it does... it's far to complex to happen but chance.

You only think that because you completely ignore everything else we know about what accounts for it.

 

[SelfSim]

I love this.

This started out as you not understanding proof by contradiction. And now you still don't understand how you made a mistake, but you've placed the error on me instead of you.

Yes .. So now logic is believed to be a religion now, eh?
(Better start a war quick-smart ... y'know; to get rid of it once and for all then ... )

 

[Kylie]

Yes .. So now logic is believed to be a religion now, eh?
(Better start a war quick-smart ... y'know; to get rid of it once and for all then ... )

lol

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The 70 percent still believe in God or gods.

This is your response to the explanation that 70% do NOT believe in God?

 

[ottawak]

The 70 percent still believe in God or gods.

Not relevant to the discussion. This is not a theism/atheism debate. In any case you can't know how many of the 70% understand that a naturalistic abiogenesis does not deny divine causality.

 

[renniks]

This is your response to the explanation that 70% do NOT believe in God?

Yes because that doesn't compute. Don't know how you got there.

 

[SelfSim]

I wonder how many don't care about beliefs?
Not many I'll bet ... pity.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes because that doesn't compute. Don't know how you got there.

Wow, really? Simple maths: 100 - 30 = 70

Feel free to show how that doesn't compute.

ETA I get it now. You don't understand the difference between god and God, do you? Your claim that "70% believe in gods or God" is incorrect. That should be "93% believe in gods or God, of which 30% believe in God and 63% believe in other gods"

 

[ruthiesea]

Probably because they know life had to begin from something more than an accident.

Not even science says that life was created by accident.