9 posts were split to a new topic: Is Evolution Gradual or Punctuated?
@Patrick , maybe it’s time for a black cherry soda break? It’s TJ’s thread, and I’m still searching for your desire to get to know him better, rather than to just talk down to each of us, in turn.
6 posts were split to a new topic: Evolution of the Placenta
@Patrick Dude --you’re projecting once again. Too predictable.
I’m about to call it a night. But short answer: no. I’ll come back tomorrow
Well, the vocabulary is a bit sparse and the sentiment a bit raw, TJ, so George’s warning has merit. Patrick, let’s have Josh address this at the proper time, agreed? TJ, looking forward to your answer, as well. Good night to all.
Appreciate your OP.
Don’t get bothered by @Patrick. Some people are childish.
Will wait for your detailed explanation.
There’s no accounting for taste.
Argon, it’s a scientific consensus and completely demonstrable
That is a legitimate question. I think part of it is that the title of the post does not match the content. It is not htat Peaceful Science helped him find his peace, but a description of his way of maping out his personal views on evolution. I’ll change the title. That should answer the questions.
@T.j_Runyon it is worth taking that seriously. @Patrick is not being aggressive here. You have to be able to communicate in a way that delineates clearly between the neutral science, and the things that go beyond. If he is triggered, there is likely a better way to explain it. It might be worth asking specifically made him think:
It is a very important thing to able to navigate these questions, even if they are aggressively put forward. @T.j_Runyon, show @Patrick how you are following the rules, and you will be better prepared for when it really matters.
For example, this is not a sufficient answer to protect your safety in high stakes situations (which this is not).
It is better to explain how you’ve avoided entangling it.
No. Peaceful Science is THEOLOGICAL discussion about science… NOT about Science, per se.
When push comes to shove… this is NOT a place for an atheist to discuss ONLY science.
Okay to show you that an atheist can discuss not only science but theology too, let’s discuss the theological implications of the zero size of an electron. How can a real particle have zero size? Did an Intelligent Designer make it like that? Or perhaps, is there deep philosophical and metaphysical meaning to having a zero size electron. What would Aquinous says about the size of an electron? Did Giorgiono Bruno know about zero sized electron?
There are those who think black holes also have no physical diameter within the event horizon. That sounds nuts to me.
You sound nuts to me. But I like you anyway. You’re one of the reasons I come here. Although it may be a little early, I wish you a wonderful Winter Solstice this year:
I post this because I am in the process of ordering these big banners for the annual Christmas display in town.
The Winter Solstice is the great astronomical sign that even after 3 days in the underworld (not in the sky), the Sun is resurrected to once again begin its March to the Summer Solstice.
Now… about circumferences: if something as massive as a black hole can lose its circumference “into” the singularity… I suppose something as wispy as an electron can as well.
Isn’t an electron a special class of muon?
8 posts were merged into an existing topic: JoeG’s Case Against Common Descent
@T.j_Runyon I hope you don’t miss your opportunity here.
@dga471 can you help us here? Thanks
I’m very tied up this week (so my posts may even be described as hit-and-run) but I just wanted to say to Patrick that I think Bruno would be a great topic for a new thread sometime. I find Bruno an odd and unlikely “hero” of pro-science anti-theists, for example. After all, he was basically an obnoxious fellow who managed to anger just about everybody everywhere (on all sides of the controversial issues of the day.) Unfortunately, the one thing almost everybody agreed on back then was that the world would be better off without Bruno in it. (I’m not condoning that. Just telling the truth.)
I’m amazed how many people think that Bruno was a brilliant, ground-breaking scientist who was thinking rings around everybody else. He was certainly not an opponent of “primitive superstitions.” He was an enthusiastic occultist, after all. He was most certainly not martyred for his scientific ideas. He got killed primarily for being nasty and not knowing when to carefully choose his words in a very risk era (an era of many centuries, in fact.) Both the Roman Catholic church and more secular parties of his day wanted to get rid of him. He got kicked out of several communities before his rudeness caught up with him for the last time.
Unfortunately for him, Bruno lived at a time when people who chose to be very different—and were obnoxious about it—usually got killed by somebody in power somewhere. (Those who typify his case as due to inherent dangers of religious despots don’t understand the times. Every ruling power back in those days was basically tyrannical to some degree, whether religious or not. That doesn’t justify it. In fact, it exposes the hypocrisies of those who claimed to represent Jesus Christ while totally ignoring his teachings of love and peace and righteousness.)
Anyway, G. Bruno is certainly a fascinating character. Yet, like many other controversial figures of the past, he has gotten reworked, cleaned-up, and exploited for various causes in modern times. In that way, his rebooted modern characterization reminds me a lot of Hypatia, a superstitious ancient pagan who has been turned into some sort of modernist role model of secularist reason and anti-theism. (The protagonist in the recent movie about Hypatia is almost unrecognizable to an historian. I’d love to see how a similar director and screenwriter would try to tell the story of Bruno in a Hollywood activist agenda sort of way, especially if a big-name actor was cast.)