Recent content by JRChadwick

I've always wanted to get some footage from something like this. I would only go if I did not have to pay for entrance. I would not want to financially support such an organization.

Yeah, that pretty much sums him up. Thanks for getting him to at least sort of acknowledge my response.

No one has taught him how to edit yet.

Still waiting for a response! Why would geneticists randomly modify a life form's DNA? How would that help anything? And that is not an answer to my question.

You really think that was hostile? I thought I was relatively kind. I admit I don't take kindly to P.R.A.T.T.s like what you said about the definition of a scientific theory. I think you got upset because I made you feel foolish with your comments about the meaning of eternal, more than any...

I was wondering about that too, did it just happen today?

To us it is, not so sure about you. For a theory, or even a hypothesis to be viable, it has to have a means to be falsified. In other words, there has to be a way to disprove it. Want to disprove common decent for example? Find where the taxonomic and phylogenetic trees do not match. I...

Is not this part of the grand unification theory? The attempt to find a theory that can describe both quantum mechanics and the large scale of our universe as a whole? The way I have heard the singularity described is a representation of where the mathematical equations of the relevant fields...

I remember reading about a large haldron colider experiment that proved successful in providing evidence of the gluon in the previous decade, but particle physics is not something I've kept up on for a while. I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the...

I misspoke. I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton. There have been other experiments testing the existence of hypothetical particles, but I have not read up on it for a while. I'm going on a trip for a week, maybe I will have time to do more research about it when I get back.

No. Good assumptions are based on what information is available and they are then tested to see if they make a valid hypothesis. Religious assumptions are based on bias and ignorance. Maybe you should try harder to form a coherent argument. Wrong again! These are no competing theories...

Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time. No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe. No one believes that! That's why we still have...

Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant. Domain: (∞, ∞) Gee, that wasn't...

I wish I was still a moderator so I could finally end this thread.