Total posts: 258
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Whether or not those who base their morality on factual errors are impeded by using well being as a standard does not remove the standard's objectivity. Also, you tend to agree with me, because I can provide facts for why considering the well being of those toward whom i behave, or towards whom I use morality, is not arbitrary, in fact, necessary."That does not stop many people from basing their morality on such a book to such a degree that they find harming others who disagree to be moral. That I would tend to agree with your assessment of morality does not make it any less subjective."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"The well being of others is an arbitrary standard."
Except that the definition of morality is our behavior towards others, so if the others towards whom we behave aren't the standard then there's no concept of morality at all.
"we could just as easily use a two thousand year old book written by goat herders as our standard. Some people do."
Except that the old book doesn't as accurately consider the others toward whom we behave, because well being wasn't as understood then as it is today...in fact much of the well being of others is ignored by many of those books.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
With no energy, no particles, etc. And, that these things manifested into this preexisting space
Here's the misconception.
The space you keep thinking is preexisting isn't, instead there is merely the fluctuation of quantum particles without any remaining space.
If nothing remains what is there?
Not even space remains.
Not until a particle avoids annihilation.
Remaining particle THEN remaining space, not the other way around.
If nothing remains what is there?
Not even space remains.
Not until a particle avoids annihilation.
Remaining particle THEN remaining space, not the other way around.
"So our universe happened in a preexisting space... and i guess time comes along with our universe in the sense that we have things to measure time after they manifest"
So you have to think of it like the space only exists as the quantum particle exists and is annihilated.
The result of annihilation is no remaining particles, space, radiation, or forces.
Once a particle remains, with it so does space.
Otherwise none of it remains and it all fluctuates, including space itself, and that's quantum fluctuation.
Otherwise none of it remains and it all fluctuates, including space itself, and that's quantum fluctuation.
"it seems to me, space-time is the platform for everything else."
If you can get that this is actually what's true of quantum fluctuations, then you've really got it.
Quantum fluctuations are fundamental, not space.
Quantum fluctuations are fundamental, not space.
The fabric of our current space is those fluctuating particles and their forces, but when there was no remaining space, and all was fluctuating, space itself depended on a particle remaining long enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is the well being of the others toward whom you are acting (morality) an arbitrary standard and when is well being NOT objective measured?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
"Like you, I don't believe that morality itself is objective."
Hypothetical question.
Would you think hydrating your child with hydrogen peroxide is moral/immoral and how would you arrive at that assessment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
This debate could use an UNBIASED vote.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/338
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bifolkal
"Hey, I was a biology teacher in Maryland as well for about 30 years, looks like we have something in common. I don't know if I know as much about the universe as you seem to know, but what are the odds?"
No shit!
I'll PM you about the school district and such, but 30 years?
What are you crazy?
Glad to see more science people here on DART.
What are you crazy?
Glad to see more science people here on DART.
Yeah if you wanna ask anything about the universe, this is a great place to start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
" And if there is nothing and something just pops into existence, well that's very tricky to say the least. So i don't understand how science can confidently say there was no spacetime at any point."
Alright, that was a little heavy in vocab, my bad, let me try again.
So, we know that there was once zero spacetime, because we have a fixed speed at which space expands now.
You can use this fixed speed, called the Hubble constant, to predict how much the distance between the galaxies will increase over time.
I can use the Hubble constant to say predict the distance between the galaxies in 20 years.
That means that the expansion of the universe is directly increasing with time passing.
It makes sense to call it spacetime because more expanded space, more passed time.
Taking the Hubble constant, the expansion speed of space, the other way would show the rate at which space contracts AND taking this number back leads us to about 13.7 bya.
When you follow the numbers back, they not only allow for zero spacetime, but the radiation form the big bang, the big bang literally being zero spacetime-->some spacetime, indicates the energy density of space was once zero and then not.
So let me get to the meat of the explanation.
What you have to understand is that the fabric of empty space in our universe is composed of quantum fluctuations.
These quantum particles exist as they are annihilated by particle-antiparticle pairing.
The result is nothing remains.
Also, unlike all other particles we deal with, these particles are fundamental to space and do not distort it, so while you may think that space is somehow fundamental, that's not the case.
Quantum fluctuations are the literal fabric of empty space in our universe, it is the particles that are fundamental, not space.
Now you have to get to when spacetime was zero.
The quantum particles still fluctuated at zero spacetime, it's just that spacetime, gravity, radiation, and the quantum particles all fluctuated together.
As a quantum particle existed and was annihilated, so with it was spacetime.
The result is that none of those things remain.
They exist and are annihilated at their existence, so there was no remaining or expanding spacetime when there were no remaining particles.
This quantum fluctuation is unstable, so eventually a particle could avoid annihilation, allowing for the first bit of remaining space and this first bit of remaining space was completely filled with a particle, so the energy density of this first bit of unexpanded space was extremely high and we've confirmed its measurement with the measurements of radiation in the universe.
This quantum fluctuation is unstable, so eventually a particle could avoid annihilation, allowing for the first bit of remaining space and this first bit of remaining space was completely filled with a particle, so the energy density of this first bit of unexpanded space was extremely high and we've confirmed its measurement with the measurements of radiation in the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"Can you explain this to me? How do we know for certain there was "no" space time?"
So the universe's spacetime currently is expanding at a fixed rate, the Hubble constant.
By taking the inverse of this rate, we can trace spactime back in time and in size.
If it were a correct rate, the CMB radiation wold indicate that by it's scattering, and it does, so we can take this rate back to zero spacetime.
Also, the predictions of the energy density of the first bit of space, confirmed by the measured density of the early light elements with an anisotropy probe, show that from zero space, space with energy density comes.
By taking the inverse of this rate, we can trace spactime back in time and in size.
If it were a correct rate, the CMB radiation wold indicate that by it's scattering, and it does, so we can take this rate back to zero spacetime.
Also, the predictions of the energy density of the first bit of space, confirmed by the measured density of the early light elements with an anisotropy probe, show that from zero space, space with energy density comes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
" I think everything we have thought of could be possible in some "possible world." Kinda like modal realism too. It's just a fun idea that would be cool if it's true"
It sounds like the MGB argument, but yeah, maybe because the sheer odds of universes the possibility is there...who knows?
"I'm the most annoying for an atheist to argue. Apart from also being agnostic atheist i also think Santa could actually be real. lol."
Hahah, I'm an agnostic atheist as well, and I think there's a better case for santa's existence than god's.
"I would say phenomena we currently wouldn't have an answer for. That very likely could be natural so i acknowledge that. But, i am almost positive there is phenomena that we don't have answers for... which is obvious. But i go as far as this phenomena having intelligence and/or intelligently interacting with this world."
Yeah, if we had answers to everything, I'd be out of a job...science lives on explaining things.
So, you sound sort of Greek, in that when they didn't have an explanation for something, they assumed intelligence. Rather than charged particles, an intelligence, Zeus, was throwing lightning bolts.
So, you sound sort of Greek, in that when they didn't have an explanation for something, they assumed intelligence. Rather than charged particles, an intelligence, Zeus, was throwing lightning bolts.
"I'm bias in this regard since events of the spiritual nature have happened to me. And more than just once. Spiritual would be defined the same way btw... phenomena that we don't have an answer for but with the addition of intelligence also being a part of it. "
Was it Zeus?
"but i most definitely don't believe there has ever been literally "no" space-time."
Well, for our universe, there was a time when there was zero spacetime, we've confirmed it with the CMB, the energy density of the early universe, and the inverse of the hubble constant. Was there other spacetime in other universes? Maybe.
"Yeah, i've always found that interesting that we have reptilian brains. It's the amygdala area right?"
Any like instinctual, primal reaction to like fear and environment sensing would be our back brain, down to the stem. All mammals have the reptilian back brain.
Old brain from reptile, back...new brain from evolving as a mammal the front.
Look at dolphins and beluga whales with that gigantic evolved frontal lobe...they too have the reptilian back brain.
Old brain from reptile, back...new brain from evolving as a mammal the front.
Look at dolphins and beluga whales with that gigantic evolved frontal lobe...they too have the reptilian back brain.
The things you mention about drugs are serious, and the implications are real, given this current heroin epidemic.
Thanks for the questions.
Thanks for the questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"To me, this means the chances of some kind of other intelligence existing out there would be high. This doesn't necessarily mean a "god" type intelligence although it can, but i think the chances of specific intelligences to their universe is quite high"
Yeah given the sheer odds of it all, I don't see why another intelligence is impossible.
" The question is always if these intelligence can communicate / interact with our world. I would think the only way that could be possible is through energy."
See I would think it would be done through some form of electromagnetic radiation, energy all the same.
"That's why i find it even more curious that all supernatural phenomena is in the form of energy"
What's supernatural phenomena?
"What do you think of infinite? Do you think it's more on the lines of just not having any boundaries? Infinite would make more sense than finite right?"
I would say our universe shows sign of expanding infinitely, but it most certainly had a beginning.
"Would you say evolution is proven? And if so, how well do you think it's proven ... Overwhelmingly"
There is more concrete, tangible evidence that evolution is a fact than there is for the earth going around the sun...it is proven overwhelmingly.
"Could it also be possible humans evolved out of more than one animal?"
Well yeah, I mean humans have reptilian brains and mammalian reproduction and birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"How confident are you that the universe hasn't always existed and has just been expanding infinitely? Basically, there was no big bang and everything has just been expanding and moving infinitely?"
I'm very confident that the spacetime of this universe did not always exist, because you can take the inverse of the Hubble constant back to zero; the math allows for zero spacetime.
So our universe's spacetime originated at the big bang and the early universe's energy density confirms it.
Which type of multi-verse would you say is most likely? I personally like the multi-verse versions where there are an infinite and/or endless and/or undetermined amount. I also like to think that not all universes have the same laws. What do you think of those two points?
From quantum fluctuations, universes come, so I don't see why it couldn't be infinite, and I don't see why any of those universes would have the same laws of physics...to me the laws themselves are arbitrary, it's all about how the universe forms from quantum fluctuations.
"If there are multiple universes that are endless as i describe above... isn't it almost certain there is a Boltzmann Brain (conscious universe)?"
No, if it's truly endless then there's a universe that destroys all conscious universe's and ours is destroyed.
"Do you the same can be said for the human brain? That's why we are all slightly different bc no two brains form the same? Or, is the mind a little more tricky? Bc i guess there are people that have similar personalities... I just wonder if any two people can have the same exact personality.
I think it can be said for all of our DNA, therefore all of our cells, therefore all of our tissues, therefore all of our organs.
Also, external forces change our brain structurally and functionally so by that alone no two brains are the same because no two brains experience the same exact stimulus throughout time.
Also, external forces change our brain structurally and functionally so by that alone no two brains are the same because no two brains experience the same exact stimulus throughout time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah, I agree that most people are centrist, but the money is in the divided parties, so they are the loudest and most powerful...I really would like more parties in America.
"I think i've asked you if you believe in multi-verse hypothesis and you said no, but i like what science is doing there bc i think if there is anything spiritual at all..."
Actually, I don't particularly like the multiverse theory, but it is a necessary result of quantum fluctuations, and so it is one of the scientific theories that I reluctantly accept because the quantum fluctuation principles indicate it and the evidence suggests that a multiverse is very likely.
"Why does every human have unique fingerprints and/or is it possible for there to be the same fingerprints? Lol... i guess that has to do with bio."
It has to do with bio, because fingerprints are an incompletely dominant trait, and incompletely dominant traits are different than both of the homozygous parents' traits.
Because of this, no child of homozygous fingerprint parents have the same fingerprints as either of their parents, and not even twins have the same fingerprints, because small differences in the womb environment conspire to give each twin different, but similar, fingerprints. In fact, each finger has a slightly different pattern, even for your own fingers.
No two fingerprints have EVER been found to be identical.
It's because the trait is incompletely dominant and so much goes on in the beginning weeks of fetal development with respects to the fingerprints.
It's because the trait is incompletely dominant and so much goes on in the beginning weeks of fetal development with respects to the fingerprints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, there's certainly not a creationist threat with respects to curriculum in MD, but I know that MD follows NY in just about everything educational.
In my experience there is no real threat, because there's no real science to threaten our actual science.
In my experience there is no real threat, because there's no real science to threaten our actual science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What, if anything, do you teach about ID?
What's there to teach?
god did it, done, good luck on the exams kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
First for the evolution of the vertebrate eye, check this article out, and I'm not sure if it still does have an animation, but if it does, it's super simple and explanatory. Good read too.
Yeah the eye is just a photo-receptor sitting in a cup.
When the first organisms had photo-receptor cells they were merely absorbing light and exiting chemical reactions within the organism, but with vertebrates, the photo-receptor cells sit in an eye cup.
The first eye cup was a neural plate that over time became more indented and deeper, requiring the evolution of those photo-receptor cells.
You can look at fish and see what our eyes once were, but that's just the vertebrate eye.
The eye before vertebrates was much different than our eyes today, but similar in that they have the same photo receptor cells.
The first eye cup was a neural plate that over time became more indented and deeper, requiring the evolution of those photo-receptor cells.
You can look at fish and see what our eyes once were, but that's just the vertebrate eye.
The eye before vertebrates was much different than our eyes today, but similar in that they have the same photo receptor cells.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
hahaha, I am a bald man, so I could use that shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
"LOL, I was mainly trying to take the piss in thinking of the least biological scientific question I could think of."
Well, I like a challenge.
"On the biological side, do you have thoughts on the genetic engineering of fetuses (a la the new Chinese HIV resistant baby)?"
Yeah, we need to embark on stem cells and cloning for the benefits to human life, but we need to regulate it responsibly and I have no suggestions on that end...very hairy stuff.
Yeah, go for Broadneck, I've heard good things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
"If protons and neutrons are both made of up and down quarks, why do we still treat atomic nuclei as collections of protons and neutrons rather than collections of up and down quarks?"
IMHO as a biology teacher, not a chemist or particle physicist, atomic nuclei behave with the classical laws of physics while the quarks and other fundamental particles and forces don't.
So in chemistry, they keep it at the level that obeys the laws of classical physics, atoms are subject to gravity and all of the other forces we experience on a macro-physics scale.
While all protons and neutrons are in fact collections of these types of particles, the particles themselves do not obey classical physics and are not susceptible to gravity when not in a nuclei, and therefore are in a branch of science all their own called quantum mechanics, which is beyond the reach of the periodic table and the categorization of law-abiding protons and neutrons.
So in chemistry, they keep it at the level that obeys the laws of classical physics, atoms are subject to gravity and all of the other forces we experience on a macro-physics scale.
While all protons and neutrons are in fact collections of these types of particles, the particles themselves do not obey classical physics and are not susceptible to gravity when not in a nuclei, and therefore are in a branch of science all their own called quantum mechanics, which is beyond the reach of the periodic table and the categorization of law-abiding protons and neutrons.
Again, I'm bio, not physics/chemistry and I also agree that the 3D Bohr's model tattoo in my avatar is inaccurate, with all the orbitals, to how the carbon atom truly is, but representing the true appearance of electrons would be impossible in a tattoo.
"Can we distinguish between up and down quarks that are comprise "protons" versus up and down quarks that comprise "neutrons" while they are still inside the nucleus?"
While inside the nucleus?
Probably not, but that sounds like a question for the people at CERN.
Otherwise we can distinguish.
Probably not, but that sounds like a question for the people at CERN.
Otherwise we can distinguish.
I'm in AA County in MD, looking to move (staying within the county). What is a good public school district for middle and high school?
I've heard good things about the Arundel High School path and the Broadneck High School path, but AACPS is pretty good, I had interned at Maryland City Elementary in Laurel, it was alright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Is creationism affecting pupils' attitude to biology at your school?"
Eh. Tbh, the kids don't really give a shit about any of the concepts pro or anti evolution, but some get offended religiously and say things like "But...humans aren't animals!" or "We're not monkeys" or "Humans were made by god," but after quickly showing them the biological concepts, they come to terms with the facts and it really isn't an issue after that, because the students are not like people on a debate site who will refute everything you say, they simply stop caring when they hear scientific facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"Why do you think most people in education / teachers are leftists / Democrat?"
It's not a bad question...I will say that at my school, that is not the case, most of the staff are right-leaning, but I think the statistics show what you're saying to be true on the whole.
Why?
Teaching doesn't tend to make you wealthy...like at all, in fact any person coming into teaching, comes in knowing that this is not a lucrative endeavor and that the majority of students to whom you will be providing your public services as a teacher are near the poverty line and receiving free meals from the school. Everything I mentioned in the sentences prior, don't scream right-wing...
1. not lucrative - doesn't sound like the GOP to me
2. providing services - right-wingers typically don't approve of many government services
3. poverty - this is typically not a focus for right-wingers
4. free meals from the gov - not a right-wing thing
Again, my school's staff is mostly right-wing, but I think on the whole, you get into teaching because you believe in the public system of educating students.
"I think it would be most logical for most teachers to be centrist and/or somewhere in the middle since that is likely the most logical place to be when analyzing what works from both sides. "
Yeah, I'm more centrist/moderate too, for that reason, but not much of my political leanings bleed into my teaching...it's biology, not social studies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's to striving for contentment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah sort of.
Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, the whole point of the homeostatic principle is to work toward the maintenance of homeostasis.Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?Please explain.
Well, as the earth changes, so do the pressures put on people to survive.
We must necessarily promote change in our behaviors to allow for our homeostasis to regulate the external changes such as the varying pressures experienced by humans on earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see it that way, homeostasis is naturally a regulatory effect; dealing with changes is its bread and butter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you seen the homeostatic principle from the debate?
Your thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
"What lessons in your classes do students tend to suck at? Great at? What biological facts/phenomenons fascinate you the most?"
The students have the greatest trouble with understanding the macromolecules, how DNA is transcribed, and understanding the difference between organisms with membrane bound organelles and those without, prokaryote VS eukaryote.
The kids are usually really good at recreating cells, understanding inheritance, and identifying ancestral organisms via chromosome set numbers.
The biological fact that fascinates me the most is that the mitochondria in EVERY LIVING CELL ON EARTH is a descendant of the bacteria, i.e. the mitochondria itself, inherent in all cells in all life on earth, was once a bacterium that was taken over by endosymbiosis.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/EndosymbiosisBacteria are like themselves a single celled mitochondria.
Our mitochondria are those bacteria functioning in our cells.
Our mitochondria are those bacteria functioning in our cells.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you should vote and express these thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
lol...maybe, but I'm all grown up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok, I'm calling on you as a judge...go for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
So, what I want you to notice is that the rules are actually asking something very simple...don't lie.
That's it.
No matter how long you analyze my rules for voting, they all say something basic...don't fucking lie.
It's an honesty filter, and if having to force voters to be honest deters them from voting, excellent!
The rules worked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Word, I call my mom and my wife dude all day long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Oh I'm aware you're a female, I call everyone dude, regardless of sex, gender, blah blah blah
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Dude, it's such an underrated movie, and it literally is accurately predicting the future.
The amount of logical fallacies in the movie is impressive.
The amount of logical fallacies in the movie is impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Thanks, as a married man, I've gotta enjoy 'batin' whenever I can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
spacetime is stretching so the light traveling along it is too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
What about them?
When you have photons being stretched out we see red.
When you have photons being stretched out we see red.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Let me tell ya, you came to the right site then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Nope, not joking, see my debate on god existing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You debate about god for 3 years and you pick up a thing or two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
"If the epansion of the universe is slower than the speed of light, where does it go, or what happens when it gets to the edge?"
It's not going anywhere it's stretching.
The fabric of the space of the universe is simply expanding so there's no edge.
The fabric of the space of the universe is simply expanding so there's no edge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well god is made of light and nothing moves faster than light.
Created: