Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
When a person is right that's all that matters.
ah...
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
-Richard Feynman
Einstein was proven wrong on most of his statements about QM. This is not surprising, as his area of expertise was the precursor necessary for QM, not QM itself. It took students educated in the paradigm he created to discover where and why he was wrong. In all respects, modern graduates of 1st year undergraduate physics classes have a better understanding of even concepts like relativity (which Einstein was famous for) than Einstein ever did.
You can dismiss my point all you want, but you are really only lying to yourself. You don't have the credentials to even understand the concepts you discuss, let alone make such sweeping conclusions as you have. The only person you continue to fool is yourself.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I just believe that in this important discussion that bacteria is a flimsy, weak example of life.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_bacteria_considered_alive_but_viruses_are_not
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but I'm actually asking in a round about way whether you understand the implications of what is being said in that statement.You posted it, you should be able to summarize.
and no, the "answer" is not without fault.
Of course I understand it or I would never have posted it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not speaking scientifically, it is my personal opinion.Why not just present a stronger example of life existing without oxygen like an animal or insect?
a) I really don't care to argue specifics with you, as you don't understand what you are saying
b) it is pointless to argue scientifically against your personal opinion
c) the fact that such creatures don't exist is VERY strong evidence for evolution
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You've just digressed.I am talking about the explanations that are already provided. I cannot improve on their perfect responses.
What definitions are you talking about?
Bacteria is considered to be life.
Time is flexible.
And when talking about the universe, you are talking about more the just Earth.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Go back up and re-read my posts. You will understand my point concerning linear time. No need to reinvent the wheel or do anymore legwork.
so, my belief, and I'm sure that of anyone reading through this thread, is that you don't understand what you are saying.
If you wish to dispel this belief, simply rephrase something that has already been put into layman terms. If not, sure, whatever, you have nothing to prove to me.
what is most humerus is that, of all the scientific statements people have argued with you about, I'm more on your side than not. I believe gravity to be universal (ie. anything with sufficient mass will produce gravity, be it "loop gravity", bending space time or a graviton particle), I don't believe the internal "you" can be in two places at once, and I don't believe time is multidirectional. However, ya, you really haven't defended any of those points, and when interpreting my answer to "being in two places", totally missed the point, which was a general support for what you had said.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you are only talking about the Earth you cannot use the term universe.It is only a bad example for your point. If you are trying to disprove your point, then it is a good example.
It all depends on what you are.
That is not true. Time is flexible like a fabric. Sense you like Einstein, that was his idea.
Look up time dilation. It is a fact that someone living on a mountain top will age slower then someone living at sea level. This maybe very small, but it is real.
If you are only talking about the Earth you cannot use the term universe.
Again you are trying to redefine my term. I never used the word universe I said earth. When I say universal I mean widespread, world-wide.
It is only a bad example for your point. If you are trying to disprove your point, then it is a good example.
Come with a stronger example of life existing without oxygen like an animal or insect.
It all depends on what you are.
You are trying to find a loophole by redefining the subject under discussion with the whole it depends what you are argument. That's what I mean by you are attempting to redefine my terms and digress the issue altogether.
I am not referring to subatomic particles but to you personally. You cannot be in two places at the same time.
This is an absolute.
That is not true. Time is flexible like a fabric. Sense you like Einstein, that was his idea.
It doesn't matter if time is fabric or whether time dilation occurs that is irrelevant and more proof that you are attempting to digress.
Again, nothing that you have stated is able to negate my point that you cannot revert to your infancy (literally) which proves that time is linear.
Look up time dilation. It is a fact that someone living on a mountain top will age slower then someone living at sea level. This maybe very small, but it is real.
Telling me that someone on a mountain will age slower does not disprove my point that time does not travel in reverse because their is still increase in age due to forward movement as it were of linear time of the subject under discussion.