The Law of Diminishing Returns in Blackjack

Since I’m bored and I don’t post over at BJTF anymore, I thought I’d bring something I saw over there here, since it does relate to gambling, and I’ve seen this topic discussed here too.

A goofball over there that goes by the handle, Wave, started a thread that basically said if you had a smaller bankroll per shoe you should win the same, but lose less. Or something to that effect. It basically came back to the ‘ol “stoploss” theory, but it was disguised as “thinking outside the box”. It also had a very fancy title like “law of diminishing returns”, whatever that means?

This thread went on for about three pages, with much meaningless back-and-forth, until Don Schlesinger put the hammer down and correctly called it BS, and said the thread should turn yellow and put into the disadvantage forum, where voodoo concepts go.

What I found interesting is how some of the so-called intellectual wizards on that site, like Freightman came out of retirement and started pontificating on it as if Wave might be onto something.

But I was really proud of our very own (I think he’s more loyal to this forum), Bosox forum detective for taking on Wave from the start and never letting up. This is a shout out to Bosox!!!

And for those who believe in stoploss theories, it might be good for you to go on over there and check it out. It’s new verberage on an old idea, that’s been discredited again and again and again...

Bob21, did you get banned at BJTF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Bob21, did you get banned at BJTF.

---

Nope, I just couldn’t find my password. I looked it up and found it and just posted something over there. Wave asked a softball question, I couldn’t resist answering. I hope I got it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

But I was really proud of our very own (I think he’s more loyal to this forum), Bosox forum detective for taking on Wave from the start and never letting up. This is a shout out to Bosox!!!

And for those who believe in stoploss theories, it might be good for you to go on over there and check it out. It’s new verberage on an old idea, that’s been discredited again and again and again...

---

Why thank you, Bob, unfortunately, the man won't let up and continues to fight his case. Talk about being stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Bob21, did you get banned at BJTF.

---

Nope, I just couldn’t find my password. I looked it up and found it and just posted something over there. Wave asked a softball question, I couldn’t resist answering. I hope I got it right.

---

Bob, I think that Wave got you on a trick question.

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while now and just thought of a second one so ill ask now. When you first joined up on this board you often mentioned that you give speaking appearances at various college campuses, when you did this, did you share your concerative views (sounds like trouble) at those engagements like you do here? Since your speaking days must now be on hold due to excessive crowd control are you elligible to collect unemployment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midwest Player

Bob21, did you get banned at BJTF.

---

Nope, I just couldn’t find my password. I looked it up and found it and just posted something over there. Wave asked a softball question, I couldn’t resist answering. I hope I got it right.

---

Bob, I think that Wave got you on a trick question.

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while now and just thought of a second one so ill ask now. When you first joined up on this board you often mentioned that you give speaking appearances at various college campuses, when you did this, did you share your concerative views (sounds like trouble) at those engagements like you do here? Since your speaking days must now be on hold due to excessive crowd control are you elligible to collect unemployment?

---

Bosox, no I never brought up my conservative views. I spoke on creationism, and pointed out all the problems with evolution. I’m a young earth creationist. But you want to see some college kids and even professors get stirred up, you should have seen some of those seminars.

I gave my seminars with a slide presentation and never brought up reigion or the Bible. I just used science. I did point out how all the major fields in science were developed by creationist, and could not have come from an evolutionist world view. So while many scientist today believe in evolution, their science is based on creationism.

Here’s a little know fact. Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist and wrote more on the Bible, than on science. Many people see Isaic Newton as the father of modern day science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Nope, I just couldn’t find my password. I looked it up and found it and just posted something over there. Wave asked a softball question, I couldn’t resist answering. I hope I got it right.

---

Bob, I think that Wave got you on a trick question.

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while now and just thought of a second one so ill ask now. When you first joined up on this board you often mentioned that you give speaking appearances at various college campuses, when you did this, did you share your concerative views (sounds like trouble) at those engagements like you do here? Since your speaking days must now be on hold due to excessive crowd control are you elligible to collect unemployment?

---

Bosox, no I never brought up my conservative views. I spoke on creationism, and pointed out all the problems with evolution. I’m a young earth creationist. But you want to see some college kids and even professors get stirred up, you should have seen some of those seminars.

I gave my seminars with a slide presentation and never brought up reigion or the Bible. I just used science. I did point out how all the major fields in science were developed by creationist, and could not have come from an evolutionist world view. So while many scientist today believe in evolution, their science is based on creationism.

Here’s a little know fact. Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist and wrote more on the Bible, than on science. Many people see Isaic Newton as the father of modern day science.

---

Bob - evolution as you know, is still called a theory instead of a law. But many (most?) believe it is a scientific law. They confuse microevolution or variation with macroevolution and believe that over a long enough period of time (millions or billions of years) it is possible. Time doesn’t make the impossible possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Bob, I think that Wave got you on a trick question.

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while now and just thought of a second one so ill ask now. When you first joined up on this board you often mentioned that you give speaking appearances at various college campuses, when you did this, did you share your concerative views (sounds like trouble) at those engagements like you do here? Since your speaking days must now be on hold due to excessive crowd control are you elligible to collect unemployment?

---

Bosox, no I never brought up my conservative views. I spoke on creationism, and pointed out all the problems with evolution. I’m a young earth creationist. But you want to see some college kids and even professors get stirred up, you should have seen some of those seminars.

I gave my seminars with a slide presentation and never brought up reigion or the Bible. I just used science. I did point out how all the major fields in science were developed by creationist, and could not have come from an evolutionist world view. So while many scientist today believe in evolution, their science is based on creationism.

Here’s a little know fact. Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist and wrote more on the Bible, than on science. Many people see Isaic Newton as the father of modern day science.

---

Bob - evolution as you know, is still called a theory instead of a law. But many (most?) believe it is a scientific law. They confuse microevolution or variation with macroevolution and believe that over a long enough period of time (millions or billions of years) it is possible. Time doesn’t make the impossible possible.

---

Agreed. But under the strict scientific definition, evolution really isn’t even a theory. It’s a model of how we and everything in the universe came into exsistence. The same is true with creation.

There are only two models to explain our existences: 1) through some act of a Creator (call it the creationist model), or 2) through the natural laws of science that exist today (the evolutionist model). There is no third way, no matter how hard you think about it.

Each model is outside the scientific process. Why? Because we can’t recreate creation since it happened in the past and isn’t happening now. And we can’t study evolution since the time scale is too long, as you’ve pointed out. They both take an element of faith, so by definition they both are somewhat religious. All we can do is look at things now and develop a model that we think best explains our origins.

I believe it’s fairly convincing from genetics, the fossil record, physics (specifically the second law of thermodynamics), astronomy, etc, that the data supports the creationist model better than the evolutionist model. It’s a fascinating area I’ve spent years researching. And I was an evolutionist the first 35 years of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Bosox, no I never brought up my conservative views. I spoke on creationism, and pointed out all the problems with evolution. I’m a young earth creationist. But you want to see some college kids and even professors get stirred up, you should have seen some of those seminars.

I gave my seminars with a slide presentation and never brought up reigion or the Bible. I just used science. I did point out how all the major fields in science were developed by creationist, and could not have come from an evolutionist world view. So while many scientist today believe in evolution, their science is based on creationism.

Here’s a little know fact. Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist and wrote more on the Bible, than on science. Many people see Isaic Newton as the father of modern day science.

---

Bob - evolution as you know, is still called a theory instead of a law. But many (most?) believe it is a scientific law. They confuse microevolution or variation with macroevolution and believe that over a long enough period of time (millions or billions of years) it is possible. Time doesn’t make the impossible possible.

---

Agreed. But under the strict scientific definition, evolution really isn’t even a theory. It’s a model of how we and everything in the universe came into exsistence. The same is true with creation.

There are only two models to explain our existences: 1) through some act of a Creator (call it the creationist model), or 2) through the natural laws of science that exist today (the evolutionist model). There is no third way, no matter how hard you think about it.

Each model is outside the scientific process. Why? Because we can’t recreate creation since it happened in the past and isn’t happening now. And we can’t study evolution since the time scale is too long, as you’ve pointed out. They both take an element of faith, so by definition they both are somewhat religious. All we can do is look at things now and develop a model that we think best explains our origins.

I believe it’s fairly convincing from genetics, the fossil record, physics (specifically the second law of thermodynamics), astronomy, etc, that the data supports the creationist model better than the evolutionist model. It’s a fascinating area I’ve spent years researching. And I was an evolutionist the first 35 years of my life.

---

Well put Bob. Thank you for that.

Bob21: Recommended reading in the area of young earth creationism? Would love to know how we get around carbon 14 dating and light wave measurements that indicate an older universe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by House of Orange

Bob21: Recommended reading in the area of young earth creationism? Would love to know how we get around carbon 14 dating and light wave measurements that indicate an older universe!

---

I have quite a few books on this at home. I’m at work right now. I’ll look through them and get back to you.

But the short answer is all dating systems are based on “uniformitarianism” assumptions. What are these assumptions? These assumptions assume what is happening today, happened at the same rate in the past. But this is only an assumption. Since nobody lived in the past doing these tests, we don’t know if these assumptions are correct. In fact, there is a lot of data indicating these assumptions are incorrect.

Most people know about Charles Darwin (and his impact on evolution), but they don’t know much about Charles Lyell (who was almost just as important on evolution gaining acceptance). They both lived at the same time and we instrumental in moving evolution forward.

For evolution to work you need time, I mean like you need a lot of time, like millions of years type of time. During Dawin’s time (around the 1830s) all scientist believed the earth and universe was relatively young. For Darwin to get his ideas accepted he needed an old earth. This is where Charles Lyell comes in. He changed the way geoglist looked at earth’s history, and the way dating was done. Many consider Charles Lylell the father of modern geology. He wrote the landmark book “Principles of Geology”, which were based on uniformitarianism assumptions, meaning geogolists should use the present conditions to predict past events. Before Darwin and Lyell’s time, most geoglist looked at earth’s history in terms of catastrophic events.

Getting back to your carbon dating question, any assumptions will be based on current decay rates. How do we know they were the same in the past, as they are today? We have a lot of evidence they were different.

Think of the fossilization process. Under current conditions it would take a long time to fossilize something, possibly millions of years, who knows? But under intense heat and pressure fossilization can occur in less than a year. It’s been done in the lab. But did we have conditions like this in the past? Have you ever heard of Noah’s flood? Btw, the flood story is told in almost every ancient civilization in the world in some way.

The age question is a fascinating question in its own right, but it’s really a separate question from creation vs evolution. As I’m sure you know, there are old earth creationist and young earth creationist. But you’ll never find a young earth evolutionist, because by definition they need a lot of time for their model to work.

When I do my seminars at universities I don’t get into the age issue, because this is a whole nother can of worms. I have gone over this at churches where I devote a whole hour to it, since people find this area fascinating. They don’t know how many assumptions go into these age calculations.

On a side note, there are about 5 dating methods that do indicate an old earth, but there are about 80 that indicate a very young earth. The evolutions throw out the eighty and keep keep the five. Surprise, surprise. Lol. They are very selective in the data they keep and what they throw out.

Lord Kelvin was a young earth creationist. He argued it more from thermodynamics standpoint, which is the field he’s best known for. I think most people have heard of the Kelvin temperature scale.

As far your wave light question, I don’t know what you’re referring to here. Are you referring to the speed of light and how stars are million miles away in light years?

I don’t know what level you’re at with your science, but a good book that explains this on a very elementary level is called “It’s a Young World After All”, by Paul Ackerman. I don’t think he touches on the carbon stuff though.

You can find some good articles on the age question on the internet. I just typed in carbon 14 creationist and found a bunch of good articles. One of the better ones is in Answers in Genesis called “Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?” It goes through all the assumptions evolutionist use when they use carbon 14 dating. None of these assumptions can be proved or disproved because, nobody can go back in time.

Dating and the age questions are really outside the realm of true science, which many people don’t realize. Remember all dating methods are based on assumptions that can never be tested by the scientific method, unless we find a way to go back in time through a time machine.

Hope this helps. And I was able to answer your questions somewhat.

Quote:

---

There are only two models to explain our existences: 1) through some act of a Creator (call it the creationist model), or 2) through the natural laws of science that exist today (the evolutionist model). There is no third way, no matter how hard you think about it.

---

What of a combination of the above models, or a model that contains also the above models? What of models that are guessed at, something beyond thought? Or, of a model based on thought, itself, as "thought of thought", a type and degree of paradox-resolved? What if reality has no nature, to begin with, that the answer is really no answer? What if the answer doesn't involve how hard one thinks, or how intelligent one can become? What if there is no model at all, that we don't really, and actually, exist, per se? What if every dimension is its own type and degree of model, if the real numbers, themselves, don't really make up every (real) mathematical dimension? What of a model that "just is", which isn't based on anything it describes or predicts? If what is known is understood, and, what is understood is known. A model that doesn't, per se, limit itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

There are only two models to explain our existences: 1) through some act of a Creator (call it the creationist model), or 2) through the natural laws of science that exist today (the evolutionist model). There is no third way, no matter how hard you think about it.

---

What of a combination of the above models, or a model that contains also the above models? What of models that are guessed at, something beyond thought? Or, of a model based on thought, itself, as "thought of thought", a type and degree of paradox-resolved? What if reality has no nature, to begin with, that the answer is really no answer? What if the answer doesn't involve how hard one thinks, or how intelligent one can become? What if there is no model at all, that we don't really, and actually, exist, per se? What if every dimension is its own type and degree of model, if the real numbers, themselves, don't really make up every (real) mathematical dimension? What of a model that "just is", which isn't based on anything it describes or predicts? If what is known is understood, and, what is understood is known. A model that doesn't, per se, limit itself.

---

Good point. Lol. I guess if we consider models based on twilight zone things, there are three. So to summarize all the stuff you said up there, the third model is we don’t really exist in any form, but we think we exist. We’re basically waking around as illusions.

But if we get back to reality, there only two ways to explain our existence. They boil down to: 1) someone, meaning a higher intelligence (some would call God, or a Creator) created us (creation) or, 2) we created ourselves through the natural laws of the universe (evolution).

Btw, this is the kind of questions or comments I’ll get in my seminars. Someone will bring something up that is so ridicules (like we really don’t exist while we think we exist) they think they’ve stumped me. It’s actually kind of funny. Most the time the audience can tell these people are bunch of idiots. It makes things interesting and entertaining when I get twilight zone questions.

Maybe, God lives in the Twilight Zone.

Quote:

---

The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don’t like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation.

---

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

About the science side of things, how do you propose to explain quantum mechanics, by which things seem to blink in and out of existence? Say, an electron being at two places at the same time, expressed as a mathematical probability.

No, here's a better question. How do you propose to unify Relativity Theory, with Quantum Theory, without coming up with an entirely different theory? Two disparate areas of physics, and of thinking in general. Similarly, then how to unify creation with evolution without coming up with an entirely different type and degree of theory?

More broadly, how to unify anything without, first, unifying everything?

Quote:

---

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1] In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.[2] Philosophical questions about the nature of reality or existence or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, which is a major branch of metaphysics in the Western philosophical tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophical logic. These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (i.e., Physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., Idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist, whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist.

---

Say, maybe, if numbers and other abstract objects exist, then also the reverse is true.

Maybe, the problem is much more general than all of the above.

Quote:

---

There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought

---

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cious-thought/

What proof is there that "there are only two ways to explain our existence"? Do you cling to science as a means to "support" your very own religious views?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

No, here's a better question. How do you propose to unify Relativity Theory, with Quantum Theory, without coming up with an entirely different theory? Two disparate areas of physics, and of thinking in general. Similarly, then how to unify creation with evolution without coming up with an entirely different type and degree of theory?

More broadly, how to unify anything without, first, unifying everything?

---

You’re actually making my point for me.

Why do we need to unify everything? Why are you trying to unify Relatively Theory with Quantum Theory? How do you know everything is unified? They are both explaining different things. It sounds like you’re coming at this problem from one side, the evolutionary side. Evolutionist try to unify everything.

Einstein made this same mistake since he was an evolutionist. He wanted everything unified and he worked on this problem during the latter part of his life and got no where. I don’t know if you’ve heard of “string theory”, but that’s what’s going on right now. It’s the new goofball fad in physics to try to unify things. There are major universities actually funding this stuff.

As a creationist, I can be more open minded and look at the data objectively. Maybe all these fields should not be unified because God created different forces for different things. The atom works different than the planets in our solar system. There’s a reason the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics can’t be unified. It’s because they’re different. Have you ever considered that?

It’s the same reason humans can’t be unified with apes or fish whatever else the evolutionist tries to unify us with. It’s because God created us differently. From a genetics standpoint there is no way to get from an ape to a human. And there is no evidence of any transitional fossils in the fossil record, which supports the creation model.

Here’s the thing, when it comes to the question of our origins this is outside of true science. Why? Because Science operates in the here and now. It does not operate in the past. All we can do is look at the evidence we have here today, and use it to try to predict the past

For most intelligent people, the design and complexity of life and the universe indicates a Designer (Creator) must have been behind it.

But it really doesn’t matter if you believe this. Some people need evolution as a belief system to get through life. That’s your call.

I always tell people while most scientist are evolutionist, the science they practice is, in fact, based on creation principles. The field of thermodynamics directly contradicts evolution and directly supports creation, but this does not mean it “proves” creation.

It’s not surprising that the founders of all our basic disciplines of science were creationist. It’s because true science could’ve only come out of a creationist understanding of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Why do we need to unify everything? Why are you trying to unify Relatively Theory with Quantum Theory? How do you know everything is unified? They are both explaining different things. It sounds like you’re coming at this problem from one side, the evolutionary side. Evolutionist try to unify everything.

---

Properly and fully done, to comprehend the further diversity in things. The things unified never become each other. Only, there is a common "thread" between things. To understand the connections between things. Whatever the universe is, it is a one something. So, as there is a limit to connections between things, there is a limit to the connection among things. Can't have two, or more separate universes that are one universe, however defined. Continuity balances discontinuity. The two can't happen separately, or as one thing. Sounds more like I have realized that science requires other areas of thought to properly and fully appreciate itself. That the end goal is neither science, nor anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Einstein made this same mistake since he was an evolutionist. He wanted everything unified and he worked on this problem during the latter part of his life and got no where. I don’t know if you’ve heard of “string theory”, but that’s what’s going on right now. It’s the new goofball fad in physics to try to unify things. There are major universities actually funding this stuff.

---

I don't know that you've heard that Einstein made many, many fundamental discoveries over many, many, areas of science. No doubt, he went his own way, apart from the scientific community, but, this was for most of his scientific career, not, just the latter part of it, as he grew older with trying to exhaust his views about the two main theories of physics. He was, in a very basic way, the "father" of also Quantum Theory, because of his attempts to disprove it. Who's to say that he wasn't right? There is work going on now that has to do with what lies beneath quantum physics. It could just be that the one is based on the other. His theories were called, Jewish physics. I suppose that goofball wasn't popularly in use, a hundred years ago. A hundred years later, people are, still, making the same childish mistakes in summarily judging new theories. Did you know that the scientific community remained intensely interested in all of Einstein's work, in all of his career? Ha, they "feared" him. He believed in one unique solution to the universe. A "just is" universe. Now most physicists still believe that there is no reason that there aren't many different versions of physics, and, laws of science. I like to pursue the notion that both notions are correct. Even that even our mistakes have existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

As a creationist, I can be more open minded and look at the data objectively. Maybe all these fields should not be unified because God created different forces for different things. The atom works different than the planets in our solar system. There’s a reason the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics can’t be unified. It’s because they’re different. Have you ever considered that?

It’s the same reason humans can’t be unified with apes or fish whatever else the evolutionist tries to unify us with. It’s because God created us differently. From a genetics standpoint there is no way to get from an ape to a human. And there is no evidence of any transitional fossils in the fossil record, which supports the creation model.

---

Again, not everything is, purely, continuous. Were, eg, time continuous, then how could it come to any given time? You are asking the universe to do impossible feats, and, then, claiming "victory" at the result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Here’s the thing, when it comes to the question of our origins this is outside of true science. Why? Because Science operates in the here and now. It does not operate in the past. All we can do is look at the evidence we have here today, and use it to try to predict the past.

---

The universe is, still, creating itself. It's called quantum entanglement. Particles from the distant "past" making themselves known, known to us, only now. The collapsing of those quantum wave functions in our here and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

For most intelligent people, the design and complexity of life and the universe indicates a Designer (Creator) must have been behind it.

---

Nobody knows. At least the scientists will admit this much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Maybe, God lives in the Twilight Zone.

"The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don’t like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation."

---

Who are you quoting here?

[QUOTE=LMR;100621 I don't know that you've heard that Einstein made many, many fundamental discoveries over many, many, areas of science. No doubt, he went his own way, apart from the scientific community, but, this was for most of his scientific career, not, just the latter part of it, as he grew older with trying to exhaust his views about the two main theories of physics. He was, in a very basic way, the "father" of also Quantum Theory, because of his attempts to disprove it. Who's to say that he wasn't right? There is work going on now that has to do with what lies beneath quantum physics. [/QUOTE]

I never said Einstein was not smart and he didn’t do a lot of great things in science. There are a lot of very smart and good scientist who are evolutionists. Yes, I agree Einstein is considered the father of quantum mechanics. He also developed probably the world’s most famous equation: E=mc2 (the 2 should be above the c).

My point is when he started bringing his bias beliefs (you could call them his religious beliefs) into science, it led no where. In his latter life, he tried to combine two fields together that were orders of magnitude apart. It’s called the Holy grail of physicis, trying to get the theory of gravitation to include electromagnetism.

If you look at these two fields common sense should tell you they can not be combined, but who said physicist have common sense. That’s a joke.

I know quite a bit about particle physics since my niece got her PhD from Stanford in particle physics and is currently working at CERN, the large particle accelator lab in Geneva, Switzerland. As a sidenote she barely made it back to United States before the flights were canceled between our counties.

Since I have a pretty good background in physics, I was actually able to talk her out of some of the more ridiculous areas in particle physics, like “string theory”. And I showed her where Einstein made his mistakes so she doesn’t make the same ones.

Here’s where I think you and I are different. You have rejected one model (the creation model) out of hand so you can’t be objective. I can be objective and open to all models. A person who believes in God can still believe in evolution (it’s called theistic evolution) or an old or young earth/universe. When I was an evolutionist, I still believed in God.

The reason I became a creationist is because all the data, all the evidence points to creation, and none to evolution. You have to have a lot of faith to believe in evolution and all these stupid unifing theorys, if that’s what you want to call them. It sounds like you have a lot of faith, but it’s just in the wrong things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Maybe, God lives in the Twilight Zone.

"The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don’t like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation."

---

Who are you quoting here?

---

The link provided, just under those words. Again, here it is.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Maybe, God lives in the Twilight Zone.

"The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don’t like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation."

---

Who are you quoting here?

---

The link provided, just under those words. Again, here it is.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

---

What’s your point LMR? Of course creationiat don’t agree with every point. It’s the same situation with evolutionist. We’re all just speculating with the data we have on hand. Have you seen the disagreements among evolutionist? I use their quotes all the time in my talks. You can just use quotes from evolutionist to show how evolution has no substance.

The article you attached has no substance, other than to ridicule creationist. Since there’s no substance behind evolution that’s pretty much what they are left with. Ridiculing the other side without showing any substantial evidence to support their beliefs.

And as far as new scientist magazine, I use it all the time in my talks to show how stupid evolutionist ideas are.

And Genesis does not give two different accounts. It gives two accounts that are from different points of view but they totally agree with each other.

Have you ever read Genesis, or are you just basing your beliefs on what you’ve read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

If you look at these two fields common sense should tell you they can not be combined.

---

Gravity isn't even a force. Yet, there is no reason not to take gravity with quantum gravity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

I know quite a bit about particle physics since my niece got her PhD from Stanford in particle physics and is currently working at CERN, the large particle accelator lab in Geneva, Switzerland.

---

You sound a lot like Trump, the guy with a nuclear science family member. Trump plays four-dimensional "chess", you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Since I have a pretty good background in physics, I was actually able to talk her out of some of the more ridiculous areas in particle physics, like “string theory”. And I showed her where Einstein made his mistakes so she doesn’t make the same ones.

---

It's sounds like you picked out one of the leading theories that you heard of, and, are trying to "run" with it to discount even its opposing theories.

Check out this site. See how far something like the above will get you there. It's easy to "run" with anything on a gambling site.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/ <---------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Here’s where I think you and I are different. You have rejected one model (the creation model) out of hand so you can’t be objective. I can be objective and open to all models. A person who believes in God can still believe in evolution (it’s called theistic evolution) or an old or young earth/universe. When I was an evolutionist, I still believed in God.

---

I think that you should put more of your efforts into figuring something out. Less on how you view others. What comes to mind is that old cartoon about the hierarchy of intelligence. At the bottom were things like the concern over one's, and others' stations in life, and the gossipy stuff. Near the top of the list were things such as interest in new ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

The reason I became a creationist is because all the data, all the evidence points to creation, and none to evolution. You have to have a lot of faith to believe in evolution and all these stupid unifing theorys, if that’s what you want to call them. It sounds like you have a lot of faith, but it’s just in the wrong things.

---

Fair, enough, but I have no interest in the reason you became anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Maybe, God lives in the Twilight Zone.

"The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don’t like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation."

---

Who are you quoting here?

---

The link provided, just under those words. Again, here it is.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

---

I’m not clicking on your links. Pretty cheap throwing out someone’s meaningless opinion as if that strengthens your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Who are you quoting here?

---

The link provided, just under those words. Again, here it is.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

---

I’m not clicking on your links. Pretty cheap throwing out someone’s meaningless opinion as if that strengthens your argument.

---

I'm not going to make your case for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Gravity isn't even a force. Yet, there is no reason not to take gravity with quantum gravity.



You sound a lot like Trump, the guy with a nuclear science family member. Trump plays four-dimensional "chess", you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Since I have a pretty good background in physics, I was actually able to talk her out of some of the more ridiculous areas in particle physics, like “string theory”. And I showed her where Einstein made his mistakes so she doesn’t make the same ones.

---

It's sounds like you picked out one of the leading theories that you heard of, and, are trying to "run" with it to discount even its opposing theories.

Check out this site. See how far something like the above will get you there. It's easy to "run" with anything on a gambling site.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/ <---------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Here’s where I think you and I are different. You have rejected one model (the creation model) out of hand so you can’t be objective. I can be objective and open to all models. A person who believes in God can still believe in evolution (it’s called theistic evolution) or an old or young earth/universe. When I was an evolutionist, I still believed in God.

---

I think that you should put more of your efforts into figuring something out. Less on how you view others. What comes to mind is that old cartoon about the hierarchy of intelligence. At the bottom were things like the concern over one's, and others' stations in life, and the gossipy stuff. Near the top of the list were things such as interest in new ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

The reason I became a creationist is because all the data, all the evidence points to creation, and none to evolution. You have to have a lot of faith to believe in evolution and all these stupid unifing theorys, if that’s what you want to call them. It sounds like you have a lot of faith, but it’s just in the wrong things.

---

Fair, enough, but I have no interest in the reason you became anything.

---

Thanks for all your replies LMR. You pretty much made my point. A lot of ridicule with no substance. You’re reading from the playbook from the evolutionist, good job!

Ha. It was fun, and didn't take long. Now go check out that professional physics site. Maybe, they will treat you better over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Ha. It was fun, and didn't take long. Now go check out that professional physics site. Maybe, they will treat you better over there.

---

You’re the only one that hasn’t treated me well on this thread. Most the responses have been fairly positives, and at least one person asked good questions, wanting to learn.

I can tell you have no desire to accept an alternative view to what you believe. That’s your call. I’ve met a lot of people like you, so I know where you’re coming from. Maybe one day you’ll decide to broaden your horizons and open your mind. You might be surprised what you learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

It’s the new goofball fad in physics

---

it's good of you to use your superior wisdom to point a finger at these physicist goofballs
some of these same goofballs got a spacecraft to within about 8,000 miles of Pluto more than 3 billion miles away from Earth

imagine what people like you would have said to goofballs like this who were envisioning something like this 100 years ago

thanks for sharing with us your superior intellect and exposing their idiocy:







https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...iew/index.html







as impressive as this mission may be to some people it is nowhere near to being equal in intellectual brilliance to the genius of your words and insights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

It’s the new goofball fad in physics

---

it's good of you to use your superior wisdom to point a finger at these physicist goofballs
some of these same goofballs got a spacecraft to within about 8,000 miles of Pluto more than 3 billion miles away from Earth

imagine what people like you would have said to goofballs like this who were envisioning something like that 100 years ago

thanks for sharing with us your superior intellect and exposing their idiocy:







https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...iew/index.html

---

Thanks Half Smoke for taking the time to somehow try to connect two unrelated concepts.

All the theories that are trying to unify all the fields are basically in the goofball Twilight zone realm. To get these fields unified you’ve got to go into multi-dimensions outside of our four dimensions. Some of these theories get into a 40 dimension universe and sometimes many more. Nobody even knows what this means since we only operate in four dimensions, with time being the forth. This is Twilight zone stuff...not related to realty.

What does that have anything to do with a spaceship getting close enough to Pluto and taking a picture? That sounds like something operating in our own reality space.

Please, you need to help me out here and explain how you’re correlating these two together? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

It’s the new goofball fad in physics

---

it's good of you to use your superior wisdom to point a finger at these physicist goofballs
some of these same goofballs got a spacecraft to within about 8,000 miles of Pluto more than 3 billion miles away from Earth

imagine what people like you would have said to goofballs like this who were envisioning something like that 100 years ago

thanks for sharing with us your superior intellect and exposing their idiocy:







https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...iew/index.html

---

Thanks Half Smoke for taking the time to somehow try to connect two unrelated concepts.

All the theories that are trying to unify all the fields are basically in the goofball Twilight zone realm. To get these fields unified you’ve got to go into multi-dimensions outside of our four dimensions. Some of these theories get into a 40 dimension universe and sometimes many more. Nobody even knows what this means since we only operate in four dimensions, with time being the forth. This is Twilight zone stuff...not related to realty.

What does that have anything to do with a spaceship getting close enough to Pluto and taking a picture? That sounds like something operating in our own reality space.

Please, you need to help me out here and explain how you’re correlating these two together? Thanks!

---

one more time and I'm outta here - I have a very low threshold for pain and I'm very worried that if I continue this conversation I might have a cerebral hemorrhage



IMAGINE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE SAID TO THE GOOFBALLS ENVISIONING THIS SPACE MISSION 100 YEARS AGO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dannyj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

The link provided, just under those words. Again, here it is.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz6IrMChAOU

---

I’m not clicking on your links. Pretty cheap throwing out someone’s meaningless opinion as if that strengthens your argument.

---

I'm not going to make your case for you.

---

That’s great! Since credibility isn’t an issue for you, keep quoting those obscure opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

it's good of you to use your superior wisdom to point a finger at these physicist goofballs
some of these same goofballs got a spacecraft to within about 8,000 miles of Pluto more than 3 billion miles away from Earth

imagine what people like you would have said to goofballs like this who were envisioning something like that 100 years ago

thanks for sharing with us your superior intellect and exposing their idiocy:







https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...iew/index.html

---

Thanks Half Smoke for taking the time to somehow try to connect two unrelated concepts.

All the theories that are trying to unify all the fields are basically in the goofball Twilight zone realm. To get these fields unified you’ve got to go into multi-dimensions outside of our four dimensions. Some of these theories get into a 40 dimension universe and sometimes many more. Nobody even knows what this means since we only operate in four dimensions, with time being the forth. This is Twilight zone stuff...not related to realty.

What does that have anything to do with a spaceship getting close enough to Pluto and taking a picture? That sounds like something operating in our own reality space.

Please, you need to help me out here and explain how you’re correlating these two together? Thanks!

---

one more time and I'm outta here - I have a very low threshold for pain and I'm very worried that if I continue this conversation I might have a cerebral hemorrhage



IMAGINE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE SAID TO THE GOOFBALLS ENVISIONING THIS SPACE MISSION 100 YEARS AGO

---

You missed the point so I can see you aren’t getting it. I’ll try one more time with you, because I can see you’ve been trying.

First off, I’m open to physicst trying to unify all the fields, but it’s got to fit reality. If the math does not fit reality, it’s meaningless. I’m also open to all the fields not being able to be unified, because they are different and not connect. I’m good either way. But if they’re connected, I need to see physical proof and not just a mathematical formula. If they exist, where are they?

It’s the evolutionist that are trying to get you to believe in all these different dimensions. I’m fine with that but they need to show me some evidence for it. I can make up anything on paper or in my mind. That’s what’s going on here. This doesn’t make it reality.

This is one reason Science took so long to be developed. It was based on an evolutionary framework, a Greek framework, which lead nowhere.

The current framework that developed our scientific disciplines knows science has to be based on reality. Believing in things that don’t exist does not lead to good scientific discovery. If you want to believe in 56 dimensions in our universe go ahead. Tell me where it’s got you.

I know you probably won’t get this. Why! Because you think a close up picture of Pluto (which everybody agrees exists) is the same as believing in 83 dimensions in the universe. This is a complicated subject so I don’t expect someone like you to understand it. Thanks for trying!

Anybody actually read this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Anybody actually read this?

---

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? There were quite a few clicks on it so at least some people scanned it, maybe?

If no one read it, at least it gave me something to do today. Nothing much was going on with no one being able to go to work. I enjoyed it more than watching TV or reading a newspapers. And I got to find out that you don’t really have a clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

And I got to find out that you don’t really have a clue.

---

No clue is good. Best to just know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob21

And I got to find out that you don’t really have a clue.

---

No clue is good. Best to just know.

---

That’s the problem. We will never “just know”. Both evolution and creation require an element of faith because neither one is in the realm of science. I’d contend that evolution requires a much larger element of faith then creation.

Science can never answer the question of why we’re here, or how we got to be here. It can only answer the question of what is going on while we are here. Many people don’t understand this. I hope you’re getting it just a little.

We can know how dumb all of your baloney is. Best to know at least this much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LMR

We can know how dumb all of your baloney is. Best to know at least this much.

---

So you are over here harrassing people in this thread too. LMR, you're a bum.