The Peaceful Peanut Farmhouse of Carter Bryant

[Joseph Kony]

I always find it amusing that jeebo s find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence because that makes way more sense

[spurraider21]

Your flex in my mind is understandable. Organic was a favorite of mine. I had very good professors though. That helped.
Extremely satisfying class for some reason.

It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

[pgardn]

I'm interested. PM me, please.

Would you mind if I give the info in the thread?

I really don’t use other features of this site anymore. It’s degraded imo. Don’t spend much time here.
Would you want what I consider a great lecture for quantum mechanics and why it does and does not make sense? Public lecture.
Or more what science is and is not?

[Obstructed_View]

I always find it amusing that jeebo s find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence because that makes way more sense

I find it amusing that someone thinks one is more plausible than the other and tries to act superior about it.

[pgardn]

It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

My father is a lawyer. Working at his office and listening made me understand I had no future in law. But my father really likes science.

And pChem at UT involved thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics required way too much math I did not understand the fit. Thermo, the math made sense. Those courses for science people meant you wanted a BS. So at UT you were headed for BS. So you just decided to take the LSAT after graduation? That’s a radical shift imo but some people do it.

Btw the lab in organic fit so well with the lecture (even though they were separate classes).
That made it a great class. And my fine motor skills are horrible. We used ground glass kits and I think I went through a few of those.$

[Joseph Kony]

I find it amusing that someone thinks one is more plausible than the other and tries to act superior about it.

Good for you

[Gagnrath]

Almost all the absurdly violent in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible. David killing men to sleep with their wives. There's even a scene where some kids poke fun at a man for being bald so God sends bears to murder the kids. Noah's daughters sleeping with him is endorsed by the Bible. The part I mentioned where Lot gives his daughters for townspeople to rape is endorsed in the Bible. God kills incredible amounts of innocent people in the Bible. There's really no getting around the fact that it's an insane book that should be read as anthropology and history and not taken seriously.

Now, we can take it that the New Testament was a refutation of the insane Old Testament, something an early figure like Marcion believed (because it is impossible to reconcile the old vengeful God and Jesus), but Christ kind of contradicts this at times, doesn't at others. And Marcion was rendered heretical before long.

But modern American Christians only believe in the Old Testament God of insanity, murder, hypocrisy, and so on, because it supports their worldviews and actions, rather than what Christ preached.

tl;dr the Bible is a mess of stories lashed together by fragile humans and then interpreted by elites in order to enforce their own awful behavior. But to say the Bible doesn't endorse murder, rape, slavery, abuse, and so on, is just false. It does.

Absolutely not we also believe in revelations which is a new testament book.

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely not we also believe in revelations which is a new testament book.

*Revelation

[Mnky]

I studied biochemistry in undergrad at ucla. I tutored AP Chem for money during college.

I’m not a physicist or scientist by trade but i have a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals needed for this discussion. Carbon is fascinating. There are more compounds with carbon than all other elements combined. My favorite part of AP Chem was the rudimentary o-chem section learning about hydrocarbons, balancing combustion reactions, etc

its weird to randomly make that flex.

do you think we had to scrap the theory of gravity altogether because Newtonian physics couldn’t account for the orbit of mercury?

edit: f it. I just remembered someone from my class posted this to YouTube. This is me freshman year

Undergrad biochem is a fun one. Mixing disciplines is always fun. Chemistry itself and organic chemistry aren't as close as their name suggests. AP Chem doesn't have anything more than a general introductory chemistry course does at the undergrad level. Both have no organic chemistry at all. Organic chemistry, once again, is an entirely different subject based on carbon forms. It is an entire course dedicated and built around how the organic world revolves around the Carbon element. I pointed out how off the analogies were in respect to the actuality of how in depth carbons necessity and sophistication are. It has an entire course dedicated to it and it is one of the most feared courses in all of science due to its complexities. I'm not sure what flex you were referring to honestly. If you meant what I said or what you said.

I simply couldn't stand for the disrespect put on carbons name and had to stand up for it. I know plenty of people with Doctoral degrees that are full of BS. When discussing details about a specific subject, creditability leans towards the one with experience without a doubt but I don't think having that experience necessarily qualifies a person to not be an imbecile. My reference towards the course was legitimate in regards to Carbon being a case of something science hasn't caught up to, and in many ways we are left with the scientific evidence supporting (through numbers) that it is beyond our understand and most likely a design outside of our current ability. Supernatural? Alien? Diety? Whatever you want to believe. The evidence suggests it is far more likely that Carbon was designed than anything. Which is why, as a science guy, it's so annoying to see people attack religion based arguments when practical science has so many steps of faith and belief in itself.

[Mnky]

I always find it amusing that jeebo s find it so hard to believe the big bang yet they are totally finally with an infinitely complex deity just existing without having been created and farting the universe into existence because that makes way more sense

That goes both ways..They're literally the same argument. The thread has one side attacking the other though. I don't see the religion guys attacking science.

[Mnky]

It’s just very dumb. Everybody should be able to take part in this kind of discussion but mnky had to try and big time for no good reason as though what classes we have taken address the merits of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way is all

i enjoyed Ochem labs. But biochem and specifically p-Chem is when i realized i didn’t have a future in that field. And law school it was

Dont be a hypocrite. You know very well that the average person could not enter a courtroom with you and conduct themselves in the same manner you could. Having a discussion about general topics is for everyone. Not everyone can have a specific detail oriented discussion about complex scientific topics. I pointed out how your understanding was clearly not in a place to be making general claims about a topic you clearly didn't know about. It was not gatekeeping in anyway. The analogy was so wrong, it was clear there wasn't an understanding of the topic. Pointing that out is not at all trying to keep people from learning about it, it's encouraging them to.

[ismael-robert]

Actually as a Christian I have no problem with the big bang and believe that science got their best theory from God: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Ie. The big bang

[Mnky]

Carbon is known as the God element…? Just like some physics calls the discovery of the Higgs boson thus the Higgs field “a god particle”
This is POPULAR way of selling books and discoveries. It’s a POPULAR way of “dusting the hands” off and saying WE are finished here, the primate has figured out God’s plan. Which is utter bull . Science has figured out God and it’s so incredibly perfect!

Many people love this nonsense because it’s comforting, implies perfection AND, YOU, yes you….were lucky enough to live in the age where everything top notch happened! If anything, Science has taught us that the questions of how the universe and everything else in it has raised more questions and might even indicate we will never understand everything because we are primates that have evolved for life suited for describing the universe using ranges of measurement that don’t come close to describing a universe that needs to be studied at the PHYSICAL EXTREMES which we cannot measure because it involves distances that are way too tiny and energies that are way too large. We are so far removed from these extremes by the biology that rules our ability to sense everything ( constrained by evolution and the biochemistry of living things) and therefore have no analogies, metaphors that can describe the extremes.

This is where we are NOW. In fact I would say science becomes religion when we say, we know god’s plan, and damn, it’s perfect.

Please tell me your definition of religion because if science has allowed us to explain the supernatural, science makes absolutely no sense. Science tries to explain what can be explained via experiment and observation. Only certain questions can be answered using the method of science. So please expand on all of this and explain how I am misunderstanding religion and science. Carbon is perfect…

If we are supposed to back all of this up with credentials, I can give mine. But I believe if you really understand what science and religion are, what I have stated will be very reasonable. Btw I don’t dislike or think religious people are stupid. It makes sense to me that religion exists and will continue it’s interesting branching, extinction of some sects, and fighting amongst each other. And science will continue to be self critical if it is to remain science. Fewer will die arguing the method of science thankfully.

Definition of religion? Likely a belief system of morals, codes, and expectations to be in the group. I'm not a religion guy but a big theology guy as in a fan. More so likely because I'm a fan of historians and seminars. Learning about all the religions in world history is pretty cool and finding out about all their influences and hidden secrets. Me myself, not a religious person. Respect to those who are. I find many similarities to their commitment as I have in my studies. It's what I enjoy chasing.

The large majority of science was chasing the supernatural, or things we couldn't explain or define. It was our ignorance that gave it such a label. As the years went on, and we grew, advanced, and any supernatural and "magic" experiences were discovered as science. We just didn't understand it yet.

Religion and science shouldnt mix in most cases. Supernatural and science have always been hand in hand. It was just about how much understanding we had at the time that revealed the supernatural to be a form of science we just hadn't discovered yet.

I pointed this out already, but the credentialing wasn't the emphasis of the post. It was in defense of carbon. The element has an entire course dedicated to it. It's not a simple jelly bean analogy and it's not a "selling" point for books.
It is legitimately that complex, necessary, and unexplainably (currently) sophisticated in terms of design. It's called the god element in many cases because of how it is the center of all organic creation. You can't have anything organic without it. It's the "creator." Of elements.

Science is not self critical from the perspective of these conversations. Literally the science side is attempting to be critical of religion through science while also maintaining they shouldn't be in the same subject.

I just called bs out when I see it. Don't care what side someone's on. I'm a science guy. I can give my credentials as well but as I mentioned to another poster, I've seen plenty of people with Docs who couldn't tell you left from right. That wasn't the point of the message,as I pointed out when I posted it.

[Mnky]

Actually as a Christian I have no problem with the big bang and believe that science got their best theory from God: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Ie. The big bang

Genesis is filled with a ton of really cool secrets. It was fun studying that book when I was writing a research paper on Evolutionary mechanisms. I used it as a side by side on predictors. Genesis predicting water came from inside the earth before we found out that the majority of earths water likely came from inside the earth was a cool tidbit. Genesis also spoke of sea creatures being first and then turning to land animals ala evolution always gets people on both sides in a huff n puff. Genesis was oddly accurate on topics for being written before our understanding.

[spurraider21]

Undergrad biochem is a fun one. Mixing disciplines is always fun. Chemistry itself and organic chemistry aren't as close as their name suggests. AP Chem doesn't have anything more than a general introductory chemistry course does at the undergrad level. Both have no organic chemistry at all. Organic chemistry, once again, is an entirely different subject based on carbon forms. It is an entire course dedicated and built around how the organic world revolves around the Carbon element. I pointed out how off the analogies were in respect to the actuality of how in depth carbons necessity and sophistication are. It has an entire course dedicated to it and it is one of the most feared courses in all of science due to its complexities. I'm not sure what flex you were referring to honestly. If you meant what I said or what you said.

I simply couldn't stand for the disrespect put on carbons name and had to stand up for it. I know plenty of people with Doctoral degrees that are full of BS. When discussing details about a specific subject, creditability leans towards the one with experience without a doubt but I don't think having that experience necessarily qualifies a person to not be an imbecile. My reference towards the course was legitimate in regards to Carbon being a case of something science hasn't caught up to, and in many ways we are left with the scientific evidence supporting (through numbers) that it is beyond our understand and most likely a design outside of our current ability. Supernatural? Alien? Diety? Whatever you want to believe. The evidence suggests it is far more likely that Carbon was designed than anything. Which is why, as a science guy, it's so annoying to see people attack religion based arguments when practical science has so many steps of faith and belief in itself.

Wut

[Mnky]

Wut

This is why I said it was clear you didn't know what you were talking about. The way carbon works leans to it being designed. This is why the example of Carbon was used, but If you don't actually know anything about organic chemistry, you're left with this on the other end of the conversation.

[spurraider21]

Dont be a hypocrite. You know very well that the average person could not enter a courtroom with you and conduct themselves in the same manner you could. Having a discussion about general topics is for everyone. Not everyone can have a specific detail oriented discussion about complex scientific topics. I pointed out how your understanding was clearly not in a place to be making general claims about a topic you clearly didn't know about. It was not gatekeeping in anyway. The analogy was so wrong, it was clear there wasn't an understanding of the topic. Pointing that out is not at all trying to keep people from learning about it, it's encouraging them to.

Conducting oneself in a courtroom is a matter of experience not schooling. I’d say about 75% of law school was not very helpful to the actual profession. We also aren’t exactly getting into the weeds of the math behind the current big bang models so it’s not like either of us need to be professional astrophysicists.

I’ll ask again, did we need to throw out the entire theory of gravity when existing models were incapable of explaining the orbit of mercury, or did the model merely need refinement? And what is your evidence that the lithium issue requires a complete reworking of the Big Bang theory as opposed to a refinement?

[spurraider21]

This is why I said it was clear you didn't know what you were talking about. The way carbon works leans to it being designed. This is why the example of Carbon was used, but If you don't actually know anything about organic chemistry, you're left with this on the other end of the conversation.

You are just repeating yourself and not explaining yourself.

as for not knowing anything about Ochem, i suppose it’s true i haven’t done anything related for a decade but as a biochem major i had to take 4 separate Ochem classes in undergrad one of which was a lab course. And you haven’t demonstrated what this evidence is for carbon being designed. Or you can refer me to a published paper which makes the case for it

carbon has four valence electrons which gives it a lot of reactive flexibility. There are plenty of other elements with 4 but carbon is just the lightest of them making those compounds more stable. Like every other element. That’s all great. That doesn’t on its own imply design.

[Mnky]

Conducting oneself in a courtroom is a matter of experience not schooling. I’d say about 75% of law school was not very helpful to the actual profession. We also aren’t exactly getting into the weeds of the math behind the current big bang models so it’s not like either of us need to be professional astrophysicists.

I’ll ask again, did we need to throw out the entire theory of gravity when existing models were incapable of explaining the orbit of mercury, or did the model merely need refinement? And what is your evidence that the lithium issue requires a complete reworking of the Big Bang theory as opposed to a refinement?

You literally don't know about Carbon and tried to explain it's unique properties to a jelly bean analogy. This was pointed out. You DO need to know about Carbon to talk about carbon, let alone attempt to entertain arguments with it.

I honestly have no clue what else you're talking about. Feel like youre just randomly grasping at straws. Make a point and I can discuss the point.

I think I remember you saying that it "doesn't" take one point of evidence to disprove a theory.
Yes..yes it does. You can have a thousand forms of evidence to support a theory, but all it takes is one form to disprove it. That's how science works. We prove things wrong. We learn about being wrong and change it.

The current theory of the big bang has evidence for and against. It is not proven. We "believe" it is the most likely. That is a form of faith on the evidence we were given by other peoples eye witness accounts. That's how your life works whether you want to come to terms with it or not. Everyone lives by their own beliefs and faith. Science is filled with big leaps of faith by the guy/girl who everyone in the science community was screaming from the heavens was wrong and an imbecile.

[Mnky]

You are just repeating yourself and not explaining yourself.

as for not knowing anything about Ochem, i suppose it’s true i haven’t done anything related for a decade but as a biochem major i had to take 4 separate Ochem classes in undergrad one of which was a lab course. And you haven’t demonstrated what this evidence is for carbon being designed. Or you can refer me to a published paper which makes the case for it

carbon has four valence electrons which gives it a lot of reactive flexibility. There are plenty of other elements with 4 but carbon is just the lightest of them making those compounds more stable. Like every other element. That’s all great. That doesn’t on its own imply design.

Brother, you just keep proving my point of why it's difficult to argue with you about Carbon. You don't know enough to make a legitimate argument. Carbon isn't special because it's lighter? Okay. The entire organic chemistry course doesn't need to be taught anymore. It's just lighter. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Carbon itself is the evidence. The theory is it is designed. There is evidence for and against. Like all other theories, they are not proven. Once more, this was a very simple example of how science makes its own case for a designer. The fact that this all has to be explained instead of it just being a easy to understand example is what I pointed out as far as your ability to grasp the concept.

[spurraider21]

Genesis is filled with a ton of really cool secrets. It was fun studying that book when I was writing a research paper on Evolutionary mechanisms. I used it as a side by side on predictors. Genesis predicting water came from inside the earth before we found out that the majority of earths water likely came from inside the earth was a cool tidbit. Genesis also spoke of sea creatures being first and then turning to land animals ala evolution always gets people on both sides in a huff n puff. Genesis was oddly accurate on topics for being written before our understanding.

Also has birds pre-dating land animals. Man not coming from other animals. All animals pooping into existence over the course of a day. Even fruits pre-dating animals. Earth before the sun. Moon and sun formed at same time. Vault separating the water above the sky.

But yeah if you squint and pick and choose you can find things that work i guess

[spurraider21]

Brother, you just keep proving my point of why it's difficult to argue with you about Carbon. You don't know enough to make a legitimate argument. Carbon isn't special because it's lighter? Okay. The entire organic chemistry course doesn't need to be taught anymore. It's just lighter. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

Carbon itself is the evidence. The theory is it is designed. There is evidence for and against. Like all other theories, they are not proven. Once more, this was a very simple example of how science makes its own case for a designer. The fact that this all has to be explained instead of it just being a easy to understand example is what I pointed out as far as your ability to grasp the concept.

What is the evidence for it being created. Can you show me a published paper making the case for it?

carbon being lighter is absolutely an instrumental reason for why it is more reactive (or more properly, produces more stabile compounds) than a similar element like silicon. The smaller atomic size makes its covalent bonds stronger. This is the case for all nonmetals. Fluorine is more reactive than chlorine, oxygen more than sulfur, etc. carbon is the smallest in its group and that also happens to be the group with exactly 4 valence electrons which makes it a gold mine for organic compounds. You are brushing off the size of the atom even though it is literally the reason it is as reactive as it is

[spurraider21]

I think I remember you saying that it "doesn't" take one point of evidence to disprove a theory.
Yes..yes it does. You can have a thousand forms of evidence to support a theory, but all it takes is one form to disprove it. That's how science works. We prove things wrong. We learn about being wrong and change it.

Great. I’ll ask again. When mercurys orbit was not following our understanding of gravitational motion did we then have to disregard the theory of gravity altogether?

[spurraider21]

My father is a lawyer. Working at his office and listening made me understand I had no future in law. But my father really likes science.

And pChem at UT involved thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics required way too much math I did not understand the fit. Thermo, the math made sense. Those courses for science people meant you wanted a BS. So at UT you were headed for BS. So you just decided to take the LSAT after graduation? That’s a radical shift imo but some people do it.

Btw the lab in organic fit so well with the lecture (even though they were separate classes).
That made it a great class. And my fine motor skills are horrible. We used ground glass kits and I think I went through a few of those.$

I was pretty 50/50 after high school about whether i wanted to go into law or the sciences. Didn’t care for med though. seeing that there are no pre-law requirements, made sense to major science anyway and have fallback of applying to law school anyway. Wound up with a lower gpa than ideal but my lsat was strong enough

Ochem lab was incredibly well designed for us too. Most of the p-Chem i remember was thermodynamics, equilibria. If i was a pure chem major as opposed to biochem I’d have to have taken more of it.

[baseline bum]

Btw, people that “know” quantum mechanics often say if you really think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

Ah I love Feynman (that was his quote). Quantum is funny like that, you can almost convince yourself it makes sense for a while. Eg let's consider a plane wave Ψ(x,t) = N exp[i(kx - ωt)] representing a particle. By deBroglie's thesis energy is E=ℏω and momentum p=ℏk and now you have Ψ(x,t) = N exp[i(px - Et)/ℏ] so for this plane wave you get ∂Ψ/∂t = (-iE/ℏ)Ψ and ∂Ψ/∂x = (ip/ℏ)Ψ so that iℏ ∂Ψ/∂t = EΨ and -iℏ ∂Ψ/∂x = pΨ. Well any well-behaved wavefunction is just a superposition of plane waves (eg think the Fourier transform) so let's just promote the energy to an operator E -> iℏ ∂/∂t and the momentum to an operator p -> -iℏ ∂/∂x and say this works for any wavefunction.

From classical physics for a particle of mass m and subject to potential V we have E = p^2/2m + V so lets just sub in our operators and apply them to a wavefunction Ψ(x,t) to get

iℏ ∂Ψ/∂t = EΨ = (p^2/2m + V)Ψ = -(ℏ^2/2m)∂^2Ψ/∂x^2 + VΨ

Look mom I just derived Schrodinger's equation! Feynman's full of !