Stop anthropomorphizing a corpse.. less than a corpse, atoms. You are speaking about atoms.

Well, there's no danger of her splitting the atom any time soon.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Nope. This is unintentional comedy gold.

I don't know what kind of "doctor" this woman is, but she clearly doesn't understand mass.

Yes, there's a lot of space inside an atom, but that means bugger all when describing the mass. Mass is the resistance to being accelerated by a force.

So no lady, you can't just "cross out" mass. If you could, we'd all be flying around at relativistic speeds since the energy required would be negligible.

ROFL.

You'd need to have either the right types of atom or electron energy level transitions that correspond to ... well, how many colours do we want? I can't be bothered putting in the work to find out if that's true about air.

• From a science and engineering perspective, 'faith', or a desire that something be true [oversight], does not enter the picture. Only the data, and my interpretations, subject to revision.

• Magic man in the sky? Get serious ... ;~)

• My current view of 'design' is in regard to biological evolution only, not Cosmic formations, and not from a Biblical perspective. Nor do I consider the 'atom level up' to be explanatory. Yes, the Cosmos has progressed, likely on its own, but I view intelligence to be the instrumental cause of biologic progressions, however lengthy. And not just 'one' inteligentsia, but likely many.

But surely thats the point?
If you are inclined to believe in some over-watching intelligence that is creating and playing us as a hobby (and I understand and sympathize with that emotional need so long as you don't start burning unbelievers) then why bother with complicated half-science based justifications?
If there's a big magic man in the sky why not just ignore science completely as those who perpetrated the dark ages did, instead of a neoliberal 95% concession to logic while still retaining the right to believe in magic?
I'm not trying to insult - just interested in how a clearly smart mind squares the circle: either the world is explicable (atomic level up anyway) or its the arbitrary caprice of a being that renders our thoughts redundant .. no?

My question is, if Canada or Mexico were being controlled by terrorists and were firing rockets into our country and killing people, how long do you think it would take for the national outrage to develop and a ground campaign sent out to utterly destroy the capability of the enemy to hurt us any longer? I don't see us putting up with it, or any other country for that matter. Yet, for some reason there is a double standard with Israel that people think they should put up with it.

That said, I would agree that Israel has a lot to answer for as far as civilian deaths; there is a lot of racism and insensitivity and brutality. America isn't any better.. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to destroy their war machine and killed over 250k people. Iraq probably had quite a few more, yet we are lecturing to Israel to stop trying to remove the terrorists who live in their back yard. We would never stand for it so why are we telling Israel that they should. I am against war and I think Israel has crossed the line many times but I still recognize that countries are asking them to do something they themselves would never do.

they should have looked at chip from a modern era...

the latest chips are getting down to where they can say about how many atoms across some of the electrical connections are

@lantern53

Love, as a notion, is a human construct like all emotions. Asking us to prove it exists is like asking us to prove that mathematics exists.

Atoms existed before we discovered them. But no one assumed they existed before there was evidence to that effect.

So hormones are love? You're such a romantic.

Also, just because you can't measure something, that means it doesn't exist? I suppose atoms didn't exist prior to the 20th century.

Ahhhh...I see now. You misunderstood your own quote...AND it's wrong...I'm now wondering where you got it from.

Quantum theory is not the theoretical basis of modern physics, it is a mostly theoretical part of sub-atomic physics, and could be called a 'base' for understanding much of that subject, but is not a catch all explanation for even all sub atomic physics, certainly not physics in total.
Modern physics explains the nature and behaviors of matter and energy on the atomic and sub-atomic level, not quantum theory. Quantum theory does NOT explain atomic physics at all, it's only about sub atomic physics. Quantum theory is a sub set of physics, not the other way around as you implied.
Sub atomic physics and 'atomic' physics don't seem to jibe with each other... yet, and the rules of one do not work in the other. It's all counter intuitive and difficult for scientists to understand, the lay person has a snowball's chance in hell of understanding what we even think we know, even less if they get bad info to start with.
That means your understanding is completely wrong. Even sub atomic particles can't really be in two places at once in the way you understand it...it's all insanely difficult math that suggest something that, in lay man's terms, is close to being in two places, but is not actually that, because it's also in neither place (and in some equations, everywhere at once, and nowhere)! It's impossible to state fully in normal English, it's math...and screwy math at that.
Matter simply can't really be in 2 places at once, not even sub atomic parts of it. Certainly not a person. Some experiments may SEEM to show that certain particles/waves may be, but they aren't really...it's wierd. No actual quantum physics scientist has made such an insane claim (that YOU are in 2 places at once) that I know of....it's just plain wrong and displays a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles involved and the difference between sub atomic and non-sub atomic. If someone said that, you can be certain they were either not a physicist, or were trying to over simplify and explain through a poor, un-explained analogy as poor teachers have a tendency to do when explaining difficult subjects to those with no grasp of the basics.
And I don't own any scientists, gawd believing or no. ;-)
...and none of that has a thing to do with evolution beyond being the basic 'rules' for matter.
...and none of that has a thing to do with moral superiority or morality at all.
...and it all has nothing to do with religion based homophobia/bigotry....the topic of this video....so now that another thread has been hijacked, I'm taking this thread to Cuba!

I think your quote may be wrong, quantum physics deals only with the sub-atomic level.
Atoms and/or molecules do not behave like some particles do. Particles also can't be in 2 places at once, but appear to be able to move from one place to another without traveling between. It's an incredibly difficult science to understand, more so when it's basic principles are misunderstood.
This has nothing whatsoever (or barely anything, nothing directly) to do with evolution. It is an attempt at explaining the sub atomic world, not the atomic one. Evolution happens in the macro/atomic level and larger. It MAY happen in some unknown way in the sub atomic level, but hasn't been noted or studied there that I know of.
Did I state or imply that 'there's no way gawd did it'? I don't think so, you are projecting. While I don't 'believe' in gawd(s), I do leave open the miniscule possibility it exists, or that one did before the big bang....one problem is there's no real set definition for gawd, so if something outside our universe created this one, is that "gawd"? Must it be super-natural, or simply a creator? Must it exist in our universe to count? How about in our perceptible dimensions? Could it just be alien to our universe, but not a supernatural omniscient direct human creator? There's far too many points of view on that to have consensus of what constitutes a 'gawd'.
I will state that there's no proof, or even evidence, of a (or many) gawd(s). That said...Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, (thanks Mr Jackson), so there's also no 'proof' it doesn't exist (it's hard or impossible to prove a negative).
Jumping to the conclusion that, because there's no proof of no gawd, it must exist, is also close minded against the high probability (likelihood) that it doesn't, and never did, exist outside human minds.
Science and gawd don't go together or explain each other any more than addition explains a words spelling. They're totally different arenas of thought. Thinking that science 'proves' the existence of 'gawd' either greatly overstates the 'proof' or completely misunderstands science. At best, science doesn't disprove the existence of 'gawd(s)', but then again that was never the mission of science or real scientists...they don't deal with/in theology at all.
I would point out that, most Christians (or any religious people really) have repeatedly 'proven' the non-existence of 'gawd(s)' to themselves...all gawds except the one they think exists....but for some reason the one they believe in is exempt from all the proofs (math term, not bad English).

EDIT: What science has done is disprove most, if not all 'proofs' put forward alleging to prove the existence of gawd(s), and also removed all requirements for ones existence to explain the universe and existence.

Along with @VoodooV you both blindly miss the point. Voodooh is not worth even answering anymore. He is carrying around too many personal issues that the chip on his shoulder is weighing him down.

You believe that everything evolved and t there is no room for Quantum physics in evolution. You say these 2 ideas are exclusively different and not connected

I say Yes Quantum physics is part of evolution "Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level." But from that understanding it is theorized that you are in multiple places at once. That point of thought has been well stated by your non god believing scientist.

In theory you are in many places at once. So what part of evolution does that serve? From an evolution point of view quantum physics should not be needed and should not exist.


And you indicate that before the big bang and up to that point its anybody's guess.

Your best guess is, well we don't know, but no fucking way GOD did it. Now that's being closed minded.


If science proves GOD to be a pipe dream then so be it. But every day I see science proving the case that there is a GOD.

Occam's Razor suggests to me it was at least stuck to the plane's landing gear.

I don't doubt it -like every other atom of matter on, in, or under the surface of this planet- came from space. I just think it's currently viewed altitude was due to more terrestrial factors.