Who has the burden of proof?

[Sapiens]

Rule 7 specifically does not apply here since Wikipedia has no "author" and prohibits the inclusion of "original research."

If you are not derailing, then get back on topic, even as you continue with your asinine bloviation about plagiarism.

 

[Serenity7855]

Rule 7 specifically does not apply here since Wikipedia has no "author" and prohibits the inclusion of "original research."

If you are not derailing, then get back on topic, even as you continue with your asinine bloviation about plagiarism.

Is it your words? Have you made a verbatim copy or imitation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another author and representing them as your own original work.

I am not being boastful. I am humbly bringing it to your attention to prevent it happening to another theist.

 

[George-ananda]

So, why exactly do you call them "healers"? Surely, that title pertains to some characteristic of theirs that reflect positively on their capacity to heal with some reliability. If they are unpredictable, why do "healers" even exist? Shouldn't they just be "people who have occasionally been involved in acts of healing but had no power over the event"? If they're healers, get them in the labs and put their names to the test. If they cannot heal people without some level of reliability, maybe they shouldn't be called healers.

I actually don't talk much about so-called healers. It always seems to get to a point where it gets too foggy. In my mind, the strongest cases are those involving spiritually advanced individuals in which miraculous healing is just a sign and not at all the main thing of which they are about.

So do you accept anecdotal evidence which is contradictory? The personal accounts of people visiting hell vs. the personal accounts of people who experience reincarnation, or nothing at all? I understand your religious beliefs perhaps accommodate people with such different experiences, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of these people came away from their experiences with wildly different views from each other. When somebody experiences hell and comes away from it convinced of the absolute truth of the Christian Bible, while another may experience reincarnation and come away convinced of the truth of the teachings of Buddha, you must admit that these experiences and the conclusions drawn from them are so far apart that they cannot possibly both be true. Or, if they are both true as experiences, it only goes to demonstrate that people can draw whatever conclusion they wish to from their experience, which brought them as such no actual realization of truth.

If you investigate you must certainly consider all related anecdotes and arguments. Not to digress but it looks like above your getting at NDE type experiences. Teachers I respect say areas of the astral plane have cultural contexts that people relate to. All in all a pattern emerges. I'm sure there are experiences I don't claim to understand. Also this pattern is corroborated by esoteric teachings of individuals that allege sensing beyond the normal physical. In fact all these things are described in levels of details that would surprise most.

Then we are at an impasse, because I reached my conclusion from the exact same reasoning. It's the most reasonable conclusion I can form by objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides. Now the question is, which one of our "most reasonable conclusions" is more likely to be true, and how can we determine that?

What has been your level of exposure to information that is pro-spiritual/paranormal written by modern eastern masters, theosophists and parapsychologists. And I don't mean just searching for the criticisms. I have made myself very, very aware of the argumentation of the Skeptical community.

 

[Skwim]

You are quite a jekyll and Hyde aren't you? You say you do not want to continue the debate yet you monitor the thread waiting for a mistake or an error to pounce on. That is a knew one on me. Congratulations.

​

Now, you see you are defending the jndefensible, which is bad for you but a pleasure for me.

Come, come, Serenity. Strawman retorts are sooo passe these days. Although I appreciate your dilemma here

and your effort to extricate yourself.

 

[Sapiens]

Here are the list of contributors, that alone damn near puts it in the common domain:


ChicXulub
68.62.253.185
SuperNascar
149.128.8.245
Lugia2453
174.62.150.43
71.236.178.23
Gilliam
96.28.98.12
98.19.41.219
Alan
StuHarris
72.37.171.132
Graham87
Meltdown627
ImageRemovalBot
Tom
97.126.236.170
JustinTime55
ClueBot
173.220.109.141
FrescoBot
2.100.155.124
Invertzoo
103.28.122.3
78.101.225.102
108.35.255.222
HMSSolent
165.139.139.129
194.168.99.101
Monkbot
Ninney
74.112.143.150
173.218.211.120
Nagualdesign
Jacob
63.98.103.65
WDGraham
Andrewman327
Pjoef
AManWithNoPlan
174.29.142.62
Js314514
199.126.237.2
Tony
121.45.192.81
93.96.106.47
JDspeeder1
87.83.146.196
Donner60
2602:306:3143:c370:180e:103b:b6e8:148
209.143.54.24
209.106.130.180
Mikhail
RandomCritic
85.250.49.8
Martarius
Hailey
Legobot
173.51.63.249
Mr.
198.136.25.82
ChrisGualtieri
Gildir
Sroc
Scwlong
198.125.228.16
173.248.56.34
50.136.90.186
24.16.98.109
Christian75
ObjectivismLover
97.88.248.210
Ruthead
173.48.209.46
71.207.195.9
24.226.93.249
216.73.75.161
Huw
Naddy
TJRC
50.10.147.102
67.214.27.66
206.131.39.16
50.137.254.65
Trekphiler
Dinkytown
75.174.39.14
Skamecrazy123
66.203.57.243
208.102.31.210
Jack
112.208.89.42
Jim1138
112.208.87.243
166.113.0.108
96.240.195.142
75.87.139.53
198.209.84.1
107.194.145.201
75.179.149.249
86.177.222.117
Mark
99.228.137.5
75.117.85.146
ArglebargleIV
173.33.113.168
137.69.117.58
Craigboy
98.151.179.39
Tedickey
MileyDavidA
Enpdllp
HandsomeFella
89.242.26.236
Openmy
Jj98
203.184.40.239
Ducknish
82.31.125.253
8.26.249.14
Hamtechperson
DASHBot
Zerbey
Pstuart
188.193.197.232
Helpful
99.69.130.239
Tgeairn
140.200.230.12
66.203.31.92
Xqbot
87.52.29.81
AnomieBOT
72.244.206.158
Corey1rosen
Jonahz
MikeWazowski
WebTV3
173.45.200.48
Yobot
Mike
122.60.61.226
Photographerguy
Ohconfucius
124.149.36.120
InverseHypercube
Hike395
NewEnglandYankee
208.102.112.253
Jojhutton
Director
TJ
74.114.172.17
108.34.181.110
124.187.212.156
Dravecky
69.116.4.45
Lucasrutherford
Hydrargyrum
Esrever
SassoBot
70.187.150.207
Ulric1313
Luckas-bot
205.174.124.121
ShelbyBell
Tgavaras
68.62.240.20
Metalhead94
213.104.16.110
RadioBroadcast
Icairns
204.234.209.247
129.2.129.217
213.246.119.51
West.andrew.g
174.1.160.228
146.145.83.216
Glacialfox
Muad
Wingman4l7
Gwen
143.44.75.232
216.194.43.62
Writ
74.97.180.78
Epbr123
96.238.25.94
Monty845
131.109.37.13
216.157.200.220
24.253.254.69
24.250.124.173
76.92.206.33
Bender235
Citation
Taylornate
24.98.185.118
Cydebot
Portuguese
Bongwarrior
209.147.23.38
Nepenthes
Jmnbatista
195.33.114.129
75.162.151.204
70.183.42.2
81.129.136.73
Tdadamemd
173.170.192.243
Lightbot
Mtmelendez
70.95.103.96
82.15.221.93
68.45.215.91
63.126.72.25
1007D
ChiZeroOne
114.206.90.170
74.169.161.210
174.30.12.106
69.77.183.86
Khazar
84.184.78.214
71.192.90.21
Coolzoom77
Jivecat
174.124.41.124
CG
Donfbreed
71.20.8.226
24.188.205.233
71.90.21.41
71.100.3.66
Rillian
Chris
CountryBot

 

[Parsimony]

This is ridiculous. Why don't you just do a little research on the subject before you post. Not being funny, but seriously. I have been here where I thought I knew what I was talking about and made an idiot of myself but for a little time spent in research.

I have done quite a bit of research on this issue and can provide sources to back them up.

Let's dismiss the silliness of using the terms, covalent chemical bonds and van der Waals forces. Said to demonstrate that you have knowledge of that which you speak. Totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed, which gave it away. Atomic bondings are not impenetrable. They are easily broken depending on the type of bonding. They could never prevent Thermodynamics from bring equilibrium into force.

How is it irrelevant? I never claimed that they are impenetrable, but simply putting a human in a vacuum will not be enough to break those bonds and cause a person to explode. I have supplied a source for this later in this post.

It is basic Thermodynamics. Put an inflated balloon in a low pressure environment and the Balloon will eventually deflate until both the outside and inside pressure are equal.

If you put a balloon into an environment with less pressure on the outside of the balloon than inside, it will inflate, not deflate:

P is inversely related to V. This makes sense if you think of a balloon. When the pressure around a balloon increases, the volume of the balloon decreases, and likewise, when you decrease the pressure around a balloon, its volume will increase.

Everything tends to entropy. It is just a naturalistic fixed law of the universe. Do the same with our bodies and the first thing that will happen is your blood will boil breaking those bondings straight away and your inners will spew out through the breaks.

That would not happen. Let's see what NASA has to say about it:

If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute of so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

The next one is a monumental case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are totally ignorant to the facts. The astronauts were in atmospheric pressure from the time they left earth until they got back. Either in their spacesuits or in the shuttle they never experienced anything but atmospheric pressure.

That only proves that atmospheric pressure can be controlled independently of gravity.

Gravitational acceleration is a component of atmospheric pressure. Increase it and atmospheric pressure will also be increased. They are inseparably connected.

This is provably false. Venus has a surface gravity of 0.905 G, but it has an atmospheric pressure about 92 times higher than that of Earth. Saturn's satellite Titan has a surface gravity much less than that of Earth, but it has an atmospheric pressure 1.5 times higher than that of Earth. These are worlds with thicker atmospheres than Earth despite having less gravity.

Vacuum, are you for real? A vacuum is an empty space in which there is no air or other gas : a space from which all or most of the air has been removed, pressure is not a function of a vacuum.

I know what a vacuum is.

You can be crushed in a vacuum.

You can't be crushed by air that isn't there.

Pilots are in high gravitational acceleration for very short periods of time. For gravity to result in crushing the human body will take a longer period of time. Stick someone in a gravitational accelerator on full power for the weekend and see what you will find on Monday morning.

The human femur has a compression strength above 100 megaPascal. That's over 1,000 times atmospheric pressure. I think it could take it just fine. Nonetheless, when I have more time, I'll try to do some more indepth calculations.

Look, I am not a scientist, I only took physics to "A" level, but this stuff is fundamental physics.

I have given sources for my claims. Now let's see yours.

 

[outhouse]

You are quite a jekyll and Hyde aren't you? .

You have no authority or credibility to insult anyone sir.

 

[Thief]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

There will never be a photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment.

When it comes to God.....you just have to think about it.

I think the universe is the effect....and God is the Cause.

 

[Serenity7855]

I have done quite a bit of research on this issue and can provide sources to back them up.


How is it irrelevant? I never claimed that they are impenetrable, but simply putting a human in a vacuum will not be enough to break those bonds and cause a person to explode. I have supplied a source for this later in this post.


If you put a balloon into an environment with less pressure on the outside of the balloon than inside, it will inflate, not deflate:

P is inversely related to V. This makes sense if you think of a balloon. When the pressure around a balloon increases, the volume of the balloon decreases, and likewise, when you decrease the pressure around a balloon, its volume will increase.


That would not happen. Let's see what NASA has to say about it:

If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute of so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.


That only proves that atmospheric pressure can be controlled independently of gravity.


This is provably false. Venus has a surface gravity of 0.905 G, but it has an atmospheric pressure about 92 times higher than that of Earth. Saturn's satellite Titan has a surface gravity much less than that of Earth, but it has an atmospheric pressure 1.5 times higher than that of Earth. These are worlds with thicker atmospheres than Earth despite having less gravity.


I know what a vacuum is.


You can't be crushed by air that isn't there.


The human femur has a compression strength above 100 megaPascal. That's over 1,000 times atmospheric pressure. I think it could take it just fine. Nonetheless, when I have more time, I'll try to do some more indepth calculations.


I have given sources for my claims. Now let's see yours.

Now, I am going to try and be polite and considerate with you. I am going to ask you if you would like to go through your post and make any amendments that you want to. Just make sure that this is what you want me to respond to. I will be fair and tell you that I can demolish, with credible evidence, almost every point you have made in it. The data is fine it is the application of the data that is flawed. I really do not want to do that but I will have no other alternative should you wish to proceed.

Just as a pointer for you F=ma that is force equal mass time acceleration. The mass of the air, or gas, in the atmosphere multiplied by the gravitational acceleration.

As for this remark, "I have given sources for my claims. Now let's see yours" It is not always a good thing to be cocky about what you have posted. It only makes being wrong more of a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Serenity7855]

You have no authority or credibility to insult anyone sir.

Be still thy mouth

 

[Parsimony]

What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force.

I thought of a better way of illustrating the crushing thing. You claimed that if Earth's gravitational acceleration was 11 meters per second squared instead of 9.8 meters per second squared that humans would be crushed under the increased force. This would be the equivalent of going from 1.00 G to 1.12 G.

I currently weigh around 160 pounds. On a hypothetical Earth with 11 m/s^2 gravity, my weight would increase to around 180 pounds. However, I was all the way up to 220 pounds during my college years. Even when I was at 220 pounds, I could easily walk around on my own and I was most certainly not crushed under my own weight. If I could survive at 220 pounds, then I could definitely survive at 180 pounds as well (especially given that I had to go through 180 pounds to reach 220 pounds). So no, 11 m/s^2 gravity does not equal crushed human. I am living proof of that. Most anyone who has yo-yoed significantly in their weight over the years is living proof, actually.

There is also some more information here about the effects of vacuum on humans and animals.

Another point of interest is that people can climb to and survive at the summit of Mt. Everest without any kind of pressurized suit. The air pressure at the top of Everest is about 251-287 Torr (this is about 33%-38% the pressure at Earth's surface). The people who climb there obviously do not explode.

 

[Skwim]

You are quite a jekyll and Hyde aren't you?

You have no authority or credibility to insult anyone sir.

Don't pay it any mind. I certainly don't. It's just one more effort to save face by deflecting attention away from all his ill conceived pronouncements. I believe Serenity7855 is in a bit of a spin at the moment. Simply look at how your reply awakened the "control freak" center of his mind:

"Be still thy mouth."
​

Which is at odds with his more genial reply to Kryptid only a minute earlier:

"Now, I am going to try and be polite and considerate with you."
​

I think Serenity7855 needs a hug or two.













Anyone . . . . . . . ?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually outhouse is right, you may like to quote scripture, but your knowledge of everything else is at best questionable and at worst dead wrong. Worst of all, when it is pointed out to you, you either ignore it (at your peril) or argue and look the fool. Hug? He can kiss my posterior.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I actually don't talk much about so-called healers. It always seems to get to a point where it gets too foggy. In my mind, the strongest cases are those involving spiritually advanced individuals in which miraculous healing is just a sign and not at all the main thing of which they are about.

So can they or can they not demonstrate this "sign" under reasonable experimental conditions?

If you investigate you must certainly consider all related anecdotes and arguments.

I do, and I have found every single one that I have heard thus far to be lacking in any kind of evidence or support.

Not to digress but it looks like above your getting at NDE type experiences. Teachers I respect say areas of the astral plane have cultural contexts that people relate to. All in all a pattern emerges. I'm sure there are experiences I don't claim to understand. Also this pattern is corroborated by esoteric teachings of individuals that allege sensing beyond the normal physical. In fact all these things are described in levels of details that would surprise most.

As I've said before, the most common NDE is merely the experience of a "bright light", which has a perfectly valid scientific explanation that does not require the invention of an astral plane. What detailed experiences are you referring to, specifically?

What has been your level of exposure to information that is pro-spiritual/paranormal written by modern eastern masters, theosophists and parapsychologists.

I have first-hand experience of Wicca, I have discussed at length with many people with eastern beliefs and I have watched quite a few lectures given by claimed parapsychologists and theologians. Not a single one has ever presented anything in the way of hard evidence.

And I don't mean just searching for the criticisms. I have made myself very, very aware of the argumentation of the Skeptical community.

And yet you still accept anecdotes as evidence, and expect others to do the same?

 

[Serenity7855]

Actually outhouse is right, you may like to quote scripture, but your knowledge of everything else is at best questionable and at worst dead wrong. Worst of all, when it is pointed out to you, you either ignore it (at your peril) or argue and look the fool. Hug? He can kiss my posterior.

Thank you. But at least I am honest. Outhouse would be a good friend for you. He likes to insult and denigrate as well, plus nothing he says can be trusted. I do not take in anything he has to say either. Like you, he is here to beat up on unsuspecting Christians. He is not here to learn because he has all the answer, he knows it all so cannot be told anything, just like you. He too gets aggressive and agitated when proven wrong, and finally, I have exposed his intentional inaccuracies, just like I did with you. Yes, you would make good friends. Why are you here, of course you have every right to be here, but, you are not interested in religion, you are not seeking conversion, indeed you think that Christians are buffoons, so why expose yourself to debate with the people you despise. Is it that sense of superiority that you have and that appeal to authority you have through education and a need to be the teacher rather then the student. Or has age brought a bitter taste to your mouth. Just saying. You are both Trolls with too much time on your hands.

 

[Serenity7855]

Don't pay it any mind. I certainly don't. It's just one more effort to save face by deflecting attention away from all his ill conceived pronouncements. I believe Serenity7855 is in a bit of a spin at the moment. Simply look at how your reply awakened the "control freak" center of his mind:

"Be still thy mouth."
​

Which is at odds with his more genial reply to Kryptid only a minute earlier:

"Now, I am going to try and be polite and considerate with you."
​

I think Serenity7855 needs a hug or two.

You do know that "be still thy mouth" is not a scripture, don't you? It is a fun and polite way of saying, shut up.

Kryptid is a great deal more politer then you are. Politeness deserves to be reciprocated. I will give him my time, even if he proves me wrong.

It is the sly creatures that stealthily hide behind evasions and then pounce when the prey is at its weakest and not ready to defend itself that I abhore. It is duplicitous rhetoric and dishonesty that I protect myself from. Do you know what I mean? Trolls

Troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Recognise anyone here. Anyone who is here just to agitate Christian? I do.

 

[George-ananda]

So can they or can they not demonstrate this "sign" under reasonable experimental conditions?


I do, and I have found every single one that I have heard thus far to be lacking in any kind of evidence or support.


As I've said before, the most common NDE is merely the experience of a "bright light", which has a perfectly valid scientific explanation that does not require the invention of an astral plane. What detailed experiences are you referring to, specifically?


I have first-hand experience of Wicca, I have discussed at length with many people with eastern beliefs and I have watched quite a few lectures given by claimed parapsychologists and theologians. Not a single one has ever presented anything in the way of hard evidence.


And yet you still accept anecdotes as evidence, and expect others to do the same?

As you said earlier we are at an impasse. And it's not resolvable at this time.

 

[Thief]

Actually outhouse is right, you may like to quote scripture, but your knowledge of everything else is at best questionable and at worst dead wrong. Worst of all, when it is pointed out to you, you either ignore it (at your peril) or argue and look the fool. Hug? He can kiss my posterior.

Assuming your stance of disbelief........
Who is at peril?
Or do you believe in God?...not sure at this moment.

 

[Skwim]

You do know that "be still thy mouth" is not a scripture, don't you?

Either way it's unimportant.

It is a fun and polite way of saying, shut up.

Telling someone to shut up, no matter how it's disguised, is never polite.

 

[Serenity7855]

I thought of a better way of illustrating the crushing thing. You claimed that if Earth's gravitational acceleration was 11 meters per second squared instead of 9.8 meters per second squared that humans would be crushed under the increased force. This would be the equivalent of going from 1.00 G to 1.12 G.

I currently weigh around 160 pounds. On a hypothetical Earth with 11 m/s^2 gravity, my weight would increase to around 180 pounds. However, I was all the way up to 220 pounds during my college years. Even when I was at 220 pounds, I could easily walk around on my own and I was most certainly not crushed under my own weight. If I could survive at 220 pounds, then I could definitely survive at 180 pounds as well (especially given that I had to go through 180 pounds to reach 220 pounds). So no, 11 m/s^2 gravity does not equal crushed human. I am living proof of that. Most anyone who has yo-yoed significantly in their weight over the years is living proof, actually.

There is also some more information here about the effects of vacuum on humans and animals.

Another point of interest is that people can climb to and survive at the summit of Mt. Everest without any kind of pressurized suit. The air pressure at the top of Everest is about 251-287 Torr (this is about 33%-38% the pressure at Earth's surface). The people who climb there obviously do not explode.

Well, I have to say, what a good rebuttal, excellent, in fact, because it has stumped me. I could not give an adequate response without researching it, because I did not possess that knowledge, I am not absolutely sure that I do now.

First off let me confirm that this line of debate is not drawing the topic off course, as it might appear to be doing. Hopefully I can redress the continuity of the thread in this post and keep it in line with the topic. I was posting on miracles, which was the topic of discussion when I joined, and gave, in my opinion, two modern day miracles for consideration, as follows.

During the Last big tsunami no wild animals died. They had all left the area before it struck. The elephants all left two weeks before the tsunami took so many human lives. They all returned after it had all subsided. Quit miraculous, don't you think? Not such a ridiculous claim if you knew that and many thing like unto it, but I wouldn't mind betting that you didn't know that.

Gravitation exerts a force on us of approximately 9.81 metres per second squared. It's effect is to keep us on solid ground. What if it were 11, what would be the effect? We would all be crushed under the force? What if it were 8, well then we would all explode? Isn't it miraculous that it stays at what it is causing a equilibrium with our bodies under the ideal force. Do you think that is miraculous, I do.

With the second example I was trying to demonstrate the miracle of fine tuning, or the anthropic principle. Now, I am not a scientist, I have made that clear. I am an environmental engineer who specialised in heat pumps. Thermodynamics and heat transfer was my field. I know as much, probably less, then you do on the physics involved in this and I certainly do not know exact values to the variables in the physics, but I have a brain capable of reasoning. That is why I did not say that 11 metres per second squared would crush us but I said "what if it were 11, what if it were 8" because my reasoning tell me that by increasing or decreasing the gravitational acceleration would eventually have an adverse effect on us, so, how miraculous is it that we have the optimum gravitational acceleration to sustain life. But that is fine. The principle of my intention still remain, even if 11 or 8 do not cause problems the fact is that we live in an atmosphere that has been honed to sustains life, albeit on a knife edge. Change the value of gravity sufficiently and we all die. I found the following quote from a science web site that I thought said this better then I. .

One hears epic accounts of people surviving bullets to the brain, 10-story freefalls or months stranded at sea. But put a human anywhere in the known universe except for the thin shell of space that extends a couple of miles above or below sea level on Earth, and we perish within minutes. As strong and resilient as the human body seems in some situations, considered in the context of the cosmos as a whole, it's unnervingly fragile.

It suggests that we are not as resilient as we might think we are. For example, we can withstand a sideway acceleration up to 14 Gs, forward and vertical acceleration of between 8 and 9 Gs, and a deaccelleration backwards of 40 Gs. But for very, very short periods of time. During these conditions we are incapable of bodily functionality and sustained periods would damage internal organs and kill us. So that information does not meet with the initial question. It only says that you should not drive rocket porpellpcars for any length of time because you will die. It does not change the fact, indeed it bolsters the fact that changes in atmospheric pressure can kill and that we live in a finely tuned environment.

It seems to be a general consensus that nobody knows at what point death will occur under increased atmospheres because to test it would require someone to be killed, which might be fine for the killer but disastrous for the test subject. Most articles I have read suggest that 2 Gs over a 2 week period should suffice in crushing most individuals. I am 210 pounds so my weight would increase to 420 pounds. I do not think that I would even last a week. It would not be the weight that would kill you, it would be the stress induced on our internal organs.

As for lower levels of gravity, I believe it is basic physics that everything in our Universe tends to entropy, to a state of equilibrium. As I have said, if you inflate a balloon in atmospheric pressure, it will not inflate more, as one scientist wannabe has suggested. Only if you introduce that balloon into a lower atmosphere then the one it was inflated in will it inflate even more. Leave that balloon in that condition and it will eventually deflate to a state of equilibrium. Have you not seen the film with Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Total Recall" where he lost his space helmet whilst walking on Mars and his eyes popped and his skin broke open allowing it's contents to spew all over the place. Apparently that was based on research and that was my point.

In conclusion, the point was to demonstrate the miracle and not to question the triviality of the figures involved. The overall effect and not the point at which it happens. To show that if the figures were not as they are then we would not exist. It was not intended to be a science project of exactitude. I would have gone to the science thread if that is what I wanted, however, you are an excellent debater. It is a pleasure to be stumped and proven wrong by you. Politeness costs nothing but means so much. My dear old mum, God rest her soul, always said that if you cannot say anything nice about others then say nothing at all. As you can see, I cannot, will not, bit my tongue with rude people who mission it is to come here and Troll.