Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 18 of 20 1 2 16 17 18 19 20
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
For example, AWT presents a pretty consistent theory of evolution of living matter as a seamless continuation of inorganic matter evolution.

But the absence of direct evidence of evolution is a apparently striking. Currently the biosphere appears like miraculously frozen in its evolution, only species extinction occurs. Evolution of terrestrial life could be interrupted in every moment by introducing of panspermia from previous generations of stars or even whole Universe, which may be interpreted as an act of creation. So far we have no DNA of ancient organisms, proving the continuity of genealogical trees deduced from DNA. Briefly speaking, we have many strong evidences both for evolution, both for various non-gradualistic models - but no convincing proof yet. And this is a bare fact.

Briefly speaking, evolutionary theory still remains just a theory by it's very definition. Scientific theory is a model of reality, the true value of which can be never verified completely - well, by the same way, like God concept. It seems, God remains a very first scientific theory by the very definition of scientific theory. No wonder, the concept of infinitely dense and omnipresent Aether appears like physical model of God and it remains opposed by mainstream science by the same way, like God concept itself.

.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Keep people satisfied with their own ignorance. That's the secret.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93mWjngq4oA


Not the most intelligent nor compassionate approach to life. Knowing you can't force the river is a more expanded way of seeing things. Then maybe you can set an example that can be of value rather than setting no example and withdrawing from the whole picture. Judgment without wisdom is not compassionate.
Lots of people only think of themselves and that example only perpetuates ignorance.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Some americans reject evolution for the same reason that some non-Americans reject it - a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works combined with a "knowledge" of evolution that amounts to barbershop gossip.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"But the absence of direct evidence of evolution is a apparently striking."
False. Do some homework, for crying out loud.


"Briefly speaking, evolutionary theory still remains just a theory by it's very definition."
ALL legitimate scientific theories always remain "just" theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnvmmhxPUo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTaiP04UlxE



Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I found this amazing video on the universal flood , it is
very interesting and informative.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...dings&hl=en


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
False.
No formation of new species was ever observed in human history - face it... cool

Isn't it difficult to accept limits of your own belief?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"No formation of new species was ever observed in human history - face it"

Uh ... yes, they have. Face that you don't know what you're talking about on so many different levels.

First, we don't have to observe a thing DIRECTLY to know it for a fact. ERVs and atavisms are strong evidence.

Second, yes, we have observed speciation in the human lifespan:
Nylonase digesting bacteria.
The existence of ring species.




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Hi, TFF

Posted by The Royal Society, Friday 3 April 2009:

"A study of sleep, published in Science, has found that the nerve connections built up in the brain during a busy day are pruned back during the night in an attempt to keep the mind from overloading on junk information.

The Independent, p15, 1/2p
The Daily Telegraph, p12, 1/4 col
Financial Times, p9, 1/3 col"

Maybe sleep deprivation is the cause of these NQS fixations and fantasies grin


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"... an attempt to keep the mind from overloading on junk information."

Very interesting! This would explain a lot! Thanks!

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Very interesting! This would explain a lot! Thanks!
You see, and it's one of AWT predictions as well..;-) Of course, naive religous trolls like you needs to hear such information from authorities, like The Royal Society - or they don't believe it or they're even actively fighting against it.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Also I take this opportunity to thank you and the Royal Society for writing intelligibly. It would be nice to take such a thing for granted, but it's increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule in some quarters.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Face that you don't know what you're talking about on so many different levels.
Face, that you even have no idea, what I know about this world. With respect to your level of reality understanding my knowledge is something like E.T. intelligence - most of my comments will sound for you like Pythagorean theorem for my dog - and it apparently does. Therefore "writing intelligibly" means to present only information, which you can comprehend at your IQ level.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..we don't have to observe a thing DIRECTLY to know it for a fact...
Why not, the same religious people are saying about God or his creation often...

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..we have observed speciation in the human lifespan: Nylonase digesting bacteria....
This isn't quite lucky example of species evolution - as the prokaryota doesn't form species at all - only strands;-) We can cultivate various races of dogs for thousands of years, while still not producing a single new species of dog.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"Face, that you even have no idea, what I know about this world. "
According to you NOBODY has any idea of what you know about the world.

"most of my comments will sound for you like Pythagorean theorem for my dog "
Most of your comments sound like gibberish, because they are gibberish. Quasi-random sentences with some scientific terms thrown in do not make science. Calling something a gradient without showing the math is just intellectual incompetence.

"why not, the same religious people are saying about God or his creation often... "
Nope. You don't understand the argument. No surprise there.

"We can cultivate various races of dogs for thousands of years, while still not producing a single new species of dog."
Nothing in evolutionary theory predicts that we should, especially since that was never the intent.




Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"you even have no idea, what I know about this world" according to you NOBODY has any idea of what you know about the world.
Doesn't that imply, you're NOBODY - am I right? Just remember - it was deduction of yours, not that of mine.. cool
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..calling something a gradient without showing the math is just intellectual incompetence...
I'm perfectly sure, you wouldn't understand my deductions anyway. If you're not capable to understand underlying logical model, why do you expect, you're capable to understand formal model built on it? If you cannot understand square and surface area concepts - how do you want to understand Pythagorean theorem formula? You apparently missed hiearchy of knowledge.

But such stance is nothing new in contemporary society, including mainstream science. Most scientists apparently believe, they understand relativity for example, when they can derive the Lorentz transform for it. This is just a result of formal education of natural sciences at schools.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Doesn't that imply, you're NOBODY - am I right? "

Demonstrating once again that logic is not your thing.

"... why do you expect, you're capable to understand formal model built on it?"

I'm in great company! Apparently some of the worlds' greatest scientists are likewise too stupid to understand your gibberish. You could try to sell your stuff to Bohm's former students, for example, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Talking about "implicate order" doesn't actually mean understanding it - just like 'logic', and 'density gradients', etc.



Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..Talking about "implicate order" doesn't actually mean understanding it...
Of course not. The criterion of understanding is, if you're capable to do some testable predictions about it. Like this one above given about neuron density. So, can you provide some prediction concerning something of your personal preference for us? Are you capable of active thinking - not just passive reproduction of foreing ideas?

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"So, can you provide some prediction concerning something of your personal preference for us? "
Perfect example of something that makes no sense at all. Take it up with Bohm's students. If they think you're a genius, I'll concede. Otherwise, you're just another crank.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..otherwise, you're just another crank.
I'm not sure, you are even able to distinguish crank from egg. But when you're making statement about me, it's your turn with proof of it. If you're not willing/capable to prove it by itself, please avoid subjective labelling or I can apply the very same criterions for you again.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

"... it's your turn with proof of it."
Nearly every message you post.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Nearly every message you post.
Do you really believe, I'm required to contact Bohm's students to derive something testable by using of implicate geometry?

What about the derivation of Godel's incompletness theorems?

Page 18 of 20 1 2 16 17 18 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5