ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:39 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:47 am 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
Zarathustra wrote:
Quote:
...
Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.


That's, um, ridiculous. Even in the Popperian idea of science, it's not so much a question of whether every aspect of a scientific model itself is falsifiable, but whether it allows us to make predictions which are falsifiable. This is clearly the case with evolution, which would, for example, predict the existence of fossils, observable small-scale changes in animals species in the face of environmental change, the existence of vestigial organs, etc....


Okay, firstly, I'll clarify what I meant with regards to evolution:
Creationists don't dispute that minor changes that are already extant can be selected for. However, they do dispute that massive, gross changes are possible: no apes turning into people; no dinosaurs turning into birds. This is falsafiable, if we have enough time. Similarly, the claim by proponents of the evolutionary theory claim that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing; this is falsafiable with enough time. However, we don't have enough time to demonstrate this feasably. Therefore, neither are feasably falsafiable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
words


Who are you, and how did you get that many posts that recently without me noticing?

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:20 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Tossrock wrote:
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
words


Who are you, and how did you get that many posts that recently without me noticing?


He's been around for a while, but hasn't really posted in a while, if that makes any sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
nick012000 wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:
Quote:
...
Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.


That's, um, ridiculous. Even in the Popperian idea of science, it's not so much a question of whether every aspect of a scientific model itself is falsifiable, but whether it allows us to make predictions which are falsifiable. This is clearly the case with evolution, which would, for example, predict the existence of fossils, observable small-scale changes in animals species in the face of environmental change, the existence of vestigial organs, etc....


Okay, firstly, I'll clarify what I meant with regards to evolution:
Creationists don't dispute that minor changes that are already extant can be selected for. However, they do dispute that massive, gross changes are possible: no apes turning into people; no dinosaurs turning into birds. This is falsafiable, if we have enough time. Similarly, the claim by proponents of the evolutionary theory claim that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing; this is falsafiable with enough time. However, we don't have enough time to demonstrate this feasably. Therefore, neither are feasably falsafiable.


There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

In bold now:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Let's add some color:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Larger size:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

They are the same process. The two terms are rarely used by actual scientists. Given enough time, the changes we observe now would prduce speciation. Therefore, it makes sense to suppose that this process was going on in the past the same way it is now, which would explain the origin of life.

Let's say you live upon a giant sheet of ice. It is snowing, and has been snowing continuously, throughout your entire life. You know that the sheet of ice you are standing on is several miles thick. Now, what seems like a more likely scenario?
  • The sheet of ice is a product of many, many years of snowing, just like the snowing you have observed your whole life, except on a larger timescale.
  • Super space aliens from another galaxy used their "space magic" to create the sheet of ice some time before you were born. It's just happened to be snowing since then. "Microsnowing" - which produces snow - exists, but you can find no proof for "macrosnowing" - i.e., snowing which produces huge ass sheets of ice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
Zarathustra wrote:
Let's add some color:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Larger size:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".


Larger size? Chicanery.

<img src="http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9500/largersize2ru.jpg">

Also I liked snow your analogy.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Bah, that's all in your user prefs.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:17 pm 
Offline
<font color=red><b>STALKER/FAG ALERT.
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:38 am
Posts: 1579
IcyMonkey wrote:
nick012000 wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:
Quote:
...
Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.


That's, um, ridiculous. Even in the Popperian idea of science, it's not so much a question of whether every aspect of a scientific model itself is falsifiable, but whether it allows us to make predictions which are falsifiable. This is clearly the case with evolution, which would, for example, predict the existence of fossils, observable small-scale changes in animals species in the face of environmental change, the existence of vestigial organs, etc....


Okay, firstly, I'll clarify what I meant with regards to evolution:
Creationists don't dispute that minor changes that are already extant can be selected for. However, they do dispute that massive, gross changes are possible: no apes turning into people; no dinosaurs turning into birds. This is falsafiable, if we have enough time. Similarly, the claim by proponents of the evolutionary theory claim that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing; this is falsafiable with enough time. However, we don't have enough time to demonstrate this feasably. Therefore, neither are feasably falsafiable.


There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

In bold now:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Let's add some color:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

Larger size:

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution".

They are the same process. The two terms are rarely used by actual scientists. Given enough time, the changes we observe now would prduce speciation. Therefore, it makes sense to suppose that this process was going on in the past the same way it is now, which would explain the origin of life.

[snip glacier analogy]


Creationists disagree. They argue that while microevolution produces speciation, it doesn't result in drastic changes in type. They support this assertion with the lack of intermediary fossils in the fossil record.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
nick012000 wrote:
Creationists disagree. They argue that while microevolution produces speciation, it doesn't result in drastic changes in type. They support this assertion with the lack of intermediary fossils in the fossil record.


Please explain what you mean by "intermediary fossils". And what is the difference between "type" and "species"? Why would a process that causes small change over the short term not cause bigger changes over the long term?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
nick012000 wrote:
Creationists disagree. They argue that while microevolution produces speciation, it doesn't result in drastic changes in type. They support this assertion with the lack of intermediary fossils in the fossil record.


<img src="http://www.nhm.org/journey/pictures/birds/archaeopteryx!.jpg">

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2754
Location: South of the equator
Wasn't archeopteryx proven to be a fraud?

And given the length of time, and geological pressures involved, I'm amazed that ANY fossil records exist.

And lies are taught in school all the time. The Bohrs model of the atom? Lie. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus? Lie. Newton's Laws to describe the universe? Lies.

But useful lies, at that level.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:31 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
Wasn't archeopteryx proven to be a fraud?

No.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
And lies are taught in school all the time. The Bohrs model of the atom? Lie. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus? Lie. Newton's Laws to describe the universe? Lies.

But useful lies, at that level.


But see, everything is essentially a useful lie. Newton's theories were at one time the most effective model of reality. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics can predict things better. One day, they too will be replaced. None of these models are actual representations of reality. They're simply mathematical tools used to predict things. Reality itself cannot be described by mathematics, logic, or language.

Humans have this unfortunate tendency to confuse the idea of a model being effective or useful with the idea of that model resembling reality. Words and numbers cannot resemble reality, any more than a song can resemble a painting, and for the same reason -- they're two qualitatively different things. As a matter of fact, the difference is greater, since sound and sight are both (mental) senses, whereas concepts are mental and reality is physical.


Last edited by IcyMonkey on Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:43 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
IcyMonkey wrote:
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
And lies are taught in school all the time. The Bohrs model of the atom? Lie. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus? Lie. Newton's Laws to describe the universe? Lies.

But useful lies, at that level.

But see, everything is essentially a useful lie. Newton's theories were at one time the most effective model of reality. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics can predict things better. One day, they too will be replaced. None of these models are actual representations of reality. They're simply mathematical tools used to predict things. Reality itself cannot be described by mathematics, logic, or language.

Humans have this unfortunate tendency to confuse the idea of a model being effective or useful with the idea of that model resembling reality. Words and numbers cannot resemble reality, any more than a song can resemble a painting.

"The following story is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2754
Location: South of the equator
IcyMonkey wrote:
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
And lies are taught in school all the time. The Bohrs model of the atom? Lie. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus? Lie. Newton's Laws to describe the universe? Lies.

But useful lies, at that level.


But see, everything is essentially a useful lie. Newton's theories were at one time the most effective model of reality. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics can predict things better. One day, they too will be replaced. None of these models are actual representations of reality. They're simply mathematical tools used to predict things. Reality itself cannot be described by mathematics, logic, or language.

Humans have this unfortunate tendency to confuse the idea of a model being effective or useful with the idea of that model resembling reality. Words and numbers cannot resemble reality, any more than a song can resemble a painting.


More lies!

Lies and Trickery!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:15 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
More lies!

Lies and Trickery!


Let me put it this way: We can describe reality, but only in terms of what it is not. It is not our subjective experience. ("Subjective experience" includes our sensory input as subjectively interpreted and organized into an internal mental picture of our surroundings, memories which are imprinted traces of past sensual experience, and concepts. Whether some or all of these concepts are in fact derived from sensed experience is not relevant to this discussion.)

However, our subjective experience is the only thing we have access to. When we use the term "reality", we are referring to that which is outside our subjective experience, and therefore reality is by its very nature un-knowable. We can make statements about its relationship to "us" (the subjective world to which we are confined) - however, we cannot make any statements about reality in-and-of-itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:38 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
IcyMonkey wrote:
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
More lies!

Lies and Trickery!


Let me put it this way: We can describe reality, <a href="http://tomahawk.ytmnd.com/">but only in terms of what it is not</a>.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2754
Location: South of the equator
IcyMonkey wrote:
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
More lies!

Lies and Trickery!


Let me put it this way: We can describe reality, but only in terms of what it is not. It is not our subjective experience. ("Subjective experience" includes our sensory input as subjectively interpreted and organized into an internal mental picture of our surroundings, memories which are imprinted traces of past sensual experience, and concepts. Whether some or all of these concepts are in fact derived from sensed experience is not relevant to this discussion.)

However, our subjective experience is the only thing we have access to. When we use the term "reality", we are referring to that which is outside our subjective experience, and therefore reality is by its very nature un-knowable. We can make statements about its relationship to "us" (the subjective world to which we are confined) - however, we cannot make any statements about reality in-and-of-itself.


Is there anything more real than that which we experience? However, I agree. There is no way to quantify objective reality... Because no one can be objective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:06 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Urban Wild Cat wrote:
Is there anything more real than that which we experience?


I'm assuming you're referring to the supposed directness of our subjective experience of the world. However, you must keep in mind that even this is mediated by the way our brain organizes, categorizes, and processes this experience, before we even become conscious of it. In this sense there is not "pure" experience - "experience" is something that is always-already "distanced" from us.

(Okay, you know I'm injecting too much Franco-German philosophy into a thread when I start using terms like "always-already" and employ scare quotes more than twice per sentence. GOD DAMN IT ICY YOU TOLD YOURSELF YOU'D STOP DOING THIS!!!! GRAGHELKJNFFVDSLUJKHBVCX


. . .


. . .



Okay, I'm fine now.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2754
Location: South of the equator
One day...




...we will break you.

And I mean in a "wheels fall off" sense, not a "crush your spirit" sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:24 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
krylex wrote:
Schools need to teach scientific fact, mathmatical fact, etc.

Let philosophy classes be for the discerning to truth and non-truth.


Schools are supposed to share knowledge. Truth or non truth is inconsequential.


I had to say this again, since you are actually talking about truth and non-truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group