Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: The definition of Science
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The definition of Science
Posted: 6/28/2012 12:39:31 AM
Science is a philosophy, a means of obtaining "truths" by mental processes.

Specifically, it is the philosophy which maintains that all that is real can be objectively understood and explained in terms of natural processes. The pathway to that understanding is the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a process of elimination. It begins with a set of observed facts and a proposal of how those facts relate, in measurable and objective terms [the "hypothesis"]. To continue any further, it must be understood that the hypothesis must logically agree with all observed facts. It must also be understood that an explanation which works can still be wrong, and one which does not work is obviously wrong. So you must have an "alternate hypothesis" which includes all the possibilities the first one does not. In this way, you have created a situation in which all possibilities are summed up in two answers, only one of which can be correct. Now you must devise a means by which to test these and prove one or the other wrong [experiment]. When your experiment proves that one of these is impossible, it simultaneoulsy leaves the other as the only valid answer...even if vague and unsatisfying [ie "not hypothesis A"]. This result is the "theory", which can then be narrowed by dividing it into further testable hypotheses.

The Scientific Method is objective, in that the logic and methods used are universally accessible. The results do not HAVE to be repeated, although it is certainly prudent to do so at times. By using stated external methods and logic, anyone can repeat the process and arrive at an identical result. The "truths" may still be subject to interpretation as to their significance, but they will not change according to the experimenter's mood, religion, or a bad batch of 'shrooms. Other philosophies have at least some comparable methods, including application of logic, but none of them have a rigid system of testing and comparison with external observations. They can sometimes have tenets which clash harshly with the 'real world', while also having a system in place to explain such apparent clashes. Some such philosophies are religions, which have rigidly set at least some of their explanations for the universe, regardless of the presence of supporting evidence or absence of contradiction.

Science is used in a great many fields which themselves may not be entirely scientific, including religion; and there are many "soft" sciences, in which the basic assumptions may be complex or not be very testable. These are generally still science, at least at the point of hypothesis and testing. The further up the chain you go, the more nebulous it can become. One can scientifically date and test a possible tomb of Christ - but this would not ensure it was the right "Christ", nor that claims made in his name are accurate. It would only explain that which it tests. One can excavate such a tomb, date the materials, organize them stratigraphically, and provide a cultural context for them - but this would not ensure that prevailing anthropological views for that culture are true. Many of the problems of misused and misunderstood science arise from either exaggerating the significance of results, or undervaluing them. The context must be appreciated.

Science begins with facts. It offers explanations for those facts, purely in context of observations, logic, and real world processes. Scientific explanations are testable, because all of the component objects and processes are observable and measurable. If those components cannot be defined or measured, it ceases to be science. If the explanations contradict reality, it ceases to be science.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 491 (view)
 
Can culture advance without religion?
Posted: 5/10/2012 1:46:27 AM

^ It is posts like this that I enjoy reading, and thank you for your research.

Unfortunately, what it illustrates best though, is cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 53 (view)
 
Comet ELEnin is coming..aka Nibiru
Posted: 3/29/2012 7:51:09 PM
They're only silent because they're busy recalculating the next doomsday and working out excuses why they were wrong for the 45th time [each].
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 264 (view)
 
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 3/17/2012 1:11:02 PM

Now if they had brought the universe into existance
they would be bringing it into existance now.
and there would be more and more of it
and space would be filling up

Non sequitur. For an 'if-then' statement to be valid, your conclusion much actually be dependant on your assumption. In this case it absolutely isn't. What you have is juice powder and water - when you mix them, you have juice. You don't get any more though because what you needed to make it was used up in the process.


and for those that point to those virtual particle's that"just " appear
they also "just" disappear
so that means the universe could just disappear at anytime
and if it can just dis appear
than logically it could just appear

Another non sequitur. Virtual particles and matter aren't the same game. Note that the former are "virtual".


and if it was a one time thing the appearance of the universe
than it can't be demonstrated by experiment
and public demonstration and its not science

False. Many valid scientific proofs can be obtained indirectly, by demonstrating that all the parts necessary to create the whole, work in a suitable way. So "for A to be true, B through Z must all be true. Since B through Z ARE all true, A is a reasonable conclusion."


what Science really has to do
to prove the creation of the universe was natural
is to create a universe publicly ,
in an experiment

No. Such an experiment would only demonstrate a possible way of originating a universe. There would still be no 100% because one could still not observe the origin of our universe. While your experiment would add one more layer of security to the theory, the fact is that there are already many experiments which support the theory. The conclusions are the same and it's only a percentage point or two difference in confidence. Besides which, science doesn't prove ANYthing to be natural. Natural causes are an required assumption of all science. No unnatural causes have ever been demonstrated, and there's no reason to ever consider them a priori.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 259 (view)
 
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 3/16/2012 8:37:20 PM
Dark matter and dark energy are on average, not believed to be all that "mysterious" or "special". There is evidence [ie, side-effects such as too much or too little gravity in some places] that there is more energy or matter in some parts of the universe than we can detect at present. Because there is evidence these things exist, we identify them as matter and energy. Because we can't see what they are, we label them as "dark". Much of the "dark matter" is thought to simply be gaseous hydrogen which is diffuse enough to not block the telescopic view, but when it surrounds an entire galaxy and spills out into the void, it could be a LOT of mass added to the gravity of measurable things like stars and nebulae.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Von Daniken
Posted: 3/12/2012 10:16:01 PM
In Madagascar there are neolithic sites which are still used today.

Humans have only lived in Madagascar about 2000 years. It's perhaps a misnomer to call anything in Madagascar neolithic, given that the colonists who formed the various Malagasy tribes came from a mix of cultures [Sundan fishermen, Arab sailors, East African fishermen and cattle herders] which included bronze and iron. It's not surprising that such sites are still in use, since they're not that old and Madagascar has been "behind the times" and relatively remote for most of its recent history.

Your point, however, is valid. We can often gain new insights into puzzling things, by consulting with those who come from analagous but living cultures.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
How does science account for miracles?
Posted: 3/3/2012 8:36:46 PM
Science does not deal with "miracles". Science can only address specific, measurable and testable observations. For the specific case you use as an example, in the absence of any other evidence, there are multiple possibilities: most obviously, the original conclusion of "tumor" was in error. The cause of that error could be misreading of the MRI data, or problem with the machine or its recording devices. It could be that the "tumor" was in fact something else, which subsided or disappeared on its own or by normal body processes in the intervening period. The only SCIENTIFIC explanation possible would be one which examined the specific evidence involved - no such explanation is possible by way of an hypothetical discussion here because there just isn't anything useful to test in a scientific manner. That likely applies virtually across the board for "miracles". Scientifically speaking, they just don't happen, and classification of ANYTHING as miraculous is purely a layperson's conclusion, not a scientific one.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1252 (view)
 
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/1/2012 11:35:19 PM

no the aliens do not exist as probabilities as much as you might suggest they do. that we exist here is proof that they can exist there, where ever there is.

"can" exist is a far cry from "do" exist. "Can" is a probability, not a certainty.


It falls on the doubter to prove that this is impossible which they cannot do.

That is true, but only to the extent of proving the "possibility" impossible. Since the reality itself has not been shown, there is nothing else to be disproven. As they say, that which is asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.


That they can exist there and there is such a large number of there's for them to exist at untold billions of suns in millions of galaxys that to doubt their existanse is a form of madness and arrogance.

Again, this is at best probability, not certainty. "Doubt" is neither madness nor arrogance when there is neither evidence nor logic to support the claim. However, it might be both arrogant and mad to proclaim alien life "impossible" given what we know of the requirements of life. It is a far different thing to claim it "impossible" when it is only in fact "undemonstrated". All that I and most others are likely to say is that alien life is undemonstrated, and without demonstration, any claim of certainty is at least equally arrogant and mad as any claim of impossibility.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1249 (view)
 
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/1/2012 8:42:05 PM

so there are aliens i can not see as well, i can know they are there, because i am here.

Pardon me if I start by saying you need to work on your sentence structure a bit. It can be confusing to determine what you really mean . You seem to be suggesting that because you exist, so must aliens. That is a non-sequitur, as there is nothing about humans in general [and likely you specifically] which is dependant upon alien existence. On the other hand, what you have actually written is that because you exist it is possible for you to observe aliens [if they exist]. That much is true...but there's no evidence of them, so one can make no absolute conclusion on the matter.



You are just playing a game saying only the experience of something count for knowledge and that's not true.
"knowledge" which is not based on evidence is meaningless, as it cannot be verified. Just because some 'fantasies' have later been proven true does not mean that all will be and that one can automatically conclude that aliens are 'fact'. In fact; scientifically, because many fantasies have been proven FALSE, the assumption of any fantasy being true is automatically proven to be a false assumption. IE, a fantasy can only be assumed true if no fantasy has ever been falsified [scientific method 101]. As long as those foresights and predictions have not been confirmed, they are still just fantasies, not facts.


while my knowledge of aliens is an Idea, i know via Science, that it corresponds with reality out there. even though the correspondence is indefinite, that the aliens are real.

Science leads to no such conclusion. Science requires disproving alternatives in order to draw a conclusion. What has been disproven such that "aliens" are the only possible explanation?


Even if I haven't met them, I can be sure they exist.

Not through science.


a lot of people wont admit to the existence of any thing they haven't experienced but there are many things that may be experienced only through logical argument because we can have no direct experience of them.

In this case there's no such logical argument. See above, regarding disproof of alternatives. There are two possible proofs: direct evidence, such as an alien on your lawn; and indirect evidence. The indirect evidence doesn't have to involve direct observation, but it does require a logical argument that the available evidence cannot possibly be obtained except by the existence of aliens.


so that's a shame. and the aliens are real whether i believe they are or not it does not depend on my belief so let us put that to rest. and not just when i meet them.

Sooo...prove it. Either logically or through direct evidence. Otherwise, all we have are probabilities, all of which are derived from a large number of assumptions.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 110 (view)
 
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 2/24/2012 8:36:06 PM
Actually, science functions exclusively by proving things to be impossible.

In essence, the formulation of hypothesis and alternate hypothesis is this:
If A is true, then the following things (Y) will also be true.
If any other option, all combined as B, is true, then these things (Z) will be true.
If properly formulated, one and only one of these hypotheses will be correct. Therefore...
If (Y) is FALSE, then A is impossible and B must be true.
If (Z) is false, then B is impossible and A must be true.

Explanations are thus proven indirectly by proving that alternatives are impossible.

I think that some of the differences here, as compared with what Abelian is explaining [and I'm no physicist] come down to this:

With a growing and incomplete public familiarity with some concepts of relativity, there is widespread knowledge that forward time travel can be achieved by traveling at relativistic speeds. Consequently, there is an assumption that backward time travel can only be achieved by exceeding the speed of light, something which is apparently impossible for objects with mass.

HOWEVER, that assumption would seem to be false. Forward time travel is easy - we do it all the [hehe] time. Accelerating it isn't all that hard. But the fact that we can only envision one way to alter the rate at which we travel in time, does not mean it IS the only way. What I believe Abelian is pointing out is that the predominating view in physics now is that time is a cardinal dimension equal to the other three dimensions we perceive as "space". Those other three dimensions can be traveled at will both forward AND backward. Time progresses inexorably forward...but it also has two directions. The roadblock is not that time travel is impossible per se: it is that we freely travel three dimensions while only ever viewing the fourth as a one-way vector, and we can neither see nor imagine a way to reverse that. Which does not mean it's impossible. It's a limitation of imagination, not of possibility. You could rephrase that as "it's an imaginary impossibility" ;)
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 91 (view)
 
Are Caucasians decendents of Arabs ?
Posted: 2/21/2012 11:46:53 PM
There's nothing wrong with the numbers. All is not inherited equally. There is no shortage of ways to illustrate this.

The usual form is a particular gene variant or fragment which is unique to one species, being found in another. In sexual organisms, there are two sets of chromosomes, one provided by the father and the other by the mother. Which half of any particular chromosome pair will be recieved by an offspring is left to chance, which basically means that any given offspring has a 50/50 chance of inheriting one of these foreign genes. Only if they inherit it can they pass it on, and even then it's only an avergae of 1/2 the descendants who get it. As a consequence, such foreign markers can continue to exist in a population in very low numbers, often more commonly in certain regions or cultures. Paired chromosomes frequently "swap" genes and parts of genes, which means that each chromosome does not reflect a single ancestral line, but bits and pieces of many converging ones.

That still leaves millions of genes, all inherited from someone. For humans, 99% of those will be the same even if they came from H.erectus or H.neanderthalensis.

Other good examples are mtDNA, which is only inherited maternally and linearly. If one Neanderthal female was hybridized with one Cro Magnon, only her direct female descendants would carry Neanderthal mtDNA. All traces of her nuclear DNA could be erased from history by chance, as nDNA of the Cro Magnon population she joined slowly swamped it. Thus one small population of modern man with her direct female descendants could possess Hn-mtDNA while having purely Hs-nDNA (the latter being what defines them as modern humans).

Similarly, X-chromosomes are paternally inherited and can thus be lost entirely if no male survives to reproduce, or likewise last millenia when all else disappears. You can reverse these scenarios and get similar results, by switching the gender of the Neanderthal, or by switching whether it is the mitochondria or the nuclear genes which survive/become extinct.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
What Is The Difference Between A Philosophy, Science and Religion?
Posted: 2/19/2012 9:39:00 PM
That's not teaching. It's indoctrination. A student need not parrot the teacher, nor learn all that the teacher offers, in order to learn and be educated. All that is required is that she learn SOMEthing. The very fact that the vast majority of students learn from MANY teachers, not just one, means they will always be highly unlikely to be "brought into the same state or principle in which you are". More importantly, if all a student does is copy the teacher, then society as a whole does not progress, since no new information will be brought to light this way. Only by exceeding what has been taught by one teacher can progress be made.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 10 (view)
 
What Is The Difference Between A Philosophy, Science and Religion?
Posted: 2/19/2012 8:52:24 PM
"A" philosophy is a particular set of methodologies and assumptions made in order to answer greater questions or arrive at some form of universal "truths".

Science is a particular philosophy which attempts to arrive at cause and effect relationships for the natural world, by observing, testing, and ruling out explanations which are demonstrably impossible.

Religion is a body of beliefs held to be true regardless of objective evidence [though not necessesarily contrary to it], and associated practices. In these respects, religions are philosophies - provided one pays more than lip service to them.


From my understanding , a philosophy is an individual's personal system of ideals and beliefs. It is a compilation of what they believe at that particular moment in time. One's philosophy has give to it, meaning that it has the ability to transform and change as one's experience and wisdom guides the mind in a better and more perfected path.

A science from my comprehension is merely a study, a course of instruction in a particular area. Such as economic science or learning, domestic science or learning, ethical science or learning etc. Therefore a science is merely a field of study.

These would seem to be more or less valid definitions - just not the definitions implied by the original question and thread topic. The thread topic implies a comparison of broader and more inclusive definitions, not a comparison-by-specific-example. For instance, a science is not a science because it is a particular field of study, but because of the methodology applied to that study. It's only science if it proceeds to explanations by gradually eliminating the impossible.


Now religion, is where I have been taught a different meaning than most. From my instruction one's religion is merely their philosophy(personal system of beliefs)or ethics in action, or what they would desire if their personal philosophy and ethics were allowed to be in action, or alive.This is natural or wholesome religion.

I don't think this is correct. It sounds like a confabulation of faith (which is personal belief), and religion (which is an organized doctrine).


The situation today has turned philosophy, ethics, science, justice, education and religion into counterfeits who wrongly identify themselves with these natural names, and which are merely dangerous mafia business enterprises. In the un natural world, these words stand for perverted systems of unjustified punishment and obscene reward systems.

I don't think you have any idea [or substantiation] of what you're talking about.


Every crime imaginable is now done in the distorted names of philosophy, ethics, science, justice, education, science and religion,

Has something changed? This has ALWAYS been true. Ever heard of Emperor Nero? The Sheriff of Nottingham? MacBeth?


in the distorted names of philosophy, ethics, science, justice, education, science and religion, whose natural and wholesome applications are the opposite in meaning to what they have been identified with in this world.

"natural and wholesome" - completely subjective point of view.
philosophy and science - objective fields, especially the latter.
ethics - a very subjective field, but one with a fair amount of objective agreement
justice - presumably objective by definition, somewhat subjective in practice, and potentially highly subjective in some situations.
education - far too variable for me to be comfortable generalizing. In the secular West, I would generalize as objective. In religious circles, I would characterize it as some combination of objectivity and subjectivity. Very hit and miss.

All in all, none of these fields really have any relation to the characterization of "natural and wholesome". That characterization is no more appropriate [or inappropriate] now than in past. Subjective characterizations have no relevance to objective pursuits, while fields like ethics and justice should be immune to your characterizing if they are to be functional. That is, applying some arbitrary concept of natural wholesomeness to science, philosophy, ethics, or justice would have the effect of destroying what each of these pursuits is intended to achieve. You wish to be supreme censor for all that is "good". If education is supposed to lead to learning and increased awareness, knowledge, and understanding, then applying an arbitrary natural wholesomeness to education has the effect of stifling all of these goals. Oops - can't let you learn about THAT because it isn't wholesome.

Don't smoke the glue.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 85 (view)
 
Are Caucasians decendents of Arabs ?
Posted: 2/18/2012 8:43:52 PM

It wasnt a grand father it was a grand mother and yes she was African

It was both.

mtDNA doesn't trace evolution very well. It only mirrors a single matrilineal line of descent [as indicated in the quote provided], and does nothing to show gene exchange or male contribution of the host species. Keep in mind that mitochondria are, in essence, a separate organism, and they are asexual. Any evolution they experience is lost unless it ends up in a fertilized egg which develops into a breeding female. Any evolution of the host organism can take place in both sexes, and be recombined by way of sexual reproduction. Sometimes members of different species have a more recent female ancestor than members of the same species, simply because all members of a particular population descend from one foreign female. Sexual reproduction however, ensures that the "local" genes remain consistent.

Y chromosomes [in species which have it] can be used in a similar way to mtDNA, except to trace male-only descent. Another difference of this method is that it is nDNA, which DOES affect the traits of the species it belongs to and is relevant to evolution of that species.

In any case though, I would reiterate - this thread really need not have progressed past the first page. By definition, caucasians cannot descend from arabs, since the latter are a more recent and narrowly defined subset of the former. It's akin to asking if airplanes were created from Boeings.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 412 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 2/16/2012 12:21:26 AM
What I would LOVE to see is the rational argument or evidence in support of this:

O,k so what you are saying

and this:

is that this evolution thing is actually a religion

and this:

and it has some sort of religious bible

and this:

but instead of priests they call themselves scientists


I mean that. Really. Back it up. Dig the hole deeper.

With broader regard to the preceding arguments...
Humans ARE apes, by definition.
Humans did not descend from modern "apes", as that would be something of a logical impossibility. However, it is accurate to say that humans and other modern apes do share a common ancestor which was also a great ape but not a human.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 371 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 2/8/2012 1:31:40 AM
I've been delayed in replying to the last 5...er...9 pages of drivel, piece by piece. In the interim...


A video of a god would be quite convincing if you can manage it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/misterdeity/featured


Can you 2 link me to what you say is evidence of evolution?
I want to see what science claims are evolutionary facts.

Facts precede theories. Theories offer explanations as to the hows and whys of observed facts.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution [by natural selection] exists to explain how evolution occurs. The theory does NOT propose that evolution occurs - that part was already a fact known long before Darwin. The theory does not need evidence to support it, since theories are not proposed unless the evidence exists in the first place.

The number of facts available in accord with the theory of evolution probably exceed the space already consumed in these fora. Just which ones would you care to be pointed to? Could I suggest any number of entire journals with the words "evolution" or "evolutionary" in the title? Also try any journal title containing terms like "taxonomy/taxonomic", "phylogeny/phylogenetic", "systematic", "molecular", "genetic", or any of the great many titles containing organism names [Salamandra, Mertensiella, Lacerta, Primatologica, Journal of Herpetology, Alytes, Russian Journal of Zoology, Sichuan Journal of Zoology, Zoological Science, Australian Journal of Zoology, Northwestern Journal of Zoology, Zootaxa, etc. ad nauseum]. Virtually every journal in the life sciences, of the hundreds or thousands which exist, is evolution-based, since science operates on the basis of logic and evidence and evolution is one of the most logical and evidence-supported concepts in the biological sciences.

Evolution is inheritance with change. If you think this happens, you have accepted the fact of evolution.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
unknown elements
Posted: 1/11/2012 10:57:39 PM


Photo-spectrum analysis has proven that there are no other elements in the universe other than the ones on our periodic table.


While this is true,

As worded, it's a logical impossibility. You cannot use lack of evidence as proof for non-existence.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 212 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 1/1/2012 11:31:11 AM
And yet all cattle are clearly not the same, and none of them would exist at all if they did not change with respect to their extinct auroch ancestors.

How is it you can form an opinion on a subject you clearly know nothing about, especially when the evidence is literally right in front of you? Selective breeding depends on evolution. There would be no farming of any sort without it, as all our domestic animals and plants evolved from wild ancestors with the help of human selection.


I raise cattle, and so on down to my great, great grandson and so on who wil be raising what? More cattle.

That suggests to me that you live and advocate a highly blinkered life. See nothing beyond your preconceived boundaries. You've even preconceived those boundaries for people who haven't been born yet.


There will be no point in future generations of breeding and raising cattle, will eventually produce a monkey.

Probably not, but you're commiting the fallacy of misrepresenting the argument, a strawman. The most primitive primates are most similar to insectivores. For hooved animals, it's easier to look in reverse - the predominance of evidence, genetic and fossil, identifies whales as essentially carnivorous marine pigs, which are odd-hooved animals like llamas and cattle. For odd-hooved herbivores, they sure don't look like odd-hooved herbivores. Not coincidentally, the oldest fossil artiodactyls aren't much different from the oldest fossil carnivores. Go back just a little further, and their ancestors are most like insectivores.

By analogy, you're suggesting it's impossible because you're comparing an M-1 Abrams with a Smart Car. You can't get one from the other, but you CAN get them both from a Model-T. It's a case of building on previous infrastructure, not reworking current infrastructure.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
unknown elements
Posted: 12/13/2011 1:25:16 AM
While it is possible that elements exist which are not found here naturally, it's not especially likely. Elements which haven't been documented are all relatively massive. The "periodic table" includes all possible elements, and it tops out with those which are most massive, least stable, and which are mainly known only from being created by us. Above those, I think there's a considerable gap before another stable [and very massive] element is possible, which makes it rather unlikely such things exist naturally.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 213 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/13/2011 1:05:16 AM
"Believing" in climate change is as simple as observing...the changes, and continuing trends of those changes. It shouldn't take the slightest bit of genius to call a spade a spade, but I gather you need help.


"lots of pictures" I'm sure pics are quite useful for the reading impaired.

Exactly. Since you clearly haven't read anything that presents the facts, I figured pictures might help.


Global warming morphed to climate change; what are you calling it next week?

They're the same thing, but "climate change" is a concession to the simpletons who thing that "global warming" means "everywhere is warmer all the time".


Burned off an acre of brush today; shot 2 Whitetail deer, second a running shot.
Processing meat tomorrow. Tomorrow night I might spotlight and shoot coyotes using the offal as bait. Disc'ed up 4 acres with my diesel tractor on brother's little place in country 2 weeks ago. I eat what I harvest, what I grow in my garden. Next weekend
I'm going to a friend's to watch him do smoky burnouts in a nitromethane burning
dragster as the exhaust stench waters my eyes and the smoke blots out the sun. Come on over and I'll let you shoot a full automatic. Barbaric,huh?

Are we to conclude that you live somewhere that produces a great portion of the global atmospheric pollution, refuses to commit to do anything about it, and where the common mantra is "oh my poor economy can't handle the crunch while those rich Somalis choke the sky with their campfires"?


Anybody remember Eugenics? Or Time magazines next ice age?
Junk "science" from the past

Relevance? Any?
The first was a fringe idea backed largely by people who were NOT scientists.
The second wasn't more than a handful [one?] of speculative papers which, as you note, only gained notoriety from a magazine cover.
Global warming is a subject of research encompassing thousands of scientists in many related fields of study. There are vast amounts of data which demonstrate a) decades of steady global warming, and b) a strong human connection to that trend. If that's your idea of "junk science", best get off your computer, put away your tractor, and throw away your gun, because the junk science which created them clearly doesn't work.

Really believe in climate change, do you walk?stopped using all but self power? Stopped using manufactured products?

Recognizing that it's happening is quite a different thing than doing something about it. Is there some kind of rational point you're trying to make here? It'd be a first, though I don't see it coming.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 209 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:41:01 PM
When you're done reiterating the fallacies and failing to get the picture, perhaps you could review the facts too. Start with the NASA link already provided, since it has lots of pictures, you should be able to review the facts, without resorting to the last resort of a failed ideology - argumentum ad hominem.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 204 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 7:03:02 PM

There is no flat spot in that study during those times, or the study referenced. So NASA has essentially said the data is wrong.

So there are disagreements in the data

Read more carefully and look at both graphs more closely. Nowhere does NASA [or anyone else] say that the data are wrong. Those graphs show the same data, at least in part, just on different scales. The "flat" spot is the near constant rate of increase seen at the right end of the graph provided in post 1. It's not visible in the graph you provide because the temperature scale is finer and the number of years is fewer. The graph shows a more or less steady increase, compared to previous decades, beginning about 1970.

What they indicate is that the satellite data are accurate, and that models to that point didn't agree well with actual numbers. The data which disagree are two different types of measurements - surface, and lower atmosphere. Earlier models suggested that the two sets should basically be identical. Beyond that assumption being proven wrong by satellite data; it seems a naive assumption to begin with, because the atmosphere moves and mixes a lot, the water much less so, and the land not at all.

Unlike the surface-based temperatures
So surface temperatures are going up. Significantly.
global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere ... The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.
While the lower atmosphere cools *slightly*, because it circulates and thus does not itself retain heat as well.
The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño
Of course. Our contribution is essentially a constant acceleration. Volcanic contributions are random, ocean cycles are periodic. Such natural events are detectable, and do not and should not cause anything other than a deviation from a background norm. That background "norm" is now one of steady change which is strongly correlated with human contributions to the process.
So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity
If taken out of context, as this is, this is both true and highly misleading. Those *older* models incorrectly predicted warming of the lower atmosphere. But that's because the atmosphere isn't warming, while the surface IS, and the models linked the two incorrectly.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 195 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 12:47:00 AM

hopefully i have put to rest the lie at least with this community.

With information which is neither substantiated, nor remotely accurate? I actually laughed when I read this!

The WARMEST global average temperature since the Cambrian, WAS the Cambrian...at about 8C. My mental math puts that at about...47F, about 63F cooler at the hottest time than your pulled-from-your-own-nether-regions "110 f".

I would estimate the approximate median temperature to be about 4C, or 40F, since the Cambrian, and 0C or 32F since the Pliocene.

Maybe you were rounding up? "New math"? Doing funky things with decimal points? Reading the numbers upside down with a magnifying glass and a mirror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
distance between points
Posted: 12/3/2011 6:06:22 PM
It's a non sequitur, a flaw in reasoning. Your ability to measure the distance bewteen two points has no bearing on whether those points exist. Obviously if one point or the other does not exist, you cannot measure the distance, but the reverse does not necessarily hold true.

An additional flaw is that, in order to even TRY to measure, you have to define the two points you're measuring between. You have to know where you're going before you can try to get there, regardless of whether you have the means to go.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 236 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 12/3/2011 4:44:35 PM

Which amounts to not much knowledge at all really.

Exactly the point. Specific knowledge isn't required to determine what evidence is available and what the quality of that evidence is.



is that it is totally inhabitable now

Uninhabitable, you mean?



They thrived there for a time because the environment allowed it but had to move on because of the severe change which occurred.

I noticed this aspect, and it's something in common with many other [and more recent] sites and cultures. Two factors would be at play, one not mentioned by what I read. The first is that the structure was built [and buried] at a time which was far closer to glacial recession than to now. Hot and arid would likely be the normal state of affairs for the region, and it was only temporarily cooler and wetter. The factor which was mentioned though, is that this area is right where wheat [and other species] was first domesticated and extensively settled and cropped. Thus, growth of agriculture and human population wiped out the larger natural ecosystems of the area and ultimately contributed to a crash in the human use of the region as well.

Pumapunka is an intriguing site. I was aware of it decades ago, though as "Tihuanaco". I think native Americans have been grossly underestimated. They arrived from Asia at various points in the "stone age", and thereafter developed their cultures and technologies more or less in isolation from the rest of the world. I've often wondered what might have happened if Europeans [or Asians] hadn't ventured across the oceans to forever alter things here. In many places where climates were decent and food abundant, people thrived, developing their art, technology, crops, and cities. Potatos, maize, squash, beans, quinoa, tomatos, llamas, alpacas, and guinea pigs were all domesticated in isolation of other cultures. At Tiwanako, they apparently also reached a bronze age technology, being able to create copper-nickel alloy and cast tools from it. Smelting and metal-casting would have given them HUGE advantages, such as purpose made parts and tools. Any technology though, requires a population, materials, and knowledge-base to sustain it. If that technology was confined to that one city-culture, which crashed due to drought or some other cause...*poof* It's a fascinating site. I suspect that excavation of the many still-buried parts will yield a lot of answers in the form of engraved histories, worn out tools, and the actual sites of forging.


An interesting site was brought up, the oldest known religious site in the world and you note nothing interesting about it in regards to this topic? If you don't know anything about the site or haven't spent time studying it then just don't comment.

Maybe you could read the very first post, and thereby get my point. While the site is interesting, it really doesn't hold much relevance to this thread, which isn't simply about "megalithic construction" in general. Whether it was a religious site is also not relevant. This thread is about explaining how SOME such sites were constructed, in light of complex or precise structures and a shortage of evidence as to methods. This particular site is not complex or precise, not vaguely as large as others, the tools are known, and the methods required are relatively simple.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 234 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 12/3/2011 4:18:02 PM

(not that I agree with that notion either)

After however many pages have been posted, it's quite possible we've lost track of the actual topic. When I refer to the context of the thread, I mean there's nothing about this particular site to suggest a need for remarkable skills or tools, something which is commonly suggested here for other structures.


Personally I like to research a little longer than five minutes before I come to any conclusions, which generally requires more than one source.

To each their own I suppose?

I tend to agree, though it depends on the nature of what you're looking at. Lengthy study isn't required to obtain facts or evaluate quality of evidence. My point was that it took almost no time or experience to get to facts from primary sources [plural], which contradicted information from elsewhere. While my source was secondary or tertiary, it cited properly, making it easy to go back and check what the people who got their hands dirty actually had to say on the matter. A month or a year of study won't erase facts uncovered in a moment, and the people best qualified to speak on the evidence present would be those involved in its discovery.

Now if you want to get a fuller understanding, including the many theoretical aspects, that does in fact require a whole lot more study and many more sources [when possible]. Sources which exclude key evidence may not be especially credible though.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 231 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 12/3/2011 3:49:16 PM
Your source could be older, but it seems more likely to me that they were practising a No True Scotsman fallacy - no tools of the types they wanted to mention, from the precise areas they wanted to see them, therefore "no tools".

Excavation began in 1994, tools were reported in 2000 in A preliminary Report on the 1995–1999 Excavations, which was one of the very first publications about the site. It would be pretty hard for a source to be old enough to exclude some of the earliest evidence, unless it was deliberate or sloppy.

I have no background experience or previous information on this site. Five minutes [total] with a critical eye and Google.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 229 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 12/3/2011 3:11:27 PM
Wikipedia, with the entry being heavily sourced from primary and secondary archaeological literature:

The limestone slabs were quarried from bedrock pits located around 100 meters (330 ft) from the hilltop, with neolithic workers using flint points to carve the bedrock.[8] The majority of flint tools found at the site are Byblos and Nemrik points.


The site was deliberately backfilled sometime after 8000 BC: the buildings are covered with debris, mostly flint gravel, stone tools, and animal bones, which must have been brought from elsewhere.[20] The lithic inventory is characterised by Byblos points and numerous Nemrik-points. There are Helwan-points and Aswad-points as well


Instead, each enclosure was deliberately buried under as much as 300 to 500 cubic meters (390 to 650 cu yd) of debris consisting mainly of small limestone fragments, stone vessels, and stone tools; many animal, even human bones, are also found in the burial refuse.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 189 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/3/2011 2:59:08 PM

and then policed by UN forces (which is the full proposal) is effective world governance and also a means by which to invade any country under the guise of non compliance rather than having to go to all the trouble of inventing imaginary WMDs again

Nonsense. That's apparently the job of the USA already, although the USSR, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, and others have all played heavily in that role at some time.

"Obama? Hey, this is Mikhail over at the UN. Good, good, thanks, and you? Great to hear! Listen, we've got some polluters we need to reign in. Yes, that's right. So you can provide army AND air force support? That's wonderful. We'll have to start with Texas, New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Well yes, it might be a good idea to go to Maine for a while... No, no, you won't have to help with China. We have Chinese and Dutch troops lined up to take care of THAT problem. No, India has it's own problems, and China was the only one with a large enough army to deal with...um...China..."
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 227 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 12/3/2011 2:44:45 PM
I don't think it was mentioned. In the context of this thread though, it's rather unremarkable. The quarry and the stone tools to cut the rocks are essentially on the site.

What IS of note though, is the fact that there are no carvings of advanced technology, and the only tools are stone. In addition, for the period in which it was made, there's no evidence of domesticated wheat or use of the wheel. This is later than some would have us believe the pyramids were built [by advanced tools and cultures]. If such advanced tools and cultures existed, how did their existence go unrecognized by stone age cultures not so far away? Note that Greek, Roman, Mongol, Egyptian, and various other empires made their presence well-known over many hundreds of miles of distance over land, yet a culture reputedly 'more' advanced left no lasting presence anywhere.

An advanced culture arises, creates works out of natural materials which are remarkable but not impossible for bronze or stone age cultures, and then vanishes without leaving a trace of their existence. Byzantine or Aryan fables of magical flying chariots notwithstanding - bronze age sites which lack anything more advanced than bronze age artifacts, stone age sites which lack anything more advanced than stone age artifacts, and no records which point unequivocally to a culture, place, and specific technologies for which there is any physical evidence. The best that can be done in that respect are the Minoans, and while remarkable, nothing they left would be compatible with IBM or Sikorsky.

I've seen it argued that a prehistoric culture waged a great nuclear war. Ok...let's run with that. So they bombed a city which was built of wood and MUD! And strangely, there's still wood and mud to excavate, but no steel, rubber, plastic, silicon. Obviously they knew how to make an atomic bomb. Precisely how did they identify the materials required or how much was needed, or even that they would DO what was wanted? How and where did they mine it? How and where did they refine it? How and where did they make the tools and equipment needed to mine and refine? They did all this, and all that's left is mud, rocks, and wood. What a house of cards. There's a chain of knowledge, training, technology, and science required to reach the status of such an 'advanced' culture, but there's NONE of this in evidence. How do you extrapolate stone, brick, and plant material to high technology, when there isn't even evidence of agriculture?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 188 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/28/2011 2:50:21 AM

That is actually not true.

In point of fact, you just verified that it IS. You said it was "biblical". It isn't:

derive that age from the calculations that an English clergyman made

In other words, that number is not biblical, in that it is not mentioned by the Bible. Instead it is based on assumed lifespans, complete genealogies, etc. The number is fabricated by believers attempting to make scripture conform to their version of reality. It's no more biblical than the most recent fanciful end of world prophecies.


That is what I wrote (that the galaxy must at min. be 100k years old), so what's your point?

I'm agreeing with you, just highlighting the fact that it is necessarily much older than your minimum. You said it must have taken that long to form. More truthfully, it was already formed and it just took that long to see it in that state, which logically leads to a vastly greater age.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 185 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:03:29 PM

With these very relevant and apparently proven numbers regarding the size of the Universe would somebody please explain to me why children and adults still long for food, education and medical care?

Because evolution doesn't give a damn about the dead, and there are no loving gods.


This alone already proves the biblical claim of the Universe's age being 5600-6000 years to be patently false!

While derived from the Bible, that's not actually a biblical claim. It has more in common with the many unfulfilled end-times prophecies - wishful interpretation.


Not to mention that a galaxy of that size must have taken at least that long to form, once again proving scripture to be wrong.

True, but I would point out that the galaxy would ALREADY be formed that long ago, or we would not see it in that form.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 181 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/27/2011 9:32:43 PM

So i'm asuming that you are taking a biased approach.

Oh, the irony.

The bias of evidence, as opposed to the bias of...having none?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 178 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/27/2011 6:04:24 PM

Sounds interesting but then looking at fossil records there's has never [to my knowledge ]any indication of any fossil that was in a state of evolution.

Argumentum ad nauseum
This has been discussed and soundly refuted many times here and elsewhere. All organisms are "in a state of evolution". On average, all individuals have about 100 mutational differences from their parents - features which do NOT exist in either of their parents.

Should be millions to every one perfect fossil we find ,that's "totally" adapted to there invirment. But the fact is that EVERY fossil we find seemed to have been perfectly adapted to the envirment.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. I challenge you to explain what you're saying. It would be a good idea to figure out and understand it yourself first.

Every organism is NOT "totally adapted", nor "perfectly adapted". There is considerable variation in every species. Those which occupy 'fringe' habitats are not well-adapted to those habitats, but any features which crop up in their descendants can improve that adaptation. That's evolution. There's abundant evidence of it everywhere.

This is why ID and creationism have no place in a science classroom. They're irrational and totally unsupported beliefs, whereas evolution is a fact which has been observed and manipulated for millenia. It's only a written theory which applies known facts as an explanation for historical evidence, which is new.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 177 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:51:36 PM

if you started out with nothing well : evolution x nothing= nothing now God x everything - all things.

Logic and critical thinking should be taught in grade school. You would benefit from such teaching. Rather than rip apart the [many faults of the] statement above, I'll just point out the glaringly obvious: "nothing" and "everything" are NOT mutually exclusive terms, which makes the statement a false dichotomy fallacy. The third option is any variant of "something". Here's another: A x 0 = 0. God x 0 = 0. Evolution x 1 = everything.


make sense of course unless you think that evolution had to start something in order for it to evolve

NO-ONE thinks this.

Creationists think evolution doesn't happen at all, or they impose arbitrary [and false] limits on it.
The rational think that evolution is exactly what it is defined as. Evolution does not "start something". Evolution is how life changes. Life must exist first, in any form, before evolution can occur.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 166 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 9:55:49 PM
I reiterate: please actually READ. Here's a more complete quote:

Heres what the IPCC document for policymakers special report into extreme weather says

Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of GDP are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to 2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries.” (SREX SPM, pp. 5–6

Yet page 11 of this study says the complete opposite as do other studies on the same topic

http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf

So how come such disparity in something thats claimed to be "science"?


Look at the details. The IPCC document you quote compares developing to developed countries. The other does not, and consequently does NOT say the complete opposite. It makes no comparison of the two at all.


As for Co2 dissipation, from a concentrated source it can take upto 2 years to dissipate equally.

And? If so, it really doesn't matter, because it DOES disperse, but it does NOT cease to exist. As a result, the local concentration may increase somewhat or remain steady, but the global concentration continues to grow. Otherwise, all animal life in urban areas would cease to exist as it suffocated in the ever-growing amount of CO and CO2 going nowhere.


but the pacific is also one of the worlds largest heat vents too,

A measurable and relatively small and constant source. Not a source which is continually expanding while also destroying the means to counteract it.


So to get a "scarier" average land based areas are going to be more significant than the same area of a sea as that would tend to pull the average down, whereas an area like the US would be more likely to pull it in the direction needed which was the main gist of my "more significant/relevant" comment

Nope. Because water absorbs and retains heat better, while land areas tend to reflect more and retain less. With water being the majority of Earth's surface and gas dispersal being global and increasing in concentration, the oceans end up being the place where the majority of heat is trapped. Remember too that "heat" doesn't necessarily arrive as heat. Many wavelengths from the sun pass right through the atmosphere, and don't generate heat until they reach the surface, at which point some energy is absorbed and some is released in infrared wavelengths - which ARE trapped by gases.


but is based on the inability of the IPCC and other organisations to be able to acurately define without cherry picking data,

A phrase you should be familiar with and perhaps pass along to your sources: Physician, heal thyself.


Which cant be done until the full interaction and effet of ALL climate drivers and CO2 influences are known

Argumentum ad ignorantium.


as well as also factoring in any positives that might result from warming such as increased plant growth etc as many plants have been found to flourish in higher levels of CO2 and warmer climates rather than suffer so its not even all doom and gloom

The "breadbaskets" of the world tend to be vast expanses of arid grasslands. The expected consequences of climate change are conversion of much of this to desert, along with decline of water sources fed into these areas. Think "dirty 30's", and note that prairie water sources are in steady decline NOW. The same is happening in central Asia and in northern Africa. The Sahel is shrinking while the Sahara expands, and the Sahara itself was largely savanna within human history. This bit about improved plant growth is a fallacy which conveniently excludes a lot of factors in order to deliberately deceive people. Do you recall posting something about a 'little truth making the bigger lie easier to believe"?


Because until that precise effect on temperature due to just the man made component is known any extreme forms of global taxation would be remiss and needlessly catastrophic

Argumentum ad metum. Conspiracy theory. Argumentum ad ignorantium.
How do taxes on Americans [the country whose investment system brought you global recession] prove to be "catastrophic", when so many other countries already pay much more without facing anything approaching catastrophe?

Not that I advocate more taxation - far from it! We pay tax on gasoline twice so far, and some places it's three times, but for some reason another tax is needed to offset the polluting effects of that fuel? Why not use the FIRST tax for that purpose!

I just don't see taxation as being so heinous, although I DO see the argument as being an irrational and single-sided scare tactic.


In the meantime though theres plenty of other things that could be being done which wouldnt have such a wide reaching negative impact or one that would only affect the poor

Seriously? You know why some rich countries won't agree to DO anything? Because the agreements tend to favor poor countries, who want to get ahead, while the rich countries [and their citizens] complain about the economic impact they might face.

That is, the first world [USA in particular] doesn't want to do anything because it has to pay a higher price than those who truly can't afford to pay more. Those who got rich on the backs of the poor wish to maintain the status quo, while the poor want the same chance to get ahead. Globally poor, globally rich. Not East LA versus Manhattan.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 191 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 11/20/2011 8:02:34 PM
Aliens and lost technological civilizations are not plausible, since there's no evidence that either has ever existed, much less contributed anything.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 164 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/20/2011 6:37:43 PM

Yet page 11 of this study says the complete opposite as do other studies on the same topic

http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pd


If this is the quality of your research and reading ability, it's no wonder we're not getting through to you. Your above statement is FALSE. Read again. I can find NOTHING in the paper you provided which refutes the previous statement you provided. All of the [very few] examples provided, regarding weather- and climate- related deaths, are first world countries (including Cyprus, Brasil, United States, Australia, and a couple of others). The only third world examples were for earthquakes, which are not climate or weather-related. There is in fact zero information provided which compares third world and first world climate and weather death rates.

You're not actually READING your sources.


As for global warming causing more "extreme weather" the incidences of hurricanes has been observed to have decreased by as much as nearly 2 thirds in the southern hemisphere and a similar lack of predicted increases in the northern hemisphere

No-one is hitching their carriage to this pony. The one paper I have read documented an increase in hurricanes, BUT it also noted that a previously lower-than-average rate of hurricanes made it difficult to draw correlations to climate with any certainty. You're tilting at windmills on this one, since thus far it is an hypothesis which lacks enough evidence to test.


And its not "irrelevant" what a "small piece of the planet" does at all

Each small bit of the planet contributes towards the whole. And as people pretty much only live on land then man made influences would be far more observable there than in the rest of the world

Non sequitur. The conclusion does not logically follow from the observation. Most of the planet's surface is water. Water absorbs and retains heat far better than land does. Carbon dioxide [and other gases] produced on land does not remain over land, but is distributed globally in the atmosphere. So the pollution takes place on land, traps heat mainly over/in water, and the heated water alters weather patterns to produce systems which will make some areas of land warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier. You can't use a minority piece of land as a benchmark for global influences - only for its specific contribution to those influences.


Infact I would have thought the KWH output of populated areas istself SHOULD be scrutinised far more than it actually is because the more heat generated the warmer the globe would be even without any increases in CO2 at all

The actual heat can be, but it isn't all that much.

By comparison, I'll refer to earlier concerns regarding the sun. The heat energy provided by the sun can be directly measured, as can the heating effects of that energy on bodies without atmospheres. The dark and light sides of the moon can be compared, as can the dark side of Mercury. The moon should be a very good comparison in terms of energy per surface area, with and without sunlight. However much the Earth deviates from that can be attributed to albedo and atmospheric insulation. Albedo should be simple to measure, especially in the age of satellites - what energy impacts directly from the sun, and what reflects back from the Earth? The insulating properties are also easily measured, and this has been done for each of the suspect gases.

The difference between sun heating and no-sun is huge, and by comparison the heat produced by man is infinitesimal. Yes, we have urban heat islands, but these are localized and partly result from pollution and other local trapping effects. The pollutants are concentrated locally, but disperse and steadily rise globally. The heat concentrates locally, but dissipates locally.



That you quite simply CANT model a system when you dont have the faintest idea how most of the major drivers in that system actually work or interact with each other

Claiming you can is quite literally unscientific (lies in other words)

And yet meteorologists do so, scientifically, all day every day wth a fair amount of reliability. The difference is that for the scale they are working with [days, regionally], there is considerably less variation to factor in. I would say that it's not so much a question of understanding how the factors work or interact, but rather that where climate change is concerned, there is so much data involved that little deviations are magnified until the models are overwhelmed by the error rates.

Weather forecasts are revised day to day and even throughout a single day, to adjust for the actual details of the various changing factors which produce the weather. Climate models are constantly revised with new historical data as well, but those data are always incomplete. Last years model didn't account for this year's 40000 square miles of burnt rainforest, the popularity of the new GasGuzzler 5000XT, expanded output of all the coal power plants in Commustan, or destruction wrought by an unscheduled earthquake, tsunami, and associated destruction.

2x2x2x2x2x2 = 64
more data, but assuming no variation from current average factors:
2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=512
more data, more variation of the data:
2x1x2x2x1x2x2x3x1=96
more data, different variation of the data:
2x3x3x2x1x3x2x2x2=864

That's the essence of climate modeling - the farther ahead you predict, the greater the error. However, even the optimistic [reduced value of more factors] model above produces a worse [higher product] result than current status quo. In climate and weather forecasting, any rising factor will be greater than 1, whether it be global temperature, solar output, CO2 concentration, etc. The gist is that enough of the factors ARE greater than 1 to lead to a rising product, and we can't even get those factors to stop rising, much less drop!

Meanwhile, there's a never-ending stream of half-educated crying about their freedom to pollute and the oppression of taxation. Crying so much that they would rather attempt to fallacy-away the facts than take any kind of personal responsibility for them. That's the ongoing global issue - the longstanding polluters don't want to be first to pay the piper, and the third world doesn't want to be forcibly kept poor [by the rich first world] by adhering to standards that the rest didn't have to follow when THEY got ahead.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 183 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 11/18/2011 9:08:44 AM
In science, evidence leads to hypotheses and theories that accord with that evidence. Evidence PRECEDES theory. Successful theories only lead to ADDITIONAL evidence.

Some of the aforementioned ideas [vernacular "theories"], like aliens and lost civilizations, lack any supporting evidence. They're not useful ideas if there's no evidence that any such culture ever existed, and no evidence that such a culture is required. Regarding the latter, a 15000 year-old motherboard would do; massive stone blocks do not, because while difficult, their manufacture and use is well within the means of known cultures.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 149 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/13/2011 1:30:57 AM
Atheism is irrelevant and has nothing to say regarding the origin of the universe. Atheism is a philosophy regarding the existence of deities. Black holes do not equal deities.


it is an unjustified assumption

It's fully justified by the fact that we do not see matter or energy vanishing or appearing, except by the calculable conversion of one to the other.


the doctrine that the energy of the universe has been here forvever is untestable and unscientific

It's the only 'doctrine' which is consistant with the evidence, and in that sense is scientific.


even if there was time before timeyou could never go through it all that not only can you not test even if you could you could not test all past eternity

Are you suggesting that we ignore everything in the past and not pursue explanations? That IS a natural consequence of your argument, since in point of fact we cannot travel back to five minutes ago to confirm anything. I also have to wonder if you have any ALTERNATE explanations? You know, the kind which are supported by evidence and which we can travel back in time to confirm? Oh...and which also do not demand further and more intricate explanations [like impossibly complex deities required to create a universe of simple particles bound by simple and consistant rules].
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 156 (view)
 
megalithic construction
Posted: 11/5/2011 4:04:29 PM

Personally, I do not believe the Egyptians built them at all. I do not think they were or are smart enough, skilled enough, or driven enough to have gotten that type of project done.

I don't think there's any evidence to support this.


I think the likeliest scenario is that they simply discovered them and with a little spit and polish they cleaned them up and claimed them.

This is something of an oxymoron. Since there's no evidence of anyone ELSE building them, the ONLY available scenario is the one for which there is evidence. Without evidence, the liklihood of any other explanation is pretty close to nil. There is abundant evidence that peoples of the time, including Egyptians, had a great many skills for creating objects and building structures. Look into the many amazing things created millenia ago by Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Han, etc. Many would be considered ingenious even today, and required nothing more than skilled craftsmen with a love for tinkering. We are lucky to have extensive records for Aristotle and others. We also know we have lost some specific records possibly forever [ancient references to other authors and works, for which no copies exist], and who knows what has been lost for which there are no records.

There's been much discussion of why pyramids were built the way they were, and why so many cultures had 'similar' structures. The obvious hasn't been mentioned yet, though I don't suppose I'm surprised. Pyramids are pyramidal - they're very simple and very stable. That's also pretty much where the cross-cultural similarities end. Apart from being pyramidal, they have nothing truly in common. Any large structure would have religious and state importance, since state and religion generally go hand in hand and only those two entities have the wealth and power to build large structures like these. The Egyptians made their pyramids smooth regular structures with polished surfaces on the outside. The Khmer made intricately carved structures [in cities, rather than lone structures]. The Maya made multiple large stepped pyramids as focal points within their cities, with detailed histories carved into the stones. Not much in common at all.

Then there's motivation: Hey guys, let's build a giant tomb. We should finish up in about a hundred years. I'll be dead by then, but just bury me in that little tomb down the road and give the new shiny one to the next guy.

Yeah, right.

There's a series of pyramids of decreasing age, increasing size, and increasing quality, each associated specifically with a different king. No-one would want to be associated with anything but the newest and best, and I doubt whether even the priests who remained after the death of a pharaoh would see it differently. Let's labor all these years, and when the king dies, commemorate him with an older building rather than the one he commanded built? Likewise, the fact that the pyramids improve and enlarge as time passes shows that they were not sudden miraculous creations - there were a great many years of work and improving skills put into them, regardless of who those builders were.

Regarding correct translation: You can't judge ancient writings by modern users reputedly using the same system - the usages change considerably across the millenia. Even today, Latin is really only spoken by members of the Catholic church [and has specifically been preserved for that use, although the lack of common use has also limited change]. In all other places where it USED to be spoken, it has evolved into Romansh, Catalan, Castilian, Provencal, Frankish, Portugese, Italian, and others. More importantly though, for ancient Egypt, the Rosetta Stone exists, including three languages together and including hieroglyphics and ancient Greek. The latter provides a lengthy history of usage which allows easy correction and proper translation of the hieroglyphs. Similar objects have been found for Sumer and the Maya. For Sumerian, there are actual ancient multi-language dictionaries created by people who used those languages when they were extant [notably, Sitchin makes up his own translations which contradict usages provided by the people who used the language]. The Mayan discovery was fairly recent and groundbreaking.


I mean come on gwen. Can you really imagine that a society of people designed and built the most advanced structures of that era and yet did not have the pride within them to pass along that knowledge?

Don't confuse "big" with "advanced". The biggest brag for the Great Pyramid is a massive shining man-made mountain visible for miles across the desert, and of course the association of one pharoah's name with it. It's little more than a refined, larger version of structures they'd been building for ages. The skills involved were not that remarkable. It's the amount of work and the sheer size which are notable. Far more 'advanced' structures were built in antiquity, with no good record of the details for the achievement [the Pharos lighthouse], while there are excellent records of things which may never have been built.

FYI, the vast majority of the stone used for the Great Pyramid is limestone. Granite makes up only a tiny fraction of it.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 148 (view)
 
Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 11/5/2011 2:31:35 PM
One key aspect which must be achieved for an hypothesis to be accepted as a theory, is that alternate hypotheses must be proven wrong. That is, "impossible". This requires defining two hypotheses so that they are mutually exclusive - each one includes all possibilities which do not fit the other. It's not unusual that this isn't the case. One can be "sloppy" and simply not account for things which are intuitively not worth considering. One can also exclude options which are demonstrably false based on outside theories. If a street sign has been knocked over, it's POSSIBLE an airplane did it, but so unlikely it's not worth considering. It's possible that someone running by at light speed did it, but other theories show that running at light speed is impossible, so that's not worth considering either.


then its safe to say we actually don't know what occured at the big bang (or even if it occured)

Evidence shows that the universe is expanding, ergo it is impossible that the universe is static. The Big Bang is simply the model that results if you rewind the observed expansion as far as it can go. While not an absolute, it's fairly safe to conclude at least that it happened. As for the details of what happened - that's too many additional theories in physics which are far beyond my knowledge. Based on studies of cosmology and quantum physics, it's conceivable that we have fairly solid understanding of the whats and hows of the Big Bang - I'm just not competent to discuss them one way or another.

This means it's not definite.

What it means is that false alternatives are ruled out, and the 'correct' explanations are open to revision and improvement. That's a far cry from what is implied in your statement.

Ibelieve the people who actually derived these theories or quantified the various laws are more qualified to define a theory than you

While perhaps valid for specific theories, the fact is that ANYone can devise a theory in a fairly rigid manner, and anyone can be quite capable of discussing what is or is not a valid theory. I've seen many flawed theories and hypotheses from people having far more 'experience' than I. There are millions of scientists, all of whom must understand how to hypothesize and develop theories. All are not equal. In fact, any human able to look after himself must be able to determine "A" and "not-A", which is the essence of hypothesizing. It's a very basic skill.


He made a positive claim regarding the capabilities of things that explain everything.
The burden of proof is upon him. Where is his evidence? And why do you feel he doesn't need it?

It's an argument of logic. The evidence is the logic, which is solidly on Hitchens' side.

If we stuck with "goddidit" as an [simple, all-encompassing] explanation, we would not be having this discussion, since we would not have the understanding required to create the tools and medium we are communicating with. The all-encompassing 'explanation' explains nothing and we come to no greater knowledge by clinging to it.


We cannot dismiss them for lack of evidence, because there is so much evidence.

We can't predict the occurence, we can't observe the reputed cause, we can't confirm the past statements as to whether they happened at all or as to their reputed causes. Anecdotes are not evidence, for all these reasons. The fact someone wrote it does not make it fact. See also L.Ron Hubbard for veracity of the written word.

On the other hand, we can create lightning on a small scale, using defined methods that do not involve Thor showing up on cue and helping out. Shaved by Occam, as ever the case when deities are "involved".
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 91 (view)
 
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 9:27:19 PM

The problem with it is that the "complete" theory doesnt give a "complete" explaination of how mankind arrived on the planet

That's not a part of the theory, period. The theory of evolution by natural selection deals with one very basic concept, and one basic concept alone: natural selection is the mechanism directing evolution. That's it.

Any theory as to how any particular species came to be is a separate theory, and has no impact on whether or not natural selection guides evolution.


Climate science is not a topic by itself. Instead it incorporates knowledge from a number of scientific disciplines, including geoscientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, atmospheric and environmentalists to name some and which composed over 50% of those who signed the OISM petition. This is in sharp contrast to your reported 39 scientists. Furthermore you have consistently provided links in this blog to studies carried out by biologists, geoscientists etc so if they are good enough to support your position on climate change, similarly educated scientists should be accepted for their contrary view point.

You can't come to a logical and balanced conclusion if you just randomly pick your sources without checking their actual value.

OISM is one man and a few family members, not associated with ANY actual research facility. The survey you refer to was sent out with a copy of an anti-AGW research paper written by the same man and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Trouble is, said article was NOT published by PNAS, nor by anyone else. Nor was it based on any actual evidence or research. It was in essence a forgery. Those who signed the petition were suckered; and most, if not all, of them have recanted their support.

Now follow the chain - how many subsequent anti-AGW writers have refered to OISM? And how many have referenced those? It's a house of cards, and the ground floor has no foundation. It should really make you wonder about two things - the objectivity of your other sources, and your own objectivity. If you only look at third party reviews that support your preconceived views, you're only going to reach conclusions you intended to reach, regardless of their veracity.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:45:40 PM

Some of us knw how the universe began..... THOUGHT! BUT NOT JUST ANY THOUGHT... THE CREATOR IS INTELLIGENT!! Thought is a multidimensional phenomenon that crystalizes eventually.... The physical universe itself is a crystalized form of thought..... Although the Big Bang model is absolutely ludacris for the most part, it does contain an element of truth, and that is that light existed before time and space... THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS! As the saying goes " The best place to hide the truth is between two lies" If light existed before the lower space time continuum was created... WHERE THE HELL DID IT EXIST? Obviously in much higher dimensions! In much The same fashion that an invention exists in the higher dimensions of mind before being manifest into physical reality....NUFF SAID!

Word salad.

When the subject matter exceeds your ability to spell, it's doubtful you have a useful understanding of the former. It's painfully obvious that's the case.


Even in quantum theory as an example, many accepted theories are based on the observation of an "unknown" or "unexplainable" occurence, so a purely hypothetical and therefore with todays equipment often unproveable theorum is arrived at, some of which could be true, most of which (as they often conflict with each other) wont be

If you look more closely, you will find this summary to be inaccurate. New theories and hypotheses, in order to be even considered, have to fit BOTH past observations AND new ones. They are refinements of previous theories because they have to not only explain all the things that were successfully explained before, but also those which were not.

That's how science works. Sometimes a hypothesis fails. Sobeit. That's a necessity, as it produces answers regardless of whether it works or doesn't, and every hypothesis is offered as a pair. If one is false, the other must be true. It's also quite possible that a new hypothesis will succeed in its primary role, but lead to a new wrinkle that contravenes past explanations. Again, that's how science works: offer possible explanations, and then gradually narrow the possibilities by experimenting to prove which explanations are impossible.


Now we must ask : How did all of those/multiverse as a whole begin? Apparently the answer to a question always leads to a more complex question, ad infinitum. Therefore the simplest explanation is infinitely complex.??? I thought we worked down to fundamental reason/science and up from there?

The issue here is that our explanations and understandings are necessarily constrained by the nature of our own existence. Those constraints need not apply to the universe or multiverse. If you take the time and energy to examine each available explanation for the scope and origin of the multiverse, you will find something important: they ALL exceed our perceptions and our ability to grasp. That being the case, we can't rule out any explanation on that basis alone. We can't conceive of a non-time or non-space any better than we can infinite time or infinite space. We want absolute beginnings but demand that something precede those beginnings. Can't have it both ways, so the assumptions must be considered faulty.


Maybe pure universe free volume is dark matter and an expanding universe is akin to a virus growing and polluting it with matter (non dark) or maybe its just an absolute vaccum, but either way I find (obviously with no scientific reason behind it) it more believable an expanding universe is in space more like an exploding sun in a galaxy. Something shootings its matter off into some format of void that was already there

Let me re-iterate: you're not understanding "dark matter" correctly. Dark matter is the burglar in the basement - he's exactly the same matter as you find throughout the house, you just can't see him. You see his influence and thus know he exists, you just don't see him. What we have is what we can see - galaxies and galaxy clusters, whose mass we can measure. We can measure the mass from what we see and calculate, the celestial bodies themselves. We can also measure based upon the gravitational influences on other bodies. Trouble is, the gravitational mass is greater than the observed mass, which implies that there's a lot of UNobserved mass, ie "dark matter". This is not outside the universe, but largely in or adjacent to galaxies within the universe because it is THOSE bodies which are more massive than they appear. And that's why "dark matter" is generally thought to be dust and hydrogen. Can't see it directly, but it could account for a LOT of weight.


But the idea that if you reached the end of our universe there would be what? A wall because no "space" beyond that point has been created yet?

Doesn't matter. You can't actually reach the edge of the universe, even to cross to an adjacent one. Expansion makes it impossible to get there, even for light. Where there is no adjacent universe, there is no space. No need for a wall, as there is simply nothing in existence there. In any case, light and expansion could reach these places long before you ever could, making it moot.


Just feels like a remnant from the "Universe revolves around the earth" type mentality, very mankind centric in nature, but as each idea that we are some pivotal aspect of creation vanishes its dropped to a lesser model until now it just rests at being "we're so speshul that the universe we exist in is all that exists in all of time and space" kind of thing if that makes sense

See above, regarding constraints on understanding.


Although if a universe displaced dark matter or injected matter into a near void, and there were indeed many adjacent universes then I guess between them you could have billions of light years worth of dark matter compressed into ever increasing densities but even that would require the initial start of a universe to have created some form of "bubble" or membrane from the initial big bang or whatever that remains intact unless matter and dark matter naturally repelled each other and the displacement was caused by something similar to a magnetic effect when two identical poles meet each other or similar to how oil and water interact I guess

See above, regarding the ACTUAL nature of dark matter.

As for the non-space outside of universes, you can't think of it as a void or anything "filled". It's just -not- space. I think it might be more accurate to think in terms of dimensions: what we perceive of as space is made up of four dimensions measurable in meters [or feet, seconds, etc]; X, Y, Z, and time. However, a full understanding of physics typically requires many more dimensions than these, and it is only those four which we perceive directly. Outside of the multiverse, those four do not overlap or interact the same way, but they potentially can. Another way to look at it is like a tesseract, hypercube, or "Tardis", objects which are larger on the inside than on the outside - they have more "space" within than they occupy outside. Similarly, the non-space outside of the multiverse isn't limited to the dimensions seen within the multiverse.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 10/28/2011 10:38:59 PM
I think the current prefered hypothesis is that the multiverse consists of an unknowable number of adjacent universes. My understanding of the concept is that these would likely be identical or largely similar in laws of physics, due to the nature of their formation, and they would in essence be continuous with one another. You could hypothetically simply travel from point A to point B and be in a different universe. What makes this practically impossible and defines them as separate universes is expansion: the boundary between adjacent and expanding universes is so large and distant that you could not physically reach it before it had expanded beyond your reach. That's also why they do not physically interact...now. A recent theory, with some evidenciary support, holds that a very young universe which had not yet expanded “much” would still be influenced by the gravity of adjacent universes. That gravitational influence would be the cause of the otherwise unexplained clumping and resulting superstructure of our universe.

It is my understanding that any “voids” would be part of a universe. It is not possible for universes to overlap, nor for voids to exist “between” them. There is no between, as space only exists as a consequence of a universe coming into being. They can't overlap because of how the boundaries are defined and because they don't expand 'towards' one another - they just expand. They create their own space.

Given the increasing powers of computers and computer modeling, I would not be surprised if we start seeing models of the structure of adjacent universes. The accuracy will be essentially unconfirmable, but the structure of our own universe could be used to provide the data showing where and how much gravitational influence affected our universe up until the time of gravitational disconnect. That would basically be a proxy for how matter was distributed in adjacent universes over a brief period of time. It would probably be stretching the limits to model the growth of those universes, given the relatively brief period of time available.

All of this does not preclude additional overlapping universes - “parallel” in the usual use of the word. I note that the dictionary definition offered above does not require that “parallel” universes occupy the same physical space. It only requires that they be...'parallel', which can mean adjacent or adjoining.

There are a number of different theories, and they have probably all been addressed at one or more times in popular magazines like Scientific American, Discover, and Popular Science.

Regarding “dark matter” - this is not normally considered some mysterious substance. It's matter because it has a gravitational influence. It's dark because we can't see it. Much of what is called dark matter is hypothesized to be hydrogen. There can be a lot of it diffused across space such that you can't see it or measure it, but when it's part of the 'empty' space of a galaxy or galaxy cluster, the combined mass can make that region much 'heavier' than we would estimate based on the larger visible objects. When it's dispersed between stars, the gravitational effects may be balanced relative to the stars and thus be undetectable at that scale, but the galaxy as a whole is much heavier, and that CAN be measured.


scientists found trillions of gallons of water chillin outside a blackhole at the center of our galaxy.Now..no man, ape or land rover has ever been close enough to one to tell me that its just a collapsed star that disintegrates light...if it doesnt disintregrate water. Whos to say the light isnt just "escaping"on another "side"??

Operative word being “outside”. Matter is only 'destroyed' by a black hole when it enters the black hole. As it is pulled in, there is a large amount of energy released by the tearing apart of larger particles. Large amounts of this energy are pulled into the spinning magnetic field and exit as polar jets. I think this is possible because these photons never actually cross the event horizon; they are released as matter is torn apart at or near the horizon.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 395 (view)
 
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/22/2011 10:59:37 PM
Of course the distances for gravitational effects vary. Spacecraft do not fly in a direct line from Earth to an impact point on the moon. They follow a curve. Each curve has a longer distance than a straight line, and each will have different gravitational balance, depending on the shape of the curve and positions of the sun, moon, and Earth. The distance from Earth to the moon is much greater than the distance from the moon of the Lagrangian point. Small deviation from a direct line, large deviation from the Lagrangian point.


who is correct?
The contactees who say there is a civilization on the moon, with some gravity and a breathable atmosphere or mainstream science with all of their billions of dollars of scientific probes and the testimony of the Apollo astronauts, who, it is claimed, were actually there?

I'll side with math, logic, and the scientific method. Little things like zero weather, zero erosion, zero distortion - yep, sure signs of a covert lunar atmosphere. If you want to side with anecdotes from publicity hounds, feel free. Just don't mistake such claims for 'credible'. The only reference you cite can hardly be considered especially reliable when they felt it necessarily to refer [repeatedly] to alternate views as "Mainstream" [sic - not "mainstream"] in a derogatory fashion, nor when they felt the need to use a publication dedicated not to science, but to 'alternate views', AND in which they felt the need to start the paper by singing the praises of the junior author! Oh, how neutral, rational, and scientific.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1398 (view)
 
Evolution.
Posted: 9/20/2011 5:33:02 AM

all these post and not one testable idea that shows evolution as a scientific fact.

Try reading.

Change with inheritance was recognized millenia before Darwin, and that is all that evolution is. That's why we have dogs, corn, wheat, and herefords. None of these organisms existed 40000 years ago.


I have already provided a testable theory of a Creator which using science can be tested again and again w/o fallacy.

Utterly false.

You can't prove ANYthing involving a creator without first providing a testable definition for that creator. No-one has done that. Everything you have presented has been couched in fallacy, which has been demonstrated. Claiming that science can prove an undefined creator is another example.


Evolution is not impossible, evolution w/o a creator is!

I would not say this is untrue...since a creator can neither be proven nor disproven, it's possible. However, all evidence indicates that all the natural mechanisms exist to drive evolution WITHOUT the magical hand of fairy godfather.

In any case though, since the influence of a deity cannot be detected in the process, that first phrase of four words establishes that you're irrelevant to the thread.


Evolution is not impossible

Thank you for conceding the obvious.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Group Selection in Evolution?: Jews as a Case-Study
Posted: 9/20/2011 5:16:00 AM
Whether the beaver builds because of education or because of genetics is essentially irrelevant to this hypothesis. The idea is basically that evolution [at its heart genetics]has led to an organism which creates an environment [dams, cities, culture, etc] which alter the selection pressures well beyond what they would have been without the artificial constructs. Take for instance the difference in predatory pressures on A.afarensis; a Masai with spears, a hut, and a thorn fence; and someone living in a Dar-es-Salam highrise. While genes do not create the structures, some genes will thrive because of them. The same too applies to cultural or religious regimes which close the community to outside genetic influence while also creating unique selective pressures. Some Jewish communities are just interesting case studies because they offer clear examples of such circumstances.

I would certainly not consider discussion of the subject to be anti-semitic. Discussion of scientific concepts does not become racist simply because the subject matter is "taboo". It is prejudice and discrimination which draw THAT line. Nor would I say that the entire matter is one of a prolonged exercise in eugenics - that suggests that all of the selective pressures are external. That is patently absurd. Sexual selection is not an external pressure, and cultural and religious demands are also not 'external' in this sense. It can't be reduced to a simple "Christians culled the herd" mentality, when Jewish parents and community provided their own influences on how children grew, learned, and behaved. There are always many pressures at work.

I don't think it was suggested at all that bankers are more intelligent and because such communities tended to produce many money-handlers, they were more intelligent. What was said was that such communities have more intelligent members on average, *period*. Becoming bankers was one consequence of that, not an indicator of it. Both the claim and the counter-claim call for the same thing - a measure of the subject's intelligence, and an attempted refutation of the intelligence of bankers is meaningless. Either way the premise is sound - these essentially closed communities have clear traits which have emerged along with their survival of a prolonged regime of external and endemic selective pressures. Such traits are a good indicator of how complex and artificial environments can exert complex and unexpected influences on a genome.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1369 (view)
 
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 3:09:05 PM
Affirming the consequent is also a fallacy.


How did they get into the petri dish to evolve that's the question I'm interested in?

Your interest is irrelevant. Life exists, life evolves. There is no logic which makes evolution contingent upon how life arose in the first place, while still being in accord with evidence. Once the life is in the petri dish, it evolves regardless of how it got there.


If no fruit flies or anything is put into a petri dish... nothing evolves in a petri dish

And there's no life on Mercury. What's your point?

In point of fact, the whole argument is ludicrous. Evolution is observed and obviously observable. Care to argue the validity of electrical theory as well? Oh wait...electricity is "just" a theory and there's no evidence it exists.

I have to go have an intellectually stimulating conversation with my shoe now. I'm feeling my brain cells being sucked out by this forum.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 1368 (view)
 
Evolution.
Posted: 9/10/2011 2:45:21 PM


What does spontaneous generation have to do with evolution?


Without it... you don't get evolution

Same as any creation event...

No first cause, no big bang theory

No spontaneous generation, no Evolution theory


False
False
False
and wrong.

Evolution occurs regardless of how life arose. Magically put bacteria in a petri dish or fruit flies in a vial, and they evolve. REGARDLESS of how they got there in the first place.

The Big Bang Theory exists to explain the observation of an expanding universe. A first cause is irrelevant and not integral to the theory. Whatever the cause, the universe is still observed to expand from a single point. The Big Bang proposes that...are you ready? The universe expanded from a single point. Gosh, what rocket science.

With or without spontaneous generation, evolution occurs. Cattle arose from aurochs, horses from wild horses, chickens from jungle fowl, dogs from wolves, subway mosquitos from marsh mosquitos, Lake Murray shrimp from Japanese shrimp, and birds from other theropod dinosaurs. The origin of life is irrelevant to the fact that evolution occurs.




That's called a false dichotomy... if your not with me your aginst me argument.

I'm surprised that you can recognize a logical fallacy, considering your dependance upon them.



It isn't a false dichotomy as it isn't an either or, it is without one you don't get the other.

You're right. Different fallacy. Same crap, alternate pile. cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Show ALL Forums