Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 2:09 PM
337 online now:
caffeine, jar, Joe T, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (8 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,025 Year: 28,631/21,208 Month: 697/1,847 Week: 72/475 Day: 19/53 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Specific reasons for not seeing when a theory becomes obsolete
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 91 of 128 (767249)
08-27-2015 12:10 PM


Do the people answering CrazyDiamond7 really understand what he's saying, or are they just winging it?
Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 08-27-2015 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 92 of 128 (767289)
08-27-2015 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2015 12:10 PM


Do you have an interpretation of what he is saying that makes any sense?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2015 12:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 93 of 128 (767306)
08-28-2015 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2015 9:24 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
*

There is no rate that can be measured if the addition of 1 takes place over some anonymous timeframe.

Description/specification of the timeframe or period of time is required.

*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2015 9:24 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2015 3:39 AM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2015 12:18 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 94 of 128 (767307)
08-28-2015 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by celestialGyoud
08-28-2015 3:15 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Over any timeframe of course. If you refuse to accept zero or negative population change as growth, the smallest possible growth is the addition of one individual. Anything less does not count as growth, to you. Thus the limit applies for any timeframe you choose, because anything less is not growth - as you define it.

(Of course, this line of argument is unutterably silly. Population levels may remain stable or decline. Thus to model the change in population levels over time we really must acknowledge the possibility of zero or negative growth. Even if you find the idea aesthetically displeasing.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 3:15 AM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 11:19 PM PaulK has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 95 of 128 (767401)
08-28-2015 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
08-28-2015 3:39 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
*

quote:
... Population levels may remain stable ...

*

You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand years,

That is why there are specific ( financial ) reasons for many to state that the European population did remain stable or declined when they would have taken allegedly 20 thousand years to go from 2,000 to 5,000 people, according to the surrealist population levels, absurdly and bizarrely proposed by the Evolutionary theory.

*

According to Real life experiences, the Evolutionary proposals to population growth never happened.

*

And I'm not a creation. I was not created then. I'm not created now.

*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2015 3:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2015 11:37 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2015 3:43 AM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 08-29-2015 12:11 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 112 by JonF, posted 04-05-2017 12:50 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 96 of 128 (767403)
08-28-2015 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by celestialGyoud
08-28-2015 11:19 PM


Re: Important: Crazy has been spouting nonsense
You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand years,

Big deal. So populations have increased in the long term, using your cherry-picked 5 thousand year span. Within that span the rate of change has varied greatly.

For your argument you are assuming a constant rate, but that rate has changed a lot, becoming negative at times.

Your beliefs have destroyed your ability to see the real world.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 11:19 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-29-2015 12:21 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 97 of 128 (767405)
08-29-2015 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coyote
08-28-2015 11:37 PM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
*

Dear Coyote,

I appreciate your ability of highlighting the short-period variations in the population levels.

Not only you have done this ludicrous job. Money has spoken about the importance and highest relevance of those short-period variations.

Of course you would not mention that these variations occurred during very short periods of time in history if compared to 5,000 years.

The results from 5,000 years of population growth are very bad to the theory; and that is why 5 thousand years are deemed to be a Spam, ( something undesired ) or an extremely serious Bug which causes a disturbance in the force of the theory.

*

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : Money has spoken about the importance and highest relevance of those short-period variations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2015 11:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 98 of 128 (767410)
08-29-2015 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by celestialGyoud
08-28-2015 11:19 PM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
quote:

You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand

I also know that actual rates of growth are rarely the minimum rate of growth. I also know that there are exceptional reasons behind human population growth. How long those will prove adequate to fuel further growth is a question that should be of some concern.

I also know that people with good arguments do not resort to silly semantic games to discount factors that must be taken into account.

Finally your argument really amounts to pointing out an inconsistency between your assumptions and the evidence. perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is your assumptions that are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 11:19 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-29-2015 5:34 AM PaulK has responded

    
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 99 of 128 (767415)
08-29-2015 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
08-29-2015 3:43 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
*

quote:
... actual rates of growth are rarely the minimum rate of growth ...

*

According to the lowest possible rate of population growth, population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years, even when only the Fifth part survives you get 9,565,938,000 people in the end of 14 thousand years.

Therefore it is clear that the next thing to do ( on behalf of the Evolutionary theory ) is to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is p x 15 - 80 %

Anything else would be low-effort arguments that drift us to far, far away from facing the anomaly in the theory.

*

In order for you to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is population x 15 - 80 % the next thing to do ( on behalf of the theory )

was to answer or explain What is the lowest possible rate for Humans to keep on growing and multiplying since zero and negative are not growing nor multiplying either.

*

The local boards of education do have specific reasons for not seeing nor answer the above question.

Reputation and financial reasons are on top of the rank of what matters more, regardless of the fact that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IMPLIES NON-EXISTENCE OF POPULATION GROWTH FOR OVER 25 THOUSAND YEARS

*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2015 3:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2015 6:53 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2015 10:33 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
TheMatrix/DNA
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 46
From: Newark-NJ-USA
Joined: 06-05-2015


Message 100 of 128 (767417)
08-29-2015 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by celestialGyoud
06-04-2013 8:55 PM


Re: Average of years without multiplying: 4,750 per 5,000
Hi CrazyDiamond7,...

Good to remember the great Pink Floyd

You have good insights, I think, like " life's energy" , light as life, etc. , so, I would appreciate getting more information.

You said:

quote:
‘Life energy and existence never had a beginning. Because no beginning of life is found outside of what is already living.’

That's a good point. No man have saw any living system that was not produced by an existent living system. So, does not matter how many " theoretical" evidences the abiogenesis theory got, it is not rational, because in the human rational world, life comes from life.

But... there is no proof either that the state of the world at the time that a living biological system emerges somewhere is not " alive".

And since that the world seems to be a natural phenomenon, then, there is no certainty that the origins of biological systems is not natural.

Humans are in trouble due our symbols sometimes does not translate the real world. One sample is the word " life". Other big trouble are our theoretical models about the macro and micro dimensions.

We can get a model of the state of the world where "life" emerges that has all life's properties, but does not express these properties in a biological fashion. It can be electromagnetic or mechanical fashion. If so, how could one saying that such world is not life and the cat is life?

The very problem is that there is no proved fact demonstrating that this model of an astronomical system is wrong. So, life could be under evolution not only as biological system, but it could coming trans passing through atoms and galaxies following cosmological evolution.

Other problem is that humans always trying to compare a natural system with parts of other systems. Then, abiogenesis is the temptation to compare the first living being - a complete and working cell system - with a part of other system: Earth as part of a galactic system. It makes no sense.

Then, any part of system seems to be non animated, but always the system to which it belongs is animated. And what is the demarcation between two working and animated natural systems for saying that one is alive and the other is not? Again, abiogenesis theorists does not ask this question because they are comparing systems with a part of other system.

So, we can think that the suspect that "life" could be a natural production is rational, because the astronomical system where biological life emerged is natural. What is non rational is the belief that biological life emerged from " non-life", since that no man has seeing a unique biological life emerging outside life. But this could be fixed if their astronomical theoretical model is wrong.

Then we go to the second good insight from you:

quote:
'We have come from the Light".

The trouble that I have for to replicate in lab a living system is that there is no known kind of energy that works like the energy of living things. When drawing a living system as a machine, the machine does not works plugin into the wall device. As you said, must have a specific life's energy, or an unknown state of normal energy. It is not about building a hydroelectric source in shape of mitochondria, because the mitochondria does not work without this life's energy.

A good solution could be " light", as you are suggesting. Because any wave of light carries on a small amount of electric energy and the light could modelling this energy in the way that it mimics the configuration of light. And any wave of light could be the "vital principle" if it propagates like any living systems propagates itself under the rules of a force called " vital cycle". It is that force that if you apply it on to a stone, the stone would grow, changing shapes, dying, etc. So, since that the electric energy carried by light mimics the dynamics of that light, and that dynamics is the vital cycle, we have found the life's energy.

I am calling " light" here the general emanation of all electromagnetic radiation, from gamma-ray to radio. In fact, the sequence of vibrations of this light wave is equal the sequence of vibrations of a human body in a lifetime. That's why I am suspecting that light could be the big answer.

A big problem that I have with yours theory is that you have not going down to real facts here and now for to explaining yours insights. Like I do: I am showing a theoretical astronomical model working by life's properties, an electromagnetic spectrum suggesting how it is under the life's cycle force, etc. As you said:

quote:
'We have come from the Light, from the place where the light emanates of itself, arises and appears in our image.'

You need elaborate this affirmation, like describing this place and at least showing as evidence real known facts that such place really exists. If you don't do that, you have no reason saying that materialists are using transcendental metaphysics when suggesting that life came from non-life, because you are making same mistake.

When you says:

quote:
In the living word ( glittering with lightning through the density of the clouds ) was the life...

You are saying almost the same that MatrixDNA Theory, which suggests that the first waves of this living light emanated at the Big Bang and propagated through the dark matter, the substance of space. The living energy produced by these waves of light modelled the inertial substance and imprinted the dynamics of vital cycles in this substance, generating the first functional natural systems, like hydrogen atoms, etc.

For yours information, materialists like the evolutionary biologist PZ Myers ( Pharyngula blog) is suggesting that life was produced by electrons. I agree because the photons of light penetrates electrons and drives them to make atomic connections mimicking the connections of frequencies of light waves which are the code for life. What do you think?


There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by celestialGyoud, posted 06-04-2013 8:55 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 101 of 128 (767419)
08-29-2015 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by celestialGyoud
08-29-2015 5:34 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
quote:

According to the lowest possible rate of population growth, population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years, even when only the Fifth part survives you get 9,565,938,000 people in the end of 14 thousand years.

first you ah e to show that that is the lowest possible rate of population increase. Until you do it is just a assumption.

quote:

In order for you to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is population x 15 - 80 % the next thing to do ( on behalf of the theory )

was to answer or explain What is the lowest possible rate for Humans to keep on growing and multiplying since zero and negative are not growing nor multiplying either.


Firstly the burden of proof is on you to show that your assumed lowest possible rate of increase really is the lowest possible.

Secondly playing silly semantic games does not prove your point. The only way to consider possible changes in population size is to take all possible changes - and lack of change - into account. Ignoring stasis and decline because they are not growth is to unacceptably (and idiotically) bias the process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-29-2015 5:34 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 102 of 128 (767440)
08-29-2015 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by celestialGyoud
08-28-2015 11:19 PM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
Crazy writes:

You know that the population levels of Europe have always grown and never remained stable during a timeline of five thousand years,


You know that the population levels of dinosaurs have stopped growing. Why is that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 11:19 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-29-2015 8:39 PM ringo has responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 553
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 103 of 128 (767483)
08-29-2015 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ringo
08-29-2015 12:11 PM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
*

Hello Ringo,

If one day you could measure the difference between mammoths and Humans,

and if you could measure that by the means of distance,

that is how far your question stays out of topic

*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 08-29-2015 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ringo, posted 08-30-2015 2:25 PM celestialGyoud has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 104 of 128 (767493)
08-29-2015 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by celestialGyoud
08-29-2015 5:34 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
According to the lowest possible rate of population growth, population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years, even when only the Fifth part survives you get 9,565,938,000 people in the end of 14 thousand years.

Therefore it is clear that the next thing to do ( on behalf of the Evolutionary theory ) is to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is p x 15 - 80 %

Anything else would be low-effort arguments that drift us to far, far away from facing the anomaly in the theory.

*

In order for you to disprove that the lowest possible rate of population growth is population x 15 - 80 % the next thing to do ( on behalf of the theory )

was to answer or explain What is the lowest possible rate for Humans to keep on growing and multiplying since zero and negative are not growing nor multiplying either.

*

The local boards of education do have specific reasons for not seeing nor answer the above question.

Reputation and financial reasons are on top of the rank of what matters more, regardless of the fact that EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IMPLIES NON-EXISTENCE OF POPULATION GROWTH FOR OVER 25 THOUSAND YEARS

*

None of this makes any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-29-2015 5:34 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 105 of 128 (767521)
08-30-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by celestialGyoud
08-28-2015 3:15 AM


Re: Important: For All Posters ( & Readers ) The One Million Dollar Question
There is no rate that can be measured if the addition of 1 takes place over some anonymous timeframe.

Description/specification of the timeframe or period of time is required.

Yeah, that's part of why your whole argument is wrong. Pick any timeframe you want, if the population only increases by one, then your equations don't work. That's because they are incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by celestialGyoud, posted 08-28-2015 3:15 AM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017