Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
85 online now:
Parasomnium (1 member, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,159 Year: 6,271/6,534 Month: 464/650 Week: 2/232 Day: 2/28 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There is no evolution or creationism - this is the new Matrix/DNA world view
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 149 (762113)
07-09-2015 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-09-2015 3:10 AM


Re: To Jar
What is the theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-09-2015 3:10 AM TheMatrix/DNA has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 149 (762187)
07-09-2015 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-09-2015 4:10 AM


Re: To Capt Stormfield
What is the theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-09-2015 4:10 AM TheMatrix/DNA has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 149 (762329)
07-11-2015 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-10-2015 2:34 PM


Re: To Percy
The rational thing to do is trying to fell the phenomena intuitively, with yours mind, without trying to translate it to human languages

And yet you are trying to translate it into human language despite your own doubts about the rationality of the attempt. Well, apparently your doubts were well-founded, since we cannot understand your translation from feeling into language. Nor does cause us to have the same feeling as you have. If you want to achieve that, try writing a poem, a kōan, an aphorism, or a really good joke: these are hit-and-miss methods, but they are occasionally effective. But your unmeaning jumble of scientific terminology just brings on the feeling that is usually brought on by reading an unmeaning jumble of scientific terminology.

After that, it is hand at work testing the theory against real facts and trying experiments that could prove or debunk the predictions from the theory.

But how can anyone do that? If you cannot say what the theory is, how can anyone derive predictions from it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-10-2015 2:34 PM TheMatrix/DNA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-11-2015 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 42 of 149 (762331)
07-11-2015 1:46 AM


Bring me the finest popcorn in all the land.

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-11-2015 4:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 149 (762379)
07-11-2015 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-11-2015 5:54 AM


Re: To Dr Adequate
Well, you seem to be blaming me for your failure to communicate. And since I'm guessing no-one else in the world can understand you, that'll be their fault too.

Or, you know, maybe it's yours. After all, you're the guy who's writing gibberish.

For easing yours way I am trying to use yours terminology ...

I don't see how that's meant to help either of us. If you were talking to a golfer, would you try to convey your ideas by talking of nine irons and sand traps? If you don't want to use scientific terminology, I advise you to stop. That way you will not have the fatigue of writing, nor I of reading, your seemingly random assortments of scientific jargon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-11-2015 5:54 AM TheMatrix/DNA has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 149 (762615)
07-14-2015 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-13-2015 2:53 PM


Re: To Ringo
If we focus a human body as system, Physics and Math can see data and describing the system only at micro level of particles, nuclear reactions, and the bone skeleton. Physics applied at the coverture of the skeleton - the meat-soft level - would see merely clouds of colored gases like the recently images sent by Hubble and others about far away galaxies. The stomach, the liver, etc. would be merely different coloreds/composed clouds of gas.

Uh, no. In physics, solids are regarded as solids, not as gasses.

It is not normally necessary to explain this.

I will mention another phenomena where Physiscs and Math is not working well: quantum mechanics.

Hoo, boy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-13-2015 2:53 PM TheMatrix/DNA has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 149 (762927)
07-17-2015 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-17-2015 12:31 AM


Re: To Cat Sci
Now let's see if Matrix/DNA is logical and who is a kook:

1) From the first cell or living being to humans, all them, are natural systems and their bodies were made by a unique common formula called DNA.
2) Atoms, stellar and galaxies are natural systems;
3) Conclusion: all natural systems, including atoms and astronomicals, must have in common a formula called "universal" DNA, or, better: The Matrix/DNA

1) Whales are all mammals and live in the sea.
2) Giraffes, yaks, and anteaters are mammals.
3) Conclusion: all mammals, including giraffes, yaks, and anteaters, must have in common that they all live in the sea.

Nah, see, that's not logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-17-2015 12:31 AM TheMatrix/DNA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-18-2015 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 149 (762928)
07-17-2015 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2015 10:36 AM


Re: To Cat Sci
That conclusion does not logically follow. I think it is the Fallacy of Composition, or something similiar.

I don't think there's even a name for this abomination against logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2015 10:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 149 (762969)
07-18-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-18-2015 12:36 PM


Re: To Dr Adequate
Of course, it is not logic, you have distorted my composition.

No, I've merely imitated it.

You argument goes:

1) Class X has properties P and Q.
2) Class Y has property P.
3) Therefore class Y has property Q.

This is not logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-18-2015 12:36 PM TheMatrix/DNA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-19-2015 4:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 149 (762999)
07-19-2015 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by TheMatrix/DNA
07-19-2015 4:41 AM


Re: To Dr Adequate
Wrong distortion again. My first and second premises talks about things of same class: both are natural systems. There is no classes X and Y.

Class X: "the first cell or living being to human"
Class Y: "Atoms, stellar and galaxies"
Property P: being "natural systems"

And my sample of formal logics is used in philosophy for building theoretical models, not for affirmation of something. That is why I said "must" and not therefore

Oh, you said "conclusion" instead of "therefore". Well, that suddenly turns raving nonsense into "formal logics". Wait, no it doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-19-2015 4:41 AM TheMatrix/DNA has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by TheMatrix/DNA, posted 07-19-2015 2:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 149 (763041)
07-19-2015 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
07-19-2015 4:49 PM


Re: To Dr Adequate
This is what all these guys has been trying to pound into my head for the past eight years.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2015 4:49 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 149 (766444)
08-18-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
08-12-2015 2:09 AM


Re: To Dr Adequate
In any event, a poker game has very little to do with math because everybody competent knows the relative probabilities.

* contemplates this sentence in silent wonderment *


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2015 2:09 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022