|
Author
|
Topic: True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
evidenced based arguments
Your message now reads:
u know what... forget about it The message you have now deleted was
After what I learned from RAZD last post about that misleading text I went back to see who has actually been saying what. RAZD, Tangle, JonF and Percey tune in ok. But firstly to everyone I stand by my statement that i have not PERSONALLY attacked or PERSONALLY ridiculed anybody. If so put it forward now and i will address it. Next I need to affirm that everything I have said about myself (which im not going to go through again) is true but im 19yo. OK people say why don't you look it up or argue the point yourself. I haven't got the time but. This subject is already taking up too much of my time when I should be crunching numbers on homework. All I see is that there is opposition around ToE and it comes from many fronts like age, dna, micro macro. I havent got time to get into all of that ye. Thats why I said I am clueless in the theory. All I know is that ToE claims man evolved from primate and all from the ocean. Ok now. JohF was the first to post a reference. Before I went to the snow I was reading responses and blew up in a rant because in between all that talk JonF was the only one to provide me reference. Returning I looked at his links. The question which then came into my mind next was what did primates evolve from. Again trying to avoid all the unsupported talk, confusion in my question, ridicule and really being pushed into just accepting ToE and not asking questions i felt by then. RAZD gave me something to refer to on message 43. But the first reference I get admittedly claims to be misrepresenting. When I ask about this it is dismissed by Percey who is still trying to explain primate evolution. Im confused at this stage and annoyed. And before that could be explained im presented with further references from Tangle. this basically says that we don't have much on this stage of evolution. At this point the two references I have been provided are admittedly misleading and incomplete. Now read what people are telling me in response. Ok. No one corrects the evidence I have been given by you guys. The basic theme is im a wanker for not believing. Don't question. Have faith. Like wtf. Ur giving me the same faith bs iv heard before. The first 2 references provided by yourselves ok, not me, i didn't push this information. These references are admittedly misleading and incomplete. And im being ridiculed for not accepting them... the constant bs without any new references. Blah blah blah believe me. Im going to pause now for people to think... Put yourselves in my shoes. After all the bs, abuse and lies from religion growing up and the same now from this forum. Out numbered by grown men seeminly unable to provide me any accurate references and ridiculing me for not accepting them. Are you accepting these references as fact? Are you accepting the convoluted babble that was pushed on me at that stage??? (After reading this im nuts searching for some kind of agreement. I hope im wrong but Im expecting more of the same...no reson or rational thinking will evolve here) Most of this is just more ranting about being mistreated and misunderstood.
... All I see is that there is opposition around ToE and it comes from many fronts like age, dna, micro macro. ... Pick any one of those and we can pursue further who is in opposition and what their evidence is. Take age for instance. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old and life has existed for at least 3.5 billion of those years ... at least that is what the objective empirical evidence shows. Those who dispute this do so for religious reasons, they want to believe in a fantasy of a young earth. This fantasy is invalidated by the objective empirical evidence. Don't believe me? Read Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and see how the evidence stacks up bit by bit. Science is based on evidence not desire or fantasy.
... All I know is that ToE claims man evolved from primate and all from the ocean. Not really. The objective empirical evidence shows that man evolved from primates and that all life started in the oceans -- because the fossils show that pattern of the natural history of life. The theory of evolution explains that pattern. The fossils are embedded in a temporal-spacial matrix, and proximity in time and location together with homologous features in the skeletons show the most likely probable path of evolution, where each stage is slightly different from the one before and the one after, difference so slight that they could be like the variations seen in dogs. The theory of evolution is based on what we see happening in the world living around us, with breeding populations experiencing mutations and selection -- and the theorizing that the same processes occurred in the past: if so then the patterns of fossils within the temporal-spacial matrix should show similar patterns to what we see in living patterns. Not too surprisingly they do. We see the process of speciation forming nested hierarchies of descent in populations living today. We see fossils falling into similar patterns of nested hierarchies within the temporal-spacial matrix. Follow the evidence. Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:43 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 7.1
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: searchable database
Porkncheese writes: wtf... the constant false accusations is not abuse??? What false accusations? There have been no false accusations and no abuse. You must make errors at the rate of one per sentence. It seems that if you're typing you're being wrong about something.
the constant ridicule is not abuse??? If you dislike ridicule then stop being ridiculous.
im out of here This is the third time you've announced your departure. Your history suggests you're wrong about it this time, too. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:51 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 7.1
|
Re: First response total bs
Porkncheese writes: have fun picking it all apart... Picking it all apart? There was nothing to pick apart. Your posts were just a series of simple and obvious errors and falsities.
...and avoiding the point again ok... There is no need to avoid a point that was never made
have a good laugh.... Stop feeling sorry for yourself, stop being emotional, start learning some things, and start saying things that are actually true.
this has wasted enough of my time back to the real world for me. leave it for the fanatics i reckon Yet a fourth announcement that you're leaving - shall we guess that you are yet again wrong? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:55 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
What point?
have fun picking it all apart and avoiding the point again ok... What point? That you insist on being wrong about evolution and the age of the earth and refuse to accept comments that correct you? That you insist on being wrong about the website saying it is misleading when it says it may appear to mislead you into thinking there is a "great chain of being" instead of the descent pattern we know to be bushy ... because, as it states, there is some information/branches missing? Let me quote it for you and see if comprehension follows:
quote:
Primates: Dendrogram: The following dendrogram represents a somewhat misleadlingly linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolution. Hopefully this will be corrected in future, as the various other branche son the primate evolutionary tree are fille dout. MAK120711
This single line appearance as a linear "great chain of being" / "ascent of man" model of human evolutio is what is misleading, not the information, and this linear appearance will be corrected when the other branches are filled out and new information is included. Do you understand the difference between "somewhat misleading" and completely misleading and untrustworthy information (as you appear to choose to interpret it)? Especially when it is explained to you what the misleading appearance is? Here is the dendrogram for reference:
quote:
Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│ ├─Indrioidea MH
│ └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae
└─Hominoidea MH
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae
└─Hominidae
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo
└─Homininae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
└─┬─Pan
└─Hominini
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│ └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens
Is it precisely correct in every detail? No. Nothing ever is. Is it generally correct? Yes, emphatically, because this is the general arrangement of the fossils within the temporal-spacial matrix. The locations of the fossils in time and space is not subject to change, because they are facts, part of the vast objective empirical evidence of the natural history of life on earth. The order of appearance in the fossil record connected by proximity in time and space is then linked by homologous features to form a most probable - hypothetical - lineage of descent. Is that linkage subject to change? Yes, as more information becomes available. This is the nature of science: hypothesis are constantly tested and altered or rejected when new information shows the hypothesis is incorrect. Each link gives a description of the features that define the species. Each of those species is locked in time and space by the temporal-spacial matrix by the age and location when they were found. The details on the linked pages provide you with way more information than the dendrogram provides. You have been told that the age of the earth is ~4.55 billion years, not 6.5 billion years as you have repeated after being corrected. Telling you when you are wrong is not ridiculing you, it is telling you when you are wrong with the intent of giving you the more correct information. Am I telling you to believe what I am saying, to have faith? Nope. I am telling you that this and this and this information is there, it is available for you to study and learn from. Enjoy
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: WAS I NOT ABUSED???
Is this what a melt down looks like? Edited by Larni, : Spellink
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:59 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006 Member Rating: 9.1
|
|
Message 111 of 154 (818856)
09-03-2017 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Larni
09-03-2017 5:26 PM
|
|
Re: WAS I NOT ABUSED???
Is this what a melt down looks like? Of a marshmallow. 
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Larni, posted 09-03-2017 5:26 PM | | Larni has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by DrJones*, posted 09-03-2017 7:35 PM | | Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2341 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.9
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: WAS I NOT ABUSED???
what a snowflake
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2017 5:37 PM | | Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied |
|
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: 08-25-2017
|
|
|
Message 113 of 154 (818894)
09-04-2017 3:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
09-03-2017 2:06 PM
|
|
Re: What point?
RAZD I asked you about the dendrogram on message 44. Ur explination came much later on message 85. Meanwhile on message 46 Percy also calls it misleading and says that it is wrong. Who do I believe RAZD or Percy?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2017 2:06 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Tangle, posted 09-04-2017 4:25 AM | | Porkncheese has replied | | | Message 122 by Percy, posted 09-04-2017 9:11 AM | | Porkncheese has replied | | | Message 123 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2017 9:47 AM | | Porkncheese has not replied | | | Message 137 by ringo, posted 09-05-2017 11:54 AM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 6.7
|
Re: What point?
PnC writes: Meanwhile on message 46 Percy also calls it misleading and says that it is wrong. You're getting confused - I think - by different things. The first is the idea of the 'ascent of man' idea. The victorian idea that people are at the top of the pyramid of evolution; organisms are somehow better the nearer to man they are and that evolution has us as the ultimate end point. So you get this famous and wrong depiction of it.
The modern idea is that all species are equally evolved so instead of the tree of evolution having man at the top of it it's a bush or, better, the cladograms showing all modern species at the same height. Your second confusion is in thinking that every detail of every branch of every organism's evolutionary record needs to be known in order to 'prove' the veracity of evolution as a whole. That is obviously false. The fossil record - plus confirming molecular biological evidence - is now enormous and overwhelming, it allows us to fill the gaps with predictions which are later confirmed or changed by new finds. Occasionally some new informtion arises that shows that some parts of the jigsaw are in the wrong place and a section is rearranged. This accumulation over time just confirms things further. At the moment you're quibbling about minor misunderstandings rather that trying to see the big picture. The detail only matters when you understand the theory as a whole and what underpins it. Zoom out a bit.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: 08-25-2017
|
|
|
Message 115 of 154 (818898)
09-04-2017 5:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Tangle
09-04-2017 4:25 AM
|
|
Re: What point?
You avoided the question and missed the point which is that I was totally confused at that stage given there was contradictions and differences in opinions. Then on message 51 I'm given a link with a quote clearly saying not much is known on that species. (Point. Increased skepticism) Add to this that some were saying at that stage the internet isn't reliable while I was receiving info from the web off others. (Point. Hypocritical) People were still making the false claims of me being a creationist. (Point. Jumping to unfounded conclusions and ignoring what I had said. Anti religious agendas. Discriminatory. Poor defence. Avoiding the issue.) Despite the views of some there were still many claiming the evidence to be conclusive and absolute. Someone even claiming it to be beyond reasonable doubt. (Point. Contradiction and absurd to me given the info put to me then) People taking my phrases out of context and making a point out of spelling errors. (Point. Looking to oppose everything. Avoiding the issue. Poor defence) Constant bs from many who gave nothing valuable to the conversation. (Point. Doesn't help the people that are trying to explain things. Gives a bad impression of untrustworthy people) Then when asked if it's fair to say that stage of evolution leading to primates is unclear given the evidence put before me. I get total disagreement and condemnation. (Point. Irrational. Unable to agree or be objective. Arrogant. No perspective. Single minded. Faith based) As no one here is capable of perspective I will spell out the point... At that stage no human on earth would have accept what was being presented as a reliable theory. People's responses, contradictions and lack of references made them extremely difficult to believe. Much better explinations and references where provided later. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Tangle, posted 09-04-2017 4:25 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
Pressie
Member (Idle past 236 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: 06-18-2010
|
Re: What point?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey here. The message I got from you is that you're studying some kind of Engineering at a College also teaching you about Biology. It doesn't make any sense.
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 6.7
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: What point?
PnC writes: You avoided the question and missed the point which is that I was totally confused at that stage given there was contradictions and differences in opinions. You'll have to forgive me for that, I've now lost track of what your problem actually is. Is this the only problem you have? - all other bullshit aside....
Then when asked if it's fair to say that stage of evolution leading to primates is unclear If so, I'll try to answer it this way. As a scientist, you are obliged to accept the ToE because it's a scientific concensus and fully evidenced body of scientific knowledge. Any other position would be irrational, like a biologist refusing to accept the quantum theory just because it sounds mad and he doesn't understand it despite not having any knowledge of that field of study. That acceptance comes not from your own understanding of the subject but from an understanding of the scientific method - it's the methology of acquiring knowledge that we all trust even if we don't know anything about the subject itself. No other method has been as successful as the scientific method in building trustworthy explanations of the natural world. So we start from there, yes? Unless you have fundamental religious views that force you reject the ToE for irrational, non-scientific reasons of course. You've said you're not a creationist and I'm happy to accept that until proven wrong. Secondly, on the origin of the primates there is vast quantities of information on it, you only have to google the phrase 'origin of primates' to turn up hundreds of thousands of decent articles on it and if you use google scholar combined with your university access to scholarly papers you can get the primary data if you wish. It's all there to be found. But I'd start here: Evolution of primates - Wikipedia Now about the 'probables' and uncertainties. At the micro level of individual lines of descent some lines will have stronger evidence than others - this should not surprise you when we're looking millions of years back in time. It's really remarkable that we have so much data to work with. What's certain is the overall statement that H. sapiens is a primate, descended from earlier primates and that primates descended from earlier organisms in the form of the charts you've been shown. Some details may change as more evidence is found, but the overall picture is highly unlikely to change materially. Does that help at all?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18656 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.4
|
Before you go back to the real world....
This entire topic has been interesting to me. As a longtime member of this site, I rarely get into arguments over evolution, because that aspect of science bores me. I am one of the religious nuts that you say you were raised around.
pork n cheese writes: Im going to pause now for people to think... Put yourselves in my shoes. After all the bs, abuse and lies from religion growing up and the same now from this forum. Out numbered by grown men seeminly unable to provide me any accurate references and ridiculing me for not accepting them. Are you accepting these references as fact? Are you accepting the convoluted babble that was pushed on me at that stage??? Your shoes are quite painful! Mine hurt too, sometimes. What you have stumbled into is a debate site and discussion board with a bunch of cronies from different backgrounds. Some of us argue with each other all of the time just to relieve boredom, so I don't blame you at all for wanting to leave and get back to your homework. Now you have met some of us. Perhaps we gave a bad impression. After reading this topic, I do see that some of our scientific minds did try and steer you...but it was unclear exactly what you wanted to know or how you expected to be treated. My advice? Get back to your studies. live life. Learn about human nature from everyone you meet. And I welcome you to stop back in now and then...even to pick a fight and relieve stress. Each of us has our pet arguments and debates. Have a good life! 
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Porkncheese, posted 09-02-2017 4:55 PM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18656 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.4
|
|
|
Message 119 of 154 (818912)
09-04-2017 7:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
09-04-2017 7:05 AM
|
|
Re: What point?
porkncheese writes: As no one here is capable of perspective I will spell out the point... Oh by the way, I see you have met Tangle. He and I come from two very diametrically opposed viewpoints---he being an atheist who is science based and I being a believer who is faith based, though often my faith is in fantasy!  My point is that Tangle and I get along despite our clear differences. Hope you have some good friends at the college you are attending. Around here, we are all internet friends at best.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by Tangle, posted 09-04-2017 7:05 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by Porkncheese, posted 09-04-2017 8:33 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
Porkncheese
Member (Idle past 529 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: 08-25-2017
|
|
|
Message 120 of 154 (818926)
09-04-2017 8:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by Tangle
09-04-2017 7:05 AM
|
|
Re: What point?
Yes I forgot to mention that better explinations and references where provided later. Ya'll won't admit it but those first 2 references and related arguments were totally crap ok. U can't expect people to jump on board with shit like that. Especially with others telling a different story
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by Tangle, posted 09-04-2017 7:05 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2017 10:36 AM | | Porkncheese has replied | | | Message 128 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2017 10:57 AM | | Porkncheese has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2