Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6BS0bq1us
Its almost completely innumerate in that it claims 6 is not "real" and the only real numbers are the prime numbers. That's a straw-man argument based on a highly restrictive definition of number. Its use of "continuous" is also mistaken as not even the dense set of rational numbers are continuous.
The physics content is a lie based on the Bohr model and ignoring quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamical models. What is quantised is the eigenvalues of the energy, not the position of the electron.
The comment about big molecules only being found as the result of biological processes inside a cell is incorrect, since clay and other inorganic compounds have astronomical molecular weights -- if anything, the point better made is about Man's ignorance and the underdeveloped state of inorganic chemistry knowledge. It's a false dichotomy illustrated by they don't have a rule to divide the world of molecules. Likewise, multi-cellular life has an obvious spectrum of forms, including 2-cell clumps and small clumps of relatively undifferentiated cells.
But in ignorance the author argues (poorly) that today we should see 5-cell or 7-cell organisms which ignores both the biological development of form by cell divisions and relative specialization and the principle of natural selection which penalizes life for inelegant and expensive schemes that might result in 5-cell forms.
Gaps between forms is caused by natural selection forcing populations to diverge from one another via speciation. Only from a complete ignorance of biological history would one expect to see a continuum of form in the present-day biological world. Where you see your gradations finest is when you look in terms of time as well spatially.
Gaps in the fossil record are natural since it is an incomplete record but one subject to future discoveries as exploration continues. Not only are transitional forms found, they are found in the expected places. What more need be said?
Most of these ideas are old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html (Complexity of life today does not imply life in past was equally complex)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html (Gaps between populations today do not imply gaps in the past)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB922.html (Two-celled forms)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html (Transitional fossils)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html (Number of transitional fossils)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html (Gaps in time and fossil record)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH350.html (The so-called gaps between kinds don't seem to hold up to examination)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...peciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/line...tribution.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misc...s/IICgaps.shtml
Importantly even creationists demonstrate that there is a continuum in ape-human fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
In short, the "math logic" was based on misconceptions about the evolution of how forms appear. This subject, the evolution of biological development of form has a catchy subject title EvoDevo.
The physics content is a lie based on the Bohr model and ignoring quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamical models. What is quantised is the eigenvalues of the energy, not the position of the electron.
The comment about big molecules only being found as the result of biological processes inside a cell is incorrect, since clay and other inorganic compounds have astronomical molecular weights -- if anything, the point better made is about Man's ignorance and the underdeveloped state of inorganic chemistry knowledge. It's a false dichotomy illustrated by they don't have a rule to divide the world of molecules. Likewise, multi-cellular life has an obvious spectrum of forms, including 2-cell clumps and small clumps of relatively undifferentiated cells.
But in ignorance the author argues (poorly) that today we should see 5-cell or 7-cell organisms which ignores both the biological development of form by cell divisions and relative specialization and the principle of natural selection which penalizes life for inelegant and expensive schemes that might result in 5-cell forms.
Gaps between forms is caused by natural selection forcing populations to diverge from one another via speciation. Only from a complete ignorance of biological history would one expect to see a continuum of form in the present-day biological world. Where you see your gradations finest is when you look in terms of time as well spatially.
Gaps in the fossil record are natural since it is an incomplete record but one subject to future discoveries as exploration continues. Not only are transitional forms found, they are found in the expected places. What more need be said?
Most of these ideas are old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html (Complexity of life today does not imply life in past was equally complex)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html (Gaps between populations today do not imply gaps in the past)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB922.html (Two-celled forms)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html (Transitional fossils)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html (Number of transitional fossils)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html (Gaps in time and fossil record)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH350.html (The so-called gaps between kinds don't seem to hold up to examination)
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...peciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/line...tribution.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misc...s/IICgaps.shtml
Importantly even creationists demonstrate that there is a continuum in ape-human fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
In short, the "math logic" was based on misconceptions about the evolution of how forms appear. This subject, the evolution of biological development of form has a catchy subject title EvoDevo.
[Moderator: Extensive quote of previous post deleted due to failure of this post to show evidence of reading or citing specific sections.]
In regard to prime numbers what I wrote is factual. [Moderator: Video ignores 1 which is not prime and which is a factor of even the prime numbers. Video ignores zero and -1 which are numbers which don't meaningfully have unique prime factors. Video falsely equates prime and real numbers. Video contradicts self, in slide #2 1 is not prime while slide #5 includes 1 in a list of primes in contravention to practice. As pointed out below 2 and 3 are examples of prime numbers which contradict the video's claims that all primes differ from a multiple of 6 by plus or minus 1. The existence of the primes do nothing to tell us that the integers are not continuous -- that is already in the definition of integer, and since there is no integer between 1 and 2 that is clear. ] You chose to interpret these facts in your own convenient way that ignores the obvious. [Moderator: Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that the non-expert refrain from attempting to point out the "obvious" to the skilled.]
In regard to electron orbitals the wave function does indeed determine where the "orbit" is located. [Moderator: Even freshmen chemistry students are taught differently. w:Hydrogen atom (Visualizing the hydrogen electron orbitals) ] Even if it didn't my point would still be valid. [Moderator: This claim or "point" was "A [sic] electron goes from one orbit [sic] to another without ever being in the space in between [sic] to [sic] two orbits.[sic]" (emphasis as in original as seen on January 6, 2010) so your claim is anti-factual and contradicts the local conservation of probability and angular momentum and charge and would have ramifications for electrodynamics if true. If your point is "... physics point[s] to a discontinuous reality" then you have not made that argument in a reasonable way and the burden of proof remains unsatisfied. ]
The comments about complex molecules being found outside the cell grossly misrepresent the truth. [Moderator: More is needed to make an argument.]
In regard to all the links - who are you trying to fool? Maybe yourself?
In short your response is glib and plausible but in the end doesn't measure up. [Moderator: Belligerent and irrational but laughable that you later claim the above post did not address your video.]
For anyone interested in knowing more - go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDc_o9QyTHM
In regard to prime numbers what I wrote is factual. [Moderator: Video ignores 1 which is not prime and which is a factor of even the prime numbers. Video ignores zero and -1 which are numbers which don't meaningfully have unique prime factors. Video falsely equates prime and real numbers. Video contradicts self, in slide #2 1 is not prime while slide #5 includes 1 in a list of primes in contravention to practice. As pointed out below 2 and 3 are examples of prime numbers which contradict the video's claims that all primes differ from a multiple of 6 by plus or minus 1. The existence of the primes do nothing to tell us that the integers are not continuous -- that is already in the definition of integer, and since there is no integer between 1 and 2 that is clear. ] You chose to interpret these facts in your own convenient way that ignores the obvious. [Moderator: Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that the non-expert refrain from attempting to point out the "obvious" to the skilled.]
In regard to electron orbitals the wave function does indeed determine where the "orbit" is located. [Moderator: Even freshmen chemistry students are taught differently. w:Hydrogen atom (Visualizing the hydrogen electron orbitals) ] Even if it didn't my point would still be valid. [Moderator: This claim or "point" was "A [sic] electron goes from one orbit [sic] to another without ever being in the space in between [sic] to [sic] two orbits.[sic]" (emphasis as in original as seen on January 6, 2010) so your claim is anti-factual and contradicts the local conservation of probability and angular momentum and charge and would have ramifications for electrodynamics if true. If your point is "... physics point[s] to a discontinuous reality" then you have not made that argument in a reasonable way and the burden of proof remains unsatisfied. ]
The comments about complex molecules being found outside the cell grossly misrepresent the truth. [Moderator: More is needed to make an argument.]
In regard to all the links - who are you trying to fool? Maybe yourself?
In short your response is glib and plausible but in the end doesn't measure up. [Moderator: Belligerent and irrational but laughable that you later claim the above post did not address your video.]
For anyone interested in knowing more - go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDc_o9QyTHM
Look, William is it? I'm sure New Zealand is a perfectly fine place except for the science and math education. You haven't been on this forum in years, so I think we can manage without you.
You misuse the terms "real", "number", "continuous".
You seem unfamiliar with terms like "integer", "complete" and "dense".
Because the real numbers are complete, the intermediate value theorem guarantees a root when a continuous function changes signs.
6 is not made up of 2 and 3, but is the product of 2 and 3. (It is also the product of 3 and 2, 1 and 6, 6 and 1, or even sin³(−π/4) and −√(17²−1) .)
The "orbits" are spread out and all overlap with others. Some "orbits" (notably the 1s orbital) overlap with the nucleus causing the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectrum. Only the unphysical Bohr model claims that the electrons are exact distances from the nucleus.
You didn't use the word "complex" in your presentation. I thought you meant "large" when you said some "kinds" of molecules were only found inside cells. A clay chemist or hydrothermal vent chemist could go into better detail than I on the large numbers of compounds and their intricate arrangement in nature. Would you care to present a non-chauvanistic definition of "complex" in this case?
The links are placed there to educate. They are better labeled than your links, so the subject matter should not be suprising. You are not participating in a rational argument to ignore them. Indeed, you seem to wish to limit the evidence you view. How fragile your viewpoint must be. The websites I linked to aren't my personal pontifications like the You Tube videos you link to. The majority are based on contrasts between actual creationist and scientific literature, some of it predating your video by decades.
Your evaluation of my post as "not measuring up" seems to lack all rational support.
You misuse the terms "real", "number", "continuous".
You seem unfamiliar with terms like "integer", "complete" and "dense".
Because the real numbers are complete, the intermediate value theorem guarantees a root when a continuous function changes signs.
6 is not made up of 2 and 3, but is the product of 2 and 3. (It is also the product of 3 and 2, 1 and 6, 6 and 1, or even sin³(−π/4) and −√(17²−1) .)
The "orbits" are spread out and all overlap with others. Some "orbits" (notably the 1s orbital) overlap with the nucleus causing the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectrum. Only the unphysical Bohr model claims that the electrons are exact distances from the nucleus.
You didn't use the word "complex" in your presentation. I thought you meant "large" when you said some "kinds" of molecules were only found inside cells. A clay chemist or hydrothermal vent chemist could go into better detail than I on the large numbers of compounds and their intricate arrangement in nature. Would you care to present a non-chauvanistic definition of "complex" in this case?
The links are placed there to educate. They are better labeled than your links, so the subject matter should not be suprising. You are not participating in a rational argument to ignore them. Indeed, you seem to wish to limit the evidence you view. How fragile your viewpoint must be. The websites I linked to aren't my personal pontifications like the You Tube videos you link to. The majority are based on contrasts between actual creationist and scientific literature, some of it predating your video by decades.
Your evaluation of my post as "not measuring up" seems to lack all rational support.
Oh dear. Three posts in and William has thrown a temper tantrum in feedback rather than engage in rational debate.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 5 2011, 10:57 PM)
Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6BS0bq1us
The only 'gaps' in that video are the gaps in your understanding. There is a shocking amount of ignorance in that video. If you want to debate the specifics, do a clean write-up of the primary points of the video, and we can go through them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6BS0bq1us
The only 'gaps' in that video are the gaps in your understanding. There is a shocking amount of ignorance in that video. If you want to debate the specifics, do a clean write-up of the primary points of the video, and we can go through them.
Bad math and even worse science. "Even stranger any prime number can be divided by six by adding or subtracting 1". Let me try this 2, the first prime number is 2 +1 divided by 6 a whole number? Nope, well then 2 -1 divide by 6 must be a whole number, where did I put my calculator? Nope, it is exactly 0.16666667. Hmm, maybe my math is wrong, lets check the next prime number! 3 + 1 must surely be divisible by 6, dang, well then 3 - 2 must be, it is our last hope. Still no. Yep the OP must be wrong. In fact this must prove that no prime number plus or minus one can be divided by 6 
This has been one of the worst arguments against evolution that I have ever seen. I want my four minutes back. rpenner gave you some excellent resources to study. But if you are like a typical cretinist you will not even bother to look at them.
This has been one of the worst arguments against evolution that I have ever seen. I want my four minutes back. rpenner gave you some excellent resources to study. But if you are like a typical cretinist you will not even bother to look at them.
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 6 2011, 11:51 AM)
Bad math and even worse science. "Even stranger any prime number can be divided by six by adding or subtracting 1". Let me try this 2, the first prime number is 2 +1 divided by 6 a whole number? Nope, well then 2 -1 divide by 6 must be a whole number, where did I put my calculator? Nope, it is exactly 0.16666667. Hmm, maybe my math is wrong, lets check the next prime number! 3 + 1 must surely be divisible by 6, dang, well then 3 - 2 must be, it is our last hope. Still no. Yep the OP must be wrong. In fact this must prove that no prime number plus or minus one can be divided by 6
On the other hand, any prime number (larger than 3) +/- 1 will be divisible by 2 and 3, but that's just common sense. The only reason why the OP thought 6 was significant was because 2 and 3 are the most common factors by virtue of being the smallest. One half of all integers in existence are divisible by 2. One third of all integers in existence are divisible by 3, etc.
On the other hand, any prime number (larger than 3) +/- 1 will be divisible by 2 and 3, but that's just common sense. The only reason why the OP thought 6 was significant was because 2 and 3 are the most common factors by virtue of being the smallest. One half of all integers in existence are divisible by 2. One third of all integers in existence are divisible by 3, etc.
Your reply in regard to numbers is pedantic and evasive you are trying really hard to miss the point. [Moderator: Unclear antecedent for "you" since no less than three separate authors attempt to educate on the topic of numbers. It would seem to be a foul that for you to cry "pedantic" when over half the video hinges on your inability to use the term "continuous" correctly or even consistently.]
In regard to the orbits some useless information that attempts to obscure a valid point. [Moderator: Belligerent and yet hauntingly unclear as to what "valid point" you might have in mind.]
The same in regard to reply that suggested dividing 2 by 6 ??? [Moderator: Betrays an incomprehension of Subduction Zone's demonstration that the prime number 2 is a counter-example for the claim that all primes are just one away from a multiple of 6. What was being divided was 2 - 1.]
What are you afraid of? [Moderator: Unclear antecedent for "you." Answering for the moderator, I'm afraid that anti-science, bigotry, hate, nationalism and spurious claims to authority will prevail over empirical fact, reason and rational policy and as a result humanity will suffer. I interpret the owners of this forum's continued reliance on my moderation as tacit approval of my goals and tactics.]
I would hope anyone viewing this thread would view the videos themselves and make up their own minds. [Moderator: By all means. But your additional links are repetitive in that they are to the same two YouTube videos as in your posts above and distract from the flow of the conversation. If you wanted a meeting of the minds, it would have been a better communication strategy to post the textual content of the slides here.]
In regard to the orbits some useless information that attempts to obscure a valid point. [Moderator: Belligerent and yet hauntingly unclear as to what "valid point" you might have in mind.]
The same in regard to reply that suggested dividing 2 by 6 ??? [Moderator: Betrays an incomprehension of Subduction Zone's demonstration that the prime number 2 is a counter-example for the claim that all primes are just one away from a multiple of 6. What was being divided was 2 - 1.]
What are you afraid of? [Moderator: Unclear antecedent for "you." Answering for the moderator, I'm afraid that anti-science, bigotry, hate, nationalism and spurious claims to authority will prevail over empirical fact, reason and rational policy and as a result humanity will suffer. I interpret the owners of this forum's continued reliance on my moderation as tacit approval of my goals and tactics.]
I would hope anyone viewing this thread would view the videos themselves and make up their own minds. [Moderator: By all means. But your additional links are repetitive in that they are to the same two YouTube videos as in your posts above and distract from the flow of the conversation. If you wanted a meeting of the minds, it would have been a better communication strategy to post the textual content of the slides here.]
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 6 2011, 12:15 PM)
I would hope anyone viewing this thread would view the videos themselves and make up their own minds.
I've made up my mind. You're an idiot.
First, your video makes an dishonest but ultimately obvious observation about the nature of prime numbers.
Secondly, you ignore mountains of evidence and lie about the vast variety of organisms that exist. It is a lie, and a pretty transparent one at that.
Go read a f*cking book that's not based on the ramblings of bronze-age shepherds.
I've made up my mind. You're an idiot.
First, your video makes an dishonest but ultimately obvious observation about the nature of prime numbers.
Secondly, you ignore mountains of evidence and lie about the vast variety of organisms that exist. It is a lie, and a pretty transparent one at that.
Go read a f*cking book that's not based on the ramblings of bronze-age shepherds.
Sorry, but I quit watching your video when the nonsense kicked in, and that was in the very first sentence. What makes you think that evolution is "linear". You know, it is almost impossible to disprove something if you don't understand it. You need a more thorough knowledge of evolution before you try to debate against it. Otherwise you only look like a fool.
PS: Your music is terrible, Motley Cure or Metallica would at least keep the people interested in reaching listening. The music you have will only appeal to the fundies in their undies that agree with you.
PS: Your music is terrible, Motley Cure or Metallica would at least keep the people interested in reaching listening. The music you have will only appeal to the fundies in their undies that agree with you.
Wow!! What are you guys afraid of? [Moderator: As was made clear in posts by others above: Bordom and contagious arrogant ignorance.]
There is nothing in the videos that is not factual. [Moderator: A ridiculous claim to make in light of the to-then described factual errors in math and physics alone. Indeed the as of yet unread links seem to suggest the poster is actually methodologically intellectual dishonest.] The videos are on YouTube and are made for the popular audience so yes I have taken a few liberties with the technical nomenclature. [Moderator: This sentence seems to concede that there are factual errors that you know about because you are in a position of superior knowledge to your audience.]
I present factual evidence and draw logical conclusions. My critics here reject anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived biases for the slightest infringement scientific political correctness. [Moderator: Projection and a masturbatory persecution complex.]
Your moderator functions more as a censor reporting (misreporting really) the errors these videos contain - spoon feeding and cueing the nerdie wolf pack for the "kill". [Moderator: Commenting on your words is not censoring them. Even now, with your account suspended for failure to connect, none of your precious words has been harmed. They've simply been placed in adjacent context with an expansion of the critical engagement which you insist has not occurred. It is intriguing that you claim facts are on your side and criticize (without argument) your detractors for being immersed in fact.]
Ha Ha I guess but perhaps not as it is a sad reflection on how closed minded and pedantic this forum has become. Years ago we had some real fun here :-( [Moderator: Unclear antecedant for "we." This is a forum founded on fact-based rational discussion of the universe and you have repeatedly failed to connect with that subject matter.
There is nothing in the videos that is not factual. [Moderator: A ridiculous claim to make in light of the to-then described factual errors in math and physics alone. Indeed the as of yet unread links seem to suggest the poster is actually methodologically intellectual dishonest.] The videos are on YouTube and are made for the popular audience so yes I have taken a few liberties with the technical nomenclature. [Moderator: This sentence seems to concede that there are factual errors that you know about because you are in a position of superior knowledge to your audience.]
I present factual evidence and draw logical conclusions. My critics here reject anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived biases for the slightest infringement scientific political correctness. [Moderator: Projection and a masturbatory persecution complex.]
Your moderator functions more as a censor reporting (misreporting really) the errors these videos contain - spoon feeding and cueing the nerdie wolf pack for the "kill". [Moderator: Commenting on your words is not censoring them. Even now, with your account suspended for failure to connect, none of your precious words has been harmed. They've simply been placed in adjacent context with an expansion of the critical engagement which you insist has not occurred. It is intriguing that you claim facts are on your side and criticize (without argument) your detractors for being immersed in fact.]
Ha Ha I guess but perhaps not as it is a sad reflection on how closed minded and pedantic this forum has become. Years ago we had some real fun here :-( [Moderator: Unclear antecedant for "we." This is a forum founded on fact-based rational discussion of the universe and you have repeatedly failed to connect with that subject matter.
There are plenty of errors in your videos. And they are brain numblingly boring to watch. I know that you didn't read all of the resources that rpenner made available to you, what are you afraid of. The only new wrinkle you have brought is your very weak attempt to include mathematics as part of the debate. It failed miserably.
I tell you what, you go to any of rpenner's links, find something you can "prove" wrong, and I will watch your full second link and tell you what you did wrong. If you have any errors in your critique of rpenner I will correct those too.
I tell you what, you go to any of rpenner's links, find something you can "prove" wrong, and I will watch your full second link and tell you what you did wrong. If you have any errors in your critique of rpenner I will correct those too.
Wait a sec... since any number can be constructed from the primes, and since any prime (over 5) can be divided by 6 after adding or subtracting 1... and since 6 itself is just a product of 2 primes, 2 x 3...
By the OP's logic, wouldn't that make 1, 2, and 3 the only "real" numbers?
But since he's allowed addition already, and 2 is just 1 + 1, and 3 is just 2 + 1... then 1 must be the only "real" number!
He's obviously forgotten about 0... but if we correct that error, then... holy crap! The only "real" numbers are 0 and 1... he's just proved that we're living in a computer simulation! He's Neo, and we're trapped in the Matrix!
By the OP's logic, wouldn't that make 1, 2, and 3 the only "real" numbers?
But since he's allowed addition already, and 2 is just 1 + 1, and 3 is just 2 + 1... then 1 must be the only "real" number!
He's obviously forgotten about 0... but if we correct that error, then... holy crap! The only "real" numbers are 0 and 1... he's just proved that we're living in a computer simulation! He's Neo, and we're trapped in the Matrix!
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 6 2011, 06:18 PM)
There are plenty of errors in your videos. And they are brain numblingly boring to watch. I know that you didn't read all of the resources that rpenner made available to you, what are you afraid of. The only new wrinkle you have brought is your very weak attempt to include mathematics as part of the debate. It failed miserably.
I tell you what, you go to any of rpenner's links, find something you can "prove" wrong, and I will watch your full second link and tell you what you did wrong. If you have any errors in your critique of rpenner I will correct those too.
Now isn't this fine?
I have brought in a topic for discussion.
I have not come here to be fobbed off with some link! [Moderator: This position is wholly inconsistent to hold by someone who starts a thread with a provocative title, a one-line plea to watch a video and a link. It's also a debating foul when the links are to scientific and historical materials supported by scholarly citation to original sources in the primary literature. Your outrage is unjustified as is your continued refusal to admit that more than just math and physics content was in the second post.]
The discussion we have had so far consists of someone telling me that I'm stupid! [[color]Moderator: This falsely represents the totality of the thread to this point.[/color]
Duh!! Is that the best you can do?
No wonder you are trying to kill the topic and redirect the discussion. [Moderator: There is no support for this claim.]
Tto be honest I have never met a believer in evolution that could explain the theory in their own words. Its always "go to this link" or "read this book". [Moderator: Deliberate ignorance of primary material is unseemly in a self-professed "expert."]
Or best of all: "plenty errors" and "you are an idiot" -Good stuff eh? [Moderator: flyingbuttressman responded to your general challenge to "view the videos themselves and make up their own minds" with "I've made up my mind. You're an idiot." But he didn't say you were "stupid" and could easily mean that you are merely acting in a "self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way." Most of the other comments, including Subduction Zone's "[t]here are plenty of errors in your videos" directly point at your behavior, not your mental capacity.]
I tell you what, you go to any of rpenner's links, find something you can "prove" wrong, and I will watch your full second link and tell you what you did wrong. If you have any errors in your critique of rpenner I will correct those too.
Now isn't this fine?
I have brought in a topic for discussion.
I have not come here to be fobbed off with some link! [Moderator: This position is wholly inconsistent to hold by someone who starts a thread with a provocative title, a one-line plea to watch a video and a link. It's also a debating foul when the links are to scientific and historical materials supported by scholarly citation to original sources in the primary literature. Your outrage is unjustified as is your continued refusal to admit that more than just math and physics content was in the second post.]
The discussion we have had so far consists of someone telling me that I'm stupid! [[color]Moderator: This falsely represents the totality of the thread to this point.[/color]
Duh!! Is that the best you can do?
No wonder you are trying to kill the topic and redirect the discussion. [Moderator: There is no support for this claim.]
Tto be honest I have never met a believer in evolution that could explain the theory in their own words. Its always "go to this link" or "read this book". [Moderator: Deliberate ignorance of primary material is unseemly in a self-professed "expert."]
Or best of all: "plenty errors" and "you are an idiot" -Good stuff eh? [Moderator: flyingbuttressman responded to your general challenge to "view the videos themselves and make up their own minds" with "I've made up my mind. You're an idiot." But he didn't say you were "stupid" and could easily mean that you are merely acting in a "self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way." Most of the other comments, including Subduction Zone's "[t]here are plenty of errors in your videos" directly point at your behavior, not your mental capacity.]
no1nose, I agree, pointing out that you are stupid is a waste of time. I will try to help.
Come on people, stop belaboring the obvious!
There, that should help. Now onto my challenge. You brought the debate here, no debate is one sided, you are in no way in control of it, with the exception of your willingness to participate. You also want to change other people's point of view. You are not going to do that with an inane video. I tried to engage you in a meaningful discussion, and you could not even do one small bit of work. We watched your painfully dull first video, and some actually watched your second. If you don't like the challenge you don't have to do it, but I don't think anyone is to willing to do anything but insult you if you keep acting this way.
Come on people, stop belaboring the obvious!
There, that should help. Now onto my challenge. You brought the debate here, no debate is one sided, you are in no way in control of it, with the exception of your willingness to participate. You also want to change other people's point of view. You are not going to do that with an inane video. I tried to engage you in a meaningful discussion, and you could not even do one small bit of work. We watched your painfully dull first video, and some actually watched your second. If you don't like the challenge you don't have to do it, but I don't think anyone is to willing to do anything but insult you if you keep acting this way.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 6 2011, 01:48 PM)
The discussion we have had so far consists of someone telling me that I'm stupid!
Technically, the only thing you have brought up here is "watch this video" to which I say "you're stupid for recommending this horrible video."
If you want to talk specifics, then bring up some specifics. I am not going to debate someone who can't bother themselves to put together a cohesive argument.
Technically, the only thing you have brought up here is "watch this video" to which I say "you're stupid for recommending this horrible video."
If you want to talk specifics, then bring up some specifics. I am not going to debate someone who can't bother themselves to put together a cohesive argument.
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 6 2011, 06:54 PM)
no1nose, I agree, pointing out that you are stupid is a waste of time. I will try to help.
Come on people, stop belaboring the obvious!
There, that should help. Now onto my challenge. You brought the debate here, no debate is one sided, you are in no way in control of it, with the exception of your willingness to participate. You also want to change other people's point of view. You are not going to do that with an inane video. I tried to engage you in a meaningful discussion, and you could not even do one small bit of work. We watched your painfully dull first video, and some actually watched your second. If you don't like the challenge you don't have to do it, but I don't think anyone is to willing to do anything but insult you if you keep acting this way.
Maybe you should go away? [Moderator: That is a topic of discussion between the moderator and the posters, not between the posters themselves. Please don't usurp the site-owner-delagated authority.]
Come on people, stop belaboring the obvious!
There, that should help. Now onto my challenge. You brought the debate here, no debate is one sided, you are in no way in control of it, with the exception of your willingness to participate. You also want to change other people's point of view. You are not going to do that with an inane video. I tried to engage you in a meaningful discussion, and you could not even do one small bit of work. We watched your painfully dull first video, and some actually watched your second. If you don't like the challenge you don't have to do it, but I don't think anyone is to willing to do anything but insult you if you keep acting this way.
Maybe you should go away? [Moderator: That is a topic of discussion between the moderator and the posters, not between the posters themselves. Please don't usurp the site-owner-delagated authority.]
Why? I am having too much fun poking at your trollish behavior. If you want a debate or discussion it can't be "my way or the highway". Both parties need to agree to what is to be debated. You asked us if we were afraid, the answer is no, we watched your video, and countless others like it, they are nonsense at best usually. There is nothing scary to an evolutionist in any of them. You on the other hand have refused to learn about what you are debating against. That indicates that you are debating from a position of ignorance, and practically no one can wind a debate that way.
How is it unfair of me to request that you check out at least some of the material that points out how you are wrong?
How is it unfair of me to request that you check out at least some of the material that points out how you are wrong?
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 6 2011, 07:05 PM)
Why? I am having too much fun poking at your trollish behavior. If you want a debate or discussion it can't be "my way or the highway". Both parties need to agree to what is to be debated. You asked us if we were afraid, the answer is no, we watched your video, and countless others like it, they are nonsense at best usually. There is nothing scary to an evolutionist in any of them. You on the other hand have refused to learn about what you are debating against. That indicates that you are debating from a position of ignorance, and practically no one can wind a debate that way.
How is it unfair of me to request that you check out at least some of the material that points out how you are wrong?
I thought that this was a forum.
That is a place where topics can be brought in to be discussed.
But instead people here are unwilling even to take a look what I have brought in and discuss it. [Moderator: An untruth which is so obvious here on page 2 that I do not hesitate to call it a lie.]
If in the course of the discussion a link becomes handy to make a point then why not? But to refuse to view the material that I have brought in and instead demand that I view your links and discuss that is not a forum. [Moderator: Who hasn't viewed at least your first video, which is the self-contained topic of this thread. All found it to be ignorance of math and physics, and you ignore when the discussion continues (in the order topics are presented in the videor) to biological evolution and the history of life on Earth.]
On that basis I think your talents would be better served someplace else.
I am interested in discussing the YouTube videos with anyone who wants to watch them and comment on the content. [Moderator: An untruth which is so obvious here on page 2 that I do not hesitate to call it a lie.]
If you don't want to watch them that's OK with me but why then bother me with your "stuff"? I'm not interested. [Moderator: ... in facts, science, fair debate, mathematics -- in short you now claim to be uninterested in the topics presented in the video.]
How is it unfair of me to request that you check out at least some of the material that points out how you are wrong?
I thought that this was a forum.
That is a place where topics can be brought in to be discussed.
But instead people here are unwilling even to take a look what I have brought in and discuss it. [Moderator: An untruth which is so obvious here on page 2 that I do not hesitate to call it a lie.]
If in the course of the discussion a link becomes handy to make a point then why not? But to refuse to view the material that I have brought in and instead demand that I view your links and discuss that is not a forum. [Moderator: Who hasn't viewed at least your first video, which is the self-contained topic of this thread. All found it to be ignorance of math and physics, and you ignore when the discussion continues (in the order topics are presented in the videor) to biological evolution and the history of life on Earth.]
On that basis I think your talents would be better served someplace else.
I am interested in discussing the YouTube videos with anyone who wants to watch them and comment on the content. [Moderator: An untruth which is so obvious here on page 2 that I do not hesitate to call it a lie.]
If you don't want to watch them that's OK with me but why then bother me with your "stuff"? I'm not interested. [Moderator: ... in facts, science, fair debate, mathematics -- in short you now claim to be uninterested in the topics presented in the video.]
QUOTE
If in the course of the discussion a link becomes handy to make a point then why not? But to refuse to view the material that I have brought in and instead demand that I view your links and discuss that is not a forum.
Wait just a minute here back the logic train up. You not that long ago said this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If in the course of the discussion a link becomes handy to make a point then why not? But to refuse to view the material that I have brought in and instead demand that I view your links and discuss that is not a forum. |
Wait just a minute here back the logic train up. You not that long ago said this:
I have brought in a topic for discussion.
I have not come here to be fobbed off with some link!
And this:
QUOTE
Tto be honest I have never met a believer in evolution that could explain the theory in their own words. Its always "go to this link" or "read this book".
So are we to accept the premise that the only one allowed to make a point using a link is you? That everyone else is forbidden to link in order to make a point but for you it's ok. Seriously are you reading what you type? You've just made it absolutely clear that your intention here is not in any way shape or form debate. If it was you wouldn't be making different sets of rules for you and your opposition. It's quite hard to talk to someone logically when the keep rigging the discussion with illogical rules.
[Moderator: The wholesale quoting of the previous post is unnecessary when no piece of the previous post is responded to.]
Here are the videos - have a look and lets talk
[Moderator: Please refer to posts 1 and 3 if you want to see the repetitive links to the videos. The discussion was well under way before the second video was introduced and the moderator had been patiently waiting for a meaningful response before acting.]
Here are the videos - have a look and lets talk
[Moderator: Please refer to posts 1 and 3 if you want to see the repetitive links to the videos. The discussion was well under way before the second video was introduced and the moderator had been patiently waiting for a meaningful response before acting.]
Why would he waste his time on your videos when you have shown no willingness to look at other people's work.
I'm going no where near those links until you:
1) Admit to your double standard
2) Visit the links you were already provided with
3) Demonstrate that you are actually willing to listen and learn about what evolution really says and not what you think it says
You can't just brush aside the very valid point I brought up about your self contradiction. It can't be just fine for you to use a link to make a point and at the same time an attempt to stifle debate when someone else does the same thing. I refuse to enter into a debate with anyone that unreasonable because I know from experience that kind of person will never be convinced of anything. If you could demonstrate you are not that kind of person I might be inclined to help you learn a little about evolution but as it stands now I see no point in even trying. Heck you even ignored my perfectly valid point that had nothing at all to do with evolution suggesting you really have no intention of actually considering and addressing any reply you get. If you can't discuss something as trivial as a contradiction in your own words then I know you won't be able to have a proper reasonable discussion of evolution.
1) Admit to your double standard
2) Visit the links you were already provided with
3) Demonstrate that you are actually willing to listen and learn about what evolution really says and not what you think it says
You can't just brush aside the very valid point I brought up about your self contradiction. It can't be just fine for you to use a link to make a point and at the same time an attempt to stifle debate when someone else does the same thing. I refuse to enter into a debate with anyone that unreasonable because I know from experience that kind of person will never be convinced of anything. If you could demonstrate you are not that kind of person I might be inclined to help you learn a little about evolution but as it stands now I see no point in even trying. Heck you even ignored my perfectly valid point that had nothing at all to do with evolution suggesting you really have no intention of actually considering and addressing any reply you get. If you can't discuss something as trivial as a contradiction in your own words then I know you won't be able to have a proper reasonable discussion of evolution.
Unless you want to get bored to death I would not suggest that you watch them anyway.
I know, I shouldn't have this attitude, but when you offer a discussion with someone who only wants to post ridiculous points it is hard to keep your patience.
I know, I shouldn't have this attitude, but when you offer a discussion with someone who only wants to post ridiculous points it is hard to keep your patience.
I tried to watch it. It had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. So I have no choice but to assume that the person who recommended it knows nothing about evolution.
Next...
Next...
Right
Last time I used the forum I accessed it from the main PhyOrg web page. Back then they featured this forum in a box on on their Science web pages on the right hand side with a list of the hot topics. Now it is completely gone!! I had to google "PhysOrg forums" to get here. Once I got here I was surprised with now old the technology was here - still the same old software. On facebook the videos will play right here in this space. Obviously the people at PhysOrg are not resourcing this forum or wanting to knowledge publicly that it is a part of their site.
Want to know why? [Moderator: They were always separate websites and the owners went in two different directions. PhysOrg was at the time just an aggregator of press releases and not a reliable news source of itself. ]
Cover your eyes this might hurt. This forum is an embarrassment to them. Anyone with an open mind and a love of truth would be ashamed at what happens here. Take this thread for example- I posted some stuff that nobody wants to watch but they are still quite happy to hang around and be abusive. [Moderator: An unfair characterization of those that did actually sit through one or more of the videos to have material to talk about. ]
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on. [Moderator: Here we are on page 2 and the continued claims that his critics have some other source of material to criticize other than the videos is mysterious. Is it delusion or feigned stupidity? ]
Last time I used the forum I accessed it from the main PhyOrg web page. Back then they featured this forum in a box on on their Science web pages on the right hand side with a list of the hot topics. Now it is completely gone!! I had to google "PhysOrg forums" to get here. Once I got here I was surprised with now old the technology was here - still the same old software. On facebook the videos will play right here in this space. Obviously the people at PhysOrg are not resourcing this forum or wanting to knowledge publicly that it is a part of their site.
Want to know why? [Moderator: They were always separate websites and the owners went in two different directions. PhysOrg was at the time just an aggregator of press releases and not a reliable news source of itself. ]
Cover your eyes this might hurt. This forum is an embarrassment to them. Anyone with an open mind and a love of truth would be ashamed at what happens here. Take this thread for example- I posted some stuff that nobody wants to watch but they are still quite happy to hang around and be abusive. [Moderator: An unfair characterization of those that did actually sit through one or more of the videos to have material to talk about. ]
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on. [Moderator: Here we are on page 2 and the continued claims that his critics have some other source of material to criticize other than the videos is mysterious. Is it delusion or feigned stupidity? ]
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 6 2011, 04:02 PM)
This forum is an embarrassment to them.
Then why don't they just remove it? The forum prevents video posting because, otherwise, idiots like you would just spam the forum with video. I like how lean the forum is. No pictures or other crap.
I don't tolerate willful stupidity. You are willfully keeping yourself ignorant by rejecting universally accepted scientific fact. I watched your video. Both the content and presentation were infantile at best.
I don't tolerate willful stupidity. You are willfully keeping yourself ignorant by rejecting universally accepted scientific fact. I watched your video. Both the content and presentation were infantile at best.
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on.
I watched it. It sucked. The end.
You have yet to even address the fact that you made it quite clear that only your links matter and you will not acknowledge anything anyone else links. (At least not unless it agrees with you.) You have also not given a reason as to how this position of yours leads to free and open discourse instead of a one sided debate with a person who refuses to see any evidence. It seems to me that most people here are quite willing to engage in a lively debate if you would only first indicate that you are actually interested in giving our links the same consideration that you demand for yours. Since so far you've made it very clear that you considered any links by people that disagree as attempts to derail the conversation and refuse to acknowledge the existence of this glaring double standard it has become quite clear you have no interest at all in keeping an open mind or in constructive discourse.
Hey, those sound like good rules.
Then why don't they just remove it? The forum prevents video posting because, otherwise, idiots like you would just spam the forum with video. I like how lean the forum is. No pictures or other crap.
QUOTE
Anyone with an open mind and a love of truth would be ashamed at what happens here. Take this thread for example- I posted some stuff that nobody wants to watch but they are still quite happy to hang around and be abusive.
I don't tolerate willful stupidity. You are willfully keeping yourself ignorant by rejecting universally accepted scientific fact. I watched your video. Both the content and presentation were infantile at best.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyone with an open mind and a love of truth would be ashamed at what happens here. Take this thread for example- I posted some stuff that nobody wants to watch but they are still quite happy to hang around and be abusive. |
I don't tolerate willful stupidity. You are willfully keeping yourself ignorant by rejecting universally accepted scientific fact. I watched your video. Both the content and presentation were infantile at best.
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on.
I watched it. It sucked. The end.
QUOTE
Take this thread for example- I posted some stuff that nobody wants to watch but they are still quite happy to hang around and be abusive.
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on.
I will check back later. If anyone wants to watch the video and talk that's cool - otherwise like the man say its time to move on.
You have yet to even address the fact that you made it quite clear that only your links matter and you will not acknowledge anything anyone else links. (At least not unless it agrees with you.) You have also not given a reason as to how this position of yours leads to free and open discourse instead of a one sided debate with a person who refuses to see any evidence. It seems to me that most people here are quite willing to engage in a lively debate if you would only first indicate that you are actually interested in giving our links the same consideration that you demand for yours. Since so far you've made it very clear that you considered any links by people that disagree as attempts to derail the conversation and refuse to acknowledge the existence of this glaring double standard it has become quite clear you have no interest at all in keeping an open mind or in constructive discourse.
QUOTE
As soon as one attempts to "sound scientific/mathematical/logical" then one is required to be scientific/mathematical/logical.
So what is required is a thesis statement with all terms defined and a demonstration on how the thesis makes either the doing or teaching of physics better than conventional approaches.
Ask yourself these questions:
Can you envision anything that would change your position on the proposition at the core of your thesis?
If an argument you raise is shown to be faulty, will you stop using that argument?
Are you prepared to accept that the person making the thesis bears the onus of demonstrating its truth?
Are you prepared to accept that the side with more supporting evidence is generally accepted as more likely to be true regardless of ones predispositions?
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uplo...-Flow-Chart.jpg
So what is required is a thesis statement with all terms defined and a demonstration on how the thesis makes either the doing or teaching of physics better than conventional approaches.
Ask yourself these questions:
- Do you have a proposition which is at the core of your thesis?
- If not, then you seem to be wasting everyone's time listing what your thesis is not.
- If not, then this is not a discussion, but is merely sterile and unscientific pontification.
- If not, then this is not a meeting of the minds, as it takes a certain absence of mind and absence of honesty to repeat arguments one knows to be faulty.
- If not, then this is not a reasonable and civilized way to proceed to the truth.
- If not, then this is not a discussion about the universe but is about your predispositions.
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uplo...-Flow-Chart.jpg
Hey, those sound like good rules.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jan 6 2011, 10:59 PM)
Hey, those sound like good rules.
Another off topic reply. 220 views so far and 29 replies yet not one actually address the issues raised in the video and few if any respondents have actually watch the videos.
Any takers? [Moderator: It was probably about this time when I realized any charitable interpretation of the posters goals and motives was complete misguided. I had long suspected this would turn out to be the case, but one of the requirements of wielding power is "measure twice, cut once." I'm a dictator, but a fair dictator.]
Another off topic reply. 220 views so far and 29 replies yet not one actually address the issues raised in the video and few if any respondents have actually watch the videos.
Any takers? [Moderator: It was probably about this time when I realized any charitable interpretation of the posters goals and motives was complete misguided. I had long suspected this would turn out to be the case, but one of the requirements of wielding power is "measure twice, cut once." I'm a dictator, but a fair dictator.]
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 6 2011, 06:41 PM)
Another off topic reply. 220 views so far and 29 replies yet not one actually address the issues raised in the video and few if any respondents have actually watch the videos.
He just wants people to agree with him, with no discussion.
This sounds a lot like failure to engage.
He just wants people to agree with him, with no discussion.
This sounds a lot like failure to engage.
It looks very much to me [Moderator: Dunning-Kruger.] that the reason that you don't respond to the videos [Moderator: Deceitful.] is because you can't. [Moderator: Contradicted by evidence.] You don't have an answer for them [Moderator: Contradicted by evidence.] and its really that simple. [Moderator: Projection? Dunning-Kruger?]
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for failure to engage with the world of useful ideas and rational conversation about factual events.]
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for failure to engage with the world of useful ideas and rational conversation about factual events.]
I disagree with the moderators comments.
No one has taken up any of the issues raised in the videos other than to say they are rubbish. This is suppose to be a creation / evolution forum and that implies that creationism will be discussed. But obviously it won't and you will get banned if you try to get people to look at the issues and discuss them. Most unfair and closed minded.
No one has taken up any of the issues raised in the videos other than to say they are rubbish. This is suppose to be a creation / evolution forum and that implies that creationism will be discussed. But obviously it won't and you will get banned if you try to get people to look at the issues and discuss them. Most unfair and closed minded.
Here are the "BANNED VIDEOS" :
youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6BS0bq1us
and
youtube.com/watch?v=KSpUCJLzDLA
Lots of comments and discussion there on YOUTUBE - they aren't afraid of the truth.
The second video is my favorite at the moment!
youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6BS0bq1us
and
youtube.com/watch?v=KSpUCJLzDLA
Lots of comments and discussion there on YOUTUBE - they aren't afraid of the truth.
The second video is my favorite at the moment!
No sound person cares about your video. Although I got a giggle from the conscious decisions bacteria must make. You have a slap happy bunch of useless garbage that only neurosis of numbers can hold together.
Go. Go, quick while there is still time! Save our heathen souls from eternal damnation.
Go. Go, quick while there is still time! Save our heathen souls from eternal damnation.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jan 7 2011, 10:54 PM)
No sound person cares about your video. Although I got a giggle from the conscious decisions bacteria must make. You have a slap happy bunch of useless garbage that only neurosis of numbers can hold together.
Go. Go, quick while there is still time! Save our heathen souls from eternal damnation.
Why even bother if you think its that stupid? I wouldn't
Nest?
Go. Go, quick while there is still time! Save our heathen souls from eternal damnation.
Why even bother if you think its that stupid? I wouldn't
Nest?
Well you could tell me more about the decision making powers of bacteria.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jan 7 2011, 11:05 PM)
Well you could tell me more about the decision making powers of bacteria.
The video doesn't say bacteria make decisions!
It only presents the facts that consciousness plays a role that we are just beginning to recognize.
Maybe you can tell me exactly what consciousness is and clear the whole matter up. Please!
The video doesn't say bacteria make decisions!
It only presents the facts that consciousness plays a role that we are just beginning to recognize.
Maybe you can tell me exactly what consciousness is and clear the whole matter up. Please!
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 7 2011, 11:20 PM)
The video doesn't say bacteria make decisions!
It only presents the facts that consciousness plays a role that we are just beginning to recognize.
Maybe you can tell me exactly what consciousness is and clear the whole matter up. Please!
Whoa there. I didn't make the video but I think you just disregarded it. I'd hate to see you widdle away such a fine piece bit by bit if I were to choose another topic from it. I'm really intrigued with what you said about the bacteria.
Please indulge me.
It only presents the facts that consciousness plays a role that we are just beginning to recognize.
Maybe you can tell me exactly what consciousness is and clear the whole matter up. Please!
Whoa there. I didn't make the video but I think you just disregarded it. I'd hate to see you widdle away such a fine piece bit by bit if I were to choose another topic from it. I'm really intrigued with what you said about the bacteria.
Please indulge me.
Just a small suggestion. Perhaps it would be more conducive to people accepting your argument if you demonstrated an ability to follow the rules set by the administrators of the forum even when you don't agree with them. It certainly makes it hard to believe you will be reasonable and follow the basic conventions of open debate when you won't follow the actual rules set out before you.
Well that and actively breaking said rules is a good way to get removed from these forums forever. Your return does nothing but provide a reason for your removal and thus ends any chance of you ever continuing this debate.
Well that and actively breaking said rules is a good way to get removed from these forums forever. Your return does nothing but provide a reason for your removal and thus ends any chance of you ever continuing this debate.
OK I watched it... W T F do prime numbers have to do with evolution? 
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jan 8 2011, 12:27 AM)
OK I watched it... W T F do prime numbers have to do with evolution?
prime numbers are one piece of evidence that at the most fundamental level nature in discontinuous. Quantum physics etc reinforce is idea. This view of nature is also found in the fossil record and in life itself - what is like a Duckbilled Platypus?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
prime numbers are one piece of evidence that at the most fundamental level nature in discontinuous. Quantum physics etc reinforce is idea. This view of nature is also found in the fossil record and in life itself - what is like a Duckbilled Platypus?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 7 2011, 07:45 PM)
This view of nature is also found in the fossil record and in life itself - what is like a Duckbilled Platypus?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
The platypus is an example of a dead-end in evolution. All the platypus' close relatives are extinct. If you look at slightly more distant relatives, you can see the Echidna, another egg-laying mammal. Both of these species are members of the Order Monotremata. There are also a number of extinct Platypus relatives in the fossil record: Ornithorhynchidae.
There only gaps between species because of extinction. There are fossils that fill in virtually every gap known to man. So, bringing up the Platypus was a bad example. Do you have any others you would care to share?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
The platypus is an example of a dead-end in evolution. All the platypus' close relatives are extinct. If you look at slightly more distant relatives, you can see the Echidna, another egg-laying mammal. Both of these species are members of the Order Monotremata. There are also a number of extinct Platypus relatives in the fossil record: Ornithorhynchidae.
There only gaps between species because of extinction. There are fossils that fill in virtually every gap known to man. So, bringing up the Platypus was a bad example. Do you have any others you would care to share?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 8 2011, 01:05 AM)
The platypus is an example of a dead-end in evolution. All the platypus' close relatives are extinct. If you look at slightly more distant relatives, you can see the Echidna, another egg-laying mammal. Both of these species are members of the Order Monotremata. There are also a number of extinct Platypus relatives in the fossil record: Ornithorhynchidae.
There only gaps between species because of extinction. There are fossils that fill in virtually every gap known to man. So, bringing up the Platypus was a bad example. Do you have any others you would care to share?
The gaps are always filled in alright but with speculation and conjecture. Where is the hard evidence? You haven't answered anything.
There only gaps between species because of extinction. There are fossils that fill in virtually every gap known to man. So, bringing up the Platypus was a bad example. Do you have any others you would care to share?
The gaps are always filled in alright but with speculation and conjecture. Where is the hard evidence? You haven't answered anything.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 7 2011, 08:09 PM)
The gaps are always filled in alright but with speculation and conjecture. Where is the hard evidence? You haven't answered anything.
Maybe that's just willful ignorance then. Let's look at what makes the Platypus unique:
It has a beak
It lays eggs
It is a mammal
The echidna has all of these properties as well. It is a relative of the platypus. The platypus is not unique. We have fossils of other animals that are similar to the platypus, but not quite the same.
What is your point? Evolution is the best theory to explain the diversity of life. No other theory comes close to explaining why living things are so different, and yet so similar to each other.
Maybe that's just willful ignorance then. Let's look at what makes the Platypus unique:
It has a beak
It lays eggs
It is a mammal
The echidna has all of these properties as well. It is a relative of the platypus. The platypus is not unique. We have fossils of other animals that are similar to the platypus, but not quite the same.
What is your point? Evolution is the best theory to explain the diversity of life. No other theory comes close to explaining why living things are so different, and yet so similar to each other.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 7 2011, 06:45 PM)
prime numbers are one piece of evidence that at the most fundamental level nature in discontinuous. Quantum physics etc reinforce is idea. This view of nature is also found in the fossil record and in life itself - what is like a Duckbilled Platypus?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
This makes no sense whatsoever. A non-sequitor if I ever heard one. So what if prime numbers are "discontinuous"? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
If nature is fundamentally discontinuous then the Theory of Evolution cannot be true.
This makes no sense whatsoever. A non-sequitor if I ever heard one. So what if prime numbers are "discontinuous"? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Indeed, if anything it demonstrated that the OP knows as little about math as he does about evolution. And if his argument from the "gaps" doesn't prove that 6 doesn't exist, perhaps it doesn't demonstrate that evolution is mistaken. But then, you would actually have to be good at logic to get that point. 
Video 2, 5min35sec
I'll just ignore the semantics for a moment. Adaptation would be just as linear as this video rails against evolution for being. Even if we assume a consciousness driven adaptation, it would still be a causal chain of events without gaps or discontinuity. The video even goes so far as to say that conscious thought is continuous, thus conscious adaptation is continuous. So by argument included in the video, something like 90% of its arguments are self-contradicted.
QUOTE
(adapt but not evolve)
I'll just ignore the semantics for a moment. Adaptation would be just as linear as this video rails against evolution for being. Even if we assume a consciousness driven adaptation, it would still be a causal chain of events without gaps or discontinuity. The video even goes so far as to say that conscious thought is continuous, thus conscious adaptation is continuous. So by argument included in the video, something like 90% of its arguments are self-contradicted.
The physical evidence is this: there are gaps in the fossil record and there are gaps between living things. Evolution speculates that these gaps are filled with intermediates but lacks the physical evidence to prove it.
I choose to look a little wider and notice that gaps are a fundamental part of the natural world. It is perfectly valid for me to conjecture that gaps exist in living things. The problem is that is they do this completely eliminates evolution as a valid theory.
I choose to look a little wider and notice that gaps are a fundamental part of the natural world. It is perfectly valid for me to conjecture that gaps exist in living things. The problem is that is they do this completely eliminates evolution as a valid theory.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 7 2011, 10:07 PM)
The physical evidence is this: there are gaps in the fossil record and there are gaps between living things.
There are gaps between your posts on this forum, therefore, according to your logic, you do not exist.
Ignorance of evidence is not an excuse. Your ignorance doesn't surprise me. You're probably a Protestant Christian who either never attended college, or never took a biology class. You have never studied Evolution or Biology in a way that would qualify you to make judgements about the veracity of theories in the field. You reject Evolution on religious grounds alone, and then make up piss-poor excuses for why other people should not believe either. Why don't you just skip the bullsh*t and plug your religion instead of this tired charade?
There are gaps between your posts on this forum, therefore, according to your logic, you do not exist.
QUOTE
Evolution speculates that these gaps are filled with intermediates but lacks the physical evidence to prove it.
Ignorance of evidence is not an excuse. Your ignorance doesn't surprise me. You're probably a Protestant Christian who either never attended college, or never took a biology class. You have never studied Evolution or Biology in a way that would qualify you to make judgements about the veracity of theories in the field. You reject Evolution on religious grounds alone, and then make up piss-poor excuses for why other people should not believe either. Why don't you just skip the bullsh*t and plug your religion instead of this tired charade?
no2nose, what's the exact definition of a "gap"?
QUOTE (mudderrunner+Jan 8 2011, 03:34 AM)
no2nose, what's the exact definition of a "gap"?
Empty space is a interesting concept.
Empty space is a interesting concept.
You have to be careful when you claim there are gaps in the fossil record. There are quite a few for land based flora and fauna, but that is to be expected. It takes very special circumstances to fossilize a land based animal. The odds are more than a million to one against it happening. Sea life is another story, we have excellent fossil records of almost every form of sea life.
Evolution is a totally self consistent, you can't say the same about creationism or intelligent design. So before we go any further are you a YEC or an IDiot? Do you believe in a Young Earth, or do you believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that God has just stirred the pot occasionally?
Evolution is a totally self consistent, you can't say the same about creationism or intelligent design. So before we go any further are you a YEC or an IDiot? Do you believe in a Young Earth, or do you believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that God has just stirred the pot occasionally?
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 8 2011, 03:41 AM)
You have to be careful when you claim there are gaps in the fossil record. There are quite a few for land based flora and fauna, but that is to be expected. It takes very special circumstances to fossilize a land based animal. The odds are more than a million to one against it happening. Sea life is another story, we have excellent fossil records of almost every form of sea life.
Evolution is a totally self consistent, you can't say the same about creationism or intelligent design. So before we go any further are you a YEC or an IDiot? Do you believe in a Young Earth, or do you believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that God has just stirred the pot occasionally?
You must realize that a photon traveling here from the beginning of creation would know only two instantaneous events: the "big bang" and the earth as it is now. To that photon our world today would look as though it was instantly created in the big bang.
Evolution is a totally self consistent, you can't say the same about creationism or intelligent design. So before we go any further are you a YEC or an IDiot? Do you believe in a Young Earth, or do you believe that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that God has just stirred the pot occasionally?
You must realize that a photon traveling here from the beginning of creation would know only two instantaneous events: the "big bang" and the earth as it is now. To that photon our world today would look as though it was instantly created in the big bang.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 8 2011, 03:59 AM)
You must realize that a photon traveling here from the beginning of creation would know only two instantaneous events: the "big bang" and the earth as it is now. To that photon our world today would look as though it was instantly created in the big bang.
That is a dodge. Are you that limp wristed in your own beliefs that you won't come out and state them openly?
That is a dodge. Are you that limp wristed in your own beliefs that you won't come out and state them openly?
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 8 2011, 04:06 AM)
That is a dodge. Are you that limp wristed in your own beliefs that you won't come out and state them openly?
That no dodge! Thats the reality out there - if you want to base a belief system like evolution on the idea there are absolute times then that's is your problems.
[Moderator: Banned for being sockpuppet of suspended user.]
That no dodge! Thats the reality out there - if you want to base a belief system like evolution on the idea there are absolute times then that's is your problems.
[Moderator: Banned for being sockpuppet of suspended user.]
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Jan 7 2011, 11:06 PM)
That is a dodge. Are you that limp wristed in your own beliefs that you won't come out and state them openly?
he dodged my question too. I'm done.
he dodged my question too. I'm done.
QUOTE (no2nose+Jan 8 2011, 03:59 AM)
You must realize that a photon traveling here from the beginning of creation would know only two instantaneous events: the "big bang" and the earth as it is now. To that photon our world today would look as though it was instantly created in the big bang.
Yes and that unfortunate photon could not deduce the true nature of the Universe.
It would have insufficient information.
The only logical conclusion it could reach is that it did not have enough information.
The creationist logical conclusion would be that it was created as is at the Big Bang.
If a BB photon hit Earth now, Earth would include the post I"m replying to.
Was your post created during the BB?
If you say no then you must conclude that the Creationist style of logic does not work.
And you did not answer the question asked.
Are you a YEC?
Showing that a photon could MISTAKENLY jump to a WRONG conclusion does not say what you believe.
Yes and that unfortunate photon could not deduce the true nature of the Universe.
It would have insufficient information.
The only logical conclusion it could reach is that it did not have enough information.
The creationist logical conclusion would be that it was created as is at the Big Bang.
If a BB photon hit Earth now, Earth would include the post I"m replying to.
Was your post created during the BB?
If you say no then you must conclude that the Creationist style of logic does not work.
And you did not answer the question asked.
Are you a YEC?
Showing that a photon could MISTAKENLY jump to a WRONG conclusion does not say what you believe.
Oh, and on the physics content of the original video.
QUOTE (williamgivens+Jan 2 2011)
2:05-2:07 Slide 8.
There are other "gaps" in nature.
2:12 Slide 9.
Physics is not continuous
[image]
A electron goes from one orbit to another without ever being in the space in between to two orbits.
There are other "gaps" in nature.
2:12 Slide 9.
Physics is not continuous
[image]
A electron goes from one orbit to another without ever being in the space in between to two orbits.
QUOTE (rpenner+ Jan 6 2011, 05:43 AM)
The physics content is a lie based on the Bohr model and ignoring quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamical models. What is quantised is the eigenvalues of the energy, not the position of the electron.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 6 2011, 06:46 AM)
In regard to electron orbitals the wave function does indeed determine where the "orbit" is located.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jan 6 2011, 08:39 AM)
The "orbits" are spread out and all overlap with others. Some "orbits" (notably the 1s orbital) overlap with the nucleus causing the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectrum. Only the unphysical Bohr model claims that the electrons are exact distances from the nucleus.
The image used in the slide is copied from Wikipedia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boh...del_English.svg
So while it is an accurate summary of the Bohr model that the electron is never in-between the radii of the Bohr orbits, that picture is 97-years old and not the picture of electrons and atoms that we have today.
The image used in the slide is copied from Wikipedia:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boh...del_English.svg
So while it is an accurate summary of the Bohr model that the electron is never in-between the radii of the Bohr orbits, that picture is 97-years old and not the picture of electrons and atoms that we have today.
To make it abundantly clear that there are very good reasons that the Bohr model was abandon it might be a good idea to list some of the problems with it:
1) It doesn't correctly predict the ground state orbital angular momentum of the Hydrogen electron
2) Makes rather bad predictions when you try to move to even something as simple as Helium with two electrons
3) The theory cannot predict the intensity of spectral lines.
4) The theory cannot predict which transitions are allowed and which are not.
and there are others. The concept of Bohr orbitals and atoms being tiny planetary systems while intuitively attractive is very very wrong.
Now what actually happens during a transition from one energy level to the next is a bit hard to explain. Essentially what happens is the wave function of the electron undergoes a supposition of the wave function of the destination energy level and the wave function of the currently occupied energy level. This supposition results in an oscillation of the electric dipole moment at a frequency proportional to the difference between the energy of the occupied and destination energy level divided by Planck's constant. This is not in any way like an electron hopping in a discrete manner from one energy level to another.
1) It doesn't correctly predict the ground state orbital angular momentum of the Hydrogen electron
2) Makes rather bad predictions when you try to move to even something as simple as Helium with two electrons
3) The theory cannot predict the intensity of spectral lines.
4) The theory cannot predict which transitions are allowed and which are not.
and there are others. The concept of Bohr orbitals and atoms being tiny planetary systems while intuitively attractive is very very wrong.
Now what actually happens during a transition from one energy level to the next is a bit hard to explain. Essentially what happens is the wave function of the electron undergoes a supposition of the wave function of the destination energy level and the wave function of the currently occupied energy level. This supposition results in an oscillation of the electric dipole moment at a frequency proportional to the difference between the energy of the occupied and destination energy level divided by Planck's constant. This is not in any way like an electron hopping in a discrete manner from one energy level to another.
Great you've linked a video that doesn't support your point and also contains an error. While we do call them shells sometimes they are not actually shells. This has a good visualization of orbitals. You'll notice they don't look like shells.
If one believes in Creationism, and then claims one's faith is "proven" by math and/or science, isn't one putting the authority in math and/or science and thus elevating math and/or science above one's faith? And when it turns out (as so often happens) that one doesn't know math and/or science, then how is that different from the apostasy of preaching the worship of false gods? Intellectual dishonesty is a short-sighted tactic if your goal is winning souls for eternity. Falsely claiming knowledge and therefore authority is motivated by the sin of pride and saving face, and not any type of charitable motive.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jan 29 2011, 08:19 PM)
If one believes in Creationism, and then claims one's faith is "proven" by math and/or science, isn't one putting the authority in math and/or science and thus elevating math and/or science above one's faith?
Faith can't be proven by anything (science or math). Faith is basically an emotion (i.e. love or anger). For one to claim his religious faith is proven by math, would be like claiming love can be proven by math. (And I believe over half the marriages in this country end in divorce. So emotion isn't a particularly sound investment, from a scientific point of view.)
Faith can't be proven by anything (science or math). Faith is basically an emotion (i.e. love or anger). For one to claim his religious faith is proven by math, would be like claiming love can be proven by math. (And I believe over half the marriages in this country end in divorce. So emotion isn't a particularly sound investment, from a scientific point of view.)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 30 2011, 02:19 AM)
Faith can't be proven by anything (science or math). Faith is basically an emotion (i.e. love or anger). For one to claim his religious faith is proven by math, would be like claiming love can be proven by math. (And I believe over half the marriages in this country end in divorce. So emotion isn't a particularly sound investment, from a scientific point of view.)
QUOTE (no1nose+Jan 30 2011, 05:02 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D0gLUshPYQ
Idiotic video
Idiotic video
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jan 30 2011, 10:31 PM)
Idiotic video
Glad I caught you in a good mood today - phew
Glad I caught you in a good mood today - phew
QUOTE (William Givens+)
Thoughts and Objects
We can only know objects through our senses-so it is possible that they are not really there. We only imagine they are there.
Thoughts are definitely real-it is impossible to say "I am not thinking this thought."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D0gLUshPYQ
We can only know objects through our senses-so it is possible that they are not really there. We only imagine they are there.
Thoughts are definitely real-it is impossible to say "I am not thinking this thought."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D0gLUshPYQ
The problem with this particular proposition of Mr. Givens is that without objects such as the neural tissue, the acts of
sensing, imagining and thinking would not be possible. So for any thoughts to be real, so must the essential objects to
manifest them. We know this for a fact because when we cannot sense adequate quantities of these objects in a given
individual, that individual does not say anything, let alone "I am not thinking this thought."
sensing, imagining and thinking would not be possible. So for any thoughts to be real, so must the essential objects to
manifest them. We know this for a fact because when we cannot sense adequate quantities of these objects in a given
individual, that individual does not say anything, let alone "I am not thinking this thought."
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.