 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 257 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Feel free to slag it, praise it, discuss it but please READ it before you do anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it probably makes a whole lot more sense than string theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
word to that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I stopped reading once he started talking about "the real universe," btw. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he said to "READ it before you do anything" and posting falls under the anything category! Shame no for you! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is interesting. Will read it and post some thoughts later. I like that he seems to end up with some flavor of pantheism. No Latka for me! |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hey Mertens, when I click on "more" at the bottom of his essay on evolution I get a password prompt. Have you read the rest of the essay? Can I get it somewhere? Does he say anything substantial or is it just more rhetoric? Based on just that one page I'd have to say his views on evolution are 15 pounds of shit in a 10 pound bag. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The field of evolutionary biology is currently dominated by neo-Darwinism, a troubled marriage of convenience between post-Mendelian genetics and natural selection, [...] What kind of asshole of ignorance was that idea pulled out of and how much grease was required? Troubled marriage of convenience? Because the geneticists and, er, "natural selectionists" are at odds with one another and often come to blows in university hallways, right? This is just one more example of creationists trying to envision trouble and controversy where there is none. If you ask me, the REAL theory in crisis is theism - there's no agreement between sub-sects, never mind religions, and churches across the street from one another think the other congregation is going to fry in hell. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't believe I just used the word "theory" to describe superstition. Oh well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're going to fry, vermin anthropomorphizer, and I'll be chuckling with Colonel Saunders and Walt Auschwitz from above. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How long do you have left fleet? In years. 40 or 50 or maybe 5? I think we should all argue faith on here as it's really worthwile. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That and cooking and food :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
darwinism was never meant to be "convincing." this, like any other alternative to evolution, is starting from a wholly irrelevant premise. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good point. Also notice his bait and switch concerning the idea of synthesis - "A synthesis is ordinarily expected to accommodate both sides of a controversy regarding its subject matter, not just the side favored by the synthesist" - as though the synthesis is supposed to be between science and popular prejudice, rather than between natural selection and genetics. Even then, the word synthesis in the case of neo-darwinism isn't supposed to carry Hegelian overtones - it's not like natural selection and genetics are diametrically opposed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i love the bit about how there must be a god, because " for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructive, creative intelligence. Indeed, without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure" all this is saying is the writer believes in god. but he not only believes in god, he believes one all knowing god - it makes me wonder if the writer were a christian before or after he came to such great theoretical epiphanies. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whether or not there's a god there's an insurmountable amount of pain, suffering, death, agony, and just outright widespread AWFULNESS across the planet. i do not see what these people trying to prove the existance (or non-existance) of a god are getting out of it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Unfortunately, the prevailing theory of biological origins seems to be telling us that at least one of these questions, why are we here?, is meaningless… ok , there is again no science here whatever. just more complete bollox. why cant they just make a bulleted list of reasons why they dont understand evolution so i can beat the shit out of each one in turn? i bet its just shit like "i personally cannot see how the human eye came to be formed by natural processes, therefore evolution is wrong" A lensed eye can be evolved from a simple photosensitive eye spot in 1829 steps if each generation has a 1% change in the magnitude of a range of variables (Nilsson and Pelger - found out via Dawkins). and each step is beneficial and so evolutionarily coherent. ive got heavily into creationist-arguing lately, the whole creationism thing (or "intelligent design") is so dazzlingly misinformed and ignorant, it makes me laugh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh dear basing his conception of "the real world" on logical in/consistencies... he's just totally misunderstood it all and I stopped reading again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*slag* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
AI is not made by God, it's made by warp in the early 90s |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is IDM intelligently designed ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(although this wikipedia page might've been touched-up by one of his supporters). sounds intruiging though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually i see that i said a wrong thing grrrrrr |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
an IQ of 195? he concludes the universe is designed, and blindly leaps to say that the christian god did it. bullshit. "Intellectuals" who find Darwinism Unconvincing he means "intellectuals who find mindless waffling easy and fun" why doesnt he put some real science in it, not just type pages of meaningless shit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The whole universe might be the way it is because 1. There's an infinite number of other universes that differ from ours, so we got lucky 2. We're living in a simulation I think im going to start the Simulationist Church soon. Free boxed sets of the matrix with every 500 dollars donated! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just as it won't help having a 10000 hp engine running on an empty tank, it's not going to help having a 195 IQ brain (which only means he's good at solving logical puzzles anyway) if there's no content for it to process. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i didn't see any christian rhetoric on the site. it seemed to me that he was saying that the universe was self-created and that nothing within the universe can be separated from that creation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well he said "Biblical accounts of the genesis of our world and species are true but metaphorical" where the hell did he get that conclusion from? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fleet, I was actually refering to the CTMU reality theory that was linked on that page. I addresses some points that we have debated concerning the relationship between mind and matter which, from my experience, is the REAL dividing line separating ID and Darwinist camps. Teleology, that's the issue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cygnus, should we view the rampant suffering in the world as a problem that needs to be cured or as a simple fact of observation? The view you take depends on how you view meaning and purpose. Again, it comes back to teleology. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, the many worlds interpretation of QM. He talk about that and the Antropic Principle in the Q and A section |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose it depends on your understanding of "true but metaphorical." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, how can it be true but metaphorical? isnt that really a contradiction? "god truly made the earth in six days, but only metaphorically so" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think he simply means that the genesis account is not to be taken literaly. But if you consider cosmic and biological evolution of the earth and life they share a striking resemblance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Quirks of history give idiots a target to shadow box with. I'm on the side of Copernicus here. Let history sort out the morons. This article, incidentally, is an average (maybe sub-average) philosophy text in the vein of the Scholastics and the Rationalists. Nothing others haven't done before, and better for that matter. At least it takes guts to offer a "Theory of Everything". Some people have got it all figured, thank g-d. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK, here's my take on that: pseudoscientific wankshot. - He says "But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not." I'm sorry, but the set of natural numbers does not exist in spacetime. It's purely conceptual. Houston, we have a problem with reification. And reality - my god, you mean he's discovered reality? Real honest to god REAL reality, and not just a conceptualization of it? Give the man a medal. - self-inclusion happens at the speed of light "in vacuo"? (gotta include some latin - it wows the yokels) He's not only reifying set theory, he's applying physical laws to it. Does self-inclusion happen more slowly in a liquid medium? - this is where time becomes space, because an act is temporal and self inclusion is spatial?! Self inclusion in set theory is conceptual, not spatial, unless you're modeling it with lego, which perhaps he was. Also, a man falling into a sewer is where time becomes space, because the act is temporal and the falling is spatial. I could go on, but what's the point? The guy is self-taught. And as the saying goes, he that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theres no evidence presented in it,no hypotheses, no formulas, data tables, graphs. its not science. it is all pointless waffle |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he doesn't necessarily have to have been an educated scholar, but you can clearly see that he hasn't subjected his own work to any proper criticism nor has he read anything that could be percieved as a criticism of it. he keeps going wrong at every turn |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I get the impression he's read the titles and chapter headings of a lot of important works, then filled in the details while he was in the shower. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so very true. every creationist, or "anti darwinist" argument essentially boils down to the assumption that if science cannot fully explain a system, then the system must be beyond the realm of science. it's like stating that circles are magic because we can't fully percieve the complete number pi. Or David Blaine made a playing card appear in my beer so he must be a wizard. personally, i don't see why it's so difficult to believe that all life evolved from single celled organism, but it's somehow easier to believe that a supernatural mega diety snapped his fingers and it just appeared. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oho, that "time becomes space" bit - that's from Wagner. Robert Anton Wilson and Philip K Dick, two of the great cranky minds of the 20th century, like to natter on about that between bong hits. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is your evolume name something to do with evolution? ive just realised how vague my "theres no evidence presented in it,no hypotheses, no formulas, data tables, graphs. its not science. it is all pointless waffle" post was. but its true, im sure. science involves evidence, and the analysis of evidence. this new shit has no evidence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah a long time ago i thought that as a biologist and a musician, a good nick for me would be evolume which is like evolution + volume. also, there is also the 'e' and 'volume' bits which are kinda internet-ish sounding. also it works great in this palindrome: "God's emu loves evolume's dog" which is ironic because i don't have a dog and God can't have an emu because there is no God. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey if you like to argue with creationists, have you seen it has an excellent organized list of virtually every ID or Creationist argument, refuted by real, referenced science. it is a good read. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Didn't the church reject Gallelios case that Earth is not the centre of the universe? I admit there are still flaws to Darwinism but it is the most concrete thoery out there and it is still easeir to prove than the existance of a god. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im scared of talkorigins, its too big. i frequent a few smaller forums though. arguing with creationists is fun. i have SERIOUSLY never spoken to one who really understands what evolution is and how it works. they always hide behind shit in the bible/quran, and when you post something which beats the shit out of their lame misinformed arguments, they just ignore it and never reply. its so funny |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wouldnt call them "flaws". but some things are definately incomplete e.g. how (the fuck?!?!) did echinoderms develop pentaradial symmetry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Creationists really don't deserve the attention they get. These are just stubborn people who won't admit to themselves that they are not intelligent enought to grasp some things. Their crusade is just a substitute to the beating they wanted to give their math teachers from junior-high. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The beauty of Darwinism is that the "flaws" aren't realy flaws, more like elements that have yet to be fully understood. Creationists take these questionable elements as proof that evolution is false, which is completely illogical. It is only proof that we have a lot more science to do. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
