[slein]

true dat, OPIE. i'll try to be brief (and THC always gets in the way of that)

us HUMANS are limited to what we can understand. our ability to reason this understanding is still pretty much based on our five senses that give our brain its input.

the truth is that EVERYTHING happens for a reason. we just don't know why (and that is being answered in another current thread). so, answering questions with just words doesn't hold a lot of water with everyone. beliefs and faith can be good things, even if they are just pipe dreams. even numbers (as fake a thing to study) helps people sleep at night. could it help that a lot of (mad) scientists are religious - because their science may have answers but may not explain the why.

not only do people like to hear or see themselves speak, people find it extremely difficult to admit that they are wrong. like, i've rarely changed my view from the things i've read in these stoopid forums.

so, thanks be to GOD, the FORCE or whatever you believe in. if you still haven't found yo answer, then maybe its time to change something. a haircut usually helps, so go get one.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I find it odd and interesting that you posted this... when most of your posts or replies to others seem to be quite literal.

PS: Brevity is the key to sucessful communication. Granted, we all do like to hear ourselves talk.

hmm, when i seem literal, am usually taking others position and following their logic to prove those arguments wrong.

i guess its my bad, i'll have to label those as "purposely un-logical"

yeah, i guess shorter posts are better, because my attention span is quite short too. but sometimes, u gotta back up the point with something, or back up the other side with some un-logic to prove it wrong.

yeah, i guess we are better with our modern biology, chemistry physics, medicine....
much better than we were in the dark ages with oscurantism or mysticism.

our gravitation-inertia model itself is actually much worse than the evolution model, because it explain a lot things, but raises a lot of questions also, yet einstein and his model are regarded as a huge achievenments in science.

our force fields models still quite arcaic, we dont even have a unified field theory, but we still teach f=ma and maxwell equations. our models tell us there are 4 kinds of forces, when we know they all have the same kind of manifestation.

same thing with aerodynamics, our models for turbulent flows are very new, and dont work at any scale.
still we flight in planes everyday.

and lots of thing could be said. but we only have 300 years of science and reason, less than a blink in universal time and we are where we are.

so far, what we got is the best we got, so we better keep using it, so maybe from this, we'll get better models later.
that progression took us where we are, and will take us further.

ignoring them because they are not perfect yet, is ridiculous, cause it will only set mankind a few leaps backward.

the problem again, is fundamentalists that expect science to give them whys or 100% certainties as they feel to find in religion.

and again, 100% certainties only exist in imaginary concepts, like math, nothingness or theological self-assurance.

science is not about whys, but how. there are no absolutes references points, thus absolutes whys cannot exist. only relative whys to our perception, like good, bad evil or wrong.

i think jewish phillosophy can teach us a lot about that.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
i think jewish phillosophy can teach us a lot about that.

i was in total agreement with your paid-by-the-word editorial until that line of crap.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by slein
not only do people like to hear or see themselves speak, people find it extremely difficult to admit that they are wrong. like, i've rarely changed my view from the things i've read in these stoopid forums.

so, you're saying that you know you're wrong, but find it difficult to admit it?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
...we still teach f=ma... ...ignoring them because they are not perfect yet, is ridiculous...

It's also impractical. f = ma is absolutely adequate for day-to-day use and it's simple.

If you had a unified model for the whole world, including god's left ovary, it'd be impractical to use it to figure out how long it takes to drive to granny's house.

The complexity of the universe is not subject to comprehension. We only figure out how to dance with little bits of it.

J

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by LordOpie
i was in total agreement with your paid-by-the-word editorial until that line of crap.

Your point?

 

[Ian F]

Originally posted by manimal
Where did matter come from?

I generally avoid this forum like the plague, but I can't resist this one.

Matter cannot be created. Matter cannot be destroyed. It has always been. It will always be.

Time is infinite. In BOTH directions. It will never end. It has no "beginning."

Contemplate that for a little while.

Don't ask me to explain it. There is nothing to explain. You either accept it or you don't and it's not my job to persuade you. Just to watch you argue about it. Which for the last few thousand years has been very entertaining, I might add.

Carry on...

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by ohio
"THAT" really has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. What you're doing is applying a theory you don't understand very well to sociology and politics. Be careful. The Nazis did the same thing.

It's easy to poke holes in a theory when you're make up new meanings for it. e.g. I claim it's a contradiction that Christians believe both "thou shalt not kill" but there's such thing as a "just war." See... shows an incomplete understanding.

Back the f up here. Your saying I don't understand evolution? The strong and healty survive? I don't understand this? You should pick your words more carefully.

12 year old has brain hemmorage, doctors save his life. 12 year old grows up and has children with the "brain hemmorage" gene. This completely bypasses natural selection/evolution. Saying otherwise is foolish.

If it is not bypassing evolution and playing God, what is it?

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by ohio
The Godwin principle applies to the abstract use of a Nazi reference for the implication of anti-semitism or racism. (err, or at least it only makes sense that way...)

My reference wasn't abstract at all. The Nazi's (and other social darwinists), quite literally, DID the same thing: apply misunderstood principles of evolution to sociology and politics. Interestingly, their resulting conclusion echos MBBG's conclusion.

I never said the Jews are inferior. I never said the Japanese are inferior. I never said the Australians are inferior.

Evolution has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine is not evolution. Using medicine to allow reproduction is not evolution. Using medicine to allow reproduction and strongly believing in evolution is a contradiction. Where does one find Hitler in that?

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
some professor in stanford once told me. (smart guy, he won the physics nobel in 96 by the way)

your model can get as close as you want to the actual fact, but u'll never be 100% sure, or something like that....

and another professor told me (on structural mechanics)

close enough, is good enough. i guess it kinda applies to this topic as well.

Being a PhD. doesn't make you any smarter or mistake-proof.

 

[slein]

Originally posted by LordOpie
so, you're saying that you know you're wrong, but find it difficult to admit it?

not really.... its not that i know that i'm wrong - yet when i am and i realise it, i change my position. however, i'm rarely wrong if i'm educated on the subject or can figure it out.

that, and i try to take everything with a grain of salt. for example, in this thread, someone stated that flight is based on GRAVITY, when in fact it is based on lift. perhaps you can fundamentally show that the venturi effect is related to gravity, so until that happens, gravity has nothing to do with it.

ideas are great until they are shown to be silly - be it evolution (which happens faster than DARWIN proposed) or creationism (which takes a lot of beer to believe in for me).

 

[llkoolkeg]

...definites before action will always arrive too late.

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by Ian F
Time is infinite. In BOTH directions. It will never end. It has no "beginning."

Time is a human construct.

The Cheese

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
Time is a human construct.

The Cheese

isn't everything a human construct? I mean, don't we alter it and make it our own by observing it and defining it... ala Shroedinger's Cat? Which I don't exactly agree with, but it's a common concept.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Ian F

"Matter cannot be created. Matter cannot be destroyed. It has always been. It will always be."

What if we simply havent discovered a way to destroy it yet?

"Time is infinite. In BOTH directions. It will never end. It has no 'beginning.'"

Hehe, good one! This can not be proved, nor will it ever be proved.

"Don't ask me to explain it."

Why not? Dont have the Time

LOL! Now everyone contemplate one of the ultimate impossible questions. This one is as cool as, where did matter come from, or where does the universe (everything) end/begin.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
Time is a human construct.

The Cheese

Time is not a human construct. The time LINE exists. Now, a clock is a human construct. An hour or a minute is a humkan constructed unit of measure however that is based on the non human constructed FACT that the galaxy is in motion.

Maybe you meant to say that time doesnt matter to anyone but humans. The VALUE of time is a human construct but only because we are afraid to die which is not a human construct but an instinct shared by all conceous living things.

Round and round we go... where we stop, that is another good question.

 

[Ian F]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
Evolution has nothing to do with medicine. Medicine is not evolution. Using medicine to allow reproduction is not evolution. Using medicine to allow reproduction and strongly believing in evolution is a contradiction.

LOL... That's looking at things with a clear definition of right/wrong. What's right/wrong, moral or immoral, does not matter in a pure evolutionary ideal - it is what it is.

The whole point is survival and procreation. Period. The means to that end do not matter. Medicine is simply a means to that end. If that is "playing god" so be it, but that is really a debate about morality.

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by LordOpie
you're talking about Partsbara and Valve Bouncer?


When religious people STOP saying that evolutionists believe we come from apes, I'll start considering what they have to say.

funny thing lord opie, is the the fact that valve and i are so stupid we have managed to live and successfully work outside of our own country... we both drive new cars, have new bikes, have plenty of spare flow to do whatever... no it s not credit either...

you on the other hand have moved your sorry ass from across the states and cannot afford a giro switchblade ?$@#^#%&*$

but i guess you have a great webpage that lets everyone know about your 'adventures'



partsbara

 

[Ian F]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
where did matter come from, or where does the universe (everything) end/begin.

Read my post again.

Some questions cannot be answered, but that doesn't mean the search for those answers should ever stop. To attempt to answer one question brings about 50 more questions. That's what makes it all worth while.

My point is this whole thread is sort of...

...pointless.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
Back the f up here. Your saying I don't understand evolution? The strong and healty survive? I don't understand this? You should pick your words more carefully.

12 year old has brain hemmorage, doctors save his life. 12 year old grows up and has children with the "brain hemmorage" gene. This completely bypasses natural selection/evolution. Saying otherwise is foolish.

If it is not bypassing evolution and playing God, what is it?

Yes, I'm saying you don't understand evolution. First you're focusing only on one aspect that being survival of the fittest. Second you're misinterpretting that aspect.

"Fittest" means "of most benefit to humanity, and most likely to ensure survival of the species." In the wild, that may have meant "strongest and healthiest." Given modern technology, it no longer does. If doctors can save us from brain hemorrhages, then that gene is no longer a factor in our "fitness."

The closest we come to playing God, is with PLASTIC surgery, in that altering our appearance allows us to DISPLAY a physical fitness that we don't actually have. This triggers a response on an instinctual level that is not naturally appropriate given someone's true genetic make-up.

And if you read my second post carefully, you'll see that I specifically said I WASN'T accusing you of anti-semetism... which is what Spud was implying I did.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Time is not a human construct. The time LINE exists.

Accept that we know time is relative. It can possibly be bent. Possibly so much so that it can loop back on itself. We don't know. For now it's more of a squiggly than a line.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by ohio
The closest we come to playing God, is with PLASTIC surgery, in that altering our appearance allows us to DISPLAY a physical fitness that we don't actually have. This triggers a response on an instinctual level that is not naturally appropriate given someone's true genetic make-up.

I'll take your line of thinking one step further and suggest that plastic surgery is part of "evolution"...

Only people with money can get a significant amount of plastic surgery to trigger the response your suggesting. And since money often equates to some sort of advanced member of humanity, then even if that trigger is "naturally" false, it does move us forward.

Evolution for humans has gone way beyond survival of the physically elite fit and needs to be redefined to take that into consideration.

Perfect example... Stephen Hawking.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Ian F
Read my post again.

Some questions cannot be answered, but that doesn't mean the search for those answers should ever stop. To attempt to answer one question brings about 50 more questions. That's what makes it all worth while.

My point is this whole thread is sort of...

...pointless.

My first post on this thread covered just about everything... Including, that the thread is not going to go anywhere because its... pointless

BTW I agree, the search for an answer to the impossible questions usually brings up an infinite amount of other impossible questions and even a few others that can actually be answered.

Thats why I started the thread "why". Just to add to the pointless philisophical RM topics

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by partsbara
...we have managed to live and successfully work outside of our own country... we both drive new cars, have new bikes, have plenty of spare flow to do whatever... no it s not credit either...

Whahahahaha - much as you hate to admit it - you really do sound like a prime example of a rabid American style consumer. Once you're Stateside and have easy access to guns and ammo - there will be no stopping you.

Who luvs ya baby????

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by LordOpie
isn't everything a human construct?...

ABSOLUTELY!
Thank you.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by ohio
Accept that we know time is relative. It can possibly be bent. Possibly so much so that it can loop back on itself. We don't know. For now it's more of a squiggly than a line.

But you agree, there is such a thing, and we have labeled it, time or the time line. Wether it is an actual line or a circle or whatever, it really matters not. All I was saying was that humans did not create the fact that there was a past, is present and most likely will be a future. Wether or not there is more to it than that... I dont want to open that can of worms.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Sideways
Re the comment: isn't Everything is a human construct.

ABSOLUTELY!
Thank you.

LOL, priceless! Ok then, humans must have created water, or electrons, earth & the Sun even. Dont forget light, humans created that too

The only thing humans created with regard to ALL naturally occuring things that we are aware of is a name/word for them.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
12 year old has brain hemmorage, doctors save his life. 12 year old grows up and has children with the "brain hemmorage" gene. This completely bypasses natural selection/evolution. Saying otherwise is foolish.

To me this is a prime example of the current state of human evolution - if you subscribe to the theories of natural selection and evolution you also have to recognize that humans can never bypass the process.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
LOL, priceless! Ok then, humans must have created water, or electrons, earth & the Sun even. Dont forget light, humans created that too

The only thing humans created with regard to ALL naturally occuring things that we are aware of is a name/word for them.

All that you are aware of is perceived through extraordinarily limited sensing and comprehensive ability.
The only thing that suggests the existence of anything is your fallible perception.

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
But you agree, there is such a thing, and we have labeled it, time or the time line. Wether it is an actual line or a circle or whatever, it really matters not. All I was saying was that humans did not create the fact that there was a past, is present and most likely will be a future. Wether or not there is more to it than that... I dont want to open that can of worms.

Of course humans created time as an explanantion of the observed motion. What are past, present and future but human explanantions of what they think is going on around them?

A parable:
A man is walking along a road and sees a farmer under an apple tree holding a pig above his head. The pig gets an apple and eats it. Then the farmer holds the pig up again and the pig again takes an apple. The man watches this for several minutes and then approaches the farmer.
"You know" he says " You can save a lot of time by just picking a bunch of apples and putting them in a trough for the pig."

"Yes" replies the farmer "but what is time to a pig?"

The Cheese

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
LOL, priceless! Ok then, humans must have created water, or electrons, earth & the Sun even. Dont forget light, humans created that too

The only thing humans created with regard to ALL naturally occuring things that we are aware of is a name/word for them.

I think that's what I meant... we label it and by labeling it, we define it and alter it based on our perception.

*scratches head*

Well, we've sucessfully entered philosophy and exited everything else.

*slips on the frictionless inclined plane*

How about this idea... we humans need to meet another "intelligent" species that we can communicate with in order to really start understanding our universe. Perhaps we're hardwired to reasonably believe the same things. Is that one reason we spend so much time trying to communicate with other mammals like Dolphins or other primates?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
To me this is a prime example of the current state of human evolution - if you subscribe to the theories of natural selection and evolution you also have to recognize that humans can never bypass the process.

but what about intellectual evolution? Why does the definition of evolution have to remain static? Why does it have to be limited to physical?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
but what about intellectual evolution? Why does the definition of evolution have to remain static? Why does it have to be limited to physical?

Well I don't expect it was a pro football player who performed the life saving surgery... to me the fact that corrective surgery could be employed is just as important as the survival of the person who recieved it. Brains and resources are the most important elements of human evolution.

Oh... and Cannondale, we can forget all they have contributed to evolution.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by LordOpie
but what about intellectual evolution? Why does the definition of evolution have to remain static? Why does it have to be limited to physical?

That topic was SO four pages ago

Allow me to quote myself from page 4:

"Our species has found a new way of competiong for mates? Natural selection based on intelect" SNIP

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by LordOpie

"we label it and by labeling it, we define it and alter it based on our perception."

- We can never alter IT, but we can alter our perception endlessly.

"Well, we've sucessfully entered philosophy and exited everything else."

- As soon as Manimal said creationism and evolutionism in the same breath we were philosophisizizzling.

"How about this idea... we humans need to meet another "intelligent" species that we can communicate with in order to really start understanding our universe. Perhaps we're hardwired to reasonably believe the same things. Is that one reason we spend so much time trying to communicate with other mammals like Dolphins or other primates?"

- I think, yes that would be HUGE for our understanding and our growth as a intelectual species. This, however, opens another topic... Are we alone in the universe? I say theres no friggin way! have aliens been to earth? IMHO I think its doubtful. What are the odds? They are friggin infinite, assuming the universe is infinite, and if not, the odds are still staggeringly against.

P.S. I like philosophy, it challenges people to use the parts of their brain that they dont often use. My favorite collece classes were philosophy and political thought (governmental philosophy).

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
philosophisizizzling.

I like that word! I often use philosofarcing, myself.

I'm with you on other life in the Universe. Have they been here? Doubt it, but you never know. If they have, why didn't they stay? Why were/are they more advanced and able to travel around? Hmmmmmm, more questions

The Cheese

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
If they have, why didn't they stay?

LOL

Would you?

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by SuzyCreamcheese
I like that word! I often use philosofarcing, myself.

In college it was philososnoozing, especially in the 7:30AM class.

Philosofarcing is so close to the truth, Ill have to start using it

 

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
LOL

Would you?

Of course not, why should I?

The Cheese

 

[Spud]

There's some funny sh*te out there if you do a google search on any portion of Manimals post.

Kent Hovind plays Smack The Nominalist

Part Duex of Above