PDA

View Full Version : Light created Life


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RandFan
21st October 2006, 12:30 PM
NATURE'S HARMONIC (http://www.timecube.com/)
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY (http://www.timecube.com/)
TIME CUBE (http://www.timecube.com/)



You Are Educated Stupid


NASA's Moon Landing was
far less of an achievement
than Time Cube discovery.
I think Cubic, therefore I
rise above the singularity
mentality human and the
false gods they worship -
discovering a Universe of
Opposites their education
will never allow them to
know. Evil of believing
is not measuring and the
result of not measuring -
is never knowing Truth,
ineffable by man or god.

Gene Ray, Cubic and Wise Above Gods

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 12:33 PM
Enchilada Breakfast Casserole

12 oz can SPAM - cubed 1/2" 4 eggs1 small onion chopped 2 cups whipping cream1 small green pepper, chopped 1 tbsp all-purpose flour1 small tomato, chopped 4-oz can diced green chiles2 cups shredded Cheddar cheese 1/4 tsp garlic powder8 7" flour tortillas Picante saucePlace about 1/4 cup SPAM, 1 tablespoon onion, 1 tablespoon green pepper, 1 tablespoon tomato and 1 tablespoon cheese on one side of tortilla. Set remaining cheese aside. Roll up jelly-roll fashion; place seam side down in greased 13x9" baking dish. In small bowl combine remainin ingredients; blend together with wire whisk. Pour over ehchiladas. Cover; refrigerate overnight. Heat oven to 350. Bake, uncovered, for 40 to 50 minutes or until egg mixture is set. Sprinkle with remaining cheese. Return to oven; bake for 5 minutes or until cheese is melted. Serve with picante sauce.

Mmmmm.... Spam.
God. Here is another one that has blown a gasket. What is the logic behind this tactic anyway? Does it go something like, your ego won't let you just leave, so by doing stuff like this, I get tired of seeing it and leave? Why would I do that? I already have a great supply of your questions that I could answer for weeks. For someone who has been screaming about, logic, ignorance and waste, this is not going to make you look good.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 12:36 PM
and you PROMISED me an answer two days ago, you PROMISED to show me where you had answered me.


You have not backed up your claims.

You have postponed and sidestepped answering my questions for over a THOUSAND posts. And now you PROMISED me an answer, and you don't give me one within the timeframe you specified.

Now you again say you will answer at a later time. Well, how much time do you need? You already broke one deadline you put down for when you would answer me.
Don't worry, your time is coming. It seems like some people are becoming unglued.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 12:40 PM
For someone who has been screaming about, logic, ignorance and waste, this is not going to make you look good.:cry1Oh no. Darn.

Crockpot Barbeque

1 1/2 lb. boneless chuck steak, 1 1/2 inch thick
1 clove garlic, peeled and minced
1/4 cup wine vinegar
1 Tbsp brown sugar
1 tsp paprika
2 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce
1/2 cup catsup
1 tsp salt
1 tsp dry or prepared mustard
1/4 tsp black pepper

Cut the beef on a diagonal, across the grain into slices 1 inch wide.
Place these in the crockpot. In a small bowl, combine the remaining
ingredients. Pour over the meat, and mix. Cover and cook on Low for 3
to 5 hours.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 12:41 PM
If you are referring to the oft quoted "thin line between genius and insanity" then no, you are not even in the neighbourhood.
I said I hoped.

Okay, it's been bugging me and I've tried to ignore it, but I can't any longer. It's 'sort of', 'sort' as in kind, type variety. Sought is the past participle of the verb 'to seek'.
And I bet you are right too, oh boy. I have to swipe my nose again. Excuse me. I hate it when that happens.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 01:08 PM
You still seem to be suffering under the delusion that Googling equals truth.
Google is a quick reference. An unbiased third party.

Show me exactly what Einstein said about energy being two forms of the same thing. I'm guessing that you didn't understand it, since you have virtually no understanding of anything scientific.
Now I have to show you where he said it? When you know full well that he did? I will look if you tell me you know he didn't say it. Otherwise you would be wasting my time.

You can Google that the earth is flat or (quite often) that evolution didn't happen. That doesn't make it so. Only a great fool would think so. You seem to think so. What can we conclude?
But we know those things. I went to google for a third party opinion. I bet you would be saying different if it went in your favor?


That equation quantifies the mathematics of conversion of energy into matter and vice versa.
Doesn't that say they are the same thing?

It doesn not say they are the same thing.
The formula may not, but he said they are the same thing.


No they don't. Lots of scientists and mathematicians say it is possible, even likely.
And that is what I said. They got to much stuff pointed out into space to think that there is no one out there.

They tend to refrain from claims of knowledge about things without evidence. That is where they differ from you.
And you. You claim there is no God without evidence.

Cosmo
21st October 2006, 01:14 PM
Google is a quick reference. An unbiased third party.

WRONG!

But you know what's right? Cookie recipes!

Ingredients

1 1/8 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup white sugar
1/4 cup light brown sugar
1 egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup butter, softened
1/2 cup chopped walnuts
1 cup semisweet chocolate chipsDirections

Preheat oven to 375 degrees F ( 190 degrees C).
Sift together in a large bowl flour, baking soda and salt. To this add sugars, egg, vanilla extract and butter. Beat until smooth and well blended. Stir in nuts and chocolate chips.
Drop by teaspoonfuls 2 inches apart on ungreased cookie sheet. Bake for 10-12 minutes or until golden colored. Cool on wire rack.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 01:14 PM
Google is a quick reference. An unbiased third party. Here's some unbiased truth (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/) I Googled.

Oh, I googled How To Eat Cats (http://www.ooze.com/ooze13/cats.html). Warning! Not for viewing at work.

Loss Leader
21st October 2006, 01:43 PM
Are matter and energy two forms of the same thing?

No.

Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?

No.

Are humans the most advanced form of life on this planet?

No.

Are math and language linked?

No.

Now here are my questions for you, you liar:

How does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy? What about the look and behavior of matter does it "owe" to energy? How does energy influence the look or behavior of matter? When you say matter "owes" how it looks and behaves to energy, what do you mean by "owes"? If matter and energy are the same thing, how do you know matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy and not that energy owes how it looks and behaves to matter? Is there any experiment whatsoever that you can devise that shows that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy? And, last, why did you lie to me about what it would take to convince you that you were wrong?

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 01:47 PM
Here's some unbiased truth (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/) I Googled.

Oh, I googled How To Eat Cats (http://www.ooze.com/ooze13/cats.html). Warning! Not for viewing at work.
I would have to be as dumb as you to click on that thing. You do know that unopened mail does not have the same impact as if you read it?
So. Where did all the supposed logic go? Where in all that schooling did they teach the use of cats?
Believe it or not, different people have different opinions. There is no need to flip just because yours is not accepted. It happens. It may even happen again. If you have not learned that, perhaps you should be the one seeking medical help.
I have heard it said here that people come with ideas that when you tell them they are wrong, they flip and start calling names, talk about how they know everything, can't be wrong. That sounds just like you.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 01:56 PM
I would have to be as dumb as you to click on that thing. You do know that unopened mail does not have the same impact as if you read it? Here's a shock, I don't care if you read it.

So. Where did all the supposed logic go? Where in all that schooling did they teach the use of cats? Melissus.

Believe it or not, different people have different opinions. I don't care if people have different opinion than me. I only care about BS posted on a skeptics forum.

There is no need to flip just because yours is not accepted. It happens. It may even happen again. If you have not learned that, perhaps you should be the one seeking medical help. "Flip"?

I have heard it said here that people come with ideas that when you tell them they are wrong, they flip and start calling names, talk about how they know everything, can't be wrong. That sounds just like you.No. The posting of cats and recipes is always preceded by an attempt to get a deluded poster to see that he or she isn't making sense.

bruto
21st October 2006, 02:11 PM
Randfan, although appeal to authority is not sufficient for an absolute conclusion of course, I do think I should point out that according to Euell Gibbons, wild cat is not a very rewarding meal. Make sure you stick to tender, well-fed domestic ones. The one on that site looked pretty scrawny, too. You'd need two or three of them to make a really good roly poly pudding.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 02:15 PM
Randfan, although appeal to authority is not sufficient for an absolute conclusion of course, I do think I should point out that according to Euell Gibbons, wild cat is not a very rewarding meal. Make sure you stick to tender, well-fed domestic ones. The one on that site looked pretty scrawny, too. You'd need two or three of them to make a really good roly poly pudding.Good ol' Euell. Taught the importance of nutrition and dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 (yes I know that's fallacy but it's damn good as fallacy goes).

I find the idea of eating cats disturbing. I prefer puppies. The ones with the big floppy ears.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 02:24 PM
No.



No.



No.



No.

Now here are my questions for you, you liar:
Take it easy. You sound as if you are becoming unglued too.
Did everybody get up on the wrong side of the bed?
Now I can accept "no" for the last two, but the first two you got wrong? And what makes your questions more worthy of being answered than mine?

How does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?
You see here you are asking how? First I have to answer that it does.


How does energy influence the look or behavior of matter?
You know? That stuff. No that was a joke. I am working on a "particle page" where I am going to cover that stuff. I like pictures.

When you say matter "owes" how it looks and behaves to energy, what do you mean by "owes"?
Wait for picture page.

If matter and energy are the same thing, how do you know matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy and not that energy owes how it looks and behaves to matter?
Energy came first.

Is there any experiment whatsoever that you can devise that shows that matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy?
I think the periodic table is going to do that.

And, last, why did you lie to me about what it would take to convince you that you were wrong?
Here you look like you are suffering from some delusion that you have some authority. You don't. I did not say that any word out of your mouth would convince me. I heard you, and you were not very convincing. If you thought you had provided enough, where did the questions above come from? You told me some bull about logic, where by the book definition no one would be talking logic.
I wish I would let you tied me down with rules only meant for me and let everyone else dance around with fire.
No matter what the book says, science "assumes" that there is life in space. Why else would they be pointing all that stuff at the sky? Even when they look for the conditions for life, they are assuming that that is the best place to find it.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 02:32 PM
Good ol' Euell. Taught the importance of nutrition and dropped dead of a heart attack at the age of 64 (yes I know that's fallacy but it's damn good as fallacy goes).

I find the idea of eating cats disturbing. I prefer puppies. The ones with the big floppy ears.
Wow. You are making more sense now that you are crazy then you were when you thought you were sane.
It is sad really. But you are not the first, and you will not be the last to go mad banging your head up against that thing. You must have been quite the spoiled child.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 02:37 PM
Wow. You are making more sense now that you are crazy then you were when you thought you were sane.
It is sad really. But you are not the first, and you will not be the last to go mad banging your head up against that thing. You must have been quite the spoiled child. Who said I was ever sane?

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 02:48 PM
Randfan, although appeal to authority is not sufficient for an absolute conclusion of course, I do think I should point out that according to Euell Gibbons, wild cat is not a very rewarding meal. Make sure you stick to tender, well-fed domestic ones. The one on that site looked pretty scrawny, too. You'd need two or three of them to make a really good roly poly pudding.
Oh NO! You too bruto? The world has went mad. But tell me how this type of thing does you all any justice? When I am finish talking, I sum up my position and leave. I said what I said, he said what he said. How is it that it hurts that someone (for any reason) not accept what I said? Here it hurts so much that you have to say something, even if it is nothing. That shows an attitude problem at best, and mental disorder at worst.
And where is the logic in extending the thread you want to end, and leaving yourself open to my unopposed reply?

Oh. And another thing. Remember when some people here said that the people here are not tied to each other? That you are all independant and unbiased? You were kidding right? You see? I knew that. I also knew I would have the time to deal with that baby guy. If he is smart, he should pick this time to go crazy too.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 02:54 PM
And where is the logic in extending the thread you want to end, and leaving yourself open to my unopposed reply? OMG {eek} The dreaded unopposed reply.

Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 02:55 PM
Who said I was ever sane?
Oh my God. That is the one thing that I did not want to hear. Remember when I said that I needed you all to be smart? Well I wanted to test that thing. Here it is I am thinking that it is holding up against the best,and you are no such thing. Tell me you were kidding? That you are sane. Or at least you were till recently?

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 02:56 PM
OMG {eek} The dreaded unopposed reply.

Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Johny: are too
Billy: are not
Oh my God.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 02:59 PM
Oh my God.Your's too?

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 03:00 PM
Here's a shock, I don't care if you read it.
Good.

No. The posting of cats and recipes is always preceded by an attempt to get a deluded poster to see that he or she isn't making sense.So the logic goes I am acting deluded to show him he is? As that sounds logical to you? Oh my God, you are insane.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 03:01 PM
Oh my God. That is the one thing that I did not want to hear. Remember when I said that I needed you all to be smart? Well I wanted to test that thing. Here it is I am thinking that it is holding up against the best,and you are no such thing. Tell me you were kidding? That you are sane. Or at least you were till recently?You should be happy, in a world of the blind the one eyed man is king.

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 03:04 PM
Your's too?
So tell me? Are you all a team? how long you been at this? Do you always win? Do you always take this long? I need to do a sum report.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 03:04 PM
So the logic goes I am acting deluded to show him he is? As that sounds logical to you?"Logic"? What do you know about logic?

Oh my God, you are insane."That's right, Mr. Martini. There is an Easter Bunny." --McMurphy, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

RandFan
21st October 2006, 03:15 PM
So tell me?Ok, "First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all die..."

Are you all a team?We are all part of the Matrix.

how long you been at this?Since time imorial. "Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtile; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend." --Bacon


Do you always win?Depends on what you mean by "win"?

Do you always take this long? You flatter me. I don't usually get that response.

I need to do a sum report.

01011001011011110111010100100000011000010111001001 10010100100000011000010010000001110011011101000111 01010111000001101001011001000010000001101101011011 11011100100110111101101110001011100010000001000111 01101111001000000110011001110101011000110110101100 10000001111001011011110111010101110010011100110110 0101011011000110011000101110

Sum that.

TobiasTheViking
21st October 2006, 03:16 PM
ehm, could you atleast reply to me?

lightcreatedlife@hom
21st October 2006, 03:42 PM
WRONG!

But you know what's right? Cookie recipes!

Ingredients

1 1/8 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup white sugar
1/4 cup light brown sugar
1 egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup butter, softened
1/2 cup chopped walnuts
1 cup semisweet chocolate chipsDirections

Preheat oven to 375 degrees F ( 190 degrees C).
Sift together in a large bowl flour, baking soda and salt. To this add sugars, egg, vanilla extract and butter. Beat until smooth and well blended. Stir in nuts and chocolate chips.
Drop by teaspoonfuls 2 inches apart on ungreased cookie sheet. Bake for 10-12 minutes or until golden colored. Cool on wire rack.You guys must of had a meeting.

Loss Leader
21st October 2006, 05:35 PM
No matter what the book says, science "assumes" that there is life in space. Why else would they be pointing all that stuff at the sky? Even when they look for the conditions for life, they are assuming that that is the best place to find it.

No, science does not. Scientists, even astrophysicists do not. You are wrong. You are not right. The statement you made has no truth to it whatsoever. Your statement is inconsistent with the actual universe. You have not given accurate information. The information is, in fact, innacurate in every way. On a scale of 0 to 100, your statement has a truth value of 0. No aspect of it is consistent with any aspect of the world. You have failed fully and completely to make a truthful statement. You are the most wrong that wrong can be. Your statement is the definitive false statement by which all other falsities may be measured. If I were grading your work, you would fail by all measures.

You. Are. Wrong.

TobiasTheViking
21st October 2006, 05:44 PM
but you don't dare my real questions, so instead you just answer the recipy post.

*sigh*

nescafe
21st October 2006, 05:47 PM
You guys must of had a meeting.
Yes. Over breakfast. We had

SAUSAGE GRAVY AND BISCUTS

Directions:
Preheat oven to 450 degrees F.
While oven is preheating, brown 1/2 pound spicy greasy pork sausage in 8 inch skillet.
Once sausage is browned, add 3 heaping tablespoons flour, mix thouroughly and allow flour to brown to preferred color.
Once flour is browned, add milk until milk covers the sausage.
Reduce heat to simmering, stir every 30 seconds or so scraping bottom of pan.
In a 3 quart mixing bowl, mix 1 cup pioneer baking mix and 1/3 cup milk until mixture is homogenous.
Spoon mix onto nonstick cookie sheet -- you should end up with 6 biscuts.
Put biscuts into oven, cook for 11 minutes.
Gravy should have gotten a good deal thicker by now. Add approx. 1/3 the volume of milk you originally added, and add pepper to taste.
Stir gravy constantly, scraping the sides and bottom of the pan. By the time the biscuts are done, the gravy should be at the proper consistency.Serves 2, recipie scales as long as you allow for longer cooking time with more gravy.

Loss Leader
21st October 2006, 05:53 PM
Yes. Over breakfast. We had

SAUSAGE GRAVY AND BISCUTS

Directions:
Preheat oven to 450 degrees F.
While oven is preheating, brown 1/2 pound spicy greasy pork sausage in 8 inch skillet.
Once sausage is browned, add 3 heaping tablespoons flour, mix thouroughly and allow flour to brown to preferred color.
Once flour is browned, add milk until milk covers the sausage.
Reduce heat to simmering, stir every 30 seconds or so scraping bottom of pan.
In a 3 quart mixing bowl, mix 1 cup pioneer baking mix and 1/3 cup milk until mixture is homogenous.
Spoon mix onto nonstick cookie sheet -- you should end up with 6 biscuts.
Put biscuts into oven, cook for 11 minutes.
Gravy should have gotten a good deal thicker by now. Add approx. 1/3 the volume of milk you originally added, and add pepper to taste.
Stir gravy constantly, scraping the sides and bottom of the pan. By the time the biscuts are done, the gravy should be at the proper consistency.Serves 2, recipie scales as long as you allow for longer cooking time with more gravy.

You're probably going to want to add just a pinch of salt to that gravy. Otherwise, it made me hungry just reading it.

RandFan
21st October 2006, 05:54 PM
No, science does not. Scientists, even astrophysicists do not. You are wrong. You are not right. The statement you made has no truth to it whatsoever. Your statement is inconsistent with the actual universe. You have not given accurate information. The information is, in fact, innacurate in every way. On a scale of 0 to 100, your statement has a truth value of 0. No aspect of it is consistent with any aspect of the world. You have failed fully and completely to make a truthful statement. You are the most wrong that wrong can be. Your statement is the definitive false statement by which all other falsities may be measured. If I were grading your work, you would fail by all measures.

You. Are. Wrong.It's difficult to tell but by your post it seems to me that you are insinuating that LCL is wrong.

TobiasTheViking
21st October 2006, 06:00 PM
No, science does not. Scientists, even astrophysicists do not. You are wrong. You are not right. The statement you made has no truth to it whatsoever. Your statement is inconsistent with the actual universe. You have not given accurate information. The information is, in fact, innacurate in every way. On a scale of 0 to 100, your statement has a truth value of 0. No aspect of it is consistent with any aspect of the world. You have failed fully and completely to make a truthful statement. You are the most wrong that wrong can be. Your statement is the definitive false statement by which all other falsities may be measured. If I were grading your work, you would fail by all measures.

You. Are. Wrong.
nominated.

and aliased.

bruto
21st October 2006, 08:17 PM
You told me some bull about logic, where by the book definition no one would be talking logic. You have explicitly and publicly on this forum stated that you have not read any such book, (including a relatively simple and useful one that I recommended with no irony or criticism) and have no intention ever of doing so. You are not qualified to discuss the "book" definitions of logic.

No matter what the book says, but you don't know what the book says, do you? You never will know what the book says, and when any such book is quoted you shuck it off as irrelevant "bull", or woefully misunderstand what is said. science "assumes" that there is life in space. Why else would they be pointing all that stuff at the sky? Even when they look for the conditions for life, they are assuming that that is the best place to find it. You are being utterly stupid about this, and wilfully ignorant, since this matter has been brought up repeatedly. It is absolutely, utterly, insanely, delusionally and ignorantly wrong to equate the manner in which an idea is arrived at and the logic by which it is demonstrated, proven, or disproven. "Science" does not "assume" that there is life in space. Some scientists conjecture that there might be life in space, and consider the likelihood high enough to act on that conjecture. Likewise they make an educated guess about where to look. Find me one instance in which a reputable scientist has "assumed" that there is life in space.

Loss Leader
21st October 2006, 08:28 PM
"Science" does not "assume" that there is life in space. Some scientists conjecture that there might be life in space, and consider the likelihood high enough to act on that conjecture. Likewise they make an educated guess about where to look. Find me one instance in which a reputable scientist has "assumed" that there is life in space.


Not only that but after finding no proof of their theory looking for microwave signals, the SETI scientists revised their theory and are now preparing to look for laser signals. That's what scientists do when they get negative results - they try something else.

And that is exactly the opposite of assuming.

zizzybaluba
22nd October 2006, 05:25 AM
You guys must of had a meeting.

I suddenly feel the urge to have a pot-luck...

Zizzy's Grammy's Meatloaf

1 to 2 lbs ground meat (beef and pork)
1 packet lipton onion soup mix
half cup Italian style breadcrumbs
few tablespoons of milk
1 egg, beaten

piquant sauce
1 teaspoon ground mustard
1 tablespoon brown sugar
half cup ketchup

Preheat oven to 350F.
Put the breadcrumbs in a large bowl, moisten with milk. Add meat, soup mix, and egg. Mix gently and thoroughly with hands (Be sure to remove any band-aids; yes, my Grammy did serve a meatloaf with a band-aid, and never heard the end of it). Put mixture in a loaf pan, place pan in the oven, uncovered; bake for an hour or until the center reaches whatever temperature the FDA is safe for ground meat.
If desired, mix the piquant sauce ingredients together, brush on the loaf with 10 minutes cook time remaining.
Slice, and serve with potatoes, A-1 sauce, and pepto-bismol.

Belz...
22nd October 2006, 05:50 AM
I guess you are less than a breeze.

Then I guess you haven't understood anything that anyone here has said about your "theory".

Right. Because it didn't change a thing to science, it didn't bother the graph.

Of course it does. You seem to think that positive and negative has some deep meaning, but we've shown you that they are simply conventions that could (and should) be switched around. You don't think it affects your graph ? Then I guess you still don't understand.

You see how unsure of yourself when it comes to me being right? Everywhere else you are so sure.

Light, when I give you a clear, definite, absolute answer, you reply with something like "you're not science itself. You don't speak for science", and when I answer something NOT absolute, you think it's because you're right and I can't say it. Don't you see a problem, here ? Everything and its opposite is interpreted by you as meaning you are right. You can't have it both ways.

The reason why I don't give you a definite answer here is because there IS none.

So what? They are very low forms of life. The base on which more advanced forms are made.

Irrelevant. Again, you claim that the energies that form THEM have those caracteristics. By your own logic, those "lower" lifeforms SHOULD also share those caracteristics. They don't, ergo you are wrong.

Those lifeforms also have very little intelligence, does that mean that all other lifeforms were not meant to have any?

By your theory, it does. Not by mine. You're the one who said energy was intelligent. It should REMAIN intelligent in ALL life forms. Even rocks.

Even you should be able to see that evolution went from the simple to the complex.

Except when it went from complex to simple. Missed that, didn't you ?

I know. The problem is that intelligence covers everything.

No, it doesn't. It compensates for our shortcomings, but it doesn't eliminate them. Remove your tank, and meet that elephant again, naked and without any form of technology. See what happens.

Humans lost their fur because they developed intelligence enough to get it other places.

No, they didn't. Your understanding of evolution is, unsurprisingly, abysmal.

Their whole existence is based around developing intelligence, it is their natural advantage. Measured against the natural advantage of any other form of life, intelligence(and humans) win.

Explain how people get eaten by sharks.

First you dreamt up more than one, (without evidence)

I didn't "dream up" more than one, I'm telling you we don't know if there are more. It's quite reasonable, in fact, to assume that more than one universe could exist at the same "time". And to use a page from your book, I'm not the first one to have brought this idea up.

My point is, you have NO evidence whatsoever to show that the universe is a "lucky" draw.

then you "logically assume" Someone gave me a page on how assuming was not science. In the end you got things looking the way you wanted.

What the hell are you talking about ?

Einstein said that, not me.

He didn't say that. He said they were the same, not that they "owed" anything to one another.

You know that complex behavior is based on them.

You also know that table salt is composed of two deadly substances. Somehow, when combined, THEY LOSE THEIR BEHAVIOUR. They're no longer lethal. Can you explain that ?

The soul is KNOWN to exist.

Really ?? Would you kindly point to the peer-reviewed study that confirmed this ? I must've missed it. Last I checked we had no evidence, WHATSOEVER, of the existence of the soul.

Boy. You think big of yourself.

Stop stalling. What's the "plan" ? How can you claim it should be taught in school if you don't know what it is ?

I see you're still ignoring my own graph.

Because I know the 4 basics are the four basics?

No, because you said this:

They are going to read what was said here one day and wonder why you said that the four basics of math aren't.

You think you're some sort of messiah. Get over it.

That only shows that you always THOUGHT you were a big head.

Wow. Your reading comprehension is null. NOW, I think I could have debated you when I was ten, not THEN. Sheesh.

Huh?

It wasn't a complicated sentence, Light. What part didn't you understand ?

I said that I know that energy and matter are the same; I just don't agree with it. I'm aware of the statement, but I think it is wrong. Get it ?

Belz...
22nd October 2006, 06:05 AM
Now you see how absolute you are.

See ? You're still doing it. In my last post it was because I wasn't sure, and now it's because I am. Is there ANY answer that would suit you except telling you that you are right although you aren't ?

How can you say everybody, everywhere. I said human and that was too absolute for you.

Intuition doesn't give us real answers in science. That's absolute.

What point? I said female. You said that that meant that I said the planet is a women. You have to see the difference.

A woman is a female human. What difference is there ? The Earth ISN'T a lifeform. It DOESN'T have a sex. Can we move on ?

And are you trying to tell me that all here think Earth is just a ball of rock? Because no one will challenge you?

They're welcome to try.

You see emotions would tell you that there are plenty of women in the world, but only one called "mom."

Only one ? Never heard of adoption ? Really, who'd you call "mom" ? What about if your mom leaves your father when you're still a baby and decides to live with another woman ? You've got two moms, now. See how wrong you are ?

This planet is really more to you, and life, than a ball of rock.

Even if you're to include the whole ecosystem, it's still not female. In fact, as I've said before and you ignored, in some cultures the originator was male.

I think science would even back that up.

Again, what you "think" science would do is irrelevant, because science DOESN'T back that up.

I don't think that you speak for science, but you attitude and ego is wide spread.

It's ego to say that the Earth is not female ?

Even more so because when one of you get a degree, something you think you BECOME science.

Well, I'd rather someone with a degree thinking that than someone without one, like you, thinking that.

You do it to me. Or is that okay?

I don't do it to you. The only things I've claimed about you are things you've said yourself. Your "mirror defense" will fail, Light. I've seen it too many times.

You might have noticed that those houses are reaching higher and higher into the sky.

How does that affect what I've said : Humans shelter themselves in houses because they are ill-designed to handle most environments for long periods of time. You're either deliberatly dodging my points or don't understand what I've said.

Humans have long ago got pass thinking of just shelter, and are seeking much more.

They've also moved beyond simply eating and breathing, but you might have noticed that they STILL eat and breathe. The need is still there.

That shows you that you can't know as much about logic as you seem to think. Who in their right mind would pick any other team?

I'd root for the Cylons, myself.

That is my point. Who said it had to be?

Because, again, you're cheating. You don't know how to make a proper analogy, you don't know how to make a proper example and it seems you have no way of determining equivalence between two things. How the hell did you manage to live that long ?

intelligence allows cooperation And any human with the money can buy a tank.

One tank will be very useful against a stampede of 60,000 elephants. There. I win.

No matter what, if he can think, he will do something intelligent.

Really ? Our instincts are somewhat muted by our civilised life. In a lot of natural situations, the "smart" thing to do gets you killed because you didn't do the "quick" thing to do, namely flee.

You got to be kidding? With a choice between him and you, its him?

Who said it was between him and me ? Lamarck was wrong about evolution. It's not me he's up against, but modern science. You know, the thing you know nothing about.

Oh where, oh where, are the defenders of science now?

Certainly not in the OP.

People do disagree without being stupid, crazy, or game playing. It happens. You have an opinion, so do I. Others have theirs. Where have you been. Oh wait. I know. Here.

So you admit that we might be arguing with you honestly, and not simply denying you an agreement ?

I hear all the time about what I should be doing, but it is okay for you all. How can this man speak for everyone in all he says, and no one corrects him? You are a team, that's why.

If I'm wrong they're all welcome to correct me. Don't be intimidated by my post count. I've only been here a year.

Is this a circular thing?

It's called irony. Look it up.

Belz...
22nd October 2006, 06:24 AM
You said they weren't (knowing full well then what I was talking about) and I googled it and they said that they were the 4 basics. Then you doubted google.

Just because you can google something doesn't mean what you find is true. After all, there are websites about homeopathy.

Just one, intelligence, it covers the others. It is the one thing that makes the universe make sense.

In a way you're right. It's the only thing that allows US to make sense of the universe. But even if we weren't there the universe would still make sense, and it would still be devoid of intelligence.

Wow. I am I about to be judged by God?

Arrogant sloth.

someone ignored again? Didn't anybody here get enough attention when they were young?

If you don't read the responses, you don't learn, and you keep spewing the same garbage. That's why you shouldn't ignore people here.

Show me exactly what Einstein said about energy being two forms of the same thing. I'm guessing that you didn't understand it, since you have virtually no understanding of anything scientific.

Fixed that for you, Trick.

Google is a quick reference. An unbiased third party.

Google is a SEARCH engine. Each site is independant from one another and is CERTAINLY not unbiased. In fact, most sites ARE biased.

The formula may not, but he said they are the same thing.

Does that mean that's the last time we see that formula from you ? He said so, he was wrong. Last time Tricky said that, you pulled the formula out of your hat. Now that you can't, what do you say to this: HE WAS WRONG.

No they don't. Lots of scientists and mathematicians say it is possible, even likely.

And that is what I said.

No, you said they said there WAS life out there. That's not the same thing.

You claim there is no God without evidence.

Here's that burden of proof, again.

I would have to be as dumb as you to click on that thing.

It's a neo-nazi site. You don't need to be affraid, Light.

Believe it or not, different people have different opinions. There is no need to flip just because yours is not accepted.

Stop talking to yourself, Light.

I am working on a "particle page" where I am going to cover that stuff. I like pictures

More than text, anyway. Don't need to READ pictures.

Energy came first.

Evidence ?

So tell me? Are you all a team?

A what ? Can I buy one of these ?

To all: please quit it with the recipies and cats. If you don't want to debate, here, then stop posting. That's a proper way to kill a thread. Personally, I still hold on to a shred of hope that Light may actually eventually learn something, if only that he could, conceivably, be wrong.

Loss Leader
22nd October 2006, 07:32 AM
I'd root for the Cylons, myself.

If you were really rooting for the "Cylons," you'd know that the plural of Cylon is Cylon. Only humans who aren't rooting for the Cylon call them Cylons.

Of course, now I susect you of being a Cylon and if I ever see you in person, I'm gonna gut you, you fragging toaster.

Laura Roslin '08!

RandFan
22nd October 2006, 09:36 AM
To all: please quit it with the recipies and cats. If you don't want to debate, here, then stop posting. That's a proper way to kill a thread. Personally, I still hold on to a shred of hope that Light may actually eventually learn something, if only that he could, conceivably, be wrong. Belz, in deference to you I will stop. Though I'd like to place a side bet that Light won't ever learn anything.

TobiasTheViking
22nd October 2006, 10:40 AM
i'd like to add that the recipies have provided just as much evidence for Light's case as Light himself has done.

Solus
22nd October 2006, 02:49 PM
Wow. You didn't answer any of the questions. Most here would not pass on a direct challenge. You must really be as dumb as your post say you are.
And what does it matter to you how long this goes on? I don't get that. The guy is bored with me but he comes to the only place where I am. Where are all those people who play "logic cop"? Doesn't this guy at least deserve a ticket?

You sure know a lot about, and are sympathic to people (other than me) who have mental problems. You must be talking from great experience. Anyway. You got nothing to say. Yet you seem compelled to say something. I don't know what to tell you. But letting everyone know that you got nothing to say, only makes it worst. Just take whatever it is that is holding you together and just chill.


Buddy, I advise you not to personally insult me again. I have been NICE to you so far. I could call you exactly what I think you are in the harshest way possible, don't make me do that...

And to let you know, I have IMMENSE sympathy for mentally ill people who want to help themselves. I'm a psychology major, and I may be a psychiatrist one day. You haven't asked for help all you done is written 30 pages of total nonsense and wasted everyone's time.

End this thread, and start a new one about how to get help.I can advise you on what steps are necessary and other basic infomation. You will get kind replies and support if you just ask for help and stop this meaningless banter.

lightcreatedlife@hom
22nd October 2006, 03:25 PM
You have explicitly and publicly on this forum stated that you have not read any such book, (including a relatively simple and useful one that I recommended with no irony or criticism) and have no intention ever of doing so. You are not qualified to discuss the "book" definitions of logic.
Here is the thing. What you are talkinig about has nothing to do with what I posted here. Check for yourself, this thing has gone on for nearly thirty pages before you discovered that you could divert to that subject. As I told Rand Fan and the math trip that he wanted to take me on, "No." I don't want to go.
Everybody here got a bag. And they all call me names when I turn they down. Talk about how wrong I am to not want to go. But they are not talking about the topic posted. Now everyone has been understanding me well enough, I use some words wrong, but they still understood what I was talking about. What you are trying to say is if you have not taken the courses I have, you are wrong from the start. And I say, you must be five kinds of crazy.
What I posted is really simple. I used pictures, no big words, simple syymbols. All the words there you have heard before-even if you do not agree with them. In fact. Was it you that described it as a "benign theism"? If so, you understood what I was saying.


but you don't know what the book says, do you?
You see? I posted one thing, and everybody wants to talk about something else. Then they stand on a soap box and beat their chest about being smarter than me. But if you look (and boy I am going to) we are not talking about what is posted.

It is absolutely, utterly, insanely, delusionally and ignorantly wrong to equate the manner in which an idea is arrived at and the logic by which it is demonstrated, proven, or disproven.
And science went on around the world for how long before the methods you speak of was developed?


"Science" does not "assume" that there is life in space. Some scientists conjecture that there might be life in space, and consider the likelihood high enough to act on that conjecture. Likewise they make an educated guess about where to look.
But they are looking for life. And an educated guess can be mistaken for "logical to assume."


Find me one instance in which a reputable scientist has "assumed" that there is life in space.
Oh. A scientist has to reach a certain level before assumption is purged from this mind?
How on earth do you think you can speak for science anyway?

lightcreatedlife@hom
22nd October 2006, 04:07 PM
Buddy, I advise you not to personally insult me again. I have been NICE to you so far. I could call you exactly what I think you are in the harshest way possible, don't make me do that...
You must think that you can make that toy robot come to life. Buddy.
You can burst out of your shirt any time you want to. I don't have to read your post, or answer them. (But you know I will. Primed, willing and able.) Oh wait. I see you are a psychology major. Wouldn't it be more logical for you to go someplace else?
But you can't do that. Can you?
Wouldn't people in your field call your behavior some type of "fixation disorder?"

And to let you know, I have IMMENSE sympathy for mentally ill people who want to help themselves. I'm a psychology major, and I may be a psychiatrist one day. You haven't asked for help all you done is written 30 pages of total nonsense and wasted everyone's time.
You have to have IMMENSE sympathy for the mentally ill, you are in fact one of them. And just think. When you become a psychiatrist, you will have access to all the pills and potions you need. Good move looking ahead.

End this thread,
"Why Dorothy. You were always able to go home. All you had to do was click your heels." Or in your case, not come to this thread. Talk about willfull ignorance. Look at the thread? Do you see any indication that I will stop as long as someone else is here? I think it is you who is delusional.

lightcreatedlife@hom
22nd October 2006, 04:10 PM
i'd like to add that the recipies have provided just as much evidence for Light's case as Light himself has done.
I knew you would think it logical to go crazy too. You guys are in fact connected. All sharing one bruised ego.

RandFan
22nd October 2006, 04:11 PM
What I posted is really simple. And naive.

Stick around LCL. We're now placing bets on whether you will learn anything. I've got a lot ridding on the belief that you won't.

I'm pulling for you. Do me proud. :)

RandFan
22nd October 2006, 04:12 PM
All sharing one bruised ego.:s2:

bruto
22nd October 2006, 05:17 PM
Here is the thing. What you are talkinig about has nothing to do with what I posted here. Check for yourself, this thing has gone on for nearly thirty pages before you discovered that you could divert to that subject. As I told Rand Fan and the math trip that he wanted to take me on, "No." I don't want to go.
Everybody here got a bag. And they all call me names when I turn they down. Talk about how wrong I am to not want to go. But they are not talking about the topic posted. Now everyone has been understanding me well enough, I use some words wrong, but they still understood what I was talking about. What you are trying to say is if you have not taken the courses I have, you are wrong from the start. And I say, you must be five kinds of crazy.
What I posted is really simple. I used pictures, no big words, simple syymbols. All the words there you have heard before-even if you do not agree with them. In fact. Was it you that described it as a "benign theism"? If so, you understood what I was saying.

From the start you have made bad, illogical arguments. It isn't about taking courses, it's about learning the difference between a bad, illogical, erroneous argument and making sense. You unfortunately do not know the difference and proudly proclaim your intention never to learn. And it did not go on for thirty pages before I pointed that out. I've been hammering at it from the beginning.


You see? I posted one thing, and everybody wants to talk about something else. Then they stand on a soap box and beat their chest about being smarter than me. But if you look (and boy I am going to) we are not talking about what is posted. I'm not sure quite what you mean. I always try to post in direct response to what you write. Nobody is chest beating about being smart here. The subject is your ideas and your exposition of them. You post nonsense and some of us are trying to point out why it is nonsense. You post illogical conclusions and some of us are trying to point out why they are illogical. If you think that's changing the subject, you're misguided.

And science went on around the world for how long before the methods you speak of was developed? It didn't. Scientific method is what makes science scientific. Logic predates what we usually consider as modern science, by a very long stretch.


But they are looking for life. And an educated guess can be mistaken for "logical to assume." Not really. The process by which one infers an idea or a fact is and remains entirely different, and logically separate, from that by which that idea is proven, argued, substantiated, or tested. Scientists are right now searching the universe for signs of life, in an organized and careful way, precisely because they cannot assume anything, but must actually find it out, verify it and prove it. Your apparent misunderstanding of this idea, and your ability to justify your sloppy and illogical ideas by citing "science" is incredible.

Oh. A scientist has to reach a certain level before assumption is purged from this mind? Who knows what goes on in someone's mind. We're talking here about how facts are argued and proven, not how people think.
How on earth do you think you can speak for science anyway?

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things yet from someone who has posted thirty pages of declarations that "science says" this or that as if you could speak for science as a monolithic entity whose ideas you understand. It isn't and you don't.

bruto
22nd October 2006, 05:22 PM
I knew you would think it logical to go crazy too. You guys are in fact connected. All sharing one bruised ego.

Speak for yourself only. My ego is not bruised. Even if you had somehow hit the mark in your arguments it would not be bruised. I post in a skeptic's forum which is filled with controversial ideas put forth by a variety of people from kind, wise patient instructors to irascible, foul-mouthed, intolerant bigots, and everything in between - people who are nasty but right, kind but wrong, and all combinations. If my ego were tied up in this place I'd be a sorry sack of injured feelings by now. But in any case, believe me: you're not that good at it!

Loss Leader
22nd October 2006, 05:36 PM
How on earth do you think you can speak for science anyway?

Here, LCL, are examples of you speaking for science. I post these to show that you do not hold yourself to the standards you demand of others. You do not consider yourself bound by the rules of logic; you do not consider yourself required to investigate current scientific thinking; you do not see any reason why your statements should be backed with any proof whatsoever. Yet you accuse those who question you of all the same failings. You asked how Bruto could speak for science. Here I present examples that you have done the exact same thing:

If we look at the planet from far in space everything seem the same. Science has separated them for the sake of study, and we are all individual parts of one.

Electrical and magnetic are related, but they are 2 different things, though they share much the same properties. If science has "unified them again," there is a good chance that they may change their mind again.

Science has always used those things as good indicators, they stopped now? What does the behavior of life look like to you?

Science knows that there is a unity formula that unites the forces because it is already a fact that the forces are united in creating the universe.

I used the characteristics of it to fit it there, and they were defined by science, not made up by me. And I used the characteristics that those things are well known for, not some nobody ever heard of just so that it would fit what I was saying.

Why would science need to worry? I think a lot of people around science seem to be taking ideas more and more personal, instead of the science that is suppose to let things fall where they may. I think that it is science that started the whole intelligent design debate in the first place, by most under its banner refusing to accept that it has to be possible that the universe had at least one designer, with evolution as the design.

And my aim is to make science easy to be understood by common folk.

Someone was talking about that even when science did find the unity formula that it would still not explain everything, because how could it explain consciousness? Well, that graph is how.

"Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change...and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects." Since everything has these things, there is math behind everything. Science expects to find a mathematical unity formula because there is math behind everything.

What I lack only binds me to science more, I do not stray far from anything I can't quote science as having said, and this computer allows me instant access to all the things you mentioned.

Scientist make up a very small part of the total population of the planet, yet a lot of things function just fine. PLenty of good and real ideas, and yes science, has come from someone in their garage, or even someone sitting on the toliet. As for being able to be falsified, if anything life did not have a mental/emotional nature would do it. If the star was not on the side of the WNF, that would do it. If the life forces did not have universal reach, that would do it. I am sure that there are plenty of things in this world that work without being able to be falsified.

That is unless someone tried to tell me that those words don't mean that when science uses them (which someone did) then I have to have them explain why science used "Weak and Strong" the same way we all do in relation to the nuclear forces?

WHEREUPON I SKIPPED FROM PAGE 6 TO 16 OUT OF BOREDOM

How much research has already went into what science says? Science has been over that particular question for hundreds of years. I know science knows what it is talking about, I cannot say the same thing about anyone on this forum.

Science does that all the time. They see something and "figure" that there is something else behind it. Columbus "thought" the world was round before he left. And science "knows" that there is a unity formula thought they have yet to find it.

Science provided the definition, the profile of the nuclear forces. And you just pointed out part of the problem. There is more to life then science. If good and evil are terms well use, and thought of in everyday life, and science does not cover them, doesn't that say that there is more to life then science? No one thing can cover everything.

Once again. Wikipedia says: The term "electromagnetism" comes from the fact that electrical and magnetic forces are involved simultaneously, a changing magnetic field produces an electric field....Similiarly, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field.

You are arguing with scienc,e not me. I am just saying what they say. What other choice have I?

Science says, I believe. Now I know that you think you are right, and that you are only trying to help me, but if the choice here is believe what you are saying, or what science is saying, I will pick science every time.

While science has not found the formula, I am not sitting here dreading that they do, and when they find it I see no reason for that to change. The graph would only suffer if the forces lost the characteristics that science has assigned to them.

WHEREUPON I REALIZED THAT I HAVE FOUND 18 EXAMPLES IN 7 PAGES AND I WILL NEVER BE DONE SO I JUST SKIPPED TO THE LATEST EXAMPLES.

No matter what the book says, science "assumes" that there is life in space. Why else would they be pointing all that stuff at the sky? Even when they look for the conditions for life, they are assuming that that is the best place to find it.

Science and math both say that there is life out there.

Science advances when some things fail all the time. And I know another thing, scientist are still people. Not this perfect machine some of you think it is. Leaps of faith are taken all the time.

WHEREUPON MY WIFE CALLED ME AND I HAD TO FIND JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF LCL SPEAKING FOR SCIENCE.

I am saying that the goings on of the particle world, emerge as the goings on of the animal world, and only get finely defined, best expressed, at the human level. Therefore, matter (living matter included) owes how it looks and behaves to energy. The reason science uses the same terms, because they are describing "about" the same system.

WHEREUPON I ENDED MY WORK BUT DID NOT COMPLETE IT.

TobiasTheViking
22nd October 2006, 06:00 PM
I knew you would think it logical to go crazy too. You guys are in fact connected. All sharing one bruised ego.

Sure you aren't just reflecting your own feelings unto us because we have proven you wrong every step of the way?


If not, please answer my question.

My question was actually very simple, it was just "when will you answer my question?", so you can reply "tomorrow" if you want, i just want to know when i can expect a reply.

Then again, it is some 5 days ago that you promised to answer "tomorrow" and you still haven't. So. :/

bruto
22nd October 2006, 06:44 PM
Here, LCL, are examples of you speaking for science. <snip>
WHEREUPON I ENDED MY WORK BUT DID NOT COMPLETE IT.

I had thought to do this, but the task of rereading that much of LCL's stuff was too discouraging. You're a brave man, LL!

Anacoluthon64
23rd October 2006, 01:06 AM
I'm a he.Relative to what?

'Luthon64

Belz...
23rd October 2006, 04:35 AM
Then they stand on a soap box and beat their chest about being smarter than me.

I know how you feel. Finding out you're not as smart as you thought you were is disconcerting.

But they are looking for life. And an educated guess can be mistaken for "logical to assume."

Key word: mistaken.

I see you are a psychology major. Wouldn't it be more logical for you to go someplace else?

If we worked like that, you wouldn't even be here.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 06:31 AM
From the start you have made bad, illogical arguments. It isn't about taking courses, it's about learning the difference between a bad, illogical, erroneous argument and making sense. You unfortunately do not know the difference and proudly proclaim your intention never to learn. And it did not go on for thirty pages before I pointed that out. I've been hammering at it from the beginning. I'm not sure quite what you mean. I always try to post in direct response to what you write. Nobody is chest beating about being smart here. The subject is your ideas and your exposition of them.
The subject is the connection between life and the energies responsible for it. You are saying that it is an illogical argument, why? Maybe you don't like where it is headed? A "plan" for life is illloogical to you.


You post nonsense and some of us are trying to point out why it is nonsense. You post illogical conclusions and some of us are trying to point out why they are illogical.
You see? The subject is illlogical TO YOU but that does not make it illlogical. There is a difference. Some might even say that you views of no God was illlogical, but not me.


If you think that's changing the subject, you're misguided. It didn't. Scientific method is what makes science scientific. Logic predates what we usually consider as modern science, by a very long stretch.
Of course it did. And those working it made assumptions and continue to. Oh. Only now they don't use that word. They say educated guess, and all those other words you did.

Scientists are right now searching the universe for signs of life, in an organized and careful way, precisely because they cannot assume anything, but must actually find it out, verify it and prove it. Your apparent misunderstanding of this idea, and your ability to justify your sloppy and illogical ideas by citing "science" is incredible.
They would not be looking if they didn't think it was there.

Who knows what goes on in someone's mind. We're talking here about how facts are argued and proven, not how people think.
You said that no scientist assumes. That means that you are assuming you know what goes on in their mind.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things yet from someone who has posted thirty pages of declarations that "science says" this or that as if you could speak for science as a monolithic entity whose ideas you understand. It isn't and you don't.
I said science said when that is what is written for science. You want me to say "science written?" Anyway, that is a long way from saying that no scientist assumes. Now I see you are saying that you can tell what goes on in the mind of another. So I guess you must also mean scientist.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 06:36 AM
I know how you feel. Finding out you're not as smart as you thought you were is disconcerting.
You tell me.


Key word: mistaken.
People do it all the time.


If we worked like that, you wouldn't even be here.
So you are saying that you are being illlogical?

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 06:38 AM
Relative to what?

'Luthon64Your mother.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 06:45 AM
Sure you aren't just reflecting your own feelings unto us because we have proven you wrong every step of the way?


If not, please answer my question.

My question was actually very simple, it was just "when will you answer my question?", so you can reply "tomorrow" if you want, i just want to know when i can expect a reply.

Then again, it is some 5 days ago that you promised to answer "tomorrow" and you still haven't. So. :/
You don't want me to answer. Then you would not be able to claim that I didn't. When I did answer/reply, you lost no time going on as if nothing happened. You didn't reply to what I said, you just said I didn't answer.
It seems that I will take longer getting to you then I thought. Some of the others have come back from the brink. That does not bother you does it?

Loss Leader
23rd October 2006, 07:11 AM
Of course it did. And those working it made assumptions and continue to. Oh. Only now they don't use that word. They say educated guess, and all those other words you did.

They would not be looking if they didn't think it was there.

You said that no scientist assumes. That means that you are assuming you know what goes on in their mind.

I said science said when that is what is written for science. You want me to say "science written?" Anyway, that is a long way from saying that no scientist assumes. Now I see you are saying that you can tell what goes on in the mind of another. So I guess you must also mean scientist.

And LCL, you continue to speak for science even after accusing someone else of doing the same thing. You continue to speak for science even after I posted over twenty examples of you doing the same thing. In fact, you just simultaniously accused Bruto of "assuming you know what goes on in their mind" while, in the very same post, asserting that scientists "would not be looking if they didn't think it was there."

Why do you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards as you demand of others?

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 07:16 AM
Here, LCL, are examples of you speaking for science. I post these to show that you do not hold yourself to the standards you demand of others.
I didn't demand anything, I think you demanded a course on logic even though you understood what I was saying well enough. You just think that ideas along the lines of a "plan" a "designer" or a "soul," are illlogical. Like I said, that makes them only illlogical to you. And a course in logic would not change that.

You do not consider yourself bound by the rules of logic;
I am bound by the rules of logic. Was it you who said that matter and energy are not different forms of the same thing?

you do not consider yourself required to investigate current scientific thinking;
Only if it relates to what I posted. You are talking about me not being willing to chase every stick thrown.

you do not see any reason why your statements should be backed with any proof whatsoever.
Energy is the order on which matter is based. You know that. Most of the people here should know that. That alone should back it up. But in order to cloud the picture some say "not really show me?" If you can't or won't show me, it is not true.

Here I present examples that you have done the exact same thing:

Wow. That was a lot. To bad you didn't use all that time to make a summary of all the things you said was wrong with the graph. But I guess you would have if you could. Instead you seem to have found it safer to go elsewhere. That guy was talking about what was going on IN the mind of scientist, I was talking about what has been written for science. But you got what you wanted. All you really want is a place to say that I am wrong.

WHEREUPON I SKIPPED FROM PAGE 6 TO 16 OUT OF BOREDOM

WHEREUPON I REALIZED THAT I HAVE FOUND 18 EXAMPLES IN 7 PAGES AND I WILL NEVER BE DONE SO I JUST SKIPPED TO THE LATEST EXAMPLES.

WHEREUPON MY WIFE CALLED ME AND I HAD TO FIND JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF LCL SPEAKING FOR SCIENCE.

WHEREUPON I ENDED MY WORK BUT DID NOT COMPLETE IT.
Look at all the effort here? Just to be able to say I was wrong. If only his powers were put to better use, instead of safer.

Anacoluthon64
23rd October 2006, 07:20 AM
Your mother.Impossible. I'm quite motherless on this anaesthetising drivel you've been spewing for nigh 450 posts.

'Luthon64

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 07:22 AM
And LCL, you continue to speak for science even after accusing someone else of doing the same thing. You continue to speak for science even after I posted over twenty examples of you doing the same thing. In fact, you just simultaniously accused Bruto of "assuming you know what goes on in their mind" while, in the very same post, asserting that scientists "would not be looking if they didn't think it was there."
On the one hand we have someone looking into their mind for one word, on the other hand there is the space program and all those other things pointed at the sky. You don't see the difference?

bruto
23rd October 2006, 07:25 AM
The subject is the connection between life and the energies responsible for it. You are saying that it is an illogical argument, why? Maybe you don't like where it is headed? A "plan" for life is illloogical to you.You still do not understand, and probably will never understand, but the ARGUMENT is illogical. You are making an assertion and it is not backed up by competent explanation, evidence or logical discourse. It has nothing to do with how it is heaaded, or whether or not I believe there is a "plan" for life. YOU have made an assertion about how the universe is arranged but you cannot explain it competently. Your arguments are illogical because you simply and plainly do not understand what logic is, how it works, or how to use it, and have repeatedly made it clear that you intend never to learn.


You see? The subject is illlogical TO YOU but that does not make it illlogical. There is a difference. Some might even say that you views of no God was illlogical, but not me.Once again you misunderstand in a way so basic and fundamental that it is nearly impossible to answer.


Of course it did. And those working it made assumptions and continue to. Oh. Only now they don't use that word. They say educated guess, and all those other words you did. another total misunderstanding and confusion between inference and argument. It's really fundamental. It's at the basis of how thought and argument work, but you continue to ignore it. We all make assumptions, but if we are wise, these assumptions are tentative and open to change if they are not borne out by evidence. We all make guesses. When we make a statement that we wish to have accepted as meaningful, true, or useful, any assumptions we may have used to arrive at the knowledge must be cast aside and replaced with evidence and reason.

They would not be looking if they didn't think it was there.

You said that no scientist assumes. That means that you are assuming you know what goes on in their mind. Of course not. I am saying that assumption has no place in the argument, proof and explanation of science. I make no assumption on what goes on in anybody's mind. It is totally irrelevant. As usual you completely misunderstand. It does not matter one whit what goes on in a scientist's mind, nor does it matter whether he is mad or sane, inspired or pedantic. We're talking here about how things are explained, proven, backed up and argued, not how they are discovered. The difference, as you continue to misunderstand, is fundamental.

I said science said when that is what is written for science. You want me to say "science written?" Anyway, that is a long way from saying that no scientist assumes. Now I see you are saying that you can tell what goes on in the mind of another. So I guess you must also mean scientist.And once again and as usual, you misunderstand so totally that it makes me wonder whether you comprehend what you read at all. I cannot tell what goes on in anybody's mind. It's totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is what is meant by "scientific method," logic, effective argument, sense and nonsense.

lightcreatedlife@hom
23rd October 2006, 07:29 AM
Speak for yourself only. My ego is not bruised. Even if you had somehow hit the mark in your arguments it would not be bruised. I post in a skeptic's forum which is filled with controversial ideas put forth by a variety of people from kind, wise patient instructors to irascible, foul-mouthed, intolerant bigots, and everything in between - people who are nasty but right, kind but wrong, and all combinations. If my ego were tied up in this place I'd be a sorry sack of injured feelings by now. But in any case, believe me: you're not that good at it!
Says the person chasing me for 34 pages. I may not have been talking about you with the bruised ego thing. I was referring to those who felt that they had to post recipes because they didn't want to talk anymore, but they couldn't just stop talking.

Loss Leader
23rd October 2006, 07:31 AM
The subject is the connection between life and the energies responsible for it. You are saying that it is an illogical argument, why?

I'll answer this, although you'll ignore me. Logic has nothing to do with the conclusion drawn. No matter how much one dislikes the conclusion, there is nothing about an end statement in and of itself that makes it illogical.

Logic means nothing other than that the premises, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion. Thus, the following is a logical argument:

1. Jennifer Aniston is divorced.
2. All divorced women are alcoholics.
3. Jennifer Aniston is an alcoholic.

If 1 and 2 are true, 3 must be true. Now, we can argue the truth of 2, but we are not arguing with the logic of the argument. We are only arguing with the validity of the premise.

The following is an illogical argument:

1. Jennifer Aniston is divorced.
2. Some divorced women are alcoholics.
3. Jennifer Aniston is an alcoholic.

If 1 and 2 are true, we still know nothing about the truth of 3. Jennifer Aniston may be among those divorced women who drink, but only some of them drink. She may well be among the group that does not. 1 and 2 are, in fact, demonstrably true beyond all doubt. But they do not tell us anything about the truth of 3.

So, an argument cannot be logical to one person and illogical to another. It either is logical or is not. Hence, your statement is false:

The subject is illlogical TO YOU but that does not make it illlogical. There is a difference.

There is, in fact, no difference. There is no such thing as a subject being illogical to one person but still being objectively logical.

Now, your entire argument has many, many flaws. A great deal of them are contained in your various premises. The statements you make are, in fact, frequently wrong: humans are not a "higher" form of life; there are not four basic operations in math; electromagnatism is not two things, etc. However, this does not necessarily make your argument illogical. What makes your argument illogical is that even if everything you say about all of these subjects is true, it still does not lead to the necessary conclusion that you have drawn.

I don't know any other way to say it. Your ultimate conclusion does not follow from your evidence, even if your evidence were actually right. And there is no personal preference involved and no judgment. Your argument is not logical ... to anyone, and that includes yourself.

For an easy, fun and informative beginner's guide, I recommend you pick up Logic and Mr. Limbaugh (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Mr-Limbaugh-Dittoheads-Fallacious/dp/0812692942/sr=1-1/qid=1161613502/ref=sr_1_1/102-7765615-5787310?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Ray Perkins, Jr.

wollery
23rd October 2006, 07:31 AM
You see? The subject is illlogical TO YOU but that does not make it illlogical. There is a difference. Some might even say that you views of no God was illlogical, but not me.NO. No, no, no, no, no. No!!!

An argument is either logical or it is not. That's the beauty of logic, it does not depend on one's point of view. Regardless of a person's opinion the logic of any statement they make can be assessed by anyone who understands logic, and all will agree on whether or not that statement is logical.

The vast majority of your statements about your evidence and conclusions are illogical. You can complain about it until you are blue in the face, but their illogic is undisputable.

This is why your lack of understanding of logic, and your refusal to even consider studying it makes you look so foolish.

Tricky
23rd October 2006, 08:20 AM
Of course, if Assumption 1 of your syllogism is, "God exists", then logic pretty much goes downhill from there.

RandFan
23rd October 2006, 08:38 AM
For an easy, fun and informative beginner's guide, I recommend you pick up Logic and Mr. Limbaugh (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Mr-Limbaugh-Dittoheads-Fallacious/dp/0812692942/sr=1-1/qid=1161613502/ref=sr_1_1/102-7765615-5787310?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Ray Perkins, Jr. Thank you. I've ordered it. FWIW, I like Rush. I've liked him less and less over the years and I realized some time ago that his arguments were often specious. In any event I dig any book on logic that's easy to understand.

fuelair
23rd October 2006, 08:41 AM
For an excellent example of how to write like you try to but so that it carries meaning and coherency, see Is There Room for the Soul? Jay Tolson US News and World Report p.57+ Oct. 23,2006

Belz...
23rd October 2006, 09:28 AM
You tell me.

I just did.

People do it all the time.

Especially you.

So you are saying that you are being illlogical?

Ouch. Seriously, I think that's the worst possible example of incredibly bad reading comprehension I've seen on this thread; and since you have a whole lot of posts, here, that's saying a lot.

The "You", in my post was refering to "lightcreatedlife@hom". Since you said that a psychology major shouldn't post here, I assumed you meant people should post only in threads that correspond to their specialty. Since you have apparently none, I said you wouldn't be here at all if we worked that way. See how bad you are at reading ?

The subject is the connection between life and the energies responsible for it. You are saying that it is an illogical argument, why?

We're saying it's an illogical assertion BECAUSE it has no argument.

Maybe you don't like where it is headed? A "plan" for life is illloogical to you.

So far, so good. Of course, if you could elaborate on what that "plan" is, we'd be going somewhere for real.

I see you're ignoring my other posts. Don't like where it is headed ?

Some might even say that you views of no God was illlogical, but not me.

I should hope not. Who in their right mind would claim that belief in a self-contradictory claim could be logical ?

And those working it made assumptions and continue to.

No, they don't. To which assumption do you think you're refering to ?

They would not be looking if they didn't think it was there.

Ridiculous. A typical misunderstanding of science. Even if they didn't think it existed, the possibility that it did would warrant looking for it. In fact, there is a very, very slim chance of finding other, intelligent life forms in our vacinity. We're still looking.

I said science said when that is what is written for science. You want me to say "science written?" Anyway, that is a long way from saying that no scientist assumes. Now I see you are saying that you can tell what goes on in the mind of another. So I guess you must also mean scientist.

Gosh, you're going to have to check your syntax and grammar. I can't understand that one.

I didn't demand anything, I think you demanded a course on logic even though you understood what I was saying well enough. You just think that ideas along the lines of a "plan" a "designer" or a "soul," are illlogical. Like I said, that makes them only illlogical to you. And a course in logic would not change that.

I could, maybe, help you understand WHY people are telling you that it's illogical. Your stubborn refusal to learn anything doesn't give you much credibility, you know.

I am bound by the rules of logic.

But your claims aren't, apparently.

Was it you who said that matter and energy are not different forms of the same thing?

We didn't say it wasn't, we said the answer wasn't that simple.

You are talking about me not being willing to chase every stick thrown.

There's a reasonable margin between "every" and "none of".

Energy is the order on which matter is based.

Speculation.

You know that. Most of the people here should know that.

Are you claiming to know what I think better than I ?

If you can't or won't show me, it is not true.

No. If you can't or won't show me, then I can't KNOW if it's true. That's the whole point of the skeptical mindset.

To bad you didn't use all that time to make a summary of all the things you said was wrong with the graph.

Everything's wrong with the graph.

Instead, you should try to explain why you keep claiming to speak for science when chastising other people for doing the very same thing.

Look at all the effort here? Just to be able to say I was wrong.

It's not a hard thing to say, considering the overwhelming evidence.

Belz...
23rd October 2006, 09:32 AM
Says the person chasing me for 34 pages.

Chasing you ? You're the one with the OP. Don't you expect answers ?

Solus
23rd October 2006, 09:40 AM
You must think that you can make that toy robot come to life. Buddy.
You can burst out of your shirt any time you want to. I don't have to read your post, or answer them. (But you know I will. Primed, willing and able.) Oh wait. I see you are a psychology major. Wouldn't it be more logical for you to go someplace else?
But you can't do that. Can you?
Wouldn't people in your field call your behavior some type of "fixation disorder?"

You have to have IMMENSE sympathy for the mentally ill, you are in fact one of them. And just think. When you become a psychiatrist, you will have access to all the pills and potions you need. Good move looking ahead.

"Why Dorothy. You were always able to go home. All you had to do was click your heels." Or in your case, not come to this thread. Talk about willfull ignorance. Look at the thread? Do you see any indication that I will stop as long as someone else is here? I think it is you who is delusional.


:) You're a highschool dropout I bet. In fact I think you have no job, or friends and live with your mother. Worse yet you are probably in your 40s (and a virgin). ;) Your grammar and language compersion are worse than a 15 year-old. Finally, I fart in your general direction, your mother was hamster, and your father smelt of elderberry. ;)

I'm just warming up on the insults. You want this thread as deep in the dirt as possible so be it.

And please DO not call me mentally ill again. You use the term as an insult and I don't appreicate that. And to be clear I'm the depressive anixety type not the tinfoil hat kind (like you).

I'm in this thread because it's fun and no other reason.

http://www.motifwebs.com/albums/cats/angry_kittie_001.jpg

This cat doesn't like you.

wollery
23rd October 2006, 09:54 AM
I can answer the question about whether or not astronomers assume that there is life elsewhere in the Universe. The answer is that we know for a fact that life exists on Earth. Unfortunately this is a single data point, which tells us very little about whether or not life is common in the Universe. However, given that we know that life is possible it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that there may be life on other planets. Given this possibility it is reasonable to test the possibility by conducting searches for intelligent life (like SETI are doing) and planets which have the right conditions to harbour life, whether it be intelligent or not. No assumptions are being made about what the results of those searches will be.

This is how science works. We take an observation, in this case "life exists on Earth", which leads to a hypothesis, which is "life might exist elsewhere". We then test the hypothesis by searching for more data to either confirm or deny the hypothesis, in this case by looking at stars similar to the Sun to see if they have Earth-like planets, or if there are signals coming from them which could be emitted by a technologically advanced species.

Belz...
23rd October 2006, 10:02 AM
:) You're a highschool dropout I bet. In fact I think you have no job, or friends and live with your mother. Worse yet you are probably in your 40s (and a virgin). ;) Your grammar and language compersion are worse than a 15 year-old. Finally, I fart in your general direction, your mother was hamster, and your father smelt of elderberry. ;)

What does this have to do with his logical skills or lack thereof ? If you're sick of debating here, why don't you leave ? I'm getting tired of trying to debate these people and get flooded with recipies, cats, flaming insults and lyrics.

Can we not do this ?

bruto
23rd October 2006, 12:08 PM
What does this have to do with his logical skills or lack thereof ? If you're sick of debating here, why don't you leave ? I'm getting tired of trying to debate these people and get flooded with recipies, cats, flaming insults and lyrics.

Can we not do this ?

I might leave the cats out of this. Kittens can be a temporary respite from frustration, and it certainly is frustrating to carry on any dialogue with LCL! But I have to agree about the rest. His home life and character are really irrelevant to this thread, not only because I think it's unseemly to make such attacks, but because I see no reason why a high school dropout, or even someone with mental illness, could not do a better job of educating himself than LCL has shown himself willing to do. I know some people who are badly educated, dyslexic or otherwise learning disabled, and in some cases truly mentally disturbed. It does not necessarily follow that they are fools or that they believe foolish things. A person can educate himself, and a person like LCL (who lives within two blocks of a public library), unless he is physically disabled or under house arrest, could do better than he has so far, if he is willing to accept the risk that real knowledge and real education might put his current ideas at risk. Reluctance to take that risk is not confined to stupid, uneducated, mentally ill, or any other particular variety of people. It's woefully common throughout the world. LCL is one of a large company. We need not speculate on why LCL is so mentally lazy, or why he so stubbornly adheres to nonsensical ideas and errors, to carry on a reasonably civil argument about his ideas, and I think it's reasonable even to attack a person's ideas, and even to insult those ideas, without vilifying him personally. I have persisted in my onslaught in the hope, probably vain, that LCL will eventually become so frustrated at the constant opposition and at its consistency that he will actually attempt to acquire some real knowledge and education with which to oppose us, and in so doing will become a little wiser. It appears that this is not going to happen, but I, too, can be very stubborn. LCL tends to take these attacks personally when he should not, and I certainly would advise others here not to reinforce that mistake, even when he lashes back with personal remarks that are also inappropriate.

However, I must also point out that Solus's post, though somewhat intemperate, was in response to a VERY inappropriate and nasty ad hominem attack from LCL. I think they should both take it somewhere else.

TobiasTheViking
23rd October 2006, 01:50 PM
Ah, you took the second option this time.

I've noticed that when i ask you something you do one of three things.

1) You will sidestep the question.
2) You disregard what i said completely.
3) You say you will answer later.

I can't ask you any questions, because you "are busy with everyone else and will answer tomorrow", which you then don't.

In the cases where you actually reply to a question you just sidestep it and say a lot of garbage that doesn't answer my question.

And in this case you didn't even say anything remotely connected to my post.


You don't want me to answer.
Yes i do

Then you would not be able to claim that I didn't.
I get no satisfaction of saying you didn't, i would rather have you answer than anything else

When I did answer/reply, you lost no time going on as if nothing happened.
What do you mean?

No i lost no time doing useless stuff, i instantly answered your post and asked you to answer my questions again(because you did one of the three things mentioned above)

You didn't reply to what I said, you just said I didn't answer.
In almost all posts i have replied to what you said, it is maybe 3-4 posts where i haven't done a sentence by sentence reply like this one.

It seems that I will take longer getting to you then I thought.
It seems that it will take longer getting through to you than i thought.

Some of the others have come back from the brink.
Which ones? Because i'm sure they would disagree that they were ever on the brink.

Actually i don't think anyone in this thread is near the brink but you.

That does not bother you does it?
No, not really, since i believe it to be false.

Solus
23rd October 2006, 09:45 PM
What does this have to do with his logical skills or lack thereof ? If you're sick of debating here, why don't you leave ? I'm getting tired of trying to debate these people and get flooded with recipies, cats, flaming insults and lyrics.

Can we not do this ?

As you wish I will leave this thread. He rudely insulted me so I merely respond in kind. I'm not here to debate him, I got bored of that within one page when I found it to be impossible. I'm here to throw this thread off track, I think this guy is troll, and I want to ruin his fun.

Anyway if you guys want a never-ending pointless debate be my guest. I respect other JREF posters and so I'll leave this thread as Belz has requested. Have fun with LCL ;)

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 06:10 AM
:) You're a highschool dropout I bet. In fact I think you have no job, or friends and live with your mother. Worse yet you are probably in your 40s (and a virgin). ;) Your grammar and language compersion are worse than a 15 year-old. Finally, I fart in your general direction, your mother was hamster, and your father smelt of elderberry. ;)

I'm just warming up on the insults. You want this thread as deep in the dirt as possible so be it.
[quote]Really you flatter me. And you got all this from your connection to spacemen? Or was it a dream?


[quote]And please DO not call me mentally ill again. You use the term as an insult and I don't appreicate that. And to be clear I'm the depressive anixety type not the tinfoil hat kind (like you).
Look at this guy? He calls me ill, but he does not want to be called ill, and he really is? Actually I was telling the truth.

I less than three logic
24th October 2006, 06:32 AM
Really you flatter me. And you got all this from your connection to spacemen? Or was it a dream?


Look at this guy? He calls me ill, but he does not want to be called ill, and he really is? Actually I was telling the truth.
Perhaps you have some mild difficulties with reading comprehension. It seems to me that you miss the point of what people are trying to say often. Solus, within that post you quoted, freely admitted to having a form of mental illness, and his objection was not in regards to you saying so as much as it was to how you were stating it. “You use the term as an insult and I don't appreciate that.” You seemed to completely miss this sentence. I’m sure, with Solus being in the field of psychiatry, he has a respect for mental illness that others may not realize or fully appreciate. His objection was against your use of mental illness as an insult, it wouldn’t be any different than using cancer as an insult, and I’m sure you can see how someone might consider that inappropriate.

Loss Leader
24th October 2006, 06:36 AM
Light, now that you're back, I hope you will take time to read and answer my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2029180#post2029180).

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 07:01 AM
Your arguments are illogical because you simply and plainly do not understand what logic is, how it works, or how to use it, and have repeatedly made it clear that you intend never to learn.
This is what I have been talking about. Despite the fact that you have understood what I was saying (even if you don't agree with it) all this time, you hit on the logic thing and now claim the ball game never happened. You looked in the rule book, and found what I'm sure is in there, but nobody ever goes by (even you) and therefore there is no game. Fine. Whatever gets you through this. You might even be able to get someone to believe that stuff too. I ain't buying it. By your definition less than a million people in the world makes any sense.


Once again you misunderstand in a way so basic and fundamental that it is nearly impossible to answer. another total misunderstanding and confusion between inference and argument. It's really fundamental. It's at the basis of how thought and argument work, but you continue to ignore it.
I am not ignoring it. I understand what you are saying. "By those rules, if you don't say what you are saying this way, you are not saying anything." You get to avoid the question, you have a reference for what you are saying, (even if nobody uses it) and you feel right. Like I said, fine. But expect me to move along as if you have just said nothing, because you didn't. People have been getting their points across before that, and have since.

We all make assumptions, but if we are wise, these assumptions are tentative and open to change if they are not borne out by evidence.
Alittle while back you were saying that no scientist made them. That was my problem with it.

We all make guesses. When we make a statement that we wish to have accepted as meaningful, true, or useful, any assumptions we may have used to arrive at the knowledge must be cast aside and replaced with evidence and reason.
Give it time. How long have we been here? I am sure that the next phase for a lot of things has taken more time then this.

We're talking here about how things are explained, proven, backed up and argued, not how they are discovered. The difference, as you continue to misunderstand, is fundamental. And once again and as usual, you misunderstand so totally that it makes me wonder whether you comprehend what you read at all.
Well lets see. I have just carried on 33 pages with people who know a lot of things and have schooling to back it up. And while they don't agree with me, I have understood and countered what they said. Where I met my limitations, I have no problem saying. Where what was said had no bearing on where I am, or where I am going, I had no problem saying that too. Some of the misunderstanding you think I have, is when I don't accept what you are saying, but I understand. Just like you don't accept what I am saying. These things happen.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 07:22 AM
Your arguments are illogical because you simply and plainly do not understand what logic is, how it works, or how to use it, and have repeatedly made it clear that you intend never to learn.
This is what I have been talking about. Despite the fact that you have understood what I was saying (even if you don't agree with it) all this time, you hit on the logic thing and now claim the ball game never happened. You looked in the rule book, and found what I'm sure is in there, but nobody ever goes by (even you) and therefore there is no game. Fine. Whatever gets you through this. You might even be able to get someone to believe that stuff too. I ain't buying it. By your definition less than a million people in the world makes any sense.


Once again you misunderstand in a way so basic and fundamental that it is nearly impossible to answer. another total misunderstanding and confusion between inference and argument. It's really fundamental. It's at the basis of how thought and argument work, but you continue to ignore it.
I am not ignoring it. I understand what you are saying. "By those rules, if you don't say what you are saying this way, you are not saying anything." You get to avoid the question, you have a reference for what you are saying, (even if nobody uses it) and you feel right. Like I said, fine. But expect me to move along as if you have just said nothing, because you didn't. People have been getting their points across before that, and have since.

We all make assumptions, but if we are wise, these assumptions are tentative and open to change if they are not borne out by evidence.
Alittle while back you were saying that no scientist made them. That was my problem with it.

We all make guesses. When we make a statement that we wish to have accepted as meaningful, true, or useful, any assumptions we may have used to arrive at the knowledge must be cast aside and replaced with evidence and reason.
Give it time. How long have we been here? I am sure that the next phase for a lot of things has taken more time then this.

We're talking here about how things are explained, proven, backed up and argued, not how they are discovered. The difference, as you continue to misunderstand, is fundamental. And once again and as usual, you misunderstand so totally that it makes me wonder whether you comprehend what you read at all.
Well lets see. I have just carried on 33 pages with people who know a lot of things and have schooling to back it up. And while they don't agree with me, I have understood and countered what they said. Where I met my limitations, I have no problem saying. Where what was said had no bearing on where I am, or where I am going, I had no problem saying that too. Some of the misunderstanding you think I have, is when I don't accept what you are saying, but I understand. Just like you don't accept what I am saying. These things happen.

I less than three logic
24th October 2006, 07:31 AM
Well lets see. I have just carried on 33 pages with people who know a lot of things and have schooling to back it up. And while they don't agree with me, I have understood and countered what they said. Where I met my limitations, I have no problem saying. Where what was said had no bearing on where I am, or where I am going, I had no problem saying that too. Some of the misunderstanding you think I have, is when I don't accept what you are saying, but I understand. Just like you don't accept what I am saying. These things happen.
If all it took to win an argument was the determination to keep talking, then I guess youíd never lose. The problem is, that isnít what is required. The fact that youíve kept talking for 33 pages means nothing at all. Also, so far, I havenít seen where youíve countered any arguments presented to you. You just reassert your correctness ad nauseam.

Cosmo
24th October 2006, 07:34 AM
The next post will be the 1337th!

Loss Leader
24th October 2006, 08:36 AM
This is what I have been talking about. Despite the fact that you have understood what I was saying (even if you don't agree with it) all this time, you hit on the logic thing and now claim the ball game never happened. You looked in the rule book, and found what I'm sure is in there, but nobody ever goes by (even you) and therefore there is no game. Fine. Whatever gets you through this. You might even be able to get someone to believe that stuff too. I ain't buying it. By your definition less than a million people in the world makes any sense.

So, LCL, your agrument is:

1. You demand that my argument be logical
2. But if people were held to the rules of logic, less than a million people in the world would make any sense
3. That would be an absurd result (implied)
4. Therefore, I should not be held to the rules of logic.

Let us first look at the logic of your argument. Is 4 necessarily true if 1, 2 and 3 are true? No, it is not. Shoplifters are caught only 1 time in 48 and prosecuted only half of the time they are caught. (source) (http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/WhatNASPOffers/NRC.htm) About 99% of shoplifting goes unprosecuted, but does that mean that it is unfair to prosecute the other 1%. I don't think so. shoplifting is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, whomever we catch should be prosecuted.

So, does the fact that very few people adhere to the rules of logic mean that you shouldn't? Not necessarily. If logicical thought is a good idea, everyone should adhere to it including you. Since you have nowhere in your argument stated that the rules of logic do not lead to better arguments, more rigorous testing or more reliable results, you have said nothing about whether logic should or should not be applied in arguments. All you have said is that it is usually not. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, even if they were all true. Your argument is invalid.

But are your premises true? Premise 1 is. Premise 2, that less than a million people would make sense, lacks any proof. I doubt you can back that up with anything other than your personal feelings. Not only that, I suspect that most people can present a mostly logical argument most of the time even without any training. "Please pass the butter" is a logical argument whether people know it or not. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, you believe that only 0.015% of them make any sense. This seems unlikely.

Premise 3, that this is an absurd result, also may not be factual. Even if the vast majority of humans are not making logical arguments, why would this be absurd? The vast majority of people are not attempting to advance the causes of scientific knowledge or philosophy. They are not arguing to the jury in death penalty cases. There is a sector of society in which rigorous, unrelenting logical thought is necessary but there is also a large segment in which one can gt away with much less. So long as the guy who designed the rocket adhered to the rules of logic, we are less concerned if the guy who served him lunch did too.

You, however, have determined to play in the sandbox with the great philosophers in history. You have claimed to have pieced together the secret to life, the universe and everything. Logic is required for such endeavors, even if it is not required for most others.

As such, your argument is both untruthful and illogical. It is invalid and carries no weight.

I hope that my careful review will satisfy the requirement you demanded in order to admit that you were mistaken.

wollery
24th October 2006, 08:38 AM
LCL you seem to be claiming that nobody mentioned the fact that your musings were illogical until after more than 30 pages had gone by. However, a cursory inspection of the first three pages brought up these posts;

Here is an example of part of the problem. The first sentence is a statement without any visible foundation. I could as easily say "The base characteristics of male and female can be seen in the two facets of yin and yang or the two colors of black and white, or the two knobs of bass and treble." Is it true? Who knows? Is it useful? No. The second sentence is a sweepingly general characterization of the two sexes that jumps to the conclusion that these characteristics correspond in some way to electromagnetic polarites, but I, for one, would have only a 50/50 chance of guessing which matches which. It hardly matters since the actual characterization of the sexes is to my mind at least an egregious falsehood. The third sentence is another statement that seems to come out of thin air with no evidence to support it, and little apparent meaning anyway. Since you've just strung together a bunch of apparently metaphorical senses of polarity and opposition, of course, everything can be described as having two aspects, two sides, two polarities, yin and yang or whatever. It's like saying "Oh wow, I just discovered that when you go into this room you have to go out of the other." But why should we bother to believe that planets have sexual characteristics, and even if we see some analogy there, why should we assume that the characteristics of the planets are sexual and not the characteristics of the sexes planetary?

Does that which follows "so" follow from that which precedes "so"?

These quotes can both be paraphrased as, "That makes no logical sense". The fact that nobody used the phrase, "That isn't logical." until much later is that they were giving you the benefit of the doubt, by taking it as read that you had at least some ability in reding comprehension.

The plain fact is that your ideas make no logical sense. They are flights of fancy based on misunderstandings of simplistic expressions of complex scientific ideas and misunderstandings of how science works.

TobiasTheViking
24th October 2006, 09:14 AM
LCL

Ah, you took the third option this time.

I've noticed that when i ask you something you do one of three things.

1) You will sidestep the question.
2) You disregard what i said completely.
3) You say you will answer later.

I can't ask you any questions, because you "are busy with everyone else and will answer tomorrow", which you then don't.

In the cases where you actually reply to a question you just sidestep it and say a lot of garbage that doesn't answer my question.

And in this case you didn't even acknowledge my post.

once more. when can i expect to get a reply to my simple question. which you last week promised me i would get "tomorrow"?

Belz...
24th October 2006, 09:43 AM
So, LCL, your agrument is:

<snip>

As such, your argument is both untruthful and illogical. It is invalid and carries no weight.

I hope that my careful review will satisfy the requirement you demanded in order to admit that you were mistaken.

Nice, as usual.

Someone here is used to making statements before jury...

Belz...
24th October 2006, 09:46 AM
LCL you seem to be claiming that nobody mentioned the fact that your musings were illogical until after more than 30 pages had gone by. However, a cursory inspection of the first three pages brought up these posts;

Even earlier than that. Post #3:

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar..

A flawed argument is illogical.

bruto
24th October 2006, 11:28 AM
This is what I have been talking about. Despite the fact that you have understood what I was saying (even if you don't agree with it) all this time, you hit on the logic thing and now claim the ball game never happened. You looked in the rule book, and found what I'm sure is in there, but nobody ever goes by (even you) and therefore there is no game. Fine. Whatever gets you through this. You might even be able to get someone to believe that stuff too. I ain't buying it. By your definition less than a million people in the world makes any sense. Wrong. I have stated from the start that your assertions and your graphs and just about everything else you say is nonsense, and that as stated, it cannot be understood as anything but nonsense. So far, at least in this thread, I think you're the only one who does not acknowledge that.


I am not ignoring it. I understand what you are saying. "By those rules, if you don't say what you are saying this way, you are not saying anything." You get to avoid the question, you have a reference for what you are saying, (even if nobody uses it) and you feel right. Like I said, fine. But expect me to move along as if you have just said nothing, because you didn't. People have been getting their points across before that, and have since. I expect no better from you, though occasionally hoping for it.

Alittle while back you were saying that no scientist made them. That was my problem with it. Your problem is a lot deeper than that, I fear. "Science" as you prefer to refer to it, does not rely on assumptions. How a scientist arrives at an idea is irrelevant.

Give it time. How long have we been here? I am sure that the next phase for a lot of things has taken more time then this. If you mean that at some time you expect to back up your assertions with logic, evidence, and sense, I hope that's true. I doubt it though.

Well lets see. I have just carried on 33 pages with people who know a lot of things and have schooling to back it up. And while they don't agree with me, I have understood and countered what they said. Where I met my limitations, I have no problem saying. Where what was said had no bearing on where I am, or where I am going, I had no problem saying that too. Some of the misunderstanding you think I have, is when I don't accept what you are saying, but I understand. Just like you don't accept what I am saying. These things happen. I have not see any genuine acceptance from you that anything substantial in your arguments is incorrect. You counter, but you do not succeed. What use is it to admit your limitations if you can't acknowledge that your limitations are actually limiting anything?

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 11:37 AM
I'll answer this, although you'll ignore me. Logic has nothing to do with the conclusion drawn. No matter how much one dislikes the conclusion, there is nothing about an end statement in and of itself that makes it illogical.
I must be missing something. You seem sincere in what you are saying, but I can not see what you are talking about. What I think it is that I see a human element, and you don't seem to. For example. One man sees the existence of a designer as perfectly logical, while another sees the exact opposite. They can both be mistaken, because what they are talking about is something neither of them can physically touch, or is clearly visible to the eye. Or even visible to thought-if I am allowed to say something like that.


Logic means nothing other than that the premises, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion. Thus, the following is a logical argument:

1. Jennifer Aniston is divorced.
2. All divorced women are alcoholics.
3. Jennifer Aniston is an alcoholic.


If 1 and 2 are true, 3 must be true. Now, we can argue the truth of 2, but we are not arguing with the logic of the argument. We are only arguing with the validity of the premise.



The following is an illogical argument:

1. Jennifer Aniston is divorced.
2. Some divorced women are alcoholics.
3. Jennifer Aniston is an alcoholic.

If 1 and 2 are true, we still know nothing about the truth of 3. Jennifer Aniston may be among those divorced women who drink, but only some of them drink. She may well be among the group that does not. 1 and 2 are, in fact, demonstrably true beyond all doubt. But they do not tell us anything about the truth of 3.

So, an argument cannot be logical to one person and illogical to another. It either is logical or is not. Hence, your statement is false:
I have no propblem with any of that.


There is, in fact, no difference. There is no such thing as a subject being illogical to one person but still being objectively logical.
I think you are saying that something is either logical to everyone
or it is illlogical. I can't buy that. Tought is too much of a "wild card." And everything can not be as easily "cornered" as the examples you made.

Now, your entire argument has many, many flaws. A great deal of them are contained in your various premises. The statements you make are, in fact, frequently wrong:
humans are not a "higher" form of life;
Humans are the most advanced form of life on this planet by most standards.
there are not four basic operations in math;
That is what is taught in school, and if you google it, that is what most of the references there say. Though I understand that those who know a lot of math can see something more basic.
electromagnatism is not two things, etc.
You are right. Electromagnetism is not two things. I never said that it was. It is one thing with electrical and magnetic components. That is what the name says, and that is what the googled references said.

However, this does not necessarily make your argument illogical. What makes your argument illogical is that even if everything you say about all of these subjects is true, it still does not lead to the necessary conclusion that you have drawn.
I agree that the conculsion that I draw may not be right, but it could be. Take away the idea of heaven and hell, (which in themselves have allot of baggage) and the energy leaving the body goes 1st to light (electromagnet radiation, which makes up the field of the planet) and is then absorbed into other materials (held together by, and operated by the forces.) And one of them has a "hell' of a lot of things (that we consider) bad going on. Things that are not bad in themselves, but would be considered bad by us-if we found ourselves there.


Your argument is not logical ... to anyone, and that includes yourself.
I can assure you, if I did not think that it was logical, I would not be here. You sentence is illlogical even if I am wrong.


For an easy, fun and informative beginner's guide, I recommend you pick up Logic and Mr. Limbaugh (http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Mr-Limbaugh-Dittoheads-Fallacious/dp/0812692942/sr=1-1/qid=1161613502/ref=sr_1_1/102-7765615-5787310?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Ray Perkins, Jr.
I have changed my mind. I will look into logic. I do not think that it will change my view, but it is related to what I am presenting. Besides I have to prepare to deal with your type of augument.
And I have to because I have been taking too much care to avoid saying something like "logic has nothing to do with what I am talking about." Watch how many people bite on this.

zizzybaluba
24th October 2006, 11:50 AM
I think you are saying that something is either logical to everyone
or it is illlogical. I can't buy that. Tought is too much of a "wild card." And everything can not be as easily "cornered" as the examples you made.


And thank you for further proof that you have absolutely no understanding of the concept of logic.

TobiasTheViking
24th October 2006, 11:57 AM
maybe i should just go back to asking those five questions.. atleast back then i got some action.

zizzybaluba
24th October 2006, 12:06 PM
maybe i should just go back to asking those five questions.. atleast back then i got some action.

I have serious doubts that he has the prerequisite understanding to be able to answer your questions (or any questions for that matter) in a meaningful way.

Loss Leader
24th October 2006, 12:20 PM
I have changed my mind. I will look into logic.

I am very glad to hear that. The subject matter is not difficult and a serious student could get a good grasp of the subject in just a few weeks.

Solus
24th October 2006, 02:13 PM
On second thought I'm not leaving this thread just because one JREF poster asked me to ( I find this thread too amusing). However, I will stop trying to derail it I'll stay to make the odd commet now then, and that's all.

LCL thanks for the free enterainment :)

bruto
24th October 2006, 02:41 PM
LCL, you are, quite simply, wrong. Something is either logical or it is not. Logic is about how things are proven and explained, not how they are imagined. You continue to be confused on this. Inference and argument are not the same thing.

I hope you really do look into logic a little further. The book I recommended earlier (Logic, by Wesley C. Salmon, Prentice Hall) is not a very long, and not overly technical, but it is a good basic manual. I don't know if it is still in print, but you could check at your local library. Even if you decide to discard it as useless, at least perhaps you'll have an idea of where some of our conflict lies. You also might just find it interesting.

RandFan
24th October 2006, 03:32 PM
I have changed my mind. I will look into logic. I do not think that it will change my view, but it is related to what I am presenting. I would change my mind about you significantly if you would make the effort and come to an understanding of logic.

You might consider the following:


Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html)
Constructing a Logical Argument (1997)

There's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. You don't need to know logic to argue, of course; but if you know even a little, you'll find it easier to spot invalid arguments.

There are many kinds of logic, such as fuzzy logic and constructive logic; they have different rules, and different strengths and weaknesses. This document discusses simple Boolean logic, because it's commonplace and relatively easy to understand. When people talk about something being 'logical', they usually mean the type of logic described here.

Also from the site is the wonderful Argument Clinic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html). It's a MUST read or a Must see, video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM).

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 07:25 PM
Wrong. I have stated from the start that your assertions and your graphs and just about everything else you say is nonsense, and that as stated, it cannot be understood as anything but nonsense.
So from the start, you are saying, that because electromagnetic radiation, does not have those properties, that all else after it is wrong?
But I shown where some in science, says that it does have those properties. And it seems logical to me that they would be there because of the name.

"as stated, it cannot be understood as anything but nonsense."
I do now understand why people say that that they don't understand any of it now though.

So far, at least in this thread, I think you're the only one who does not acknowledge that.
That does not worry me all that much, many had already held the opposite view of what I am presenting. Would it be logical to expect a welcome mat? People don't change that easily, and proud ones hardly ever.

If you mean that at some time you expect to back up your assertions with logic, evidence, and sense, I hope that's true. I doubt it though.
Rome was not built in a day. I am reading where science is close to being able to tell if someone is lying by how their brain reacts to flashed pictures. It seems that the brain would react to what it knows whether the person wants it to or not.
I think that because the spirit (if I can call it that) is only made up of the mind, and not the whole body as some think, that one day machines may be able to tell if it leaves.

I have not see any genuine acceptance from you that anything substantial in your arguments is incorrect.
I have not seen anything substantial shown to be incorrect.
The only thing that bothered me is not being able to show that the things in the center box are emergent properties of electrical and magnetic energy. Still, what is there best describes the soul-if you believe there is a soul. And there I think that there is room for reasonable people to fall either way. As they do with the designer or no designer thing.

You counter, but you do not succeed. What use is it to admit your limitations if you can't acknowledge that your limitations are actually limiting anything?
My limitations don't touch what I stated in the graph. That is why I felt I could present it. I am just sticking to what I think science said.

[quote] Hey. What about this question. And I am not setting out to trap anybody and will erase all the comments I quoted at the site. What is said is already recorded here.

Do you think that life that has reached planet altering intelligence is logical?

I mean, while nature is balanced, (logical even if this is not always able to be seen) humans are out of balance with it, or illlogical. Unless very intelligent life is a part of something else. Something that seems worth the impact they have on everything else.
.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 07:37 PM
I would change my mind about you significantly if you would make the effort and come to an understanding of logic.
Really? I will look into them.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 08:00 PM
LCL, you are, quite simply, wrong. Something is either logical or it is not.

I believe that. But the many people who hold different opinions don't always agree on what that is. What I think you are saying is that two people sit down, present their cases, and get up some time later with just one of them right by logical standards. That would be nice, but I don't think that that happens very often.

Logic is about how things are proven and explained, not how they are imagined. You continue to be confused on this. Inference and argument are not the same thing.
Logic has nothing to do with how things are arrived at? Like from this and that, logically there should be the other thing?

I hope you really do look into logic a little further. The book I recommended earlier (Logic, by Wesley C. Salmon, Prentice Hall) is not a very long, and not overly technical, but it is a good basic manual. I don't know if it is still in print, but you could check at your local library. Even if you decide to discard it as useless, at least perhaps you'll have an idea of where some of our conflict lies. You also might just find it interesting.I will look.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 08:08 PM
On second thought I'm not leaving this thread just because one JREF poster asked me to ( I find this thread too amusing). However, I will stop trying to derail it I'll stay to make the odd commet now then, and that's all.

LCL thanks for the free enterainment :)
Hey, I'm glad I can help.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 08:45 PM
a person like LCL (who lives within two blocks of a public library),
How do you know that I live within two blocks of a public library? Are we really that interesting?

Loss Leader
24th October 2006, 08:51 PM
I mean, while nature is balanced, (logical even if this is not always able to be seen) humans are out of balance with it, or illlogical. Unless very intelligent life is a part of something else. Something that seems worth the impact they have on everything else.
.

So, here is one of your argument:

1. Nature is balanced.
2. Humans are out of balance.
3. Nothing would be out of balance unless it is part of some plan that makes its apparant imbalance worthwhile (if something is out of balance, then it is part of some plan).
4. Therefore, humans are part of some plan that makes their apparant imbalance worthwhile.

This is actually a logical argument. If 1, 2 and 3 are true, 4 has to be true. Unfortunately, neither 1, 2 or 3 are true. In fact, there may be some contradictions and tautologies at work here.

For example, for your argument to work, humans must not be natural. I might argue:

A. Nature is balanced.
B. Humans are part of nature.
C. Therefore, humans are part of the balance.

This conflicts with your 2, that humans are out of balance. Both things cannot be true. Humans must be unnatural for your argument to work.

Similarly, your 3 is actually a very complicated conclusion in and of itself.

P. A creator exists.
Q. The creator makes nature so that it stays in balance.
R. The creator has some master plan that is more important than keeping nature in balance.
S. Everything that is apparantly out of balance is part of the creator's master plan.

If any single one of the statements 1, 2, 3, P, Q, R or S is false, your entire argument is invalid. They must all be true for your conclusion to necessarily be true.

Are they?

1. Nature is ballanced. - I disagree. Nature is a mess and always has been. The earth careens from frozen to tropical, asteroids wipe out most life on the planet, the magnetic poles switch, species go extinct with alarming frequency. The only thing that can be said is that life has existed for some time in a variety of conditions. But balanced? Hardly.

2. Humans are out of balance - I disagree. Humans evolved on this planet. We're as much a part of things as any other creature. We have an effect on our environment but so do viruses. So does kudzu. So do locusts. It is only the psychological desire to see ourselves as greater or above nature that causes these thoughts. We are not out of balance with anything.

P. A creator exists - I disagree. Please note that you cannot use your argument as evidence of a creator. A creator must exist for your argument to be valid. An argument cannot prove one of its premises.

Q. The creator makes nature so that it stays in balance - The evidence would indicate otherwise.

R. The creator has some master plan that is more important than keeping nature in balance - Once again, this must be true for your argument to be valid but it appears your argument is, at its core, a demonstration that there is a master plan. You cannot assume the conclusion.

S. Everything that is apparantly out of balance is part of the creator's master plan - Even if all your other statements were true, there is no evidence that this is true. It also does not necessarily follow from anything that has been argued. There is no evidence for this statement and it cannot be regarded as true.

I hope you begin to see the pitfalls inherent in reasoning about the will of God.

bruto
24th October 2006, 09:02 PM
Logic has nothing to do with how things are arrived at? Like from this and that, logically there should be the other thing?



Perhaps I put that wrong. You can arrive at something logically, but you need not, and argument and proof are a separate operation. You must not confuse discovery and justification. That confusion even has a name in logical discourse: the "genetic fallacy."

While it's possible at times to arrive at a conclusion in the same order you argue its validity, it's as often the case that you will guess a conclusion, or seek a conclusion, and attempt to find verifiable premises that will back it up. That's often what scientists do when they test an idea with experiments. The idea for the conclusion comes first, the premises second, in the time line of discovery. But logically speaking, the premises determine the results.

If a true idea comes to you in a dream or a vision, or even simply as the accidentally correct result of a series of errors, it is no less true, but you cannot back it up by repeating the dream or the errors. You need logic to explain it and prove it. It's no less true if you cannot do so, but then you can't complain if people dismiss it.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 09:13 PM
So, LCL, your agrument is:

1. You demand that my argument be logical
2. But if people were held to the rules of logic, less than a million people in the world would make any sense
3. That would be an absurd result (implied)
4. Therefore, I should not be held to the rules of logic.

Let us first look at the logic of your argument. Is 4 necessarily true if 1, 2 and 3 are true? No, it is not. Shoplifters are caught only 1 time in 48 and prosecuted only half of the time they are caught. (source) (http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/WhatNASPOffers/NRC.htm) About 99% of shoplifting goes unprosecuted, but does that mean that it is unfair to prosecute the other 1%. I don't think so. shoplifting is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, whomever we catch should be prosecuted.

So, does the fact that very few people adhere to the rules of logic mean that you shouldn't? Not necessarily. If logicical thought is a good idea, everyone should adhere to it including you. Since you have nowhere in your argument stated that the rules of logic do not lead to better arguments, more rigorous testing or more reliable results, you have said nothing about whether logic should or should not be applied in arguments. All you have said is that it is usually not. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, even if they were all true. Your argument is invalid.

But are your premises true? Premise 1 is. Premise 2, that less than a million people would make sense, lacks any proof. I doubt you can back that up with anything other than your personal feelings. Not only that, I suspect that most people can present a mostly logical argument most of the time even without any training. "Please pass the butter" is a logical argument whether people know it or not. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet, you believe that only 0.015% of them make any sense. This seems unlikely.

Premise 3, that this is an absurd result, also may not be factual. Even if the vast majority of humans are not making logical arguments, why would this be absurd? The vast majority of people are not attempting to advance the causes of scientific knowledge or philosophy. They are not arguing to the jury in death penalty cases. There is a sector of society in which rigorous, unrelenting logical thought is necessary but there is also a large segment in which one can gt away with much less. So long as the guy who designed the rocket adhered to the rules of logic, we are less concerned if the guy who served him lunch did too.
Holy hell. With that stuff you could reach the conculsion that I don't exist at all. I think that this kind of a logical dance is not used to make things simple, it is meant to confuse. I think it goes something like the person would get tied of reading it and believe anything you say.
And yes I have been saying that people get by without training in that stuff all the time. But I did not say that 0.015% of them made sense, I said if they were held to the standards you were talking about.

You, however, have determined to play in the sandbox with the great philosophers in history. You have claimed to have pieced together the secret to life, the universe and everything. Logic is required for such endeavors, even if it is not required for most others.
So I am held to a higher standard. That explains a lot. I'm flattered.

As such, your argument is both untruthful and illogical. It is invalid and carries no weight.
Like I said, anything you say. Especially if it means I don't have to go through something like the above again.

I hope that my careful review will satisfy the requirement you demanded in order to admit that you were mistaken.
And what is it with this demand thing? I demanded nothing, used no bold. But no. I don't think that I am mistaken.

lightcreatedlife@hom
24th October 2006, 09:20 PM
Perhaps I put that wrong. You can arrive at something logically, but you need not, and argument and proof are a separate operation. You must not confuse discovery and justification. That confusion even has a name in logical discourse: the "genetic fallacy."

While it's possible at times to arrive at a conclusion in the same order you argue its validity, it's as often the case that you will guess a conclusion, or seek a conclusion, and attempt to find verifiable premises that will back it up. That's often what scientists do when they test an idea with experiments. The idea for the conclusion comes first, the premises second, in the time line of discovery. But logically speaking, the premises determine the results.

If a true idea comes to you in a dream or a vision, or even simply as the accidentally correct result of a series of errors, it is no less true, but you cannot back it up by repeating the dream or the errors. You need logic to explain it and prove it. It's no less true if you cannot do so, but then you can't complain if people dismiss it.
You just have to find the best way to explain it. I profiled the forces and drew a graph. And that graph is more flexible in showing what is there then is currently seen.

RandFan
24th October 2006, 09:35 PM
And yes I have been saying that people get by without training in that stuff all the time. LCL, before modern civilization and all of our wonderful technology people got by without formal logic. But at some point to advance humans had to figure out a way to solve problems using thought rather than trial and error. So some early Greeks came up with a new way to look at the world to figure out what was true and what wasn't true. The started to device methods to avoid making logical mistakes. The made a lot of mistakes in those early days but they also made a lot of progress. Eventually we pretty much hammered out how to use deduction and induction to find the truth of something. It is these methods that has allowed humans to go to the Moon, split the atom, map the human genome, synthesize carbon molecules, etc.

LCL, do you have any idea the complexity involved navigating a course to the moon?

We can do these things because of logic and reason. No, you don't need a solid grasp of the rules of logic to get a job at Wall-mart. But logic is the basis of communication for scientists and philosophers because it is the only way that we can be reasonably certain of the truth.

If we abandon logic then there is nothing to discuss. Everything is equally true and untrue.

RandFan
24th October 2006, 09:37 PM
You just have to find the best way to explain it. I profiled the forces and drew a graph. And that graph is more flexible in showing what is there then is currently seen. I'm sorry LCL, but in all honesty there is nothing there. It seems to make sense to you and that's fine but there is nothing of significance that would cause anyone else to find any sense in the graph, forces and the relations that you have surmised.

Belz...
25th October 2006, 04:57 AM
I must be missing something.

I think you're missing everything.

You seem sincere in what you are saying, but I can not see what you are talking about. What I think it is that I see a human element, and you don't seem to. For example. One man sees the existence of a designer as perfectly logical, while another sees the exact opposite. They can both be mistaken, because what they are talking about is something neither of them can physically touch, or is clearly visible to the eye. Or even visible to thought-if I am allowed to say something like that.

It can "seem" logical to one and not the other, but it can only BE logical or not.

I think you are saying that something is either logical to everyone
or it is illlogical. I can't buy that. Tought is too much of a "wild card." And everything can not be as easily "cornered" as the examples you made.

Well that proves without the shadow of a doubt that you don't know what logic is. I suggest looking for "logic" and "boolean algebra".

Humans are the most advanced form of life on this planet by most standards.

Are we caught in a time-loop, here ? Didn't I explain to you that they were by only ONE standard : intelligence ?

That is what is taught in school, and if you google it, that is what most of the references there say.

Appeal to popularity, again ?

Take away the idea of heaven and hell, (which in themselves have allot of baggage) and the energy leaving the body goes 1st to light (electromagnet radiation, which makes up the field of the planet) and is then absorbed into other materials (held together by, and operated by the forces.) And one of them has a "hell' of a lot of things (that we consider) bad going on. Things that are not bad in themselves, but would be considered bad by us-if we found ourselves there.

You're just making stuff up, here.

I can assure you, if I did not think that it was logical, I would not be here.

Key word: think.

You sentence is illlogical even if I am wrong.

No, it isn't, because as he explained LOGIC isn't subjective. Again, read up.

Belz...
25th October 2006, 05:01 AM
But I shown where some in science, says that it does have those properties. And it seems logical to me that they would be there because of the name.

Key word: seems.

That does not worry me all that much, many had already held the opposite view of what I am presenting. Would it be logical to expect a welcome mat? People don't change that easily, and proud ones hardly ever.

Here you go, again. Assuming that you're right.

I think that because the spirit (if I can call it that) is only made up of the mind, and not the whole body as some think, that one day machines may be able to tell if it leaves.

Here you go, again. Assuming that the soul exists.

Still, what is there best describes the soul-if you believe there is a soul.

Uh-huh, and I'm sure I could do a graph to describe Hobbits.

My limitations don't touch what I stated in the graph.

Of course it does. If you can't form a logical argument, then any argument you make is going to be flawed.

Do you think that life that has reached planet altering intelligence is logical?

Well, that's not an argument. That's a fact. Logic applies to claims and arguments.

I mean, while nature is balanced, (logical even if this is not always able to be seen) humans are out of balance with it, or illlogical.

That's not what logic means.

Belz...
25th October 2006, 07:05 AM
I believe that. But the many people who hold different opinions don't always agree on what that is. What I think you are saying is that two people sit down, present their cases, and get up some time later with just one of them right by logical standards. That would be nice, but I don't think that that happens very often.

No, that's not what he's saying.

Holy hell. With that stuff you could reach the conculsion that I don't exist at all.

No, he couldn't. The fact remains that you have no grasp of logic. His explanation was quite understandable.

I think that this kind of a logical dance is not used to make things simple, it is meant to confuse.

That's what laymen often say when confronted to things they don't understand. Because their brains can't wrap themselves around the concept, they convince themselves that said concept was made specifically to confuse them.

You just have to find the best way to explain it. I profiled the forces and drew a graph. And that graph is more flexible in showing what is there then is currently seen.

Of course it's flexible, since it's a result of your imagination and needs not conform to reality.

You've also ignored several of my points, earlier on. Do you concede them ?

Loss Leader
25th October 2006, 07:09 AM
Holy hell. With that stuff you could reach the conculsion that I don't exist at all.

No, I couldn't. You do exist. Logic cannot turn falsity into the truth any more than it can show the truth to be false. An argument that you do not exist would not be valid.

But this shows an important misunderstanding on your part. You think that logic is meant to confuse and obscure. It is not. It does not stand in the way of discourse, it helps ensure that discourse is productive. Consider:

Tom: The average temperature this decade is two degrees higher than last decade.
Bob: Maybe it's because of all the hot air you're blowing.
Tom: A new study shows a correlation between carbon dioxide in the air and temperature over the last 100 million years. The data over the last ten years is consistent with that.
Bob: If global warming is such a threat, why do you drive such a big car?
Tom: We also have data that shows that the increase in carbon dioxide in the last ten years is due to human activity.
Bob: You're a jerk, jerkward.

None of Bob's statements adressed Tom's argument. But what if they did?

Tom: The average temperature this decade is two degrees higher than last decade.
Bob: Teperatures rise and fall. You're seeing an apparant pattern that's really just random chance.
Tom: A new study shows a correlation between carbon dioxide in the air and temperature over the last 100 million years. The data over the last ten years is consistent with that.
Bob: Even if that were true, people might not be the cause. It could be a natural part of the carbon cycle.
Tom: We also have data that shows that the increase in carbon dioxide in the last ten years is due to human activity.
Bob: I'll take a look at your numbers and we'll discuss it further.

I hope that you see that the second argument is much more productive than the first. That is the only goal of logic.

I think that this kind of a logical dance is not used to make things simple, it is meant to confuse. I think it goes something like the person would get tied of reading it and believe anything you say.

Logic creates the exact opposite of confusion. If you knew and respected the rules of logic, our entire conversation would be shorter, less likely to be derailed by insults and more productive over all. And even if it were tiresome, rigorous thought should not be easy. It should be difficult. If you are arguing for a new way of viewing the universe and man's place therein, you should be prepared for an arduous defense of your position.

And what is it with this demand thing? I demanded nothing, used no bold.

You didn't use bold. I don't know why you thing the use of bold is a prerequisite for a demand. You did, however, say this:

All you have to do is logically present to me why you think that it is wrong. You see, with all you just typed, you gave me no examples of why it is wrong. I have listed several times why it is right, where is your list of why it is wrong?

I did that very thing exactly the way you told me. It was you who required logic from me. And I responded in exactly the manner you asked. Yet, you still responded with:

But no. I don't think that I am mistaken.

How do I reconcile that? You did not tell me what part of my argument you disagreed with. You did not explain which of my premises was faulty or how my conclusion failed to follow. You just dismissed my argument out of hand by saying you don't think you're mistaken.

Perhaps I will take comfort in the fact that you have promised to investigate logic and the rules of argument. You have been given some excellent sources by the people on this board. When you finish your review, I hope that our discussion of your ideas will be more productive.

Loss Leader
26th October 2006, 06:48 AM
Twenty-four hours of blessed silence.

TobiasTheViking
26th October 2006, 06:49 AM
[sing]and then you go and ruin it all by doing something stupid like explode you.[/song]

ehm, i mean, post.

:D

I less than three logic
26th October 2006, 06:51 AM
Twenty-four hours of blessed silence.
I only count 23 hours and 39 minutes from your last post. :D

bruto
26th October 2006, 07:39 AM
Saw this in today's paper, and couldn't resist the analogy:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006183241026.gif

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 04:47 PM
For example, for your argument to work, humans must not be natural. I might argue:

A. Nature is balanced.
B. Humans are part of nature.
C. Therefore, humans are part of the balance.

This conflicts with your 2, that humans are out of balance. Both things cannot be true. Humans must be unnatural for your argument to work.

Humans do not have to be unnatural. With intelligence as a survival tool, the lifeform with enough of it would naturally and logically reach a point where it would become out of balance.

P. A creator exists.
Q. The creator makes nature so that it stays in balance.
R. The creator has some master plan that is more important than keeping nature in balance.
The system is free running. That is its natural path.

S. Everything that is apparantly out of balance is part of the creator's master plan.
That entire plan is the creators from the start whatever it does.


If any single one of the statements 1, 2, 3, P, Q, R or S is false, your entire argument is invalid. They must all be true for your conclusion to necessarily be true.
In reference to the graph. You are saying that because Light is not made up of electrical and magnetic energy the entire thing is invalid. Right?


1. Nature is ballanced. - I disagree. Nature is a mess and always has been. The earth careens from frozen to tropical, asteroids wipe out most life on the planet, the magnetic poles switch, species go extinct with alarming frequency. The only thing that can be said is that life has existed for some time in a variety of conditions. But balanced? Hardly.
That is your opinion. I see an overall balance. It can be said that being the right distance from the sun, having a moon that balances the planet, having an atmosphere that lets in just the right stuff, even matand life tself is a sought of balance. Balanced it themselves and forming an overall balance.


2. Humans are out of balance - I disagree. Humans evolved on this planet. We're as much a part of things as any other creature. We have an effect on our environment but so do viruses. So does kudzu. So do locusts. It is only the psychological desire to see ourselves as greater or above nature that causes these thoughts. We are not out of balance with anything.
Nothing? Look at what they have done to the natural world? No other lifeform has spread to the point of destroying all others. Even viruses are somehow naturally checked. Humans had to alter them to make them the global killing machines some are now.


{quote]P. A creator exists - I disagree. Please note that you cannot use your argument as evidence of a creator. A creator must exist for your argument to be valid. An argument cannot prove one of its premises.
[/quote] I believe in an designer at the start only.

Q. The creator makes nature so that it stays in balance - The evidence would indicate otherwise.
Made it to be self balancing. Lifeform evolve to fill the needs of the overall balance.

R. The creator has some master plan that is more important than keeping nature in balance - Once again, this must be true for your argument to be valid but it appears your argument is, at its core, a demonstration that there is a master plan. You cannot assume the conclusion.
Intellignece created the plan, and is the only thing that makes it worthwhile.



S. Everything that is apparantly out of balance is part of the creator's master plan - Even if all your other statements were true, there is no evidence that this is true. It also does not necessarily follow from anything that has been argued. There is no evidence for this statement and it cannot be regarded as true.
Since everything is a part of the plan, anything that develops to wonder if there is a plan seems sought os special- to me.

I hope you begin to see the pitfalls inherent in reasoning about the will of God.
Not yet I don't. Reasonable people can logically see the same thing differently.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 04:55 PM
I only count 23 hours and 39 minutes from your last post. :D
You miss me when I am gone? Did that other guy answer my question as to how he knows I live 2 blocks from a public library? I didn't see it? Should I start putting people on my christmas list?

Belz...
27th October 2006, 05:12 PM
Humans do not have to be unnatural. With intelligence as a survival tool, the lifeform with enough of it would naturally and logically reach a point where it would become out of balance.

You're the one who brought up the unnatural part.

The system is free running. That is its natural path.

That entire plan is the creators from the start whatever it does.

Still waiting on the proof for that.

In reference to the graph. You are saying that because Light is not made up of electrical and magnetic energy the entire thing is invalid. Right?

No. Because the whole thing:

A) Is nonsensical
B) Is arbitrary
C) Denotes a misunderstanding or ignorance of the elements that compose the graph.

Like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg

Arbitrary, nonsensical and ignorant.

That is your opinion. I see an overall balance.

What else do you expect ? If there weren't balance there'd be no ecosystem. Sounds like an after the fact assumption to me.

It can be said that being the right distance from the sun, having a moon that balances the planet,

The "right" distance from the sun ? For what ? How does the moon "balance" the planet ? How do you come up with this stuff ?

Nothing? Look at what they have done to the natural world? No other lifeform has spread to the point of destroying all others.

We haven't "spread" to the point of destroying all others. Also, destruction is part of balance, too. Look at the dinosaurs. Was that asteroid out of balance ?

Humans had to alter them to make them the global killing machines some are now.

Okay, that's not even a sentence.

I believe in an designer at the start only.

I believe in Odin and the other norse gods. There, why not ? One lack of evidence is as good as another, right ?

Intellignece created the plan, and is the only thing that makes it worthwhile.

Of course you'd say that. It's your assumption that intelligence is the only viable thing in the universe. Of course, that's anthropomorphism at its best.

Since everything is a part of the plan, anything that develops to wonder if there is a plan seems sought os special- to me.

Spoken like a theist. "Everything is part of God's plan." That means every ill and wrong can be justified. Pathetic.

Not yet I don't. Reasonable people can logically see the same thing differently.

No, they can't. They can see things differently but logic is not open to interpretation. Did you search "boolean algebra" like I suggested ?

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 05:54 PM
But this shows an important misunderstanding on your part. You think that logic is meant to confuse and obscure. It is not. It does not stand in the way of discourse, it helps ensure that discourse is productive. Consider:

Tom: The average temperature this decade is two degrees higher than last decade.
Bob: Maybe it's because of all the hot air you're blowing.
Tom: A new study shows a correlation between carbon dioxide in the air and temperature over the last 100 million years. The data over the last ten years is consistent with that.
Bob: If global warming is such a threat, why do you drive such a big car?
Tom: We also have data that shows that the increase in carbon dioxide in the last ten years is due to human activity.
Bob: You're a jerk, jerkward.

None of Bob's statements adressed Tom's argument. But what if they did?

Tom: The average temperature this decade is two degrees higher than last decade.
Bob: Teperatures rise and fall. You're seeing an apparant pattern that's really just random chance.
Tom: A new study shows a correlation between carbon dioxide in the air and temperature over the last 100 million years. The data over the last ten years is consistent with that.
Bob: Even if that were true, people might not be the cause. It could be a natural part of the carbon cycle.
Tom: We also have data that shows that the increase in carbon dioxide in the last ten years is due to human activity.
Bob: I'll take a look at your numbers and we'll discuss it further.

I hope that you see that the second argument is much more productive than the first. That is the only goal of logic.
Here is what I see. I am in the middle of a 34 page debate where I have tons of questions to answer about a graph that by all accounts is wrong everywhere, in everything. Yet I have examples of logic about global warming You call that productuctive? What makes you think I got that kind of time? Logically. If you kept your examples to the topic, you could show me I am wrong, and give your examples of logic. That just seems to make more sense to me.

Logic creates the exact opposite of confusion. If you knew and respected the rules of logic, our entire conversation would be shorter, less likely to be derailed by insults and more productive over all. And even if it were tiresome, rigorous thought should not be easy. It should be difficult. If you are arguing for a new way of viewing the universe and man's place therein, you should be prepared for an arduous defense of your position.
I know one rule of logic that I have found useful, "stick to the point." Another is "keep it simple." But I see from what you said above, you are not trying to confuse me, you are just trying to help. Thank you, but no thanks.
I scanned the subject of logic and found that I am doing no worst than anybody else here. I have changed my mind again. You understand what I am saying, you do not agree. Fine, but there is nothing wrong with its logic. I am looking into it only to see where and what is being used.
You didn't use bold. I don't know why you thing the use of bold is a prerequisite for a demand. You did, however, say this:
It is not, but look at its use here.

bruto
27th October 2006, 06:11 PM
You miss me when I am gone? Did that other guy answer my question as to how he knows I live 2 blocks from a public library? I didn't see it? Should I start putting people on my christmas list?

I missed the question about how I know where your nearest library is. You own a registered domain, to which you have referred in this thread, so a minimal amount of your identity is public. I wanted to goad you a little about going to the library, but it occurred to me I'd better find out first whether or not you live out in the pine barrens or something, so I entered your address in Microsoft Streets and Trips and asked it to find the libraries in the vicinity. Not to worry, though, I'm not planning any trips to your neighborhood. My little town (http://www.bensonvt.com/beta2.php) has a library of its own.

bruto
27th October 2006, 06:22 PM
I have changed my mind again. You understand what I am saying, you do not agree. Fine, but there is nothing wrong with its logic. I am looking into it only to see where and what is being used.


I'm sorry to hear that. I think you're making a big mistake, and cheating yourself of an opportunity to learn something really useful that would enhance your understanding of the subject you're interested in, and also your ability to put your points across.

You may feel you've held your own simply because you haven't been dissuaded from your own ideas, but here we are 30-odd pages into the discussion, and nobody you're addressing here has been able to find any merit in your theory or your argument. If anything, you're worse off in that sense than you were on page one, since every succeeding page adds evidence of your intractable ignorance and obstinate self-delusion. If your goal is to persuade other people that you are right, you are not succeeding.

It might be worthwhile to ask yourself why you posted here in the first place. If the hope was to persuade, then your persuasive skills need some sharpening.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 06:40 PM
You're the one who brought up the unnatural part.
I said out of balance as part of the plan. It was the use of that guys' logic that made them unnatural.


Still waiting on the proof for that.
A free running system gets around all that day to day "God work" that some say is going on, that is a start.


No. Because the whole thing:

A) Is nonsensical
B) Is arbitrary
C) Denotes a misunderstanding or ignorance of the elements that compose the graph.

A) the entire concept makes no sense to you, nothing will change that.
B.) They fit.
C)science defined them that way.
With the nuclear forces influencing life, {something gained from how science defined them) It takes God out of the equation of Good and evil. Something that has been dogging the concept from the very start.
And what else would be the soul of life but light? Again, it is a start.


What else do you expect ? If there weren't balance there'd be no ecosystem. Sounds like an after the fact assumption to me.



The "right" distance from the sun ? For what ?

How does the moon "balance" the planet ?
What do you think.
There are some in science that think the planet would wobble if the moon were not there.


We haven't "spread" to the point of destroying all others.
You are kidding right?

Also, destruction is part of balance, too.
See you were kidding.

Look at the dinosaurs. Was that asteroid out of balance ?
The dinosuars would think so-if they could.


Of course you'd say that. It's your assumption that intelligence is the only viable thing in the universe. Of course, that's anthropomorphism at its best.
You know of a better all-round tool? And the one capable of understanding it all?


Spoken like a theist. "Everything is part of God's plan." That means every ill and wrong can be justified. Pathetic.
Good and evil are the work of other forces, God devised the plan.


No, they can't. They can see things differently but logic is not open to interpretation. Did you search "boolean algebra" like I suggested ? I didn't see that post yet. The logic that you use to say no on the question, sounds just as pathetic in places as those who say there is.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 06:49 PM
I'm sorry LCL, but in all honesty there is nothing there. It seems to make sense to you and that's fine but there is nothing of significance that would cause anyone else to find any sense in the graph, forces and the relations that you have surmised.
Logically now. Can you speak for everyone?

RandFan
27th October 2006, 06:55 PM
Logically now. Can you speak for everyone?No. It's an opinion. I stand by it.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 07:02 PM
It can "seem" logical to one and not the other, but it can only BE logical or not.
I think you are talking about an absolute and applying it to how people think. There are more than one logical path. It just depends on who is doing the thinking.


Well that proves without the shadow of a doubt that you don't know what logic is. I suggest looking for "logic" and "boolean algebra".
a quick look.


Are we caught in a time-loop, here ? Didn't I explain to you that they were by only ONE standard : intelligence ?
and that covers everything else.


Appeal to popularity, again ?
popular and true.

No, it isn't, because as he explained LOGIC isn't subjective. Again, read up.
It is not the logic, it is the person using it.

bruto
27th October 2006, 07:06 PM
Logically now. Can you speak for everyone?If he has read the posts on the thread, he probably can speak for everyone, logically or not. Let's try it logically. Remember that in deduction, you can have bad definitions and wrong premises but if you accept the definitions, and if the premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

We could start with a couple of definitions.

Let us say, in this context, that to succeed means to attain a desired goal.

Let us further say that the word "succeed" is opposite to the word "fail," such that "not-succeeding" = "failing."

Premise 1: Success in an argument is the degree to which one can persuade another that one's assertions have truth, validity or merit.

Premise 2: LCL has not persuaded anyone that any of his assertions have truth, validity or merit.

Conclusion: IF what LCL has been attempting is an argument, he has failed.

wollery
27th October 2006, 07:11 PM
There are some in science that think the planet would wobble if the moon were not there.Evidence please.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 07:14 PM
Here you go, again. Assuming that you're right.

Like you assume there is no God.


Of course it does. If you can't form a logical argument, then any argument you make is going to be flawed.
Lets start with this. Are energy and matter different forms of the same thing?
Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?


Well, that's not an argument. That's a fact. Logic applies to claims and arguments. A fact argued by people. Logic is conveyed through people.

zizzybaluba
27th October 2006, 07:35 PM
I know one rule of logic that I have found useful, "stick to the point." Another is "keep it simple." But I see from what you said above, you are not trying to confuse me, you are just trying to help. Thank you, but no thanks.

Oh for the love of...
Neither of these are rules of logic. And though I am speaking only for me, I think any other AA member would find your use of "keep it simple" wrongheaded and bordering on offensive.

I scanned the subject of logic and found that I am doing no worst than anybody else here. I have changed my mind again. You understand what I am saying, you do not agree. Fine, but there is nothing wrong with its logic. I am looking into it only to see where and what is being used.
Where did you do your "scanning"? Exactly what led you to believe that there is nothing wrong with your logic?

SezMe
27th October 2006, 07:41 PM
wollery, LCL may be a loon, but regarding the moon/earth system, I think he is right. From this (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon) site:
The presence of the Moon stabilizes Earth's wobble. This has led to a much more stable climate over billions of years, which may have affected the course of the development and growth of life on Earth.
There may be better sites but this is the one I came up with based on a quick search.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 07:57 PM
If he has read the posts on the thread, he probably can speak for everyone, logically or not. Let's try it logically. Remember that in deduction, you can have bad definitions and wrong premises but if you accept the definitions, and if the premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

We could start with a couple of definitions.

Let us say, in this context, that to succeed means to attain a desired goal.

Let us further say that the word "succeed" is opposite to the word "fail," such that "not-succeeding" = "failing."

Premise 1: Success in an argument is the degree to which one can persuade another that one's assertions have truth, validity or merit.

Premise 2: LCL has not persuaded anyone that any of his assertions have truth, validity or merit.

Conclusion: IF what LCL has been attempting is an argument, he has failed.
And that is the point that I was trying to make about logic. You can make what you what seem logical depending on how you word it, or attempt to. True. I persuaded no one. But the people here already had a well established point of view. Well versed in debating that view. Changing their minds was highly unlikely to began with. So come on.
As I said. I came to test it. If there is a soul, it would be rooted in energy, in fact it would be based on the characteristics of said energy. The drama of life would be bent around said energies. Science defined them, I profiled them, and they fit. And with all your effort you made no real impact on that. Even attempted to bend time and space to do it. I think even Einstein was said to be wrong here (I can't wait to get back to that) oh no, I do not feel like I failed by any means.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 08:04 PM
wollery, LCL may be a loon, but regarding the moon/earth system, I think he is right. From this (http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon) site:

There may be better sites but this is the one I came up with based on a quick search.
Wow. Me?

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 08:21 PM
Oh for the love of...
Neither of these are rules of logic.
I am talking real world. Like when your parents told you as a child, "simply say what you mean."

And though I am speaking only for me, I think any other AA member would find your use of "keep it simple" wrongheaded and bordering on offensive.
Why? From the graph, give me am example. Then I would not have to just take your word for it.


Where did you do your "scanning"? Exactly what led you to believe that there is nothing wrong with your logic?

The stuff that they were talking about, was the stuff that we all do anyway.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 08:26 PM
No. It's an opinion. I stand by it.
Fine, and you may. But you see how much less it seems now?

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 08:39 PM
I missed the question about how I know where your nearest library is. You own a registered domain, to which you have referred in this thread, so a minimal amount of your identity is public. I wanted to goad you a little about going to the library, but it occurred to me I'd better find out first whether or not you live out in the pine barrens or something, so I entered your address in Microsoft Streets and Trips and asked it to find the libraries in the vicinity. Not to worry, though, I'm not planning any trips to your neighborhood. My little town (http://www.bensonvt.com/beta2.php) has a library of its own.
I am not worried about you visiting me. I was just wondering how we got from a debate about an idea to you wondering about me. But then, that is how ideas like mine is spread. They leave the office and enter the dreams.

zizzybaluba
27th October 2006, 09:03 PM
I am talking real world. Like when your parents told you as a child, "simply say what you mean."

You aren't talking about the real world, you are talking about your intuitions and assumptions from popularity.
My Ma never told me "simply say what you mean", but she did tell me "don't assume, it makes an..." :D

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 09:13 PM
LCL, before modern civilization and all of our wonderful technology people got by without formal logic. But at some point to advance humans had to figure out a way to solve problems using thought rather than trial and error. So some early Greeks came up with a new way to look at the world to figure out what was true and what wasn't true. The started to device methods to avoid making logical mistakes. The made a lot of mistakes in those early days but they also made a lot of progress. Eventually we pretty much hammered out how to use deduction and induction to find the truth of something. It is these methods that has allowed humans to go to the Moon, split the atom, map the human genome, synthesize carbon molecules, etc.
Now basic logic is a part of basic education. If I was thinking about spliting an atom myself maybe, but now I just have to read about someone else doing it. And look at all of you examples. Those are all things that are set. It gets more differcult with God, the soul, and things like that. People can logically stand on both sides with neither of them being crazy.


LCL, do you have any idea the complexity involved navigating a course to the moon?
But we are not talking about doing that.

If we abandon logic then there is nothing to discuss. Everything is equally true and untrue.
I am not talking about abandoning logic. Use as much as you need to get your point across. Somehow we are running around the subject of logic as if I am talking about logically walking through a brick wall. And you are trying to explain that it simply can't be done.

RandFan
27th October 2006, 09:24 PM
But you see how much less it seems now?? "How much less it seems now?" I've really not a clue what you are getting at.

LCL You have not advanced a single proposition. And the weird thing is is that it seems that you are bright enough to grasp such a fundamental concept. It would seem that at some point our explanations would get through. Yet for some reason you just wont free your mind to do get it. I guess that fact alone would be fine but what I find disappointing is that it seemed that you were about to make a serious attempt to understand logic and reason. That would have been cool. I guess ego is simply too powerful for some people to overcome. You know, I often wonder how it is that this world is so steeped in superstition and ignorance? You are a good answer.

In the end a person can't be made to think rationally. It must come from with in.

LCL, I'm talking to myself. I realize that you can't hear me (figuratively). You and I can't communicate. You lack the tools or the willingness to understand. You're not the first. I've met the likes of you many times on this forum. I know your response. You'll dismiss all of this. That's what the human brain does to protect the ego. Ah well.

wollery
27th October 2006, 10:31 PM
Wow. Me?Yep, I was just going to post and apologise, because I did some research of my own after I posted the question and realized that there is good reason to suggest that. Of course all of the sites I've looked at add the codicil that there is no way to be certain, but it's a reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we have.

lightcreatedlife@hom
27th October 2006, 11:19 PM
?
LCL You have not advanced a single proposition.
I provided a web site about what I was proposing and a working gragh that showed it.
I also posted here to you what my view was. But steeped in your own ignorance you can not see anything like that. And that is just fine with me, different people have different points of view. They don't have to agree, but as long as they understand, I am fine with that. And you do understand what I am saying.


I guess that fact alone would be fine but what I find disappointing is that it seemed that you were about to make a serious attempt to understand logic and reason. That would have been cool.
I looked through that stuff and it is sought of like the math thing earlier, I possess enough logic to get my point across. If you are seeking to help make me better myself, thanks, but no thanks.
I can't see where any of that would make me do anything different.

I guess ego is simply too powerful for some people to overcome. You know, I often wonder how it is that this world is so steeped in superstition and ignorance? You are a good answer.
Superstition? Belief in a designer to a design?
And that unseen forces(energy) are in fact at work and responsible for how we act? It sounds logical enough to me. It is when people want/need a reason not to see something like that that they twist their reasoning around something complex. "I'm right, they don't understand." But what happens when those things don't apply?

In the end a person can't be made to think rationally. It must come from with in.
You see? Rational thought is just for your views.
When are people like you going to see that religion is everywhere, wrong in 99.999% in what it says is there, but completely right in there being something there, invisible and everywhere. The rhyme and reason behind it all. Oh wait. It is easier to believe that most of the world is just crazy.
But think. Science don't cover things like courage, faith, goodwill and the things that touch the soul. How many people (other than scientists) would jump on a grenade for science?

LCL, I'm talking to myself. I realize that you can't hear me (figuratively). You and I can't communicate. You lack the tools or the willingness to understand. You're not the first. I've met the likes of you many times on this forum. I know your response. You'll dismiss all of this. That's what the human brain does to protect the ego. Ah well.
From my view, you just described your own ego. You feel that you are looking down from your education and born to teach, only happy when you think you are. But I have something simple enough to see, connected to everything, defined by science and has no need for the diversion you have planned for it until/if I decide to take it.

Tell me, do you still believe that math and language are connected, or did I see you flip with the prevailing view once that other guy said that there was no connection? I am having problems with the way you follow the crowd. Snap recipes, snap logic. Why should I trust your view. It might not even be yours. I will however read the books you suggested on that subject.

RandFan
27th October 2006, 11:39 PM
Now basic logic is a part of basic education. If I was thinking about spliting an atom myself maybe, but now I just have to read about someone else doing it. And look at all of you examples. Those are all things that are set. It gets more differcult with God, the soul, and things like that. People can logically stand on both sides with neither of them being crazy.

But we are not talking about doing that.

I am not talking about abandoning logic. Use as much as you need to get your point across. Somehow we are running around the subject of logic as if I am talking about logically walking through a brick wall. And you are trying to explain that it simply can't be done. No, you just are incapable of understanding logic. Oh, you get it to a small degree. A person couldn't very well communicate on an internet forum without some degree of understanding but it is no more than enough to function.

RandFan
27th October 2006, 11:50 PM
I looked through that stuff and it is sought of like the math thing earlier, I possess enough logic to get my point across.But not enough to realize there is no point.

When are people like you going to see that religion is everywhere, wrong in 99.999% in what it says is there, but completely right in there being something there, invisible and everywhere. Fallacy.

The rhyme and reason behind it all. Oh wait. It is easier to believe that most of the world is just crazy. Fallacy.

From my view, you just described your own ego. You feel that you are looking down from your education and born to teach, only happy when you think you are. But I've explained why this isn't true. There are people who are religious on this forum that I respect and who have taught me.

Tell me, do you still believe that math and language are connected, or did I see you flip with the prevailing view once that other guy said that there was no connection? I have not changed anything. I still don't see the relevance of the connection.

I am having problems with the way you follow the crowd. I debate everyday in this forum. Sometimes I agree with some people sometimes I debate the same. You really have no idea what you are talking about. You make all kinds of baseless assumptions. Like I said, your ego won't let you go. It controls you.

Why should I trust your view.That's the point that you don't get. I DON'T want you to trust my view. I want you to think critically. I encounter people all of the time that I disagree with but respect because they are capable of logic. Tricky is one of those people. We disagree on many things. We have debated many times. However he is capable of logic and reason and he is capable of realizing when I have made a logically valid argument and vice versa.

I don't ask Tricky to trust my view. I ask Tricky to use critical thinking to consider my arguments. That's all I want from you but at this time you are incapable of critical thought.

It might not even be yours. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. In any event I hope you do read the books but I hope some day you could open your mind to logic and reason. That's not an attack just a sincere hope.

lightcreatedlife@hom
28th October 2006, 12:06 AM
I understood what he said I just can't understand stand why with all that is said wrong with the graph, that the examples don't come from there.


[quote]That's what laymen often say when confronted to things they don't understand. Because their brains can't wrap themselves around the concept, they convince themselves that said concept was made specifically to confuse them.
I don't think that. How could something be made just for me? I say his use of it there is meant to. We are not talking about the topic I posted. And as I said, why ain't his examples from there. Use examples from there would show me where I am wrong and serve as logic examples. Making something up takes us away from it.


Of course it's flexible, since it's a result of your imagination and needs not conform to reality.
Same for you. No example? Nothing you have said here has anything to do with it.


You've also ignored several of my points, earlier on. Do you concede them ?
I be using a line item veto. Helps me to short these things. When I conceded I will say so. If you think it was important enough i'll answer.

lightcreatedlife@hom
28th October 2006, 12:25 AM
But I've explained why this isn't true. There are people who are religious on this forum that I respect and who have taught me.
Like what?

I have not changed anything. I still don't see the relevance of the connection.
It has to do with my next topic. I was thinking ahead. When we get to it you will find it hard to disagree with me. But I am sure you will find a way.


I debate everyday in this forum. Sometimes I agree with some people sometimes I debate the same. You really have no idea what you are talking about. You make all kinds of baseless assumptions. Like I said, your ego won't let you go. It controls you.

That's the point that you don't get. I DON'T want you to trust my view. I want you to think critically. I encounter people all of the time that I disagree with but respect because they are capable of logic. Tricky is one of those people. We disagree on many things. We have debated many times. However he is capable of logic and reason and he is capable of realizing when I have made a logically valid argument and vice versa.

I don't ask Tricky to trust my view. I ask Tricky to use critical thinking to consider my arguments. That's all I want from you but at this time you are incapable of critical thought.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. In any event I hope you do read the books but I hope some day you could open your mind to logic and reason. That's not an attack just a sincere hope.
You see all this?
None of it has anything to do with what I posted. Not even the stuff from the last reply about propositions. How am I to believe you that there is so much wrong with it?

bruto
28th October 2006, 07:00 AM
And that is the point that I was trying to make about logic. You can make what you what seem logical depending on how you word it, or attempt to. True. I persuaded no one. But the people here already had a well established point of view. Well versed in debating that view. Changing their minds was highly unlikely to began with. So come on.
As I said. I came to test it. If there is a soul, it would be rooted in energy, in fact it would be based on the characteristics of said energy. The drama of life would be bent around said energies. Science defined them, I profiled them, and they fit. And with all your effort you made no real impact on that. Even attempted to bend time and space to do it. I think even Einstein was said to be wrong here (I can't wait to get back to that) oh no, I do not feel like I failed by any means.

You say you came to test your theory, but when confronted with specific criticisms of the statements you made, scientific errors, logical faults, and unsupported assumptions, you either failed to understand or deflected the criticism as unimportant. When confronted with suggestions of ways in which you could increase or enhance your understanding of either your subject or your ability to argue it, you have arrogantly asserted that you need not learn anything more, because you know enough already to explain the universe. If what you are testing is your ability to resist persuasion, you've succeeded. So, of course, has everyone else in this thread, since you have persuaded nobody of anything but your implacable ignorance. By any other measure, you've failed, as have we all.

Tricky
28th October 2006, 08:49 AM
Hey LCL, you're back.

Did you notice that in your absence the thread pretty much died? Now to you that probably means that you are successfully defending your points, but to most people that means that your points are not even worth discussing. They respond only when you come back to spout more gibberish (since we don't like gibberish to go unchallenged).

But a good idea can stand on its own without relying on the input of its originator. It will spark discussion and open thought all by itself. Yet your ideas do not do this. Why do you suppose this is? Consider for a moment the possibility that your ideas are not self-sustaining. That they are defensible only to you. That they have no merit in an open community like this one.

Are you capable of considering that? If not, please offer another explanation as to why your ideas cannot stand on their own.

RandFan
28th October 2006, 09:06 AM
Like what? History.

I was thinking ahead. When we get to it you will find it hard to disagree with me. Sure LCL, you bet.

How am I to believe you that there is so much wrong with it? I don't want you to simply believe me. I want you to think for yourself and come to your own beliefs but I want you to think critically. That's not about to happen.

Belz...
28th October 2006, 11:34 AM
You call that productuctive? What makes you think I got that kind of time? Logically.

So basically, you refuse to learn about logic because the example doesn't relate to your graph ? Your graph is nonsensical, Light. There's no example to be made about it.

I know one rule of logic that I have found useful, "stick to the point."

That has nothing to do with logic. You're wrong again. Not that I'm surprised.

Another is "keep it simple."

Wrong AGAIN. Nothing to do with logic.

I scanned the subject of logic and found that I am doing no worst than anybody else here. I have changed my mind again.

You haven't changed your mind, you've altered your argument to try and support the same idea.

I said out of balance as part of the plan. It was the use of that guys' logic that made them unnatural.

Nuh-huh. You said we were out of balance with nature. How can you be out of balance with something you're part of ? It's implied in your claim that humans are NOT part of nature and therefore unnatural. It's really that simple.

A) the entire concept makes no sense to you, nothing will change that.

There IS no concept, Light. You put words together on a grade school-level doodle and decided to call it a theory. There is no concept invovled.

B.) They fit.

No, they don't. Just because you think they do doesn't show anything. Aside from CLAIMING that they fit, you have done nothing to support that assertion. Are you willing to step up to the plate and explain HOW they fit ?

C)science defined them that way.

No, they haven't. This has been explained to you countless times in this thread and you have decided to ignore it because accepting that would mean abandoning your ideas and beign forced to adopt a new, far less comforting world-view.

With the nuclear forces influencing life, {something gained from how science defined them) It takes God out of the equation of Good and evil.

There is no objective definition of "good" or "evil". God is also NOT required to define good or evil in any way. Lastly, the nuclear forces have no influence on life because they only interact at the nuclear level, while life is a chemical thing. How do you manage to be so wrong in so few words ?

And what else would be the soul of life but light? Again, it is a start.

What soul ? Why would bacteria need a soul ?

What do you think.
There are some in science that think the planet would wobble if the moon were not there.

Mars and Venus seem to handle themselves fine.

We haven't "spread" to the point of destroying all others.

You are kidding right?

If you don't understand what I'm saying, you should ask a question instead of parroting that line over and over. I'm not kidding. We're not that far off the deep end. We're doing a lot of damage but that can still be repaired. I don't think smart dinosaurs would've done better.

And since intelligence is the thing that MADE us do this amount of damage, do you retract your claim that intelligence is the most important attribute ?

Also, destruction is part of balance, too.

See you were kidding.

Look at the dinosaurs. Was that asteroid out of balance ?
The dinosuars would think so-if they could.

It's so unfortunate that you have no understanding of anything. It's also very unfortunate that you can't answer my points. I'd swear I'm arguing against a teenager.

Destruction is inevitable in any system, as is gradual change, etc. I don't see why you think that asteroid would be out of balance, or why we are. You're trying to appeal to common-sense instead of explaining yourself.

Belz...
28th October 2006, 11:48 AM
You know of a better all-round tool? And the one capable of understanding it all?

So what ? Why do we need to understand anything ? I'm not dissing intelligence; I'm just trying to explain that, except to us, it really isn't that useful. I've said this time and time again, and you've shown no ability or willingness to learn.

Yes, I can think of something better than intelligence : regeneration. Any population of beigns that can survive great devastation by replenishing their numbers quickly is better off than the other species. See : bacteria and house flies.

Good and evil are the work of other forces, God devised the plan.

Speculation. Define "god", "good" and "evil".

I didn't see that post yet. The logic that you use to say no on the question, sounds just as pathetic in places as those who say there is.

Okay that doesn't make any sense, grammatically.

Just search for "boolean algebra" and you might understand what I mean by logic beign non-interpretable.

I think you are talking about an absolute and applying it to how people think. There are more than one logical path. It just depends on who is doing the thinking.

No, YOU are the one trying to take something absolute and applying it to what YOU think. Logic works kinda like this:

Proposition A
Proposition B
Conclusion C

Given C = A and B

If either A or B is false, C cannot be true. It doesn't matter how you "interpret" it. If B is false, C is false. Period.

Logic isn't about interpretation. It's about making sure that arguments are properly formatted and conclusions properly reached. It has been constructed specifically NOT to be open to interpretation.

Therefore, your statement:

It is not the logic, it is the person using it.

is impossible.

Are we caught in a time-loop, here ? Didn't I explain to you that they were by only ONE standard : intelligence ?

and that covers everything else.

No, it doesn't. And it never helped those poor chaps we were born and died before we invented antibiotics. Intelligence doesn't cover "everything", except in your twisted reality.

popular and true.

According to you, "popular therefore true". But that is demonstratably false:

A -> B is the form of your argument. What you are saying, is that if A is true, B HAS TO be true as well. However, if we can find a single instance of B beign false while A is true, then you are wrong, because you're basically saying that, no matter what, this will always hold true.

Most people thought the earth was flat at one point. They were wrong. That's ONE instance of A beign true. Therefore, there are SOME instances of A beign true and B beign false. Therefore your argument, while valid, is unsound. It is not logical.

Belz...
28th October 2006, 11:59 AM
Like you assume there is no God.

A tu quoque, now ? Even if you are correct, and I employ this sort of assumption, it would not make you right.

Lets start with this. Are energy and matter different forms of the same thing?
Does matter owe how it looks and behaves to energy?

Not really, and no.

Well, that's not an argument. That's a fact.

A fact ? I think you believe we know far more about energy and matter than we really do.

I am talking real world. Like when your parents told you as a child, "simply say what you mean."

Changing the goalposts, now. You're the fallacy-master, aren't you ?

You said "logic". There are no two kinds of logic.

I understood what he said I just can't understand stand why with all that is said wrong with the graph, that the examples don't come from there.

There are no examples because the graph doesn't MAKE SENSE. Like this:

"Awatuhi makoij juwhaa lokaiwqer munssnnpu dar"

Can you give me an example of what is wrong with that sentence ? OF COURSE NOT. It is nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything, to anyone. How could you possibly argue anything about it ?

I don't think that. How could something be made just for me?

You said it yourself. You said we disagreed with you because we refused to admit that you are right.

Same for you.

I don't have a theory to advance. You are, once more, incorrect.

I be using a line item veto. Helps me to short these things. When I conceded I will say so. If you think it was important enough i'll answer.

Fine, then. I'll just assume you have nothing to add to these points and have conceded the points. Either defend your position or yield.

None of it has anything to do with what I posted. Not even the stuff from the last reply about propositions. How am I to believe you that there is so much wrong with it?

If I told you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a gargantuan cosmic brown chicken, and it made sense to me, and it "fit", would you tell me that I'm completely wrong ? Of course you would. If I insisted that I was right despite the argument of many people here, would I be reasonable ?

TobiasTheViking
28th October 2006, 09:24 PM
LCL

Ah, you took the third option this time.

I've noticed that when i ask you something you do one of three things.

1) You will sidestep the question.
2) You disregard what i said completely.
3) You say you will answer later.

I can't ask you any questions, because you "are busy with everyone else and will answer tomorrow", which you then don't.

In the cases where you actually reply to a question you just sidestep it and say a lot of garbage that doesn't answer my question.

And in this case you didn't even acknowledge my post.

once more. when can i expect to get a reply to my simple question. which you two weeks promised me i would get "tomorrow"?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 03:11 PM
I don't want you to simply believe me. I want you to think for yourself and come to your own beliefs but I want you to think critically. That's not about to happen.
Is that what you want? Well that graph is what I came up with. It is my belief, and it was arrived at through critical thought. You see I knew that science was right. It is well proven. And I knew that religion was wrong. They made little sense. But they were there. Have always been. So I figured that maybe there is something there, but they have just not expressed it right. So I looked at the things that religions had in common for a clue.
They believe that life has a creator which is everywhere, doing everything, unseen (mostly) but makes itself known through physical things and the actions (God helps those who helps themselves) of life. That there was an unseen world in which it worked. And that life went there when it died. I came to the conclusion that they were describing energy.
That led me to the FACT that everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy. That is when I profiled the forces. Profiled them, because their characteristics should be the soul of life. I was very happy to see that the profile science gave them fit.

What I am told though is that somehow there is something wrong with my thought process. That somehow science did not mean what they said.
I know that I don't have the schooled education that some here have (at least I hope they have) but I don't see that as too much of a disadvantage. That is as long as I stick to what I know, and don't pretend to know more than what I do.

I reason that sometimes even science can be so close to a problem that they can't see it. Their taught thought process would simply not let them do it. Have you ever had a case where you know what you are looking for can't be a place, so you don't look there? Only to find that something you did not consider put it there? Nothing wrong with the process. It is just that all can never be considered.

I thought. Present the idea. If it is am wrong, they would logically show me. No games. No cats. People so educated should not have the time. Nor would they risk how such things would make their education look. I thought science has no agenda, no ego. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and there are other areas where no one knows. In those areas things are logically up for grabs. But just because there is no evidence, does not exclude it from logical thought. Nothing excludes logical thought. At least this is what I thought.

The reality is that those who represent science (or at least think they do)do have egos, and they have an agenda-they are fighting against ID. And to some, right is what they can logically make it. I still don't know what that other stuff is all about. Though I have come to reason that some don't have the education they say they do. Or don't care how it goes out in public. That, or some must have missed a couple of classes.

Thought process, logic, reason, and quest. Yeah. It maybe crazy. But I do not honestly see it. Show me where my reasoning has failed me.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 03:17 PM
LCL

Ah, you took the third option this time.

I've noticed that when i ask you something you do one of three things.

1) You will sidestep the question.
2) You disregard what i said completely.
3) You say you will answer later.

I can't ask you any questions, because you "are busy with everyone else and will answer tomorrow", which you then don't.
You didn't mention that I said I was ignoring you and why. And look at what you did with the ONE TIME that I said that I would answer you tomorrow. And that one time I did answer your post TOMORROW. You are a special case. I have said this. Look back at your own post. You will see that you are more concerned with saying you were not answered. But Like I said, I will get to you.

zizzybaluba
29th October 2006, 03:25 PM
Is that what you want? Well that graph is what I came up with. It is my belief,
Yes, it is your belief.
and it was arrived at through critical thought.
No, you used no critical thought whatsoever. I think you don't know what critical thinking means.

RandFan
29th October 2006, 03:54 PM
Well that graph is what I came up with. It is my belief, and it was arrived at through critical thought.You wouldn't know critical thought if it bit you in the a**


I still don't know what that other stuff is all about. It shows.

Show me where my reasoning has failed me. See any post by Belz...

bruto
29th October 2006, 03:56 PM
. It is my belief, and it was arrived at through critical thought. And belief it remains. Unproven, unargued, unsubstantiated belief.

What I am told though is that somehow there is something wrong with my thought process. No, there is something wrong with your research, your knowledge base and your explanations. Your thought process is irrelevant. You can dream the truth and spend a lifetime of serious thought polishing a falsehood. It's the result and the presentation that is being argued here, not the process by which you arrived there. That somehow science did not mean what they said.
I know that I don't have the schooled education that some here have (at least I hope they have) but I don't see that as too much of a disadvantage. That is as long as I stick to what I know, and don't pretend to know more than what I do. but alas, that's the very thing you don't do. You have a theory of everything! You pretend to know more about the way the universe works than any other human being on earth.

I reason bad choice of words there.... that sometimes even science can be so close to a problem that they can't see it. Their taught thought process would simply not let them do it. Have you ever had a case where you know what you are looking for can't be a place, so you don't look there? Only to find that something you did not consider put it there? Nothing wrong with the process. It is just that all can never be considered. So no scientist or philosopher ever on the entire earth has figured out what you have? That's a pretty bold claim.

I thought. Present the idea. If it is am wrong, they would logically show me.and so many have. No games. No cats. People so educated should not have the time. Some of us do have time. Nor would they risk how such things would make their education look. I thought science has no agenda, no ego. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and there are other areas where no one knows. In those areas things are logically up for grabs.No. If no one knows, no one knows. The knowledge is up for grabs for whoever comes to know it. But just because there is no evidence, does not exclude it from logical thought. Well, actually, while it may not exclude it from logical thought, or speculation, it certainly excludes it from logical conclusiveness. Nothing excludes logical thought. Lack of premises and fallacious reasoning are excluded from logical thought. At least this is what I thought. unfortunately, you have not yet figured out what logical thought actually is, and at latest report intend to keep it that way.

The reality is that those who represent science (or at least think they do)do have egos, and they have an agenda-they are fighting against ID. Yes, that is a reasonable scientific agenda, since ID is a non-scientific, anti-scientific movement based on faith rather than scientific evidence or reason. One of the reasons that recent court cases dealing with this have gone so badly for the advocates of ID is that when the chips are down, their only justification is religious belief, and their claim to science is revealed to be a lie. Please note that last word, "lie." It is not lightly chosen. And to some, right is what they can logically make it. and your problem with this is what? I still don't know what that other stuff is all about. Though I have come to reason that some don't have the education they say they do. what claims of education have been made here? I think Tricky said he's a scientist. I do not recall any other claims, but perhaps I forget. Please refresh my memory. I have certainly made no such claim. Or don't care how it goes out in public. That, or some must have missed a couple of classes.Well, I certainly don't care if you think me a fool or a bad scholar. I care only whether or not I am making sense.

Thought process, logic, reason, and quest. Yeah. It maybe crazy. But I do not honestly see it. Show me where my reasoning has failed me.I realize you do not see it. You clearly never will.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 04:02 PM
A tu quoque, now ? Even if you are correct, and I employ this sort of assumption, it would not make you right.

Do you?

Not really, and no.
we will get to that


A fact ? I think you believe we know far more about energy and matter than we really do.
are you speaking for yourself, or science? I have been slapped for speaking for science, but I always same "science says." If I m wrong, someone can say science did not say that. What do they say if you are wrong?


Can you give me an example of what is wrong with that sentence ? OF COURSE NOT. It is nonsensical. It doesn't mean anything, to anyone. How could you possibly argue anything about it ?
How did you manage it before?


You said it yourself. You said we disagreed with you because we refused to admit that you are right.
I never said that. You don't disregard. You just say something that can be hit with a google rock.


I don't have a theory to advance. You are, once more, incorrect.
But you do have a position to defend.


Fine, then. I'll just assume you have nothing to add to these points and have conceded the points. Either defend your position or yield.
I said resubmit, but if that makes you feel better have at it.


If I told you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a gargantuan cosmic brown chicken, and it made sense to me, and it "fit", would you tell me that I'm completely wrong ? Of course you would. If I insisted that I was right despite the argument of many people here, would I be reasonable ?
That is what I was talking about all along. Nothing there works for you all from the start. You do not find that line reasonable. Its not me. You would anywhere. But the things that I have there are not just anything, they are current thought-wrong or right. If I said something like what you just did would we still be talking 35 pages later? And what would that say about you?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 05:10 PM
And belief it remains. Unproven, unargued, unsubstantiated belief.
As is yours that there is no God.


No, there is something wrong with your research, your knowledge base and your explanations.
Doesn't that include everything?

Your thought process is irrelevant. You can dream the truth and spend a lifetime of serious thought polishing a falsehood.
That seems like the process a lot of people go through. Sometimes they are right.


You have a theory of everything! You pretend to know more about the way the universe works than any other human being on earth.
So you are mad at me?

So no scientist or philosopher ever on the entire earth has figured out what you have? That's a pretty bold claim.
So you are mad at me.


Well, actually, while it may not exclude it from logical thought, or speculation, it certainly excludes it from logical conclusiveness.
many logical thoughts have a conclusion.

Yes, that is a reasonable scientific agenda, since ID is a non-scientific, anti-scientific movement based on faith rather than scientific evidence or reason. One of the reasons that recent court cases dealing with this have gone so badly for the advocates of ID is that when the chips are down, their only justification is religious belief, and their claim to science is revealed to be a lie. Please note that last word, "lie." It is not lightly chosen. and your problem with this is what?
Science is stronger than that. All it has to do is rest on its merits-I think. If it knows something that would support another position, it has no choice but to say. Anything else cheapens its view.

of education have been made here?
I thought a lot of people said such things.


Tricky said he's a scientist. I do not recall any other claims, but perhaps I forget. Please refresh my memory. I have certainly made no such claim. Well, I certainly don't care if you think me a fool or a bad scholar. I care only whether or not I making sense.

I think the same way about making sense, but you are telling me that I make none, and you do, based on what? I thought you had something. You know the people there, and you think Tricky is? Well I'll be. This changes everything. What does it count if a bunch of idiots have been calling me one? Thank you very much.


I realize you do not see it. You clearly never will.
Well now. Now that I look at it. You have not been making much sense either. I thought since you were smart, that you had to be acting. But you really believe that energy and matter or not two forms of the same thing? That Einstein was wrong when he said it? Wow. So the goal of those here were just to make it appear that they are smart.

I wondered about the over use of big words. I have always thought that those who knew the complex picture, should be able to present it simply. They would be that comfortable. But some here have been presenting the complex picture to make themselves seem complex. Wow. You have taught me something after all. Now the cats and recipes make sense. Only idiots would do something like that, the smart would not see the need, or have the time.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 05:32 PM
You wouldn't know critical thought if it bit you in the a**


It shows.

See any post by Belz...
So you are saying that you have none of your own? Or at least none you feel comfortable presenting. I noticed that you reply like this everytime that I reply at length. You act like you care, want to teach. Want to help. How does this reply add up to what you have been saying?

You really don't have anything, do you? Wow. I have really learned a lot today. You are saying that what I posted to you has nothing to do with critical thought at all. No reasoning. No logic. Boy have I learned a lot here today. You never failed to jump in like the cheerleader to anything the others have said. Even when you flipped about the math language thing. Instead of defending your position, you said you would get the book the other guy suggested. Even though you suggested three.
Remember you were talking about ego? You are an example of what protecting an ego is. You stand any place it is convenient.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 05:46 PM
Yes, it is your belief.

No, you used no critical thought whatsoever. I think you don't know what critical thinking means.
I think it has to do with unbiased, careful thought. Give me your definition. Briefly.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 05:59 PM
[quote]I can't ask you any questions, because you "are busy with everyone else and will answer tomorrow", which you then don't.
I only said tomorrow once and the record will show I answered the next day.

In the cases where you actually reply to a question you just sidestep it and say a lot of garbage that doesn't answer my question.
you say this to say that I have not been answering so you could look like I am running from you. Why would the people here let that happen? They would see me run, and pose the question themselves.

And in this case you didn't even acknowledge my post.
remember when I said I was ignoring you? Even though I still did.

once more. when can i expect to get a reply to my simple question. which you two weeks promised me i would get "tomorrow"? It has not even been two weeks (I think) since I did answer you, the next day like I said. And why isn't that question here? Present your one question, and we will start with that. ONE. We will see what happens after that. It will be fine with me if you did not do what I just said. If you don't, I will just ignore you, and I am serious this time.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 06:14 PM
So what ? Why do we need to understand anything ? I'm not dissing intelligence; I'm just trying to explain that, except to us, it really isn't that useful. I've said this time and time again, and you've shown no ability or willingness to learn.
All life uses some intelligence. Humans use it much, much, more and it has served them well. They don't have to naturally be able to fly if they could figure a way to do it. The same goes for most other things. Intelligence is the wild card the trumps the others.

Yes, I can think of something better than intelligence : regeneration. Any population of beigns that can survive great devastation by replenishing their numbers quickly is better off than the other species. See : bacteria and house flies.
Humans can now use genetics to increase even that. Produce and store test tube people by the billions if that needed to be. And unlike the things you mentioned they would be capable of wondering about the universe.


Just search for "boolean algebra" and you might understand what I mean by logic beign non-interpretable.
I will.


Logic isn't about interpretation. It's about making sure that arguments are properly formatted and conclusions properly reached. It has been constructed specifically NOT to be open to interpretation.
It has to past through a person doesn't it? That is why one of the reasons why computers are better at it then people.

No, it doesn't. And it never helped those poor chaps we were born and died before we invented antibiotics.
But is does those after. It has to be thought of to be useful.

Intelligence doesn't cover "everything", except in your twisted reality.
Give me an example where not.

Cosmo
29th October 2006, 06:22 PM
That is why one of the reasons why computers are better at it then people.

Incorrect, wrong, and otherwise false. Computers, at least today, cannot reason or construct logical arguments.

Logic, as Belz put it, is specifically designed to be not open to interpretation. No matter who puts together a logical argument, it will be understood - provided it is both valid and sound.

I'll stop here, since it's clear your understanding of logic has not yet surpassed (or even reached) this point.

RandFan
29th October 2006, 06:25 PM
So you are saying that you have none of your own? Yes, I've posted lots argument. Belz is doing a great job and his stuff is recent.

You act like you care, want to teach. Want to help. How does this reply add up to what you have been saying?Just frustrated that nothing will shake you. You have behaved exactly as I have predicted.

You are saying that what I posted to you has nothing to do with critical thought at all.Correct.

No reasoning.Correct.

No logic.Correct.

Boy have I learned a lot here today.Really?

Instead of defending your position...I asked you pointedly what difference it would make? You didn't repond. You've ignored a lot of my questions.

Remember you were talking about ego?Yes, I do.

You are an example of what protecting an ego is. Given that I've changed positions after You stand any place it is convenient.Sure.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 06:35 PM
So basically, you refuse to learn about logic because the example doesn't relate to your graph ?
No. Because it is simple enough for you to know what I am saying.



Nuh-huh. You said we were out of balance with nature. How can you be out of balance with something you're part of ?
Have the intelligence to think, but only think about yourself.

It's implied in your claim that humans are NOT part of nature and therefore unnatural.
You saw what you wanted. Even though I said what I meant.



There is no objective definition of "good" or "evil".
We do as well as can be expected.

Lastly, the nuclear forces have no influence on life because they only interact at the nuclear level, while life is a chemical thing.
Life and its conditions is made up of things that interact at the nuclear level.



What soul ? Why would bacteria need a soul ?
To work with the whole.


We're doing a lot of damage but that can still be repaired. I don't think smart dinosaurs would've done better.
Smart anything would have to face the same questions.

And since intelligence is the thing that MADE us do this amount of damage, do you retract your claim that intelligence is the most important attribute ?
Why would I do that? It also gives us the power to avert/fix things.


It's so unfortunate that you have no understanding of anything. It's also very unfortunate that you can't answer my points. I'd swear I'm arguing against a teenager.
I think the same of you. I am starting to think you are a troll. No one can be this dumb. Look at what is below.

Destruction is inevitable in any system, as is gradual change, etc.
Humans though fight it, ever been to a hospital?

RandFan
29th October 2006, 06:37 PM
No. Because it is simple enough for you to know what I am saying. Your are not saying anything of substance.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 06:42 PM
Yes, I've posted lots argument. Belz is doing a great job and his stuff is recent.

Just frustrated that nothing will shake you. You have behaved exactly as I have predicted.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Really?

I asked you pointedly what difference it would make? You didn't repond. You've ignored a lot of my questions.

Yes, I do.

Sure.

You took that time to say absolutely nothing. That is what you are about.

bruto
29th October 2006, 06:48 PM
As is yours that there is no God.I have made no such statement in this thread, and what I might believe is entirely irrelevant to whether or not your arguments are good or bad. I think your theory is nonsense. It has nothing to do with what other beliefs I hold or do not hold. Do not attribute beliefs or statements to me that I have not expressed.


Doesn't that include everything?

That seems like the process a lot of people go through. Sometimes they are right.


So you are mad at me?

So you are mad at me.No. I think you're being foolish. I have no personal attitude toward you otherwise. This is a forum for discussing ideas, no more.


many logical thoughts have a conclusion.Indeed they do. And the conclusions, if they're to be taken seriously, must be expressed logically. If they can't, it doesn't matter how the thought occurred.

Science is stronger than that. All it has to do is rest on its merits-I think. If it knows something that would support another position, it has no choice but to say. Anything else cheapens its view. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I thought a lot of people said such things. Not that I can recall, and while we're at it, if you're going to cut and snip quotations, please try not to mangle my syntax and leave parts out so that my remarks look as ungrammatical as yours! :(


I think the same way about making sense, but you are telling me that I make none, and you do, based on what?based on the fact that your logic is faulty and your premises false, your analogies far fetched, your conclusions unsupported and your research sloppy and insufficient. I thought you had something. You know the people there, and you think Tricky is? I do not know the people here, beyond what they reveal in these discussions. When you challenged Tricky's qualification to challenge you, he said he's a scientist. I believe he probably is, but I don't know him any better than you do. I don't recall anybody else in this thread making claims of higher education or higher intelligence, though you have inferred it often enough. I, and others, have repeatedly suggested that anybody with brains can learn what he needs if he's motivated, regardless of education. Well I'll be. This changes everything. What does it count if a bunch of idiots have been calling me one? Thank you very much. You're welcome. It doesn't matter what I am or anybody else is. It only matters whether we're right or wrong, doesn't it?


Well now. Now that I look at it. You have not been making much sense either. I thought since you were smart, that you had to be acting. But you really believe that energy and matter or not two forms of the same thing? That Einstein was wrong when he said it? Wow. So the goal of those here were just to make it appear that they are smart. You can't have it both ways. If energy and matter are the same thing, then your statement that matter owes its characteristics to energy is a totally meaningless tautology! If energy and matter are the same thing, you are saying that stuff is like stuff because it's stuff, and that's ALL! If energy and matter are not the same thing, then your statement that matter owes its characteristics to energy is arguable, because you have not stated what you mean by "owes", what characteristics you're talking about, or how that relationship occurs, and since you've revealed time and again that your knowledge of physics and electromagnetism is far from extensive, we cannot reasonably infer that you know what that relationship might be unless you give a competent, logical explanation, which you have not been able to do.

I wondered about the over use of big words. I have always thought that those who knew the complex picture, should be able to present it simply. They would be that comfortable. But some here have been presenting the complex picture to make themselves seem complex. I'm not sure what big words you mean. I try to use the best words I can think of, big or small. If you don't understand a word, you can always exercise your vaunted googling skills and learn something new. I'm sorry you think anyone has been trying to complicate things. I don't think that's anyone's intent. I, at least, would like to see simple questions given simple answers. But when simple and straightforward questions and challenges to your statements or your theories or your ideas are presented, you dodge them and call them complicated. Wow. You have taught me something after all. Now the cats and recipes make sense. Only idiots would do something like that, the smart would not see the need, or have the time.Well you sort of have a point. It's probably true that only an idiot would still be participating in this thread, but if you don't cut us some slack, you're going to be pretty lonely here!

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 06:48 PM
Incorrect, wrong, and otherwise false. Computers, at least today, cannot reason or construct logical arguments.
[quote] No one said construct.

[quote]I'll stop here, since it's clear your understanding of logic has not yet surpassed (or even reached) this point.
Do you remember what I posted? The crowd here choose to come out here to find something (else) to say I know nothing about. Why aren't we back at the graph with all you say is wrong with it? You people really don't have anything do you?

[quote]Is there any scientist here? Are people just into following the crowd?

RandFan
29th October 2006, 07:12 PM
You took that time to say absolutely nothing. That is what you are about.Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Tricky
29th October 2006, 07:12 PM
Is there any scientist here? Are people just into following the crowd?
Yes, there are lots of scientists here. I am one of them. I even gave you my credentials earlier. Still, while my credentials are not nearly as good as some of the people here, I believe that I am qualified to challenge you on many of the assertions you have made. In fact, I have challenged you, especially regarding your statements about biology (my specialty).

You have ignored my points and continued to make assertions on topics which, even to a novice in science, are recognizable as ludicrously incorrect. You then complained that I was always trying to "show how smart I was" or trying to act like a teacher.

And throughout this, you have refused to give your own credentials for making such broad statements. Oh, I don't expect you've had any post-high school education, nor is it even necessary. Why don't you tell us about the last scientific book you read? I'm sure there will be people here willing to discuss it with you.

Maybe you would be interested in the one I've just started. It's called The Dragon Seekers: The Discovery of Dinosaurs During the Prelude to Darwin (http://www.amazon.com/Dragon-Seekers-Extraordinary-Fossilists-Discovered/dp/B000IOEME8/sr=1-1/qid=1162177807/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6963334-4336137?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Christopher McGowan. It's more of a history of science than a study of dinosaurs, but it promises to be full of insight.

Show us you have an interest in really learning about science. Then perhaps people will be less likely to attack your ignorance. They will see that you are at least trying. Right now, you appear to be making no effort whatsoever to overcome your lack of knowledge.

Cosmo
29th October 2006, 07:13 PM
Do you remember what I posted? The crowd here choose to come out here to find something (else) to say I know nothing about. Why aren't we back at the graph with all you say is wrong with it? You people really don't have anything do you?

Because the graph has been analyzed, dissected, and determined to not hold anything of consequence. The discussion has shifted focus.

Is there any scientist here? Are people just into following the crowd?

Oh, shut up already. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

RandFan
29th October 2006, 07:17 PM
Why aren't we back at the graph with all you say is wrong with it? There's nothing of substance to the graph.

You people really don't have anything do you? More than you.

Is there any scientist here? Are people just into following the crowd?? What the hell would a scientist care about this? This is all just silliness.

ETA: I see Tricky is one who has cared enough to respond to you.

bruto
29th October 2006, 08:10 PM
Back to the graph, eh?

Here, chosen more or less at random, is a paragraph from your page:

The characteristics of the electrical part of light are negative and positive,Can you cite a scientific source for that statement? those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.Can you cite a scientific source for that statement? Life experiences them as "yes" "no" "I like you" (love) and I don't like you" (hate). A huge leap has just occurred. By what logical process do you jump from the characteristics of light to the conclusion that life experiences them at all, and from that to the conclusion that life experiences them as 'yes' etc? When you say "life" do you mean life or do you mean living things? What experience is common to all living things, and how is it identified or measured? How do you define love and hate, yes and no, for life forms such as algae, bacteria, or tomatoes? Together they make up the bases for the mental/emotional nature of life.Why? No explanation is present here. No premises. No reason for the conclusion is given. What evidence do you have for any mental or emotional nature that is common to all life? What does the word "mental" or "emotional" mean if it applies equally to humans and viruses? What evidence, experimental or theoretical, can you cite for the conclusion that these forces relate in any real way (as opposed to analogy)? The four characteristics of light also connects to the four basic operations of mathematics. Why? What logical steps connect these? What physical or mathematical laws are invoked here to come to that conclusion? Negative is related to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication, and repulsion to divsion. Why? In what fundamental way do addition and subtraction actually differ, for example when performed on a number line? How do you counter the assertions of mathematicians such as W.K.Clifford, that they are essentially the same? In what way do multiplication and division actually differ? In what way do addition and multiplication actually differ, and in what manner are any of these things analogous to electromagnetic forces? Multiplication and division are not opposite; they are reciprocal: all multiplication can be expressed as division, and all division as multiplication. Multiplication can be expressed additively, and all subtraction can be expressed additively as well. Why should I believe you instead of other mathematicians? On what do you base your assertion that the four "basic" operations of arithmetic are the basic concepts of mathematics, rather than just basic in the sense that they are the most useful in everyday life?

That paragraph alone contains a great number of assertions for which no corroboration or evidence is presented, and no logical argument by which evidence of anything else might be used to infer the assertions. In other words, it is simply a very bold statement of a number of beliefs which, as presented, are not compelling. You present no reason why anybody should adopt your beliefs in preference to any other beliefs.

You keep asking for particulars. So here it is on a platter. I have taken a paragraph of your own writing, and I have asked very particular questions about very particular aspects of it, point by point. If you actually know what you are talking about, you should not have much difficulty answering those questions in a way that can logically convince a reasonable reader that they are at least worth considering, if not compellingly true. Any scientist who says "the characteristics of light are ...." will be able to point to explanations, sources, authorities, evidence, etc. to explain what is meant, and back up the assertion. "Science says" is not such an explanation. "Scientist X, or Science book Y, or even web site Z ( if it's not obviously loony), says, here" will do in this case. But you need to be specific and careful. Where logic is required, it's not enough to say "it seems logical." The logic must be visible. Inductive or deductive, you need identifiable premises and conclusions that are based on those conclusions without gaps or fallacies. Please remember too that a graph illustrates an idea. It does not prove it or corroborate it or provide evidence for it. It's just a picture of your idea. A beautiful graph can be made from total error, bad ideas, wrong data, even bald-faced lies. The graph is what you use to show off your idea after you've proved it.

Please note that I have refrained from negative and disparaging comment here, have not labeled any assertion as outright nonsense or error, and am restricting this post to questions directed at specific and particular statements that you have made. You keep saying you have the logic and the evidence to back you up. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you have explanations that you forgot to include, and logic that you simply didn't bother to put in for the sake of brevity. Shortcuts and suppressed premises are not always logical errors, but they are logical debts, payable on demand. I'm cashing in. The account is due. If you can explain that one paragraph adequately, you'll prove yourself a formidable thinker indeed, no matter how much else in your site remains unexplained. If you can't, then there is no reason to assume that anything else you say is anything but nonsense. Can you do it?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 09:28 PM
Back to the graph, eh?
Please note that I have refrained from negative and disparaging comment here, have not labeled any assertion as outright nonsense or error, and am restricting this post to questions directed at specific and particular statements that you have made. You keep saying you have the logic and the evidence to back you up. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you have explanations that you forgot to include, and logic that you simply didn't bother to put in for the sake of brevity. Shortcuts and suppressed premises are not always logical errors, but they are logical debts, payable on demand. I'm cashing in. The account is due. If you can explain that one paragraph adequately, you'll prove yourself a formidable thinker indeed, no matter how much else in your site remains unexplained. If you can't, then there is no reason to assume that anything else you say is anything but nonsense. Can you do it?
Wow. That is a lot. And I appreciate you not using negative comments. They don't help. I don't know about that payable on demand thing. I have been asking for questions directed at the graph for some 30 pages, heard all the insults. Now you demand? Please. This is the sought of thing that should have been done in the beginning. A bit at a time. And I already covered some.
As is, this will take me some time. I damn near have to write a book, or submit more then I am willing. But I will see what I can do. And I will be brief. You know. It sought of have something to do with that life outside the computer thing. Can I do it? Yes. I think so. Reasonably I hope. Flawlessly, without gaps filled with things not currently thought, probably not. As you must know, no one can. But that should not stop any of us from trying. I have been looking for what is most reasonable and inclusive, while staying within what science says. And I believe what I have is reasonable.

bruto
29th October 2006, 10:01 PM
Wow. That is a lot. And I appreciate you not using negative comments. They don't help. I don't know about that payable on demand thing. I have been asking for questions directed at the graph for some 30 pages, heard all the insults. Now you demand? Please. This is the sought of thing that should have been done in the beginning. A bit at a time. And I already covered some.I did do this long ago with a different section, and also with the wording of your very first post on this thread. This is just another try. And it is a very little bit at a time, considering how much you've asserted.
As is, this will take me some time. I damn near have to write a book, or submit more then I am willing. But I will see what I can do. And I will be brief. You know. It sought of have something to do with that life outside the computer thing.Take the time to do it carefully by all means. Can I do it? Yes. I think so. Reasonably I hope. Flawlessly, without gaps filled with things not currently thought, probably not. As you must know, no one can. Perhaps, but I maintain that if you can't make the argument you shouldn't have made the claims. But that should not stop any of us from trying. I have been looking for what is most reasonable and inclusive, while staying within what science says. And I believe what I have is reasonable.Good luck.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 10:54 PM
I did do this long ago with a different section, and also with the wording of your very first post on this thread.
I guess. I have been away from questions about that thing for so long I miss it.

This is just another try. And it is a very little bit at a time, considering how much you've asserted.
Again, you sound mad. "That how dare you thing!" Work pass that. You saw what I did. That is the way it seems to me.


Perhaps, but I maintain that if you can't make the argument you shouldn't have made the claims.
I did make the argument, provided a site to show my thinking. Columbus made the claim of a round world before he could prove it. So I am very sure that I am not alone. Oh. But I need to be held to a higher standard because of what I said. Get over it.

Good luck.
Thanks.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 11:19 PM
Here, chosen more or less at random, is a paragraph from your page:Can you cite a scientific source for that statement?

That the characteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive? They are. Someone said that science said that it got them backwards, but in doing so he supported them being there. You want a list of references? I see that as a waste of time.


Can you cite a scientific source for that statement?
That the characteristics of magnetism are attraction and repulsion? I think that was covered too.



A huge leap has just occurred.
You are asking why life would experience the characteristics of energy at all? Since how matter behaves and looks is due to energy, it only seems right. Life is made up of matter. Why wouldn't energy affect it, and be responsible for how it acts? What else would be? With a soul based in energy, it would be able to apply to the entire universe. Life and the conditions for life. Remember, the conditions for life came first, and life came from them.

the conclusion that life experiences them as 'yes' etc?
The universe has only 4 sources of order. And intelligence, as well as everything else, is to be based on the order of energy. Life is better at expressing that order. But everything has logical order.

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 11:54 PM
There's nothing of substance to the graph.

More than you.

? What the hell would a scientist care about this? This is all just silliness.

ETA: I see Tricky is one who has cared enough to respond to you. I was just wondering where the great knowledge was coming from that you and others said was here. I took your word that you knew what you were talking about. Now I am starting to wonder. So Tricky is the only one? The rest of you are just average Joes? What the hell is your opinion worth?

lightcreatedlife@hom
29th October 2006, 11:58 PM
Because the graph has been analyzed, dissected, and determined to not hold anything of consequence. The discussion has shifted focus.



Oh, shut up already. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Analyzed by who? And I have been trying for the longest to shift the discussion to the graph. It is not me that came all the way out here.

RandFan
30th October 2006, 12:07 AM
The universe has only 4 sources of order. Based on what theory?

And intelligence, as well as everything else, is to be based on the order of energy. No. Actually there is some very good scientific theory for much of the order we see and it is not based on energy. To be sure energy plays an important part. To get order we need change and change requires energy but aside from that there is no reason to state that intelligence or order in general is based on the order of energy.

If you were really interested in the truth (I'm fully convinced that you are not) you would educate yourself. A rudimentary understanding of math including Euclidean Geometry and physics would be helpful. Then I would recommend Chaos Theory including Phase Space, attractors, fractals, simplicity and complexity.

If you did this you could actually model complex systems and understand why so much order is replicated throughout our natural world. You could understand why scientists can use this information to make predictions about weather, biology, and other complex systems.

These things are all understandable and practical. Scientists can use them to better our lives.

Your graph? It can't be used for anything.

But let me make a prediction, the uselessness of your graph and the usefulness of what we already understand about order are meaningless to you. As far as you are concerned no one has shown you why your graph is wrong so you persist. What you are incapable of getting is that in the end the fact that there is so much wrong with your ideas is beside the point. Even if it were all valid it doesn't advance our understanding of the universe one iota. It's a waste of time and no one is ever going to use your graph to do anything but talk about it because there is nothing for it to do.

Tricky
30th October 2006, 04:55 AM
Analyzed by who? And I have been trying for the longest to shift the discussion to the graph.
Analyzed by Bruto just above in post 1428. (And of course, many many others.) He pointed out to you how you had not shown how math operations correlate to physical forces. That is one of the most basic aspects of that picture you call a graph. You have been unable to show how they correlate either with math, physics, biology or any science whatsoever. All we have is your assertion. Thus, your "graph" is useless because it nothing more than a pictoral representation of your personal opinions.

How much analysis do you need?

It is not me that came all the way out here.It seems obvious to me that you did come all the way out here, since you are here. Why would you deny the obvious?

nescafe
30th October 2006, 06:40 AM
That the characteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive? They are.

This is not citing your source, this is a bald assertion. A cite for this would look like:

"The charecteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive (Science Textbook, 1982, p314)"

or

"The charecteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism#The_electromagnetic_force, retrieved 10/30/2006)".


You want a list of references? I see that as a waste of time.

One of the basic rules of debate is that the party making claims has to back them up, either by logical argument or by providing references to sources, If you are unwilling to do either, there is no reason whatsoever for us to care about anything you say, no matter how true you may think it is.

bruto
30th October 2006, 07:02 AM
That the characteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive? They are. Someone said that science said that it got them backwards, but in doing so he supported them being there. You want a list of references? I see that as a waste of time.One good reference would do.


That the characteristics of magnetism are attraction and repulsion? I think that was covered too.No. First of all, you said "the magnetic part" of light, not magnetism itself. Second, the fact that attraction and repulsion occur does not make them fundamental characteristics of the thing itself. One good reference would do again.



You are asking why life would experience the characteristics of energy at all? yes. Including asking what you mean by "life" and what you mean by "experience."Since how matter behaves and looks is due to energy, it only seems right.You now bring in a new statement, already shown to be either a nonsensical tautology or an unsupported assertion, and a conclusion based on assumption or sentiment, entirely without logical connection. "only seems right" is not even close. Life is made up of matter. Is it? Living things are made up of matter. Is this saying the same thing? Many would say not. Why wouldn't energy affect it, and be responsible for how it acts? Energy affects everything, I suppose, but what of it? What is the mechanism? What is the "responsibility?" What kind of energy influences what kind of activity and how? What else would be?Inability to think of an alternative is not evidence. With a soul based in energy, Whoa, there! Where did the soul come in. A moment ago life was material. What is this soul, where is the evidence for it, and how is it based in energy if it is not material? How does the presence of a soul relate in any logical way to the subject at hand? Many steps of inference and argument are missing here! Don't read this as some assertion from me of my belief or lack of it. We are talking here of your argument for your theory alone. You have not provided any evidence for the soul, any proper definition of what you mean by the word, or any logical reason why it should be considered in the context of this particular set of assertions about electromagnetic forces and how they influence the order of the universe. it would be able to apply to the entire universe.Why? This is a total non sequitur, with no apparent connection. Applying a local rule to the whole universe is a logical fallacy in any case. Life and the conditions for life. Remember, the conditions for life came first, and life came from them. Obviously the conditions for something precede the thing they are the conditions for, but I see no relation in this statement to what went before.

The universe has only 4 sources of order. reference, please. That's a very broad ontological statement for which you have provided absolutely no evidence. In addition, the word "only" has crept in. Even if you identify the four sources adequately, where is the evidence that they are unique and that there is no other source? Persons who believe that God directly influences the events of the universe, or provides design input beyond the natural workings of physical law - that would include those who embrace intelligent design, I surmise - would have a strong problem with such a statement if they thought carefully about it (though it is perhaps optimistic to expect careful thought and ID to occupy the same brainpan at the same time). And intelligence, as well as everything else, is to be based on the order of energy. Based in what way? If everything is "a" then everything is "a." What else have you said here? Life is better at expressing that order.Why? I see no evidence for that in your presentation, and much evidence against it. Does a kitten express your purported electromagnetic order better than a magnet? How? Why is an amoeba a better expression of universal order than a quartz crystal or a ball bearing? But everything has logical order.Reference, please. That's a very broad universal statement for which you've provided no logical argument, so if you're going to make it, you'd better at least have an authority for it, and some clear idea of the meaning of the terms you're using. So far that has not surfaced.

Belz...
30th October 2006, 09:16 AM
Is that what you want? Well that graph is what I came up with. It is my belief, and it was arrived at through critical thought.

Your BELIEF was arrived at through CRITICAL thought ? I think you don't understand what "belief" means, nor "critical thought" for that matter.

You see I knew that science was right. It is well proven. And I knew that religion was wrong. They made little sense. But they were there. Have always been.

ANOTHER argument from popularity and longevity. Will you ever learn that the fact that an idea has remained for long means nothing ? In fact, in science, ideas are often changed or replaced. Dogmatic thought is a big no-no. The fact that religious ideas haven't evolved much is a clear indication that something's wrong, there.

So I figured that maybe there is something there, but they have just not expressed it right. So I looked at the things that religions had in common for a clue.

The saviour syndrome, again. What makes you able to understand this so clearly while no one else in history has managed to do this ?

They believe that life has a creator which is everywhere, doing everything, unseen (mostly) but makes itself known through physical things and the actions (God helps those who helps themselves) of life.

Those two features are incompatible. If it makes itself known through physical "things", then we should be able to detect it.

That there was an unseen world in which it worked. And that life went there when it died. I came to the conclusion that they were describing energy.

No, you DECIDED that that's what they were describing, and forgot what the word "energy" means in the process.

That led me to the FACT that everything physical owes how it looks and behaves to energy.

No, you said that was a premise, not a conclusion. Otherwise your entire argument is circular.

That is when I profiled the forces.

Still waiting on your description of that profiling.

Profiled them, because their characteristics should be the soul of life.

How so ?

I was very happy to see that the profile science gave them fit.

Science doesn't "profile" them, it describes their observed behaviour. It doesn't say anything about a "goal" or personality.

What I am told though is that somehow there is something wrong with my thought process.

There is, it's called ignorance.

That somehow science did not mean what they said.

WRONG. Science did not mean what you THINK it said. There's a world of difference, and you need to realise that your point of view doesn't necessarily correspond to reality.

I know that I don't have the schooled education that some here have (at least I hope they have) but I don't see that as too much of a disadvantage.

You're correct, here. Schooling doesn't mean you can't think critically or use logic. Of course, you've demonstrated that you can't.

That is as long as I stick to what I know, and don't pretend to know more than what I do.

But you DO pretend to know more. You pretend to be able to understand the meaning of life and "the soul" through a simplistic, nonsensical picture you've drawn. You claim that, with a few thoughts, you were able to unlock the secrets of the universe, something no one's ever been able to do, before. Don't you see a problem, here ? And when people tell you that you don't understand what science said, what do you do ? You say this:

I reason that sometimes even science can be so close to a problem that they can't see it.

When science suits your purposes, you claim it is correct and exact. Otherwise, you say "science isn't everything" and "they can't see it". So basically you're trying to have it both ways.

Their taught thought process would simply not let them do it. Have you ever had a case where you know what you are looking for can't be a place, so you don't look there? Only to find that something you did not consider put it there?

Yes. In the case of science, however, you have thousands of people looking for the same thing and using each other's work to get there.

I thought. Present the idea. If it is am wrong, they would logically show me.

And we'd expect you to understand the criticism and accept it. But you've sheltered yourself from reality in order to maintain your "solution" in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The reality is that those who represent science (or at least think they do)do have egos, and they have an agenda-they are fighting against ID.

I knew it. I could smell the foul stench of creationism the first time you stepped onto this forum.

And to some, right is what they can logically make it. I still don't know what that other stuff is all about. Though I have come to reason that some don't have the education they say they do. Or don't care how it goes out in public. That, or some must have missed a couple of classes.

Still convinced that we're resisting your ideas because we can't accept them ? Has NOTHING I've told you been understood ? How can you be so blind, so deluded, as to think yourself the new Galileo, bearing a truth that your dogmatic, religious opponents cannot subscribe to ? I'll defer to REAL thinkers, thank you very much.

Thought process, logic, reason, and quest. Yeah. It maybe crazy. But I do not honestly see it. Show me where my reasoning has failed me.

Everywhere, it seems.

Belz...
30th October 2006, 09:31 AM
Do you?

No. The reason why I don't believe in God was arrived at after years of belief. I decided that there was no evidence for His existence, and that there was evidence AGAINST said existence. It is not an assumption, it is my conclusion.

we will get to that

No, we won't, because you have no idea what that means aside from your claim that it is true. If you had any intention of learning at all, you'd have looked into it by now, and you would understand why the question, and the answer, is not as simple as you thought.

are you speaking for yourself, or science?

Who cares ? Do you think that science knows everything there is to know about energy ? Are we even close ? I couldn't know, myself, but I think that we still have much to learn. And that means you can't make absolute claims about energy, since we don't know really that much about it.

I have been slapped for speaking for science, but I always same "science says." If I m wrong, someone can say science did not say that. What do they say if you are wrong?

See above, I never said the word "science" in my comment. You're the one who saw it there.

How did you manage it before?

How did I manage what ? Writing that nonsensical sentence ? Easy. I just slapped my keyboard a few times. Understand your graph ? Never did. It doesn't mean a thing. Like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

I never said that.

Yes you did. You did AGAIN in the post I responded to in my previous post. You keep thinking that people here are dishonest for disagreeing with you, when you should instead realise that you're simply wrong. There's nothing wrong with beign wrong. It just sets you on your way to beign RIGHT.

You just say something that can be hit with a google rock.

Google isn't the ultimate tool for knowledge, Light. It's a really useful tool, but only if you know how to handle it, as with any other tool. And seeing how you handle everything else, I wouldn't trust you with finding MicroSoft's home page with it.

But you do have a position to defend.

No, I don't. You're the one making the claims. All I have to do is await the evidence. What you present is either nonsensical or misguided, and I'm more than happy to point it out, if only because of the faint hope that you might actually snap out of your self-constructed fantasy world and come back to reality.

I said resubmit, but if that makes you feel better have at it.

I have no time to waste with you if you don't take the time to read my posts and answer my points. If you don't answer, I have to guess as to why. Is it because you don't know what to answer ? Because you don't understand the point ? Because you disagree ? Because you agree ? Or because you don't think it's worth answering ? I can't know that, but I know that, when arguing against someone face-to-face, if said person doesn't answer a direct question or point, I consider that he concedes it. Either defend your points or yield.

That is what I was talking about all along. Nothing there works for you all from the start.

Don't weasel out of this, Light. Answer the question. If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.

Belz...
30th October 2006, 09:50 AM
So you are mad at me?

And, there we are again. Galileo syndrome, full strength.

IF you are right, then you should have NO problem swaying everyone here.

many logical thoughts have a conclusion.

Actually, I would think that ALL of them do.

I think the same way about making sense, but you are telling me that I make none, and you do, based on what?

Ah, that's the rub, isn't it ? You thought you'd come here and that people might agree with you, but point out a few things here and there that you may have to correct. But no, people are telling you that, not only did you get everything wrong, your entire idea doesn't make sense. That just makes you very, very mad doesn't it ?

Sorry, I've been proven wrong before too, Light. You'll live.

All life uses some intelligence.

No, no, no. Bacteria do NOT use intelligence. Planaries do NOT use intelligence, and I'd even argue that, under some definitions, ants do NOT use intelligence, either.

Humans use it much, much, more and it has served them well.

I think we can agree on that.

They don't have to naturally be able to fly if they could figure a way to do it.

Uh-huh, but what about animals that don't NEED intelligence one way or another ? Would they be better if they HAD intelligence ? You DO know that the brain requires a large amount of energy to function, right ? That means more food requirement. That's not a good thing to have if you don't need it.

The same goes for most other things. Intelligence is the wild card the trumps the others.

Well, normally I'd agree. Unfortunately for you I realise that intelligence has limited usefulness, depending on the environment and the circumstances.

Humans can now use genetics to increase even that. Produce and store test tube people by the billions if that needed to be. And unlike the things you mentioned they would be capable of wondering about the universe.

Who cares about wondering about the universe ? EXCEPT US ?

You constantly rig the rules so that ONLY humans could ever be on top.

Tell you what. I'll devellop a super-virus that eats everyone and leaves the earth a lifeless waste, and then you can tell me if intelligence is : A) so beneficial, B) so advantageous for survival. And viruses aren't even alive.

It has to past through a person doesn't it? That is why one of the reasons why computers are better at it then people.

How does this relate to the point ?

It has to be thought of to be useful.

Not necessarily. A lot of animals do thinks that are quite ingenious without thinking about it.

Give me an example where not.

Wait until the next asteroid collides with Earth. Then we'll talk.

No. Because it is simple enough for you to know what I am saying.

It's not simple. It's nonsensical. Please learn that. If you don't get it, check MY graph (previous post) and try to make sense of it. Really. I drew it so you could understand what I meant, not to mock you. So have a go at it.

Have the intelligence to think, but only think about yourself.

What's that supposed to mean ? Are we part of nature or not ?

You saw what you wanted. Even though I said what I meant.

No, nothing can be out of balance with itself. That doesn't make sense. You said humans were out of balance WITH NATURE. It is IMPLIED that humans are distinct from nature, otherwise they couldn't possibly be out of balance with it. You're the one who said that, not I.

There is no objective definition of "good" or "evil".

We do as well as can be expected.

I think that's the smartest thing I've ever read you say.

Life and its conditions is made up of things that interact at the nuclear level.

Irrelevant. The strong and weak nuclear forces have no bearing on molecules. Your argument is therefore wrong.

What soul ? Why would bacteria need a soul ?

To work with the whole.

What whole ? They're individual biological machines doing what their molecules are telling them to do, just like you and me. You're trying to see a "whole" where there isn't one.

Why would I do that? It also gives us the power to avert/fix things.

You said yourself that we've done a lot of damage, and you scoffed when I said it could be fixed. Are you retracting your claim or not ?

Humans though fight it, ever been to a hospital?

Sorry, Light. Entropy is inevitable. Give us a few billion years. Destruction is part of balance.

I am starting to think you are a troll. No one can be this dumb. Look at what is below.

Oh. Did I hurt your feelings ?

Belz...
30th October 2006, 09:59 AM
Multiplication and division are not opposite; they are reciprocal: all multiplication can be expressed as division, and all division as multiplication. Multiplication can be expressed additively, and all subtraction can be expressed additively as well. Why should I believe you instead of other mathematicians?

Somehow I forgot to mention this before. Indeed, there is no "basic four" in mathematics. Those "four" are really just one.

That the characteristics of electrical energy are negative and positive? They are. Someone said that science said that it got them backwards, but in doing so he supported them being there. You want a list of references? I see that as a waste of time.

Not to us. Saying that "science says" something and then refusing to show that it does is usually an indication that the person has made it up.

You are asking why life would experience the characteristics of energy at all? Since how matter behaves and looks is due to energy, it only seems right.

But you're again applying some form of primitive common-sense idea to something far more complex. We've told you that a combination of two things doesn't NECESSARILY share the two things' characteristics. Do some research on table salt, dammit.

The universe has only 4 sources of order.

I'm not sure gravity is a good source of order.

I was just wondering where the great knowledge was coming from that you and others said was here. I took your word that you knew what you were talking about. Now I am starting to wonder. So Tricky is the only one? The rest of you are just average Joes? What the hell is your opinion worth?

Opinions are worth the same, no matter what kind of "joe" you are. It's the FACTS that show the truth, and they're the same for everyone.

zizzybaluba
30th October 2006, 01:07 PM
I think it has to do with unbiased, careful thought. Give me your definition. Briefly.

If you think your thoughts are unbiased (or careful, for that matter), you are incapapble of understanding the definition (note I said "the" and not "my") of critical thinking.

TobiasTheViking
30th October 2006, 04:22 PM
You didn't mention that I said I was ignoring you and why.
Ah, oki, i'll add a fourth evasion to my list then.

And look at what you did with the ONE TIME that I said that I would answer you tomorrow. And that one time I did answer your post TOMORROW.
You did? care to show me where you did that? because it took 2-3 days before you next wrote me a message, and that was an evasion.

You are a special case. I have said this.
Awwww, i'm special, i feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


Look back at your own post. You will see that you are more concerned with saying you were not answered.
i'm just concerned because you haven't answered my questions.. that i asked IN POST THREE.

I was the second reply to this thread, and you still haven't answered my very very simple questions.

But Like I said, I will get to you.
Evidence?
When?

TobiasTheViking
30th October 2006, 04:34 PM
NOTE: i asked you the first time on the eleventh of september..

ELEVENTH OF SEPTEMBER.. That is almost two months ago.

Still nothing but evasion..




I only said tomorrow once and the record will show I answered the next day.

Evidence please. because i saw no reply from you the next day. The next reply to me was NOT the next day, but was later, and was an evasion.

you say this to say that I have not been answering so you could look like I am running from you. Why would the people here let that happen? They would see me run, and pose the question themselves.
I don't want you to run.. i want you to answer.. i care about nothing else but you answering me.

Don't try to analyze why i do stuff, you have shown to be totally incapable of reaching the correct conclusion in that respect.

I don't want to see you run, i want to see you give me a proper answer.

Which you have yet to do.

since the 11th of September.

remember when I said I was ignoring you? Even though I still did.
No you didn't.

untill i forced you too.

It has not even been two weeks (I think) since I did answer you, the next day like I said.
Got any evidence it wasn't two weeks?
and you didn't answer the next day.
Hell, you didn't even reply the next day.

And why isn't that question here?
Because i've asked you it since september 11th.. i would expect you to be able to remember by now

Present your one question, and we will start with that.
Ah, sounds good.

But, why are we going down from my allowed 5 questions to one?

Oh well, if you answer it will do.

ONE. We will see what happens after that.
You will evade it, i'm sure.

It will be fine with me if you did not do what I just said. If you don't, I will just ignore you, and I am serious this time.
Ok, i will do as you just said, i will ask you one question.. just one..

One of the questions i asked the 11th of september. Which i would like to once more reiterate is only the second reply to your original post. And you have yet to answer satisfactorily.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
Your replies so far have been (logically) flawed.. or non exiseant.

When can i expect a reply?

lightcreatedlife@hom
30th October 2006, 06:13 PM
IF you are right, then you should have NO problem swaying everyone here.
If you are right about there not being a God, you should have no problem swaying anyone at a christian forum.

Ah, that's the rub, isn't it ? You thought you'd come here and that people might agree with you, but point out a few things here and there that you may have to correct. But no, people are telling you that, not only did you get everything wrong, your entire idea doesn't make sense. That just makes you very, very mad doesn't it ?
You got to be kidding. Do I come across as mad? I am in fact enjoying myself. I am not calling names, or raving. Things that mad people do in order to pick a fight so that they can have a reason for leaving. Look at the facts. I have been coming here, and show no sign of leaving, and no one agrees with me. What you think that somehow that I think a magic point is going to suddenly win you all over?
No doubt your acceptance would have made things much easier, but life is not always about easy is it? The thing gains strength, and I gain strength from combat. Oh no. You have no idea what is on my mind. But you will.


Sorry, I've been proven wrong before too, Light. You'll live.
I don't mind being wrong. The things that you are throwing at me are laughable to everyone outside this forum. Just before I came here I asked some friends what the four basics of math were, and which lifeform was the most advanced. Do you want to guess what they said? Its like I am living in two different worlds. Guess which world is larger?



No, no, no. Bacteria do NOT use intelligence. Planaries do NOT use intelligence, and I'd even argue that, under some definitions, ants do NOT use intelligence, either.
Fine. You don't think they do. I think the first yes/no life/death action is where it begins.


Uh-huh, but what about animals that don't NEED intelligence one way or another ? Would they be better if they HAD intelligence ? You DO know that the brain requires a large amount of energy to function, right ? That means more food requirement. That's not a good thing to have if you don't need it.
The entire structure is built around life doing what it does with what it has. Sharks outlived the dinosuars doing what they do. Human life thinks the brain is worth the effort.


Well, normally I'd agree. Unfortunately for you I realise that intelligence has limited usefulness, depending on the environment and the circumstances.
So you are not agreeing to be at odds with what I am saying?


Who cares about wondering about the universe ? EXCEPT US ?
That is the point. We are the most advanced form. And wondering about the universe helps life to spead out into it. Life is using intelligence to spread itself beyond set limits.

You constantly rig the rules so that ONLY humans could ever be on top.
And you champion all but them. Good Luck.


Tell you what. I'll devellop a super-virus that eats everyone and leaves the earth a lifeless waste, and then you can tell me if intelligence is : A) so beneficial, B) so advantageous for survival. And viruses aren't even alive.
It will be when the rest of us stop and counter you.


Not necessarily. A lot of animals do thinks that are quite ingenious without thinking about it.
People too.


Wait until the next asteroid collides with Earth. Then we'll talk.
You mean when we stop it from getting here don't you?



What's that supposed to mean ? Are we part of nature or not ?
Of course we are.


No, nothing can be out of balance with itself. That doesn't make sense. You said humans were out of balance WITH NATURE. It is IMPLIED that humans are distinct from nature, otherwise they couldn't possibly be out of balance with it. You're the one who said that, not I.
Humans came from the same place as all other forms of life. They then moved out the jungle, cropped it up and made a world where most of the life they shared the jungle cannot live. If they alter the nature balance enough, they risk removing something that could cause the whole structure to crash.


What whole ? They're individual biological machines doing what their molecules are telling them to do, just like you and me. You're trying to see a "whole" where there isn't one.
I see one where you there is none. There is a difference.


You said yourself that we've done a lot of damage, and you scoffed when I said it could be fixed. Are you retracting your claim or not ?
Scoffed at what? I think everything can be fixed-within reason.


Sorry, Light. Entropy is inevitable. Give us a few billion years. Destruction is part of balance.
I said they fight it, not best it.


Oh. Did I hurt your feelings ?
You would like that wouldn't you? No. That was just a joke. You know with all the people saying that about me.

lightcreatedlife@hom
30th October 2006, 06:38 PM
Your question was how is attraction related to multiplication.
While I believe that the chartacteristic of energy to attract, would be related to multiplication because more and more is multiplying (which is related to addition) I am not able to show that. But as I said before. I reworked the center box so that I would not have to.
You see. After seeing electrical and magnetic energy cross in the center, I thought that that would be the where the soul would be. So I put there the things that I thought best represented the soul of life, and they were the same things that I already had there. That while the things there still line up, that they may be a coincidence, that happened 12 times.

Canadian Malcontent
30th October 2006, 06:49 PM
"In the beginning the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good and the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1 Verse 1.

I think in time it will be uncovered and brought to light that sound created life.

I think in time you will come to understand that the sound that created life was the Word of God.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
Can anyone supply chapter and verse?

Canadian Malcontent

lightcreatedlife@hom
30th October 2006, 07:11 PM
No. The reason why I don't believe in God was arrived at after years of belief. I decided that there was no evidence for His existence, and that there was evidence AGAINST said existence. It is not an assumption, it is my conclusion.
Okay. I was not born believing. And I went through not believing to arrive at there had to be something. I when though about the same process and concluded that there was evidence for their being at least one.



No, we won't, because you have no idea what that means aside from your claim that it is true. If you had any intention of learning at all, you'd have looked into it by now, and you would understand why the question, and the answer, is not as simple as you thought.
Design usually means designer. And only needs one at the beginning. The design can be seen in the order of 4 forces forming a universe that has lasted 14 billion years and produced life. It is not simple. But it is far more simple than the universe coming about as the results of some cosmic lucky shot.


Who cares ? Do you think that science knows everything there is to know about energy ? Are we even close ? I couldn't know, myself, but I think that we still have much to learn. And that means you can't make absolute claims about energy, since we don't know really that much about it.
No I do not believe we know all about energy. That is why I think that one day it will be shown that that is where the soul of life came from.

Yes you did. You did AGAIN in the post I responded to in my previous post. You keep thinking that people here are dishonest for disagreeing with you, when you should instead realise that you're simply wrong. There's nothing wrong with beign wrong. It just sets you on your way to beign RIGHT.
I do not believe that disagreeing with me is equal to being dishonest. In fact they are often right on the points that that make. For instance, I say the 4 basics of math, another says that something else is more basic. I am not wrong, but I am said to be. That is just his opinion.


Google isn't the ultimate tool for knowledge, Light. It's a really useful tool, but only if you know how to handle it, as with any other tool. And seeing how you handle everything else, I wouldn't trust you with finding MicroSoft's home page with it.
No one said it was. But if we differ on a point, it has no reason to side with either of us, so I click when I need aqnother view. Oh. You want me to believe those here over someone who is not involved in what is happenning here?



I have no time to waste with you if you don't take the time to read my posts and answer my points. If you don't answer, I have to guess as to why. Is it because you don't know what to answer ? Because you don't understand the point ? Because you disagree ? Because you agree ? Or because you don't think it's worth answering ? I can't know that, but I know that, when arguing against someone face-to-face, if said person doesn't answer a direct question or point, I consider that he concedes it. Either defend your points or yield.
Here is the difference. I have a lot coming at me. I can not give anyone all the time I have. And look at the way you post? You follow one long one, with a very long one, back to back. Without even waiting for the first to be answered. I like it here, but come on.


Don't weasel out of this, Light. Answer the question. If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.
You see? I don't have time for stuff like this on top of your very long post.

Canadian Malcontent
30th October 2006, 07:12 PM
Quote:
All life uses some intelligence.
No, no, no. Bacteria do NOT use intelligence. Planaries do NOT use intelligence, and I'd even argue that, under some definitions, ants do NOT use intelligence, either.


Quote:
Humans use it much, much, more and it has served them well.
I think we can agree on that.


We can agree human use of 'intelligence' has served with respect to lifespan as can be measured over the past two thousand years or so. Two thousand years, however, is but a moment on the 'evolutionary' scale. Would any like to contribute with data, to use a Scientology term, on average lifespan of homo sapiens, 10, 15, 25,000 years ago? But with real data, not conjecture, not assumption, not suggestion, but hardcore proven fact.

Bacterial intelligence? Bacteria of a certain type have been observed to mutate on demand to circumstance. Trees respond as a forest to insect attack experienced by one tree on the edge of the forest. This has been measured. Trees create chemical defenses in response to insect attack. They have been measured doing this collectively in response to attack on an individual tree.

So what of human intelligence? Wondrous and much celebrated, given to rapacity and degradation of any and everything that can be found to be life supporting on this Earth?

Do we glory and revel in our destructive abandon? Is it our point of pride?

Are there any among you who do not wish you could live your life as an organism as nobly as the bacteria who we recognise as an emotionally balanced individual from conception to demise?

Canadian Malcontent

Canadian Malcontent
30th October 2006, 07:26 PM
Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Tobias, I am just a simple tree-man, and I'm hoping you can answer a question. What IS electricity?

Please, Tobias, do not tell me how electricity behaves, for even that you do not know. (Just ask the safety people of any electrical utility.) Tell me, please, what IS electricity?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

Solus
30th October 2006, 07:59 PM
Still going I see.:dig: What I'm wondering is why this thread is still in the religion and philosophy section.

Perhaps I should PM a mod and ask him/her to move this thread over to the abandon all hope subfourm... :idea:

bruto
30th October 2006, 08:00 PM
"In the beginning the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And God said "Let there be light" and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good and the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1 Verse 1.

I think in time it will be uncovered and brought to light that sound created life.

I think in time you will come to understand that the sound that created life was the Word of God.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
Can anyone supply chapter and verse?

Canadian Malcontent

John 1:1, wasn't it?

I'm not sure I buy that theory either, but it's at least as good as LCL's.

bruto
30th October 2006, 08:12 PM
Quote:
All life uses some intelligence.
No, no, no. Bacteria do NOT use intelligence. Planaries do NOT use intelligence, and I'd even argue that, under some definitions, ants do NOT use intelligence, either.


Quote:
Humans use it much, much, more and it has served them well.
I think we can agree on that.


We can agree human use of 'intelligence' has served with respect to lifespan as can be measured over the past two thousand years or so. Two thousand years, however, is but a moment on the 'evolutionary' scale. Would any like to contribute with data, to use a Scientology term, on average lifespan of homo sapiens, 10, 15, 25,000 years ago? But with real data, not conjecture, not assumption, not suggestion, but hardcore proven fact.

Bacterial intelligence? Bacteria of a certain type have been observed to mutate on demand to circumstance. Trees respond as a forest to insect attack experienced by one tree on the edge of the forest. This has been measured. Trees create chemical defenses in response to insect attack. They have been measured doing this collectively in response to attack on an individual tree.

So what of human intelligence? Wondrous and much celebrated, given to rapacity and degradation of any and everything that can be found to be life supporting on this Earth?

Do we glory and revel in our destructive abandon? Is it our point of pride?

Are there any among you who do not wish you could live your life as an organism as nobly as the bacteria who we recognise as an emotionally balanced individual from conception to demise?

Canadian Malcontent


Sorry, but I'm a little species-centric. I certainly hope humanity can do better by the earth, but I prefer the chaotic and uncertain life of humanity and would be loath to give it up for the serenity of a bacterium, no matter how smooth it might be. Life as a human is far too interesting an adventure to give up, although I suppose it might make a difference if the recruiters for the bacterial brigade were to give me a choice of whom to infect.

I think you may be confusing adaptivity with intelligence. The word "demand" above seems oddly placed as well, but I'll leave it to the biologists to deal with that. If a bacterium possesses and uses intelligence, though, we must certainly redefine the word and then find another word for what we usually mean when we use the old one. That doesn't seem very economical.

bruto
30th October 2006, 08:14 PM
Still going I see.:dig: What I'm wondering is why this thread is still in the religion and philosophy section.

Perhaps I should PM a mod and ask him/her to move this thread over to the abandon all hope subforum... :idea:

Hope? Was there ever any?

Solus
30th October 2006, 08:18 PM
Hope? Was there ever any?

Yes, indeed.

I think I will PM a mod, this "discussion" can still contiune but in the proper place. Trolls like LCL should know their place.

ADDED:

Wow, 12 mods; I'm not sure which one I should PM? Who is responsable for this section? Move the thread, but please lets keep it. It amuses too much :)

Huntster
30th October 2006, 08:28 PM
......I think in time it will be uncovered and brought to light that sound created life.

I think in time you will come to understand that the sound that created life was the Word of God.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
Can anyone supply chapter and verse?

John 1:1 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm)

Interesting line of thought. I'd never considered it "sound" or "the Word", but His will.

Loss Leader
30th October 2006, 08:50 PM
You see. After seeing electrical and magnetic energy cross in the center, I thought that that would be the where the soul would be. So I put there the things that I thought best represented the soul of life, and they were the same things that I already had there. That while the things there still line up, that they may be a coincidence, that happened 12 times.

Gone for an entire weekend, Friday to Monday, and check in on the forum to find three more Pages of posts. I start to slog through it so that I can keep up with the forum. I needn't have bothered. Nothing has changed.

This recent post is as boneheadedly illogical as any other. It may, in fact, actually be any other. They are all the same.

I less than three logic
31st October 2006, 08:36 AM
I was skimming through the tread again. It seems your nonsense hasnít change a bit. However, this caught my attention:
The universe has only 4 sources of order.
It reminded me that you havenít answered my question yet, although I donít expect this reply to actually change that fact. I can only assume youíre referring to the standard model here. To claim to hold a piece of the Theory of Everything, and then make a statement like this can only elicit one response to accurately depict the inanity of it all. :bwall

Now, Iíll ask my question again.
Just what, exactly, do you think the Theory of Everything is attempting to explain?
If you are unable to answer this question, perhaps you should consider that it might be in your best interest to refrain from using terms you do not understand. Allow me to offer a bit of advice. Iím afraid it is far too late to be of any use to you in the here and now, but you may find it useful in your future endeavors.

ďIt is better to let people believe youíre a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.Ē Ė I think this quote is attributed to Mark Twain.

TobiasTheViking
31st October 2006, 01:41 PM
While I believe that the chartacteristic of energy to attract, would be related to multiplication because more and more is multiplying (which is related to addition) I am not able to show that. But as I said before. I reworked the center box so that I would not have to.
Ok, so you abandon that claim. Good good. :) I assume the same goes for divison.


You see. After seeing electrical and magnetic energy cross in the center, I thought that that would be the where the soul would be. So I put there the things that I thought best represented the soul of life, and they were the same things that I already had there. That while the things there still line up, that they may be a coincidence, that happened 12 times.
Well, i don't care about most of that. And i think it is wrong. But i'll get to it in time, since i can only ask one question at a time.

On to my next question.

In what way do we have the same characteristics as light?

TobiasTheViking
31st October 2006, 01:45 PM
Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Tobias, I am just a simple tree-man, and I'm hoping you can answer a question. What IS electricity?

Please, Tobias, do not tell me how electricity behaves, for even that you do not know. (Just ask the safety people of any electrical utility.) Tell me, please, what IS electricity?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent
There are many answers to that question.

Electricity is electrons flowing.
Electricity is electromagnetic waves
Electricity is photons.

Without a better description of what you want i can't give a better reply.

Belz...
31st October 2006, 03:08 PM
If you are right about there not being a God, you should have no problem swaying anyone at a christian forum.

Wow. Two fallacies at once. You're getting better.

Not only are you trying to shift the burden of proof, but you're also trying to equate two things that are very different. I guess that's your modus operandi. However, religion and science are two very distinct -- dare I say incompatible -- things. Religion never bothers to check their assumptions and, far from thriving on healthy debates, makes every effort to prevent it.

You got to be kidding.

Would you PLEASE stop saying that. I'm dead serious.

Do I come across as mad? I am in fact enjoying myself.

Of course you are. You have convinced yourself, contra the evidence and the demonstrations of many people here, that your theory CANNOT be wrong. As I've said, my assumption (ah, there's one) is that you are doing this because, otherwise, all those nifty thoughts of yours that you thought to smart are complete nonsense. And you can't have that.

Things that mad people do in order to pick a fight so that they can have a reason for leaving.

I did mean ANGRY by "mad", not "lunatic".

Look at the facts. I have been coming here, and show no sign of leaving,

And if I WERE arguing that you're insane, that would actually support my position.

No doubt your acceptance would have made things much easier, but life is not always about easy is it?

Here's that Galileo syndrome again. Where you should interpret your inability to make any progress with critical thinkers as a fault of your own, you've instead used it to bolster your own faith in your made-up theory.

The thing gains strength, and I gain strength from combat.

No, you don't. Anyone who's been reading this thread can see how deluded and ignorant you are. And in order to reverse this, you'd have but to WANT to learn.

Oh no. You have no idea what is on my mind. But you will.

I know exactly what's on your mind. I've been on that path before, and I realised just how silly my ideas were when I actually decided to learn stuff.

I don't mind being wrong. The things that you are throwing at me are laughable to everyone outside this forum.

Everyone ? I submit, then, that you have poor friends, if they can't see your wreck of a theory for what it is.

Just before I came here I asked some friends what the four basics of math were, and which lifeform was the most advanced. Do you want to guess what they said?

Yes, I can. I can also summise that both your questions were loaded, and that the answer was already included in them. Anyone who knows more than basic maths can tell you that subtraction, multiplication and division are only differents ways to add. If you think about it, there is only ONE basic of math.

Its like I am living in two different worlds. Guess which world is larger?

Argument from popularity. It's like a never ending circle with you. Do you KNOW what the fallacy of argument from popularity is ? Can you give me an example ? And can you tell me why it's wrong ?

You don't think they do. I think the first yes/no life/death action is where it begins.

Your association of "yes/no" with "life/death" and "positive/negative" is laughable. And even if it weren't, it doesn't prove anything about intelligence in single-celled organisms.

The entire structure is built around life doing what it does with what it has. Sharks outlived the dinosuars doing what they do.

No, they were simply adequate for their environment, and were successful because of it.

Human life thinks the brain is worth the effort.

I don't really care what people think.

So you are not agreeing to be at odds with what I am saying?

I'm saying that I agree with you only under a certain set of circumstances. Circumstances that GUARANTEE that humans come out on top. That's called rigging the game.

That is the point. We are the most advanced form.

That's not what I said, and you know it. You're beign more and more dishonest as this debate continues.

What I said, is that the ability to wonder about the universe only matters to US because we already HAVE that ability. Your reasoning here is as circular as ever.

And wondering about the universe helps life to spead out into it.

A spaceborn bacteria with no intelligence could probably infest the entire universe in a few billion years. How does intelligence really help life spread ?

And you champion all but them. Good Luck.

I don't champion anything. You're continuing to show your willful ignorance of everything that people have been trying to teach you, here. All I'm saying is that "higher" is subjective, and therefore there is no real answer to the question.

For your information, I value human life over all other forms of life, alien intelligence excluded. But my preference for humans doesn't mean I don't know that, objectively, no single species is superior to another. It's all about circumstances.

It will be when the rest of us stop and counter you.

Irrelevant. If my fantasy-virus kills everyone, intelligence will have failed against a simplistic, non-intelligent thing. Point : intelligence isn't the end-result of everything.

Not necessarily. A lot of animals do thinks that are quite ingenious without thinking about it.

People too.

Now I know you're trolling. No one could possibly be this dense. Or have you already forgotten why I said that ? If you can't follow a debate you shouldn't participate at all.

What I'm saying, and I'm obviously saying this for the benefit of OTHER people since you won't get it, is that non-intelligent life forms can do amazing things that, by our standards, seem ingenious. Yet another example of why intelligence really isn't that hot.

You mean when we stop it from getting here don't you?

Really ? What if it gets here tomorrow ? You think we can stop a planet-killer on such short notice ?

Are we part of nature or not ?

Of course we are.

Excellent. Then you admit that your comment about humans beign "out of balance" with nature is nonsensical ?

I see one where you there is none. There is a difference.

Okay, that sentence made little sense, grammatically, but I'll try to make something out of it.

No, there is no difference. You're trying, desperately, to make everythin a huge, coherent whole. A theory of everything. But you're going to fail. Why ? Because you don't have the most basic knowledge required to even attempt such a thing. Thousands of scientists around the world in the past two hundred years haven't managed to do this. And they're not only smart, but they damn well know what they're talking about. You don't. It's time you realise that and stop wasting your time with this.

I said they fight it, not best it.

The point is that destruction is part of the "cycle" of balance.

You know with all the people saying that about me.

I can't help it, Light. It seems to me like you're either deliberately ignoring other people's points because you have to continue cherishing your pet theory, or that you're too ignorant of the world to understand what we're saying. Both have easy solutions.

Belz...
31st October 2006, 03:19 PM
Okay. I was not born believing. And I went through not believing to arrive at there had to be something. I when though about the same process and concluded that there was evidence for their being at least one.

So, basically you decided that there "had" to be a god ? Or did you have actual evidence ?

Design usually means designer. And only needs one at the beginning. The design can be seen in the order of 4 forces forming a universe that has lasted 14 billion years and produced life. It is not simple. But it is far more simple than the universe coming about as the results of some cosmic lucky shot.

Strawman, and wrong. First off, no one's saying that it's a lucky shot, as though there was only one shot at this and there was many possibilities. Maybe there could only be this one result, or maybe, and more likely, there was an infinite number of attempts, in which case SOME of them are likely to be orderly.

Second, you're wrong. "Goddidit" is not simpler than a quantum fluctuation in a dimensionless singularity, because "simpler" doesn't always mean "in fewer words". The current theory may be complex, but it's both supported by evidence, and requires far less assumptions in order to work than "God". So it IS simpler, in scientific terms.

No I do not believe we know all about energy.

Therefore you cannot claim to be able to fit it a theory of everything, because you simply don't know enough for that.

That is why I think that one day it will be shown that that is where the soul of life came from.

You'd have to prove the existence of the soul, first.

I do not believe that disagreeing with me is equal to being dishonest.

Excellent. Then stop accusing people of deliberatly disagreeing with you.

In fact they are often right on the points that that make. For instance, I say the 4 basics of math, another says that something else is more basic. I am not wrong, but I am said to be. That is just his opinion.

No, you're wrong again. It's not a matter of opinion, Light. It's a matter of evidence and fact. If science and truth were a matter of opinion, we wouldn't be typing on a keyboard over who-knows how many miles to have this conversation, because computers wouldn't exist.

No one said it was. But if we differ on a point, it has no reason to side with either of us,

"Google" isn't the web site you find with it. "Google" only finds the most popular websites for the search parameters you enter. It's just a search engine. And unless you look for web sites by professionals who know what they're talking about, you're likely to wind up with someone's made up theory about light creating life and such nons... well, you know what I mean.

You want me to believe those here over someone who is not involved in what is happenning here?

Yes. A lot of people here are knowledgeable in those fields. People like you aren't, and when they make websites that support their own made-up ideas, nothing, NOTHING can be learned from them.

Here is the difference. I have a lot coming at me. I can not give anyone all the time I have. And look at the way you post? You follow one long one, with a very long one, back to back. Without even waiting for the first to be answered. I like it here, but come on.

The reason why I do this is to NOT make a 20 mile long post in the thread. And it's not my fault there's so much nonsense to be responded to.

You see? I don't have time for stuff like this on top of your very long post.

Again, don't weasel out of this. Answer the question. If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.

This is the third time I ask you this question. I think you can manage a "yes" or "no". Surely it would be shorter.

Belz...
31st October 2006, 03:22 PM
John 1:1 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm)

Interesting line of thought. I'd never considered it "sound" or "the Word", but His will.

Sometimes, beign a litteralist is fun.

wollery
31st October 2006, 06:05 PM
A spaceborn bacteria with no intelligence could probably infest the entire universe in a few billion years.Sorry Belz, but, no it couldn't, not unless it found a method of ftl travel. Universal expansion precludes it.

Huntster
31st October 2006, 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Huntster
John 1:1

Interesting line of thought. I'd never considered it "sound" or "the Word", but His will.

Sometimes, beign a litteralist is fun.

Yup. Especially on this forum.

Loss Leader
31st October 2006, 07:49 PM
Sorry Belz, but, no it couldn't, not unless it found a method of ftl travel. Universal expansion precludes it.

Sorry Wollery, but I happen to know that this particular spaceborn bacteria is multifocal, having first evolved when the universe was much younger. It's spreading from a couple hundred different sites all hundreds of millions of light years away from each other. I'm not saying it will infect every aspect of the universe out as far as the first photons have traveled, but it'll get everywhere good within 4 billion years at the most.

wollery
31st October 2006, 08:28 PM
Sorry Wollery, but I happen to know that this particular spaceborn bacteria is multifocal, having first evolved when the universe was much younger. It's spreading from a couple hundred different sites all hundreds of millions of light years away from each other. I'm not saying it will infect every aspect of the universe out as far as the first photons have traveled, but it'll get everywhere good within 4 billion years at the most.:D

Solus
31st October 2006, 09:57 PM
Well I guess I'll PM Lisa Simpson (I like the name) and see if she's willing to move this thread. Should be amusing.

Belz...
1st November 2006, 04:39 AM
Sorry Belz, but, no it couldn't, not unless it found a method of ftl travel. Universal expansion precludes it.

WORMHOLES!! WORMHOLES!!!

I know, Wollery. I was just showing that intelligence isn't required, logically, for that kind of colonisation.

Belz...
1st November 2006, 04:40 AM
Well I guess I'll PM Lisa Simpson (I like the name) and see if she's willing to move this thread. Should be amusing.

Why move it ? It's clearly a religious issue, especially now that Huntser's been thrown in the mix.

wollery
1st November 2006, 06:36 AM
WORMHOLES!! WORMHOLES!!!

I know, Wollery. I was just showing that intelligence isn't required, logically, for that kind of colonisation.I know, I was really just proving a point. I hope you know which point that was! ;)

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 06:45 AM
Still going I see.:dig: What I'm wondering is why this thread is still in the religion and philosophy section.

Perhaps I should PM a mod and ask him/her to move this thread over to the abandon all hope subfourm..
If by definition, a troll is someone trying to cause trouble, and you came with the aim of derailing a thread, (or now a plan to move it) because you don't like what is being said, are you not a troll?
Since I know you have feel will, and you don't like it here, and no one is forcing you to come here, wouldn't it be easier to not come here? Why torture yourself?

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 07:17 AM
So, basically you decided that there "had" to be a god ? Or did you have actual evidence ?
Show me some actual evidence that there isn't. That would show me where to start.


Strawman, and wrong. First off, no one's saying that it's a lucky shot, as though there was only one shot at this and there was many possibilities. Maybe there could only be this one result, or maybe, and more likely, there was an infinite number of attempts, in which case SOME of them are likely to be orderly.
If maybe is your evidence, maybe can counter it.


Second, you're wrong. "Goddidit" is not simpler than a quantum fluctuation in a dimensionless singularity, because "simpler" doesn't always mean "in fewer words". The current theory may be complex, but it's both supported by evidence, and requires far less assumptions in order to work than "God". So it IS simpler, in scientific terms.
If complex is better evidence, than the complexity of the universe shows an intelligent design. And the theory is not "Goddidit" it is all the evidence that you say supports no God, viewed differently.


Excellent. Then stop accusing people of deliberatly disagreeing with you.
Fine. Then if I show where Einstein said that energy and matter were two forms of the same thing, and someone says different, they are just wrong.



"Google" isn't the web site you find with it. "Google" only finds the most popular websites for the search parameters you enter. It's just a search engine. And unless you look for web sites by professionals who know what they're talking about, you're likely to wind up with someone's made up theory about light creating life and such nons... well, you know what I mean.
Are you saying that is I google E=MC2 that somehow the most popular definition would be wrong? So you want me to add the word "professional" to my searches? Or look to see if the guy who wrote it has a PHD?


Yes. A lot of people here are knowledgeable in those fields. People like you aren't, and when they make websites that support their own made-up ideas, nothing, NOTHING can be learned from them.
especially if you don't want to.



Again, don't weasel out of this. Answer the question. If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.

This is the third time I ask you this question. I think you can manage a "yes" or "no". Surely it would be shorter.
Wow. He is using bold face. I wonder if that makes a difference. It certainly does not change what I said.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 07:22 AM
I know, I was really just proving a point. I hope you know which point that was! ;)
The point seems to be to disagree with whatever I say. Even though you said that that is not what is happenning. But believe me. I really don't mind. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.

I less than three logic
1st November 2006, 07:27 AM
The point seems to be to disagree with whatever I say. Even though you said that that is not what is happenning. But believe me. I really don't mind. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.
:dl:
He wasn't even referring to you, he was disagreeing with Belz to make his point. Suffering from a persecution complex perhaps?

wollery
1st November 2006, 08:20 AM
The point seems to be to disagree with whatever I say. Even though you said that that is not what is happenning. But believe me. I really don't mind. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.:nope:

I knew if I didn't state openly which point I was trying to prove that you'd misunderstand. Hey ho! :rolleyes:

Loss Leader
1st November 2006, 08:33 AM
Are you saying that is I google E=MC2 that somehow the most popular definition would be wrong? So you want me to add the word "professional" to my searches? Or look to see if the guy who wrote it has a PHD?

There is no "somehow" about it. The most popular definition is no more likely to be correct than the least popular definition. The popularity of a thing says nothing about its value. Think of the most popular kid in your high school and then think of yourself. Do you have less value because you were phenominally unpopular? Were the popular kid's answers on tests right just because he was more well-liked? Of course not. Popularity is entirely unrelated to truthfulness.

This source ( http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/popularity.asp) was written by Bruce Thompson, Professor of Philosophy.

By googling "e=mc2", the first page I found was from the Center for the History of Physics. It was interesting but very light on definitions. The second was to Wikipedia, a poor resource for serious scholarship because of the lack of control over the content. The third was to a NOVA site on which current physicists explain e=mc2 in lay terms. It looks good and you should spend time there (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html).

It is the fourth googled website from which I believe you got your information. That website begins by stating, "One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing." Unfortunately, this appears to be a public grade school (http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html) in Alberta, Canada. There is no information on who wrote the content about Einstein (it is attributed to the web deisgner) or what his qualifications may be. There is also no reason to believe that the information is written to satisfy anything other than a grade school education.

Your own argument really falls apart here because even the FIRST PAGE googled disagrees with the grade school page you took your information from. The Center for the History of Physics correctly states that matter and energy share a "deep connection". This is different than stating that they are the same thing. They are not and if your investigation was in any way adequate, you would already know that.

I less than three logic
1st November 2006, 08:40 AM
Your own argument really falls apart here because even the FIRST PAGE googled disagrees with the grade school page you took your information from. The Center for the History of Physics correctly states that matter and energy share a "deep connection". This is different than stating that they are the same thing. They are not and if your investigation was in any way adequate, you would already know that.
NO! You can’t use the first page! I remember a bit ago in this thread there was accusations of cherry picking and some other nonsense apparently relating entirely to how far one looked. That must be why LCL went down to the fourth page this time to get his info. :D

nescafe
1st November 2006, 09:08 AM
So, basically you decided that there "had" to be a god ? Or did you have actual evidence ?Show me some actual evidence that there isn't. That would show me where to start.
It sounds like you are asking Belz to disprove a negative (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Arbitrary.html). You are aware of the impossiblity of doing so?

I less than three logic
1st November 2006, 09:20 AM
It sounds like you are asking Belz to disprove a negative (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Arbitrary.html). You are aware of the impossiblity of doing so?
Bah, itís not impossible. All heíd need to do is know absolutely everything that does exist, and then simply point out God isnít on the list. Better get cracking Belz, I suspect thatís going to take a while. :rolleyes: :D

Belz...
1st November 2006, 09:40 AM
So, basically you decided that there "had" to be a god ? Or did you have actual evidence ?

Show me some actual evidence that there isn't. That would show me where to start.

Would you stop trying to turn things around and answer my question ? Did you think you have evidence for God's existence ? And if so, what evidence do you have ? I'm not making a claim, here, you are.

If maybe is your evidence, maybe can counter it.

Evidence ? I'm speculating. You can't tell the difference between the two, can you ?

If complex is better evidence, than the complexity of the universe shows an intelligent design.

Non sequitur, strawman, incomplete syllogism. Wow! THREE fallacies in one sentence. I think that's a record, even for you. I never said that complexity is evidence for anything. I said:

Second, you're wrong. "Goddidit" is not simpler than a quantum fluctuation in a dimensionless singularity, because "simpler" doesn't always mean "in fewer words". The current theory may be complex, but it's both supported by evidence, and requires far less assumptions in order to work than "God". So it IS simpler, in scientific terms.

I said that "simpler" in scientific terms means it uses fewer assumptions. What part of that didn't you understand ?

And the theory is not "Goddidit" it is all the evidence that you say supports no God, viewed differently.

The only "view" you have is that complexity indicates design. That is patently and demonstratably false, as many examples show.

Then stop accusing people of deliberatly disagreeing with you.

Fine. Then if I show where Einstein said that energy and matter were two forms of the same thing, and someone says different, they are just wrong.

That has no relation with what I said. You claim that you don't think we are dishonest. Stop saying that we are, then. Einstein and his false statement have nothing to do with this.

Are you saying that is I google E=MC2 that somehow the most popular definition would be wrong? So you want me to add the word "professional" to my searches? Or look to see if the guy who wrote it has a PHD?

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are, for the umpteenth time, wrong. I am saying that Google itself isn't the websites you find on it. It's just a search engine. I'm also saying that you have to filter whatever you find there. The tool can help you, but not if you don't know what you're doing.

especially if you don't want to.

Are you saying, then, that people with no knowledge or expertise in a field can actually make breakthroughs in that field by making up their conclusions ?

Wow. He is using bold face. I wonder if that makes a difference. It certainly does not change what I said.

I was using bold face so to make sure you'd see it. Sheesh.

For the fourth time, and underscored: If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.

Can you manage to answer this simple question ?

Belz...
1st November 2006, 09:44 AM
The point seems to be to disagree with whatever I say.

And here we are. I knew it wouldn't take long for you to AGAIN accuse us of debating dishonestly. Just a few posts ago you claimed you didn't think that, and yet you come back here, accusing one of doing exactly that.

This time, I'll chalk this one up as a blatant lie on your part.

Bah, it’s not impossible. All he’d need to do is know absolutely everything that does exist, and then simply point out God isn’t on the list. Better get cracking Belz, I suspect that’s going to take a while.

Unlike Light, here, I have all the time I need to accomplish this task.

I just don't want to.

bruto
1st November 2006, 10:15 AM
The point seems to be to disagree with whatever I say. Even though you said that that is not what is happenning. But believe me. I really don't mind. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.

Swords are sharpened on grindstones only when both are used correctly.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 07:05 PM
Ok, so you abandon that claim. Good good. :) I assume the same goes for divison.
I said nothing about abandoning it. Read it again.


In what way do we have the same characteristics as light?Again. Read it again. I said nothing about us having the characteristics of light. I said the two parts of light. Electrical and magnetic energy. Someone said that those two are not in light, I think he is wrong. Google does too.
The name electromagnetic radiation says that they are there. Science made up the name, and I think they know what they are talking about. Someone else says that salt has not the properties for the things that went into it. Fine. But he knows that they are there. Would it be salt without them? Would light be light without electrical and magnetic energy?

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 07:59 PM
Would you stop trying to turn things around and answer my question ? Did you think you have evidence for God's existence ? And if so, what evidence do you have ? I'm not making a claim, here, you are.
What I am trying to point out by doing that is the evidence of God can not be proven or disproven.


I never said that complexity is evidence for anything. I said:
You said that the evidence to show God does not exist is complex.


I said that "simpler" in scientific terms means it uses fewer assumptions. What part of that didn't you understand ?
You are saying that science makes assumptions? Where is that assumption cop that was after me about science making assumptions?


The only "view" you have is that complexity indicates design. That is patently and demonstratably false, as many examples show.
Sure they do. They were designed, (and are worshipped) by those who wanted that result.


That has no relation with what I said. You claim that you don't think we are dishonest. Stop saying that we are, then. Einstein and his false statement have nothing to do with this.
So you all were not being dishonest. You believe that energy and matter are not two forms of the same thing like he said? You do understand however that you are out of step with what science widely believes?


No, that's not what I'm saying. You are, for the umpteenth time, wrong. I am saying that Google itself isn't the websites you find on it. It's just a search engine. I'm also saying that you have to filter whatever you find there. The tool can help you, but not if you don't know what you're doing.
I know what google is. It is the name on the door of the house, but there are many thing in it. That is there is not all knowing, but neither are you. I see google as a third party that has taken no side here. What? You expect me to believe the opinion here because you said so?


Are you saying, then, that people with no knowledge or expertise in a field can actually make breakthroughs in that field by making up their conclusions ?
I am saying that knowledge can come from anywhere. As you are showing here-being average Joes and all.


I was using bold face so to make sure you'd see it. Sheesh.

For the fourth time, and underscored: If I kept telling you that the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, would you give me the benefit of the doubt, and would you consider my unwillingness to accept that I'm wrong reasonable ? Yes or no, please.
And now you are using lines. That is just amazing. After I told
that I was not going to answer, you somehow convinced yourself that I didn't see it. What did you say? Sheesh.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 08:18 PM
Swords are sharpened on grindstones only when both are used correctly.
You right. Time will time.

Loss Leader
1st November 2006, 08:29 PM
The name electromagnetic radiation says that they are there. Science made up the name, and I think they know what they are talking about. Someone else says that salt has not the properties for the things that went into it. Fine. But he knows that they are there. Would it be salt without them? Would light be light without electrical and magnetic energy?

Huh?

I mean it. Huh?

bruto
1st November 2006, 08:37 PM
You right. Time will time.

Yep! It's one of the things we can count on in life. Time just keeps on timing.

bruto
1st November 2006, 08:40 PM
Would it be salt without them?
Indeed, if the salt loses its savor, wherewith will it be salt?

Loss Leader
1st November 2006, 08:50 PM
I said that "simpler" in scientific terms means it uses fewer assumptions.

You are saying that science makes assumptions? Where is that assumption cop that was after me about science making assumptions?

Here I am. Belz is right and he is not being held to a different standard than you. As we have all said over and over again, scientists do make assumptions when creating a theory but then they immediately test them. If the test fails, the assumptions are questioned and new ones are made. Eventually, none of the premises of the argument are assumptions and all have been proven.

For example, astrophysicists believed gravity would create a magnifying effect on distant parts of the universe. They assumed this was true for the purpose of designing an experiment to focus long-range telescopes. Indeed, the lensing effect was observed. The assumption turned into fact.

Chemists assumed phlogiston was the thing that burned in flamable substances. They tested this by burning iron and did not observe the expected result. Thus, they abandoned the idea of phlogiston.

What Belz has correctly stated is the rule that a phenomenon that can be explained by some set of premises must not be explained by that set plus extra. Is the chair in the room because Bob brought it in or is the chair in the room because Bob brought it in by the grace of God? The first explains how the chair got into the room, so God is unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion.


So you all were not being dishonest. You believe that energy and matter are not two forms of the same thing like he said? You do understand however that you are out of step with what science widely believes?

You make the following mistakes:

1. You claim to speak for science although you berated someone else for the same thing.

2. You state that science "widely believes" something. Science does not believe or disbelieve anything; people do.

3. You get your information from the first website you can understand instead of actually researching the topic.

4. You misstate the prevailing view of scientists. Physicists do not believe that energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. They believe that energy and matter are equivalent. A McDonalds cheeseburger costs a dollar. They are equivalent. But they are not two forms of the same thing. One can convert dollars into cheeseburgers all day. However, one cannot fold up a cheeseburger and put it in one's wallet.

I know what google is. It is the name on the door of the house, but there are many thing in it. That is there is not all knowing, but neither are you. I see google as a third party that has taken no side here.

That is not what google is. Google is not a house. It is a phone book giving you a gateway to millions of houses. Some of those houses contain really smart people. Some contain idiots. Some contain liars and some contain the mentally ill. It is up to you and only you to sort out which is which.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 09:05 PM
There is no "somehow" about it. The most popular definition is no more likely to be correct than the least popular definition.
Wow! This stuff is differcult. What ever should I believe? Maybe I should just believe what is said here.

It is the fourth googled website from which I believe you got your information. That website begins by stating, "One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing." Unfortunately, this appears to be a public grade school (http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html) in Alberta, Canada. There is no information on who wrote the content about Einstein (it is attributed to the web deisgner) or what his qualifications may be. There is also no reason to believe that the information is written to satisfy anything other than a grade school education.
So students all over the world are being taught wrong? Do you think what is said above is right? If not. What is? Very briefly.
I don't want you to feel that I am making you do my research. I thought I couldn't go wrong with Einstein.

Your own argument really falls apart here because even the FIRST PAGE googled disagrees with the grade school page you took your information from. The Center for the History of Physics correctly states that matter and energy share a "deep connection". This is different than stating that they are the same thing. They are not and if your investigation was in any way adequate, you would already know that.

I thought that in that area that he was absolutely right. I thought that the equation would not be so where known if it was wrong. Now I am going to ask you to be careful. My position here is not that I am saying it. It is that he is saying it. Are you saying that you think he was wrong?
Even if I lose and you prove yourself right, or worst, I look and see that you are right, I could claim that in view of the way that science named light electromagnetic energy and it not having those things, and the words they used to define the nuclear forces, that science may not know what it is talking about. But of course I could never think that. So what I would have left is that the people on this forum is somehow wrong. You see. You might not know this, but I have been to a lot of forums and they never had any problem with the things hat is being said here, and never with Einstein.

RandFan
1st November 2006, 09:34 PM
Wow! This stuff is differcult. Yes, we know.

I less than three logic
1st November 2006, 09:41 PM
I thought that in that area that he was absolutely right. I thought that the equation would not be so where known if it was wrong.
Yep, just like Newton was absolutely rightÖ well until pesky Einstein came along. Newtonís equations were pretty well known too. :rolleyes:

trvlr2
1st November 2006, 09:43 PM
And , just to remind you that some are more" differcult "than others, here is a link to a guy who reminds me much of LCL.

/video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2897032104658524687&hl=en


:D

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 09:56 PM
Here I am. Belz is right and he is not being held to a different standard than you. As we have all said over and over again, scientists do make assumptions when creating a theory but then they immediately test them. If the test fails, the assumptions are questioned and new ones are made. Eventually, none of the premises of the argument are assumptions and all have been proven.
I am not the one that said science did not make assumptions. I knew they did. They are people. But some of those assumptions cannot be immediately tested as you just said. And because they can't, science does not immediately drop them. They can't. My graph is about a year old. I see no reason to drop it immediately either.


For example, astrophysicists believed gravity would create a magnifying effect on distant parts of the universe. They assumed this was true for the purpose of designing an experiment to focus long-range telescopes. Indeed, the lensing effect was observed. The assumption turned into fact.
How long were they assuming it?

Chemists assumed phlogiston was the thing that burned in flamable substances. They tested this by burning iron and did not observe the expected result. Thus, they abandoned the idea of phlogiston.
Long long did it take? You see? I am not doing anything that has not been, and is being done. Oh wait. Some people on the internet told me to.


What Belz has correctly stated is the rule that a phenomenon that can be explained by some set of premises must not be explained by that set plus extra. Is the chair in the room because Bob brought it in or is the chair in the room because Bob brought it in by the grace of God? The first explains how the chair got into the room, so God is unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion.
Yes. I can see you logic. You think that the example of Bob and the creation of the universe is the same. You think that something that happened before Bob, the chair, and the planet, equation to something that even the most fanatic believer would not think was likely.



You make the following mistakes:


4. You misstate the prevailing view of scientists. Physicists do not believe that energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. They believe that energy and matter are equivalent.

But not the same thing? Do you mean like man and women are equal but not the same thing?

RandFan
1st November 2006, 10:00 PM
And , just to remind you that some are more" differcult "than others, here is a link to a guy who reminds me much of LCL.

/video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2897032104658524687&hl=en


:D Thanks, great video. Though to be sure Time Cube has been brought up in this thread before. There are some resemblances.

bruto
1st November 2006, 10:16 PM
Wow! This stuff is differcult. What ever should I believe? Maybe I should just believe what is said here. I think you'd do better to go to the library, find a book about it, and learn the subject better. You would then be in a better position to know what to believe.

I thought that in that area that he was absolutely right. I thought that the equation would not be so where known if it was wrong.An equation is a statement about equivalency which may or may not imply anything about the actual being of what is being described. Context is everything. If I'm dealing with weight, for example, I could find an equation that expresses an equivalency between you and a quantity of kittens, but it does not mean that you are a kitten, or even a quantity of kittens. There is an equivalency between matter and energy, to be sure. If I burn a log, it becomes heat and ashes. I could even find an equation that would predict the amount of heat and ash for a given log. Does this mean that the log is already heat and ashes before it burns? It is, however, true that Einstein, and many others, have taken that equivalency further, and asserted that they really are different aspects of the same thing. You can take your pick of theories. Here's a page that seems to do a pretty good job of explaining it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

I am partial to the "one stuff" idea myself, as it accords nicely with the ideas of C.S. Peirce and William James, which I have always found appealing. I do not assert that it is true, only that if it were true it would be very handy. However, I must reiterate for the umpteenth time that if you subscribe to the one-stuff theory, then saying that matter owes its characteristics to energy is a meaningless statement. If it's all the same stuff, you're saying no more than "a kitten owes its kitten-ness to the fact that it's a kitten." If you assert the ontological equivalence of matter and energy, but still find it necessary to use both terms, then your task is not to make meaningless statements of how the same stuff is the same, but to figure out and to describe what makes these two aspects of the same thing different! Now I am going to ask you to be careful. My position here is not that I am saying it. It is that he is saying it. Are you saying that you think he was wrong?
Even if I lose and you prove yourself right, or worst, I look and see that you are right, I could claim that in view of the way that science named light electromagnetic energy and it not having those things, and the words they used to define the nuclear forces, that science may not know what it is talking about. Do not blame science or scientists for your misunderstanding of terms or of the manner in which vocabulary is redefined for scientific use. But of course I could never think that. So what I would have left is that the people on this forum is somehow wrong. You see. You might not know this, but I have been to a lot of forums and they never had any problem with the things hat is being said here, and never with Einstein.We cannot be responsible for other forums, now can we? Argument from popularity, especially on the web where any ratbag or nutjob can put up a site or a forum (any body here remember Iacchus? (http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/)) is a poor argument indeed.

lightcreatedlife@hom
1st November 2006, 11:39 PM
You make the following mistakes:

1. You claim to speak for science although you berated someone else for the same thing.
I don't know if you are using this consciously as a tactic, but since I am only one person and you are many it just works out that way but.. While people here are able to say whatever they want, how they want, I am jumped on. That holds me while others is not. With all the things that I have been called, someone here pointed out that I called someone a baby. Even put a little face by it.

2. You state that science "widely believes" something. Science does not believe or disbelieve anything; people do.
Come on. Look at this guy? My mistakes.

3. You get your information from the first website you can understand instead of actually researching the topic.
Like Bush said: "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you would like to have." How on Earth could I research in depth all that has been said here and keep time with the flow of 34 pages?
As I see it, despite the combined brain power of all here I am still holding my own. I think the mistake that you have made with me is saying that I have not got anything right. That is impossible. At least I really hope so.
Time will tell.

RandFan
1st November 2006, 11:54 PM
I think the mistake that you have made with me is saying that I have not got anything right. That is impossible. Why is it impossible? I don't know if it is all wrong but there certainly is nothing of significance.

At least I really hope so.Why?

Time will tell. Time is not what it is needed.