Light created Life [Archive] - Page 9

nescafe

22nd November 2006, 07:14 PM

What I am trying to get at is "if" it was intentional (and my feelings lean that way) all that is required for their to be a design, is for those things to be encoded in the interaction of those four.

There are a few problems with that aproach from the POV of the scientific method -- the first (and largest) one is that it violates the parsimony principle (also known as Ockham's Razor), which states that you should choose the simplest theory that explains all the facts and observations. A universe that was intentionally designed to have the properties ours had would necessarily be more complex than a universe that had the exact same set of properties due to sheer random chance, because you would have to include an explanation for the intentional designer.

At one level there would be this, but because of the conditions at another level, we have that. The entire process would look like the conditions giving rise to the product, and the product connected to the process. Which it would be. With the design in the forces, there would be no need for an everyday, always present, always guiding God. Yet...in a sense, there would be an invisible hand at work. Just not the one/ones that religion thinks there is.

Hmmm... let me give you my point of view

The universe is full of beauty and apparent meaning. I find beauty at virtually all levels of observation, from vast Universal panoramas (http://www.astro.uio.no/ita/nyheter/HUDF_0304/HUDF_IR_full.jpg) to the tiniest of details (http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/images/stm10.jpg) through the elegant (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Mandelpart3.jpg) explanatory (http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/%7Erahn/ca.pics/basic_rules_random/110.html) lens (http://www.iam.ubc.ca/%7Enewbury/lenses/lensdemo/demo.html) of mathematics (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/). I am driven by my curiosity to know ever more about the universe I am a part of.

Part and parcel of the knowledge that I have gained, though, is that any meaning that I find is a product of my understanding, not a feature of that which I understand. I currently attribute this to the way humans effortlessly and unconsciously model just about everything using the intentional stance.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 10:58 PM

Actually, in a sense you are here screaming truth, because you continue to defend your theory while refusing to acknowledge criticisms as meaningful, and refusing to undertake any real learning that might threaten to overturn your ideas. When you have something that is just a theory or idea, it's fatal to believe in it at the expense of reason.
It is fatal to believe in anything at the expense of reason. And I don't think I mentioned truth once. And what do you think I am avoiding because it threatens me?

Indeed, you still have to prove it, something for which you have so far shown yourself to be so unprepared that I'm not sure you even understand what would constitute proof, evidence or corroboration.
And I guess you could dream anything you want. Anything that keeps you on that cloud looking down.

If you are sincere in your current assertion that your idea is still just an unproven idea for which the evidence has not yet been gathered, then it would be appropriate to preface your website with an acknowledgement of that position.
Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I'll do that.

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 04:41 AM

What the hell? Believe it or not I am not trying to redefine tenacity. I am really looking for what I say I am.

And making sure you ignore all but exactly what you're looking for.

DNA has proven that there is such a thing as a code that can be seen under the right conditions,

NOTE: It doesn't follow that there is a "plan" to it. DNA evolution is, essentially, random.

and science knows there is a mathematical one,

Here's another unsupported assertion.

Will I? That is yet to be seen.

No, it already HAS been seen. The answer is no.

I said light created life, and it fits the description of what some have called God.

No, it doesn't. The only "evidence" you have for this is a gross misunderstanding of terms. Like "energy" and "law".

I have always said 4 forces, with light having the most to do with the life part of the equation.

But WHY do you think light is more important ?

I am not going to abandoned it because I think it is right. I am going to learn to explain it better.

And there you have it. You've just admitted that, no matter what other people say, not matter how wrong you could be, you'll never give up on your theory, even if it's completely nonsensical.

This brings me back to my cosmic brown chicken theory that you've never answered. If I had such a theory, and refused to let go of it, no matter what, what word would you use to describe me ? This is a serious question on my part.

But the teacher would not say I was comepletely wrong about everything.

No, but that wasn't the point. You're again mixing up different things. You were claiming that if you got the answer right, which you didn't except for a few details, it was all that mattered. I'm arguing that this is completely false, because a right answer without understanding why it's right is really no answer at all.

We're not talking about your graph, here, but about the various claims you've made. Some of them are, essentially, correct. The graph, however, IS completely wrong.

That implies that I even got my name wrong.

An interesting way of heaping ridicule opon one's assertions to make them less credible. No one here ever told you you were completely wrong about everything. We were talking about your theory of everything, namely your graph. I'm sure you knew this, however, seeing how dishonestly you are fond of debating here.

As I have said, I am mostly relying on what science says.

As WE have said, YOU are mostly relying on poor interpretation of what science says. And you show no intention of improving on that, whatsoever.

The 4 basics of math were taught that way, google agreed.

"Google" didn't agree. When are you going to understand that it's just a SEARCH engine ?

See? This is why I doubt. No matter what I say you have your own view. A negative one of me.

How could I possibly have a positive view of you, Light ? You lied when you said you didn't think we had an agenda, you continuously and purposely misrepresent other people's posts and you show no intention, at all, of ever learning from different views, or even considering that your entire theory might not make sense. If you're so close-minded and unreliable, how could I possibly see you in a positive light ?

Why would I trust what people like that say? But I looked elsewhere for the math thing, and they have nothing against me. Real, or imagined.

Ignorant friends and family members don't count. Asking an eight year-old how many operations there are in math is BOUND to give you the answer you want. Sometimes, the real answer is not the one you want.

True. Like the salt thing, but those two are parts of light. If not why the name electromagnetic radiation?

No, they're NOT "part" of light. Photons have no constituents, as far as we can tell.

I have. And thank you.

No, you have not understood. You're saying the exact same things you said when you started this thread. You haven't learned anything new that made any difference.

I have told you I have plotted a study course based on what was said here. I admit, to prove you wrong mostly, but I cannot, and will not ignore what I find.

You already have, because you are only looking for things that confirm your theory. That's very bad science and very bad investigation.

You pay attention. Saying it is possible for someone to be completely wrong, is not the same as me saying I am completely wrong with that graph. If I am wrong, I doubt I am completely wrong.

The point IS, Light, and please pay attention THIS time: you COULD be completely wrong about THE GRAPH.

I am glad that I don't believe that I am completely wrong, and I have learned.

Well, it's a good thing _I_ realised I was completely wrong when I started reading up about relativity.

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 04:47 AM

Oh boy. I feel 9 pages of energy coming on. I'll start. While it is plenty of things, I am using as the "the ability to cause change."

That's close to the actual definition. Proceed.

Why? You will just find another way. Like the energy thing.

Liar.

Am I saying something that is not said everywhere

I don't give a damn if someone's said it before you or not, Light. What you claim has to be demonstratable.

Others think differently, being it deals with chemistry and everything physical.

Do you think life could exist without atoms ? What do you think keeps the core together ?

The name is electromagnetic radiation, why?

Ask a physicist. I don't know. What I DO know is that light doesn't bend around magnets. Gravity doesn't affect it, either. No charge, no mass.

"Per se?" Of course you know it can be called the light spectrum as much as it can be called the electromagnetic spectrum, but for the purpose here, you are choosing not to.

"Per se" because light is, by its usual definition, visible, while much of the spectrum is NOT. It's interesting how you basically call me dishonest, again, when I put "per se" in there specifically because of two possible interpretations. I shan't make such an effort in the future if you're not good enough to spot it.

And it does not always mean that it isn't either.

Argument from ignorance, again. We're not completely sure how the universe came into beign. It doesn't mean it's the great brown chicken, but it doesn't mean that it isn't either. That last sentence of mine is completely useless, just as yours was.

What I am trying to get at is "if" it was intentional (and my feelings lean that way) all that is required for their to be a design, is for those things to be encoded in the interaction of those four.

Which "four" is that, now ?

Belz...

23rd November 2006, 04:51 AM

It is fatal to believe in anything at the expense of reason. And I don't think I mentioned truth once. And what do you think I am avoiding because it threatens me?

Everything. But perhaps you'd best go to a mathematician or physicist. Maybe you'd respect more what "science" says, then.

And I guess you could dream anything you want. Anything that keeps you on that cloud looking down.

This from bubble-boy ?

Thanks for the advice, but I don't think I'll do that.

SO, you don't want to stop sounding like you're "shouting truth" ?

Dishonest.

Canadian Malcontent

23rd November 2006, 11:24 PM

Okay, buddy ain't theoretical, science-wise, but he has a idea. Can we not put together our collective wisdom/knowledge to support his idea and then examine the yield of the same?

Canadian Malcontent

23rd November 2006, 11:27 PM

Canadian Malcontent

23rd November 2006, 11:28 PM

P.S. If we make our best effort to prove him right and fail, we can have done no better service to mankind.

wollery

24th November 2006, 12:32 AM

Did that really require 3 posts?

More to the point, have you read LCL's site, looked at his "theories", or read what he posts.

Have you actually read any of this thread. We've examined his ideas and the yield is precisely zero. There's nothing there to support.

Theories are born from hard work and observation by people who understand the science underpinning the theory. I think you meant to say hypotheses, but again these require understanding of the existing science. LCL's ideas are vague, nonsensical ramblings based on scientific misconceptions and the vagaries of the English language.

Belz...

24th November 2006, 04:27 AM

Okay, buddy ain't theoretical, science-wise, but he has a idea. Can we not put together our collective wisdom/knowledge to support his idea and then examine the yield of the same?

I appreciate that LCL may be less than the perfect debater, nevertheless, let us examine his concept 'light created life' as or in honesty. What I mean (for the slow) is try to find supporting knowledge and apply it to the concept. That's how theories are born.

If we make our best effort to prove him right and fail, we can have done no better service to mankind.

We've done exactly that. Examine his claims, which are nonsensical, and try to teach him why they're wrong and how to make scientific investigation. To no avail, I might add. Of course, having read the first few pages of this thread, you know this.

So, aside from post-whoring and pointless rhetoric, do you have anything to add ?

Loss Leader

24th November 2006, 06:12 AM

bruto

24th November 2006, 06:56 AM

I appreciate that LCL may be less than the perfect debater, nevertheless, let us examine his concept 'light created life' as or in honesty. What I mean (for the slow) is try to find supporting knowledge and apply it to the concept. That's how theories are born.

yf,
cm

Good theories that last are born in various ways, but their lives depend on their ability to resist disconfirmation and logical contradiction. It is up to the maker of the theory to find the supporting knowledge. That LCL has not is his problem. If his baby is starving it's nobody's fault but his own. It's the job of those to whom he presents it to test it, not to buoy it up.

I believe useful theories are born from careful thought and a reasonable understanding of what is already known. LCL has, alas, demonstrated over and over that he knows little and cares less what is already known, if it should threaten to contradict his theories, and has shown pretty amply that, at best, he is unable to express these theories in a way that is not nonensical; at worst, he may be unable to understand even what is the difference between sense and nonsense.

Most of LCL's theories are, in my opinion, not simply wrong, but actually nonsensical - that is, the statements lack useful meaning. They are words that cannot be used to express a useful thought. There is no practicable way to attempt to prove such ideas right, in good faith or bad, because you cannot prove something which is actually devoid of meaning.

I appreciate your broad mindedness, but before chastising others, perhaps you should try applying it yourself. Rather than whine at us, why don't you try to find supporting knowledge and apply it to the concept? Of course, you may need first to find a way to express the concept so that it is not, itself, utter nonsense. And if you cannot come up with anything but more nonsense, then it is the duty of anyone else reading the material to point that out. Don't let that discourage you though. If you really see some merit in LCL's presentation, go for it. Good luck.

Canadian Malcontent

24th November 2006, 07:48 AM

LossLeader, bruto... et al I am chastised. LCL'c 'concept' is attractive psychologically. I confess to my above posts being uhhh.... lubricated.

Yf,
CM

Belz...

24th November 2006, 09:27 AM

Attractive to those who need woo to survive. Belz... does not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 04:25 PM

And making sure you ignore all but exactly what you're looking for.
I am ignoring nothing. Everything would not fit. The overview represents the details.

NOTE: It doesn't follow that there is a "plan" to it.
It doesn't hurt there being one either.

DNA evolution is, essentially, random.
Random from one view, or another. But in view of the planet evolving to support life, and life having a code, there is reason to hope, and reasonably think.

No, it already HAS been seen. The answer is no.
I am going to look a little further if you don't mind.

No, it doesn't. The only "evidence" you have for this is a gross misunderstanding of terms. Like "energy" and "law".
I used them as they are used.

But WHY do you think light is more important ?
While everything is important, sometimes something is more important. Granted, most often from a particular view.

And there you have it. You've just admitted that, no matter what other people say, not matter how wrong you could be, you'll never give up on your theory, even if it's completely nonsensical.
It has not been shown to be nonsensical-to me. Even is life had no soul, I would still look for what affect energy did have. Life is a product of the conditions for life. I see reason in thinking that the behavior of life is tied to the energy that makes it up. If I am wrong in holding this candle it hurts nobody but me, but new ideas need someone to stand by them no matter what the current thinking is. I think there are examples in history that support that.

No, but that wasn't the point. You're again mixing up different things. You were claiming that if you got the answer right, which you didn't except for a few details, it was all that mattered. I'm arguing that this is completely false, because a right answer without understanding why it's right is really no answer at all.
Says you. Hit the lottery and tell me that you can't accept it because you only guessed.

We're not talking about your graph, here, but about the various claims you've made. Some of them are, essentially, correct. The graph, however, IS completely wrong.
The graph reflects what I am saying.

An interesting way of heaping ridicule opon one's assertions to make them less credible. No one here ever told you you were completely wrong about everything. We were talking about your theory of everything, namely your graph. I'm sure you knew this, however, seeing how dishonestly you are fond of debating here.
Come on. I have heard that. And dishonest I am not.

As WE have said, YOU are mostly relying on poor interpretation of what science says.
I think they are essentially correct, but I will look into it. We'll see.

And you show no intention of improving on that, whatsoever.
So when I keep telling you that I am using this experience as a study path you think I am being dishonest?

"Google" didn't agree. When are you going to understand that it's just a SEARCH engine ?
Give it a rest already. I used that as a sort of shorthand. To get anywhere that way "Google" is the first step. You know, "math says" "science says" "you all" etc...

How could I possibly have a positive view of you, Light ? You lied when you said you didn't think we had an agenda, you continuously and purposely misrepresent other people's posts and you show no intention, at all, of ever learning from different views, or even considering that your entire theory might not make sense. If you're so close-minded and unreliable, how could I possibly see you in a positive light ?
I think I have addressed everything you said here, later said I do not believe you to have an agenda. You seem to want to keep that view of me. Are you being dishonest?

Ignorant friends and family members don't count. Asking an eight year-old how many operations there are in math is BOUND to give you the answer you want. Sometimes, the real answer is not the one you want.
Someone asked me to provide that information. Thought I was hiding something if I didn't. They are not ignorant because we believe humans to be the most advanced form of life on the planet. It is backed by a lot of evidenced. But like the thing about light being more important to life, it is hard to separate any one thing, or lifeform form and say that.

No, they're NOT "part" of light. Photons have no constituents, as far as we can tell.
So electromagnetic radiation was choosen at random?

No, you have not understood. You're saying the exact same things you said when you started this thread. You haven't learned anything new that made any difference.
That happens sometimes. Though I have learned some.

You already have, because you are only looking for things that confirm your theory. That's very bad science and very bad investigation.
Just because one believes in something does not mean that they will ignore what they find.

The point IS, Light, and please pay attention THIS time: you COULD be completely wrong about THE GRAPH.
It could be completely wrong. It has also been said to be untestable.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 05:46 PM

That's close to the actual definition. Proceed.

Liar.
I was giving you the same tone you give me. "That's close to a..."" You said I probably couldn't, but even if I do its.... "close." But its okay. Your approval is not ranked all that high here. As I said. This is a study path and I hope you know what you are talking about.

I don't give a damn if someone's said it before you or not, Light. What you claim has to be demonstratable.
Or it is completely false, right?

Do you think life could exist without atoms ? What do you think keeps the core together ?
They are all important but...

Ask a physicist. I don't know.
So you do not know if light is electromagnetic radiation?
What I DO know is that light doesn't bend around magnets. Gravity doesn't affect it, either. No charge, no mass.
So what. Remember the salt being made up of toxic things but harmless as salt thing? That does not always matter.

"Per se" because light is, by its usual definition, visible, while much of the spectrum is NOT. It's interesting how you basically call me dishonest, again, when I put "per se" in there specifically because of two possible interpretations. I shan't make such an effort in the future if you're not good enough to spot it.
You were staying the obvious. And I have already said that I understood what you just wasted time saying.

Which "four" is that, now ?
Right. Actually it would only have to be encoded in the one that would become four.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 06:00 PM

Everything. But perhaps you'd best go to a mathematician or physicist. Maybe you'd respect more what "science" says, then.
I respect them, and you...mostly. But your views are not written across the cup of truth either.

SO, you don't want to stop sounding like you're "shouting truth" ?
I am exercising my right to say what I believe. I am paying for that site.

Dishonest.
You have accused me of avoiding information that threatened my view so I ask you: why is light called electromagnetic?

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 06:16 PM

Good theories that last are born in various ways, but their lives depend on their ability to resist disconfirmation and logical contradiction. It is up to the maker of the theory to find the supporting knowledge. That LCL has not is his problem. If his baby is starving it's nobody's fault but his own. It's the job of those to whom he presents it to test it, not to buoy it up.
You are right. It is my burden to prove it and I grateful for the test. Believe it or not I am learning, something that can happen from a good or a bad opinion.

I believe useful theories are born from careful thought and a reasonable understanding of what is already known. LCL has, alas, demonstrated over and over that he knows little and cares less what is already known, if it should threaten to contradict his theories, and has shown pretty amply that, at best, he is unable to express these theories in a way that is not nonensical; at worst, he may be unable to understand even what is the difference between sense and nonsense.
Our view of what is nonsense is relative, but I have said nothing that is that far off.

Most of LCL's theories are, in my opinion, not simply wrong, but actually nonsensical - that is, the statements lack useful meaning. They are words that cannot be used to express a useful thought. There is no practicable way to attempt to prove such ideas right, in good faith or bad, because you cannot prove something which is actually devoid of meaning.
You have a right to your opinion, but even if something cannot be proven right, can't it still be thought about? Afterall, as science continues to march, what can't be done now means nothing.

Loss Leader

24th November 2006, 07:48 PM

You have a right to your opinion, but even if something cannot be proven right, can't it still be thought about? Afterall, as science continues to march, what can't be done now means nothing.

He wasn't saying that we don't currently have the technology to test your ideas, he was saying that your ideas actually have no meaning whatsoever. There is nothing to test or to think about and innovations in the future will not change that. Your ideas are, at their very core, so bereft of logic or consistency that they are no different than random words. They are complete nonsense just like snow on a TV screen or the output of a cat walking across a keyboard.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 08:35 PM

He wasn't saying that we don't currently have the technology to test your ideas,
Wow. You do know everything. All that will ever be invented exists already. I was thinking of a device that could ID the energy signiture of an individual mind and since it is only located in the head, it may detect it leaving the body intact. That would change things. So will a lot of things yet to come.
Do you remember someone here saying that religion started the ball rolling in the direction of physics by recognizing that there was an invisible facet to life? Just that science advanced and they didn't? There is still a chance that they were right about there being a spirit and a soul. I have already pointed out that their description of God fits that of energy, that the invisible world of energy all around fits their description of a spirit world. In a way.The site provides how I think that with just that little push of their being a spirit would lead to that eternal life thing that they also have been talking about since they were able to think. You might think them crazy to believe what can't be proven, but I think the verdict is still out.
.

he was saying that your ideas actually have no meaning whatsoever.
Now of course these things are nonsense to you, but there is a large part of the world where that kind of stuff is welcomed, and it is useful. Remember, there is more to life than science, and labeling everyone who thinks something else as crazy is as useful as explaining things with simply "God did it."

There is nothing to test or to think about and innovations in the future will not change that. Your ideas are, at their very core, so bereft of logic or consistency that they are no different than random words. They are complete nonsense just like snow on a TV screen or the output of a cat walking across a keyboard.
Damn. You can't get more worthless than that. I hope you don't mind if I go on as if what you just said is just as worthless.

Loss Leader

24th November 2006, 08:48 PM

Now of course these things are nonsense to you, but there is a large part of the world where that kind of stuff is welcomed, and it is useful.

Please explain how any of your ideas are useful.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 08:52 PM

In a half-gazillion pages, we can't find anything that can even be tested. LCL says that humans behave according to the properties of light (or electromagnetism, he gets them confused), but when we point out a manner in which humans don't behave that way, he says that humans are more evolved and have more choice.
Are you saying you proved that life has no connection to the influence of energy? That humans do not use reason to resist/overcome feelings?

And everything in life cannot be tested, but that does not mean that they are not there. While it may, it may also mean that it can't be tested yet.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 09:09 PM

Please explain how any of your ideas are useful.
knowing life goes on could help people who think it has no meaning.
That the physical life involves our creation and our first baby steps. That there is a lot more to come if spirit is eternal.
It may cause some to do more long range planning sense the person they make themselves may forever be.
Knowing that you may meet again those you tortured and killed may cause some to think twice.
People may take life lessons more seriously-thinking their might be a test.
Religion would have a connection to science.
Life is part of a plan.
And I am sure there are more-I hope.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 09:14 PM

P.S. If we make our best effort to prove him right and fail, we can have done no better service to mankind.
Thanks for the thought anyway.

Loss Leader

24th November 2006, 09:15 PM

Are you saying you proved that life has no connection to the influence of energy? That humans do not use reason to resist/overcome feelings?

I am saying that you have built a philosophy that cannot be disproven because you keep changing the rules. This is your argument:

1. The behavior of humans parallels that of the behavior of energy.
2. When it does not, it is because humans are more evolved than energy.

So you tell us that the way people drive to work is like energy flowing in a circuit, as per statement 1. When someone states that a human does not have to go to work but can choose to stay home whereas an electron has no choice but to flow in a circuit, you state that humans are more evolved, as per statement 2.

Between statement 1 and 2, you have covered all possible human actions. So, how is anyone to know whether to expect humans to behave like energy as per statement 1 or to be more evolved as per statement 2? You have provided no guidelines. We cannot even test your theory because any test of 1 might be invalidated by 2. Are humans attracted to their opposites like magnets? You answered that very question by saying Yes in some cases (statement 1) but No in others (statement 2).

There being no way to actually make predictions about human behavior so long as you insist on both statements 1 and 2, there is no usefulness at all to anything you say. It is as meaningless as the colors on a broken traffic light. It provides zero information.

lightcreatedlife@hom

24th November 2006, 09:29 PM

I am saying that you have built a philosophy that cannot be disproven because you keep changing the rules. This is your argument:

1. The behavior of humans parallels that of the behavior of energy.
2. When it does not, it is because humans are more evolved than energy.

So you tell us that the way people drive to work is like energy flowing in a circuit, as per statement 1. When someone states that a human does not have to go to work but can choose to stay home whereas an electron has no choice but to flow in a circuit, you state that humans are more evolved, as per statement 2.

Between statement 1 and 2, you have covered all possible human actions. So, how is anyone to know whether to expect humans to behave like energy as per statement 1 or to be more evolved as per statement 2? You have provided no guidelines. We cannot even test your theory because any test of 1 might be invalidated by 2. Are humans attracted to their opposites like magnets? You answered that very question by saying Yes in some cases (statement 1) but No in others (statement 2).

There being no way to actually make predictions about human behavior so long as you insist on both statements 1 and 2, there is no usefulness at all to anything you say. It is as meaningless as the colors on a broken traffic light. It provides zero information.
You are kidding right? Where does "based on" and "parallel" mean the same? No brain? No choice. A little brain? More choice. Most developed brain....
And I know that you must have come across knowing that animals act when their instincts/hormones/whatever kicks in, but humans have more control over themselves-mostly. Something that has to do with reason, and what they know would happen to them if they get caught.

wollery

25th November 2006, 02:50 AM

Ask a physicist. I don't know. What I DO know is that light doesn't bend around magnets. Gravity doesn't affect it, either. No charge, no mass.Sorry Belz, gravity does affect EM radiation. Gravity is effectively a warping of spacetime, and photons follow a geodesic path, so any warp in spacetime alters their apparent direction of motion.

You might want to look up gravitational lensing and Einstein rings & crosses.

ETA, of course, neither electricity nor magnetism affect EM radiation, as I've pointed out to LCL several times. :rolleyes:

Loss Leader

25th November 2006, 05:45 AM

You are kidding right?

No, I am not kidding. You have built a philosophy that cannot be disproven by its very terms. It is exactly the same as the following:

1. Between me and my brother, we know everything there is to know about baseball.

2. Everything you need to know is in the Bible because everything in the Bible is right and anything not in the Bible is blasphemy.

3. Humans act like light except when they don't.

If humans behave like light but with more choice, why did they develop more choice? If light wanted to manifest itself as a living being, then why would the living being ever behave in any way that is unlike light? What is it that we are evolving into? I thought your whole bacteria to human discussion was to show that we were evolving to be more like light. Now, you say that we are evolving the ability to choose to be less like light. Which is it?

bruto

25th November 2006, 06:13 AM

You are kidding right? Where does "based on" and "parallel" mean the same? No brain? No choice. A little brain? More choice. Most developed brain....
And I know that you must have come across knowing that animals act when their instincts/hormones/whatever kicks in, but humans have more control over themselves-mostly. Something that has to do with reason, and what they know would happen to them if they get caught.

No kidding, LCL. To begin with, you cannot explain in intelligible terms what you even mean by behavior based on energy, except with regard to nonsensical ideas about arithmetic and the like. When it comes down to it, all you end up saying is that stuff behaves like stuff: that physical things obey physical laws. That is not news. Nor can you explain why "instinct" has any basis or parallel or correspondence worth noting to the supposed organization and patterns of energy that you have presumed. From the start you've been working backwards, seeing parallels in the behavior of physical objects that mirror your observations of human behavior, but doing that does not in any way demonstrate that the human behavior is based on the appearance of order you have chosen for the physical world. As usual, I believe you're mistaking metaphor for substance, and when it doesn't work consistently you fall into the common trap of equivocating, shifting the definition as you go to accommodate the failure of the original idea.

zizzybaluba

25th November 2006, 11:01 AM

knowing life goes on could help people who think it has no meaning.
That makes you a charlatan trying to dish out false hope.
That the physical life involves our creation and our first baby steps. That there is a lot more to come if spirit is eternal.
It may cause some to do more long range planning sense the person they make themselves may forever be.
Knowing that you may meet again those you tortured and killed may cause some to think twice.

So you think people need an afterlife for morality? That's narrow minded.

People may take life lessons more seriously-thinking their might be a test.

People may take life itself more seriously knowing they only get one shot.

Religion would have a connection to science.
Life is part of a plan.
And I am sure there are more-I hope.
Nonsense. Pure and utter NONSENSE.

Canadian Malcontent

26th November 2006, 10:46 AM

Good Afternoon!

This may viewed by many as my first non-ridiculous :xtongue contribution here.

"What they are finding is an astonishingly delicate interplay of proteins and water molecules, orchestrated by those all-important hydrogen bonds. In january, Florian Garczarek and Klaus Gerwert at the department of biophysics at the Ruhr University of Bochum, Germany, reported on the role water molecules play play in aprotein called bacteriorhodopsin, which is found in the outer walls of primitive life forms (Nature, vol 439, p 109).
Bacteriorhodopsin undergoes a simple form of photosynthesis, using light to create asource of chemical energy. Researchers have long suspected that this process relies on the incoming light shifting protons around the molecule, creating acharge difference thatacts rather like a battery. An obvious source of protons is the hydrogen nuclei of the water trapped within the proteins structure, but no one had shown how this could work.
Enter Garczarek and Gerwert. They exposed bacteriorhopsodin to infrared light, and found that the behaviour of the water molecules trapped within it was far from that of idle captives. Once struck by photons of light, the shape of the protein changed, breaking some of the hydrogen bonds betwen the trapped water molecules. The pair found that this triggered a chain of events in which fragments of some water molecules and clusters of others interacted to move protons through the protein.
This sophisticated process is all made possible by the quantum behaviour of the hydrogen bonds in water."Having bonds that can easily be formed but are not to difficult to break is a big advantage," says Garczarek. The results suggest that it is no accident that chains of amino acids trap water molecules as fold up to form a protein.
Hydrogen bonds are also turning out to have a profound role in the functioning of that other key constituent of life, DNA. As with proteins, new findings suggest it is time for a rethink of the familiar thumbnail sketch of DNA as a double helix of four chemical bases."

New Scientist (magazine) April 8-14, 2006. article 'The quantum elixir' by Robert Matthews excerpt from p34 and 36.
New Scientist volume 190 No 2546

Any who request will recieve the entire article, scanned and added to a pm.

LCL I reccomend it for you and suggest that a close study of the material will allow you some real argument in support of your idea that 'Light Created Life'.
I do not suggest that I support LCL's argument on any more than philosophical grounds but only that LCL may find something of recognizable substance to others in the thread, however small, with which to further or support his argument.
Again I would like to thank all of you, my participation here has been most useful to me as a diversion and as exercise. I have had thoughts, expressed them, in writing no less!

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

wollery

26th November 2006, 05:11 PM

Canadian Malcontent, I'm afraid that you seem to have utterly missed the point. LCL isn't saying that light played an important role in the formation and development of life here on Earth. He's saying that EM radiation is responsible for all life, anywhere in the Universe, that we have eternal souls, composed of EM radiation, which pass out into the Universe when our bodies die, and that EM radiation, along with Gravity and the strong & weak nuclear forces, runs the Universe in an anthropomorphic sense of the word 'run'.

I doubt there's anyone who has participated in this thread who would disagree that light is fundamental to most life on Earth (although not all) and may have played a fundamental role in it's formation and development, but that's several megaparsecs from LCL's claims.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 06:08 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 06:16 AM

I doubt there's anyone who has participated in this thread who would disagree that light is fundamental to most life on Earth (although not all) and may have played a fundamental role in it's formation and development, but that's several megaparsecs from LCL's claims.
That sounds a lot like what I have been saying. I would add that through the characteristics of the two componenets that make it up, that it also provides us with what fits the definition of a soul, and that it is likely to play the same role throughout the rest of the universe.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 06:33 AM

That makes you a charlatan trying to dish out false hope.
Wow. A new name. The hope has not been proven to be false, and it would be there in many with or without me.

So you think people need an afterlife for morality? That's narrow minded.
Says you. Narrow minded? I am working on a universal view, think that there may be something to what religion has been saying, that science and religion has to be connected somewhere, somewhere along the lines where they are in battle. Narrow minded? I think that is you.

People may take life itself more seriously knowing they only get one shot.
They do only get one shot-here.

Nonsense. Pure and utter NONSENSE.
Says you. lucky for me. Even with all your knowledge, and that of your brain trust, you can still be wrong. I have found nothing here that says that I should not continue in the direction that I am heading and I have been provided some very good insight.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 06:49 AM

No kidding, LCL. To begin with, you cannot explain in intelligible terms what you even mean by behavior based on energy, except with regard to nonsensical ideas about arithmetic and the like. When it comes down to it, all you end up saying is that stuff behaves like stuff: that physical things obey physical laws. That is not news. Nor can you explain why "instinct" has any basis or parallel or correspondence worth noting to the supposed organization and patterns of energy that you have presumed.
Stuff do behave like stuff. But you are right. I do though have indicators pointing in the right direction. Now I have to make the trip.

From the start you've been working backwards, seeing parallels in the behavior of physical objects that mirror your observations of human behavior, but doing that does not in any way demonstrate that the human behavior is based on the appearance of order you have chosen for the physical world.
Life is linked to the conditions for life, if not in the way I think/said than another. I will find out.

As usual, I believe you're mistaking metaphor for substance, and when it doesn't work consistently you fall into the common trap of equivocating, shifting the definition as you go to accommodate the failure of the original idea.
I have seen some definitions that were right, slide away from what I was saying, when it was determined that that is what I was saying. They became "not really" "not the way you mean." I have even seen agreement turn to disagreement due to lack of reference even though the person knew it was right. "Hey. guessing don't count" even though I was not guessing. I think that reasoning was, "if it is right, he must be guessing."

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 07:02 AM

For the love of pete, YES, you have to prove SOMETHING right now! If you can't prove even one smidgon of your "theory", if you can't provide proof for even one stepping stone of an idea you've used to come to your conclusion, then what makes you think any of it is worthwhile?
Because I think it is plain to see that life is part of a plan, and plans have planners. Even if it is not readily identified. We don't have all knowledge, and more knowledge will make the picture clearer.

Your ideas are WORTHLESS. You are wasting time contemplating nonsense! Can't you think of some better use of your time?
I in no way think my idea is worthless and my time here has been well spent.

Why not read a science book, a math book, hell-- some body of knowlege that actually might improve your understanding of the universe?I know. I will do both.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 07:30 AM

No, I am not kidding. You have built a philosophy that cannot be disproven by its very terms. It is exactly the same as the following:

If humans behave like light but with more choice, why did they develop more choice?
The capacity for more choice to me is the very thing needed to built something capable of dealing with more choices. For instance human children are born helpless and need years of training to properly prepare them for the world. A less developed world, less training, more developed, more training. Within the child, the ability for more allows him to deal with more.

If light wanted to manifest itself as a living being, then why would the living being ever behave in any way that is unlike light?
Light has two main components (it is in the name electromagnetic) split, one gender only got part, but has to physically interact with the other part. Something that is sure to provide choice/drama to the tale. The physical/mental/emotional drama provides for a good learning experience.

What is it that we are evolving into? I thought your whole bacteria to human discussion was to show that we were evolving to be more like light.
Evolving into very intelligent beings capable of putting together their own world is the goal, not trying to be like light. That is something that would happen when they die. When they become energy. Light in, light out. A modified type, but light.

Now, you say that we are evolving the ability to choose to be less like light. Which is it?
Life evolves into beings with more and more choice. Choices that can override instincts. Instincts based on the dictates of the energy that makes them up.

zizzybaluba

27th November 2006, 08:02 AM

Wow. A new name. The hope has not been proven to be false, and it would be there in many with or without me.

It is not up to me to prove your hope false. It is up to you to prove it true. You are arguing from ignorance (a logical fallacy) otherwise.

Says you. Narrow minded? I am working on a universal view, think that there may be something to what religion has been saying, that science and religion has to be connected somewhere, somewhere along the lines where they are in battle. Narrow minded? I think that is you.

No, not "says me". Says the evidence.

They do only get one shot-here.

There is one shot, period. If you are going to argue otherwise, you must present concrete evidence from falsifiable and repeatable experiments.

bolding mine:

Says you. lucky for me. Even with all your knowledge, and that of your brain trust, you can still be wrong. I have found nothing here that says that I should not continue in the direction that I am heading and I have been provided some very good insight.
Then you are blind.

Loss Leader

27th November 2006, 08:21 AM

Life evolves into beings with more and more choice. Choices that can override instincts. Instincts based on the dictates of the energy that makes them up.

Once again, you admit that your philosophy gives us no useful information whatsoever. We cannot study light to predict how humans will behave and we cannot study human behavior to learn more about light because humans can choose not to behave like light.

Since you are generating no useful information, you should stop. I'm pretty sure you'd have a better chance of improving society by picking up garbage along the side of the road.

zizzybaluba

27th November 2006, 08:27 AM

Since you are generating no useful information, you should stop. I'm pretty sure you'd have a better chance of improving society by picking up garbage along the side of the road.

I agree completely.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 09:20 AM

I am ignoring nothing. Everything would not fit.

It's a theory of EVERYTHING. Everything MUST fit.

It doesn't hurt there being one either.

Irrelevant: It doesn't follow that there is a "plan" to it. It wouldn't hurt one way or another.

Random from one view, or another. But in view of the planet evolving to support life, and life having a code, there is reason to hope, and reasonably think.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What the hell do you mean ?

I am going to look a little further if you don't mind.

I don't mind, I just doubt that you will.

I used them as they are used.

No, you didn't. I just said that. Don't tell me you haven't read my sentence. I said: "The only "evidence" you have for this is a gross misunderstanding of terms. Like "energy" and "law"."

What part of "misunderstanding" didn't you get ?

While everything is important, sometimes something is more important. Granted, most often from a particular view.

That's a non-answer. WHY is light more important than the other forces ?

It has not been shown to be nonsensical-to me.

Yes it has:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

If I am wrong in holding this candle it hurts nobody but me, but new ideas need someone to stand by them no matter what the current thinking is. I think there are examples in history that support that.

No, you're wrong again. People who defend theories against common misconceptions don't ignore evidence and logic. Otherwise they'd be defending a useless theory all their lives and it would never gain recognition. "Standing by" your theory doesn't do squat if you can't prove it.

Says you. Hit the lottery and tell me that you can't accept it because you only guessed.

False equivocation. Winning the lottery isn't an answer to a question. It's an event.

The graph reflects what I am saying.

Is this supposed to counter my point ? Your graph is WRONG. That fits pretty well with the fact that you are, as well.

Come on. I have heard that. And dishonest I am not.

Liar. You said you didn't think we had an agenda, several times, and THEN proceeded to accuse every single one of us of having one. That's lying.

So when I keep telling you that I am using this experience as a study path you think I am being dishonest?

Yes, because so far you have not shown any ability to learn beyond googling sites that already agree with you and stopping there.

Give it a rest already. I used that as a sort of shorthand. To get anywhere that way "Google" is the first step. You know, "math says" "science says" "you all" etc...

Normally I wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately your contention that "google" is an "unbiased third party" certainly doesn't show that you can differentiate between the search engine and the oft-biased websites it finds for you.

They are not ignorant because we believe humans to be the most advanced form of life on the planet. It is backed by a lot of evidenced.

"Advanced", as in "technologically", yes, as I've said more than once. "Advanced" as in "more evolved", no. Because "more evolved" is kind of an oxymoron.

So electromagnetic radiation was choosen at random?

It's the mediator. Do you agree that photons have NO charge, NO mass and NO electric component ?

Just because one believes in something does not mean that they will ignore what they find.

No, but confirmation bias is a very powerful force in the human mind. This is why they have double-blind tests for new pills and such; you can't trust someone to be honest with himself when doing science.

It could be completely wrong.

Thank you. It only took 51 pages to get you to at least consider the possibility.

It has also been said to be untestable.

Which is, itself, a very bad thing. If you cannot imagine how something could be tested and proven wrong, chances are it already IS wrong. When something is imprevious to inquiry and logic, it cannot be proven right, either.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 09:29 AM

Your approval is not ranked all that high here.

I don't give a rat's behind about other people's opinions. This isn't a popularity contest.

As I said. This is a study path and I hope you know what you are talking about.

Mostly. When I don't, I educate myself. Staying in my own, self-made reality doesn't help me.

They are all important but...

But what ? No atoms, no life. Period.

So you do not know if light is electromagnetic radiation?

It is.

So what. Remember the salt being made up of toxic things but harmless as salt thing? That does not always matter.

Well at least you got the salt analogy.

Unfortunately you're applying it wrong. Photons aren't composed of anything else, so far as we can tell. So they aren't made up of electric and magnetic constituents. Your analogy fails.

I respect them, and you...mostly. But your views are not written across the cup of truth either.

Irrelevant. Ask a physicist and see what you get.

I am exercising my right to say what I believe. I am paying for that site.

All the more reason to make truthful statements instead of errors or lies, yes ?

why is light called electromagnetic?

It isn't. It's radiation. It, itself, is neither magnetic nor electric. Please read up.

Our view of what is nonsense is relative

Not necessarily. "How blue is this sound ?" is a nonsensical question.

You do know everything. All that will ever be invented exists already.

Idiotic. Loss wasn't saying that technology was a limitation. Quite the opposite. If technology ISN'T AN ISSUE, then it doesn't matter WHAT level of technology we have. Your graph is nonsensical. Therefore it CANNOT be tested, ever.

"How blue is this sound ?" can never have an answer, no matter how long you think about it.

Now of course these things are nonsense to you, but there is a large part of the world where that kind of stuff is welcomed, and it is useful.

Ah, I was wondering when the argument from popularity would return.

Are you saying you proved that life has no connection to the influence of energy? That humans do not use reason to resist/overcome feelings?

Whether the answer is yes or no, it doesn't help your theory one bit.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 09:30 AM

Sorry Belz, gravity does affect EM radiation. Gravity is effectively a warping of spacetime, and photons follow a geodesic path, so any warp in spacetime alters their apparent direction of motion.

You might want to look up gravitational lensing and Einstein rings & crosses.

The particle itself does not change course due to the presence of the mass, unlike other bodies, yes ? It just follows space-time as it should. I do believe my statement stands.

Belz...

27th November 2006, 09:37 AM

knowing life goes on could help people who think it has no meaning.

It has meaning, Light. No objective meaning, mind you.

That the physical life involves our creation and our first baby steps. That there is a lot more to come if spirit is eternal.

What is that ? Argument from comfort ?

Knowing that you may meet again those you tortured and killed may cause some to think twice.

Morality doesn't stem from threat.

I hope

Yes, indeed.

Because I think it is plain to see that life is part of a plan

Please show this. I don't see it as plain, at all.

Light has two main components

You might want to put statements like this on hold until you find out whether you're wrong or not about it.

Evolving into very intelligent beings capable of putting together their own world is the goal, not trying to be like light.

That's a very good reason why scientists actually try to prove their theories rather than making it up as they go. Otherwise they'd end up with sentences like the above.

That is something that would happen when they die. When they become energy. Light in, light out. A modified type, but light.

Or that one, too.

zizzybaluba

27th November 2006, 11:27 AM

knowing life goes on could help people who think it has no meaning.

I've been thinking a lot about this "statement" over the last day; and I find it terribly sad. Why do you need to look for fanciful and supernatural cause for a raison'd'tre, when the scientific discoveries of the real world give more than adequate cause?

What a wonderfully lucky time it is to be alive!
Here we are, in 2006, a time when we can have open discussions with other people around the globe in real time; communication far beyond the limits of the imaginations of Gutenberg, Morse, or Bell.
Its been less than 200 years since the first permanent photographs were taken.
It has been only less than 120 years since the discovery that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source or receiver.
The Wright brother's made their first flight only a little over a hundred years ago, paving the way for aviation to become part of everyday life.
Microprocessors have only been available for less than 50 years, and continue to increase in performance over time.
The first humans set foot on the moon, observed by man since before the dawn of history, less than 40 years ago.
Work continues on sequencing the human genome.

If all this has happened as a result of scientific discovery and rational investigation over such a short period of time, one can only wonder at what marvels will come in the next 100, 50, or even 10 years! But one thing is certain, whatever new inventions are discovered, whatever new mysteries of the universe are solved, it won't come about by guessing and wishing.

LCL, please, I beg of you: take a long look at what you hope to accomplish and how you intend to do it. Do you have any rational hope of success? I'm asking rhetorically-- no, you don't. If you really want to give hope to the hopeless, why don't you go volunteer at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? There are so many ways in which you could satisfy your need to give meaning to peoples lives without resorting to nonsensical graphs and fictitious ideas.

Go help someone, and maybe you'll find that the person you help the most-- is you.

Loss Leader

27th November 2006, 12:01 PM

Go help someone, and maybe you'll find that the person you help the most-- is you.

"And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!"

zizzybaluba

27th November 2006, 12:04 PM

"And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God Bless Us, Every One!"

I can't tell if being compared to Tiny Tim is a complement or an insult. :o

And for some reason, now I can't get "Tiptoe through the tulips" out of my head...

wollery

27th November 2006, 06:00 PM

I can't tell if being compared to Tiny Tim is a complement or an insult. :o [Pedantic spelling Police]

Complement to what?

[/Pedantic spelling Police]

zizzybaluba

27th November 2006, 06:56 PM

[Pedantic spelling Police]

Complement to what?

[/Pedantic spelling Police]

Urgh... stupid homophones :p

bruto

27th November 2006, 07:16 PM

Light has two main components (it is in the name electromagnetic) split, one gender only got part, but has to physically interact with the other part. Baloney. There is not one iota of evidence or science to back up any contention that the different sexes are differently endowed with anything to do with electromagnetic energy. You have yet to provide anything to back this up except for utter nonsense.

Evolving into very intelligent beings capable of putting together their own world is the goal, not trying to be like light. That is something that would happen when they die. When they become energy. Light in, light out. A modified type, but light. In what manner do we become energy when we die? Please explain it in scientific terms.

Life evolves into beings with more and more choice. Choices that can override instincts. Instincts based on the dictates of the energy that makes them up.If you can provide one tiny jot, tittle, iota, crumb or atom of useful evidence which can corroborate the statement that instincts are "based on the dictates of the energy that makes them up," or even, for that matter, that can endow that statement with actual, intelligible meaning, please do so.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 10:08 PM

Baloney. There is not one iota of evidence or science to back up any contention that the different sexes are differently endowed with anything to do with electromagnetic energy
Not yet. Perhaps I am making the first claim in that direction-though I doubt it. When something is new those things are not yet readily at hand. They have to be hashed out. I am thinking that life has to be tied to those things because the conditions for life are tied to them. That if they were connected to the genders that it would complete the picture. And I have already pointed out what some have said are analogies that point in that direction. Suppose some of those analogies are more than just coincidence?

You have yet to provide anything to back this up except for utter nonsense.
I am working on it.

In what manner do we become energy when we die? Please explain it in scientific terms.
The energy that makes up the mind is already who we essentially are, all it has to do is stay together once the body dies.

If you can provide one tiny jot, tittle, iota, crumb or atom of useful evidence which can corroborate the statement that instincts are "based on the dictates of the energy that makes them up," or even, for that matter, that can endow that statement with actual, intelligible meaning, please do so.
I guess I can try. Would you call eating an instinct? I know that the different ways that life goes about getting food are. Their body shape seems to most involve a particular way of getting food/energy.`Anyway. When the need hits, life acts. It has to act. Eating is a way of getting energy due to the dicates of the energy that makes up the lifeform.
I think a person is speaking for the entire body which if it could talk may say "without energy, we die. Get us some energy."
Sex is another (I think) energy based act. It exercises the body, (probably has a role in its health) and is responsible for producing another form of energy through another form of life.
I think that everything in the universe does what it does because of energy, I know I have to learn the specifics, but I already know they are there.

wollery

27th November 2006, 10:54 PM

Not yet. Perhaps I am making the first claim in that direction-though I doubt it. When something is new those things are not yet readily at hand. They have to be hashed out.If you're trying to compare what you're doing to science then I have to point out (yet again) that new scientific hypotheses make predictions about what could be observed if they were correct, and what could be observed if the they were incorrect. You support your ideas with poor analogies, misinterpretations of simplified science and illogical arguments.

I am thinking that life has to be tied to those things because the conditions for life are tied to them.Life as we know it is tied to them. If they were any different then we wouldn't be here. Something else might be here asking very similar questions. That doesn't mean that your ideas have any merit or that there's any design. It's called the anthropic principle, you should look it up.

That if they were connected to the genders that it would complete the picture.What picture? Exchange of DNA is an evolutionary advantage, it allows for better adaption, and having two sexes is one of the simpler ways to exchange DNA.

And I have already pointed out what some have said are analogies that point in that direction. Suppose some of those analogies are more than just coincidence?I think you should check the dictionary definition of analogy.

I am working on it.You're working on nonsense? Yeah, we'd noticed.

The energy that makes up the mind is already who we essentially are, all it has to do is stay together once the body dies.Our mind isn't energy, it's neuron connections. The electric nerve impulses are the way in which the neurons interact. The energy is necesarry for the mind to work, but it isn't the mind.

I guess I can try. Would you call eating an instinct? I know that the different ways that life goes about getting food are. Their body shape seems to most involve a particular way of getting food/energy.It's called adaptation and survival of the fittest.

Anyway. When the need hits, life acts. It has to act. Eating is a way of getting energy due to the dicates of the energy that makes up the lifeform.Life requires energy. Wow, you've really hit on a deep philosophical point that has hitherto eluded all of the great thinkers of humanity. :oldroll:

I think a person is speaking for the entire body which if it could talk may say "without energy, we die. Get us some energy."I have no idea what the point of that sentence was.

Sex is another (I think) energy based act. It exercises the body, (probably has a role in its health) and is responsible for producing another form of energy through another form of life.Meaningless twaddle.

I think that everything in the universe does what it does because of energy, I know I have to learn the specifics, but I already know they are there.You might want to start with the basics before you try to cope with the specifics.

lightcreatedlife@hom

27th November 2006, 11:10 PM

I've been thinking a lot about this "statement" over the last day; and I find it terribly sad. Why do you need to look for fanciful and supernatural cause for a raison'd'tre, when the scientific discoveries of the real world give more than adequate cause?
Someone asked the question of what use what I am saying could have. It seems that what I said is being twisted by you here. I am not trying to give hope to the hopeless through the hope of an afterlife. Hope, and happiness have to be found here. There may not even be an afterlife. And if there is I don't think it would resemble some of what is commonly thought.

And what "more than adequate cause" are you talking about? I do not think it is all that beyond reason to think that a design as vast as the universe has a designer.

If all this has happened as a result of scientific discovery and rational investigation over such a short period of time, one can only wonder at what marvels will come in the next 100, 50, or even 10 years! But one thing is certain, whatever new inventions are discovered, whatever new mysteries of the universe are solved, it won't come about by guessing and wishing.
I am not wishing, or guessing, I am thinking about what is possible.

LCL, please, I beg of you: take a long look at what you hope to accomplish and how you intend to do it. Do you have any rational hope of success? I'm asking rhetorically-- no, you don't.
So now you are telling me what I am thinking? Boy, you are smart. You have already witnessed my tenacity, the only thing I have to do is apply it to the study path provided by my experience here (something I have always said was my intention) and I think I can organize my thoughts on the subject in pretty short order. The marvels of science you spoke of above are within reach of us all.
And I think I have more than a rational hope of success. But even if I am wrong, I think it is obvious that I at least think I have.

If you really want to give hope to the hopeless, why don't you go volunteer at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? There are so many ways in which you could satisfy your need to give meaning to peoples lives without resorting to nonsensical graphs and fictitious ideas.

Go help someone, and maybe you'll find that the person you help the most-- is you.
I think 50 pages here have helped me, and that is what I was looking for. I could not get that in a homeless shelter. Oh I know. Why don't you think less of helping me with suggestions that I didn't ask you for, and worry more about yourself. I am sure that no matter how well you are doing, there is always room for improvement. Only you know where. You see? I don't read minds.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th November 2006, 12:16 AM

If you're trying to compare what you're doing to science then I have to point out (yet again) that new scientific hypotheses make predictions about what could be observed if they were correct, and what could be observed if the they were incorrect. You support your ideas with poor analogies, misinterpretations of simplified science and illogical arguments.
The analogies are there, the definitions were used, and anything having to do with a designer is illogical to you.

Life as we know it is tied to them. If they were any different then we wouldn't be here. Something else might be here asking very similar questions. That doesn't mean that your ideas have any merit or that there's any design. It's called the anthropic principle, you should look it up.
It is always nice to have something that tells you that you are right. Is there any chance it could be wrong?

What picture? Exchange of DNA is an evolutionary advantage, it allows for better adaption, and having two sexes is one of the simpler ways to exchange DNA.
Before DNA, the conditions for evolved to support it. It looks like a continuous plan. You seem to see it as one coincidence on top of another.

You're working on nonsense? Yeah, we'd noticed.
That seems a matter of opinion. I think a designer makes at least as much sense as a "cosmic lucky shot."

Our mind isn't energy, it's neuron connections. The electric nerve impulses are the way in which the neurons interact. The energy is necesarry for the mind to work, but it isn't the mind.
I thought the brain was the neurons and such and the mind was the immaterial/energy part?

Life requires energy. Wow, you've really hit on a deep philosophical point that has hitherto eluded all of the great thinkers of humanity. :oldroll:
I was answering a question, food is part of the energy chase.
I know you have a need to make everything look wrong no matter what or how I say it, but are you sure you need too? I would think your intelligence would have made you more comfortable by now. It just comes to show you smart does not mean mature. For some, no matter what they know, it doesn't happen.

You might want to start with the basics before you try to cope with the specifics.
Fine.

Belz...

28th November 2006, 04:30 AM

Not yet. Perhaps I am making the first claim in that direction-though I doubt it. When something is new those things are not yet readily at hand.

Amazing how can make one thing AND its opposite appear equally valid. When it's not an argument from popularity or longevity, it's an argument from the fact that it's brand new.

I am thinking that life has to be tied to those things because the conditions for life are tied to them.

A simplistic vision, as usual.

That if they were connected to the genders that it would complete the picture.

Unless we happen to find species that have THREE sexes, eh ?

And I have already pointed out what some have said are analogies that point in that direction. Suppose some of those analogies are more than just coincidence?

Of course they're more than just coincidence: they're analogies. People CREATE them to be more than coincidences.

The energy that makes up the mind is already who we essentially are, all it has to do is stay together once the body dies.

It's already been explained to you that the mind is NOT energy.

Also, you might want to explain to me how it can "stay together" and how you plan to test that one.

Would you call eating an instinct? I know that the different ways that life goes about getting food are. Their body shape seems to most involve a particular way of getting food/energy.`Anyway. When the need hits, life acts. It has to act. Eating is a way of getting energy due to the dicates of the energy that makes up the lifeform.

But you're, AGAIN, trying to simplify matters to the point where nothing has any meaning. "Energy" in this case isn't like when you speak of light and photons. Life eats because it needs to construct proteins for its cells to function.

Sex is another (I think) energy based act. It exercises the body, (probably has a role in its health) and is responsible for producing another form of energy through another form of life.

It doesn't produce energy, it expends it.

I think that everything in the universe does what it does because of energy, I know I have to learn the specifics

No, you have to learn the basics.

zizzybaluba

28th November 2006, 06:14 AM

Someone asked the question of what use what I am saying could have. It seems that what I said is being twisted by you here. I am not trying to give hope to the hopeless through the hope of an afterlife. Hope, and happiness have to be found here. There may not even be an afterlife. And if there is I don't think it would resemble some of what is commonly thought.

Alright, so if I'm wrong about your intentions, what do you actually plan to do with your "ideas"?

And what "more than adequate cause" are you talking about? I do not think it is all that beyond reason to think that a design as vast as the universe has a designer.

There is no design in the sense that you mean it. The facts do not support it.

I am not wishing, or guessing, I am thinking about what is possible.

Your thoughts are not supported by evidence.

So now you are telling me what I am thinking? Boy, you are smart. You have already witnessed my tenacity, the only thing I have to do is apply it to the study path provided by my experience here (something I have always said was my intention) and I think I can organize my thoughts on the subject in pretty short order. The marvels of science you spoke of above are within reach of us all.
And I think I have more than a rational hope of success. But even if I am wrong, I think it is obvious that I at least think I have.

Yes, its obvious that you think you have a rational hope of success; that's called a delusion.

I think 50 pages here have helped me, and that is what I was looking for. I could not get that in a homeless shelter. Oh I know. Why don't you think less of helping me with suggestions that I didn't ask you for, and worry more about yourself. I am sure that no matter how well you are doing, there is always room for improvement. Only you know where. You see? I don't read minds.

The pages have helped you how, exactly? If you fail to see your nonsense for what it is, how can you claim to be helped?
Minds aren't the only thing you don't read :rolleyes:

Loss Leader

28th November 2006, 06:31 AM

I thought the brain was the neurons and such and the mind was the immaterial/energy part?

Do you have any source for this statement whatsoever? How does energy act if there is nothing physical to act on? I know of no neurobiologist anywhere who would agree that there is an immaterial/energy part of the brain. The brain is a biological entity that uses chemicals to transmit small electrical impulses. The electrical impulses do not exist separate from the brain. They do not exist separate from the chemicals that transmit them.

Energy does not exist separate from the physical world.

There is nothing about the mind that does or even can survive death. Nothing.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Otherwise, you are once again reasoning from a fundamental misunderstanding of science. If tradition holds, you will insist that this brain/mind concept is taught in elementary schools, is widely believed and is described on this one website you found and is thus true. You will then refuse to learn anything more about the brain.

bruto

28th November 2006, 08:19 AM

Not yet. Perhaps I am making the first claim in that direction-though I doubt it. When something is new those things are not yet readily at hand. They have to be hashed out. I am thinking that life has to be tied to those things because the conditions for life are tied to them. That if they were connected to the genders that it would complete the picture. And I have already pointed out what some have said are analogies that point in that direction. Suppose some of those analogies are more than just coincidence? The cart is very far in front of the horse here.

I am working on it.Better start hitting the books then. I've lost sight of the horse, and the cart is slowing down

The energy that makes up the mind is already who we essentially area matter of opinion only, with no substance...the cart seems to have stopped. , all it has to do is stay together once the body dies.But, setting aside the nonsense that comes before, there is absolutely no reason to assume or believe that that energy does stay together. Why should it? The speculation that it does is no more useful or scientific than theological speculations about bodily assumption or reincarnation, or the boat trip across the Styx. The cart has ground to a halt, all right. No pull, no push...

I guess I can try. Would you call eating an instinct? I know that the different ways that life goes about getting food are. Their body shape seems to most involve a particular way of getting food/energy.`Anyway. When the need hits, life acts. No, the living creature acts. Unfortunately. AFter all these pages, I think the cart is moving backwards again. Forget pushing, you can't even hold it. It has to act. Eating is a way of getting energy due to the dicates of the energy that makes up the lifeform.
I think a person is speaking for the entire body which if it could talk may say "without energy, we die. Get us some energy."
Sex is another (I think) energy based act. It exercises the body, (probably has a role in its health) and is responsible for producing another form of energy through another form of life.
I think that everything in the universe does what it does because of energy, I know I have to learn the specifics, but I already know they are there.Everything you do uses energy, but so what? All you end up saying is that everything involves energy, a useless truism. Uh. oh. I think I found the horse. He doesn't seem to want to wake up.....:deadhorse

Belz...

28th November 2006, 12:44 PM

And what "more than adequate cause" are you talking about? I do not think it is all that beyond reason to think that a design as vast as the universe has a designer.

Only if you see a design.

I am not wishing, or guessing, I am thinking about what is possible.

Wishes and guesses are subsets of thoughts.

You have already witnessed my tenacity

In and of itself, not much proof of anything. Otherwise crazy people who never change their minds would all eventually be proven right.

I think I can organize my thoughts on the subject in pretty short order.

Organizing the nonsensical is an exercice in futility.

The analogies are there, the definitions were used, and anything having to do with a designer is illogical to you.

I've bolded part of your sentence. Can you tell me what's wrong with it ? Hint: it's been discussed in this thread.

It is always nice to have something that tells you that you are right.

This coming from the guy who says that beign called wrong means you are right.

Before DNA, the conditions for evolved to support it. It looks like a continuous plan. You seem to see it as one coincidence on top of another.

Key words: looks like.

I think a designer makes at least as much sense as a "cosmic lucky shot."

False dichotomy and strawman.

I was answering a question, food is part of the energy chase.

There's an energy chase, now ?

I know you have a need to make everything look wrong no matter what or how I say it

You're a despicable liar, Light.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th November 2006, 03:48 PM

Only if you see a design.

I and others see one. Is that okay with you?

Wishes and guesses are subsets of thoughts.
And?

In and of itself, not much proof of anything. Otherwise crazy people who never change their minds would all eventually be proven right.
On the other hand sticking to something can bring results.

Organizing the nonsensical is an exercice in futility.
Just because you consider it nonsense does not make it so. I will continue even if it is not alright with you.

I've bolded part of your sentence. Can you tell me what's wrong with it ? Hint: it's been discussed in this thread.
No thanks.

This coming from the guy who says that beign called wrong means you are right.
When did I say that? You saying I am wrong don't in itself me me so.

Key words: looks like.
Fine. Looks like.

False dichotomy and strawman.
Meaningless twaddle.

There's an energy chase, now ?
Try going without food, mental and emotional experience and see how long you last.

You're a despicable liar, Light.
And so are you.

zizzybaluba

28th November 2006, 04:14 PM

I and others see one. Is that okay with you?

argumentum ad populam

Thanks for helping me brush up on my Latin, LCL :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th November 2006, 04:22 PM

Better start hitting the books then. I've lost sight of the horse, and the cart is slowing down
I have. Am I reading it right or idoes the Anthropic Principle essentially say that that because the universe seems so fine tuned to create life, that is must be a concidence?

matter of opinion only, with no substance.
Some think so, and not everything in life can be brought to the table of science-yet.

But, setting aside the nonsense that comes before, there is absolutely no reason to assume or believe that that energy does stay together. Why should it?
Because it is literally capable of anything for starters.

Everything you do uses energy, but so what? All you end up saying is that everything involves energy, a useless truism.
Does that mean that energy is responsible for the actions of life?

Uh. oh. I think I found the horse. He doesn't seem to want to wake up.....:deadhorse
Don't worry about the horse, after 50 pages even I want to see him gone. Besides, there are more where he came from.

wollery

28th November 2006, 04:54 PM

I have. Am I reading it right or idoes the Anthropic Principle essentially say that that because the universe seems so fine tuned to create life, that is must be a concidence?What a shock, you're wrong, guess your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

The Anthropic principle says that if the Universe weren't fine tuned in a way that allowed us to exist and be here to observe it, it must follow that we wouldn't be here to observe it. Therefore the fact that the Universe is fine tuned in a way that allows us to exist cannot be used to infer anything.

The Universe could be different, but then we wouldn't be here to ask the question, "Why is the Universe fine tuned to allow us to exist?"

It says that the fact that we are here means that the Universe must be the way it is.

Because it is literally capable of anything for starters.No, it isn't. Its behaviour follows a very limited set of rules.

Does that mean that energy is responsible for the actions of life?Energy is used when actions take place. Responsible is a very anthropomorphic word in this context (which has always been a large part of your problem).

Don't worry about the horse, after 50 pages even I want to see him gone. Besides, there are more where he came from.Another attempt at humour? Or just another case of missing the point?

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th November 2006, 05:12 PM

Do you have any source for this statement whatsoever? How does energy act if there is nothing physical to act on? I know of no neurobiologist anywhere who would agree that there is an immaterial/energy part of the brain. The brain is a biological entity that uses chemicals to transmit small electrical impulses. The electrical impulses do not exist separate from the brain. They do not exist separate from the chemicals that transmit them.
That seems a rather dry explanation. I have definitions that say the mind is the higher functions of the brain; feeling, thinking, etc.

Energy does not exist separate from the physical world.
I'm okay with that. But before matter formed, didn't the four forces exist without it?

There is nothing about the mind that does or even can survive death. Nothing.
Nothing but claims of out of body experiences. Claims that I feel are at least worth looking into.

Otherwise, you are once again reasoning from a fundamental misunderstanding of science. If tradition holds, you will insist that this brain/mind concept is taught in elementary schools, is widely believed and is described on this one website you found and is thus true. You will then refuse to learn anything more about the brain.
Relax. None of that is going to happen.

wollery

28th November 2006, 05:26 PM

That seems a rather dry explanation. I have definitions that say the mind is the higher functions of the brain; feeling, thinking, etc.:nope:

Reread the bolded bit Light.

And again.

Functions of the brain. It implies that it is an effect of the brain functioning. It's a result of the chemical reactions Loss Leader described. It's not separate from the brain, but what you get when the brain is working.

Resists obvious joke.

lightcreatedlife@hom

28th November 2006, 06:18 PM

Alright, so if I'm wrong about your intentions, what do you actually plan to do with your "ideas"?
Rewrite an equation or two.

There is no design in the sense that you mean it. The facts do not support it.
Some think they do. And things change.

Your thoughts are not supported by evidence.
Not all thoughts can be-right now. Science continues to advance, and things change.

Yes, its obvious that you think you have a rational hope of success; that's called a delusion.
Perhaps. But I sure hope not.

The pages have helped you how, exactly? If you fail to see your nonsense for what it is, how can you claim to be helped?
Minds aren't the only thing you don't read :rolleyes:
I have learned plenty, give yourselves some credit. It took me some time to figured out that you guys are that smart. With that I realized that I do need some major work. I don't worship it, but I do indeed respect intelligence. And I have gained a valuable study path from being here.
The book "IN THE COOL" having to figure out how to get around that Anthropic Principle standing in my path, chemical bonds and their link to the EMF. That stuff Slingblade said about energy, the latest thing CM said. I think Tricky said that if augued skillfully light could be said to have created life. I have to gain the skill. I have to study logic, particle interactions, and the forces on top of other things. I can't be caught as under armed as I have been here. And you might have missed it but Rand Fan and others have convinced me that there are 2 basic operations of math, not 4.
You might notice that I took what I considered workable to my idea. Biased? Certainly. I am no scientist, but I will not ignore what I find, and will not stand where I can't.

zizzybaluba

28th November 2006, 07:06 PM

Rewrite an equation or two.

:dl:

I just laughed so hard, milk came out of my nose...

Loss Leader

28th November 2006, 07:50 PM

The book "IN THE COOL" having to figure out how to get around that Anthropic Principle standing in my path, chemical bonds and their link to the EMF. That stuff Slingblade said about energy, the latest thing CM said. I think Tricky said that if augued skillfully light could be said to have created life. I have to gain the skill. I have to study logic, particle interactions, and the forces on top of other things.

I want to encourage you, Light. If you do a fifth the work that you have outlined for yourself above, I personally will feel that the time spent in this thread has been worth it. I am a little worried because you've said you were going to study a topic before only to come back and tell us that you've decided you don't need to, but get some information and I guarantee you will feel more confident in all of your thinking.

Let us know what you're reading and be sure to ask any questions you might have.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th November 2006, 12:54 PM

I want to encourage you, Light. If you do a fifth the work that you have outlined for yourself above, I personally will feel that the time spent in this thread has been worth it. I am a little worried because you've said you were going to study a topic before only to come back and tell us that you've decided you don't need to, but get some information and I guarantee you will feel more confident in all of your thinking.

Let us know what you're reading and be sure to ask any questions you might have.
No need to worry. I didn't say I would and just didn't. I said I would and then said I wouldn't. If I don't come back and say I won't, then my statement stands. I said I wouldn't before because I thought I was being diverted (somehow) and I had enough to think about.

How about this as a logical augument.
All females give life.
The planet gives life.
The planet is female.

lightcreatedlife@hom

29th November 2006, 01:09 PM

:nope:

Reread the bolded bit Light.

And again.

Functions of the brain. It implies that it is an effect of the brain functioning. It's a result of the chemical reactions Loss Leader described. It's not separate from the brain, but what you get when the brain is working.
That means no brain, no mind. But. Walking around in a man made house you can get the impression that everything is thought out. Walking around in nature you can get the same impression. If it did not come from a brain, where did it come from? And another thing. I think evolution can be tied to thinking. The lifeform wants/needs a certain something and they develop in that direction. If that is true they did this before they had brains.

bruto

29th November 2006, 01:19 PM

No need to worry. I didn't say I would and just didn't. I said I would and then said I wouldn't. If I don't come back and say I won't, then my statement stands. I said I wouldn't before because I thought I was being diverted (somehow) and I had enough to think about.

How about this as a logical augument.
All females give life.
The planet gives life.
The planet is female.

First premise is false. Second premise is poorly defined (what does "give life" mean, and is it the same meaning for both premises?). Logic itself is fallacious. Otherwise it's perfect :D

Your logic in another example:

A pizza has a crust.
The Earth has a crust.
The earth is a pizza.

zizzybaluba

29th November 2006, 02:02 PM

That means no brain, no mind. But. Walking around in a man made house you can get the impression that everything is thought out. Walking around in nature you can get the same impression. If it did not come from a brain, where did it come from? And another thing. I think evolution can be tied to thinking. The lifeform wants/needs a certain something and they develop in that direction. If that is true they did this before they had brains.

Read Dawkins'
The Blind Watchmaker (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393315703)
It will provide you with a detailed explanation of why your "walking around" idea is false.

Loss Leader

29th November 2006, 02:07 PM

How about this as a logical augument.
All females give life.
The planet gives life.
The planet is female.

That is not a logical argument. First, the conclusion does not follow from its premises. It is this:

All As have characteristic X
B has characteristic X
B is A.

There is no reason to believe that just because A has a characteristic, that nothing else but A has that characteristic. It is the same as the following:

All cats have paws.
Dogs have paws.
Thus, dogs are cats.

or

All female cats give life.
My dog gave life.
Thus, my dog is a cat.

A proper argument would be one where you said all of a group has a characteristic, an individual is a member of that group, therefore the individual has that characteristic:

All actors are snobs.
Val Kilmer is an actor.
Thus, Val Kilmer is a snob.

The closest you could get your argument to being logical would be:

All females give life.
Mary is a female.
Thus, Mary gives life.

Your argument is invalid for a second reason. It contains an equivocation. You wrote:

All females give life.
The planet gives life.

But the planet does not "give life" the way females do. A female gets pregnant by combining her egg with male sperm and provides an incubating place for the infant which then is born or hatches and is of the same species as the mother. The planet doesn't get pregnant by a male planet and it doesn't give birth to a little baby planet. The Earth "gives life" (if it does at all) by being a place where life can survive, not by having sex and getting knocked up.

So your phrase "gives life" means two different things in each of your two statements. This is the fallacy of equivocation and it is illogical.

Another example would be:

At a net worth of 1 billion dollars, Steven Spielberg is a Big Man in Hollywood.
Weighing 300 lbs., actor Ethan Suplee is a Big Man in Hollywood.
Thus, Steven Spielberg and Ethan Suplee are both Big Men in Hollywood.

The phrase "Big Man" means two different things in each statement. Ethan Suplee and Steven Spielberg cannot be compared.

Keep working on it.

Belz...

30th November 2006, 05:01 AM

I and others see one. Is that okay with you?

Making a theory about the nature of the universe based on subjective observations is not okay by me.

Wishes and guesses are subsets of thoughts

And?

AND ? Do you even read what you say ? You said:

I am not wishing, or guessing, I am thinking about what is possible.

You are wishing AND guessing, and both of those things ARE thinking.

On the other hand sticking to something can bring results.

We can "if" all day, Light. The point is, you have no evidence whatsoever.

Just because you consider it nonsense does not make it so.

It does if you can't prove that it DOES make sense. Just like my cosmic chicken theory ? Remember that ?

I will continue even if it is not alright with you.

I don't care what you think of my opinions. You should examine the evidence, instead of cloistering yourself in your fantasy world.

I've bolded part of your sentence. Can you tell me what's wrong with it ? Hint: it's been discussed in this thread.

No thanks.

Thanks for proving, yet again, that you are a dishonest debater.

Answer: Logic is not subjective.

When did I say that? You saying I am wrong don't in itself me me so.

You said that the fact that everyone here calls you wrong means you're on to something, because you cannot possibly be completely wrong.

Of course, you retracted that later on. But you're a long way from recovering your credibility.

Fine. Looks like.

And can you tell me why "looks like" is not good enough to reach a conclusion ?

Meaningless twaddle.

Calling you out on your lack of logic is meaningless twaddle ? I should've known that, deep inside, you considered logic worthless. Yes, emotions and gut-feelings are much, much better.

False dichotomy: "cosmic lucky shot" and "designer" are not the only two options.

Strawman: Misrepresentation of your opponents' position.

Try going without food, mental and emotional experience and see how long you last.

I didn't say eating wasn't important. I said:

There's an energy chase, now ?

Please adress the argument instead of making one up.

And so are you.

Name one lie that I made. Ever. Go ahead. You can't, EVER, find one lie that I made.

bruto

30th November 2006, 06:16 AM

That is not a logical argument. First, the conclusion does not follow from its premises. It is this:

All As have characteristic X
B has characteristic X
B is A.

There is no reason to believe that just because A has a characteristic, that nothing else but A has that characteristic. It is the same as the following:

All cats have paws.
Dogs have paws.
Thus, dogs are cats.

or

All female cats give life.
My dog gave life.
Thus, my dog is a cat.

A proper argument would be one where you said all of a group has a characteristic, an individual is a member of that group, therefore the individual has that characteristic:

All actors are snobs.
Val Kilmer is an actor.
Thus, Val Kilmer is a snob.

The closest you could get your argument to being logical would be:

All females give life.
Mary is a female.
Thus, Mary gives life.

Your argument is invalid for a second reason. It contains an equivocation. You wrote:

All females give life.
The planet gives life.

But the planet does not "give life" the way females do. A female gets pregnant by combining her egg with male sperm and provides an incubating place for the infant which then is born or hatches and is of the same species as the mother. The planet doesn't get pregnant by a male planet and it doesn't give birth to a little baby planet. The Earth "gives life" (if it does at all) by being a place where life can survive, not by having sex and getting knocked up.

So your phrase "gives life" means two different things in each of your two statements. This is the fallacy of equivocation and it is illogical.

Another example would be:

At a net worth of 1 billion dollars, Steven Spielberg is a Big Man in Hollywood.
Weighing 300 lbs., actor Ethan Suplee is a Big Man in Hollywood.
Thus, Steven Spielberg and Ethan Suplee are both Big Men in Hollywood.

The phrase "Big Man" means two different things in each statement. Ethan Suplee and Steven Spielberg cannot be compared.

Keep working on it.

Ignoring the equivocation and the false premises, he could fix the syllogism by saying

ONLY females give life.
The earth gives life.
Therefore the earth is female.

It would still be wrong, of course, because the premises plainly aren't true, and the terms, both "give life" and "female" are equivocal, but at least it would be structurally valid.

LCL, in addition to the problems pointed out here, there are a couple of others which ought to be obvious if you think about it. First, it is simply not true that all females give life, even ignoring the fuzziness of that term. Many do not. A barren female is still female. A nun is still female. It is also manifestly not true that only females can give life, since a huge proportion of the living beings on earth are asexual, and many more are hermaphroditic, and yet they reproduce. It would require another howlingly false equivocation to redefine that process in a way that introduces femaleness to the process. In addition, of course, "female" carries with it the assumption that there is another sex involved and required in reproduction (with the occasional exception of parthenogenesis, but I can guarantee that the earth is also not a guppy!). An organism that reproduces without the help of another sex is not defined as female. Thus, "life giving" is not an exclusively female act, even if giving birth or laying eggs is. I have three children, and although my now-lesbian, now-ex wife might wish it otherwise, I can guarantee that she couldn't have "given life" to them without my input!

It should also be pretty obvious that the life given by females of any species consists of reproducing within species. I've no doubt there were times when neighbors thought us all a brood of vipers, but metaphors aside, people reproduce people. Bats don't give life to alligators.

To avoid the equivocation problem here, you'd have to find planets of both sexes and to assert in some way that planets reproduce things of their own species. The earth is our mother only in metaphor.

Add to that, that the earth predates the living beings on it by millions of years, and you have a problem in priority. Clearly the earth, whatever it is and whatever its characteristics, was the earth and whatever it is long before there was anything remotely resembling femaleness. If there is an analogy, yours is backwards. Your original statement could easily be reversed, and made to say that because the earth gives life and females give life, all females are earths. It would still be nonsensically illogical and wrong, but it would make more sense chronologically that way.

Belz...

30th November 2006, 07:09 AM

Because it is literally capable of anything for starters.

Energy is capable of ANYTHING ?

Oh, golly. This is getting pathetic.

Energy is, like everything ELSE, bound by the laws of physics.

Nothing but claims of out of body experiences. Claims that I feel are at least worth looking into.

Oxygen depravation produces the same results. Conclusion ?

Some think they do.

Would you PLEASE stop trying to support your insane ideas with the fact that some people agree with you ? When are you going to understand this ?

I am no scientist, but I will not ignore what I find

Of course not. You've ensure that anything you do find agrees with you.

All females give life.
The planet gives life.
The planet is female.

Oh, my. You're really, really bad at this.

Your argument reads like this

All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
My cat is a dog

Walking around in a man made house you can get the impression that everything is thought out. Walking around in nature you can get the same impression. If it did not come from a brain, where did it come from? And another thing. I think evolution can be tied to thinking.

Stop trying to guess these things, Light.

Solus

30th November 2006, 09:15 AM

A short vaction and this thing goes to 52 pages. My bet now is this goes over 100 pages. :bwall :bwall :bwall

Loss Leader

30th November 2006, 10:04 AM

Ignoring the equivocation and the false premises, he could fix the syllogism by saying

ONLY females give life.
The earth gives life.
Therefore the earth is female.

It would still be wrong, of course, because the premises plainly aren't true, and the terms, both "give life" and "female" are equivocal, but at least it would be structurally valid.

Yeah, I purposefully ignored that fix because I didn't want LCL to get hung up on the thought that he could rehabilitate his argument just by adding one word. He must come face-to-face with the fact that analogies cannot be used to generate new information. He has to understand that dressing up his analogy by stating it in the traditional form of a syllogism does not change that fact.

RandFan

30th November 2006, 10:28 AM

No need to worry. I didn't say I would and just didn't. I said I would and then said I wouldn't. If I don't come back and say I won't, then my statement stands. I said I wouldn't before because I thought I was being diverted (somehow) and I had enough to think about. I know you think you thought I meant what you think I said but what you don't understand is that what I said was not what I meant.

How about this as a logical augument.
All females give life.
The planet gives life.
The planet is female.Logic 101. Invalid syllogism. You would know this if you would make even the smallest of effort to educate yourself.

bruto

30th November 2006, 12:44 PM

Yeah, I purposefully ignored that fix because I didn't want LCL to get hung up on the thought that he could rehabilitate his argument just by adding one word. He must come face-to-face with the fact that analogies cannot be used to generate new information. He has to understand that dressing up his analogy by stating it in the traditional form of a syllogism does not change that fact.

I know. I left it out the first time around too, but relented. Probably a mistake.

Anacoluthon64

1st December 2006, 11:27 AM

This thread may yet produce an answer of sorts to a variant of the age-old question concerning an irresistible force versus an immovable mass; except that it's more like an irresistible farce versus an immovable ass.

'Luthon64

zizzybaluba

1st December 2006, 01:48 PM

Canadian Malcontent

1st December 2006, 03:21 PM

LCL, there are two widely accepted concepts regarding the origin of Life,

That 'Light Created Life' is not one of them.
Common knowledge widely accepted throughout the world for millenae is that The Almighty God created the world the heavans and everything thats in them. with this wisdom our society has survived and prospered for quite some time.
Recently radical upstarts, 'angry young men' if you will have been postulating a ridiculous theory based on recent uncoverings of bits of rock and old bones as well as their limited familiarity with animal husbandry ( the breeding end of the business, they seem to be preoccupied with 'breeding', hey they are 'angry young men' maybe the fact that they are angry and the preoccupation with breeding are related somehow).
They have a 'prophet' of sorts, one Charles Jebediah Darwin. He was apparently a man with some academic background who chose to leave society and make long sojourns to remote Islands at the end of the Earth.
His fitness to remain in society with civilized churchgoing people is not what we are examining here. Although one is given to wonder.
Anyway this self-styled 'prophet' of this heretical theory known as 'evolution' ( really? could anything sound more ridiculous?) suggested that examination of a few pounds of minerals and bones combined with observations of the beaks of obscure Pacific tortoises proved that all Life was accidental and not the work of the Lord! I tell you people were shocked! Shocked and appalled to be sure! His social calender? Well its as though it had been written with disappearing ink!
Today Mr. Darwin's 'theory' enjoys some popularity. Ahh the rebbelion of youth! Its refreshing really. The current fad of 'evolution theory' however should not encourage a young lad like yourself to turn his back on the wisdom, yea! the tradition of our people , our forefathers who made great sacrifices to provide us the world we have. Think of your family and reputation LCL? Will you begin a lifelong journey down the same road of shame as the 'evos' travel for the sake of youthful fancy? You seem talented, there are many good Bible ccolleges south of the Mason-Dixon line. A bright expressive young man like yourself should have no problem getting a berth, perhaps even a scholarship. There are many congregations that would feel blessed to have you on the Pulpit of their Church. Do not go down the dark and shameful road of aspostasy as do the 'evos'. Take the deal son, you'll get a sweet li' church in missouri or alabama, a pretty blond wife who will give you a bountiful family. White picket fence, respectability in the community, its all yours for the taking son !! You have proved yourself in these fifty-three pages!

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

Anacoluthon64

1st December 2006, 03:28 PM

Great stuff!
Nominated!Why, thank you.

The central point remains, though: contesting lightcreatedlife@hom's nonsense has, in my estimation, long gone beyond that which is either reasonable, or profitable or admirable.

'Luthon64

Tanstaafl

1st December 2006, 03:31 PM

I have to keep reminding myself, CM, that your post above is not a parody. I suspect most people who come across it without having read your earlier posts will think that it is.

Anacoluthon64

1st December 2006, 03:40 PM

LCL, ...

<snip>

... yourself in these fifty-three pages!

Your friend,
Canadian MalcontentYou have a quite obvious evolutionary advantage up there in your icy barrenness...

'Luthon64

Canadian Malcontent

1st December 2006, 03:44 PM

Anacoluthon64, it seems there can be matters upon which our sentiments are in concert.

thank you Sir

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st December 2006, 06:05 PM

I know you think you thought I meant what you think I said but what you don't understand is that what I said was not what I meant.
That sounds nice.

Logic 101. Invalid syllogism. You would know this if you would make even the smallest of effort to educate yourself.
[/quote]That was logic 101. The kid got slapped around so bad that he had to learn something. Oh yeah, that would make you pick up the book. It was just a test. How could it be that simple?

Canadian Malcontent

1st December 2006, 06:46 PM

LCL! I think I hear Billy Graham calling you!
Seriously you can make some money, I am talking about the long GREEN!!

By the way, Whos on first?!

lightcreatedlife@hom

1st December 2006, 06:48 PM

What a shock, you're wrong, guess your reading comprehension hasn't improved.

The Anthropic principle says that if the Universe weren't fine tuned in a way that allowed us to exist and be here to observe it, it must follow that we wouldn't be here to observe it.
It is fine tuned, but we do not need to be here for it to exist. Trees fall in forest all the time without people around to hear them.

Therefore the fact that the Universe is fine tuned in a way that allows us to exist cannot be used to infer anything.
It is fine tuned, but, because that means that life exists to witness it, all of what that fine tuning implies has to be thrown out of court?

The Universe could be different, but then we wouldn't be here to ask the question, "Why is the Universe fine tuned to allow us to exist?"
So because it looks that way, it must not be true?

It says that the fact that we are here means that the Universe must be the way it is.
Is it an augument for predetermination?

No, it isn't. Its behaviour follows a very limited set of rules.
science understands the universe through it. For that matter you can say that the fundamental forces follow a limited set of rules, all without taking the universe into account.

RandFan

1st December 2006, 11:33 PM

That sounds nice. "Sounds nice"?

:confused:

That was logic 101. The kid got slapped around so bad that he had to learn something. Oh yeah, that would make you pick up the book. It was just a test. How could it be that simple? I hate to be redundant.

:confused:

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd December 2006, 08:34 AM

"Sounds nice"?
I didn't understand why you said that but the symetry of it was nice.

Loss Leader

2nd December 2006, 09:45 AM

Light, let's not stray too far afield. Do you understand why your "Earth is female" argument was illogical?

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 10:22 AM

I didn't understand why you said that but the symetry of it was nice.I didn't post it for its symmetry. It's a variation of a famous saying that was falsely, I believe, attributed to Nixon. It's really not that hard to parse. However it's an example of being unnecessarily verbose. Put simply it means, "I did not mean what you thought I said" which is roughly equivalent to what you said to loss leader.

I didn't say I would and just didn't. I said I would and then said I wouldn't. If I don't come back and say I won't, then my statement stands. I said I wouldn't before because I thought I was being diverted (somehow) and I had enough to think about.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd December 2006, 10:58 AM

I didn't post it for its symmetry. It's a variation of a famous saying that was falsely, I believe, attributed to Nixon. It's really not that hard to parse. However it's an example of being unnecessarily verbose. Put simply it means, "I did not mean what you thought I said" which is roughly equivalent to what you said to loss leader.
I never heard it, but I like the way it was put together. I am guessing here but I suppose that "verbosed" is something bad? If it seems odd that I don't look it up consider this: you can't hurt my feelings if I can't here you. If you start speaking latin I just assume that it is not good.

Anyway, I think you asked:
"what good my idea would do."
"What value is it?"
"What will it add?"
I think now that it is connected to the Anthropic Principle. The final one. It talks about intelligent life being really small, and lasting forever. Well that graph shows the spirits/energy output of life going towards the forces. It going there showing the recycling process the rest of the universe shows, and it explains why energy forms matter into more and more complex structures.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd December 2006, 11:14 AM

Light, let's not stray too far afield. Do you understand why your "Earth is female" argument was illogical?
Yeah-I think. It was too broad. And it needs to define the source of life.

RandFan

2nd December 2006, 11:49 AM

I never heard it, but I like the way it was put together. I am guessing here but I suppose that "verbosed" is something bad? If it seems odd that I don't look it up consider this: you can't hurt my feelings if I can't here you. If you start speaking latin I just assume that it is not good.

You should be careful not assume my intentions.
Willful ignorance might be a way to protect your feelings but it is a poor strategy especially on an Internet forum where you are trying to appeal to others who rely on logic and reason to make decisions.
Verbose was the best word to communicate my meaning. I wish you had looked it up. BTW, I'm guessing you thought that "anthropic" was the best word to communicate your meaning. If you are opposed to words that are esoteric then why did you use it?I'll get back to the rest later.

Loss Leader

2nd December 2006, 01:00 PM

I think now that it is connected to the Anthropic Principle. The final one. It talks about intelligent life being really small, and lasting forever.

Light, I don't think you understood what people were saying about the Anthropic Principle at all. It is not a principle that helps tie your ideas together, it is a principle that shows why your ideas are basically mistaken.

We exist on the planet earth. The reason we exist in our present form is because we can. It is possible. If it weren't possible, we wouldn't be here. Billions of years of evolution have bred us to fit very well within the tolerences we find on the planet.

But sometimes people look around and notice that the planet is perfectly designed for them. It is just the right temperature and pressure with just the right sunlight and darkness and just the right foods in manageable supply. They conclude that the whole universe must have been very carefully constructed around their needs.

They are wrong. We grew into the world and made ourselves to fit. There was no design. The fact that there seems to be a design is an illusion. It's an illusion because we have no information about what else could have happened.

If you see a picture with one man appearing to stand in another man's hand, you might think it was real because you've seen no other picture. But if you see the small man walk towards the camera and appear to grow bigger until they both appear to be the same size, you'll realize you just did not have enough information before. What you thought you saw was a trick your mind played on you to make up for a lack of information.

Your entire theory - every last word of it - falls into this category. All of the purpose, all of the connections, all of the analogies you see are not really there. You think that humans have beed purposefully grown by the universe but that is just an illusion. You have fallen for the Anthropic Principle. Your mind is playing a trick on you to help you deal with a lack of information.

Please read more about this subject.

bruto

2nd December 2006, 02:41 PM

Yeah-I think. It was too broad. And it needs to define the source of life.

No, it was not just too broad. It was totally fallacious in multiple ways. It was at the "2+2=5" level of error.

First of all, the initial premise was demonstrably false, as I believe I pointed out earlier. Granted, an argument can be logically valid even if all its premises and its conclusion are false, but it's a pretty poor start.

Second of all, the term "give life" had different meanings for each of the two premises, which is a fallacy known as "the fallacy of equivocation." This fallacy alone makes the logic invalid. There simply is no reasonable and meaningful way you can define "give life" to cover the biological function of female reproduction, and the role of the earth in hosting the life upon it without making the term so ambiguous that it carries no useful information at all.

Third, the structure of the argument was also fallacious and therefore logically invalid, demonstrating and proving nothing at all. If I'm remembering my fallacies correctly, I believe it's called "affirming the consequent." The form goes something like this: if A implies B, and if C also implies B, C is an A. This is incorrect. Any number of analogous and demonstrably silly arguments based on that idea can be used to show why it is a fallacy.

Cameras have shutters.
My house has shutters.
My house is a camera.

Vermont is in New England.
Massachusetts is in New England.
Massachusetts is Vermont.

That is structurally the same argument as :

All females give life.
The earth gives life.
The earth is female.

It is, in short, simply, flatly, wrong.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd December 2006, 02:41 PM

Light, I don't think you understood what people were saying about the Anthropic Principle at all. It is not a principle that helps tie your ideas together, it is a principle that shows why your ideas are basically mistaken.

We exist on the planet earth. The reason we exist in our present form is because we can. It is possible. If it weren't possible, we wouldn't be here. Billions of years of evolution have bred us to fit very well within the tolerences we find on the planet.

But sometimes people look around and notice that the planet is perfectly designed for them. It is just the right temperature and pressure with just the right sunlight and darkness and just the right foods in manageable supply. They conclude that the whole universe must have been very carefully constructed around their needs.

They are wrong. We grew into the world and made ourselves to fit. There was no design. The fact that there seems to be a design is an illusion. It's an illusion because we have no information about what else could have happened.

If you see a picture with one man appearing to stand in another man's hand, you might think it was real because you've seen no other picture. But if you see the small man walk towards the camera and appear to grow bigger until they both appear to be the same size, you'll realize you just did not have enough information before. What you thought you saw was a trick your mind played on you to make up for a lack of information.

[quote] Your entire theory - every last word of it - falls into this category. All of the purpose, all of the connections, all of the analogies you see are not really there.
This is the information that I have not wanted to hear. If it is right, I am completely delusional. I have falllen for the reality trap.
You are saying that life sees everything pointed at it because of an illusion of that particular view. "How else could we see it?" But through a telescope we can back in time. If what we see there jives with what we see, then we have a reason (unrelated to ourselves) to believe what we see.

Through fiction we see into the future, which because it sometimes go the direction we thought, is not depended on us. Sometimes the course of history takes a different path.

Even if reality is a delusion, (like with what science thinks of the forces and them making the universe,) sometimes the delusion is as much truth as you can expect at the moment.

You think that humans have beed purposefully grown by the universe but that is just an illusion.
Not humans, somethime. But you are saying if it was something else, how would know.

Please read more about this subject.

I will.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd December 2006, 04:26 PM

No, it was not just too broad. It was totally fallacious in multiple ways. It was at the "2+2=5" level of error.

First of all, the initial premise was demonstrably false, as I believe I pointed out earlier. Granted, an argument can be logically valid even if all its premises and its conclusion are false, but it's a pretty poor start.

Second of all, the term "give life" had different meanings for each of the two premises, which is a fallacy known as "the fallacy of equivocation." This fallacy alone makes the logic invalid. There simply is no reasonable and meaningful way you can define "give life" to cover the biological function of female reproduction, and the role of the earth in hosting the life upon it without making the term so ambiguous that it carries no useful information at all.

Third, the structure of the argument was also fallacious and therefore logically invalid, demonstrating and proving nothing at all. If I'm remembering my fallacies correctly, I believe it's called "affirming the consequent." The form goes something like this: if A implies B, and if C also implies B, C is an A. This is incorrect. Any number of analogous and demonstrably silly arguments based on that idea can be used to show why it is a fallacy.

Cameras have shutters.
My house has shutters.
My house is a camera.

Vermont is in New England.
Massachusetts is in New England.
Massachusetts is Vermont.

That is structurally the same argument as :

All females give life.
The earth gives life.
The earth is female.

It is, in short, simply, flatly, wrong.
See? That is the victory dance I was talking about.

bruto

2nd December 2006, 07:22 PM

See? That is the victory dance I was talking about.I don't understand the reference. I feel no victory in realizing how hopelessly incapable you are of understanding. Trying to tell you anything is an exercise in futility and defeat. But you made an attempt at logic and asked "how about this?" Did you not want an honest answer? When asked later if you understood the criticism you answered that you believed the problem was simply that your statement had been "too broad," implying that you truly do not understand the reasons why your argument was illogical. Would you be better off if I lied and said, "yeah, that's all that's wrong," when it isn't? I realize argument here is an isometric exercise, with lots of strain and no movement, but would you rather hear reassuring lies? I won't do that, and I don't think anyone else here will either. Even Canadian Malcontent, who is decidedly non-skeptical about many things, and would bend over backwards to cut you some slack and would welcome any sense he could find in your ideas, won't lie. If you don't want honest answers you'd better quit posting now.

Loss Leader

2nd December 2006, 07:49 PM

But through a telescope we can back in time. If what we see there jives with what we see, then we have a reason (unrelated to ourselves) to believe what we see.

No. Through a telescope, we would still be seeing a universe in which we are capable of fitting in. There is nothing through that telescope that is unrelated to ourselves no matter how far it may see. We grew to exist within this universe, so everything about this universe is consistent with our existence. The only was to be sure that we are not influenced by the Anthropic Fallacy is to never, never, never entertain the notion that this universe was ever purposefully created.

Why?

Because it is unprovable without reference to the Anthropic Fallacy. And nothing unprovable may ever be taken as proven.

RandFan

3rd December 2006, 12:27 AM

Light, do you have any other interests? The world of philosophy is a rich tapestry with thousands of years of history and contributions by some very gifted individuals. From the early Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato to Descartes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Epicurus, St. Augustine, Hume, Kant, Hobbes, Spinoza, etc., etc. There is much to be learned. It can be very stimulating and and enlightening.

Read some other threads. Contribute. Learn. Broaden your horizons. Stop seeing everyone else as caricatures, elitists that only look down on you.

You seem so shallow and so defensive. Move beyond your pet theory. Jump in, the water is fine.

lightcreatedlife@hom

3rd December 2006, 12:56 AM

No. Through a telescope, we would still be seeing a universe in which we are capable of fitting in. There is nothing through that telescope that is unrelated to ourselves no matter how far it may see. We grew to exist within this universe, so everything about this universe is consistent with our existence.
Throguh a telescope we can see a universe where the conditions would not support life. See them develop to that point.

We also know that except for the event that wiped out the dinosaurs, that we would not exist. That means that we did not have to be.

And if the universe can exist for 10 billion years before life here got started, why would it need us to observe it to make it real?

The only was to be sure that we are not influenced by the Anthropic Fallacy is to never, never, never entertain the notion that this universe was ever purposefully created.

Why?

Because it is unprovable without reference to the Anthropic Fallacy. And nothing unprovable may ever be taken as proven.

Standing in front of the pyramids one does not have to know who built them, or when, to know that someone did. Being unable to prove it would not mean that they weren't. It only means that you don't know who or when.

lightcreatedlife@hom

3rd December 2006, 01:17 AM

I don't understand the reference. I feel no victory in realizing how hopelessly incapable you are of understanding. Trying to tell you anything is an exercise in futility and defeat. But you made an attempt at logic and asked "how about this?" Did you not want an honest answer? When asked later if you understood the criticism you answered that you believed the problem was simply that your statement had been "too broad," implying that you truly do not understand the reasons why your argument was illogical. Would you be better off if I lied and said, "yeah, that's all that's wrong," when it isn't?
I did not say "simply" anything, and I think I said "and." You see? You made up the "simply" and left out the "and." You may not even be doing it consciously. You have a lview that leans negative. I also think that the guy that I was talking to covered it. So did others.

LawnOven

3rd December 2006, 01:42 AM

)>[-_-]<(

Loss Leader

3rd December 2006, 06:55 AM

Standing in front of the pyramids one does not have to know who built them, or when, to know that someone did. Being unable to prove it would not mean that they weren't. It only means that you don't know who or when.

So, really, nothing anybody says will ever influence you in any way. I explain why your telescope statement was wrong and you just dismiss me. Someone tells you why your "Earth is female" statement is illgical and you say it just needs more detail.

OK, for your pyramid statement, take a look at this picture of a causeway in Ireland:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/105034572e46a29543.bmp

Is this manmade? Do we just have to figure out who made it and when?

I really want to know your thoughts.

lightcreatedlife@hom

3rd December 2006, 09:10 AM

So, really, nothing anybody says will ever influence you in any way. I explain why your telescope statement was wrong and you just dismiss me.
I didn't dismiss you. I am giving it more thought. I am going to live in that "principle." I don't believe it. It seems to be saying that our reality is an allusion. But (while it is in a way true,) why does physics work? Those people make a prediction on how something works, and it does. If they were wrong, it wouldn't work.
The same failure of reason that affects the view of one thing, should affect the other. And while they can prove physics works through experiments, some parts of it was/are theorized before they were found. If the theory was thrown out because it could not be proven, (at the time) science would have no need to build better and better particle smashers.

Someone tells you why your "Earth is female" statement is illgical and you say it just needs more detail.
Yeah. I am going to work on it. Since I am trying to prove that graph, I sought of have to. What will it hurt?

OK, for your pyramid statement, take a look at this picture of a causeway in Ireland:

Is this manmade? Do we just have to figure out who made it and when?

I really want to know your thoughts.
It looks man-made to me, I can leave it at that, but there are a lot of people running around the world that are into that sought of thing. I mentioned the pyramids because people are doing just that.

Canadian Malcontent

3rd December 2006, 09:45 AM

Anacoluthon64

3rd December 2006, 10:09 AM

The formation of the "causeway" is a completely natural phenomenon.

Unlike most other aspects of this thread.

'Luthon64

Anacoluthon64

3rd December 2006, 10:32 AM

Anacoluthon64, it seems there can be matters upon which our sentiments are in concert.

thank you SirPerhaps so; if Ray Charles were a rooster he'd find the occasional kernel too - by pure chance, of course. He'd also crow very differently.

Wrong appellation, BTW.

'Luthon64

Canadian Malcontent

3rd December 2006, 11:16 AM

Perhaps so; if Ray Charles were a rooster he'd find the occasional kernel too - by pure chance, of course. He'd also crow very differently.

Wrong appellation, BTW.

'Luthon64

Yeah i'm really slow in a lot of ways.

So whats the deal with the causeway, crystalline structure?

Anacoluthon64

3rd December 2006, 11:40 AM

So whats the deal with the causeway, crystalline structure?Essentially, it's the result of fairly rapid cooling of magmatic material producing a horizontally near-isotropic tensile stress field in the rock owing to thermal contraction of the cooling rock. The hexagonal structures are an optimal fracture pattern in such a situation. The isotropy ensures both the regular sizes and the regular pattern.

'Luthon64

Loss Leader

3rd December 2006, 12:12 PM

It looks man-made to me, I can leave it at that, but there are a lot of people running around the world that are into that sought of thing. I mentioned the pyramids because people are doing just that.

You are wrong. The Giant's Causeway in Ireland is a natural phenomenon. I bring this example to your attention because you said that by looking at the pyramids without any information, you could know that they were manmade. However, here is an instance when you thought something was manmade but it was not.

Where you saw purpose and design in the Causeway, there was none.

It is for exactly that reason that the Anthropic Fallacy will lead you to wrong answers. You just do not have enough information to prove design or intent and therefore you MUST NOT allow yourself to think that you do. Otherwise, you are as ignorant, foolish and downright stupid as the people who thought that those rock formations were built by giants.

You like analogies so much, here is one: Your wrong guess about the Causeway is exactly like your wrong guess about light.

And, P.S., I don;t know why you keep saying "sought of thing." The word is SORT. You say "sort of thing," not "sought."

Belz...

4th December 2006, 09:40 AM

The kid got slapped around so bad that he had to learn something. Oh yeah, that would make you pick up the book. It was just a test.

Funny. Considering that's what you're actually arguing, I have my doubts about that last sentence.

It is fine tuned, but we do not need to be here for it to exist.

There is no evidence that it is "fine tuned". The term implies that someone tuned it, for which of course there is NO evidence. The fact of the matter is that our kind of life would be impossible if the constants were slightly off, but it doesnt' follow that some intelligent force made it so.

So because it looks that way, it must not be true?

Because it looks that way means nothing, actually.

It talks about intelligent life being really small, and lasting forever.

Er, no.

This is the information that I have not wanted to hear.

Hopefully you realise that whether you want to hear it or not doesn't really matter, assuming you want the truth.

If it is right, I am completely delusional.

Mistaken, willfully, would be the term that' I'd use.

You are saying that life sees everything pointed at it because of an illusion of that particular view.

Pretty much, because we look back at a chain of events that could've, basically, led to much, much different things, but only ONE path occured. It doesn't follow that this could've been the only path or that other paths wouldn't have been viable.

Even if reality is a delusion, (like with what science thinks of the forces and them making the universe,) sometimes the delusion is as much truth as you can expect at the moment.

That's not what he meant. But what you PERCEIVE as reality can sometimes be confounding.

Belz...

4th December 2006, 09:43 AM

Standing in front of the pyramids one does not have to know who built them, or when, to know that someone did. Being unable to prove it would not mean that they weren't. It only means that you don't know who or when.

False equivocation. The pyramids are known to be built, because we have records or their construction, a description of the method, and because no other explanation exists.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th December 2006, 04:12 PM

You are wrong. The Giant's Causeway in Ireland is a natural phenomenon. I bring this example to your attention because you said that by looking at the pyramids without any information, you could know that they were manmade. However, here is an instance when you thought something was manmade but it was not.

Where you saw purpose and design in the Causeway, there was none.
You must be kidding. The crystal structure is the apex of purpose and design, it just does not belong to humans. But since it is natural, it is at the basis of why people (like me) think humans made it. They see where their biase towards symetry came from. I was floored when I first saw naturally occuring squares in nature; tiny square crystals of salt. "So that's where it came from. The product is connected to the process."

It is for exactly that reason that the Anthropic Fallacy will lead you to wrong answers. You just do not have enough information to prove design or intent and therefore you MUST NOT allow yourself to think that you do. Otherwise, you are as ignorant, foolish and downright stupid as the people who thought that those rock formations were built by giants.
Give those people (and me) a break. Some times they give what they got at the time. "Okay. Here is the best I can come up with." I think the references in genesis to giants had to do with someone having seen the statues in Egypt. Remember even science was wrong about some things, and it helped fixed the view of those about the bridge.

What about the genetic code? Are you saying that there is no order to it, we just think there is?

You like analogies so much, here is one: Your wrong guess about the Causeway is exactly like your wrong guess about light.
Having you show that the math behind nature is at the base of how we think (and build ourselves) is the perfect comeback to this statement, because light is just as basic (and I probably will find connected to) the crystal structure.

And, P.S., I don;t know why you keep saying "sought of thing." The word is SORT. You say "sort of thing," not "sought."
Thanks.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th December 2006, 04:57 PM

Funny. Considering that's what you're actually arguing, I have my doubts about that last sentence.

Why? The statement has to be added to, worded to fit. Cornered into being. If it can be. It may help from something expanding a particular view of what life is. We'll see. Later. It is math. It is last on my list. Energy, crystals, carbon and atoms and that "principle" thing first.

There is no evidence that it is "fine tuned".
The people around that principle think so.

The term implies that someone tuned it, for which of course there is NO evidence.
Not someone, something.

The fact of the matter is that our kind of life would be impossible if the constants were slightly off, but it doesnt' follow that some intelligent force made it so.
It doesn't hurt it either.

Because it looks that way means nothing, actually.
First impressions are a start.

Hopefully you realise that whether you want to hear it or not doesn't really matter, assuming you want the truth.
It doesn't.

Mistaken, willfully, would be the term that' I'd use.
I'm looking now, and I don't see where I have been all that much off.

"The author of The Conguest of Energy says after covering atoms:
"Groups of giant living molecules were then able to reach a new order of stability by clustering to form cells, thus protecting their chemical community with a molecular stockade, the cell wall...

Gradually the new cells were able to form successor cells with still more merit for activity, cooperation and survival..."

And finally about humans.

"a creature capable of evolving still more broadly as he tried out new emotional, mental, cultural and spiritual patterns of actions."

He seems to support a based on sort of thing.

Pretty much, because we look back at a chain of events that could've, basically, led to much, much different things, but only ONE path occured. It doesn't follow that this could've been the only path or that other paths wouldn't have been viable.
I think the process made it possible for us to get lucky. The dinosuars almost won, and we would be in the cages-if we were lucky.

That's not what he meant. But what you PERCEIVE as reality can sometimes be confounding.
I think that science test so to make sure they know what they are talking about-to prove that they are seeing what they say.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th December 2006, 05:33 PM

)>[-_-]<(
It have been looking at this post knowing it was some sort of insult. After the third time I thought. You know? That looks just like a face. The symetry attracted me. It looks like the work of intelligence, (and depending on how I got it) a simple answer would be to change the mouth to a smile.
Simple communication is what is expected from intelligence, why shouldn't I assume that? Can you imagine receiving one and saying "can't be?"
How can science see a design, and in sprite of all its methods, checks and tests, says it can't trust its own mind? And I think that this is the only place where it does that.

wollery

4th December 2006, 06:04 PM

You must be kidding. The crystal structure is the apex of purpose and design, it just does not belong to humans. And this is precisely where your problems come from. It is not designed at all, it just looks like it. Just because something looks designed doesn't mean that it is.

But since it is natural, it is at the basis of why people (like me) think humans made it. They see where their biase towards symetry came from.That's a nonsequitor.

I was floored when I first saw naturally occuring squares in nature; tiny square crystals of salt. "So that's where it came from. The product is connected to the process."The shapes of crystals are due to the way the molecules pack together as the crystals form. In the case of ordinary table salt the molecules pack together in a cubic pattern. This webpage - http://departments.kings.edu/chemlab/animation/ gives an excellent description of why crystals appear the way they do.

Give those people (and me) a break. Some times they give what they got at the time. "Okay. Here is the best I can come up with." I think the references in genesis to giants had to do with someone having seen the statues in Egypt. Remember even science was wrong about some things, and it helped fixed the view of those about the bridge.The people who first named the Giant's Causeway had no idea about, and no access to anyone who knew about, geology, crystalline structure, stress fracturing, vulcanology, or any other modern scientific discipline. They therefore had no way of explaining something like the Causeway without recourse to the supernatural.

What about the genetic code? Are you saying that there is no order to it, we just think there is?Of course DNA is ordered. But that does not imply that it is designed.

Having you show that the math behind nature is at the base of how we think (and build ourselves) is the perfect comeback to this statement, because light is just as basic (and I probably will find connected to) the crystal structure.:nope:

wollery

4th December 2006, 06:29 PM

Why? The statement has to be added to, worded to fit. Cornered into being. If it can be. It may help from something expanding a particular view of what life is. We'll see. Later. It is math. It is last on my list. Energy, crystals, carbon and atoms and that "principle" thing first. I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here. It seems to be an incoherent stream of conciousness.

The people around that principle think so.I'm sorry, I should have thought to be more careful with my use of language. Fine-tuned is a very anthropomorphic phrase. So let me rephrase the Anthropic principle in even simpler terms;

"The Universe looks the way it does, because it is the way it is."

That's it.

Not someone, something.Semantics.

It doesn't hurt it either.I think you meant to say, "It doesn't mean that they didn't." which would be true. The Anthropic principle means that we cannot use the laws of nature to imply whether or not the Universe was designed.

First impressions are a start.And often wrong, particularly in physics!

It doesn't.Good.

I'm looking now, and I don't see where I have been all that much off.

"The author of The Conguest of Energy says after covering atoms:
"Groups of giant living molecules were then able to reach a new order of stability by clustering to form cells, thus protecting their chemical community with a molecular stockade, the cell wall...

Gradually the new cells were able to form successor cells with still more merit for activity, cooperation and survival..."

And finally about humans.

"a creature capable of evolving still more broadly as he tried out new emotional, mental, cultural and spiritual patterns of actions."

He seems to support a based on sort of thing.He seems to be saying that complex lifeforms evolved from simpler lifeforms. I.e. complex life is based on simple life.

I think the process made it possible for us to get lucky. The dinosuars almost won, and we would be in the cages-if we were lucky.:confused:

I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. Are you trying to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and humans won some sort of war against them? Or that if the dinosaurs hadn't died out that we would still have evolved, but the dinosaurs would be keeping us in zoos?

I think that science test so to make sure they know what they are talking about-to prove that they are seeing what they say.Yes, that's right. At least, I think it is, assuming that I correctly understand what you're saying here.

Loss Leader

4th December 2006, 07:24 PM

You must be kidding. The crystal structure is the apex of purpose and design, it just does not belong to humans. But since it is natural, it is at the basis of why people (like me) think humans made it. They see where their biase towards symetry came from. I was floored when I first saw naturally occuring squares in nature; tiny square crystals of salt. "So that's where it came from. The product is connected to the process."

Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. I asked you if the Giants' Causeway looked manmade and you said yes. I explained that it was not and your perceptions about it were at the root of your problem. In answer, you tell me that something that is manmade comes from something natural? So, I assume, your guess about it being manmade was somehow not wrong? If you guessed natural, you were right but if you guessed manmade, then that just proved how much order there is in the natural world?

You actually dare to come back and tell me that your wrong guess somehow supports your theory?

So: 1. If we agree with you, it's evidence that you are right because we're agreeing. If we disagree with you, it's evidence that you are right because all the great thinkers had to overcome detractors?

2. If people behave the same way light does, it's evidence that light created life because they both act similarly. But if people don't behave like light, it's evidence that light created life because people are more evolved and have choice.

And now 3. If it seems natural, it's evidence of design in nature. If it seems manmade, it's evidence of design in nature.

Light, listen carefully: YOU ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. You will do ANYTHING to keep from admitting that you are wrong.

And that is the difference between you and a person who is honestly interested in understanding the universe. The honest ones work to find answers even if it means following dead-ends and turning around. You think of an answer and refuse to acknowledge that you were born and raised in a dead end.

bruto

4th December 2006, 07:30 PM

It have been looking at this post knowing it was some sort of insult. After the third time I thought. You know? That looks just like a face. The symetry attracted me. It looks like the work of intelligence, (and depending on how I got it) a simple answer would be to change the mouth to a smile.
Simple communication is what is expected from intelligence, why shouldn't I assume that? Can you imagine receiving one and saying "can't be?"
How can science see a design, and in sprite of all its methods, checks and tests, says it can't trust its own mind? And I think that this is the only place where it does that.

Although it's been said many times in many ways already, you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion when you say that "science" sees a design. Setting aside the usual reminder that there is no such individual as "science," and science does not have a mind, but that there are only individual scientists, whose collective knowledge can be generally lumped together under the heading "science," the use of the word "design" is itself loaded: it is an interpretation of data, not the data themselves. What one sees is pattern, regularity, order, and other things which can be interpreted as the appearance of design, but to infer design from the appearance of order is a matter entirely of faith, with no scientific content at all, unless you can make a good case separately for the existence of a designer and a mechanism whereby the design could have been implemented.

In the case of the symbol you're puzzling over, I think that since ordered typographical arrangements with pictorial implications do not usually occur by themselves in a forum post, but are known to be perpetrated often by persons making such posts, even to the extent of having a generic name (emoticons), we can safely conclude that this is indeed a product of human agency without thereby implying anything about other appearances of order in the universe.

When you use the word "design" as you do, you are implicitly making the assertion that visible order requires a designer. You skip the step of actually stating the assertion, but it is there, and as such, it is open to challenge.

Cosmo

4th December 2006, 07:31 PM

I'm going to concur with Loss Leader here.

LCL, you've topped yourself. You are completely, utterly incapable of admitting even the possibility you might be wrong.

Disgusting and reprehensible.

Belz...

5th December 2006, 04:32 AM

You must be kidding.

Why do you ALWAYS think people are pulling your leg ?

The crystal structure is the apex of purpose and design

WHAT ? It's the apex of simplicity. Before making such broad, unsupported and ultimately silly statements, shouldn't you CHECK first ?

But since it is natural, it is at the basis of why people (like me) think humans made it.

That's a contradiction.

They see where their biase towards symetry came from. I was floored when I first saw naturally occuring squares in nature; tiny square crystals of salt. "So that's where it came from. The product is connected to the process."

No, it isn't. Once again you try to make connections where there aren't any. This is why mysticism and religion haven't progressed in the last five thousand years. They don't check their facts, and they're content inventing the answers to their questions.

Give those people (and me) a break.

No. Ignorance is NOT to be tolerated.

Some times they give what they got at the time. "Okay. Here is the best I can come up with."

Perhaps, but only if, in the end, they realise that they were wrong and why. You don't seem to be on that path, right now.

I think the references in genesis to giants had to do with someone having seen the statues in Egypt.

Again, inventing a connection without fact-checking.

Remember even science was wrong about some things, and it helped fixed the view of those about the bridge.

Uh-huh. Science was wrong, then it corrected ITSELF.

What about the genetic code? Are you saying that there is no order to it, we just think there is?

There is a huge amount of useless code in DNA. Someone forgot to clean up.

Having you show that the math behind nature is at the base of how we think (and build ourselves) is the perfect comeback to this statement, because light is just as basic (and I probably will find connected to) the crystal structure.

Again, you contradict yourself. How can design be basic, since it needs to be designed by something ?

Belz...

5th December 2006, 04:39 AM

Belz...

5th December 2006, 04:45 AM

How can science see a design, and in sprite of all its methods, checks and tests, says it can't trust its own mind? And I think that this is the only place where it does that.

Because you CAN'T trust your own mind to be objective. That's why "science" operates as a community of people who can correct one another. That's a strength.

There are so many things that "look like" something else. Perceptions can't be fully trusted.

Oh, and Light, you should heed Loss Leader's words, above. You're starting to sound dangerously delusional. It's time to stop adding layers to your bubble.

Tricky

5th December 2006, 05:01 AM

So, really, nothing anybody says will ever influence you in any way. I explain why your telescope statement was wrong and you just dismiss me. Someone tells you why your "Earth is female" statement is illgical and you say it just needs more detail.

OK, for your pyramid statement, take a look at this picture of a causeway in Ireland:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/105034572e46a29543.bmp

Is this manmade? Do we just have to figure out who made it and when?

I really want to know your thoughts.
That's a good example, LL. Triangles, squares and hexagons are very common in nature because they fit together so well.

My example (from Yosemite) is evern better because the basalt columns are sheared off at the top by a glacier, leading to an almost smooth, table-like structure. I call this "The Devil's Patio" (They name everything after the Devil out in God's country).

Loss Leader

5th December 2006, 05:36 AM

That's a good example, LL. Triangles, squares and hexagons are very common in nature because they fit together so well.

My example (from Yosemite) is evern better because the basalt columns are sheared off at the top by a glacier, leading to an almost smooth, table-like structure. I call this "The Devil's Patio" (They name everything after the Devil out in God's country).

Great picture. I wasn't aware of that formation. I remembered the Giants Causeway from a show I saw a long, long time ago about the Anthropic Fallacy and the difficulty it causes archeologists.

Tricky

5th December 2006, 05:49 AM

Great picture. I wasn't aware of that formation. I remembered the Giants Causeway from a show I saw a long, long time ago about the Anthropic Fallacy and the difficulty it causes archeologists.
Thanks. That's my own picture. Here are better descriptions and better photos for those who are interested (http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/parks/depo/index.html).

wollery

5th December 2006, 05:59 AM

Wow, cool pic Tricky!

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 07:12 AM

And this is precisely where your problems come from. It is not designed at all, it just looks like it. Just because something looks designed doesn't mean that it is.
Okay. I say that because the design started at the beginning, of course it would be seen everywhere.
You are saying that because nature looks designed, is not enough reason to say it was. We will always see something "ordered" ledding up to us because there is.
We see things the way we do, because that order is a part of us.

Of course DNA is ordered. But that does not imply that it is designed.
I think I see the logic behind this now. And I swear, it is not working. I think something very important is being left out. Life has an emotional, intuitive side that can be used to support what it sees. I know that it is something that has to be used as little as possible, especially in some areas, but it is still a very real part of the equation.

Like that push that religion first gave physics in the beginning, humans felt that they were a part of something grand before science proved it.
Someone said that science moved on and religion stayed behind, and that is a problem. But what if religion kept up? God would have evolved into energy and served about the same purpose. Not the God that most think about (because that appears to be someone granting wishes) but something giving purpose. And from my view, only in the beginning, because the best product possible would not be a puppet.

Humans feel that they are serving a higher purpose through their positive pricinples and actions.

The shapes of crystals are due to the way the molecules pack together as the crystals form. In the case of ordinary table salt the molecules pack together in a cubic pattern. This webpage - http://departments.kings.edu/chemlab/animation/ gives an excellent description of why crystals appear the way they do.

The people who first named the Giant's Causeway had no idea about, and no access to anyone who knew about, geology, crystalline structure, stress fracturing, vulcanology, or any other modern scientific discipline. They therefore had no way of explaining something like the Causeway without recourse to the supernatural.
Right. Someone big (and thinks like them) to move the rocks.

Canadian Malcontent

5th December 2006, 07:35 AM

Tricky , us Christians are very familiar with the Devil.
"Give the Devil his due" as the saying goes.

wollery

5th December 2006, 07:36 AM

Okay. I say that because the design started at the beginning, of course it would be seen everywhere.
You are saying that because nature looks designed, is not enough reason to say it was. We will always see something "ordered" ledding up to us because there is.
We see things the way we do, because that order is a part of us.

I think I see the logic behind this now. And I swear, it is not working. I think something very important is being left out. Life has an emotional, intuitive side that can be used to support what it sees. I know that it is something that has to be used as little as possible, especially in some areas, but it is still a very real part of the equation.

Like that push that religion first gave physics in the beginning, humans felt that they were a part of something grand before science proved it.
Someone said that science moved on and religion stayed behind, and that is a problem. But what if religion kept up? God would have evolved into energy and served about the same purpose. Not the God that most think about (because that appears to be someone granting wishes) but something giving purpose. And from my view, only in the beginning, because the best product possible would not be a puppet.

Humans feel that they are serving a higher purpose through their positive pricinples and actions.

Right. Someone big (and thinks like them) to move the rocks.Umm, LCL, none of that post makes any sense at all. Half the sentences don't parse, and most of the ones that do are nonsensical.

Canadian Malcontent

5th December 2006, 07:40 AM

Or they recognized it as natural ( as did I) but gave it a cool name cuz its so cool.

P.S. LCL admit that you do not KNOW, find something in your idea to represent, post it and you will recieve free consulting from the many knowledgeable participants here.
I could almost start a consulting firm and just come here and throw God into the question and have it answered for free.

Tricky

5th December 2006, 07:55 AM

Tricky , us Christians are very familiar with the Devil.
"Give the Devil his due" as the saying goes.
That's why we Satanist Atheists build shrines to him at Devil's Tower and Devil's Post Pile where we give offerings of deviled eggs, deviled ham, devil's food cake, all sprinkled with our version of holy water, Mean Devil Woman Hot Sauce.:p
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0000DG55G.01-A31HQPYOMSLDNF._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V40791583_.jpg

Loss Leader

5th December 2006, 07:58 AM

I think something very important is being left out. Life has an emotional, intuitive side that can be used to support what it sees. I know that it is something that has to be used as little as possible, especially in some areas, but it is still a very real part of the equation.

You are doing it again, Light. You're doing it again.

You just wrote an equation that goes like this:

Scientific Evidence + Some Amount of Emotion and Intuition = The Right Answer.

The problem is that you've made Emotion and Intuition a variable that should be used "as little as possible" in some cases and however much you want in others. By doing this, you can make anything true. You are deciding The Right Answer and then you are deciding how much Emotion and Intuition you need to get there.

You start with your conclusion about Light, then you note that scientific evidence gets you nowhere so you add in as much Emotion and Intuition as you think you need. It is the same as:

Most say: 5 = The Right Answer

You say: 5 + x = The Right Answer.

Everybody says The Right Answer is 5. But you declare that The Right Answer is 12 and then, in order to make it work, you just say that there is some variable x that we didn't take into account and it just happens to be 7.

At other times, to suit your purposes at the moment, you say that The Right Answer is 84. We say that 5+7 only equals 12. But then you come back and tell us, "No, no. In this case, x = 79. Because x is an unmeasurable quantity and I can make it whatever I want."

Unless you can say exactly how much Emotion and Intuition should go into the equation under exactly what circumstances, how that amount it arived at, how it is quantified, and how it changes the final answer, then all you are doing is CHANGING THE FACTS TO FIT YOUR OWN PREJUDICES.

It's what you always do. It's wrong. And it makes you dishonest.

(And this was right after I pointed out that you were guilty of exactly the same type of dishonesty several times before.)

Belz...

5th December 2006, 09:03 AM

Tricky , us Christians are very familiar with the Devil.

Actually, you're very familiar with what you've been told.

I doubt you've met him in person and took pictures.

Belz...

5th December 2006, 09:08 AM

Okay. I say that because the design started at the beginning, of course it would be seen everywhere.

I think you forgot a word in there: "if".

You are saying that because nature looks designed, is not enough reason to say it was. We will always see something "ordered" ledding up to us because there is.

We see things the way we do, because that order is a part of us.

That's another circular argument. There are litteraly thousands of examples of misperceptions. Surely even you can understand why what we perceive is sometimes misleading.

I think I see the logic behind this now. And I swear, it is not working. I think something very important is being left out.

Yes, we call that argument from personal beliefs.

Life has an emotional, intuitive side that can be used to support what it sees.

Life has emotions because it's a survival trait. They have no use for non-lifeforms.

I know that it is something that has to be used as little as possible, especially in some areas, but it is still a very real part of the equation.

Just because emotions exist doesn't mean they have some deep meaning, Light.

Like that push that religion first gave physics in the beginning humans felt that they were a part of something grand before science proved it.

But one has nothing to do with the other. You're wording it so it seems genuine. That's called cheating. Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you.

Someone said that science moved on and religion stayed behind, and that is a problem. But what if religion kept up? God would have evolved into energy and served about the same purpose.

It would still be just a legend. Adapting the myth to fit reality doesn't make the myth any more real.

Humans feel that they are serving a higher purpose through their positive pricinples and actions.

I have no use for what people "feel" when looking for answers to how things work.

RandFan

5th December 2006, 09:16 AM

That's why we Satanist Atheists build shrines to him at Devil's Tower and Devil's Post Pile where we give offerings of deviled eggs, deviled ham, devil's food cake, all sprinkled with our version of holy water, Mean Devil Woman Hot Sauce.:p
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0000DG55G.01-A31HQPYOMSLDNF._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V40791583_.jpg That's hot!

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. Are you trying to say that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and humans won some sort of war against them? Or that if the dinosaurs hadn't died out that we would still have evolved, but the dinosaurs would be keeping us in zoos?
That is the stuff you want it to say.
Some dinosuars had developed some of the qualities that some think are important to very intelligent forms. Standing upright, hands, working in groups, signals/sound that could have developed to language. Give that a million years.
If the Rock hadn't got them, they could have developed a civilization that would have had the same influence that we have had on the planet. You know. The kind that makes it hard for most of the other advanced forms of life to live.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 09:51 AM

Yes, we call that argument from personal beliefs.
If you arugued that there was no God, it would be one from personal belief.

Life has emotions because it's a survival trait. They have no use for non-lifeforms.
But they may have a precursor there.

Just because emotions exist doesn't mean they have some deep meaning, Light.
Humans are emotional beings, and emotions are a large part of their lives. Some can say the best part. Outside of science, they make reason more dynamic.

But one has nothing to do with the other. You're wording it so it seems genuine. That's called cheating. Of course, I'd expect nothing less from you.
Cheating? That is not what I am trying to do. Believe me. I am really put out by all the best edvince being thrown out of court because it fits things-but I am not saying you cheated because of it. To me a person who had/wanted another view of the universe, found something reallly good to support it. I am going to be looking into his personal beliefs, whether or not anyone has a competeing view, what was thought before him, and so on.

It would still be just a legend. Adapting the myth to fit reality doesn't make the myth any more real.
But who said it wasn't?

I have no use for what people "feel" when looking for answers to how things work.
It might have something to do with "why" though. What is wrong with the most complex form of life being able to feel it in their soul? Oh I know. Religion has made a mess of that. But science ignoring it is hardly any better.

zizzybaluba

5th December 2006, 10:17 AM

If you arugued that there was no God, it would be one from personal belief.

No, no, no, no, NO!

You just don't get it, LCL. One cannot argue a negative!
"Prove that there is no God"
is logically equivalent to:
"Prove there is no invisible dragon under my desk"

Logic is not a matter of belief.

Loss Leader

5th December 2006, 10:45 AM

bruto

5th December 2006, 11:07 AM

It might have something to do with "why" though. What is wrong with the most complex form of life being able to feel it in their soul? Oh I know. Religion has made a mess of that. But science ignoring it is hardly any better.

Whoa there. We've spent 54 pages with you using "science says" as a justification for your views. Now, all of a sudden you're saying that science doesn't say it and that's why your version is better?

Belz...

5th December 2006, 12:13 PM

That is the stuff you want it to say.
Some dinosuars had developed some of the qualities that some think are important to very intelligent forms. Standing upright, hands, working in groups, signals/sound that could have developed to language. Give that a million years.

Speculation.

Again.

If you arugued that there was no God, it would be one from personal belief.

Boy, you do love dodging arguments, don't you ?

I think I see the logic behind this now. And I swear, it is not working. I think something very important is being left out.

I said that's an argument from personal belief, because you've just admitted that it IS just a belief.

I never stated, nor will I, that my opinion on the non-existence of God is a mere belief. If it were, I'd be an agnostic, not an atheist.

But they may have a precursor there.

We can "if" forever, Light. Do you have any proof that they ARE ?

Just because emotions exist doesn't mean they have some deep meaning, Light.

Humans are emotional beings, and emotions are a large part of their lives. Some can say the best part. Outside of science, they make reason more dynamic.

Since this doesn't refute what I said, I'll take it as a tacit agreement.

Cheating? That is not what I am trying to do. Believe me.

Believe you ? You've lied through your teeth more than once, Light. You've had your chance to prove your honesty, more than one, in fact, and failed.

I am really put out by all the best edvince being thrown out of court because it fits things

"It fits things" isn't an argument. Don't make me bring up MY graph again.

To me a person who had/wanted another view of the universe, found something reallly good to support it. I am going to be looking into his personal beliefs, whether or not anyone has a competeing view, what was thought before him, and so on.

And while you do that, I'm going to ask for evidence. One method made the crusades, the other one gave us technology. You know, the stuff you claim makes us better than the other lifeforms.

It would still be just a legend. Adapting the myth to fit reality doesn't make the myth any more real.

But who said it wasn't?

Real ? No one. You should read my sentence again, and try to understand what it means, instead of what you want it to mean.

What is wrong with the most complex form of life

We are NOT the more "complex" form of life, Light. Please, for the sake of sanity, get that through your head.

[...] being able to feel it in their soul?

Soul ? What's that ? Oh, yeah, that's right. You're still using the wrong word and trying to "fit" it with "energy".

Oh I know. Religion has made a mess of that. But science ignoring it is hardly any better.

No. Religion invented it. It didn't "make a mess" of it. Religion ignores it because there is NO evidence for it and quite a lot of evidence AGAINST.

Might want to look that up, too.

Belz...

5th December 2006, 12:17 PM

Whoa there. We've spent 54 pages with you using "science says" as a justification for your views. Now, all of a sudden you're saying that science doesn't say it and that's why your version is better?

This is why religion and woo beliefs will always win : they are designed to form win-win arguments. Unfalsifiable, unprovable, invincible.

Solus

5th December 2006, 01:59 PM

A thought just occured to me, I must be a GENIUS! Light created stupidity! Here's how it goes: All life came from light; (in the form of providing energy) LCL is a form of life. LCL's thread is the essense of stupidity. Hence light created LCL and thus stupidity!

Feh, the whole light created this or that sounds, well just plain ignorant. It's much too simplistic. But still I prefer my brilliant idea to LCL's.:)

I know there must be a logical gap in my statement somewhere but it still beats anything LCL could ever dream up. Anyrate is LCL making any sense yet or this thread the same as it's always been (need I even ask)? Well, always amusing.

Ok I just glanced at this page of the thread and LCL is the same as ever. Now I wonder who LCL is... I bet he's either a JREF poster's sockpuppet, an angry conspiracy theorist, or an angry christian fundie. Or maybe it's occam's razor, LCL is just a simple, slow witted person. I prefer the presistant troll theory myself.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 02:36 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 02:47 PM

Because you CAN'T trust your own mind to be objective. That's why "science" operates as a community of people who can correct one another. That's a strength.

There are so many things that "look like" something else. Perceptions can't be fully trusted.
I think that is also why we have five senses, a mental/emotional nature.

Oh, and Light, you should heed Loss Leader's words, above. You're starting to sound dangerously delusional. It's time to stop adding layers to your bubble.
What do you think I am adding on too? Everything I am saying here I have already said at that site. I said that heaven and hell did not have to be what they are billed to be. That it looks like a recycling process, and someone (I think you) said I was adding, but it is there.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th December 2006, 03:14 PM

I said that's an argument from personal belief, because you've just admitted that it IS just a belief.

From what I have heard lately, everything is just a belief. How can you be sure you can trust your perception?

I never stated, nor will I, that my opinion on the non-existence of God is a mere belief. If it were, I'd be an agnostic, not an atheist.
I didn'y know that "mere" came with the word "belief?" Are you saying you have proof that the universe had no designer?

Since this doesn't refute what I said, I'll take it as a tacit agreement.
Wow. Wasn't I told I couldn't do that? How can you?

Believe you ? You've lied through your teeth more than once, Light. You've had your chance to prove your honesty, more than one, in fact, and failed.
What have I lied about? Why do you think you would be worth it?

And while you do that, I'm going to ask for evidence. One method made the crusades, the other one gave us technology. You know, the stuff you claim makes us better than the other lifeforms.
I never said better you. You might be lying just a little bit. More complex, higher, Ihave used, and I am finding those same words in the same places in Conquest of Energy.

We are NOT the more "complex" form of life, Light. Please, for the sake of sanity, get that through your head.
See what I said above.

Soul ? What's that ? Oh, yeah, that's right. You're still using the wrong word and trying to "fit" it with "energy".
It was already there, and you are being dishonest when you pretend you never heard of it.

No. Religion invented it. It didn't "make a mess" of it. Religion ignores it because there is NO evidence for it and quite a lot of evidence AGAINST.
Like what?

Cosmo

5th December 2006, 03:46 PM

Don't dwell on it too much, these things can led to a fixation.

Oh, the irony.

Solus

5th December 2006, 04:28 PM

Don't dwell on it too much, these things can led to a fixation.

Really? Fixation is a big word did you look that up in your dictionary. ;)
Will you ever get bored being a troll LCL?

Tricky

5th December 2006, 04:31 PM

From what I have heard lately, everything is just a belief. How can you be sure you can trust your perception?
You should have listened to the whole thing. All beliefs are not equal. There are beliefs based on evidence, objectivity, repeatability and predictive value which are most certainly not based on your own perception or the perception of any single person. Then there are beliefs pulled from ones own anal orifice. Wisdom comes in learning to tell the difference, grasshopper.

wollery

5th December 2006, 05:00 PM

That is the stuff you want it to say.No, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I genuinely didn't understand what you were trying to say and wanted clarification.

Some dinosuars had developed some of the qualities that some think are important to very intelligent forms. Standing upright, hands, working in groups, signals/sound that could have developed to language. Give that a million years.I think the Cetaceans and Cephalopods might take offence at the idea that standing upright and having hands are important for very intelligent forms.

If the Rock hadn't got them, they could have developed a civilization that would have had the same influence that we have had on the planet. You know. The kind that makes it hard for most of the other advanced forms of life to live.Yes, it's possible that they might have. I don't see any relevance to the ongoing discussion in this idea.

Loss Leader

5th December 2006, 07:05 PM

Belz...

6th December 2006, 07:13 AM

I think that is also why we have five senses, a mental/emotional nature.

What ? How does that relate to the fact that the senses can't be trusted ?

What do you think I am adding on too?

You keep inventing reasons why the fact that you're wrong really makes you right.

From what I have heard lately, everything is just a belief. How can you be sure you can trust your perception?

Is there no ends to which you will go to hold on to your ideas ?

Not everything is a belief, Light. Thats a (gasp!) misunderstanding of what's been said to you. There's plenty of stuff that we can be pretty sure of. Not "absolutely" sure of, mind you. But sure enough so that any doubt would be unreasonable.

I didn'y know that "mere" came with the word "belief?" Are you saying you have proof that the universe had no designer?

We have solid evidence that no designer is required, and that every myth about gods is just that, a myth. We also have reason to think that, were a designer to exist, we'd have some evidence of his existence. We don't.

Wow. Wasn't I told I couldn't do that? How can you?

Easy: you don't answer my arguments. Instead you go into useless and pointless tangents without adressing what I said. Since you can't be trusted to get back on track, I'll simply assume you agree with me: otherwise you would've said so. Let me help you :

Just because emotions exist doesn't mean they have some deep meaning, Light.

Humans are emotional beings, and emotions are a large part of their lives. Some can say the best part. Outside of science, they make reason more dynamic.

Your response had NOTHING to do with my statement. So, unless you want to adress my statement now, I'll simply assume you have nothing to counter it.

What have I lied about? Why do you think you would be worth it?

Me ? Worth a lie ? No. To you, your ideas are worth a lie.

You said you didn't think we had an agenda, several times, and then, several times, accused us of saying you were wrong because we had an agenda. That's a lie, by the way.

I never said better you. You might be lying just a little bit. More complex, higher, Ihave used, and I am finding those same words in the same places in Conquest of Energy.

"Higher" and "better" aren't synonyms, now ? Or were you talking about altitude ? I didn't think so.

See what I said above.

Yes, you said "more complex". We are NOT the most complex form of life. Get that through your head.

It was already there, and you are being dishonest when you pretend you never heard of it.

Only if you're dumb enough to think I was pretending this, which I wasn't. You're still trying to equivocate words that don't match. The only explanation I can find about why you're doing that is because you simply don't understand how these things work.

ETA: In this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2150618&postcount=2149)post, at the bottom, I did mean "science", not religion:

No. Religion invented it. It didn't "make a mess" of it. Science ignores it because there is NO evidence for it and quite a lot of evidence AGAINST.

Belz...

6th December 2006, 07:15 AM

Does anyone know anything about this book he's talking about? Conquest of Energy? All I can find is that it was written 40 years ago by George Russell Harrison. He seems to have been a pretty well respected physicist. Of course, I'm not sure if anything major has changed in the last 40 years.

When woo-woos quote references that aren't woo themselves, you can bet your house that it's going to be outdated.

zizzybaluba

6th December 2006, 08:16 AM

Does anyone know anything about this book he's talking about? Conquest of Energy? All I can find is that it was written 40 years ago by George Russell Harrison. He seems to have been a pretty well respected physicist. Of course, I'm not sure if anything major has changed in the last 40 years.

A google search on "Conquest of Energy" brought up this likely candidate

Life: Conquest of Energy (http://www.amazon.com/Life-conquest-energy-Richard-Tullar/dp/0030811988) by Richard M. Tullar (1971)

I can’t find any info on the author.

wollery

6th December 2006, 09:04 AM

http://eaglebookshop.hostinguk.com/BookDetails.aspx?bc=1&BookId=1362

It was published in 1968 and it's out of print.

bruto

6th December 2006, 09:11 AM

A google search on "Conquest of Energy" brought up this likely candidate

Life: Conquest of Energy (http://www.amazon.com/Life-conquest-energy-Richard-Tullar/dp/0030811988) by Richard M. Tullar (1971)

I can’t find any info on the author.

I think the Tullar Conquest of Energy is a biology textbook. He also wrote one about human evolution etc. in the 70's, which is a basic college level textbook, which turns up used on ebay and elsewhere. Beyond that, I couldn't find anything more. No work by him appears in any of the local college library catalogs, further leading me to suspect that it's an outdated textbook.

George R. Harrison (1898 - ) wrote a few books on scientific history, of which his 1968 Conquest of Energy appears to be one. He appears to have been a reputable scientist and writer. I also found an uncredited reference elsewhere to a "conquest of energy" CD-rom, which seems to be about the history of mechanics, listed as an educational resource, but I don't know whether this is related. Harrison's books are still in some libraries. I haven't yet found a borrowable copy, though. By the way, note the dates. A couple of separate library catalogs record him as still living. I wonder if he's really still kicking at 108.

RandFan

6th December 2006, 09:15 AM

http://eaglebookshop.hostinguk.com/BookDetails.aspx?bc=1&BookId=1362

It was published in 1968 and it's out of print.It must have started a revolution.

Loss Leader

6th December 2006, 09:49 AM

By the way, note the dates. A couple of separate library catalogs record him as still living. I wonder if he's really still kicking at 108.

No, he died in 1979.

bruto

6th December 2006, 11:34 AM

No, he died in 1979.

I stopped quickly by one of the local libraries on my way to some other errands, and took a look at Harrison's Science in the Modern World. It's a relatively brief popular-level book on science and scientific method which looks reasonably informative and written for the layman. In fact, I think someone like LCL might benefit from reading it if he does so with care and comprehension, though that might be unwarranted optimism. Harrison was a physicist, at one time Dean of the School of Science at MIT and recipient of a presidential medal.

Loss Leader

6th December 2006, 12:27 PM

In fact, I think someone like LCL might benefit from reading it if he does so with care and comprehension, though that might be unwarranted optimism.

LCL has made some statements about what he believes he is learning from the book and, well, things do not look promising.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 04:20 PM

LCL has made some statements about what he believes he is learning from the book and, well, things do not look promising.
Promising for who? I quoted him and he seems to see increased capability with increased complexity. I read that stuff a long time ago and knew it was there. He will not be my only reference though.

I have a book here called "The Constants" that talks about a Final Anthropic Principle that someone said didn't exist.

And another is talking about chemical bonds. I am seeing what I expected to find. Attraction, repulsion, negative and positive at the base of the structure and interaction of matter. And you know that I believe that the same things apply to the socializing workings of life.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 04:28 PM

I'm going to concur with Loss Leader here.

LCL, you've topped yourself. You are completely, utterly incapable of admitting even the possibility you might be wrong.

Disgusting and reprehensible.
Where have you been? I have said that I am wrong on things plenty of times.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 04:39 PM

Whoa there. We've spent 54 pages with you using "science says" as a justification for your views. Now, all of a sudden you're saying that science doesn't say it and that's why your version is better?
IIf science was my religion, I would not be able to do that. But sense it is not. I can use it as a reference, and give my own opinion when I want.

wollery

6th December 2006, 04:50 PM

Promising for who? I quoted him and he seems to see increased capability with increased complexity. I read that stuff a long time ago and knew it was there. He will not be my only reference though.Nobody here would deny that complex lifeforms are capable of a wider variety of behaviour than simple life forms. That fact is self evident. The question is what you think it implies.

I have a book here called "The Constants" that talks about a Final Anthropic Principle that someone said didn't exist. Please show where someone said that the Final Anthropic Principle doesn't exist. It exists, but it's a complete load of bullplop. The Final Anthropic Principle makes an unwarranted, and undefendable, assumption about the nature of the Universe, in order to reach a predetermined conclusion about the Universe. Much like you do.

And another is talking about chemical bonds. I am seeing what I expected to find. Attraction, repulsion, negative and positive at the base of the structure and interaction of matter. And you know that I believe that the same things apply to the socializing workings of life.We've been all over this, several times. You didn't listen then and I have no reason to believe that you will listen in the future. You see what you want to see, interpret things the way you want to interpret them, and refuse to see them any other way.

wollery

6th December 2006, 04:52 PM

IIf science was my religion, I would not be able to do that. But sense it is not. I can use it as a reference, and give my own opinion when I want.Science isn't a religion.

That is why you fail.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 04:54 PM

Really? Fixation is a big word did you look that up in your dictionary. ;)
Will you ever get bored being a troll LCL?
I did. But only in checking the spelling.

We keep telling you I am not a troll. I am not bothering anybody. Wouldn't I be putting more energy into insulting people if I were? If my intelligence level is so low you see me as a bother, I'm working on it. There are people I plain won't talk to, and that is an option anybody can use.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 05:30 PM

Nobody here would deny that complex lifeforms are capable of a wider variety of behaviour than simple life forms. That fact is self evident. The question is what you think it implies.
When I said higher forms of life I was jumped on. I said that humans were at the highest level, and that they would be more able to express what they are a part of.

Please show where someone said that the Final Anthropic Principle doesn't exist. It exists, but it's a complete load of bullplop. The Final Anthropic Principle makes an unwarranted, and undefendable, assumption about the nature of the Universe, in order to reach a predetermined conclusion about the Universe. Much like you do.
He didn't write any of the rest of it? I am seeing that the principle did not get started until 1973.

We've been all over this, several times. You didn't listen then and I have no reason to believe that you will listen in the future. You see what you want to see, interpret things the way you want to interpret them, and refuse to see them any other way.
I can't see it if it is not there, and can not discount what I see. And even if that happened people like you wouldn't/shouldn't let it go unchallenged. I am interested in another view and I never said that you couldn't be right.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 05:34 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 06:00 PM

What ? How does that relate to the fact that the senses can't be trusted ?
I was talking about how they are used to check/support each other. Science applies logic, but emotion is another part of if and another check. Especially from intelligent people who are less likely to let it get out of hand.

You keep inventing reasons why the fact that you're wrong really makes you right.
Its at the site. The emotional side just came up.

Not everything is a belief, Light. Thats a (gasp!) misunderstanding of what's been said to you. There's plenty of stuff that we can be pretty sure of. Not "absolutely" sure of, mind you. But sure enough so that any doubt would be unreasonable.
That is what I was hoping. When that principle said that science could not trust its mind on something like that, the ground moved. I thought that their perceptions, were mostly confirmed through math.

We have solid evidence that no designer is required, and that every myth about gods is just that, a myth. We also have reason to think that, were a designer to exist, we'd have some evidence of his existence. We don't.
Others think the opposite. I'll answer the rest later.

wollery

6th December 2006, 06:04 PM

When I said higher forms of life I was jumped on. I said that humans were at the highest level, and that they would be more able to express what they are a part of. And once more you demonstrate your inability to understand simple English. Higher, in the sense that you used it, means 'better'. This is unwarranted. Animals are more complex than bacteria, not better. Furthermore, do you think you are a more complex form of life than, say, a cheetah? Or a Dolphin?

For someone who bases his entire thesis on linguistic similarities you really do have a very poor grasp of English, and an even poorer grasp of linguistics.

He didn't write any of the rest of it?I have no idea what you think you're responding to with this. Who are you talking about, and what "rest of" did or didn't he write?

I am seeing that the principle did not get started until 1973.So? It's still a complete load of bollocks.

I can't see it if it is not there, and can not discount what I see. And even if that happened people like you wouldn't/shouldn't let it go unchallenged. I am interested in another view and I never said that you couldn't be right.Just about everything you've ever written, either at your website or here in this thread, has been challenged.

Your usual responses are, "But if it was possible......" or, "It just needs one to be real...." in response to the point that OBEs were identical to hypoxia induced hallucinations, or , "Science says....." despite the fact that science often doesn't say what you say it does, or, "Scientists have been wrong in the past....." when science says something that disagrees with your ideas, or, "But if you include the mental/emotional nature......" when your analogies are limited by the differences between your 'anologous' entities.

These are your wriggle factors, and they allow you to wriggle and squirm your arguments to fit any set of data, and avoid any counterargument.

zizzybaluba

6th December 2006, 06:43 PM

I have a book here called "The Constants" that talks about a Final Anthropic Principle that someone said didn't exist.

Oh boy... referencing a book by a winner of the Templeton Prize (John D. Barrow). Why am I not surprised... :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 07:43 PM

Oh boy... referencing a book by a winner of the Templeton Prize (John D. Barrow). Why am I not surprised... :rolleyes:
That's bad?

Loss Leader

6th December 2006, 08:01 PM

Oh boy... referencing a book by a winner of the Templeton Prize (John D. Barrow). Why am I not surprised... :rolleyes:

The readers' reviews on Amazon say it's an interesting survey of the basic "constants" that shape our universe, but with a bit too much philosophising about their ultimate meaning. In any case, it's at least a real book. He could have gone into the new age section and spent a month reading Sylvia Browne's discussions of unicorns in heaven.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 08:11 PM

And once more you demonstrate your inability to understand simple English. Higher, in the sense that you used it, means 'better'. This is unwarranted. Animals are more complex than bacteria, not better.
For someone who says that I use words the way I want to, why do you insist onusing "better?" If better and higher are so interchangable, why can't I use higher? They are not better, but they are put on higher scales. Top of for chain. More complex. More intelligent. More adaptable. Get it? Not better than bacteria. Higher or the evolutionary scale.

For someone who bases his entire thesis on linguistic similarities you really do have a very poor grasp of English, and an even poorer grasp of linguistics.
So you are "better" than me. So.

I have no idea what you think you're responding to with this. Who are you talking about, and what "rest of" did or didn't he write?
The guy who wrote it.

So? It's still a complete load of bollocks.
Great. I didn't like it anyway. Wait, you don't agree with the whole thing, or just part?

Just about everything you've ever written, either at your website or here in this thread, has been challenged.
Yes challenged. Not killed. I was wrong about the 4 basics of math and the order of negative and positive.

Your usual responses are, "But if it was possible......" or, "It just needs one to be real...." in response to the point that OBEs were identical to hypoxia induced hallucinations, or , "Science says....." despite the fact that science often doesn't say what you say it does, or, "Scientists have been wrong in the past....." when science says something that disagrees with your ideas, or, "But if you include the mental/emotional nature......" when your analogies are limited by the differences between your 'anologous' entities.
I'm in the reference phase now, real books. I am going to try to fix some of that. This ain't the end, it is the beginning. If I am starting to annoy you all though, I am willing to cease fire while I gather my forces. Not that you need it, I do. I am not as clear as I could be

Glen.Nogami

6th December 2006, 09:09 PM

That's bad?

Yes. Yes it is. Full name of the prize: Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities

Check the wiki citation, too. Not a reputable list of people. Most egregiously, Billy Graham.

Cosmo

6th December 2006, 09:16 PM

Where have you been? I have said that I am wrong on things plenty of times.

Quoted for poetic justice.

trvlr2

6th December 2006, 09:33 PM

LCL,#2182
snip!
"I'm in the reference phase now, real books. I am going to try to fix some of that. This ain't the end, it is the beginning. If I am starting to annoy you all though, I am willing to cease fire while I gather my forces. Not that you need it, I do. I am not as clear as I could be"

LCL -So happy that you will use real books. I predict that you will continue to pull whatever pleases you out of context. Also, that you will never prove anything with your great theory of everything.
You are no more annoying now, than before.
(end psychic mode)
I do fully agree that you are not as clear as you could be. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bust his ass.

wollery

6th December 2006, 09:42 PM

For someone who says that I use words the way I want to, why do you insist onusing "better?" If better and higher are so interchangable, why can't I use higher? They are not better, but they are put on higher scales. Top of for chain. More complex. More intelligent. More adaptable. Get it? Not better than bacteria. Higher or the evolutionary scale.Thank you for so beautifully illustrating my point.

So you are "better" than me. So.In linguistic ability, yes. As a physicist, yes. As a radar tech, probably not. See, it all depends on what aspect you choose.

The guy who wrote it.Well that cleared that up! :rolleyes:

Which 'guy'? What 'it'?

Great. I didn't like it anyway. Wait, you don't agree with the whole thing, or just part?The Anthropic Principle, as I explained it to you, is sometimes referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is logically sound and simply states that the Universe looks the way it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to see it, so it must look the way it does, and thus the fact that it looks the way it does tells us nothing about whether or not it was designed.

There are also the Strong Anthropic Principle, the Participatory Anthropic Principle and the Final Anthropic Principle, none of which are logically sound, because they all require assumptions which are not merited.

Yes challenged. Not killed. I was wrong about the 4 basics of math and the order of negative and positive.To name but two, and despite this the "4 basics of math" are still included in your plot and your theory.

And how is it possible to kill something that's never had life?

I'm in the reference phase now, real books. I am going to try to fix some of that. This ain't the end, it is the beginning. If I am starting to annoy you all though, I am willing to cease fire while I gather my forces. Not that you need it, I do. I am not as clear as I could beGood, try to pick books written by scientists that don't have an agenda, like John D. Barrow does.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th December 2006, 09:49 PM

Your response had NOTHING to do with my statement. So, unless you want to adress my statement now, I'll simply assume you have nothing to counter it.
You said emotions had no deep meaning. I think they are second in importance to thinking. That isn't reason that drives soldiers to jump on grenades, mothers to die for their children.

Me ? Worth a lie ? No. To you, your ideas are worth a lie.

You said you didn't think we had an agenda, several times, and then, several times, accused us of saying you were wrong because we had an agenda. That's a lie, by the way.
You still sore about that? Get over it. I said later that sometimes people also can't help it. They are people. Recently I did that logic thing about the planet being female. Well someone said that they left out something that others thought was important enough to add.

He gave his reason, and it had to do with him not wanting to give a certain impression. Talked about what he "didn't want me to think." It leaves me to wonder if some don't act in accordance with what they think others want them to. It happens. Even without a set plan. I knew there was more to a logical statement than what I had there, but tossed it out to see which way the particles flew.

Yes, you said "more complex". We are NOT the most complex form of life. Get that through your head.
Which form do you think is?

Only if you're dumb enough to think I was pretending this, which I wasn't. You're still trying to equivocate words that don't match. The only explanation I can find about why you're doing that is because you simply don't understand how these things work.

"Higher" and "better" aren't synonyms, now ? Or were you talking about altitude ? I didn't think so.

Is that what you are doing with those two words? If I asked a sick person if they felt any "higher," they may think I was talking about the affect of their medication.

wollery

6th December 2006, 10:02 PM

Solus

7th December 2006, 07:27 AM

I did. But only in checking the spelling.

We keep telling you I am not a troll. I am not bothering anybody. Wouldn't I be putting more energy into insulting people if I were? If my intelligence level is so low you see me as a bother, I'm working on it. There are people I plain won't talk to, and that is an option anybody can use.

I'm willing to concede you may not be a troll. A troll would have probably become bored by now. Be that as may, what do you think you are accomplishing here? I mean 50 pages of aruging in circles. And stop worrying about intelligence. Why do you instantly think we forum posters are so much smarter than you (exulding wollery who has PHd, I think he mentioned)?

I would be a lot less rude in this thread if if I didn't think you were troll. It's hard to tell. But honestly just go back and read this whole thread and think about what could be wrong with it. Really, just start from the beginning of this thread and try reading everything that's gone on. I know it may be difficult but try to look for errors in your own posts. Try it as exercise, for fun and see if you notice anything. I mean do you realize this gone has overboard? You keep aruging the same point over and over.

Another idea if you don't believe us JREFers and think we are crazy. Why don't you try posting this idea at other fourms? I can even give you some suggestions. If so many people think something is wrong with your ideas can't you at least admit there is a possiblity something is wrong with your ideas?

We have to start by saying we know nothing and go from there. That's how we learn. If we believe we aready know, we can learn nothing. I freely admit I'm an idiot sometimes and I can and have been wrong. Can you? It's called being human.

Why post such a long thoughtful post for deaf ears I don't know. I guess I'm killing time, before class. :p

wollery

7th December 2006, 08:51 AM

Why do you instantly think we forum posters are so much smarter than you (exulding wollery who has PHd, I think he mentioned)? I know several people with PhDs who are complete morons. If you can get a reasonable degree you can get a PhD. It indicates nothing more than the fact that you are a single minded bastard.

Solus

7th December 2006, 01:48 PM

I know several people with PhDs who are complete morons. If you can get a reasonable degree you can get a PhD. It indicates nothing more than the fact that you are a single minded bastard.

Still you must possess some level of intelligence to get one I would think? Otherwise we would have people like LCL with PhDs... Umm wait there are people like LCL with PhDs aren't there... hmm I'll take your word for it Wollery.

I've heard it takes near compete devotion when it comes to the highest levels of education though. Probably why I'll never have an MD; I like golf too much :D.

Belz...

8th December 2006, 09:55 AM

When I said higher forms of life I was jumped on. I said that humans were at the highest level, and that they would be more able to express what they are a part of.

Indeed, and that's because you think that this ability to express happens to be a universal criterion for beign "higher".

I can't see it if it is not there, and can not discount what I see..

Sometimes the important stuff can't be seen, and sometime what you see MUST be discounted.

I was talking about how they are used to check/support each other. Science applies logic, but emotion is another part of if and another check.

Emotion is not a "check". It is an unreasonable, irrational response "designed" to allow greater survivability. It does not, repeat: does NOT help you solve problems better.

That is what I was hoping. When that principle said that science could not trust its mind on something like that, the ground moved. I thought that their perceptions, were mostly confirmed through math.

Okay, that's just impossible to understand.

We have solid evidence that no designer is required, and that every myth about gods is just that, a myth. We also have reason to think that, were a designer to exist, we'd have some evidence of his existence. We don't.

Others think the opposite.

I'm going to write it so I'm sure you won't miss it : IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ANYBODY THINKS.

What matters is the evidence we have or DON'T have. And we have SQUAT for god.

For someone who says that I use words the way I want to, why do you insist onusing "better?" If better and higher are so interchangable, why can't I use higher? They are not better, but they are put on higher scales.

You're trying to weasel out of this by inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. In this context, "higher" means "better" or "superior". There's no way around it.

Top of for chain. More complex. More intelligent. More adaptable. Get it?

Top of the chain ? Unlikely. More complex ? No. More intelligent ? Probably. More adaptable ? Nope. Get it ?

I was wrong about the 4 basics of math and the order of negative and positive.

I'd say your admission is encouraging, but you'll just find a way to come right back to those arguments, sooner or later.

Belz...

8th December 2006, 10:00 AM

You said emotions had no deep meaning. I think they are second in importance to thinking. That isn't reason that drives soldiers to jump on grenades, mothers to die for their children.

As grenades go, I'd think that if the soldier followed his emotions he might actually RUN from the DEADLY grenade like he SHOULD. Instead he does what he's been TRAINED to do.

Emotions are as I said, a survival trait. There is no "deep" meaning about something that simply helps you to stay alive.

You still sore about that? Get over it.

No. You lied about this several times, that's MORE THAN ONCE, and I can only suspect you will do so again. So your integrity is very much in question.

I said later that sometimes people also can't help it. They are people.

Exactly. You're still doing it. Instead of assuming that the people who disagree with you may be right or at least, if wrong, are using reason to reach their conclusions, you either think they are doing it deliberately or are doing it out of stupidity or instinct.

Recently I did that logic thing about the planet being female. Well someone said that they left out something that others thought was important enough to add.

It was still faulty logic.

Talked about what he "didn't want me to think."

Of course, because almost everything we say is twisted and misunderstood by you. This means we have to be extra careful about the words we use. We ARE trying to educate you, not confound you.

Is that what you are doing with those two words? If I asked a sick person if they felt any "higher," they may think I was talking about the affect of their medication.

Context.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 02:35 PM

As grenades go, I'd think that if the soldier followed his emotions he might actually RUN from the DEADLY grenade like he SHOULD. Instead he does what he's been TRAINED to do.
Giving ones life to save others shows caring, and a belief in something more important than survival. And before you go crazy, the belief can be in a lot of things.

Soldiers are NOT trained to jump on grenades.

Emotions are as I said, a survival trait. There is no "deep" meaning about something that simply helps you to stay alive.
That is "simply" your opinion, right?

No. You lied about this several times, that's MORE THAN ONCE, and I can only suspect you will do so again. So your integrity is very much in question.
See reply above.

Exactly. You're still doing it. Instead of assuming that the people who disagree with you may be right or at least, if wrong, are using reason to reach their conclusions, you either think they are doing it deliberately or are doing it out of stupidity or instinct.
I have said you may be right. I have also said you are smart. Wouldn't smart mean that you used reason to reach your conclusions?
Didn't I say I was looking?
Do you believe that I should just take your word?

It was still faulty logic.
So. What I got from the replies wasn't.

Of course, because almost everything we say is twisted and misunderstood by you. This means we have to be extra careful about the words we use. We ARE trying to educate you, not confound you.
I said I didn't say "better." I didn't. Someone wants it to mean the same thing as "higher" and is now posting English. I don't think that you can speak for everybody.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 03:06 PM

Tell me something Light. And this is an important question.

Is the word 'cleave' a synonym or an antonym of the word 'stick'?

Please try to answer this question, as it illustrates a very important point.The point is why are you asking me that? As I have said before, even if I didn't know I would look it up. I could take days. Instead my policy is not to chase every ball thrown my way.

zizzybaluba

8th December 2006, 03:21 PM

The point is why are you asking me that? As I have said before, even if I didn't know I would look it up. I could take days. Instead my policy is not to chase every ball thrown my way.

Your total lack of effort is pathetic.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 03:25 PM

Indeed, and that's because you think that this ability to express happens to be a universal criterion for beign "higher".
I didn't invent the word, or how it is used in reference to lifeforms. And yes, I am reading where a professor is saying just that.

Sometimes the important stuff can't be seen, and sometime what you see MUST be discounted.
Right. Though "when" is not always clear.

You're trying to weasel out of this by inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. In this context, "higher" means "better" or "superior". There's no way around it.
Weasel out of what? I didn't say better. Saying humans are higher on the evolutionary scale is not the same as saying that they are better.

Top of the chain ? Unlikely. More complex ? No. More intelligent ? Probably. More adaptable ? Nope. Get it ?
Yeah I get it. You think I am completely wrong. It is a good thing that you told me that it does not matter what people think, because I don't see any more evidence than I provided.

I'd say your admission is encouraging, but you'll just find a way to come right back to those arguments, sooner or later.
Why would I need to? The graph is just fine with that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 03:30 PM

Your total lack of effort is pathetic.
It would encourage others. I'm sorry. The policy is clear.

zizzybaluba

8th December 2006, 03:35 PM

It would encourage others. I'm sorry. The policy is clear.

Encourage others to what???
Your ‘policy’, like everything else you’ve said, is clear alright, clear as mud.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 04:02 PM

I'm willing to concede you may not be a troll. A troll would have probably become bored by now. Be that as may, what do you think you are accomplishing here?
I keep saying I wanted to see if the graph could take it. I have also always said that it is a study path.

I mean 50 pages of aruging in circles. And stop worrying about intelligence.
I am judging them to be intelligent by how fast, and how wide, they can respond. I mentioned a book and they shot it around like a "collective mind," wasting few words. And even "individually" they seem strong. I like that stuff.

I would be a lot less rude in this thread if if I didn't think you were troll. It's hard to tell. But honestly just go back and read this whole thread and think about what could be wrong with it. Really, just start from the beginning of this thread and try reading everything that's gone on. I know it may be difficult but try to look for errors in your own posts. Try it as exercise, for fun and see if you notice anything. I mean do you realize this gone has overboard? You keep aruging the same point over and over.
Maybe the same point, but not from the same angle.

Another idea if you don't believe us JREFers and think we are crazy. Why don't you try posting this idea at other fourms? I can even give you some suggestions. If so many people think something is wrong with your ideas can't you at least admit there is a possiblity something is wrong with your ideas?
I never said anyone was crazy. I am trying to see what is wrong with it and I never said I could not be wrong.

Why post such a long thoughtful post for deaf ears I don't know. I guess I'm killing time, before class. :p
This is one of my classes.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 04:16 PM

LCL,#2182
snip!
LCL -So happy that you will use real books. I predict that you will continue to pull whatever pleases you out of context. Also, that you will never prove anything with your great theory of everything.
You are no more annoying now, than before.
(end psychic mode)
You haven't even been here much. The only way I could have annoyed you is if you were watching, and you choose to do that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 04:42 PM

Well that cleared that up! :rolleyes:

Which 'guy'? What 'it'?

The Anthropic Principle, as I explained it to you, is sometimes referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is logically sound and simply states that the Universe looks the way it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to see it, so it must look the way it does, and thus the fact that it looks the way it does tells us nothing about whether or not it was designed.

I am looking at them but; you like this one...

There are also the Strong Anthropic Principle, the Participatory Anthropic Principle and the Final Anthropic Principle, none of which are logically sound, because they all require assumptions which are not merited.
but not these?

And see? You must know who.

To name but two,
Those are the only ones I count to have had any impact.

and despite this the "4 basics of math" are still included in your plot and your theory.
As it turns out. Nothing there is 4. They are all pairs. Gravity and the EMF are long range, and the Nuclear forces are short range. Life and death, good and evil, addition and subtraction... They are all related pairs.

Good, try to pick books written by scientists that don't have an agenda, like John D. Barrow does.
I didn't know the guy. I will seek other references.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 04:49 PM

Encourage others to what???
Your ‘policy’, like everything else you’ve said, is clear alright, clear as mud.
To sent me off track.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th December 2006, 04:55 PM

I stopped quickly by one of the local libraries on my way to some other errands, and took a look at Harrison's Science in the Modern World. It's a relatively brief popular-level book on science and scientific method which looks reasonably informative and written for the layman. In fact, I think someone like LCL might benefit from reading it if he does so with care and comprehension, though that might be unwarranted optimism. Harrison was a physicist, at one time Dean of the School of Science at MIT and recipient of a presidential medal.
Thanks.

zizzybaluba

8th December 2006, 05:53 PM

To sent me off track.

You do a plenty good job of that on your own.
Answer woolery's question:

Is the word 'cleave' a synonym or an antonym of the word 'stick'?

Cosmo

8th December 2006, 10:28 PM

RandFan

8th December 2006, 10:58 PM

http://www.thebunnymuseum.com/images/Energizer.gif
Still going.

bruto

9th December 2006, 07:14 AM

As it turns out. Nothing there is 4. They are all pairs. Gravity and the EMF are long range, and the Nuclear forces are short range. Life and death, good and evil, addition and subtraction... They are all related pairs.

There are many senses of opposites, though, and I think its a severe mistake to see them as equivalent or even similar. Life and death might be said to correspond with "go and stop," for example, neither truly antithetical nor mirror opposites. Death is the cessation of life, neither its opposite nor its simple absence. Where there is no life, death is not even definable. Where there is no death, life is at least theoretically possible. The characteristics of death in no way resemble the characteristics of life.

Addition and subtraction correspond more with "forward and reverse." They are mirror opposites, equivalent and translatable in every way into each other by simple manipulation. Subtraction is not the absence or death of addition, nor is it in some way the contradiction or the enemy of it. Their laws at the logical level are identical. The most succinct logical proofs of the basic laws of addition and subtraction I've seen use movement of an arc around a circle, in which the only difference between the two is the direction of movement.

Good and evil are opposite in a different sense, including the fact that they are matters of human judgment and cultural consensus, and that their boundaries are ambiguous; only in the most abstract and idealistic realm is it likely that you'll find one or the other in a form that can be guaranteed not to contain a little of its supposed opposite, and although there can undoubtedly be a reasonable consensus on the most extreme examples, there is no guarantee that even the most refined and idealistic representations of good and evil will be unanimously agreed upon. Good and evil can coexist in the same action. Feed your puppy while children starve, kill a rapist, fight for freedom. Morality can be pretty messy.

Apples and oranges make a pretty good comparison by comparison. You're comparing apples and cobblestones and monkey wrenches.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th December 2006, 07:39 AM

Answer woolery's question:
Come on. He wanted "higher" and "better" to mean the same thing. "Higher forms of life," and "better forms of life," do not convey the same intent. You know that. He knows that. But when the "crowd" gathers around something like that it wastes my time. We are whirling around something I did not say simply because someone wishes I did. In answer to your request that I answer, please note that I already said I wouldn't. It just seems so dumb when someone has already said that "higher" and "better" are synoyms.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th December 2006, 08:37 AM

There are many senses of opposites, though, and I think its a severe mistake to see them as equivalent or even similar. Life and death might be said to correspond with "go and stop," for example, neither truly antithetical nor mirror opposites. Death is the cessation of life, neither its opposite nor its simple absence. Where there is no life, death is not even definable. Where there is no death, life is at least theoretically possible. The characteristics of death in no way resemble the characteristics of life.

Addition and subtraction correspond more with "forward and reverse." They are mirror opposites, equivalent and translatable in every way into each other by simple manipulation. Subtraction is not the absence or death of addition, nor is it in some way the contradiction or the enemy of it. Their laws at the logical level are identical. The most succinct logical proofs of the basic laws of addition and subtraction I've seen use movement of an arc around a circle, in which the only difference between the two is the direction of movement.

Good and evil are opposite in a different sense, including the fact that they are matters of human judgment and cultural consensus, and that their boundaries are ambiguous; only in the most abstract and idealistic realm is it likely that you'll find one or the other in a form that can be guaranteed not to contain a little of its supposed opposite, and although there can undoubtedly be a reasonable consensus on the most extreme examples, there is no guarantee that even the most refined and idealistic representations of good and evil will be unanimously agreed upon. Good and evil can coexist in the same action. Feed your puppy while children starve, kill a rapist, fight for freedom. Morality can be pretty messy.

Apples and oranges make a pretty good comparison by comparison. You're comparing apples and cobblestones and monkey wrenches.

Nicely put and logical, (except for the last sentence) even though
I don't think I am comparing those things. Many types of opposites make up our world. The graph is saying that the balance of the things there, is life. The graph shows energy is converted through life.

All the stuff you said above deals with what, how, and a bit of why, it is converted. Within the individual lifeform, balance at the mental, emotional, pohysical and moral levels are as close as they can get them.

bruto

9th December 2006, 02:34 PM

Come on. He wanted "higher" and "better" to mean the same thing. "Higher forms of life," and "better forms of life," do not convey the same intent. You know that. He knows that. But when the "crowd" gathers around something like that it wastes my time. We are whirling around something I did not say simply because someone wishes I did. In answer to your request that I answer, please note that I already said I wouldn't. It just seems so dumb when someone has already said that "higher" and "better" are synoyms.

That wasn't Wollery's question. Wollery's question was about how you define the word "cleave." It was a very simple question: Is "cleave" a synonym or an antonym of the word "stick?" You dismiss it as a meaningless challenge, but it is indeed an important question, bearing on how you work with words. Since your entire set of ideas depends on how words are used, it is a make-or-break issue. A failure to understand how words are used is a failure to understand how to make your ideas meaningful. The misunderstanding and misuse of words creates nonsense.

It is clear, for example, from our last exchange, that you have no trouble conflating all the different senses of the word "opposite," even though they are so incompatible that thoughtful consideration should indicate that opposites of one sort have no correlation with opposites of another. So where is the boundary at which a term's meanings differ enough to draw your attention?

And by the way, you keep saying your graph "shows" things. Please try to understand two things. The first is that properly speaking, it is not a graph at all. It is a diagram at best. Second, at best (and that's a stretch) it may illustrate some principle, but it does not in any way prove, corroborate, or provide a basis for anything. It's just a picture of the ideas you've come up with. Pointing back to your diagrams as if they explained or backed up anything is an empty gesture.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th December 2006, 04:55 PM

That wasn't Wollery's question. Wollery's question was about how you define the word "cleave." It was a very simple question: You dismiss it as a meaningless challenge, but it is indeed an important question, bearing on how you work with words. Since your entire set of ideas depends on how words are used, it is a make-or-break issue. A failure to understand how words are used is a failure to understand how to make your ideas meaningful. The misunderstanding and misuse of words creates nonsense.
The gangs all here. Yes. The use of words are important. If I had used the word "better," I could see your concern-I didn't. Since I didn't, I don't want to go on as if I did. I know what his question was about, but it came from the synoym thing. And I did answer his question, he said "synoym or antonym." Since I was told what a synoym was (which I of course already knew) and antonym is all that is left....

It is clear, for example, from our last exchange, that you have no trouble conflating all the different senses of the word "opposite," even though they are so incompatible that thoughtful consideration should indicate that opposites of one sort have no correlation with opposites of another.
People make them relate. Life, and a lifeform, is made up of them all. Is good always good? No. Can a negative number be positive? Yes. What on earth can live in a world like that? We can. And do it on a normal bases. Contradictions (or balancing them) are in fact what life is all about.

So where is the boundary at which a term's meanings differ enough to draw your attention?
Are you saying that I should have a problem with something evil having a good result, or what?

And by the way, you keep saying your graph "shows" things. Please try to understand two things. The first is that properly speaking, it is not a graph at all. It is a diagram at best. Second, at best (and that's a stretch) it may illustrate some principle, but it does not in any way prove, corroborate, or provide a basis for anything. It's just a picture of the ideas you've come up with. Pointing back to your diagrams as if they explained or backed up anything is an empty gesture.
It is my reference to what I am saying. If someone says I should change it for this or that, I can say why I shouldn't in reference to it.

bruto

9th December 2006, 08:38 PM

The gangs all here. Yes. The use of words are important. If I had used the word "better," I could see your concern-I didn't. Since I didn't, I don't want to go on as if I did. I know what his question was about, but it came from the synoym thing. And I did answer his question, he said "synoym or antonym." Since I was told what a synoym was (which I of course already knew) and antonym is all that is left....

...and thus by ducking the question you demonstrate that you do not understand it at all, and do not really understand why it was asked.

People make them relate. People do a lot of things. They make mistakes too. Life, and a lifeform, is made up of them all. Unsubstantiated, vague speculation. You cannnot show in any useful and meaningful way that life, or any life form, is made up of good and evil, for example. If death is a component of life, then it cannot also be the opposite of life. It cannot be both. Is good always good? No. Can a negative number be positive? Yes.Oh? What on earth can live in a world like that? We can. And do it on a normal bases. Contradictions (or balancing them) are in fact what life is all about.

Are you saying that I should have a problem with something evil having a good result, or what?No, I'm saying that the word "opposite" can mean very different things in different contexts. Attempting to tie together a theory with all the different senses of opposition considered together in some kind of symmetry is nonsensical, because you are conflating incompatible meanings of the word as if it meant one thing.

It is my reference to what I am saying. If someone says I should change it for this or that, I can say why I shouldn't in reference to it.Sorry, that last statement did not make sense to me.

wollery

9th December 2006, 11:24 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th December 2006, 07:26 PM

...and thus by ducking the question you demonstrate that you do not understand it at all, and do not really understand why it was asked.
If you need to believe that, fine.

People do a lot of things. They make mistakes too.
No one said anything was perfect.

Unsubstantiated, vague speculation. You cannnot show in any useful and meaningful way that life, or any life for,m, is made up of good and evil,
You don't believe there is good or evil?

for example. If death is a component of life, then it cannot also be the opposite of life.
It has a lot to do with how those things are defined, and how they are presented. For me, life is the opposite of death, negative is the opposite of positive.

m saying that the word "opposite" can mean very different things in different contexts. Attempting to tie together a theory with all the different senses of opposition considered together in some kind of symmetry is nonsensical, because you are conflating incompatible meanings of the word as if it meant one thing.
No I am not. They work there with the meanings they already have. There is no need to measure how good is good, or anything else. I am saying that the affects have a source.

Everything there is in relation to what it is thought to be.

that last statement did not make sense to me.
If you taqlk about the graph, I can talk about what is there.

cyborg

10th December 2006, 07:49 PM

For me, life is the opposite of death, negative is the opposite of positive.

Things must die in order that I live.

Hmm. Yeah, that's real neat and tidy.

bruto

10th December 2006, 10:09 PM

If you need to believe that, fine. Until you answer the simple question, what else can one believe?

No one said anything was perfect. Total non sequitur.

You don't believe there is good or evil?Totally missed the point as usual. I really do wonder whether you comprehend much of what you read. You have just stated that life and life forms are "made up" of all the pairs you've assembled. The existence or reality of good and evil is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not you can say life is made up from these things.

It has a lot to do with how those things are defined, and how they are presented. For me, life is the opposite of death, negative is the opposite of positive. It does indeed have to do with how these things are defined. The word "opposite" has multiple meanings. They vary widely. Negative and positive are opposite in direction or location only. Life and death are opposite in the sense that one destroys the other, and totally dependent in one direction only, since lifelessness by itself is not death, but the end of life is death. You might as well add to your pairs of principles the principle of thumb and forefinger too. They're opposite. The opposition of those digits is an important characteristic of human life, in fact. And once again, if you say that life is "made up" of the pairings you've assembled, including the pairing of life and death, then life and death cannot also be opposites.

No I am not.[conflating incompatible meanings] They work there with the meanings they already have. There is no need to measure how good is good, or anything else. I am saying that the affects have a source.I have no idea what that statement means, except that it reveals pretty clearly that you entirely missed my point about good and evil, which is that the sense in which they are considered opposite is a quite different sense from other uses of the term. It appears that you continue to use the word "opposite" as if the simple act of naming things that come in "opposite"pairs makes them related or relevant to each other.

Everything there is in relation to what it is thought to be. I don't understand the meaning of that statement either, except that "what it is thought to be" presumably means what you think it to be, so presumably the content of that statement is "I think what I think."

If you taqlk about the graph, I can talk about what is there.Sure, nobody's preventing you from talking. But it is still nonsense, and it still stretches the definition even to call it a graph.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th December 2006, 01:51 AM

Until you answer the simple question, what else can one believe?
Give it a rest.

Totally missed the point as usual. I really do wonder whether you comprehend much of what you read. You have just stated that life and life forms are "made up" of all the pairs you've assembled. The existence or reality of good and evil is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not you can say life is made up from these things.
No they aren't. I am saying that the nuclear forces are their source.

It does indeed have to do with how these things are defined. The word "opposite" has multiple meanings. They vary widely. Negative and positive are opposite in direction or location only. Life and death are opposite in the sense that one destroys the other, and totally dependent in one direction only.
Not one direction, two. Death powers life. Even among the stars, the death of a star could mean the birth of another.

since lifelessness by itself is not death, but the end of life is death.
There is no death without their first having been life, and there is no life without there being death.

And once again, if you say that life is "made up" of the pairings you've assembled, including the pairing of life and death, then life and death cannot also be opposites.
Life is represented by the center box, death is outside it. Right where life ended.

I have no idea what that statement means, except that it reveals pretty clearly that you entirely missed my point about good and evil, which is that the sense in which they are considered opposite is a quite different sense from other uses of the term. It appears that you continue to use the word "opposite" as if the simple act of naming things that come in "opposite"pairs makes them related or relevant to each other.
Those things are related. They are all a part of the whole. Each doing what they do to make the drama. work.

I don't understand the meaning of that statement either, except that "what it is thought to be" presumably means what you think it to be, so presumably the content of that statement is "I think what I think."
I didn't make any of that stuff up, or made them opposites.

Sure, nobody's preventing you from talking. But it is still nonsense, and it still stretches the definition even to call it a graph.okay.

Loss Leader

11th December 2006, 05:09 AM

Not one direction, two. Death powers life. Even among the stars, the death of a star could mean the birth of another.

I don't post much on this thread anymore. I've come to understand that LCL will do anything to protect his pet theory. He will change the meaning of words. He will ignore logic. He will declare himself right for no reason other than that others think him wrong.

I cannot believe, especially after having it pointed out, that he does so out of innocence or stupidity. He does so quite knowingly.

Death and life are opposites because "death powes life"? "The death of a star could mean the birth of another"?

1. Stars are not alive.
2. Things that are not alive do not die.
3. When we speak of the "death" of a star, we do so as an easy linguistic metaphor, not as a principle of science. You cannot use a metaphor to create new knowledge.
4. It's not even a good metaphor. Stars might be born from the remnants of older stars but they don't have to be. Certainly, all of the billions of first stars in the universe were not born from older stars.
5. I was born. My mother did not die giving birth to me. If you claim my mother ate dead things to give her energy to form me, I will remind you that this is NOT the same way you claim the "death" of one star creates the "life" of another.

His refusal to even try to think through any of these issues just makes me very, very sad.

bruto

11th December 2006, 06:59 AM

Give it a rest.Why? why can't you demonstrate with a single sentence that you understand something about the way words are defined and used?

No they aren't. I am saying that the nuclear forces are their source.No, what aren't what? You said, and I quote verbatim, that life is "made up" of "all" the things you have named as pairs, including life and death, good and evil. Are you now retracting that statement, or was the previous statement simply so sloppy and meaningless that it did not mean what it said?

Not one direction, two. Death powers life. Even among the stars, the death of a star could mean the birth of another.That is just nonsense. Baloney. Hogwash. You are, once again, mistakenly using the words "death" and "birth" as if their metaphorical application in the physics of stars had some real relation to life and death. They do not. And if death "powers" life, it cannot also be the opposite of life. There's a little bit of logic involved here. If life and death are a pair of opposites, they cannot contain each other. Something else may contain the pair, but one thing cannot be defined as both itself and its opposite. It's nonsense.

There is no death without their first having been life, and there is no life without there being death. In a manner of speaking, yes: death is defined as the cessation of life, so of course there can be no death until there is life. Death was a non-starter before life occurred. And as it happens, we find that once life began, death came with it, but there is no logical necessity for this. A consistent and logical world could exist in which all living things were immortal, and in such a world death would neither exist nor be definable. Please note that this is an important point! Death cannot exist, in reality or logic, without life. It cannot even be defined without life. This is because death is not a thing. Death is an event. We use the term loosely for other purposes, such to describe various qualities ensuing from death, but death is not an entity and neither is life. Life is a process, a quality perhaps, but it is not an entity. There is no existent thing in the universe that is called "life," except, again, in the undisciplined popular use of the word to denote the set of all living things. But the set of all living things is not functionally, logically or ontologically the same thing as "life" itself. To treat them as equivalent is a misuse of words, sloppy thinking, and error. And while death can neither occur nor even be defined without life, life can both occur and be defined entirely without reference to death. Death cannot be defined as a precursor or precondition to life, because it is already defined as the cessation, end, or destruction of life. Your treatment of life and death contains an irreconcilable logical contradiction.

Life is represented by the center box, death is outside it. Right where life ended. Anybody can draw a box. It means nothing.

Those things are related. They are all a part of the whole. Each doing what they do to make the drama. work.

I didn't make any of that stuff up, or made them opposites. Well, actually, yes, you did make it up. That's the point. Your whole system is made up. By conflating the different usages of terms such as "opposite," "death" and "birth" you are indeed making up something, and what it amounts to is a pile of metaphorical nonsense, because the words do not mean what you think they mean.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 09:33 AM

Giving ones life to save others shows caring, and a belief in something more important than survival. And before you go crazy, the belief can be in a lot of things.

Soldiers are NOT trained to jump on grenades.

Aren't they ? They should, then.

The point is, FEAR is an emotion, too. And that one is ignored when they do this. Stop juggling around with the debate.

That is "simply" your opinion, right?

No. No it isn't. There is no "deep" meaning to emotions. Period.

See reply above.

You contend that the fact you LIED several times on this thread is my opinion ? Do you really want me to wade through the thread and SHOW you the posts where you did ?

I have said you may be right. I have also said you are smart.

I don't give a rat's behind about whether you think I'm smart or not, Light. Stop trying to flatter me.

Wouldn't smart mean that you used reason to reach your conclusions?

Lots of smart people believe in God, homeopathy, etc. It doesn't make them stupid, but it sure shows that they didn't use reason for that.

Do you believe that I should just take your word?

I don't believe anything. I'm telling you that your methodology is wrong, your ideas are wrong, etc. And I'm showing you why. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make you any more right.

I said I didn't say "better." I didn't. Someone wants it to mean the same thing as "higher" and is now posting English. I don't think that you can speak for everybody.[/QUOTE]

I said I didn't say "better." I didn't. Someone wants it to mean the same thing as "higher" and is now posting English. I don't think that you can speak for everybody.

Lightcreatedlife defense #6: say that someone doesn't speak for the others, as though that mattered, somehow.

You said higher, and MEANT better, because that's what higher means in this context. Liar.

I didn't invent the word

Lightcreatedlife defense #3: say you didn't think about it first, hoping people will shift the blame of the fallacious reasoning to someone else.

Sometimes the important stuff can't be seen, and sometime what you see MUST be discounted.

Right. Though "when" is not always clear.

That's why we have scientific communities, not witch-doctors.

You're trying to weasel out of this by inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. In this context, "higher" means "better" or "superior". There's no way around it.

Weasel out of what? I didn't say better. Saying humans are higher on the evolutionary scale is not the same as saying that they are better.

Yes, it IS. Otherwise you're going to have to tell me what "higher" means.

You think I am completely wrong. It is a good thing that you told me that it does not matter what people think, because I don't see any more evidence than I provided.

The evidence has been provided to you countless times. I don't like repeating myself, so you're going to have to read the thread again.

I was wrong about the 4 basics of math and the order of negative and positive.

I'd say your admission is encouraging, but you'll just find a way to come right back to those arguments, sooner or later.

Why would I need to? The graph is just fine with that.

So it doesn't matter that most if not ALL of your assumptions were wrong ? Your graph still works ?? So, basically the graph is not grounded in reality. Obviously, since learning new things about reality changes NOTHING to the graph.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 09:35 AM

Encourage others to what???
Your ‘policy’, like everything else you’ve said, is clear alright, clear as mud.

To sent me off track.

There you go, liar.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 09:36 AM

I was wrong about the 4 basics of math and the order of negative and positive.

I'd say your admission is encouraging, but you'll just find a way to come right back to those arguments, sooner or later.

As it turns out. Nothing there is 4. They are all pairs. Gravity and the EMF are long range, and the Nuclear forces are short range. Life and death, good and evil, addition and subtraction... They are all related pairs.

Sooner, rather than later, it seems.

Belz...

11th December 2006, 09:45 AM

Come on. He wanted "higher" and "better" to mean the same thing. "Higher forms of life," and "better forms of life," do not convey the same intent. You know that. He knows that.

Here's that lying, again.

Nicely put and logical, (except for the last sentence) even though
I don't think I am comparing those things. Many types of opposites make up our world. The graph is saying that the balance of the things there, is life.

So you DIDN'T understand what bruto said ?

People make them relate.

You lied again. You said you understood that what people thought is unimportant. Gosh, you do that a lot, don't you ?

If someone says I should change it for this or that, I can say why I shouldn't in reference to it.

... priceless. Just priceless.

and thus by ducking the question you demonstrate that you do not understand it at all, and do not really understand why it was asked.

If you need to believe that, fine.

<snap> You're a complete loon, Light. You dodge the issue, are called on it, and then relegate the other's statement as a matter of belief.

You have some nerve, mister.

No one said anything was perfect.

Golly gosh! You USED the fact that they MADE them relate to PROVE that you were right. Now that bruto's said that "they" also thought erroneously, you weasel out, again, by using some wiggle-space you've found in your own statement.

Despicable. Dishonest.

For me, life is the opposite of death

Strange, a moment ago you said this :

Life, and a lifeform, is made up of them all.

So, which is it ?

If you taqlk about the graph, I can talk about what is there.

What graph ? This graph ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

Belz...

11th December 2006, 12:05 PM

Woah.

Double-post.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th December 2006, 02:56 PM

You lied again. You said you understood that what people thought is unimportant. Gosh, you do that a lot, don't you ?
I just think you are doing a "wierd word dance" now. By the statement you just made you are saying that what people thought is unimportant everywhere, and at all times. But of course you know that is possible. You are making a lier out of yourself by thinking you are making one out of me.

<snap> You're a complete loon, Light. You dodge the issue, are called on it, and then relegate the other's statement as a matter of belief.

You have some nerve, mister.
It almost feels as if you are shaking your finger at me. I just love it. The way you all gather around something and think pouting and whining is going to get me to do what I said I wouldn't.

Golly gosh! You USED the fact that they MADE them relate to PROVE that you were right. Now that bruto's said that "they" also thought erroneously, you weasel out, again, by using some wiggle-space you've found in your own statement.

Well listen to him. He used the same weasel-like moves that you do. Everytime I make a statement like that you expect perfection in a universal where there probably isn't any.

Despicable. Dishonest.
I think the same of you.

Strange, a moment ago you said this :

So, which is it ?
Made up of everything there. And whether or not good, evil, life, death, negative and positive are clearly defined, they play real parts. Probably among the first words humans made up. Made up to describe something very real-yet isn't real at all. Like how the fundamental forces would still be playing the same parts even if we knew nothing about them.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th December 2006, 02:59 PM

You lied again. You said you understood that what people thought is unimportant. Gosh, you do that a lot, don't you ?
I just think you are doing a "wierd word dance" now. By the statement you just made you are saying that what people thought is unimportant everywhere, and at all times. But of course you know that is possible. You are making a lier out of yourself by thinking you are making one out of me.

<snap> You're a complete loon, Light. You dodge the issue, are called on it, and then relegate the other's statement as a matter of belief.

You have some nerve, mister.
It almost feels as if you are shaking your finger at me. I just love it. The way you all gather around something and think pouting and whining is going to get me to do what I said I wouldn't.

Golly gosh! You USED the fact that they MADE them relate to PROVE that you were right. Now that bruto's said that "they" also thought erroneously, you weasel out, again, by using some wiggle-space you've found in your own statement.

Well listen to him. He used the same weasel-like moves that you do. Everytime I make a statement like that you expect perfection in a universal where there probably isn't any.

Despicable. Dishonest.
I think the same of you.

Strange, a moment ago you said this :

So, which is it ?
Made up of everything there. And whether or not good, evil, life, death, negative and positive are clearly defined, they play real parts. Probably among the first words humans made up. Made up to describe something very real-yet are not easy to get words around. Like how the fundamental forces would still be playing the same parts even if we knew nothing about them.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th December 2006, 09:12 AM

Aren't they ? They should, then.
Why? That would encourage them to run towards them, instead of away. Giving ones life for others, like that, is a personal decision.

The point is, FEAR is an emotion, too. And that one is ignored when they do this. Stop juggling around with the debate.
My point there was that reason overcame emotions. The base program (which you agree is tied to emotions) was overridden.

No. No it isn't. There is no "deep" meaning to emotions. Period.
Says you.

You contend that the fact you LIED several times on this thread is my opinion ? Do you really want me to wade through the thread and SHOW you the posts where you did ?
show me.

I don't give a rat's behind about whether you think I'm smart or not, Light. Stop trying to flatter me.
Flatter you? Oh yeah. The information has to come from someone. I think you are missing that if I wanted to flatter you, I would believe you. As it stands, I am going to check everything said here, and the angle at which it was said.

Lots of smart people believe in God, homeopathy, etc. It doesn't make them stupid, but it sure shows that they didn't use reason for that.
Or they did and you don't like their reasoning.

I don't believe anything. I'm telling you that your methodology is wrong, your ideas are wrong, etc. And I'm showing you why. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make you any more right.
My method is wrong, reversed somewhat, that has been done before with good results. It will be here too. The idea of life being derived and based on the conditions for life is right. And while you are showing me why you think it is wrong, I am not hiding from anything.

You said higher, and MEANT better, because that's what higher means in this context. Liar.
So I meant better, so I said it? Trying to make me a liar is making you one.

That's why we have scientific communities, not witch-doctors.
That guy John D. Barrow is in the community and some here think him one. It just may be that he might think the same of you.

Yes, it IS. Otherwise you're going to have to tell me what "higher" means.
Higher on the evolutionary scale means more evolved, not "better" evolved.

So it doesn't matter that most if not ALL of your assumptions were wrong ? Your graph still works ?? So, basically the graph is not grounded in reality. Obviously, since learning new things about reality changes NOTHING to the graph.
Everything there is thought to be reality, even if heaven and hell do not exist as thought (which they probably don't) "living energy is still recycled, and it is possible that it remains conscious.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th December 2006, 02:41 PM

His refusal to even try to think through any of these issues just makes me very, very sad.
Don't be sad. You see. I am learning something. I finally figured out how to combine posts. When I gather my forces, I will be able to answer more effectively.

It is clear, for example, from our last exchange, that you have no trouble conflating all the different senses of the word "opposite," even though they are so incompatible that thoughtful consideration should indicate that opposites of one sort have no correlation with opposites of another.
I am not comparing them to each other. Why would I want to do that? I have no problem with how they are related, or currently defined.

There are many senses of opposites, though, and I think its a severe mistake to see them as equivalent or even similar. Life and death might be said to correspond with "go and stop," for example, neither truly antithetical nor mirror opposites. Death is the cessation of life, neither its opposite nor its simple absence. Where there is no life, death is not even definable. Where there is no death, life is at least theoretically possible. The characteristics of death in no way resemble the characteristics of life.
With the examples you gave you agree that those things are types of opposites, I agree. And if I am wrong about "death," it is billed as the opposite of life. And where else would I put death except opposite life?

And by the way, you keep saying your graph "shows" things. Please try to understand two things. The first is that properly speaking, it is not a graph at all. It is a diagram at best. Second, at best (and that's a stretch) it may illustrate some principle, but it does not in any way prove, corroborate, or provide a basis for anything. It's just a picture of the ideas you've come up with. Pointing back to your diagrams as if they explained or backed up anything is an empty gesture.
There are things about it that you have not seen, and there are numbers connected to it, so it might be a graph after all.
I also have to point back to it to show what I am talking about. I believe it, but I brought it here to see if you could show me why I shouldn't. The experience here has made it stronger. Showing me that negative and positive are reversed told me that those who said it believe that they are there. The thing about the four basics showed me that the graph is made up of "related pairs," not fours. And this thing about opposites just showed me it is arranged right. The graph shows different "sense of opposites." All three of the pairs mentioned cross the center from different angles. For me, instead of opposites, "related pairs" seems to fit best.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th December 2006, 03:18 PM

You said, and I quote verbatim, that life is "made up" of "all" the things you have named as pairs, including life and death, good and evil. Are you now retracting that statement, or was the previous statement simply so sloppy and meaningless that it did not mean what it said?
Isn't aging tied to cells dying and being replaced? And I think the influence of good and evil is expressed through life.

bruto

13th December 2006, 03:44 PM

Isn't aging tied to cells dying and being replaced? And I think the influence of good and evil is expressed through life.

The fact that living things generally die does not make death a component of life. When one occurs, the other ends. If you define death as an opposite of life, you simply cannot logically also define it as a property of life. Is that too hard a concept to grasp? Nothing can be its opposite. If you find that it is, then what you thought was its opposite is not! You cannot be and not be at the same time.

You contend that death is said to be the opposite of life, but while we're at it, perhaps you should rethink that as well. Is it? Lifelessness is not always death. Maybe you got that wrong too.

Solus

13th December 2006, 05:34 PM

Maybe the same point, but not from the same angle.

This is one of my classes.

So tell me LCL what have you learned in this "class"?

And you do realize that aruging the the same point but from a different angle is exactly what aruging in a circle is? I should copy the text from one of my logic books. Here in bold, note the bold doesn't mean shouting I just want to empahize it.

Arguing in a circle: A person arguing in a circle attempts to prove a statement by repeating it in a different form. or angle...

I can quote the whole text from the book if you like.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th December 2006, 05:39 PM

The fact that living things generally die does not make death a component of life. When one occurs, the other ends.
I think I can say that death is a necessary part of the life process of a person.

You contend that death is said to be the opposite of life, but while we're at it, perhaps you should rethink that as well. Is it? Lifelessness is not always death. Maybe you got that wrong too.
Maybe, either way I like the term "related pairs." But who knows. One day the atomic structure itself may be defined as life.

bruto

13th December 2006, 06:05 PM

I think I can say that death is a necessary part of the life process of a person.
Death is a necessary part of the life process of a person only in the sense that we should expect it to happen - only in the sense that life ends. If you walk off a pier into the ocean, it's a good idea to know where it ends, but the ocean beyond the pier is not part of the pier. Not all living things are persons, either. Death may or may not be universal where living things are concerned. Whether or not any actually immortal beings exist is irrelevant. The question is whether there is anything in the definition of life that requires death. If it is conceivable and logically consistent that a living thing could be deathless, then death is not a defining trait of life. Maybe, either way I like the term "related pairs."
"Related pairs" is so vague as to allow anything and everything. Mirror images and logically exclusive opposites, twins, shoes, my right index finger and the "j" key on my keyboard, etc. etc. The entire universe can be arbitrarily grouped into related pairs without creating or communicating any useful knowledge or meaning. But who knows. One day the atomic structure itself may be defined as life.
If one day the atomic structure itself is defined as life, then life itself will become a redundant and meaningless word for all material things. Statements about life and its relationship to anything at all will be statements about nothing at all. You're back to the profound observation that "stuff is made out of stuff and behaves like stuff" and nothing else.

Loss Leader

13th December 2006, 07:19 PM

I think I can say that death is a necessary part of the life process of a person.

Why is death necessary?

And, speaking of your whole atomic world equals the world of the living theory - the sub-atomic world is pretty much deathless. There are atoms that were formed at the creation of the universe which will exist for eternity. The smaller you go, the more indestructable things become. How can life be like light when a single electron is darn near immortal? Life isn't anything like that.

wollery

14th December 2006, 03:02 AM

Minor point of order. Bacteria are classified as life, and they don't actually procreate, each bacterium splits into two new bacteria, which each split into two new bacteria, and so on. So can bacteria ever really be said to die of "old age"? Technically, bacteria are, for all intents and purposes, immortal.

Belz...

14th December 2006, 04:31 AM

I just think you are doing a "wierd word dance" now.

Who's dancing ? You said you understood, and in the very next post, you show that you don't, and that you know it.

You're basically saying whatever's necessary to make it appear as though you're "winning". You'll say you understand, you'll say this, you'll say that. But none of it is true ? Why don't you want to debate honestly ?

By the statement you just made you are saying that what people thought is unimportant everywhere, and at all times.

I said no such thing. You're doing the word dance again, this time putting words in my mouth.

But of course you know that is possible. You are making a lier out of yourself by thinking you are making one out of me.

That's because you don't understand a single word of what I write.

It almost feels as if you are shaking your finger at me.

You're acting like a 14-year old adolescent.

I just love it.

Of course you do. You're not here to learn or improve your "theories". You're here to see people disagree with you and think "hey, they feel threatened by my brilliant ideas. Of course, I'll just lie about that, too."

The way you all gather around something and think pouting and whining is going to get me to do what I said I wouldn't.

What ? Admit failure ?

Well listen to him. He used the same weasel-like moves that you do. Everytime I make a statement like that you expect perfection in a universal where there probably isn't any.

Who's expecting perfection, liar ? You're the one who's making a theory of everything.

I think the same of you.

Impossible. You can't possible point out a single lie I've made, because I haven't made any. Go ahead, I dare you.

Made up of everything there. And whether or not good, evil, life, death, negative and positive are clearly defined, they play real parts.

If you had bothered to read the previous posts, you'd have understood that those terms are FAR from beign clearly defined.

Probably among the first words humans made up.

Which doesn't mean squat.

Made up to describe something very real-yet isn't real at all. Like how the fundamental forces would still be playing the same parts even if we knew nothing about them.

You're making up an analogy where no relation exists.

Belz...

14th December 2006, 04:40 AM

Why? That would encourage them to run towards them, instead of away. Giving ones life for others, like that, is a personal decision.

Thanks for proving my point. A decision, not an emotional response.

My point there was that reason overcame emotions. The base program (which you agree is tied to emotions) was overridden.

No, YOUR point was that doing so WAS an emotion. I'M the one who said it wasn't. I can't believe you either don't remember that or are sufficiently dishonest to lie about something so obvious.

Says you.

That's not an argument. There is no "deep" meaning about emotions, unless you can show that there is.

I think you are missing that if I wanted to flatter you, I would believe you.

And once more you show your ignorance. Just because you admire someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them.

As it stands, I am going to check everything said here, and the angle at which it was said.

Anytime soon ? Or are you using the intervening time to continue to be ignorant ?

Or they did and you don't like their reasoning.

There IS no reasoning. They "feel" like they can know God, they "think" their illness' been removed by the homeopathic "solution". They don't reason about it, they feel their way through life. I don't agree with their FEELINGS, that's different.

My method is wrong, reversed somewhat, that has been done before with good results. It will be here too.

See ? You can't possibly admit that you could be wrong, because you are convinced, as you so often say, that you'll be eventually proven right. How can you possibly hope to learn if you're so sure of everything you (don't) know ?

The idea of life being derived and based on the conditions for life is right.

It's also a complete tautology. Everything is derived from their conditions.

And while you are showing me why you think it is wrong, I am not hiding from anything.

That doesn't make you right.

So I meant better, so I said it? Trying to make me a liar is making you one.

Then, pray tell, what the hell did you mean by "higher" if not "better" ? What possible meaning could it have ? You said "higher on the evolution scale". If that isn't better, than what is it ? If it isn't better in any way, as I've been arguing, then why are you using it, since it doesn't mean a thing ?

That guy John D. Barrow is in the community and some here think him one. It just may be that he might think the same of you.

I told you, I don't give a damn about what people think of me.

Higher on the evolutionary scale means more evolved, not "better" evolved.

Then what does "more evolved" mean ? If it doesn't mean "better", then how can it be "more" evolved ?

"living energy is still recycled, and it is possible that it remains conscious.

No, because the mind isn't a lump of energy. It's a result of processes that require a physical organ, the brain, in order to function. Without it, even if the "energy" remained "together" it wouldn't function as a mind.

wollery

14th December 2006, 04:59 AM

LCL, given that you spent several pages arguing that humans, being higher on the evolutionary scale, were indeed better, it seems rather odd that you're now saying that you don't equate higher with better.

So have you looked up the words "cleave" and "stick". Have you figured out yet if "cleave" is a synonym or an antonym of "stick"?

Belz...

14th December 2006, 07:07 AM

With the examples you gave you agree that those things are types of opposites, I agree. And if I am wrong about "death," it is billed as the opposite of life. And where else would I put death except opposite life?

I think I can say that death is a necessary part of the life process of a person.

Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Belz...

14th December 2006, 10:00 AM

You contend that the fact you LIED several times on this thread is my opinion ? Do you really want me to wade through the thread and SHOW you the posts where you did ?

show me.

Allright, then.

These are posts where you claimed NOT to accuse people of having an agenda:

I do not see myself as this holy holder of truth, just an idea. Truth is the one word that I don't shout from the roof tops. And I don't see you all as the enemies of truth.

I believe that. But the many people who hold different opinions don't always agree on what that is.

Why are people trying to get me to call them "evil?" Out to get me? I don't think that. Duh. People do disagree without being stupid, crazy, or game playing. It happens. You have an opinion, so do I.

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.

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

I never said that.

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.

And these are some of those were you DID accuse people of having said agenda:

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.

(Note that the above was RIGHT before my last sample from when you said you didn't think that.)

You are part of a forum team, or something like that. You said that this is what you do. You even have codes for certain types of actions. Someone here talked about "we use recipes when..." Now excuse me, but some of that looks agenda like.

"We are in a ... " "our tactics" this isn't a team?

But of course you had to try and turn it into some type of a complex plan.

People here have faulted me for not looking things up, but when I do, there is something wrong with that too. How is that possible?

Yet you are here talking to me. Logically now. If you are able. What does that make you? I absolutely cannot believe that intelligent folk would act the way you do. And why? Why does that thing threaten you so? It just an idea. Not personally directed at anyone.

You misunderstand my motives. The likes of you would never say anything nice about it. The title makes you see red. "If we could not find it, what makes him think he can?"

You talk about science like it is a God. All hail the new religion.

You have to be doing it on purpose. Either that or I am giving you too much credit.

You all would not have allowed me to say that all this time if it was wrong.

You are like highly capable jet fighters. Unmatched in your element. But you allow yourself to come down so low that any one who can throw straight can knock you out of the sky. I don't understand why you would do that. But it seems that what you have to defend seems worth the effort. And that can only be ego.

You see how hard it is to say I am right?

Those are lies, Light, when you claim to do something and then go and do the opposite. And that's a small sample of all the times you accused people here of deliberately disagreeing with you. And whenever I called you on it, you said you didn't think that. That's LYING, Light. It's also cowardly, because you can't stand by your own words.

Which is why I said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2070797&postcount=1604):

You are a coward and a liar, Light. You've lied at least twice when you said you didn't think we had an agenda. Your word carries NO credibility whatsoever. And no one is EVER going to be convinced by what you say if you interpret their doubt as a deliberate, dogmatic reaction to your ideas.

Loss Leader

14th December 2006, 10:29 AM

Those are lies, Light, when you claim to do something and then go and do the opposite.

There was also the point where I asked him whom he would believe about being wrong and he answered that he would believe me if I showed him his logical errors. Although I then wrote long posts explaining his fallacies, he refused to acknowledge his mistakes.

Then, he stated that he would study logic and only a few posts later stated that he refused to study logic.

And then, there is all of the obfuscating and equivocating about the meanings of words in order to wriggle out of his own contradictions. His work on the concepts of "opposites" is only the latest example.

Belz...

14th December 2006, 12:03 PM

Yes. And I'm not even sure he realises that he lies...

nescafe

14th December 2006, 03:57 PM

I think I can say that death is a necessary part of the life process of a person.

In what sense are you talking about here?

Do you mean that in the sense of "life sucks, then you die"? If so, you run into problems of induction, just because (as far as we know) every human life has ended in death does not mean that every human life for all time will.

If you mean the sense that "the cells that compose you die", things get a bit more complicated. Every cell in my body (excluding various non-me flora and fauna along for the ride) either:

Is descended from a cell that divided in half, in which case one can meaningfully make a distinction between the parent cell and the two offspring cells, but the parent cell cannot be said to have died in the sense that my great grandfather did.
Died because it was programmed to (a.k.a programmed cell death) -- i.e., the commited suicide.
Died due to external influences. (toxins, being eaten by another cell, fire bad, etc.)

If you mean the sense that "everything DIES!!!", that is just not true. Every living cell on the planet is descended from either a singe parent cell that divided (but did not die), or from two cells that combined/swapped genetic material.

But who knows. One day the atomic structure itself may be defined as life.

I doubt it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th December 2006, 04:25 PM

Allright, then.

These are posts where you claimed NOT to accuse people of having an agenda:
Differences of opinion are not lies.
Some of those things looked that way from my angle. I later said I changed my mind. I think you are stretching the definition of lying. And you had to reach really far back for that point didn't you?

But about that "higher" lifeform thing: Dr. Harrison in his book Conquest of Energy says: "The higher forms of life now on earth have required several billions of years of the trials..." p. 257
"The body of one of the higher animals far surpasses any plant... " p. 255
'In higer animals, this heating unit is provided...." p. 255

Sense I used the same word that others have used in that same context, and you say that I meant "better," doesn't that mean they meant better too? Or does it simply mean you are a liar, and a coward, because you will ado anything to appear right? How do you live with yourself?

Oh, and by the way, he also said:
"Since all the manifestations of life we know occur in a world composed of molecules. the energy reactions of living creatures are quantized. Whether quantum physics and chemistry alone will eventually be found adequate to explain all the phenomena of life need not concern us here. It is enough that many biological phenomena which were previously mysterious can now be understood readily as resulting from quantization of energy on the atomic level."

I am finding nothing that disputes what I have been saying here.

I like this guy:

"Furthermore, it appears that living matter can be evolved from inanimate molecules more readily than was previously believed possible. Electrical discharges, sent through rich, soupy, inorganic solutions such as existed on earth when life first appeared here, can produce molecules sufficiently complex to gather together into the building blocks of which living organisms are made."