Main Menu
Tagcloud
News categories
I support
Car articles:
Random items:
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
aggregators
feedburner.comFacebook Blog Network
linking back to brembs.net
My lab:
Welcome Guest
Currently Online (16)
Extra Information
MicroBlog
Networking
Random Video
SciSites
GeoCounter
I just read an article in the Brittish "Guardian" by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. They enumerate a great list of scientific controversies that should be taught alongside established theories in science classes (besides the evident "intelligent falling" of course 
.Among the items in the list are such gems as teaching alchemy in chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. A real good one (especially from a German perspective) is the suggestion to demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened in a class on 20th-century European history
What else can we come up with?
Another good point the article makes is the falsifiability of evolutionary theory:
As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian." Evolution, like all good theories, makes itself vulnerable to disproof. Needless to say, it has always come through with flying colours.
Comments
jointquest
posted on11 Sep 05: 15:43:  more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | INTELIGENT DESIGN: Everybody are mostly saying that the human body is not an engineering beauty. Well my conclusions are that HUMANS are wonderfull ORGANIC ROBOTS, with a cognitive thought capacity not fully mapped yet, nor have Scientists fully mapped or understand our DNA, much less DESIGN FROM SCRATCH a better replica, AND I MEAN: put together DNA from SCRATCH, and not from an existing DNA component(s) !!! INTELIGENT DESIGN #2: I don't believe in the God of the Bible as described persee, but to close our eyes to the WONDERS OF THE HUMAN BODY THAT MEDICINE AS OF TODAY YEAR 2005 DOESN'T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YET, is a terrible naivity. ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENT BEINGS (mechanical robots) quasy humans will be a long away accomplishment, if ever done, I BET ! So how could a "solely" organic, way more complex being be "put together" by shear ramdon very improbable ILOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY "MOTHER NATURE". TO ME SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET !!! INTELIGENT DESIGN #3: Humans "obscurity of knowledge" is notorious when it took more than 6,000-40,000years for them to discover "electricity-electronics" (barely from around 200years ago), and "atomic energy-electronic microscopy" (more recently from 60years ago more or less). It would be more logical to think that some "robot" put our "embryos-stem cells..." together from another dimension or galaxy, than Evolution persee, logically thinking!!! (see idea from: http:/firstscience.com/site/articles/wright2.asp). EVOLUTION TO MY LOGICAL MIND GOES "TOO FAR" BACK IN TIME WHEN MANY MORE THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN OUR GALAXY AND THE KNOW UNIVERSE, TO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN WITH A THEORY OF THE BIG BANG THE ALLEGED EXPANSION OF UNIVERSE, WHEN WE RATHER NEED TO EXPLAIN THINGS AND OUR ORIGINS, NOT SO FAR AGO, AND OTHER UNKNOWN HISTORY COULD HAVE OCCURED BEFORE US THAT WOULD OFFSET KNOWN EVOLUTION THEORIES !!! George: gfthomson©shaw.ca |
| bjoern
posted on12 Sep 05: 04:31: more controversies | |
 Reply to this | 1. If we humans were as omnipotent as the so-called "designer", there'd be no doubt we'd do away with anumber of flaws for everybody right away. Technical limitations do not apply for the designer, so that argument is invalid. 2. Write a computer program that uses random changes and selection together with autocatalytic feedback and some time and you'll see that there's nothing "ILOGICAL" about it - it's only that our human brain is not very well "designed" to imagine non-linear processes over large time-spans. Go and tell the "designer" to fix it and you'll see how logical evolution actually is.  3. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, what's the evidence for your "robot"? There's nothing illogical about evolution, on the contrary. Theoretically, the universe, time and everything could've been created just a mere fraction of a second ago, with all our memories right in place so we think we actually wrote this here in my blog, when we didn't. It could have happened, who knows? Is this what you want to argue? |
| jointquest
posted on12 Sep 05: 12:52: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | To your no.3 commentary of 12 SEP, I would logically answer that it is possible in the realm of mathematical probabilities and non-linearity, that the universe, time and everything could've been created just a mere fraction of a second ago, with all our memories right in place so we think we actually wrote this here in my blog, when we didn't. It could have happened, who knows? Yes this is what I want to argue, analize and discuss about, in this open logical exposition of logical thought. As to your no.2 commentary: Is "mother nature" who you would define as "the computer with the computer program"? And could you give me the full process and/or complete variables of your non-linear process with random changes, and selection together with autocatalytic feedback, for me to do my logical analisis of, just for interest sakes? As to your commentary no.1, logically analizing, technical limitations would apply in my analisis for the designer, as a valid argument. (In a probable scenario(s) of a number of designers in the universe (whom themselves don't know the origin of the known universe to us, or might, etc...), and us being in the possible hands of a rogue, or not a perfect designer). These ideas are based on known sub-concious manifested beliefs surfaced in the old known Greek culture, with a probable background of truth. George. |
| jointquest
posted on12 Sep 05: 12:57: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Sorry for some misspellings and were I wrote "...my blog..." y meant "...you blog..."... George. |
| jointquest
posted on12 Sep 05: 13:39: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | ULTIMATE BELIEFS: Evolution would be in my pure logical variables possibilities of analisis of the origins of life and humans, but most likely under other probable conceptions, and the last but not least in the list. But if we don't have another origin but organic, SOME BIG PURE LOGICAL QUESTION WOULD ARISE WHICH A FEW WOULD BE: (1) In logical thought why does our mind seek for a reason to live?: in other words how could innanimate material develop a mode of: SELF PRESERVATION INSPITE OF HURT, SICKNESS, SUFFERING AND DEATH, BEFORE THESE BEAT IT, BEFORE WINNING; instead of self destruction (self-honour) mode prevailing which sometimes wins in humans and mammals, today...??? IN OTHER WORDS TO MY LOGIC, EVOLUTION DOES NOT GIVE A LOGICAL REASON FOR LIFE OR LIVING OR FOR CONTINUING ON, BASED ON OUR MOST INNER SUBCONCIOUS (RoM-PREPROGRAMMED INFORMATION OF OUR MINDS, manifested in our antropological culture historical manifestations)... (2) The HUMAN MIND SO FAR IS STUCTURED UNDER FREE COMPETING ECONOMY, OF "tHe oNe mAn sTaNdInG pRiNcIpLe", and final self destruction, or near complete aniquilation...when OVERPOPULATION WILL ELIMINATE the capacity of the Earth to provide, be it space, resources, energy, etc..., in a 100years, 500years, 1,000years, or more...UNLESS SHEAR ANIMAL-NONHUMAN SELECTION OCCURS... (3)BUT THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS, IS IT WORHT GOING ON, WHEN OUR RED SUN COULD ENVELOPE THE EARTH OR RUNS OUT OF ENERGY MILLIONS OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE...will we be able to go to another galaxy by then, WHAT FOR ??? (4) LOGICAL THOUGHT DOES NOT PREACH THE OVERRIDING OF THE "SELF PRESERVATION MODE" OF THE "SELF HONOUR-SELF DESTRUCTION MODE"...OF OUR MINDS, unless it be a global ultimate decition of all. (5) Pure Logical thought will proove than man can make "heaven on Earth and the stem cell quest for longer life or immortality", with a logical level of healthy compeeting, population control (without a rogue to destroy half or more of planet life having to do so...), for a longer happier life on the planet, wilh all want's provided for under a inteligent control, which is what they will most probably have to do, to survive anyway, were money will not be an obstacle to full scientific study. THIS WOULD ULTIMATLY ELIMINATE THE DARWINIAN ANIMAL PRINCIPLE OF SELF SELECTION, AS EVEN TODAY ANIMALS SELECTION HAS BEEN OVERRIDDEN BY HUMANS, AND HUMAN SELECTION WILL HAVE TO BE OVERRIDEN TOO...unless an animal like process (world war) occurs, but unlikely in a more logical world mentality. GeOrGe. |
| bjoern
posted on13 Sep 05: 07:33: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Whoa, easy on that CAPSLOCK, dude! As to your comment on my 3 replies: 1. So there's a rogue designer also? That means there's a super-designer and some sub-designers? LOL And who designed the super-designer? The ulta-designer? Ah, there's a hierarchy of designers? Well, in this case, we've been designed by the under-worthless-apprentice-incompetent-designer class IV.  2. You can program one yourself, very easy. just read: http://www.panspermia.org/computrs.htm http://www.genetic-programming.org/gpbook1toc.html http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip/software.html 3. If we were just created a nano-second ago, your comments never happened - you just remember them as if they had happened. I'll only reply to comments that actually were written here and not mere imaginations. ;) As to your questions which lead you to wonder about evolution: 1. A drive to live is very well compatible with evolution. 2. Yes, selection is part of evolution, too. 3. Yes, we will die if we still exist when the earth is engulfed by the sun and can't get out of here. Whether you still need worry about things a few million years in the future, is neither evolutions, nor my problem, but yours alone. 4. I can't see this item making any sense at all. You may rephrase it in German, Swedish, or French. Those are all the languages I know. Sorry. 5. This item also has no bearing on evolution at all. Thus, to sum it up: you have not given any evidence for any robot or designer or anything else pertaining to the discussion. So what's your argument? |
| jointquest
posted on13 Sep 05: 08:46: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | (1) My argument is that my analisis reveals that evolution is the way for science to say simply what the heck of our origins, and nothing nor nobody is out there so far, and we will go on, with not much interest, in bettering anything, as we have to let shear aniamal evolution selection to mandate. And that prooves how much evolution is INHUMANE !!! EVOLUTION will finally destroy everything it made by what you believe: expanding universe that will end, an Earth that will finally end ??? Strange concepts-that something so miraculous and so improbable, a spark and huge enormous ammounts of energy and matter formed Universe miraculously or randomously to them self destroy. If completely true, we aren't doing much about it are we ? Humans take so many things for granted ! (2) And Religion satisfies itself with the expalnation of everything being bad and wrong to EVIL, and that finally all our, innate LONGINGS (from where?, will be finally satisfied). HOW CAN EVOLUTION EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF OUR INNATE DESIRES, CONCIOUSNESS, AND CREATIVITY, AND THE DESIRE TO PROCREATE, WHEN EVOLUTION WOULD DICTATE, THE DEVELPMENT, OF ONLY ONE STRONG INDIVIDUAL OVERCOMING ALL, SELF CENTERED, AND MOT WANTING TO HAVE COMPETING OFFSPRING !!! (3) True Science is logical, and seeks perfection, and happiness, and not to live off damage, nor live off suposed theories, and not to study the ultimate, (as it hurts too much), solely to attain, economic gain, as the only main satisfaction !!! (4) EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPALIN FOR EXAMPLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NERVOUS SYSTEM: as the first hurt killed and no offspring occurred and thus extermination occured !!!! George. |
| jointquest
posted on13 Sep 05: 08:49: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Actually my arguments investigate how you think and what are your beliefs and how evolution can be !!! George. |
| jointquest
posted on13 Sep 05: 09:41: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | I know what probably your answers will be to my logic analisis. My definition of Evolution is as follows and many more definitions as evolution is quite polifacetic: (1) Evolution needs time and a lot of it and also numbers and big numbers of individulas, so that the failed prototype, experimental model, be it unicelular or multicelular being, could develop, learning, and develope a development mode, from seeing others fail, and then learn itself. Then it thought it had to replicate, oh upps, hydra develop by being cut up, fantastic !!! So how many pre-hydra were cut up before, the cut up, became two and not nothing .....!!! How many unicelular beings were needed to develop multicelular beings, these numbers could be astronimical if put beside the astronomical time variable that evolution needs for this self learning self progress of life on Earth. These numbers logically would overwhelm substrate in fact most probably !!!! (2) The future end of Earth and the Universe would be my technique to study reality FORWARDS, and not BACKWARDS that evolution seems to do mainly. Studying forwards would probably give more clear sense as to were we are going as to what we should do. OH, EVOLUTION preaches that the problems of others in the future wil be theirs, and not ours, we will live only in the context of our little small years of life !!! What the heck !!! DRIVE to live only for myself...!!! (3) You didn't answer how does EVOLUTION explain mas suicidal behaviour of some mammals?, WHEN YOU HAVE JUST SAID EVOLUTION NEEDS DRIVE TO LIVE !!! (4) Viruses have a quemical parasitical drive of destruction, and also bacteria, and when substrate and other variables vary or end, they die and after astronomical numbers, somehow, they developed the technique of "hybernation" egg style, capsules (I forget the term of the process...) were they can come back to life again when conditions arise again if sorounding conditions have not eliminated it anyway.!!! BUT EVOLUTION always finds a way to explain everything, but haven't expalined yet all the species barriers, from unicelular to multicelular, and all these jumps in the life tree they so love to draw. (5) (a) MY CONCLUSION OF EVOLUTION CONCEPTS: is that too too many self forming prototypes had to happen for a logical mathematical positive outcome of progress and not extermination. So if we put the astronomical time frame combined with astronomical numbers of individuals together something doesn't ad up to me ! ! ! (b) I can proove to you that EVOLUTION will not occur again on Earth nor it did occur, by proposing, that if a small ammount of humans live on the Moon and ISS, and burn( destroy) Earth completely, and see if life will form again !!!!! At the most some small bacteria or viruses might survive but not devlop into nothing more !!! AND SCIENTIST KNOW THAT but they don't want to say it formally just in case a massive suicide occurs !!!!! No but our self-preservation mode is greater, but it wouldn't be if tought diferently !!!!! Were did the positive teaching come from in old times and why didn't the negative teaching prevail of self-extermination in honour !!!!! (c) EVOLUTION IS THE COUNTERPART OF RELIGION SO THAT THE DECEPTION OF NOT FINDING GOD doesn't cause such self sadness, and self desire to end themselves, but give a non-emotional-animal explanation to keep up the drive to live. The (ROM memory component of our minds requires us to know our origins WHY, WHY, WHY !!!) George. P.S: I will give you my opinion on the websites you mention . |
| jointquest
posted on13 Sep 05: 09:55: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | My theories go beyond EVOLUTION-RELIGION George. |
| jointquest
posted on13 Sep 05: 11:59: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | I've just glanced at your mentioned websites of Evolutionary studies and my logic opinion is: This evolution, studies the past supposed processes of organism formation, and intermingling, trying to give them self life, needing a computer (mother nature-god-etc... plus software, built and programmed by inteligent outside creatures...!)...This only prooves me and Inteligent Design not evolution ! True Science studies existing processes, and should seek to better them would be the logical thing to do, because for example family intermingling of animals or humans only produces "weaker" individuals not "stronger". When is the gen pool going to run out or weaken more?, more sooner than later. Humans as of today still have religious moral barriers that doesn't permit their full scientific advance, plus greed and self centerdness, does not permit fully the advance of civilization. Or are moral barriers necesary and from were did "moral" come from? ( well surely not from evolution...!). George. |
| bjoern
posted on13 Sep 05: 13:14: more controversies | |
Reply to this | To your 4-pointed first reply-comment: 1. Too bad that stones fall downwards. I'd like them to fall up, but they actually do fall down. http://bjoern.brembs.net/theonion/intelligentfalling.html Too bad the second law of thermodynamics predicts the heat death of the universe. But so far, nobody has invented a perpetuum mobile. http://bjoern.brembs.net/theonion/notoentropy.html Too bad reality isn't the way you'd like it to be George. Maybe you should design a world the way you like it and leave this world for us scientists to discover? The falling stone has no ethics or morals. Thermodynamics have no ethics or morals. Evolution has no ethics or morals. Scientists only state current knowledge - engineers, theologicans and politicians make "good" or "evil" come of it. If you don't like that the stone is falling down instead of up, I suggest you take some drugs to make you feel beter, dude, or grow up and get used to it. Hey, even the catholic church learned to take the blow and now lives with the fact that earth is not the center of things. Maybe in some shorter timeframe, George, you will learn to live with the fact that you descended from apes like all the rest of us? Or do you still think the earth is the center of our solar system? 2. Ah, the evolution of cooperation. One of my specialities. Actually, this was difficult to explain for evolutionary biologists, but now we have a couple of useful explanations. You can read about them on my evolution page. 3. Dude, I don't know where you got that definition of science from! ROFL I suggest you read my meta-biology project-page to see what science really is and can(not) tell us.4. Piece of cake, see my evolution page. BTW, don't come up with stuff you think evolution can't explain because: I. Most likely, I can easily explain it to you, but am too lazy to do it here in the comments section. II. Even if I can't explain it, who cares? If I could explain everything, I would be out of a job. an, it's my job to find answers we don't know yet! So you better stop asking for explanations and give me evidence for intelligent deign! I want to see designers, fossilized rabbits in the pre-cambrian, the cool stuff! Not some boring "you can't explain this or that", ok, George? Now to the other stuff you wrote (and please number all your points one by one and not one post with three, another with 5 and so on, ok?): (1) Sorry, dude, you're coming across as rather confused. Time and numbers are really not a problem at all. Do the math, it's not so difficult (you got the links). (2) Science doesn't tell you what you should do. Religion (for example) does that. I don't care about it. (3) Mass suicidal behavior of mammals? In what novel have you read about that urban myth? The lemmings? Man, this is 2005, not the middle ages! LOL There's no mass suicide. Get used to it. (BTW, I told you asking how evolution does stuff is too easy, boring and takes too much time. So stop it. Get me some evidence for creation!) (4) All this molecular stuff actually works very well evolutionarily. People use evolutionary mechanisms to develop new medicines based on RNAs, viruses, etc. I'm still waiting for some evidence of creation (not some "evolution can't explain this boring nonsense). (5)(a) Well then do the math again, it adds up just fine on my computer. You've made a mistake in your calculations, dude. Have it checked! (5)(b) So go ahead and prove it to me! So far you only made some barely intelligible stuff, where's the proof, show me? Of course evolution will start anew if all life was exterminated from earth. Why should evolution just stop? Silly idea.. (5)(c) "Counterpart"? What's that? Evolution is not countering anything other than scientific theories. Creation isn't one. Darwinism is a theory that once competed with Lamarckism. But creation is not even a competition to evolution any more. Only people who don't understand science think so. As to your comment on the websites I quoted: The computer programs show prove intelligent design? How that, could you see god in the programs? I have the slight suspicion, you have never programmed in your life, have you, George? Do you know what a computer program is? Science doesn't "better" anything. Where did you get that whacky idea from? Actually, there's "hybrid vigor", where "intermingling" always produces stronger offspring. I use this genetic effect here in the lab all the time with my flies. You can come here and see it in action, if you don't believe me. And of course, you're right: morals did not come from evolution. Neither have morals anything to do with evolution. I'm still waiing for you to show me evidence of creation and not of "evolution can't explain this". |
| jointquest
posted on14 Sep 05: 01:03: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Wow, It will be an interesting conquest to show you evidence of creation, which with it's religious connotation, would probably fall into better my concept of "inteligent design", which I only apply to known human history 6,000years-40,000years ago, without going back anymore. As one of my principal probable possibilities of explaining our origins, as I think initially we could be missing out something of visible proof. If we aren't, then I do believe that we can do better here on Earth, without clasifying as wanting some kind of "heaven on earth", as immaturity rather of higher thinking. Pure Logical thought does accept any logical proof and functioning, as it resides in the most positive higher thought centers of our wonder mind. To me as others have said, just because the minds of our ancestor were ancient in practice, doesn't mean they didn't have the capability, it was that teaching was not available, obscurred by religious-supertitious thoughts, as has happened to me, until I opened up my mind to logical thinking, and scientific proof, plus realising how history of the early (after christ milenia) was aparently not told truly !!! Nice blogging George. |
| jointquest
posted on14 Sep 05: 01:14: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Oh by the way ! Do your hybrids reproduce a new hybrid or do they fall back to the original kinds? George. |
| jointquest
posted on14 Sep 05: 01:25: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | You do know that a mind that does not balance good and evil, and goes to any extreme is not stable/safe to be with ! So you would know that a higher percentage of evil mind without any law restraint, becomes a being quasy animal as typical genocide dictators to not mention known outlaw cases. So an evolutionary human being does have to have balance between good and evil for normal modern society functioning. Would you agree ? I know you do, but I do need to know why would evolution not explain this aparently? Because my "inteligent design" concept would. Or is what you define as "moral" solely in the sexual realm or promiscuity definitions ? George. P.S.: I have read of some of the drosophila flies studies ... |
| bjoern
posted on14 Sep 05: 05:03: more controversies | |
Reply to this | You think "design" only applies to 6-40,000 years ago? There's DNA from some of that tie and it indicates that nor really a hell of a lot happened to humans in this time. What do you think happened before that? Now go ahead and present your evidence of creation already, will you? Hybrid vigor is a genetic effect whereby inbred strains are combined and the resulting hetercygosity provides relief from inbreeding depression. The heterocygosity remains prevalent for quite a number of generations (rather strictly Mendelian, I might add), depending on whether selection pressure is applied or not. Scientifically, I don't use the colloquialisms "good" and "evil". Colloquially, I use "good" and "evil" sparingly and only for labelling or entertainment purposes. For problem-solving or behavior-explanation, the concepts are hopelessly inadequate and out of date. If you admit that "design" has anything to do with "good", "evil" or morals/ethics, you contradict those that (wrongly) claim "design" is a scientific theory. If you admit "design" is not a scientific theory (of course it isn't science!), we need not discuss it any further here. "Good", "evil" or any other moral/ethical ideas are not in the realm of science. Any concept encompassing them is not scientific, hence evlution makes no statement of them. They are part of the humanities, not science. If you say "design" is in the humanities, why discuss it here at all? The rule is: you claim it's scientific, you accept scientific reasoning. You claim it's not scientific, we drop the subject. |
| bjoern
posted on14 Sep 05: 09:33: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Let me clarify one of my points: evolutionists may debate as to how or why the capacity for morality evolved in the human brain. However, using evolutionary theory, they will never be able to come up with a clear answer for which morality should humanity adopt. |
| jointquest
posted on14 Sep 05: 11:19: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | I only can study what fossil evidence there is of hominoides. So my time frame is 6,000years-40,000years approximatly. Zoology and animals is a quasy intelegent realm that I keep to known living animaliae, but extreemly interesting. Fossils of known animals to small celular beings is a study area, but I have some problems with the timing radioactive methods used giving so many million years of their age, but it could be accurate, if all variables used for the timing are asumed to no have varied, which would be a first scenario of study that my logic would accept, but pure logic would present all possible variability of variables, including diferent carbon probable content in Earth's atmosphere, variability of radioactivity and things, etc... EVOLUTION AS SUCH, CLOSE THEMSELVES UP IN ONE POSSIBILITY. Thus I would conclude that LOGICALLY if we haven't prooven God-creation, doesn't mean that "inteligent design" isn't true (now to what degree, I don't know, do you?) and to conclude totally to the contrary that natural processes made us humanoides, would be a possible conclusion, similar to saying if it isn't "black" it has to be "white", instead of assuming "intermediate colours" or "grey". What concepts are uptodate explaining human brain behaviour that most possibly no mega computer of its size (brain) will be able to be made (super microscopic components) and artificial inteligence? Most likely negaitve-positive thinking ? For your information Science studies the human brain in Medicine to know which area does this and which area does that. I BELIEVE THE BRAIN AS THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPED STRUCTURE OF NATURE, so impresive, it is still under study as so is DNA. The Brain and DNA would be the "evolutionary" thing of my most study as of such category. The BRAIN is your beloved computer you refer to that has software (behaviour-thoughts-numbers-letters-caligraphy-shapes-memories-concience, etc...) impresively. So I claim these to be components of Scientific study of my most interest. How an arm a leg, organs (one or a pair or pairs), nervous system (electronics), immune system (firewalls-antispyware-antiviruses, etc), vascular system, skeletal system, etc. developed or functions are evolutionary scientific studies also. But the Brain surpases all, as it has a software component that you claim to belong to the "humanities" area of studies, when it belongs to the most highly evolutionary-design-inteligent design-scientific, areas of study. CONCLUDING: Do you agree that humans are ORGANIC ROBOTS, which today evolutionary-science is seeking to replicate with ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENT ROBOTS (whith future organic components most probably) ? Because that is my concept of "inteligent design" premise-theory: "that if an inorganic less complex robot has to be inteligently designed, then a more many times more complex organic inteligent (fully self independant-capable of complete own decitions-that can reproduce-have true feelings of hurt or joy-that knows it is going to die and still live on, that creates-designs things, lives in society, thinks of its origins-and from were?, knows it needs to eat to live, etc ) being had to be "inteligently designed", but not necesarily by a super-natural being persee, nor the need of any religious concept to be used" The above theory is the basis of my present study and discussions with all the variables that are involved (this theory would include all variables persee...) Now how are we going to proove or disproove this my theory as presented here? I would conclude that we haven't been able too so far nor has Science-Evolution, clearly anyway. |
| jointquest
posted on14 Sep 05: 11:32: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Thanks for permitting me to share thought and analisis with you, as I don't accpt things as thy are, not to make myself misserable, but rather to establish a better era on earth or initiate it with others of similar thought that I have noticed. George. |
| bjoern
posted on15 Sep 05: 08:09: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Hey, dude, where's the evidence of creation you promised? I'm getting bored here!  Give me one reason why I should believe in creation! And i don't mean any more we can't explain! Otherwise, I'll just assume you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster when you mean creation. Where's the evidence? And you're right, only because our knowledge of evolution is not complete, we don't have to fill the gaps in our knowledge with some divine creation. There's still much we need to learn about creation and we don't need no god to explain anything. Where's your evidence for creation you promised? I have no idea what a "maximum developed structure" is and yow you'd measure that. I neither have been to any other planets and know nothing of any possible life there. Biology tries to find out how the brain thinks, not what it thinks. No, humans are not robots, at least not by what most people think are robots. And who says "inorganic robots have to be designed"? That's not true at all, there's plenty of intelligent robots that were generated by genetic algorithms. You're not up to date, George. Only because we don't know how to build a computer that generates consciousness via evolutionary forces, we need to be created? What nonsense is that? And when we find out how to program such a simulation, what happens to your creation then? You still fail to show any evidence for creation! Actually, George, I don't see any theory of yours at all. What theory? What does your theory predict, so we can test it in experiments? What are you trying to say? So far, you only said we don't know this, we don't know that. What are you saying, George? We don't know everything, yet? Sure, you're right. We don't know what consciousness is? Sure you're right. But explain to me please, if you will, what our ignorance has to do with creation? Now please stop this silly arguing and give me the evidence for creation you promised! ~:( And stop telling me what we don't know or can't do! Our ignorance or incompetence only proves we don't know! It doesn't prove creation or anything else. Now on with your evidence for creation! Where is it? I'm starting to think you were just teasing me, George. Maybe you're just a troll making fun of my arguments by being completely whacky and silly and laughing hard at me behind my poor back, eh?  |
| jointquest
posted on15 Sep 05: 13:46: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Dear Bjoern.Brembs.net, That is were we differ, but I don't say, as pure logic would dictate, that Evolutionary studies, are all wrong, but I doubt they are all right. Everything we can discuss will be based on my premise and theory mentioned, that I have as a study point, that are we or aren't we ORGANIC ROBOTS and are INORGANIC ROBOTS "inteligent design" or not, and if INORGANIC-ORGANIC ROBOTS probable future hominoide-quasy human, are or aren't, will be or won't be, from "inteligent design" ? Also the definition of a ROBOT is not what people give it/them but what science knows they are, as they are created by science. THE COMPONENTS OF A ROBOT CANNOT BE PUT TOGETHER BY SHEAR RAMDOM, NOR BY THEMSELVES, AND PRODUCE A FULLY FUNCTIONAL PRODUCT OF THE KIND WE KNOW. (I believe pure random would make asimetrical formations, non-even numbered parts/extremities, probably of better natural selection functionability, etc...) To prove/disprove creation and/or inteligent design and/or design, to prove/disprove evolution, can be done, by my pure logic procedures (most likely known by others although not thought of, or ignored purposely/or unintensionaly !). I will enumerate some procedures for this, with the knowledge, that they are very drastic, and would not be done under normal circumstances, and I disclaim any liability as to mention them, solely for the purpose of this study, as pure logic would not think of implementing them as such, unless done as a global political unified decition. Coming up soon some of these procedures ! George. |
| bjoern
posted on16 Sep 05: 05:38: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Actually, there is a reproducing robot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/903238.stm http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/edsumm/e050512-03.html Together with the genetic algorithms I cited above, you see that if we differ, you are clearly wrong, because already today intellignt robots adn reproducing robots have been generated, even by evolutionary means. So, clearly, your conjecture has been proven wrong already. To sum it up: 1. You are wrong on the evolution of cooperation 2. You are wrong on the "design" of intelligent robots 3. You are wrong on robots not reproducing 4. You are wrong about any evidence for creation Thus, I think you better go back and think things over one ore time or two, eh? BTW, 'Pure' randomness plays no major role in evolution. Never did and nobody ever claimed that. It s the randmomness of variation harnessed by developmental constraints and selection that produces evolutionary forces. They have been shown numerous times to produce basically and morphological structure on this planet. If you can't believe that, you might as well believe the earth is flat. Evolution can be falsified. So far, nobody has been able to do that. Alas, you still fail to show any evidence for creation. Why should I start believing in creation, without any need? Show me the need for creation - without invoking gaps in our knowledge that will be closed soon enough anyway! So stop the conjecture, foresighting and prophecying (they'll probably be wrong anyway) and give me some hard, solid evidence of creation (of the kind that supports evolution)! |
| jointquest
posted on17 Sep 05: 10:33: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern, I'm impressed by your answers but not convinced...! I'm impressed by the alleged hard, solid evidence of evolution, that science today functions, teaches without any falsifications, claiming as their certified certain knowledge, in schools, colleges and universities, and rests on, and of which you have mentioned some...! It also impresses me how a christian judaic-religion could take such strong world hold for 2,000years more or less? ! I suppose it's a inner mind need met, the same as evolution meets or counters inner minds needs of the contrary thoughts of others...! As for showing you and this blog: the need for creation (a very interesting question), and some hard solid evidence of creation, I stated that I will propose soon how to prove/disprove creation-inteligent design-design and/or how to prove/disprove evolution/science. Alas I think we and science are still naive to reality and reason/no reason for life, and the real no reason or real intention so far to make life better for us humans, not to mention the animal-plant-microscopic world, were "moral" alleged reasons and barriers are used up to penally againsts scientific human-stem cell-etc experiments in the quest for bettering human life, (near sickness free, and longer life span,...), instead of us all being a statistical number, of the expendable and needed masses, used for satisfying "the greedy for fame, social status, and money, people and goverments", that are obstacles for real science advance!, as we are only matter anyway!, of not much importance beside the individual importance! George. |
| bjoern
posted on19 Sep 05: 02:41: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Well, ok, I'll be hanging around here then, waiting patiently for your evidence of creation |
| jointquest
posted on20 Sep 05: 01:24: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | I like your emoticons |
| jointquest
posted on20 Sep 05: 01:31: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | German is a very interesting consonant letter language ! I speak and did most of my studies in spanish one of the most florid, rich in synonyms/anthonyms, and a near perfect grammar/phometics language rules, with aditional verbs in masculine-femenine, so there are no in between gay defined verbs (joke!). |
| jointquest
posted on20 Sep 05: 01:40: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | I do ad for now that, it is extreemly rare that we be the only ones in the milky way galaxy, not to mention the visible universe. Do you have any comment or theory is this strange anomaly for my logic ? I don't believe in little green men as ET's commonly shown, but logic would accept the possibility of other life forms in other realms of universe. I don't believe there is any clear proof of any other "encounter" with planet earth, so far that science would evidence or find that I know of ! |
| jointquest
posted on25 Sep 05: 13:45: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog Proposal of processes of proving/disproving creation and/or the Bible as the principle literature (no religious-morale practices matter in this analisis, persee), that teaches creation. As creation is the weakest link not believed by the main stream of Science/Evolution, logically it would be the first attack point of pure logic analisis. But even though we disprove some main facts of the Bible, logic would not swing extremely to the contrary conclusion as an answer to our origins. Evolution explains an aparently expanding Universe by the Big Bang theory, but does not explain were the first "spark" or cause for the "bang" to occur, nor why life has only been able to be proven on planet Earth so far. We have agreed on not analising "what evolution can't expalin", but some main facts "not explainable" could lead to newer and better theories. AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE BY YOUR EXPOUNDED ANALISIS TO MY WRITINGS, Evolution and as the studies of computer random modeling allegedly show, LIFE ON EARTH HAS BEEN A FANTASTIC ORGANIC RANDOM OCCURANCE OF MILLION-MILLION(S) PROBABILITY OF COMBINATIONS, leading to what we know of Life today, and that FOSSILS & GEOLOGY (forensic) evidence aparently, thus proves, and that these favourable variables and scenarios have occured here on Earth. Creation-Inteligent Design-Design believes that the probability of these random combinations in combining to make known life is 0.00000000...0001, of life probably occuring by itself according to their PHD scientists, in other words "very highly improbable". And Evolution believes nearly the contrary, that these random combination of organic-quemical-fisics components, is "probable". IS THIS WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND THAT I AM ANALISING ? We have to fix some of your fundamental premises of scientific basis. |
| jointquest
posted on25 Sep 05: 14:51: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Propasals to initially disprove Creation as Stated in the Bible Literature: I Firmly believe and pure logic would dictate that if future Prophetical occurance of the main creation literature book, the Bible, can be "blocked", "impeded", that this would open a big area of controversy to Creationist. This would lead then to only analisis studies, between those of us who believe in so far proven to my mind logically, "Inteligent Design-Design, and Evolutionists. These means of "blocking", "impeding", Apocalipsis Prophecy, would be only as a proposal exercise, and most likely would not be feasable to be able to follow through in their acomplishment, but this not being the reason for it not being the way to do so. I) The Bible prophecies claim that Jesus-Christ will put his feet again on, from the air, the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem, Israel-Palestine, from where he ascended (levitated) from, viewed by a few !. So a "blockage", "impeding", of this occuring would initiate a first step in disproving/proving creation as the Bible so claims. This could be accomplished by: digging up and leveling this mountain, or controled blowing up. So the question is if the GPS of Jesus-Christ would still locate this mountain to land in the same area ? Well what else could we do to impede this ?: build out the area, or make a big artificial lagoon there, you tell me ! (II) Bible Literature also claims in the book of Revelation/Apocalypse, that a final World battle between God/Jesus-Christ, will occur at Armageddon, Valley of Meguido, Israel-Palestine. So again to prove/disprove this occurance, we would ahve to "block", this valley, and modify it so that it can't be used for a battle, and prove that , no way a World Final Battle could nor will occur there ! ! ! (III) DNA studies prove at least six (6) main complete different original ethnic human beings families, that have kept pure, so far, either by geographical separation, culture and main languages. Also Science ascribes origins of first early human migration to relatively similar areas , as those of the Bible ! This would make us assume initially, that the Bible only accounts for an initial pair (Adan and Eve), (although in the Book of Genesis chapter 6 (six) is stated that the Sons of God started taking wifes from the sons of men ?!), as not correct or inacurate, unless a new creative act allegedly ocurred at "Babel", (Genesis chapter 11(eleven), were God confused their tongue and made languages (also ethnicity)), and people departed to different areas, and "colors/ethnicity", came from a judgement of God to one of the sons of Noe, to dark color skin ! ! ! But DNA would suggest that the original main gene pool to be of at least six (6) kinds/families/ethnic groups. This would give big questioning to the acuracy/truth of the Old Testament of Biblical Literature, especially if "incest" would have to occur between the only males/females sons and dauhgters of Adam/Eve to procreate, if they were the only ones there, being a moral no-no!, for a alegedly pure-morally based God Book-Bible! (IV) The Biblical Literature Prophecies in the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse, claim that 144,000 "jews" (12,000 jews of each of the 12 tribes biblically mentioned) will fulfill some of the prophecies there depicted. Well if we can prove somehow that not all of these "tribes" exist today, this would be a means of "blocking", "impeding", these major biblical literature prophecies. (V) Other ways of proving/disproving creation and biblical litarature, are in themselves "too drastic", but would be considered logically very "honourable" !?: Destroy life on Earth completely, similar to Babel mentioned were allegedly, men built a tower trying to reach the clouds and being the same as God, and then this God intervened, as we above aluded to, to see if we can bring this God "out from hiding" !?!?!? WW1 and WW2 accomplished in part this possibility ! Propose other extreme ways to bring out God from hiding !!! Then we can see if life formed from "mother nature" !!! JointQuest. |
| bjoern
posted on26 Sep 05: 05:09: more controversies | |
Reply to this | To your first post from the 25th: The probabilities don't multiply. You don't get the same evolution twice, just as little as you get dealt the same deck of cards twice in a card game. Imagine poker: you get, say, 5 cards out of how many was it? 52? So let's say you get 5 out of 52. How big is the chance that you get the set of 5 that you hve in your hand right now? 1:10000? 1:5000000? It is tiny, isn't it? And yet, you hold exactly this set of cards in your hand, don't you? So you see, it's a tiny chance that you get exactly this set of cards, but you're holding it in your hands nevertheless. In the same way, evolution takes the cards it gets and makes out of it what survival demands. In this way, the probabilities become reasonably large and some animals survive - and some die out, as the fossil records shows. Actually, it seems that many more have died out than live today, reflecting the still small chance of getting a helpful mutation at the right time. But with enough individuals and species, you'll always have some surviviing, no matter how tough the environment. So no, there's nothing unlikely about evolution; on the contrary, under the right circumstances, evolution WILL take place, always. Just not always in the same way. Actually, one can see evolution taking place right now, just as one can see that the earth is round - some religious people only question whether it has taken place before now. If the ID people really still claim some wild improbability, they should read some undergraduate evolution textbooks. that's a very old and outdated invalid argument. As to your second post from the 25th: Who said anything about the bible? I don't care about the bible. I have a little booklet with creation myths from around the world. It has about 20 different creation myths. If you want to talk about one specific creation myth (like the one in the bible), you'll have to tell me why the one in the bible is more worth talking about than the other ones. Otherwise I'll just refer to creation in the Hopi tradition. Or even better, the Norse creation! So why talk about the bible? As to the morals of the bible see these pages. I can basically justify any atrocity with a quote from the bible, let alone incest. Piece of cake. There is no "pure" human genetic subgroup. |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 19:45: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog Well it would be statistically accepted that the bible is one of the most numerous religious books, other than, muslim, chinese budism, or hinduism, and thus an important study book as reference, due to the fact that it originated from the Pharoah-Moses, one of the earliest documents of importance, due to this famous Egyptian empire and rather advanced civilization. There aren't too many important wide spread religious beliefs beforehand. JointQuest |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 19:55: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Can you lead me where to find the probability of combining the recently mapped Human-Genome-DNA of around 20,000 genes, to produce humans ? By the way 1:10000; 1:5000000; is equivalent to 1x10^(-4); 5x10^(-6), or 0.0001 or 0.0000005. In other words the probability 1 in 10,000 is mathematically 1 elevated to minus four (-4), etc..., as you most likely know, just to unify measuring systems. JointQuest. |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 20:00: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog I'm still amazed at how you enfatically claim that "evolution will always occur", without one bit of doubt. Pure Logic would state the doubts and analize all other probabilities rightfully! JointQuest JotQom DomQom QonDom |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 20:24: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog My pure logic analisis of humans and their science and mentality so far, year 2,005, as an objective bystander, is that they are not sincere with themselves, and greed, money and social status and power, misleads their objectivity, to such extent, that I would conclude so far, until you provide me with more solid evidence of the contrary or other conclusions: "What Evolution-Scientists have found so far about life, is that it has great adaptability-survivability, to a very specific framework of environment variables, of temperature, oxigen, hydrogen, etc. And that life's complexity is such that Science is still in "diapers", to what I can humbly determine !" JointQuest. |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 20:33: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog To support what I say please see my new born webpage in development at http://members.shaw.ca/jointquest . You will notice the most advanced "spaceship (shutle)" of humans so far year 2,005; them you will see "three pyramids"; then an "asteroid-meteorite"; "Planet Mars" from a rover; an artists comceptuation of a galactic "black hole"; and finally our glorious "Red star SUN and the solar system in progresive order from front to back. What conclusions would a totally objective "inteligent being" develop from pure visual observation of these graphic spacial photos ? I'll soon give you some. JointQuest. |
| jointquest
posted on26 Sep 05: 20:37: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Bloq MY MAIN CONCLUSION TO the photo secuence of http://members.shaw,ca/jointquest is that my shear pure logic would dictaminate that: "Initially humans don't know or understand what they are seeing" and their alleged not too objective analisis (mycroscopic analisis of the real components of these pictures) has not given them so far any reasonable conclusions that I know of !" JointQuest. |
| bjoern
posted on27 Sep 05: 11:28: more controversies | |
Reply to this | Sure, a lot of people know the bible. But if you talk about popularity, we don't even need to discuss creation as it is such a fringe idea. Only in the US are some remnants left, mostly among the uneducated religious nutcases. No, you'll have to give better reasons for discussing the bible than just popularity. Otherwise we can discuss Chinese and Indian creation myths which are pretty popular, too. Just give me some reason why the creation in the Bible is more likely or reasonable than the creation of any other religion, ok? I mean there are lots of reasons why Darwinism is preferred over e.g., Lamarckism. Give me some similar reasons to prefer the biblic creation over any of the many others, can you? Please? The probability of the human genome is either close to zero or one, depending on how you ask the question. If you ask the question: "How big is the chance that a random generator alone can generate the human genome?" then the answer is almost zero. If you ask: "How large is the probability to generate the human genome using a random generator and selection with the genome as template?" The answer is "one", as you can try for yourself: http://home.pacbell.net/s-max/scott/weasel.html As you can see, randomness alone doesn't work, but randomness with selection is very powerful. Creationists are usually very uneducated about evolutionary mechanisms, you know... Of course, under the right circumstances evolution always occurs! I can show it to you every day. It's about as much a law as is gravity. The analogy is actually pretty close: nobody knows exactly all the details how gravity works, but nevertheless, the stone always falls to the ground. Likewise, nobody knows all the exquisite little mechanisms of evolution, but if you have overproduction with variation and limited survival, you ALWAYS obeserve evolution, just as you always observe mutual attraction of bodies with mass. If you doubt it, get some Agar plates and some antibiotics and try it yourself: you'll observe evolution, I promise LOL You might as well doubt the stone will always fall to the ground, hehe. |
| jointquest
posted on27 Sep 05: 16:01: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog I like your probabilities analisis responses of "nearly zero=0.00000...000001 , etc"; or one (1)=100% probable, which is mathematically correct. I don't quite comprehend exactly the occurrance of probability=1, of generating the human genome using a " random generator !?" and " selection !?", with the genome as TEMPLATE ! This that you have stated is fantastic and we are starting to talk pure logic here ! ! ! Can you please be more precise explaining all terminology used as to what exactly can they be ascribed to or suposed to be ? Now as to my webpage (http://members.shaw.ca/jointquest) in development obviously an "inteligent" bystander could conclude superficially: (1) That the Shuttle is some kind of "flying object" suspended in space were there is near zero gravity, and that the planet (round sphere) in the background most likely is planet Earth. That this flying object was made by inteligent beings...! Although of course incorrect assumptions could be given... (2) That the pyramids from this distance are solids as we can see their triangular piramidal shape, and by their color they could be made out of rock, and that most likely inteligent beings made them...! (3) That the alleged picture of a landscape of Planet Mars is actually taken from a rover that actually is there, and that this picture was not made up...! Thus who ever finds the rovers will conclude that they are not evolving creatures from the dust of Mars ( because they are inorganic mainly), and obviously by close examination parts have been soldered, bolted, and hence mechanically put together, by an inteligent exterior being...! (4) But everything else in these initial pictures: an asteroid-meteor, the mentioned planets, a galactic black hole, and the solar system, came to be by natural non-intelitgent forces, as we have not prooven the existence of any inteligent being big enough to have made them...! (5) That this inteligent creature (humans) mentioned is not visible in these pictures...! So how is this creature, what shape does it have and how big is it, would be big questions to ask, etc...! Could we arrive to a logical conclusion by calculating size of the objects and forms, etc...in these photographs, or some variables are missing !? Obviously much more abscent and not visible is what else and who else is beyond planet Earth !? These above would be some initial very obvious questions to ask ! But the "paradox" (I'm starting to use my dictionary now...!) is obvious: we don't have to be superticious to logically make a direct deduction as follows: if something smaller less complex inorganic was made by organic highly complex inteligent humans, how could something so much bigger and complex have developed itself, including this organic inteligent creature !? I suppose logic would accept finally as a possibility that " inanimate, lifeless" materials (planets, galaxies...) could have originated from "eternal substrate", but logic would not accept, unless fully prooven (by all perception=touch, eyesight, hearing, taste, smell, and all of the "mind"), that the contrary or diferent, "living, autonomous, animate", inteligent humans be self made, "miraculously-randomly" by itself !, and not be inteligently put together !? JointQuest. |
| jointquest
posted on28 Sep 05: 17:03: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog Well it looks like members.shaw.ca is offline, so I will have to set up my own server. I like the: sqr(b^3)=b*sqr(b) jointQUEST.QUESTjoint |
| jointquest
posted on28 Sep 05: 17:12: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | Bjoern Blog sqr(b^3)=b^(3/2) if I'm not mistaken in Basic computer programming language. JointQuest |
| jointquest
posted on01 Oct 05: 01:43: more controversies | |
| Comments: 1 Registered: 11 Sep 05: 13:35 Reply to this | A part from pending comments to be made of the commentaries of the 27thSep, my inteligence is pricked by your logo of the square root of b elevated to the third power, and it's meaning or your liking for it? |
| bjoern
posted on06 Oct 05: 07:03: more controversies | |
Reply to this | George - Check out the link I provided to understand how selection works. wrote ... if something smaller less complex inorganic was made by organic highly complex inteligent humans, how could something so much bigger and complex have developed itself, including this organic inteligent creature Since when are conclusions by analogy logical? E.g. I've written a simple, 1 page computer program that generates complex, fractal images. The image has way more kilobytes of information, than the program. So I made something very simple. By your anaolgy, the complex picture must also be made by a human, because it is more coplex than the program. That makes no sense at all. No logic there. I think you need to learn a lot about logic. I recommend the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Wittgenstein: http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html As to the square root of b to the third power: I just liked how it looked |
Submit comment
Render time: 1.4439 sec, 0.5636 of that for queries.
UA-4203938-1