Total Posts:158|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Evolution according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors. Although the DNA is astonishingly stable from generation to generation, and although reproduction is error free to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes... These copying errors can happen spontaneously, or they can be caused by some outside mutagenic agency such as radiation or highly toxic chemicals, like mustard gas. Ultraviolet light from the sun is mutagenic... X-rays penetrate deep into the human body causing considerable direct cell damage and damaging DNA which will begin to replicate in a faulty way."

-- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pg. 156

Thoughts?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you agree with that the mainstream evolutionary theory is flawed, to the point that it must be discounted, Geo?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:26:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Evolution according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors. Although the DNA is astonishingly stable from generation to generation, and although reproduction is error free to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes... These copying errors can happen spontaneously, or they can be caused by some outside mutagenic agency such as radiation or highly toxic chemicals, like mustard gas. Ultraviolet light from the sun is mutagenic... X-rays penetrate deep into the human body causing considerable direct cell damage and damaging DNA which will begin to replicate in a faulty way."

-- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pg. 156

Thoughts?

All you did was cite one source that down played in an unconvincing way a universally recognized understanding. Copying errors is a rather inaccurate way of describing the changes from generations to generations. The correct term is a mutation. Mutations occur extremely more often than you let on. In fact, a mutation is occurring in several of your trillions of body cells right now as it undergoes mitotic division. Mutations are responsible for diseases like Sickle cell anemia. Mutations are responsible for variations in eye color. If you don't have brown eyes, then its a mutation either passed on or recently occurring. Mutations are what shape evolution. Where did you get this idea that they are a rarity?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:38:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests mutation occurs because of copying errors. It is asserted instead that external mutagenic agencies are the actual culprit, not faulty DNA.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:41:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:38:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests mutation occurs because of copying errors. It is asserted instead that external mutagenic agencies are the actual culprit, not faulty DNA.

There's no such thing as faulty DNA. DNA transcriptase can make errors in the formation of matching codons. That is what causes mutations, these happen at random, and not through a strict onset cause.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:48:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What is a "Darwinist"?

Fixed*
I always end up reading your comments with an angry voice. This makes it sound much calmer.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:50:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:26:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Evolution according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors. Although the DNA is astonishingly stable from generation to generation, and although reproduction is error free to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes... These copying errors can happen spontaneously, or they can be caused by some outside mutagenic agency such as radiation or highly toxic chemicals, like mustard gas. Ultraviolet light from the sun is mutagenic... X-rays penetrate deep into the human body causing considerable direct cell damage and damaging DNA which will begin to replicate in a faulty way."

-- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pg. 156

Thoughts?

Geolaureate, I wanted to debate this topic before. If you (or anybody else) want to debate me on this, I will be more than willing.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:17:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:38:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests mutation occurs because of copying errors. It is asserted instead that external mutagenic agencies are the actual culprit, not faulty DNA.

thats not in conflict with mainstream evolutionary theory at all. lol. wtf do you think a mutation is but a copying error? whether its entirely random or induced by some outside agent such as radiation, its fully consistent with evolutionary theory as it currently stands.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 1:04:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:26:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Evolution according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors. Although the DNA is astonishingly stable from generation to generation, and although reproduction is error free to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes... These copying errors can happen spontaneously, or they can be caused by some outside mutagenic agency such as radiation or highly toxic chemicals, like mustard gas. Ultraviolet light from the sun is mutagenic... X-rays penetrate deep into the human body causing considerable direct cell damage and damaging DNA which will begin to replicate in a faulty way."

-- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pg. 156

Thoughts?

Even a high school text book would refute this. Mutagens have to effect GERM CELLS not just any somatic cell in order to have an effect.

Have you ever in your life read a book on evolutionary theory? An article from a real peer reviewed magazine?

This is completely irrelevant. Mutagens like mustard gas are irrelevant unless they effect the germ cells, not somatic cells. We already know about about the effects of the environment on embryonic development, the effects of mythylation over generations, of multiple forms of selection, of genetic drift, of differential mutation rate selection...

You find a problem with an astonishingly thin straw man. Amazing.

How can you possibly think that Evolutionary Theory could exist for 200 years when every scientists with all five senses knows that the environment effects somatic cell DNA?

Go find me some instances of germ cell mutagens resulting from external agents in a pre-embryonic state. I dare you.

Somatic cells. Germ cells. Look them up.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 1:05:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:38:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests mutation occurs because of copying errors. It is asserted instead that external mutagenic agencies are the actual culprit, not faulty DNA.

Seriously, at least provide a link to a peer-reviewed journal paper.

Unless you are referring to Neutral Selection theory, you are completely talking out of your @ss.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:31:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:26:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"Evolution according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors. Although the DNA is astonishingly stable from generation to generation, and although reproduction is error free to a far higher degree than the most efficient man-made copying systems, there are occasional mistakes... These copying errors can happen spontaneously, or they can be caused by some outside mutagenic agency such as radiation or highly toxic chemicals, like mustard gas. Ultraviolet light from the sun is mutagenic... X-rays penetrate deep into the human body causing considerable direct cell damage and damaging DNA which will begin to replicate in a faulty way."

-- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pg. 156

Thoughts?

High energy light (gamma rays) from the sun is mostly absorbed by our atmosphere, while ulta-violet is of high enough quantity to have some get through. However, this UV light does not penetrate very deep, usually only a few millimeters, and the mutation is limited to the area affected. When the light causes enough of a DNA change in the cells it hits, it doesn't cause genetic mutations, but cancer (skin cancer, and sometimes leukemia).

Yes, our natural DNA copying ability is fricken accurate, but the copying in cell division and growth is different from the copying to make spermies/eggies. In normal cells, your body attempts to be as accurate as possible through the DNA Polymerase, while when making spermies, the testies use a heavy amount of Histone modification, meaning that they allow errors and are not trying to be accurate, but diverse.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:33:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:38:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:31:13 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't see how that proves "Mainstream Evolutionary Theory Is Flawed."

Mainstream evolutionary theory suggests mutation occurs because of copying errors. It is asserted instead that external mutagenic agencies are the actual culprit, not faulty DNA.

You can't seperate genes from the enviroment, activation and mutation is often enviromental.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?

It's a person who accepts mainstream biology.

"Darwinist" is a weasle word used by creationist to give the impression that biology is a philosophy instead of hard science.

Reactionaries are very effective when it comes to minipulating language.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 12:43:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:26:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?

It's a person who accepts mainstream biology.

"Darwinist" is a weasle word used by creationist to give the impression that biology is a philosophy instead of hard science.

Reactionaries are very effective when it comes to minipulating language.

To be accurate, "darwinist" applies to the theories of evolution and adaptation. A "darwinist" is not about biology as a whole, but a particular section of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 2:41:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 12:43:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:26:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?

It's a person who accepts mainstream biology.

"Darwinist" is a weasle word used by creationist to give the impression that biology is a philosophy instead of hard science.

Reactionaries are very effective when it comes to minipulating language.

To be accurate, "darwinist" applies to the theories of evolution and adaptation. A "darwinist" is not about biology as a whole, but a particular section of it.

Good point. But as the evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky said in his article of the same name "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". He says "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is perhaps intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

So, I argue that to accept modern biology one must accept evolution by natural selection.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:46:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would agree that the mainstream take on evolution is completely wrong and biased. That's with almost all mainstream science though. Bias. That's why they can't understand the universe. All the laws of supposed "proven" physics breaks down when you get to the essence of reality. Current mainstream science is filled with biased theories. Hardly any of them are proven to an unquestionable point of truth. This is because scientists are mentally biased. They don't consider the fact that there is more to actuality than physicality. Though they know that physicality isn't even really solid at all. They fail to account other possibilities just because they can't measure them. Other universes, other dimensions, other forces of nature, Gods, Spiritual energies, etc. None of these things are accounted for because of the biased ego and ignorance of the current mainstream scientific community. Once the bias is broken down, the actual truth of actuality can start to be understood.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:53:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 2:41:13 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:43:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:26:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?

It's a person who accepts mainstream biology.

"Darwinist" is a weasle word used by creationist to give the impression that biology is a philosophy instead of hard science.

Reactionaries are very effective when it comes to minipulating language.

To be accurate, "darwinist" applies to the theories of evolution and adaptation. A "darwinist" is not about biology as a whole, but a particular section of it.

Good point. But as the evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky said in his article of the same name "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". He says "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is perhaps intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

So, I argue that to accept modern biology one must accept evolution by natural selection.

So what was biology before the theories of evolution? Was it not a science? It is like saying geology is not geology until you understand how the earth was created, even though for many many centuries, we had geologists that believed that the Earth was hand created. While we can disagree and argue about that fact, it is inaccurate to say that those individuals were not geologists or scientists.

What we basically see is a "no true scottsman" fallacy applied to a field of science.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:46:19 PM, Tiel wrote:
....Bias. That's why they can't understand the universe. All the laws of supposed "proven" physics breaks down when you get to the essence of reality. Current mainstream science is filled with biased theories. Hardly any of them are proven to an unquestionable point of truth. This is because scientists are mentally biased....

*sigh*

No, it's because it isn't possible, or at least, it certainly isn't possible with our current abilities.

What boggles my mind is how you can hold such arrogantly stupid viewpoints about how we can know things one moment, and then make appeals to solipsism the next.

I think you just get off on talking out of your @ss. Do you honestly believe anything you say, or are you just fvcking with everybody? If the later, feel free to PM me, I won't rat you out.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:39:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:53:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 2:41:13 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:43:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 12:26:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/13/2011 9:45:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What the fvck is a "Darwinist"?

It's a person who accepts mainstream biology.

"Darwinist" is a weasle word used by creationist to give the impression that biology is a philosophy instead of hard science.

Reactionaries are very effective when it comes to minipulating language.

To be accurate, "darwinist" applies to the theories of evolution and adaptation. A "darwinist" is not about biology as a whole, but a particular section of it.

Good point. But as the evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky said in his article of the same name "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". He says "Seen in the light of evolution, biology is perhaps intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts, some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

So, I argue that to accept modern biology one must accept evolution by natural selection.

So what was biology before the theories of evolution? Was it not a science?

Of course it was a science.

I'm arguing that if one doesn't accept evolution one doesn't accept *modern* biology because modern biology is based on evolution.

It is like saying geology is not geology until you understand how the earth was created, even though for many many centuries, we had geologists that believed that the Earth was hand created.
In my above posts I was speaking about modern biology. I didn't say true biology didn't emerge until the theory of evolution.

While we can disagree and argue about that fact, it is inaccurate to say that those individuals were not geologists or scientists.

I'm not sure why you are pointing this out.

What we basically see is a "no true scottsman" fallacy applied to a field of science.

I guess lol.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 6:54:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:55:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:46:19 PM, Tiel wrote:
....Bias. That's why they can't understand the universe. All the laws of supposed "proven" physics breaks down when you get to the essence of reality. Current mainstream science is filled with biased theories. Hardly any of them are proven to an unquestionable point of truth. This is because scientists are mentally biased....

*sigh*

No, it's because it isn't possible, or at least, it certainly isn't possible with our current abilities.

What boggles my mind is how you can hold such arrogantly stupid viewpoints about how we can know things one moment, and then make appeals to solipsism the next.

I think you just get off on talking out of your @ss. Do you honestly believe anything you say, or are you just fvcking with everybody? If the later, feel free to PM me, I won't rat you out.

What isn't possible? Why isn't something possible? Because you don't understand it according to your current bias about what actuality is?

I'm not talking out of my a$$. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't compatible. The result of the mathematical equation inside a black hole is infinite (which is impossible to the scientific community). Big bang is an educated guess. Physicality is nothing but 99% space/1%energy. The observer in quantum mechanics experiments influences the result of the experiment through the sheer act of observing. Time is not understood. Dimensions are not understood. Space is not understood. Gravity is not understood. Physics is not understood (all the laws of physics break down at a singularity). All of this and much more, and you want to say that I'm talking out of my a$$?

You are the one with the ignorant perspective who keeps stroking his biased ego in mental masturbation. I don't mind it too much though, you are quite entertaining.

At least I keep an open mind and try to stray away from ignorance. Science has proved very little except that it can measure things it doesn't understand and can't explain correctly. Science still doesn't understand where everything in actuality came from, and it won't as along as it holds on to the bias view found in our current era of history. Even if you believe that the universe started from a singularity and exploded everything into existence (big bang) the singularity still had to be located somewhere and it still had to have come from something. Any logical person will always and up with infinite or eternity as the result. This eternal cause of actuality is what I call God.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 6:54:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
What isn't possible? Why isn't something possible? Because you don't understand it according to your current bias about what actuality is?

I'm not talking out of my a$$. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't compatible. The result of the mathematical equation inside a black hole is infinite (which is impossible to the scientific community). Big bang is an educated guess. Physicality is nothing but 99% space/1%energy. The observer in quantum mechanics experiments influences the result of the experiment through the sheer act of observing. Time is not understood. Dimensions are not understood. Space is not understood. Gravity is not understood. Physics is not understood (all the laws of physics break down at a singularity). All of this and much more, and you want to say that I'm talking out of my a$$?


Your head has been filled with the propoganda of the New Age movement, which lives and breathes on the misunderstanding of science, the skewing of technical terms, and pseudo-scientific studies which prove little more than a complete disrespect for a proven method, and a very obvious confirmation bias towards ego feeding, improperly grasped archaic beliefs, and other assortments of horsesh!t that seem to come from the mind of someone with a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder..

You have a lot of information, but it is BAD information, and the only way you are going to come to this realization is if you analyze and do more research on these things that you believe are true.

No, I'm not claiming that you will become an expert on any of this, but if you are going to dismiss something, at least understand what it is first. It is perfectly rational to say that science doesn't have a complete understanding, and that certain theories may not be correct.. A scientist will tell you that, but as long as you dismiss it while openly displaying your ignorance of the subject in question, no one who actually has studied these things deeply is going to take your opinion seriously.

Do you even know what a theory is? Do you realize that in certain subjects where scientists are aware of their lack of knowledge, there are multiple theories that are used to explain the same thing? A theory is not a fact, a theory is basically a well backed hypothesis. It would be a thorough explanation making use of the evidence that we currently have.

You are the one with the ignorant perspective who keeps stroking his biased ego in mental masturbation. I don't mind it too much though, you are quite entertaining.

At least I keep an open mind and try to stray away from ignorance.

Are you open minded to the idea that you are a lot more ignorant than you might realize?

Science has proved very little except that it can measure things it doesn't understand and can't explain correctly.

What it has proven is that it is far more effective, and yields more tangible results than anything else so far. Science does not claim infallibility, but its effects are undeniable.

The miracles spoken of in the myths of age past have become reality because of science. Science is a method, it isn't a religion. Through science, we've been able to gain enough of an understanding to ERADICATE diseases that plagued humanity throughout most of our history. Through science, we've been able to bring people half-way across the globe together. Science doesn't need to have a complete understanding, it is pretty clear that it is the way to go.

Now, this is what I'd like to ask you...

Science still doesn't understand where everything in actuality came from, and it won't as along as it holds on to the bias view found in our current era of history.

What bias are you talking about? Why do you feel so threatened by intellectual integrity?

Even if you believe that the universe started from a singularity and exploded everything into existence (big bang) the singularity still had to be located somewhere and it still had to have come from something.

First of all, you don't even know what a singularity is, and it is obvious by your use of it. Second of all, the "Big Bang" contrary to what popular belief is, has NOTHING to do with an explosion, but a rapid expansion. Thirdly, the big bang does not describe the beginning of existence, it describes the beginning of the universe as it is recognizable today. The theory does not describe "something coming from nothing".

Any logical person will always and up with infinite or eternity as the result. This eternal cause of actuality is what I call God.

Anything outside of actuality can not exist. What you are saying brings nothing to the table, and does not bring insight into anything whatsoever. It is what is called an "ad hoc" explanation.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:37:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 7:39:43 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/14/2011 6:54:47 PM, Tiel wrote:
What isn't possible? Why isn't something possible? Because you don't understand it according to your current bias about what actuality is?

I'm not talking out of my a$$. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't compatible. The result of the mathematical equation inside a black hole is infinite (which is impossible to the scientific community). Big bang is an educated guess. Physicality is nothing but 99% space/1%energy. The observer in quantum mechanics experiments influences the result of the experiment through the sheer act of observing. Time is not understood. Dimensions are not understood. Space is not understood. Gravity is not understood. Physics is not understood (all the laws of physics break down at a singularity). All of this and much more, and you want to say that I'm talking out of my a$$?


Your head has been filled with the propoganda of the New Age movement, which lives and breathes on the misunderstanding of science, the skewing of technical terms, and pseudo-scientific studies which prove little more than a complete disrespect for a proven method, and a very obvious confirmation bias towards ego feeding, improperly grasped archaic beliefs, and other assortments of horsesh!t that seem to come from the mind of someone with a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder..

You have a lot of information, but it is BAD information, and the only way you are going to come to this realization is if you analyze and do more research on these things that you believe are true.

No, I'm not claiming that you will become an expert on any of this, but if you are going to dismiss something, at least understand what it is first. It is perfectly rational to say that science doesn't have a complete understanding, and that certain theories may not be correct.. A scientist will tell you that, but as long as you dismiss it while openly displaying your ignorance of the subject in question, no one who actually has studied these things deeply is going to take your opinion seriously.

Do you even know what a theory is? Do you realize that in certain subjects where scientists are aware of their lack of knowledge, there are multiple theories that are used to explain the same thing? A theory is not a fact, a theory is basically a well backed hypothesis. It would be a thorough explanation making use of the evidence that we currently have.

You are the one with the ignorant perspective who keeps stroking his biased ego in mental masturbation. I don't mind it too much though, you are quite entertaining.

At least I keep an open mind and try to stray away from ignorance.

Are you open minded to the idea that you are a lot more ignorant than you might realize?

Science has proved very little except that it can measure things it doesn't understand and can't explain correctly.

What it has proven is that it is far more effective, and yields more tangible results than anything else so far. Science does not claim infallibility, but its effects are undeniable.

The miracles spoken of in the myths of age past have become reality because of science. Science is a method, it isn't a religion. Through science, we've been able to gain enough of an understanding to ERADICATE diseases that plagued humanity throughout most of our history. Through science, we've been able to bring people half-way across the globe together. Science doesn't need to have a complete understanding, it is pretty clear that it is the way to go.

Now, this is what I'd like to ask you...

Science still doesn't understand where everything in actuality came from, and it won't as along as it holds on to the bias view found in our current era of history.

What bias are you talking about? Why do you feel so threatened by intellectual integrity?

Even if you believe that the universe started from a singularity and exploded everything into existence (big bang) the singularity still had to be located somewhere and it still had to have come from something.

First of all, you don't even know what a singularity is, and it is obvious by your use of it. Second of all, the "Big Bang" contrary to what popular belief is, has NOTHING to do with an explosion, but a rapid expansion. Thirdly, the big bang does not describe the beginning of existence, it describes the beginning of the universe as it is recognizable today. The theory does not describe "something coming from nothing".

Any logical person will always and up with infinite or eternity as the result. This eternal cause of actuality is what I call God.

Anything outside of actuality can not exist. What you are saying brings nothing to the table, and does not bring insight into anything whatsoever. It is what is called an "ad hoc" explanation.

Your constant assumptions, arrogance, and ignorance are exhausting and entertaining at the same time. You are a very lost individual Cosmic. I am very knowledgeable on every subject I talked about. It has nothing to do with New Age woo or your biased judgmental labels of certain information. It has to do with true scientific facts. I've spoken with many experts on the subjects. I've been to many places, talked to many people, and have researched many things. You don't have any more knowledge or experience in comparison with my own that makes you more right than me. You are a joke. An ignorant and ignorant joke.

I don't even take you seriously anymore, because your so full of your own bullsh!t that I can hardly pay attention to you seriously without seeing it. You are the one who is full of his own mental woo. I actually use logic to make sense of things.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:40:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dunning-kruger
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:41:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dealing well with that cognitive dissonance? Don't seem to be as of late.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 8:56:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 8:41:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Dealing well with that cognitive dissonance? Don't seem to be as of late.

I just make myself amusement flavored icecream cones and lick away at the fabric of your reality until the flavor is gone and your reality has melted away into a pool of woo.

It helps me cope with the dissonance.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 10:56:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Somehow i am not surprised at your response.

At 9/14/2011 4:46:19 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would agree that the mainstream take on evolution is completely wrong and biased.

No one is saying that evolution is completely wrong. I dont think you understand what the phrase "Completely wrong" means, because even if Geo was somehow correct, that would only invalidate a small, small, small portion of Evolution.

That's with almost all mainstream science though. Bias. That's why they can't understand the universe.

Yes, scientists are bias, which is what lead to our acceptance of false theories such as Gravity, space-time curvature, the earth being a sphere, or rotating around the sun, etc etc....

Sarcasm aside, youre right. Scientists are biased. They are biased towards evidence and biased against simple emotional pleas or unsubstantiated claims.

But how is this a bad thing?

All the laws of supposed "proven" physics breaks down when you get to the essence of reality.

Yes, and do you know who discovered this? Scientists, and science. And by essence, i will assume you are talking about the microscopic aspect of reality. Macroscopically speaking, our knowledge about proven physics pretty much works perfectly.

Current mainstream science is filled with biased theories. Hardly any of them are proven to an unquestionable point of truth.

The fact that you are saying this, shows how little you understand about science.

There are no unquestionable points of truth in science. This is the fundemental difference of science from things like religion.

This is because scientists are mentally biased. They don't consider the fact that there is more to actuality than physicality. Though they know that physicality isn't even really solid at all.

Fail. First off, our physical world is solid. Im sorry, but that is the very definition of what constitutes as "Solid".

Secondly, many, if not most scientists are spiritual, and are religious. This alone pretty much makes your whole argument moot.

They fail to account other possibilities just because they can't measure them.

Yes, they fail to account other possibilities. But how is this a bad thing?

Other universes, other dimensions, other forces of nature, Gods, Spiritual energies, etc. None of these things are accounted for because of the biased ego and ignorance of the current mainstream scientific community. Once the bias is broken down, the actual truth of actuality can start to be understood.

Again, the fact that many, even if not the majority, but a huge chunk of the minority upwards to about 40%, are religious, spiritual, and utterly destroy your argument.

Come back with a brain and try again. Thanks.