Old 15th January 2005, 20:39   #41
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
On the "primitive eye". The most primitive eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive. They need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals. A nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge. A visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to believe that all of these things came about by chance, and in the same living thing, at the same time.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 20:40   #42
manthabeats
Winamp's Cinematographer
(Major Dude)
 
manthabeats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Hollywood (in 3-6 years)
Posts: 655
Send a message via Yahoo to manthabeats
Science still uses theories in some aspects to explain certain things, like evolution for example. Creationism is a theory too granted. Theories do not necessarily mean that its the truth, though, I'd like to think of evolution as a fact. Evolution, the word, simply means change. Haven't cars evolved over the years, hasn't technology evolved?

Currently filming: Youtube stuff
My Website
manthabeats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 20:50   #43
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
I think what he was getting at is the idea that you do have a certain amount of faith in the scientific method's ability to approximate real truth.
Actually I don't.
(But honestly I don't expect you to understand.)
Quote:
(And gaekwad,this is by all means a disscusion of metaphysics; dumbing it down with scientific jargon is not doing yourself a favor)
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 20:55   #44
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Actually I don't.
So why bother ever saying anything in a thread like this?


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 21:16   #45
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Because it isn't about 'absolute truth', something that's quite unlikely to even exist (just like your God)?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 21:17   #46
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I simply don't understand how someone can say that belief has nothing to do with science. Belief is not merely a religious thing. You read something, trust its authenticity and accuracy and therefore believe in it. Faith is something that has no place in science but I think belief does.

So if you don't "believe" in science, than what? Do you "trust" it? Do you "agree" with it? "accept" it? If you answered yes to any of the last three questions then by definition you DO believe in it.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 21:23   #47
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Because it isn't about 'absolute truth', something that's quite unlikely to even exist (just like your God)?
First off, if absolute truth is non-existent, than it is absolutely true that there are not any.

This is why there are people called philosophers.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 22:33   #48
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
On the "primitive eye". The most primitive eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive. They need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals. A nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge. A visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to believe that all of these things came about by chance, and in the same living thing, at the same time.
I will give you an answer quoted from PBS. Not because I'm parrotting out the same information, but because firstly I happen to agree with it, and secondly, it is said a lot clearer than I could say it. (I'm a computer science major, not an english major!)
Quote:
From PBS
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
To say that our eyes are so complex that god must have made them is quite wrong, because a eagles eyes are much much better than ours (good vision at distance is much more important for the survial of an eagle than a man).

If we were truly made in gods image (and eagles not) would he have given us second rate eyes? I don't think so.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 22:56   #49
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Anyone can make up a story. Many of today's "scientists" are just that. They tell nice stories. Remember Nebraska Man. They devised a complete culture with depictions of his lifestyle. Only later, the bone fragment he was based on turned out to be a pig's tooth. Your reply (and also PBS) did NOT address all of the individual elements that had to come about simultaneously for vision to actually occur. I know. Pesky little details like that can sure ruin a good story. I can't seem to get anyone to give me any actual proof for evolution in this forum. Why? Because THERE IS NONE. You like to believe in fairy tales. Then you condemn others who believe otherwise as being stupid. I have posed some hard questions that should make you THINK. I have seen alot of story telling, evasion, changing the subject, and wishful thinking.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 23:19   #50
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
First off, if absolute truth is non-existent, than it is absolutely true that there are not any.

This is why there are people called philosophers.
Note: I never claimed there is no absolute truth.

Even though such a claim can be made as long as it doesn't claim to be absolutely true itself.


PS In case you find this post too 'dumbed down' as well, here's something I just read (not completely on topic but still close enough imo):
Quote:
1. Materialism is the allegiance to the injunction to account for the order and novelty of ‘bodies politic’ in immanent terms, that is, without reference to transcendent organized and organizing agents. ‘Bodies politic’ are found in many registers, as Deleuze writes in his book on Nietzsche: ‘Every relationship of forces constitutes a body--whether it is chemical, biological, social, or political’ (45/40).

2. Materialism is critical when it does not rest content with an analysis of the properties of actual bodies politic but attends to their production in such a way that the conditions of their genesis (the transcendental or virtual) do not resemble the products (the empirical or actual).

3. Matter is thus the input to a production process. The key is to specify what is responsible for the order and novelty of the product: the input to the process, or the agent effecting that process.

4. Spiritualist dualisms have been theological and hence uncritical when they project an organized transcendent agent as responsible for the organized and novel nature of actual produced bodies. They have taken such recourse due to an impoverished concept of matter: that it is chaotic (and hence cannot account for the order of bodies) or passive (a matter tamed by the laws of God or deterministic science and hence unable to account for the novelty seen in the genesis of new bodies: the famous controversy over the alleged conflict of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics is a result of this thought pattern).

5. To supplement this perceived lack, while avoiding a relegation of the perception of order and novelty to the realm of illusion, spiritualisms abrogate credit for the order and novelty of the product to the agent. Spiritualisms are thus hylomorphic, crediting the transcendent agent with the imposition of a form on a chaotic or passive matter. The alleged chaos and passivity of matter are thus linked, as chaotic matter is tamed into passivity by the imposition of form.

6. Materialism avoids this exclusive disjunction by recourse to the self-ordering potentials of matter itself, as outlined in the researches of so-called complexity theory. In this way it relies upon the heuristic materialism of contemporary science, which amounts to nothing more than the epistemological injunction outlined in point One above. It can thus avoid the forced choice of determinism or dualism, accounting for order and novelty without the heavy ontological price of a dualism or the unacceptable phenomenal price of the denial of order and novelty.
from http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/fai/Facult...terialism.html
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 00:24   #51
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
If anyone here has been doing some serious THINKING about evolution, I invite you to visit a website operated as a hobby by a friend of mine. He works for a small outfit known as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Here's the link:

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm

I wish you well. Always search for what is true. Think critically. Don't buy everything that gets shoveled into your awesome brain. Keep an open mind, but don't leave it so wide open that your brain falls out. :-)
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 00:49   #52
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Krishina will smite you all!

Oop there goes my brain

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 01:21   #53
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Is that a drunk way to say Christina?

/has visions of Christina Aguilera running around trying to smite people
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 03:43   #54
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Krishna*


Indian god of gettin it on and other stuff.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 04:44   #55
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by will
For example, Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, used the Michealson-Moorly results to postulate that the speed of light was invariant. He used this and a lot of maths to predict that the mass of an object would increase as it sped up. This was later shown to happen with electrons in particle accelerators.
I always find it strange when people defending the theory of evolution use the theory of relativity or gravity as an example of a theory. These theories are based on math and are easily tested against.

Quote:
Originally posted by will
What a scientific theory, to become accepted by the comminity at large (through the system of research and publishing of papers) has to do is this: Explain some unexplained aspect of science, make predictions. These predictions have to then to be shown to be correct. After that, the whole study must be subject to peer review. (Including other people repeating the experiments).
What does the theory of evolution predict?
Can anyone give some examples of tests for the theory of evolution, particularly speciation, that have been conducted?
how many of these experiments have been done?
How do they support or not support the evolutionary theory?
Who has reviewed them/repeated these experiments with the same results?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 06:08   #56
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Why is it so strange to you that evolution should not be grouped together with gravity and relativity? I consider them equal in the sense that they both are tested the same way. They are all born from observation and interpretation of an overwhelming abundance of information and evidence. Then over time become considered a law or factual for as long as they are impossible to disprove. Hell even math was born the same way. People noticed observations, interpreted then developed a language to understand it all. In my opinion there is such a massive abundance of evidence that leads more and more that evolution is one of these facts. It isn't merely a case that a large group of anti-church atheist scienctists developed the theory of evolution to counter-act the book of Genesis and scientists aren't simply putting the wrong bones on the wrong animal and drawing misinterpretations.

Besides wasn't it a monk that first proposed the concept of evolution?

I completely agree that evolution deserves even more evidence than whats already been uncovered simply(not merely) because that even tho there are 19 major religions which are then subdivided into almost 300 other large religions and then subdivide again and again leaving us somewhere in the range of 500 different creation stories.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 08:03   #57
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
So when is the theory of relativity going to become the law of relativity?

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 08:25   #58
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
I wish you well. Always search for what is true. Think critically. Don't buy everything that gets shoveled into your awesome brain. Keep an open mind, but don't leave it so wide open that your brain falls out. :-)
Wait... you're open minded?
I was under the impression you were just accepting what the church was telling based upon some storys over what people have actually worked out.

God/Intelligent design is a very easy answer to it all. Me, I wish i could multiply numbers by just adding them together once. But that isn't the correct answer to a multiplication problem (unless its 2*2!) its just an easy to understand one.

Just because you don't understand how evolution/multiplication works it does not mean you should go around telling people that the easy/false answers to these problems are true, just because you happen to understand them.

I understand how "intelligent design" would work, you clearly do not understand how evolution works.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 11:10   #59
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
this maybe off topic, but if god created adam and eve, and they had 2 children, and one of those kids killed the other, that leaves 3 people.. so without some serious incest, how did the rest of the world come about?

perhaps adam and eve is a metaphor for evolution: we came from the ground and evolved into man?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 13:55   #60
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2

Even though such a claim can be made as long as it doesn't claim to be absolutely true itself.
which would not be saying anything...

Quote:
PS In case you find this post too 'dumbed down' as well, here's something I just read (not completely on topic but still close enough imo):

from http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/fai/Facult...terialism.html
Oh man Gaekwad, you're soooooo smart wow, geez wow...


---------------
Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 14:36   #61
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
which would not be saying anything...
I marvel at your lack of insight into logic, seriously.
Quote:
Oh man Gaekwad, you're soooooo smart wow, geez wow...
Well I thought you wanted a serious discussion about metaphysics.
Seems like I was wrong, my bad.

From now on I shall treat you like the numbskull you are.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 14:41   #62
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel.
i didnt know that.. does it say that in the bible?

but how does having other siblings matter? it would still take lots of incest to populate the world... or to even create further than just adam and eves children...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 17:53   #63
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
and keep in mind that they had to bear children OUTSIDE of the Garden of Eden, where everysingle creature and plant existed at the time.

Basically they had to populate the earth eating nothing but sand and the rain they captured by cupping their hands.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 18:00   #64
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by electricmime
i didnt know that.. does it say that in the bible?
I think it says "sons and daughters" (if I remember correctly. It certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of more children, in any case.

I always used to worry that since in-breeding makes children less intelligent, and since Adam and Eve were dumb enough to get thrown out of paradise, we must be fucked. Got a little more perspective soon afterwards, then stopped believing altogether, so that worry stopped kinda there.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 18:25   #65
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
But didn't they get thrown out for trying to gain insight and wisdom?

Maybe they were too intelligent and this constant inbreeding was necessary to turn humanity into docile sheep.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2005, 21:53   #66
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
If creationism were allowed to be taught in Federally funded public schools, then which version will be taught?
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 01:53   #67
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
But didn't they get thrown out for trying to gain insight and wisdom?
Crap! Good point!

I guess the moral of the story is that ignorance is bliss.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 03:02   #68
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden for disobeying God.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 04:22   #69
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Wow, I was gone for a couple of days and this really got heated up!

Quote:
Originally posted by electricmime
this maybe off topic, but if god created adam and eve, and they had 2 children, and one of those kids killed the other, that leaves 3 people.. so without some serious incest, how did the rest of the world come about?
This and the fact that it says that there was no light or firmament at the beginning (how do you measure the first day) are two real good arguments for not taking Genesis literally!

I feel it is a collection of parables that demonstrate good and evil to primitive cultures.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 04:29   #70
deeder7001
Jesus Freak
(Forum King)
 
deeder7001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 5,520
Send a message via AIM to deeder7001 Send a message via Yahoo to deeder7001
Quote:
Originally posted by will
If we were truly made in gods image (and eagles not) would he have given us second rate eyes? I don't think so.
why would God have given us eyes like eagles? we don't need eyes like eagles do.

There is no sig.
deeder7001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 05:56   #71
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Wow, I was gone for a couple of days and this really got heated up!

This and the fact that it says that there was no light or firmament at the beginning (how do you measure the first day) are two real good arguments for not taking Genesis literally!

I feel it is a collection of parables that demonstrate good and evil to primitive cultures.
good point, additionally the hebrew word for 'day' in the first chapter is translated elswhere in the bible as 'age' or 'era' it's not one literal day by any means.

Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
Why is it so strange to you that evolution should not be grouped together with gravity and relativity? I consider them equal in the sense that they both are tested the same way. They are all born from observation and interpretation of an overwhelming abundance of information and evidence.
if the theory of evolution is tested the same as the theory of gravity, then where is the equation?
Gravity:

what's the mathematical equation of evolution that we can run tests against?

where is the overwhelming abundance of information that shows one species becoming a different species, no longer capable of creating viable offspring with the original species?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 08:21   #72
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I don't know if there is an equation for evolution and I highly doubt there is one but that simply isn't the point. I suppose someone could make the arguement phi = 1.618 is the equation being the golden proportional number existing all over nature. I suppose PhI is the closest thing to an "evolution equation."

/me goes2google
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...9302.Ev.r.html

But I think its quite obvious that there is more information for evolution than there is for creationism. Not a lot of museums exist depicting proof of creationism ya know!

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 08:56   #73
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
I marvel at your lack of insight into logic, seriously.
Have you ever heard of ∅?
It is the mathematical proof of Ontological Knowledge.

Let 'a' be the existence of Ontological Knowledge,

-a != ∅

How is anything else logical?
Quote:
Well I thought you wanted a serious discussion about metaphysics.
Seems like I was wrong, my bad.

From now on I shall treat you like the numbskull[sic] you are.
What? It didn't offer any insight into our discussion of Ontological knowledge at all other than assuming that it does exist. What am I supposed to think?
Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
I don't know if there is an equation for evolution and I highly doubt there is one but that simply isn't the point. I suppose someone could make the arguement phi = 1.618 is the equation being the golden proportional number existing all over nature. I suppose PhI is the closest thing to an "evolution equation."

/me goes2google
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...9302.Ev.r.html

But I think its quite obvious that there is more information for evolution than there is for creationism. Not a lot of museums exist depicting proof of creationism ya know!
I suppose Phi is the signature of God over his whole creation.
I bet there are more churches than Museums.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 09:30   #74
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
That's because there isn't that much crap to fill museums with.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 10:42   #75
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
if the theory of evolution is tested the same as the theory of gravity, then where is the equation?
Gravity: [Image]

what's the mathematical equation of evolution that we can run tests against?
Physics and biology are not the same science, I'm afraid. One tests biological theories such as this with application of the logically-derived rules for the system. And evolution is not just natural selection of random mutations (you can mathematically disprove that), there are other elements to it (such as evolution within a generation, which can be observed in a lab, apparently). If you're really interested, I know a guy who can point you in the direction of appropriate literature. I have to profess not really understanding the whole of the concept (I doubt anyone here does, short of someone having a degree in Biology).

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 11:05   #76
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Never heard of that formula, so the following is pure speculation:

Doesn't it much rather prove that ontological knowledge isn't necessary because its absence (or what is -a supposed to symbolize?) doesn't lead to an empty set (supposedly symbolising the absence or impossibility of existence or something like that).

Or another interpretation would be that there are things that exist outside ontological knowledge.

If you wanted to impress me you should try to prove that a != ∅

hmmm
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 15:54   #77
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Here's what I was getting at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 16:05   #78
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Huh?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 18:13   #79
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by will
I will give you an answer quoted from PBS. Not because I'm parrotting out the same information, but because firstly I happen to agree with it, and secondly, it is said a lot clearer than I could say it. (I'm a computer science major, not an english major!)To say that our eyes are so complex that god must have made them is quite wrong, because a eagles eyes are much much better than ours (good vision at distance is much more important for the survial of an eagle than a man).

If we were truly made in gods image (and eagles not) would he have given us second rate eyes? I don't think so.
God did not make our bodies in his image, he made our souls in his image.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 19:50   #80
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Here's what I was getting at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
I'm not sure how ontological knowledge fits into set theory, but it's certainly not relevant to what you said before.

Russell's paradox show's only a problem with the set notation used (that it is possible to express paradoxical sets), not any broad terms about logic systems or anything.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump