|
|
02-21-2018, 06:31 PM
|
#5566
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Yeah...the only problem with your dumb analogy is Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and the rest are no longer alone. Their theories or laws are pretty well accepted. Oh yeah...I forgot...some time in the future...yours will be too, right?
|
Better minds than mine are working on the problem. I expect that they will solve the problem, one way or the other. To automatically insist that it will be your way is a God-of-the-gaps argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
By the way...I assume you're planning on refuting one or more laws of logic?
|
No. My plan is to expose your misuse of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
You're quite right that ANYONE can put anything on the internet. You summarily dismiss all the links and quotes I have provided to make my case and then accuse me of posting "anything" -- but you exempt your own posts? Why?
|
Because, if necessary, I can back up the links through other sources. I try to keep my internet citations to a minimum. They can be useful as examples but not as arguments themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Because you don't post nonsense!?
|
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And finally, is the nonsense you post, peer-reviewed!?
|
- It's not nonsense. Such a claim is an ad hominem argument.
- If an imminent scientist makes a claim within his/her area of expertise then it's fairly certain it's been peer-reviewed or is undergoing peer-review. Peer-review is an ongoing process that never ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Another case of special pleading, since you insist on a criteria for others from which you exempt yourself!
|
Ad hominem! Give us one concrete example in which I've "exempted" myself.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 06:34 PM
|
#5567
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I don't "preach" Christianity to you.
|
Yeah, right!
I have some property in Swampland that's for sale.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 08:20 PM
|
#5568
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Better minds than mine are working on the problem. I expect that they will solve the problem, one way or the other. To automatically insist that it will be your way is a God-of-the-gaps argument.
|
Again, you exempt your nonsense from your own criteria! You special plead better than anyone here! When you continually imply that some day in the future, we're going to have answers for this, that and everything else under the sun -- then that, sir, is science of the gaps. The "gap" is the ignorance of the Present, so your pat, automatic response is that the the Future will reveal all. Just trust in the science of the Future!
Quote:
No. My plan is to expose your misuse of them.
|
Good luck with that. Better people than you have tried...and have failed! (For your info, I'm very aware of such foolish arguments on the internet.)
Quote:
Because, if necessary, I can back up the links through other sources. I try to keep my internet citations to a minimum. They can be useful as examples but not as arguments themselves.
|
What are you saying, "...I can back up the links through other sources"? What are talking about? I don't use the links to argue but to corroborate my own arguments or more recently, in most cases, corroborate and support Wilson's viewpoints. The links, when judiciously used, are very good tools. At least they tell the reader, I'm not pulling stuff out any of my orifices -- as you do. "I don't agree". And in the vast majority of cases, they were science-based links or accredited publications of knowledge, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica "I don't agree". "This is wrong." And that's supposed to settle the issue because Mr. Delusions of Grandeur has spoken!?
Quote:
- It's not nonsense. Such a claim is an ad hominem argument.
- If an imminent [sic] scientist makes a claim within his/her area of expertise then it's fairly certain it's been peer-reviewed or is undergoing peer-review. Peer-review is an ongoing process that never ends.
Ad hominem! Give us one concrete example in which I've "exempted" myself.
|
Making up definitions again? How is it ad hominem? I neither attacked your character or appealed to feelings. Just stated fact based on my critical assessment of your posts.
And so you think you're an "imminent" scientist, heh? What threat are you hanging over our heads?
You're so full of yourself and obviously have these delusions of grandeur that put yourself into the company of such notable scientists as Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, etc., and then you expect anyone to take you seriously? Fantasize much, do you? I mean you're the guy who can't comprehend that no one would know Space existed if it weren't for Matter, or even more specifically Motion revealing it to us. Here's a clue: Space itself is invisible, ya know?
And I gave you two concrete examples earlier wherein you were guilty of special pleading.
Have a nice evening.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
02-21-2018, 10:20 PM
|
#5569
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
... you continually imply that some day in the future, we're going to have answers for this, that and everything else under the sun --
|
I never said any such thing. For the record I believe that the universe is infinitely complex. Every answer reveals new questions and the cycle goes on forever. We will never know everything else under the sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Better people than you have tried...and have failed!
|
I doubt that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
How is it ad hominem? I neither attacked your character or appealed to feelings. Just stated fact based on my critical assessment of your posts.
|
Thanks for admitting that. "Ad hominem" translates "against the man". It means you advance no argument, offer no counter-argument. It is the last refuge of one who has no argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I mean you're the guy who can't comprehend that no one would know Space existed if it weren't for Matter, or even more specifically Motion revealing it to us. Here's a clue: Space itself is invisible, ya know?
|
I have never taken any position on any of those propositions. In fact I have been very careful to avoid taking a position. Those are philosophical issues in which I have no interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
And I gave you two concrete examples earlier wherein you were guilty of special pleading.
|
In exactly what posts? Quote exactly what I said. If you cannot do both then your examples are not concrete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Have a nice evening.
|
And may you and Rev. Graham have a nice time when finally you meet. Oh, wait. Rev. Graham did not belong to your church which means he'll be with the Dahli Llama and me.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 12:30 AM
|
#5570
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I mean you're the guy who can't comprehend that no one would know Space existed if it weren't for Matter, or even more specifically Motion revealing it to us. Here's a clue: Space itself is invisible, ya know?
|
We can measure distances without matter. BTW, "reveal" is not the correct word.
Did you mean "dream", since so much of your ranting is fantasy
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 11:27 AM
|
#5571
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
We can measure distances without matter. BTW, "reveal" is not the correct word.
Did you mean "dream", since so much of your ranting is fantasy
|
Good luck in measuring what you cannot see -- what has no physical boundaries. What part if "invisible" don't you get? Space, apart from Matter which occupies it, would be totally undiscernible. In fact...Empty Space = Nothing. You, of all people, should be intimately acquainted with what occupies your attic.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 12:37 PM
|
#5572
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
I never said any such thing. For the record I believe that the universe is infinitely complex. Every answer reveals new questions and the cycle goes on forever. We will never know everything else under the sun.
|
Really? "Infinitely complex", heh? So you believe in the biological principle of Irreducible Complexity, do you?
And thanks for implying (albeit unwittingly) that evolution BEGS the QUESTION at every turn. "Every answer reveals new questions". As you have said, it's an endless cycle. Can we not, by your own words, infer that evolution could be likened to a cat mindlessly chasing his tail in endless circles?
You asking or telling me? And by the way, when you write your tomes and accuse me of misusing the laws of logic, you need to demonstrate how specifically, I have done that. Just leveling the charge, apart from providing concrete proof ain't going to cut it. (Forgive my poor vernacular. I haven't had enough dark java yet.) Just as I can demonstrate how a law has been violated, you too, since you're making the claim, must demonstrate by quoting me and showing how I violated the proper use of any given law. Additionally, you must also provide non-mathematical examples of what you consider to be proper use of the law so that all would be able to clearly see the differences between that and improper use clearly. Believe it or not, I'm actually looking forward to your fluff pieces.
Quote:
Thanks for admitting that. "Ad hominem" translates "against the man". It means you advance no argument, offer no counter-argument. It is the last refuge of one who has no argument.
|
You need to get on some heavy dosages of anti-projection drugs.
Quote:
I have never taken any position on any of those propositions. In fact I have been very careful to avoid taking a position. Those are philosophical issues in which I have no interest.
|
This is not a philosophical issue. It's a physical science issue. In fact, it really is a self-evident physical science issue. No logical inferences are required. If you remove all Matter from Space we are left with NOTHING! For that matter (good pun intended) this planet would cease to exist No one would be around to physically observe anything. And I have given the empty room analogy more than once. Just as a room's furnishings, decor, etc. define what kind of room it is, likewise the Matter that occupies Space tells us that Space exists.
Quote:
In exactly what posts? Quote exactly what I said. If you cannot do both then your examples are not concrete.
|
I answered this last night. I'm not repeating myself. Learn to pay attention.
Quote:
And may you and Rev. Graham have a nice time when finally you meet. Oh, wait. Rev. Graham did not belong to your church which means he'll be with the Dahli Llama and me.
|
I think the probabilities on that are pretty Slim. This is because he's dead. So that leaves you with just 0% probability for your scenario. Mr. None rules the day.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 01:07 PM
|
#5573
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Actor, a few questions for you:
Is Abiogenesis, generally, considered to be a scientific
1. Fact
2. Law
3. Theory
4. Hypothesis
5. Fiction
6. None of the above?
Much earlier in this discussion you defined abiogenesis as taking place in a large, open system and biogenesis, conversely, as occurring in a small, closed system. You never answered my question about whether you meant the universe by "open or closed" or were you alluding to a more a localized environment, such as this planet?
And finally, how could either take place since the two very different conditions required for either abiogenesis or biogenesis to have occurred are mutually exclusive?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
Last edited by boxcar; 02-22-2018 at 01:09 PM.
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 02:40 PM
|
#5574
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I think the probabilities on that are pretty Slim. This is because he's dead. So that leaves you with just 0% probability for your scenario.
|
Why 0%. One day you too will be dead and you think there's an afterlife. So it all comes down to the question of whether the two of you wind up in the same place.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 03:06 PM
|
#5575
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
|
If we do, it won't be because of our church-affiliation. Church affiliation has nothing to do with salvation. There's no scripture that says, "Thou shalt be saved if your Southern Baptist, or if you're a Reformed Baptist, or if you're a Presbyterian, etc.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 04:42 PM
|
#5576
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
We can measure distances without matter.
|
You've got me thinking and I'm puzzled.
Can you give us an example of that?
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 06:57 PM
|
#5577
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Really? "Infinitely complex", heh? So you believe in the biological principle of Irreducible Complexity, do you?
|
The two are not the same. E.g., matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of electrons, protons, neutrons. Those are made up of fermions, bosons, etc. There's probably another layer beyond that.
Newtonian mechanics explains motion, but for the very small it fails and we have to use quantum mechanics. It also fails for the very fast and we need relativity.
Irreducible Complexity is woo made up by creationists. It's been thoroughly debunked. Watch the following video and you'll see Mr. Behe (who made up the term) make an ass of himself on the witness stand.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-22-2018, 07:25 PM
|
#5578
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
The two are not the same. E.g., matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of electrons, protons, neutrons. Those are made up of fermions, bosons, etc. There's probably another layer beyond that.
|
Wow, that's it, huh? Doesn't sound so "infinitely complex". Sounds like you have really good handle on the formation, structure and the minute-by-minute operations of the universe. Maybe you really are an "imminent" scientist who just hasn't been recognized yet as genuine Science Hall of Shame material. But where there is a hope for a future, there is hope.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
02-23-2018, 12:06 AM
|
#5579
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Wow, that's it, huh?
|
Yup! That's it. Everything you need to know about life, the universe and everything. The answer is, of course, 42.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
02-23-2018, 02:02 AM
|
#5580
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfox
You've got me thinking and I'm puzzled.
Can you give us an example of that?
|
Boxcar said
Quote:
"good luck measuring what you can't see"
|
Radiation is another form of matter but boxcar does not recognize it as matter. (E=MC^2). Various kinds of radiation of certain wavelengths can not be seen by the naked eye. If boxcar did accept electromagnetic phenomena of all sorts, would have to accept Einstein and he then might have to consider the curvature of space-time, and that a good portion of the universe is curved without the presence of local "matter"
And as I have posted a number of times "virtual particles", on the quantum level pop in and out of existence.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested"....Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan .
Evidence....
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
....In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. They are named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir who predicted them in 1948.
Casimir forces on parallel plates
|
If boxcar did accept virtual particles he might have to consider the universe is still being created and annihilated way past the biblical 7 day timeline
Last edited by hcap; 02-23-2018 at 02:11 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|