Jump to content

Guess This Settles It.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The first time you guys knew it was true was when the universe was a couple million years old and the human cell was the smallest building block for life.Later you guys declared it true when the universe was about 100 million years old and The embryo clearly showed that human babies have gills like a fish and tails like a monkey while growing in the womb.In a hundred years I will mock your 'truth' again with the limited knowledge we have now that basically requires you to understand the Theory of Relativity and QM in order to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
Link to post
Share on other sites
The first time you guys knew it was true was when the universe was a couple million years old and the human cell was the smallest building block for life.Later you guys declared it true when the universe was about 100 million years old and The embryo clearly showed that human babies have gills like a fish and tails like a monkey while growing in the womb.In a hundred years I will mock your 'truth' again with the limited knowledge we have now that basically requires you to understand the Theory of Relativity and QM in order to understand.
Ours keeps getting more accurate while yours keeps staying just as wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites
gravity is an effect caused by the accelerating movement of dark energy
Nah. It's possible Dark Energy and Gravity are parts of the same thing (for instance, Dark Energy may be a cosmological constant in General Relativity), but it could also be something else completely unrelated to standard GR gravity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ours keeps getting more accurate while yours keeps staying just as wrong.
So when your side won the Scopes trial with extremely bad science, it was okay because later a guy in a wheelchair bailed you out?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So when your side won the Scopes trial with extremely bad science, it was okay because later a guy in a wheelchair bailed you out?
science allows for revision in light of new evidence. its one of its strengths, not a weakness.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So when your side won the Scopes trial with extremely bad science, it was okay because later a guy in a wheelchair bailed you out?
We didn't win the Scopes trial, he was found guilty. (the verdict was ultimately overturned on technicality: the judge had decided the fine when the jury should have, so Scopes was never punished).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguing that a tornado could have mixed together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car, isn't the same thing as proving that a tornado DID mix together a junkyard and created a perfectly functioning car.This reality will be lost on some.
I can't even pretend to understand the physics involved in the equations Hawking is talking about. What I do know is that your tornado metaphor has long been used as an argument against natural evolution, and it is an extremely bad and almost purposefully-wrong metaphor for that.So I can't argue your metaphor as it relates to the creation of the universe, but it does seem that you have taken a very poor example of an argument against evolution and are using it as an example of why Hawking's new theories are wrong - theories that you yourself implied you had no understanding of. Neither do I, which is why I wouldn't try to scientifically argue with them. So I'm gonna shoot down your straw-man tornado argument, just for giggles and also because it may show it to be an inaccurate metaphor for Hawking's new theories as well.A tornado turning a pile of junk into a working car is preposterously unlikely, so unlikely that if we ran an experiment on it, simulating tornado conditions in a full junkyard for a billion years, we should be absolutely shocked, even dumbfounded, if any sort of functioning anything were formed. A tornado is a random, destructive force. Even if we imagined the tornado to be non-destructive and simply an ether in which randomness is generated, we will almost never get a fully-functioning, regular-looking car. It just won't happen - it would take altogether too many coincidences.Evolution is nothing at all like a random tornado, nor are the pieces of a human being, or a human eyeball, or a toad or a dog's nose or a fish's gills anything at all like random junk in a junkyard. There was never a room full of biological cells, pieces of an eyeball, scattered bits of ligaments and veins that, if combined in just the right manner, would form a biological organism. That's not how biology or evolution or anything actually works. In fact it is far closer to the opposite - organisms evolve over eons precisely because is not random. It is nothing at all like a tornado making randomly lucky creations. It's about as apt a description as suggesting that God created the universe by playing golf for a hundred years, until he finally got 2 hole-in-ones in a row, and that was the spark the universe needed to get going. Basically, utter hogwash.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't even pretend to understand the physics involved in the equations Hawking is talking about. What I do know is that your tornado metaphor has long been used as an argument against natural evolution, and it is an extremely bad and almost purposefully-wrong metaphor for that.So I can't argue your metaphor as it relates to the creation of the universe, but it does seem that you have taken a very poor example of an argument against evolution and are using it as an example of why Hawking's new theories are wrong - theories that you yourself implied you had no understanding of. Neither do I, which is why I wouldn't try to scientifically argue with them. So I'm gonna shoot down your straw-man tornado argument, just for giggles and also because it may show it to be an inaccurate metaphor for Hawking's new theories as well.A tornado turning a pile of junk into a working car is preposterously unlikely, so unlikely that if we ran an experiment on it, simulating tornado conditions in a full junkyard for a billion years, we should be absolutely shocked, even dumbfounded, if any sort of functioning anything were formed. A tornado is a random, destructive force. Even if we imagined the tornado to be non-destructive and simply an ether in which randomness is generated, we will almost never get a fully-functioning, regular-looking car. It just won't happen - it would take altogether too many coincidences.Evolution is nothing at all like a random tornado, nor are the pieces of a human being, or a human eyeball, or a toad or a dog's nose or a fish's gills anything at all like random junk in a junkyard. There was never a room full of biological cells, pieces of an eyeball, scattered bits of ligaments and veins that, if combined in just the right manner, would form a biological organism. That's not how biology or evolution or anything actually works. In fact it is far closer to the opposite - organisms evolve over eons precisely because is not random. It is nothing at all like a tornado making randomly lucky creations. It's about as apt a description as suggesting that God created the universe by playing golf for a hundred years, until he finally got 2 hole-in-ones in a row, and that was the spark the universe needed to get going. Basically, utter hogwash.
Actually Hawkings is basically saying that because all things have been around for ever, that the magnitude of odds against something happening are basically 100%. It happened because it could happen, therefore it would happen And it was your side that made the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters analogy.It wasn't until JJJ posted the obvious reality of that failed analogy that we understood the serious laughing matter of having your best and brightest falling back on: "infinity means we don't have to believe in God!"
Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all God, yet the sum total of all our collective consciousnesses and all the physical matter does not equal what "is" God, much like the '86 Mets. Every time there is a thought/action, there is the smallest shift in the vast tectonic reality of what "God" is. God is humanity and cruelty, married forever. God is an all-you-can-eat buffet that causes starvation. "God" doesn't have any direction. "God" just IS. We are "God"'s consciousness and conscience. Our beliefs and morality are the synaptic repercussions of several millennia of "thought". We made "God" in our minds and that is how we are all connected. "God" doesn't want us to give money to the Catholic church or that Muslim community center down the street. "God" is the ultimate proxy/excuse for whatever action human(not so)kind makes. "God" is meant to control and provide reason where there seems to be none.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And it was your side that made the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters analogy.
Wait, we did? Who, where, and when? Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters is analogous to what, according to us? Certainly not evolution, it's almost nothing at all like it. And in fact I think your accusation that "our side" created that analogy and therefore....something is highly questionable to begin with. The infinite monkey thing is a thought experiment, presumably meant to get one to think about infinity in different ways, and perhaps come to some understanding of it. The thing is, if we had a trillion monkeys typing for a trillion years (far far farrrrrrrrr older than the universe is), we would almost certainly not get Hamlet, or King Lear, or any other Shakespeare. We might get a few lines letter for letter if we're particularly lucky in those trillion years. In other words, what do you think the monkeys are an analogy for, because I don't think that there is one thing that they're always representing except for randomness (pretty close to the opposite of evolution), and they certainly aren't any kind of reasonable analogy for any evolutionary laws.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, we did? Who, where, and when? Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters is analogous to what, according to us? Certainly not evolution, it's almost nothing at all like it. And in fact I think your accusation that "our side" created that analogy and therefore....something is highly questionable to begin with. The infinite monkey thing is a thought experiment, presumably meant to get one to think about infinity in different ways, and perhaps come to some understanding of it. The thing is, if we had a trillion monkeys typing for a trillion years (far far farrrrrrrrr older than the universe is), we would almost certainly not get Hamlet, or King Lear, or any other Shakespeare. We might get a few lines letter for letter if we're particularly lucky in those trillion years. In other words, what do you think the monkeys are an analogy for, because I don't think that there is one thing that they're always representing except for randomness (pretty close to the opposite of evolution), and they certainly aren't any kind of reasonable analogy for any evolutionary laws.
Randomness is the opposite of evolution?So mutations based changes is with design?A trillion monkeys would take about 3-4 days to come up with at least 2 lines of Shakespeare's work. A trillion years should get us quite a few pages minimum.I mean it's down to just 1:27 (space) over and over again.And the entire argument Hawkings is making is that because the make up of matter and gravity and stuff makes it possible for this to happen, and all things are eternal, everything had to happen eventually.Carried to the furthest extreme, this universe will destroy itself, and another one with almost exactly the same characteristics will come into being, only in that one, you will be 1" shorter. No other changes at all will happen but that one change.Eventually.It's funny that I used to mock crow for thinking this, and now Hawkings is spouting this and you guys are completely comfortable accepting it because he's Stephen Hawkings.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Randomness is the opposite of evolution?
Randomness by itself is just randomness. Randomness with natural selection is evolution. You know this shit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A trillion monkeys would take about 3-4 days to come up with at least 2 lines of Shakespeare's work. A trillion years should get us quite a few pages minimum.
I'm not sure how serious you're being, and this isn't the heart of the conversation, but you're totally wrong. Wikipedia says:
The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation.One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[20]A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wanted to take the time to thank Balloon Guy for reading Stephen Hawking's latest book and interpreting it for us.
Once you get by the hurdle of an infinitive electron bound in an atomic orbital with quantized values of angular momentum , you kind of just breeze through the rest of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Once you get by the hurdle of an infinitive electron bound in an atomic orbital with quantized values of angular momentum , you kind of just breeze through the rest of it.
So many things about this made me smile, especially the bolded."to electron"
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Hawkings is basically saying that because all things have been around for ever, that the magnitude of odds against something happening are basically 100%. It happened because it could happen, therefore it would happen And it was your side that made the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters analogy.It wasn't until JJJ posted the obvious reality of that failed analogy that we understood the serious laughing matter of having your best and brightest falling back on: "infinity means we don't have to believe in God!"
steven hawking said that? are you sure?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So many things about this made me smile, especially the bolded."to electron"
Could you explain it to me? I just found the weirdest sentence I could find on QM and hacked it in there.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...