Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DarkAngel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Everything Else / Re: Evolution yes/no
« on: February 05, 2008, 08:02:40 pm »
Evolution is not simply the idea of genes being passed on and sometimes those genes are mutations.
"Evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."

Evolution is the idea that if one these mutations gives the organism an advantage, its chances of surviving and reproducing increases ... the species becomes more and more separate.
That's Natural selection, and it's a phenomenon that arises from the existence of evolution.
Anyway, Natural Selection (i.e. the stuff that happens because of evolution) is irrelevant to the point I was making - that evolution is something that happens after life is created, not something that explains how creation occurred (and therefore it doesn't make sense to have to choose between evolution or creationism).

I'm sorry , but that is possibly the most idiotic thing I have ever read in my life. You attempt at condescending upon the human race has... FAILED. That statement is equal to saying that if cows eat only grass and the grass dies, then the cow dies. I mean what a waste of a post.
I thought the wink on the end and the fact that I almost copied Flisch's post word-for-word was enough of an indication that it was not entirely serious... Given the context, it was an attempt to show that humans can just as easily be thought of as parasites as cockroaches can be - a notion that I do not find condescending at all.

Are you seriously defending our actions against Iran?

Are you seriously defending A country full of inbreds, Neo-nazi's and the worst leaders known to the whole universe?

Ehehehehehe... ehehehehe... 8)  Ironic isn't it
It's sad that I'm not sure which country that was aimed at...

Everything Else / Re: Evolution yes/no
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:18:36 pm »
That's not true. The cockroaches you're referring to actually come from the tropics and can only survive inside buildings in the colder zones. Though they existed before man and now live in almost every country, the majority of them would go extinct if human dies out. Only the specimen in the warmer regions would survive. In colder regions, they are like parasites living off the human, by living inside its buildings, eating its food and using its transport vehicles for spreading across the globe. And as any parasite, it dies together with its host.
The humans you're referring to actually come from the tropics and can only survive inside buildings in the colder zones. The majority of humans would become extinct if oxygen-producing-plants died out. Only the specimens with artificial oxygen supplies would survive. In all regions, they are like parasites, living off the plants, by making shelter out of them, eating them as food, and using them to power human transport vehicles for spreading across the globe. And as any parasite, it dies together with its host. ;)

Everything Else / Re: Evolution yes/no
« on: February 05, 2008, 07:11:32 pm »
The whole "Evolution VS Creationism" debate is a scam.

It doesn't exist.
There is no debate.
People who think that there is a debate are actually debating something else called abiogenesis  (but for some reason they are referring to it as 'evolution').
It makes as much sense as asking "Do you believe in apples or do you believe in oranges?" - that is to say, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Evolution has nothing at all to do with the origins of life.

In fact - there is no scientific consensus about how life originated!
We really don't know - therefore we don't have a theory that can be debated against creationism. Therefore there is no debate!

All that evolution says is, that when a child is born it is made up of bits from both it's mother and its father, and possibly some random mutations too. That's it, the whole theory is right there in that one single fact - children are made of, but are different to, their parents.
(So if you "don't believe in evolution", then you are in effect saying that you believe you are a genetic clone of one of your parents, which is obviously false. So what you really should be saying is that you don't believe in the "scientific study of abiogenesis" - which, just for the record, is NOT called and should not be confused with 'evolution')

Creationism on the other hand, just says that god made everything. Which is fine, because there is no agreed scientific explanation for this god theory to compete against!

Even if god made the entire world yesterday -- BAM! the whole universe just popped into existence! -- evolution is still a fact, and it still doesn't contradict with the hypothetical-fact that the universe just popped into existence yesterday.
Even if we were just spontaneously created yesterday, children are still going to be made up of, but different to, their parents, therefore, in this hypothetical situation, both creationism and evolution are fact at the same time.

So please, if you want to debate the merits of creationism (apples), please don't compare it to evolution (oranges), compare it to abiogenesis (apples).

I wish Downer would become PM. I like that guy.
Yep he's great.

He managed to piss off the Muslim community enough that Osama Bin Ladin put a Fatwa on Australia and Australian interests back in 1999 (way before 9/11 etc...).

He says he's a "Doctor of Civil Laws", but it's actually only an honorary doctorate that he got in return for giving a speech at a uni once.

He took leadership of the Liberal party and stuffed it up so much that they kicked him out (in favour of Howard) after less than 9 months.

He signed a treaty with a known genocidal dictator, which split the natural resources of a country ravaged by genocide 50/50 between us and the invaders.

He kept warnings of the Bali bombings secret, because it wasn't in the public's interests to know that they were about to get blown up.

He kept on saying that Iraq had WMD's even after the US admitted it was a lie.

He breached the UDHR by coming up with the plan to detain refugees in other countries instead of helping them.

When asked if he should apologise to people defamed by false accusations of terrorism, his reply was "that's a bit rich isn't it? What are you going to ask for next? Us to kiss their feet, eat dirt, grovel for forgiveness?"

Oh, and he's from Adelaide.

Everything Else / New Motherboards Confuse Me [hardware topic]
« on: May 07, 2007, 11:03:45 pm »
It's been a while since I've upgraded a PC, but I've been looking at some new motherboards and they all seem to only have 1 IDE port (and 6 SATA ports).

Can anyone tell me how I can connect IDE devices to a SATA plugs? (I have 3 HDDs and 1 DVD drive on IDE  cables at the moment).

Everything Else / Re: Religion
« on: March 01, 2007, 05:52:36 pm »
Saying that there is micro evolution but not micro evolution is tantamount to saying: "I believe a man can take a brick, and place that brick on another brick. But there is no way in hell I'm going to believe a man can build a wall".
Now, now. While I personally do agree with your analogy, I'm actually interested to hear the reasoning behind why there can be small evolutions but not large evolutions, and I'm sure that wolf would find your interpretation of his methods insulting, so lets try and play nice eh?

Everything Else / Re: Religion
« on: March 01, 2007, 02:43:03 pm »
The micro and macro evolution arguements are good ones and you know it thus being the reason you don't want to discuss it.
Why wouldn't we want to discuss some good arguments?
Ill leave it for now because i don't want to bounce around subjects. But i do ask one thing. Do not confuse evolution with adaption [sic] etc
Quote from: Wikipedia
A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. The term adaptation is also sometimes used as a synonym for natural selection, but most biologists discourage this usage.
Adaptation is a product of evolution. If an animal has biologically adapted, it did so through evolution.

*snip* So no, micro can exist without macro
Ok, now we're getting somewhere useful.
You accept that micro-evolution can occur in animals, but you just don't accept that humans came about as a product of evolution? because, we're different to animals or are higher-beings, or were made in God's image, or something?

Everything Else / Re: Religion
« on: February 28, 2007, 09:06:19 pm »
^ this one supports evolution coexisting with creationism
^ A survey of 800 out of what? 200 million americans? hardly comprehensive
^ opens with "most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human beings"
^ again, very small samples
^ uses the flawed argument "you canít teach evolution because you canít prove that, either."
^ again 885 ppl involved

So, evolution and creationism can coexist, most scientists choose evolution, polls show most Americans choose creationism, and some creationists believe that evolution can't be proved therefore they should believe in a flying spaghetti monster. What are you trying to prove with these links?

Evolution is not proven and it never will be. the sciencetific commuinty accepts it as fact because they cannot bring forth any more evidence of it so the easiest thing to do is just say its true since they don't have another theory with as much evidence. They cannot fill the holes or the missing links. Hope your happy with all your current *evidence* you wont be getting anymore

Here's where you're wrong. Evolution has been proved just as much as gravity has been proved. As said before, both of these theories are not true, but they are correct with respect to themselves, which makes them proven, which makes them valid scientific theories, which means they can be treated as fact.

Everything Else / Re: Religion
« on: February 28, 2007, 08:31:17 pm »
He thinks Evolution and Creationism are both 'theories' of equal weighting, neither of which can ever be proved to be true. This apparently justifies his belief in a billion year evolution, despite the fact most everyone else in the world recognises it for the crock it is
You see, the problem here is that evolution supporters don't use the excuse "well you can't prove creationism either, so ill stick with my beliefs thank you" (instead, they usually point to the evidence), while creationism supporters do use the excuse "well you can't prove evolution either, so ill stick with my beliefs thank you" (because there is no evidence).

Also, Creationism isn't a theory, its a hypothesis.

I don't see why evolution is so hard to accept. It's easily explained by the infinite monkey theorem, and even hardcore Christians should be able to merge it with their beliefs by saying evolution is a tool that god uses to create life... Just like Christians have had to merge in the belief that while we are the centre of the universe in gods eyes, we actually orbit the sun (and therefore are not actually the literal centre).

2 You know..when my dog humps my leg..does that means he is bi and likes seprate species? No it means he is not senetient and does not know any better. Really compareing humans to animals even while takeing evolution as fact is kinda silly..Our intelligence is what seperates us from them. Or we would we eat our own feces, All be bigomists. Urinate to mark our territory, And eat our babies.
Dogs are sentient. The European Union officially recognized that animals have feelings back in 1997 so now dogs and other animals are referred to as 'sentient beings' instead of agricultural products.

And as i said just because they beileve it to be true does not make it so. So evolution is still a hypothesis as it has not been proven. Large groups of people accepting something as truth does not prove it actually is.
Its not just that large groups of people accept it, its that large groups of people cannot find holes in it. Its a solid framework for modeling the adaptation of life, and therefore is now a scientific theory.
If you can find a hole in the theory, go ahead!

evolution is the choice of what they say is true because it makes the most sense regarding the origin of life. If they had as much evidence or it made more sense to them then god would be the truth to them.
Yes, if there was as much evidence supporting the theory that god created life in its current form, then it might be taken as 'the truth', however, there is no evidence.

Everything Else / Re: Religion
« on: February 28, 2007, 04:24:09 pm »
Theories such as evolution or gravity can never be proven to be True, but that doesnt mean that they cannot be correct and useful within the framework within which they were defined.

Take newtons theory of gravity (which we now have replaced with a more complicated theory of gravity), its not exactly true, and not exactly correct in reality, actually none of newtons formulas are correct in reality, however, within the simplified framework of newtonian physics, all of his theories are correct and provide us with a great model for understanding basic rigid body physics. The model of physics described by these theories has allowed us to build great things from building sky-scrapers to robots to half-life2... And all of this came from an idea which is correct in regards to itself (non-contradictory) and is in fact not Truth, but is a simplified version of reality that allows us to gain an understanding of reality.

We know that the newtonian model of physics works, because by using this theory, whether they be on a blackboard or in a computer simulation (e.g. HL2) we can predict results that have a strong correlation to reality.

Or take imaginary and complex numbers (maths to do with the square root of -1), they really dont exist at all, they make no sense in the real world, so they can't be True, but within their own framework they give us meaningful results and have a wide variety of applications.

Evolution also, is not True, but it is a framework that allows us to understand how life adapts and how species and eco-systems come to exist. This model of "life adaptation" has allowed us to learn great things about environmental sustainability, fighting diseases, genetic modification (not that all agree GM is a good thing), etc... And all of this came from an idea which is correct in regards to itself (non-contradictory) and is in fact not Truth, but is a simplified version of reality that allows us to gain an understanding of reality.

We know that the evolutionary model of "life adaptation" works, because by using this theory we can predict results that have a strong correlation to reality.

If you don't believe that evolution "works" (that is, if you don't believe that complex organisms can come into being by the selective reproduction and inherent mutation of simpler organisms) then please look into genetic programming - this is a direct application of the theory of evolution that gives us meaninful results because the theory just works.
If we program a computer using the framework explained by the theory of evolution, we can use this framework to "evolve" answers to complex computing problems. What we do is, we create a batch of "programs", which can be encoded into a series of chromosomes. We ask each program for an answer to a problem, those that give the worst answers, we "kill" (delete), the rest get to "reproduce". Program reproduction involves taking 2 programs, and mixing their chromosomes (crossover), and randomly changing a random amount of them (mutation). If we repeat this process for millions of generations of programs, the principles of natural selection will eventually give us a near-perfect solution to our original problem. It just works. Its not Truth, but it allows us to understand our world, and has practical applications within our world.

So stop arguing about theories. There is no such thing as Truth, but theories give us understanding, knowledge, and empower mankind.

The theory of evolution has practical applications, it is useful knowledge.

Can anyone give me a practical application of the hypothesis of creationism? (No jokes plz, and no answers based on dogma - such as "it will save your soul" etc...)

For all we know, the solar system is enclosed in a glass sphere, like the Bible tells us, and some intelligence is showing us pictures of stars and galaxies and nebulae that dont exist.
If the solar system is enclosed in glass, the the Pioneer probes must have smashed a hole in it when the left the solar system :P

I wonder when the day will come when people realize religion is a bunch of crap. That day will be a (I know me saying about god Is self contradictory but...) god send.
Heh, we'll just start killing each other over what is the best name for Atheists [/southpark]

The truth of the matter is that *no theory* can be proved 100%.
Evolution isnt 100% 'proven' simply because 100% proof is something of a logical fallacy.
Yes, you can't 100% prove anything, because that would imply the existance of absolute truth (captial-T truth).
However, as someone has already said, a theory is just a framework that we can use to find answers which are correct with respect to the framework. So if you assume the framework is true, then your answers are also true. It doesn't matter if the framework is actually true or not, all that matters is it gives you useful answers.

This also applies to religion. We can use the bible as a framework for our own morality, so if we assume that the bible is true, then any moral decisions that are correct without our framework must also be true. This is a practical application!

The problem is, that unlike scientific theories, the bible is very vague, very open to interpretation and very easily twisted and abused to support a wide variety of ideologies. This means that is someone believes that (for example) murder is correct in respect to their biblical/moral framework, which they have assumed to be true, then murder is the correct decision.

That is whey i believe it is better to base your own moral system on philosophy than dogma. Dogma cannot be reasoned with, cannot be challenged, and can easily be twisted. Philosophy on the other hand is reason, so if you want to (for example) commit murder, you've gotta at least have some logic to support it, not just some twisted holy scripture!

Meh they can't realistically ban it if you have a perminate tattoo...
But noone tried to ban flags, at all, the pollies and the media just decided that it would be fun to stir up the public by pretending that someone did try to ban flags...

BDO: We request you leave large flags at home

Daily Telegraph: The BDO has banned Australian flags!

Every other newspaper: The BDO has banned Australian flags, the bastards!!

Every bogan: Theys banning th stralan flag?! Thats unstralan that is!! Ill show them a flag!!!

BDO: uh, we didnt ban the flag, we just asked people not to bring them. What kind of idiot brings flags to a concert anyway?

Every politician: Its politically correct morons like the BDO that's wrong with Australia, Lets put a ban on banning the flag, and while we're at it, lets increase the penalty for desecrating war memorials 10 fold!!!

The RSL: I say we ban the BDO because they banned they flag!!

Every bogan: GWAAAH!!! Look at my flag!!! AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!!!

That's a good compromise, but deactivated guns can often be reactivated. That's where most of the black-market guns in the UK come from.
Yeah, when semi-auto shotguns became restricted here, my friend had to get his modified so it could only hold a certain amount of shells at once (3 or 4 i think, instead of 6 or 7), but he got it modified in such a way that he could easily reverse it. This way, he could be out hunting ducks with 7 shots at the ready, then if he sees a ranger, he could just pump out 4 shells, insert a pin into the magazine, and viola, its legal again...

If you cemented the barrel it would be a lot harder to undo tho ;D

Why would I mount a fake on my wall? It's just pointless...

No history behind it, nothing to be proud of, and if I ever did want to shoot it I wouldn't be able to.
Lots of stuff in museums are actually replicas, they often keep the real stuff out back.

Don't you have anything of sentimental value? Perhaps something handed down through generations of your family?

If you do, then would you like it if I replaced it with a replica?
What if one day you found out that your great-great-great-grandma's priceless whatevermajig was actually a cheap replica? Would it diminish the sentimental value?

Console Games / Re: Woman Dies Trying to Win a Wii...
« on: January 18, 2007, 06:54:31 pm »
Maybe it's hard understand until you experience the sudden death of a close family member but the comments of disgust and contempt over this really make me sad.
Yeah, I'd like to see these people tell their own mother that if she was stupid enough to die of water intoxication they would have no pity for her.

[edit]I just listened to the audio sample -
"Cant you get like, water poisoning or something and die?"
"Your body's like 98% water, why can't you drink as much water as you like?"
[Something about that poor kid who died of water intoxication]
"Maybe we should've researched this?"

Doesn't sound like they did their homework at all before staging this competition...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13