Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Teaching Astrology In Schools

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 18, 2002
 Comments:
These days, the emphasis in science teaching is entirely on "practical" subjects of "commercial usefulness" to Corporate America. This leaves far too little time for teaching "old-fashioned" pure sciences like astrology; teachers with curriculum goals to meet are just never going to be able to take time out of a busy day to encourage their little charges to gaze up at the sky. And this is a crying shame. As an enthusiastic amateur astrologer myself, I thought I'd write a few words in support of the teaching of astrology in our schools.
nasa

More stories about Nasa
On Selecting NASA Astronauts

More stories by
jsm

The Gay Tax
LNUX = FC?
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
A New Kind of Feminist Science
It's true that we all want our children to get ahead in this dog-eat-dog, cat-eat-rat economy. But if we forget about the stars, we're not just depriving our children of an innocent source of joy. We're potentially putting a mortgage on their future. After all, if astronomy isn't taught in schools, it will eventually die out as a science. And that could be a very costly mistake; consider global warming, the dangers of asteroid strikes, ozone depletion, El Nino and such. All of these world-threatening dangers were first predicted by astrologers, and forewarned is forearmed. The child who develops an innocent curiosity about the stars at the age of eight is the child who may be able to warn you of impending disaster ten years later. I bet Larry Augustin would have been thankful for a word of warning about what was going to happen to the NASDAQ in 2001. I bet Eric Raymond would have been grateful too.

But sadly, astronomy seems to be going the way of evolution in our high schools, driven out by a combination of far-right religious hatred, and self-righteous self-styled "scientists". The fundamentalist Christians appear to have eased up on their campaign against the teaching of astrology in our schools; they've turned their attentions to the campaign against evolution. But ironically, the supporters of teaching evolution in our schools (people like Steven Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and James Randi) appear to be determined to promote their own case by doing down their companion in vilification, astronomy!

(Please note, by the way, that although I have some fairly harsh things to say in this article about prominent promoters of evolutionary thinking, this is not in any way to impugn the scientific status of evolution itself. I regard evolution as being every bit as important a subject for children to be taught as astrology, and only wish that the die-hard evolutionists would show the same courtesy!)

Let's look at the arguments put forward by a representative example of the astronomy-bashing crowd, the small-minded zealots of "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine. Now it's fair to say that the Skeptical Inquirer crowd start off at a disadvantage; they're not exactly Nobel-winning scientists, like prominent astrology advocate Dr Kary Mullis. But even so, the arguments they raise against giving astronomy its proper place among the sciences are laughably weak; indeed, they are self-contradictory.

The most commonly accepted criterion for deciding whether or not a field of inquiry is "scientific" is that based on the scientific philosophy of Professor Sir Karl Popper, the British neurobiologist. Popper proposed that a truly scientific study would follow his "Falsifiability Criterion". Simply put, this states that:

The Falsifiability Criterion: A truly scientific field of study is one which makes testable predictions; it makes statements which could be proved false if its theories are incorrect and sets out to prove itself wrong. If the scientists try to prove themselves wrong and fail, then they know that their theory is true.

Contrariwise, "pseudoscientific" studies dress themselves up in the trappings of science, but never make any predictions which could possibly be proved false. When the evidence contradicts their theory, they try to deny its validity, or claim that their theory will be proved right eventually or (the defining characteristic of pseudoscience) start making changes to the theory.

Incredibly enough, on the basis of this universally accepted philosophy of science, the curmudgeonly crowd at Skeptical Inquirer try to promote evolutionary theory and rule out astronomy! But really, let's look at the evidence:

Astronomy:

  • Makes at least twelve testable predictions every day, which it distributes to the general public for "peer review" in the daily newspapers. For example, if the horoscope for Scorpio were to say "Blue flowers are lucky for you today", and if we were then to observe a Scorpio for whom blue flowers were not lucky on that day, then astrology would be falsified. This willingness to put its predictions on the line, day after day, shows how confident in its validity astrology is.
  • Has developed over thousands of years in all sorts of civilisations, and has stood the test of time. Isn't it bizarre that evolutionists believe that all sorts of things, from bulimia to marital infidelity to outright racism, exist today because they confer evolutionary benefits on us, but aren't prepared to extend the same explanation to astronomy?
  • Has a massive track record of success after success after success. Here are a few links to the websites of famous astronomers, all of whom are millionaires. Astrology can reliably predict the stock market. Nostradamus, the famous Medieval astrologer, saw the September 11 attacks coming from a distance of two hundred years. Still think that astronomy is "no use in today's economy"?
On the other hand ....

Evolution:

  • Confines itself to talking about theories which could never possibly be tested by experiment. Never makes a testable prediction of any kind. When asked to produce evidence for their theories, evolutionists usually resort to childish ad hominem attacks, which typically boil down to demanding that anyone who disagrees with them prove that evolution isn't true. As everyone knows, you can't prove a negative, and the only surprising thing is that the evolutionists have got away with the obvious logical fallacy of "the burden of proof" for so long.
  • Never keeps its story straight from one year to the next. First we had Darwin telling us that individuals selected each other by sexual intercourse, then Lamarck telling us that adaptation was the key, then Lysenko telling us that it was all about "heredity" and nowadays Dawkins says no, that was all rubbish, evolution is true, but it's really all about genes!
  • Picks fights all the time with really ridiculous unscientific nuts, like the so-called "Creation Scientists", just to make a hell of a lot of noise, distract schools from the real educational issues, and divert attention from its own failings.
Out of these two scientific theories, I ask you, which one is putting on a hell of a show of acting like "scientists" and which one is quietly and methodically getting on with the business of telling us useful things to know about the future? Proper science is under threat from religion every day, and if we're going to win the battle against the fundamentalists, we're going to have to pick our fights carefully. Up until now, the scientific establishment has decided that evolution is the horse it wants to back, with notable lack of success. It's time to give up on the dead-loss research project of trying to patch up evolutionary theory and switch to a different battleground. The fundamentalists will find it a bit more difficult to come up with their usual weaselly rationalisations and pseudoscientific excuses when faced with meeting the hard-nosed quantitative science of astronomy in open debate! Astrology is the science of the future. Evolution is the science of the past. Let's get serious here, people


AstroNOMy is science: AstroLOGy is junk (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:24:37 PM PST
Astronomy is studying space by looking at it...my definition isnt entirely right I know.

Astrology is to do with horoscopes and star signs and stuff.

Astronomy is considered science.
Astrology is bollox and I will state this as honest fact and truth.

Astrology HAS been tested many times by science and it failed. Simple common tests such as the ones below:

1) Buy 3 magasines
2) Read and compare the horoscopes in each of them
3) You should be convinced

OR

take 12 horoscopes, remove what sign they are for, muddle them up, give them to someone at the end of a day and ask them to point to the one which best fitted their day.
The answer will prove that astrology is nothing more than guessing.

Or you can use common sense to disprove it:
If a person was born on a different planet - what would their horoscope be????


Lets now take a look at the constellations that Astrology uses so much - the forms of these constellations have changed throughout history.
They werent fixed until 1930. So not exactly an ancient art.

The number of zodiac signs has also changed over time. In Medieval China there were 28 zodiac signs. The Toltecs had 20. Early Egypt had 6.

Astrology only uses 2 cooridinates to measure the position of a celestrial object. In fact their are obviously 3. This makes it highly innacurate.

Why do only certain stars and planets act on us? Why not whole galaxies or even comets and asteroids?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Keep on dreaming your dreams. (none / 0) (#10)
by dmg on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:30:02 PM PST
Back in the real world the Russian Army, the CIA, the UK Police, and financial organizations are harnessing the power of astrology, clairvoyance and remote viewing to leverage their strengths and gain a valuable advantage over their adversaries.

But don't let mere facts get in the way of your prejudice. Here's a clue. Just because we don't understand something does not mean we cannot harness it for mankind's benefit.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Scientific Mafia continue to dismiss anything that they do not understand, before later admitting there is something in it after all.

Accupuncture and Chinese medicine has been ridiculed by so-called scientists for a long time, meanwhile many Westerners ignore the idiotic ramblings of the dumb scientists and continue to visit their Accupuncturist.

I would also point out that in lunatic asylums it is well documented that activity increases whenever there is a full moon. This conclusively proves that the planets could theroretically influence events.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

conclusively proves that the planets could therore (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:32:32 PM PST
"conclusively proves that the planets could theroretically "

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA


 
incorrect (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:08:14 PM PST
Firstly remote viewing is open to debate. I certainly know there is lots of evidence to support it.
Accupuncture I never diagreed with either.

But I disagree with Astrology. Im not disagreeing with it because its not "scientifically recognised". Im just saying that there isnt the evidence for it like with remote viewing and accupuncture. In fact there is very heavy evidence against it. In fact I would say this evidence is conclusive.
Your example of lunatic asylums and a full moon hardly proves Astrology is correct.
Yes, on earth life has developed to a certain moon cycle - the tides, the added light source at full moon. Deep down all life may be influenced slightly by the lunar cycle including us.
But not by planets and stars which have zero effect on the Earths ecosystems.

Also if you examine such things as the zodiacs you will find they have changed position throughout history anyway. There is also a 41000 year oscillation in which the tilt of the earths axis changes by about 1.3 degrees one way and then the other. This makes astrology incorrect anyway as it assumes the sky pattern relative to earth to have a static motion.

ALso what happens when the constallation stars die out? Deoesnt matter when - it will happen - what happens to astrology then. And why pick only a few stars from millions. Why are these few groups of stars so much more special from all the rest?

Astrologers say that the position of the stars and the planets at birth influence your life - but why AT birth? why not at conception or even 2 hours before birth? Would 1 second make a difference? Its all made up.

You seem to believe in anything which science doesnt. Do you also believe in the Aztec Sun Gods and the sacrifices they made to them? Do you believe in the Egyptian Afterlife? Do you believe that card tricks are really done by magic?

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
ermmmm (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:29:27 AM PST
The moon is not a planet


troll (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:04:49 AM PST
The moon is an astrological planet. The term 'planet' originally referred to 'wandering stars,[1]' and as the other wandering stars of our solar system are all astronomical 'planets,' the term planet was adopted from astrology.

A moment's consideration will show that the astronomical idea of 'planet' is a social construction of no more validity than the astrological one. The two ideas serve different functions and come from different world-views.

Why do you hate God?

[1] 'Stars' obviously meaning 'lights in the night sky.'

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
you're very insolent for a puppet of the gods (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:27:14 PM PST
Astrology HAS been tested many times by science and it failed. Simple common tests such as the ones below:

1) Buy 3 magasines


Whoa, stop right there. Getting accurate astrological information from newspapers and magazines is like getting computer science information from slashdroids. Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth. Real astrologers are born, not made, unless by 'made' one means 'imbued with a gift by the same Universe which determines your fate.' They have a "gift". You could say astrologers are the medium by which we communicate *with* the Universe. In contrast, your peculiar "science" merely describes the universe differently every 5-10 years.


correction (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:30:12 PM PST
Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth.

*And* geographic location, making every individual unique. It's scary because it's true.


what if... (none / 0) (#25)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 07:02:16 AM PST
what if a human is one day born on another planet and therefore can exist in of the astrological "houses" and cant have a zodiac attributed to them, its even gonna be a problem associating any form of geographical position to them.

Some areas in the southern hemisphere also dont conform to astrology. Because it was a western invention they didnt realise that many constalations are not viewable from the southern hemisphere and at least the sky map's cycle there is very different.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Geography. (none / 0) (#26)
by eMan on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 08:09:04 AM PST
it was a western invention they didnt realise that many constalations are not viewable from the southern hemisphere

East-west and north-south are orthogonal axes. Westerners could theoretically know about the south.


 
Not so. (none / 0) (#27)
by dmg on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 08:15:28 AM PST
what if a human is one day born on another planet and therefore can exist in of the astrological "houses" and cant have a zodiac attributed to them, its even gonna be a problem associating any form of geographical position to them.

Modern astrological scientists have already addressed this issue. Its a bit complicated to explain, but if you imagine a ray (straight line) from the location of the birth (for example somewhere on Mars), and the center of the Earth, where that ray intersects the earth's surface can be considered the 'Astrological' location of the birth.

This is simply extrapolation. When Astrological scientists draw up a chart, they are simply interested in the latitude and longitude of the place of birth, the altitude is not relevant.

You can think of being born on Mars as a special case of being born on an Airliner, or halfway up a mountain.

So you see, your main argument against Astronomy has already been disproved.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

interesting (none / 0) (#30)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:11:52 AM PST
thats a good method in theory but disregarding altitude and using that straight line method leads to more serious problems.

It means that noone born on mars for example will ever fall under the geographical location of the far north or south as a straight line from these positions never points to another planet.

It also means that the further people are born from earth, the more like each other they become.

If you calculate the geographical loactions of 2 people born on mars 100 miles apart you find that their "earths geographical location" will end up being less than 2cm from each.
Two born in a far away galaxy - one on one side of the galaxy and the other on the other side
will also end up being within the same inch of geographical location on earth.
(In fact astrology cant be used in another galaxy as you wouldnt be able to see the constallations).

People born in the galaxy of andromeda for example will be almost exactly the same whereas in the milkyway we are more different from each other.
Using straight from the earth to the target leads to parallax problems.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

No problems at all (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by dmg on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 12:17:20 PM PST
Modern astrology has yet to get to grips with the full implication of the 'extrapolation technique'. Some astrologers believe that once one leaves our solar system for instance, it may well become impossible to predict an individual's future, as the influences of the planets will become weaker and weaker with distance, and eventually any predictions would be little better than noise.

Also, your assertion "the further people are born from earth, the more like each other they become." is right on the money. Modern astrologers have explained this by noting that a horoscope makes predictions based on the assumption that one is living on Earth, and hence any astrological prediction one makes for someone living on another planet would be incorrect for that reason.

There are controversial theories of astrology which claim to create a valid natal chart for those born on other planets (within our solar system) by simply translating the chart back to an earthbound one. So in effect, given that someone was born at a particular time and location on Mars, there will be a 3-d transform that would give an equivalent postion of the planets from an Earthly perspective which could be used to base a prediction, however a major flaw with this theory is that the prediction would assume that the planets were operating on an individual located on Earth. Hence again the predictions would only be valid if the person returned to Earth.

Its fair to say that modern Astrological science has some catching up to do when it comes to the expoloration of our solar system.

There are certain groups of astronomers, called 'extreme astrologers' who believe one must take into account the position of every interstellar object in our Galaxy in order to gain a truly accurate prediction of the future. The advent of supercomputers will enable this more advanced form of Astrology to come to the fore in the future.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

ok i withdraw all my arguments (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:21:24 PM PST
you obviously know more than me on this subject and its an interesting (and good) solution to my arguments to make other charts for different planets.

I therefore withdraw my fundemental arguments against real astrology because I didnt know the facts about it. All my arguments have failed and been well counter-argued. Also I cannot continue argument as I cant conclusively prove that the planets and stars do not have effect on living organisms in some way not yet discovered by science. Therefore I dont feel im currently in a position to denounce something which so many, throughout history believe in.

I still disagree with "magasine" astrology but then I now understand that this doesnt make up all of astrology at all - I understand that there can be bad astrology as well as good astrology - just as is true of science.

Any negative statements I have made about astrology in previous posts are withdrawn and I apologise if they caused annoyance or anger because of my ignorance.

This is not to say I now agree with astrology - just that my mind is now more open towards the subject than when I first read this article.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#53)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:04:21 PM PST
You are leaving out a very new and highly exciting field in astrology today - "Atomic Astrologers". These young chaps are working on very accurate computer simulations that chart the position of every atom in our solar system to gain a full prediction of our future. As you can see planetary bodies are composed of very small peices known as atoms, which influence the behavoir of the planet. As you can see, by knowing each atoms position you can get a very, very clear understaning of the planets influence on earth (the center of the atrological solar system). Clearly they cannot use every atom in the universe (which clearly would lead to an even more acurate picture). However, with the advent of DNA computing, this goal might be acheved in our lifetime.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Nope, (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:38:34 AM PST
Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle this is impossible.

In order to make an accurate prediction you need the atmos' positions and their velocities. You cannot get both

_________
Cuichulain


silly boy (none / 0) (#102)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:24:00 PM PST
All we need is the instantaneous position of the atoms. You seem to think the astrological prediction is an attempt at predicting from mechanical causality (which is a major affront to the sovreignty of God.) What it is is an attempt at determining the planets' influences based on their position at a specific time. The planets' influences go far beyond whatever we might deduce based on the mere physical facts of them.

Why don't you sign up an account?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I apologise, (none / 0) (#117)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:53:21 PM PST
I appear to have misunderstood.

But since you've bought it up (affrontage to God)
May I refer you to, I beleive it is Deuteronomy 18:10-12

This is an excerpt:
"Don't let anyone use magic or witchcraft, _or try to explain the signs_...The Lord hates anyone who does these things"
(My emphasis (obviously))

Many people interpret this as a prohibition against astrology (explain the signs)

I realise the Bible is subjective and therefore not a good debating tool in these circumstances. I bring it up only as a byline

__________
Cuichulain


what?! (none / 0) (#123)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:00:19 PM PST
I realise the Bible is subjective and therefore not a good debating tool in these circumstances. I bring it up only as a byline...

I think you mean "example" for "byline." This:
Cuichulain
is your byline. Anyway, what makes the Bible any more subjective (as if that were a bad word) than your beloved science? Have you once again failed to understand that science is a social construction?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I meant to write sideline, (none / 0) (#126)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:41:30 PM PST
This debate is about science. It's not about the bible. The implications and interpretations of that one verse are a whole debate unto themselves.

My science, if I have my own personal science (which I must have since it doesn't appear to be the same as yours) is not subjective, apart from to the extent of which theory you suscribe to.

An electron is an electron. It has a charge of minus one. You could say you don't agree with the valence shell electron theory but you can't say "Oooh, I think it should have a charge of minus three point nine". Subjectivity has little or no place in proper science. If it's not quantitative many scientists will scorn it, let alone subjective.

The Bible, on the other hand, is open to many interpretations. There is a verse that says 'Suffer not a witch to live' but I don't see many bonfires in Church grounds.

Society thinks science is a social structure. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. On the whole scientists don't care and carry on doing there own thing.

Lastly, science is not 'beloved' to me and I did not mean to imply that subjectiveness is a bad thing, merely that it should be kept out of an argument that is becoming too subjective already

__________
Cuichulain


obvious g**k (none / 0) (#128)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:14:21 PM PST
My science...is not subjective.

So you're saying that the people who perform scientific research don't have epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, and plain down-to-earth expectations? All science has an agenda. What makes a 'scientific' world-view more true than any other?

Another poster on this topic made the excellent point that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics predicate wholly different models of the physical world. Was Newtonian physics more true than Aristotelian physics? Is Einsteinian physics more true than its successor will be? Science does not pretend to discover metaphysical truth. Science is tools for modelling, and if you ever shake hands with an electron or, for that matter, a canister of phlogiston, be sure to let me know.

Have you ever heard of a nice man named Thomas Kuhn?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So true. (none / 0) (#146)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 01:58:37 PM PST
Have you ever heard of a nice man named Thomas Kuhn?
Its funny you should mention him. I was at a Halloween party last year and talking to one of my philosopher friends and there was a momentary lull where everyone seemed to stop talking for about a second or so except for one person, a biophysicist who proclaimed to the people he was talking to "yea well, I think psycology is a load of crap because it's all subjective". Tom looked at me and said "He's talking a load of bollocks isnt he?" and I laughed and just nodded. He immediatly called him over and gave gave him a verbal bashing and a reading list including Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". I have yet to read it myself, but on the point of science being subjective and just tools for modelling I would have to agree wholeheartedly.

In fact I remember one of my Physics teachers made the same point. He would also go off on tangents about magic pixies and then finish with "but instead we just use this equation because then we can actually predict the results". It amused us all greatly, but it also helped press home the point that what we were learning were simply models to help us predict what would happen in the real world. Anyone who doesnt understand this basic point has either never studied science past GCSE, doesnt go to a very good school or isnt paying very much attention.

--
Nick
Cheers for reminding me of that incident, it amused me greatly =).


 
Elephants and Blind Men (none / 0) (#129)
by dmg on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:14:33 PM PST
An electron is an electron. It has a charge of minus one.

Do not mistake the map for the territory.

Do not mistake the model for the thing that is being modelled.

It is useful to consider the three blind men and an elephant. Normally this story relates to the concept of God, but it also applies equally well to science.

I hope this helps to explain in a roundabout way some of the points being made here.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
I bet they ARE all alike! (none / 0) (#67)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:36:29 AM PST
Look a Spock. Look at all the Vulcans. Their whole race is all about logic. They're all the same: logic logic logic. That one singular aspect of the full kaliedascope of human experience is sliced out and expands to fill the entire group. This fits perfectly with the altitude theory.

Many alien races are like this. A whole planet of tiger-men, or all ants. Klingons are all warlike.

See? Sameness everywhere you look. With us on Earth, we get the full variety, but out there in the peripheral regions of the cosmos, they only get a section. Poor damn bastards. Poor bastards all...


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
what if pigs slept in your belly button? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:49:19 PM PST
what if a human is one day born on another planet

Young man, the article is about science fact, not science fiction. We are alone in the Universe and will never stray beyond Earth. The reason you heathen scientificists cannot live with that knowledge is because you fear your own humanity and God.


and will never stray beyond Earth? (none / 0) (#46)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:23:09 PM PST
come on, we could do it now, we have the technology - straight to mars. But NASA has no incentive to do so.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

But but but... (none / 0) (#66)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:29:57 AM PST
Always these "buts" with you, eh?

We in the scientific community make falsifiable predictions, such as "man will never leave the Earth." You charlatans blow pink smoke with your pathetic whines of "we could do it, but..." But what? But Micro-Soft won't give us the hardware drivers? But the algorithm is patented? But the Trilateral Commission would intervene?

How about this: "But my psuedoscience is false and useless." There's a but you can grab ahold of and keep a good solid grip on, unlike your flimsy little buts of fluff and nonsense.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


But we *could* send a human to mars.... (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:22:35 AM PST
Not that they would land safely (judging by the last two unmanned Mars missions). I dont think they'd mind though, as unless we somehow figured out how to build spaceships made out of lead 6ft thick they'd get cooked on the journey there by the solar radiation.

Interestingly that last point is one of the most compelling arguments as to why the Moon landings were faked. Also, the pictures were quite good quality considering they used a fairly bog standard Kodak camera and were taken in what amounts to a sea of X/gamma/(insert favourite radiation band here)-Rays, dont you think? Either way, until we figure out how to build a long lasting power supply that can drive a big electromagnet to simulate the earths magnetic field in order to shield a spaceship from the solar wind and thats light enough to be taken into space on the shuttle or simple enough to be launched in parts and assembled in space, leaving this planet is pure science fiction.

--
Nick
I like my cat. Her hair is nearly as long as mine, and she insists on being groomed every day by me because she likes me too. She probably hates you though.


 
Why astrology is incorrect (none / 0) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:57:51 AM PST
"Getting accurate astrological information from newspapers and magazines is like getting computer science information from slashdroids"
Okay fair point. I appologise.

"Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth."
This is the problem I have. They have to know you birth date exactly? What if they get it wrong by a second? My birth certificate doesnt even mention seconds. What clock are we supposed to use? Im sure the hospital clocks are that precise.

And define when "birth" happens? Is it the moment when the head appears? or the whole body? Or is it shortly after conception. At best, astrology can only predict based on the nearest 15 minutes you were born on. And im SURE there are other people born at the same time as me who are vastly different - something which astrology doesnt deal with.

I believe in astrology like I believe in the Force out of star wars.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Why potatoError is a cute. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:56:01 PM PST
And define when "birth" happens?

You strike me as someone who is rather young and I dont want to get you all excited.


 
Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#52)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:56:06 PM PST
Clearly you are the one who is confused. Astrology has to do with the study of the cosmos. What you describe, horoscopes, are the field of astronomers, who then interpret the finding of astrologers to very acuratly predict what will happen on earth using the Chaos theory. If you had actually read the article, and followed the links, you would be aware of this.

Our society owes much to astologers. For example, who do you thing found the cosmic background radation proving that there was a giant explosion that spewed it's contents into space. Only fools, like yourself belive that time and space was somehow "created" during this huge explosion. Clearly this cannot be logical. How can space or time be created? Can you imagine that? In fact, these same puedo-scientists belive that space itself is expanding! Poppycocks I say. Clearly, the matter in our universe is moving at a high rate of speed away from the center of the universe.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

argh (none / 0) (#56)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:29:26 PM PST
Astrology - Astronomy. Im not going to be tricked into screwing it up - This is one point which my physics teacher managed to drum into my head.
When you have an exam with a topic called Astronomy you pretty much remember the dreadful name and its meaning for the rest of eternity.


The universe has no centre - otherwise it would have an outside :)

I can never be sure if you really are serious or if you are trying to wind me up.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Dear Sir (none / 0) (#58)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:48:48 PM PST
Of course the universe has a center, it's where the big bang occured. As many physicscs and astrologer agree, the big band happened in the center of our universe, and everything is rushing away from it at a high velocity, almost as fast as the speed of light in a vacuum.

As I said, it would be foolish to belive in some fairy tail like space expanding, just as it would be foolish to belive that there is a cheese king of the moon. However nobody knows for sure, have you been to the moon to see for yourself? If you have not, then you are just relying on somebody else telling you that such a king does not exist.

This is the problem with science today. Just because we can't claim is does exist immediatly triggers us to respond that it certianly does not exist. Take god: scientists will tell you god most certainly does not exist because we cannot prove it's existance. Does this not sound silly? Do see my other post about god - obviously we need another method to implore about such things.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

space (none / 0) (#59)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:05:52 PM PST
there is no centre to the universe.

When you think of space exanding in your head you do realise that there is no outside yes?

Imagine a balloon. The surface of the balloon is space. Draw points at regluar intervals on the balloon. Now slowly inflate the baloon. The five points will now be further apart - but still the same distance from each other. The balloons surface has expanded as space is expanding.
Notice that there is no centre of the surface of the balloon just as there is no centre of space.

From earth all galaxies seem to be moving away from us (with 1 exception). In fact no matter what galaxy you stand on, it appears that all the other galaxies around you are moving away from each other. This implies expansion of the universe rather than it simply growing.

And remember: Its not possible to observe the universe from the outside. Its not even possible to imagine it.
The problem is that outside the universe there would be no dimensions. With no dimentions you cant fix a coordinate point for a camera or observation spot in order to even look at the universe from the outside.

"Take god: scientists will tell you god most certainly does not exist because we cannot prove it's existance"
Maybe they are just athiests. Some scientists believe in God. I dont though.

The general stance is that if we were to believe everything that has no proof we wouldnt get anything done. After all would you decide not to leave your house because there might be a nuclear bomb in your car? I mean, I know theres no evidence for it but that doesnt mean it cant exist. We all make reasonable assumptions at the end of the day - its how our brains work and our society functions. It would be chaos if we couldnt decide what to believe.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#60)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:23:27 PM PST
This is silly. This would be implying that there is some fourth dimention for space to expand into. I can't see any evidance for a fourth dimention (besides time), what happened to oscams razor - the simplest is usually the most correct? Why would somebody dream there is a fourth dimention when they can just say that everything is moving away from the center and that space goes on forever (thus implying no outside).

Our universe is infinite in size, which means no outside. Before the big bang, the universe was empty except for a little ball. When the big bang happened, there was a lot of stuff compacted in the middle, and it blew up. Becuase of momentum, and nothing to slow the particles down, the particles are all moving from the center of the bang. When you blow up a water ballon, does space expand? No! The water gushes from the center of the ballon. Same with the universe. It's clearly the simplest explination. Why invent a fourth dimention, when you can just explain it that way?


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Astrology is pants (3.00 / 2) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:54:27 AM PST
Our universe is actually finite in size but has no boundaries, according to theories held by the greatest minds on the planet. This is very hard to conceive but there is mathematical proof for it. The universe is expanding but it isn't expanding into anything. The concept of 'outside' the universe makes no sense.

Ockham's Razor states that the simplest theory, out of a choice of theories that fit observed data, is generally true.

On the subject of astrology I feel compelled to say that the subject is a fetid pile of pants. Constellation that apparently affect your lives are hundreds to thousands of light years away. There is no possible way that information from them could reach Earth in your lifetime or the lifetime of your civilisation. Even if it could, the inverse square laws apply, since gravity is the only information that could possibly permeate that far through the galaxy. This law states that if you double the distance from a body the effect of its gravity is divided by 4, triple it divided by 9, times the distance by 10 and the effect is a hundreth. Over 1000 light years, or even the light minutes to the planets, the effect of gravity would be as close to zero as makes no difference. In fact it's likely that I would have a greater gravitational effect on you.

Unless of course, you are proposing that significant astronomical bodies emit some kind of particle or radiation that is completely indectable by modern scientific methods, breaks almost every physical law every contrived, travels faster than the speed of light and, by some mechanism unkown, affects matter in a complicated but subtle way in order to egineer tiny changes in the lives of humankind. In which case I refer you to Ockham's Razor which by esteemed friend mentioned,

_________
Cuichulain


geometrical deductions of physical reality? (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:00:54 AM PST
This is very hard to conceive but there is mathematical proof for it.

See, this is why arguing with scientificists is so painful. If you continue to apply language and concepts so loosely, you will only succeed in filling your mind with seductive false certainties. Please derive any aspect of physical reality from mathematics. I must have missed the class which discussed the Axiom of Cosmology Circa 2000. Does it come between the identity and associativity axioms or does it come between the associativity and inverses axioms. Or perhaps it's not an axiom of Groups?

BEFORE YOU INSINUATE ASTROLOGY IS PANTS, START MAKING FUCKING SENSE, GEEK!


Ok (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:36:36 AM PST
Makes sense to me, I'm not sure what your problem is.

I've looked into particle physics and relativity a little but, unfourtunately, I've never studied axioms so I can't respond on that front

But surely it is an 'axiom' that maths is an accurate 'language' to use when describing the universe. And surely this most incontrevertible proof is a mathematical one.

Maths and Science between them describe the world. Philosophy merely attempts to understand the subjective interactions of humans with the world. (Please correct me if you disagree)

If you want to say that astrology is true then it is with maths and science you must do it if you want to be taken seriously

If Hawking says the universe is finite without boundaries, then I'm with him on this one

_________
Cuichulain


too easy (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:12:45 PM PST
But surely it is an 'axiom' that maths is an accurate 'language' to use when describing the universe.

No.

Maths and Science between them describe the world.

Strictly speaking, a model is a set of mathematical equations in support of a scientific theory which itself is an idea. Ideas live in your head. Your head is a product of social construction as much as anything else. Different societies will have different scientific ideas. For example, it is possible to imagine a science which categorizes black body ratiation as "happy" instead of "5000 degrees Kelvin", as "sad" instead of "3500 degrees Kelvin"; the sky is not blue, it is "happy." Such a science will develop different instruments and units of measurement, of course, but they will be scientific instruments nevertheless. I realize your socialization makes all this hard to imagine; that's is the usual problem and cause for confusion when discussing the nature of science.

It is trivial to cook up the mathematics once a theory (framework for the answers to a series of frankly arbitrary questions about some aspect of reality that interests society) is sufficiently powerful in the variety and number of its predictions. However,
  1. not all all aspects of reality can be modelled Recent work by a Godelian whose name escapes me has demonstrated that science contains "holes". There is simply no onus on the universe to explain itself to scientists: some things which science could, ostensibly, in theory, explain, will never be explained by science. Scientists will presume a scientific explanation for X is possible because empirical evidence of X is available, but they will never succeed in explaining X using science. Six sided symmetry may be an example of this.
  2. No theory is comprehensive in its subject. Theories evolve according to the questions we ask of them, and new theories suggest newer questions. The most important distinction between the mathematics of a model and a scientific theory is that you cannot deduce reality or a theory from mathematics. If it cannot be deduced, it cannot be proven, for proof is a matter of deduction. That means there can be no proof of reality (or a theory) using mathematics. As soon as your theory is replaced, your mathematics (model) is irrelevant.



erm. Yes? (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:44:18 PM PST
Your point is well made and I can't see any defects in it. I'm confused on some points though. You could call the radition 'happy' instead of '5000K' but so long as they meant the same thing, would it really matter? If they didn't mean the same thing would it be helpful? You would know the black body is indeed happy, which may help you in some circumstances but what if you wanted to know it's absolute temperature?

As far as I am concerened, and most scientists I know, something is scientific if it follows the scientific method. It was one of the first things they taught us

You seem to be talking about what I know of as the 'boundary of the knowable' as Einstein called it. Many people beleive there is a limit to what we, and the science we use, can understand and describe. As well as 6-sided symmetry, about which I know little, many people think that equations describing gravitational interactions between three bodies are impossible.

However, my point was that when we describe the parts of the universe we can describe maths and science are the best ways of doing it. Neither are completely accurate, but neither can be.

Mathematics of course is no substitute for a theory. I consider it to be the language used by science. Science can't describe without maths but without science maths has nothing to describe.

No theory can be comprehensive in its subject but to many physicists this is the goal of science. Either to postulate a Grand Unified Theory to accurately describe the total universe or to discover such a thing is impossible and the universe has no underlying order.

So, either there is a Grand Unified theory, there isn't or we will never get that far. Which it will be we will have to wait and see.

I'd personally like there to be a GUT, but I suspect the universe is basically chaotic and we lay order on it peicemeal

_________
Cuichulain


Why do you say yes *now* ? (none / 0) (#116)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:52:00 PM PST
If all this was so obvious, why did I have to correct your sloppy certainties?

You could call the radition 'happy' instead of '5000K' but so long as they meant the same thing, would it really matter?

They are not the same thing. The difference between 237 HAPPYTRONS and 5000 KELVINS isnt a matter of word games, it is a matter of interpreting reality according to a different set of ideas. Somewhere down the line, a society measuring in HAPPYTRONS instead of KELVINS will uncover different, new scientific truths about the world.

Knowledge has a problem: the object is not the same as its referent, and no relationship (eg, science) between an object and its referent can claim to be unique, complete or correct. The best that can be said for Science is that it has standards of evidence for the correctness (as opposed to formidable logical truth) of a particular referent.

However, my point was that when we describe the parts of the universe we can describe maths and science are the best ways of doing it.

That's all science can do -- describe. Description is not proof of anything. In any case, I replied to the following: Our universe is actually finite in size but has no boundaries, according to theories held by the greatest minds on the planet. This is very hard to conceive but there is mathematical proof for it.

No such mathematical proof is possible. Further, in this comment

The universe is expanding but it isn't expanding into anything. The concept of 'outside' the universe makes no sense.

I find it hard to imagine what is so sensical about a proposition which pretends the universe is expanding without filling up space ("isnt expanding into anything"). Cosmology is very hard to distinguish from theology. If cosmology is science, scientists have some nerve rebuking me for checking out my daily horoscope.


Clarification (none / 0) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:30:10 PM PST
"Somewhere down the line, a society measuring in HAPPYTRONS instead of KELVINS will uncover different, new scientific truths about the world"

I'm afraid I don't see why, if it is merely a matter of which word to use. If it is a difference in the thought process of the society then surely they will be looking for different things and I don't see your point. Bear with me and I will try to keep up.

Of course, if you examine anything closely enough it is impossible to prove anything for certain, for a number of reasons. For any 'proof' mathematical, or otherwise, there are some assumptions that must be made first. I was assuming that these assumptions had been met. I apologise but it still seems to be a reasonable assumption. If we didn't make such assumptions in life no-one would get out of bed in the morning for fear of what may happen to them.


"I find it hard to imagine what is so sensical about a proposition which pretends the universe is expanding without filling up space"

I don't pretend to undestand completely how that works and I suspect that I never will. All I can do is read "A brief history of time" and assume that if he was evidently wrong there would have been an outcry from the scientific community. (Most scientists can't stand another succesful scientist, especially if he's wrong)

Apparently, the square root of minus one is an important part of physical processes.

Apparently there are objects which must be rotated twice before they look the same.

Apparently the attractive force between two quarks increases as the distance between them increases

I don't pretend to understand any of this, or understand the 'Proofs' or it's implications, applications. I assume it's as close to true as science can get at the moment which is close enough to actually be true to all intents and purposes

__________
Cuichulain

Sorry if I've missed your point again


ideas about things vs the things themselves (none / 0) (#121)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:05:44 PM PST
I'm afraid I don't see why,

That's because you think reality is monolithic, that a thing is what you say it is and nothing more. But I just told you that science depends on an interpretation of reality according to arbitrary ideas (arbitrary in the sense that there is an infinte number of ideas). Ideas are not real -- science cannot *measure* ideas. Ideas are a referent. Many referents are possible and each one of them will develop into a different Universe populated by different "things."

If it is a difference in the thought process of the society then surely they will be looking for different things and I don't see your point.

Yes, and that is the point. You'll only find what you're looking for, not what exists. How would you recognize you found something if this werent true? And everything you do find doesnt, on its own, exist in precisely the way you imagine it does.

I'm going to have to stop participating in this thread; I'm tired of making stuff up.


erm...Ok (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:15:58 PM PST
Fair enough, but in order to make any headway in the world we must take all the ideas and say 'This one is right' We have to think reality is 'monolithic', otherwise there is no point in getting out of bed in the morning.

"You'll only find what you're looking for, not what exists"

Not exactly. Certainly you won't find EXACTLY what exists down to the merest proton and you certainly won't find exactly what you want to find. I've wanted to find many things and have only managed to find a few off them. You will find what exists but your conception of it may be tainted by what you want to find.

When Watson & Crick determined the structure of DNA, they found the structure of DNA. This has since been shown to the satisfaction of everyone involved to be the structure of DNA. What they wanted to find didn't have anything to do with it, they found what was there.

What you say may be true to a certain extent but it is overly metaphysical to be anything but exraneous

_________
Cuichulain


 
nice (none / 0) (#92)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:32:02 AM PST
I like your arguments and the fact that you know what gravity is (and it isnt magnets eMan!!)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You have learned nothing (none / 0) (#98)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:09:58 PM PST
Gravity isn't magnets, and I never claimed it was. Such a suggestion would be sheer nonsense, and I resent the implication that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Gravity and magnetism are trivially related phenomena, as you can clearly see by picking up a magnet and dropping it to the ground. But they are not the same phenomenon! I strongly recommend you go back and do some reading on the subject, most notably Sir Isaac Maxwell's "De Principia Mathematica Et Adequata", which is available in the original pig latin from any respectable kindergarten library.

P.S.: It's Occam's razor, not Ockam's or Oskam's or Osama's. Note the cc.


 
Big flaw... (none / 0) (#135)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:36:42 PM PST
Constellation that apparently affect your lives are hundreds to thousands of light years away. There is no possible way that information from them could reach Earth in your lifetime or the lifetime of your civilisation.

Then how come we can see them?
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Light is not gravity (none / 0) (#137)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 12:45:49 AM PST
We are seeing light emitted from them thousands of years ago. They probably don't even exist anymore. The position of the stars at the time of your birth can have no effect on earth for thousands of years after your dead, it's not possible.

Unless you mean the apparent position of stars at your birth. If a star 1000 lightyears appears to be in certain position it was in that position 1000 years ago. If you are saying that the position of stars millenia ago affects my life then I must refer you to my second point. Due to the inverse square law they can not have any real effect on Earth let alone a human. The midwife at the time of birth would have a greater gravitational effect on the child.

Unless, of course, its not gravity. In which case I refer you to my third point

__________
Cuichulain


 
Explanation (none / 0) (#90)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:20:49 AM PST
Thats a good point - the problem with oscams razor is this:
the simplest way to explain gravity is to say their are pieces of invisible string connected to everything.
Thats not to say oscams razor is wrong - because often it isnt but sometimes it isnt the simplest option which is right.

That everything in the universe is moving away from the center and that space goes on forever was
the original theory put forward by science but a number of observations made since then have shown this theory to be inncorrect.

Firstly, if you use a telescope in the Milkyway (as we do) it seems that every galaxy around us is moving away from us (except andromeda*). This would imply that the centre of the universe is in our galaxy.

Fair enough. But then it was discovered that whatever galaxy you are in, all galaxies around you seem to be moving away at high speed. So cosmologists were left with the problem that the centre of the universe seemed to be wherever you decide to stand.
The only way to resolve this is to realise that the universe is actually expanding - not that everything is moving away.

Take the balloon example - it is a model of a 2D universe. Any creatures living in this 'ballon universe' can only move and observe in 2 dimentions. Now if the balloon is being blown up then these creature would notice that all the nearby dots are moving away from them. They may therefore assume that the universe is growing and they must be at the centre.
But then like us they would discover that no matter where they stand, all the dots seem to be moving away implying that the centre of their universe was everywhere.
Hopefully they would then realise that their universe wasnt growing after all but the whole thing was expanding.

Therefore there is no locatable centre to our universe (not in our 3 dimentions anyway).

An excellent way to understand this (and confuse yourself) is this:
If all galaxies are moving away from each other then it stands to reason that if you reversed time, so that all the galaxies were moving towards each other, then you would expect to find the centre of the universe where all the galaxies meet up.
Try to contemplate this reversal. Where would the centre of the universe end up? If you get confused then well done, you have just contemplated the 4th dimention.

Its incorrect that empty space is infinite and has always been around even before the big bang and that the big bang happened inside it.
"Empty" space isnt really empty. Even a vacuum has 3 dimentions and we know that the big bang occured somewhere where there were no dimentions - somewhere unconceivable. Just as when you blow that balloon up - the creatures living on the surface cant contemplate the position where the balloon started from. This is because they would need to understand the third dimention to do this and being only 2D creatures they cant.

This is true of our state - we observe 3 dimensional space but just because we cant concieve 4 dimensions properly doesnt mean there isnt one.
(im talking the 4th geometric dimension not the commonly mentioned 4th dimension of time)

But even though space isnt infinite there is unlikely to be an edge. Or at least we wont be able to reach it. The best way to understand this is to get that ballon out again. No creature living on the surface of the balloon can ever escape from it even though it isnt infinite in size. Im not saying that our universe is looped (although it might be) but it might be simply expanding too fast for us to ever reach the edge.


I hope this helps - im not an expert or anything and am not pretending to be. Much of this is just repeating what my cosmology teacher used to teach universe expansion to me ages ago.

(*Adromeda is moving towards us because it is moving at us at a speed faster than the expansion of the universe)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

2D Creatures (none / 0) (#95)
by eMan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:01:40 PM PST
You do realize that 2D living creatures are not possible, and this has nothing to do with magnetism, just common sense. Any creature with a mouth and an anus would simply fall apart along its digestive tract. That would make it incapable of energy transformation, and thus not a living creature by the conventional definition. However, living creatures do exist, which gives us a contradiction.

This is conclusive proof that the universe is not just a big balloon, and that your cosmology teacher was lying to you. Is she a communist perhaps?


2-D lifeforms (none / 0) (#100)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:19:12 PM PST
Any creature with a mouth and an anus would simply fall apart along its digestive tract...

Believe it or not, Canadian computer scientist A. K. Dewdney conclusively solved this problem in his astonishing The Planiverse. Through computer contact with a 2-D world, he learned of an organ called a 'zipper muscle' capable of transmitting packets of fluids through normally solid tissue.

It is truly an amazing work.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

cool (none / 0) (#109)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:31:53 PM PST
thanks for this link - its interesting stuff
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
sigh (none / 0) (#108)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:31:00 PM PST
if you cant accept models created to make understanding easier then I give up.
Newton, Einstein, Stephen hawkins all use models to describe. They arent asking you to believe the model actually exists - they are only there to help you concieve something difficult to conceive.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Please try to understand. (none / 0) (#110)
by dmg on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:40:16 PM PST
A fact is something which is consistant with some set of axioms. Axioms are simply statements which are held to be true. Not TRUE, just held to be true for the purposes of making some prediction or other.

A scientific theory can be created based on some set of axioms. It can be consistant with those axioms. We can call this 'truth' but in reality, we have no way of knowing if our model corresponds to 'reality' (whatever that might be).

So consider a fish in a pond. He has a set of axioms. One of which is that the universe is the extent of his pond. He can verify this, because if he goes to the edge of the pond, he can go no further. Likewise if he tries to leave the pond, he suffocates. His theory of the Universe is valid for fish, because it makes predictions, and is not falsifiable by other fish.

Now consider that we are like fish. We do not have the means to explore other dimensions, because we would be like fish out of water. That does not mean that the other dimensions do not exist, simply that we are unable to experience them directly.

You need to understand the difference between a 'Fact' and a 'useful supposition which may yet prove to be false'.

I suspect nearly everything you consider to be a fact, actually falls into the latter category.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

I agree with you, but... (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:25:15 PM PST
Surely everything that anyone considers to be a fact falls into the latter category and it is, in fact :) impossible to know anything

How about: "The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain and we're not even certain of that"?


Linux sux. That's certain. (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:42:37 PM PST
Surely everything that anyone considers to be a fact falls into the latter category and it is, in fact :) impossible to know anything.

We can describe causal effects upon our senses. X affects us in such and such a manner, but what X itself is, we cannot learn. Furthermore, the set of all causal affects X generates may be infinite. Science is making correlations; there's a lot of correlations to be made in the Universe. Maybe all correlations exist in the sense that everything is somehow related to everything else. Whether we uncover a correlation depends on the questions we ask. It is very possible to show planets affect our fate if we find the appropriate set of questions to ask those planets and reveal the correlation.

On the other hand, maybe we invent correlations.


That MAY be true, (none / 0) (#127)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:53:15 PM PST
That may be true, almost by definition there is no way of proving it untrue, but trying to do science that way would be like looking for reflections in a mirror. You'd find plenty but they wouldn't help you much. Sooner or later you have to draw the line and the whole concept of modern science is based on drawing the line at the scientific method. Things on one side are scientific, things on the other aren't. You're theory, although it could very well be true, isn't scientific in the classical sense.

Sooner or later you have to assume that what you see in front of you is really there, that there really is nothing faster than the speed of light, that there is no probable way planets can significantly effect life on Earth.

None of these assumptions have to be true, not a single one, but science would 'certainly' not have got round to producing radio and pennicillin and space shuttles and automobiles if it hadn't made these assumptions.

That is the limitation of science. There is no reason why you aren't right but science has to assume you're not

__________
Cuichulain


 
who the hell is Stephen Hawkins? (none / 0) (#139)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 05:39:17 AM PST



hahhahha (none / 0) (#140)
by PotatoError on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 06:42:01 AM PST
omg if you dont know that..
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Perhaps you meant someone else. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by dmg on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 07:43:06 AM PST
Like Professor Stephen Hawking, Lucasian professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University (a position once held by Sir Issac Newton), author of a Brief History of Time, string theory expert, accomplished gangsta rapper and fucking Quake master.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
occam's razor. (none / 0) (#99)
by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:15:08 PM PST
the problem with oscams razor [sic] is this: the simplest way to explain gravity is to say their are pieces of invisible string connected to everything. [...] Thats not to say oscams razor is wrong - because often it isnt but sometimes it isnt the simplest option which is right.

Do you even read what you type? This is totally incoherent.

Occam said that we should 'avoid multiplying entities unnecessarily.' All that this means is that, given two hypotheses, both of which are in accord with the evidence, we should reject the more torturous of the two. You have totally failed to understand this principle, as your idiotic 'string' (ugh!) example demonstrates. You appear to be attempting to use the string as a stand-in for Maxwell's daemon, which (if this is the case) you have totally failed in understanding as well.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Pretty much, but... (none / 0) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:52:03 PM PST
Unfourtunately, your string/gravity theory doesn't fit the observed facts so can't be considered for Occam's razor

__________
Cuichulain

(Thankyou for the spelling correction)


 
You should seek an education, rather than... (none / 0) (#62)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:34:51 AM PST
...just having some authority "drum" ideas into your head. Drumming on heads, or even more subtle coercion like flunking you if you don't repeat back what they told you to say, is no way to teach anyone how to think.

Why, it's no wonder with so little practice at it that the first time anyone makes you think you do it so poorly.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
Keep prayer in school! (none / 0) (#7)
by astrix on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:52:08 PM PST
Keep evolution and astrology in the gutters where they belong.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson

Theres no comparison (none / 0) (#8)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:14:47 PM PST
Evolution and Astrology are as completely different as Cows and Shavers.

Astrology has been proven wrong.
Evolution is certain.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

This is the kind of post that ticks me off (none / 0) (#28)
by error27 on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:29:02 AM PST
Read the friggin article before you start posting this crap.


what? (none / 0) (#31)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:14:09 AM PST
whats your point?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

the point is that you didn't read the article (none / 0) (#41)
by error27 on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:38:50 PM PST
You cannot read the article and still say stupid things like, "Astrology has been proven wrong. Evolution is certain.?"

I'm surprised the editors haven't deleted your account already for posting flagrant lies like that.




oh that (none / 0) (#61)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:23:56 PM PST
"Astrology has been proven wrong. Evolution is certain.?"

Astrology has been proven wrong by many experiments although due to new understanding given to me by dmg and chloedancer I now realise that it didnt disprove astrology wrong but just a circumstance of it.

Evolution though is certain. Like dinosaurs are certain. Im sure you wouldnt suggest that dinosaurs never existed. Why suggest that evolution is wrong then? evolution evidence includes the dinosaur evidence plus much much more. There's no debate in the scientific community that evolution exists - only how it works.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I'm not sure about the dinosaur bit (none / 0) (#63)
by error27 on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:41:51 AM PST
After all I've never seen any, just some old "bones." Heh... What a crock.

The other thing is that people couldn't have been around for nearly 200,000 years. People create havoc and pyramids where ever they go. If you look at what has been accomplished in the last 10,000 years it is clear that those figures are utterly ridiculous. Geographically seperated civilizations have learned the secrets of the wheel, gun powder, writing, stone masonry, iron work and much more.

A much more reasonable explanation is that aliens tried colonizing the earth in stages. They tried the dinosour stage and that didn't work because all the dinosours died off and their bones turned to stoned because the atmosphere became poisonous for them. With the next stage they used only the animals that we currently have on earth. Humans and dolphins were the last animals that were brought to earth because we needed the animals to survive. And the aliens in turn needed us for slaves.

The aliens will come back someday to bring human slaves back to their planet.




a valid theory (none / 0) (#71)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:15:14 AM PST
Your theory is valid. There is ample evidence backing up your alien theory. The reason that science hasnt taken to it so much is that other scientific fields have better theories (ie more evidence) as to why civilisations developed as they did.

a funny thing: the aztecs developed complex astrological calendars and had a good grasp at astromony as well as developing a complex language and writing system second only to the egyptians and the chinese. But they are one of the only civilisations to have never invented the wheel. weird huh?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

No wheel because they had anti-gravity ? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by dmg on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:24:58 PM PST
If you have read the book Chariots of the Gods there is some evidence that the Aztecs were in communication with Extra-Terrestrials. Perhaps they did not invent the wheel because it was not needed.

Recent developments in the controversial field of anti-gravity research have demonstrated that it is possible to create an anti-gravity field using a spinning supercooled superconducting disc. If we had access to antigravity transportation, do you think we would bother with inventing the wheel ?

Of course we would not. It would be like using an abacus or a mechanical adding machine when we have semiconductor-based computers available to us.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
Wait a second... (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 09:52:32 PM PST
Thomas Jefferson:
Born: 1743
3rd President of the United States: 1801-09
Died: 1826

Charles Darwin:
Born: 1809
First published theory of evolution: 1858
Died: 1882

So just how could Jefferson have said that about evolution when he had been dead for the 32 years preceeding its inception?


nice (none / 0) (#22)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:40:50 AM PST
good point. But wasnt it his ghost who spoke those words?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I also disagree - Evolution is fact (none / 0) (#13)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:23:00 PM PST
Evolution is certain. The evidence is all there (I will explain it if you ask).

But the pieces of the puzzle tell us it is certain even if we cant figure out how yet.

Like take the theory of gravity. We are certain that masses attract each other across space. We just dont understand how yet.

In exactly the same way, we know from evidence that evolution exists. Its just we dont know how it works yet.

For anti-evolutionists to say it doesnt exist because we cant show how it works is like them saying that gravity doesnt exist because we cant show how that works.

Maybe the current theory of gravity is wrong - maybe the current theory of evolution is wrong (its certainly been changed enough so far), but this doesnt mean that both gravity and evolution dont exist - just that we dont understand them yet.

To save anyone who disagrees with evolution time - dont quote the fruit fly experiment as evidence against evolution or ill have to go into all the reasons why it doesnt disprove evolution.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

you're confused (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 09:57:36 PM PST
In exactly the same way, we know from evidence that evolution exists. Its just we dont know how it works yet.

If science cannot describe how "it" works, "it" doesnt exist as far as science is concerned. What science can never do is describe what "it" is. Since you say we dont know how it works and I say we dont know what it is, your statement that "evolution is certain" is certainly incorrect.

So, for example, we have a model that describes gravity (to the best of our 5 human senses) according to its causal effect (science can only measure effects due to "causation", whatever causation is if it even exists) on mass, but we dont know what gravity is. In popular science books for hackers gravity is conjectured to be "force at a distance", whatever that is, or stuff falling "down" (why down? gravity!) the curvature of space, whatever that is, but these are books for hackers, not intelligent, well informed people.


so you dont believe in gravity either? (none / 0) (#21)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:39:31 AM PST
"If science cannot describe how it works, it doesnt exist as far as science is concerned."

This is a typical misconception of the anti-evolutionists. Because the theory of evolution has changed drastically thoughout history they site this as being reason why evolution is flawed and doesnt actually exist.
Thats rubbish - just because we dont know how something works doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Ages ago we didnt know how grass 'worked', would you have argued that meant it didnt exist?
The theory is about HOW it works not whether it exists. We havent got the theory bit right yet but the evidence shows that evolution is correct and we've just got to find the correct theory which fits.

"we have a model that describes gravity (to the best of our 5 human senses)"
The current model of gravity hasnt been developed using all 5 senses of course - only sight.
The current model of gravity might be wrong. In fact because of relativity it does mean newtons gravitational equations get more incorrect as the objects are further apart.
Still, we dont expect gravity to be disproved. We know it exists.
What you need to know is the difference between the certainty of a processes existance and the certainy of the theory of that process. The theory explains how it works not whether it exists.

The same is true with evolution as with gravity - we know it is certain from evidence and observation using our eyes. These observations prove evolution exists. We derive theories of evolution from these observations. These theories only describe how evolution may work and may not be the correct ones - may be wrong but it doesnt make evolution wrong. Just means we got the wrong model this time.

We know Gravity exists for certain but not how it works.
We know evolution exists for certain but not how it works.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I'm always amazed at how little you know (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:41:39 PM PST
It doesnt matter what the subject is, you're the loudest, most convinced poster with the least amount of useful knowledge.
"If science cannot describe how it works, it doesnt exist as far as science is concerned."
This is a typical misconception of the anti-evolutionists.

No, you understand as little English as you do science.

Because the theory of evolution has changed drastically thoughout history they site this as being reason why evolution is flawed and doesnt actually exist.

In "if science cannot describe how it works, it doesnt exist as far as science is concerned.", it doesnt matter that the description changes, all that matters is that it can be described. For example, ghosts cannot be described by science because there isnt any empirical evidence to wrap a model around.

Thats rubbish - just because we dont know how something works doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Of course! Ghosts may very well exist, but not as far as science is concerned.

*snip*

What's the point of talking with you? You dont understand science, you are a member of the cult of the scientist. You're just repeating slogans and slogans communicate absolutely no critical insight.


hang on (none / 0) (#45)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:17:32 PM PST
"it doesnt matter that the description changes, all that matters is that it can be described." Yes I agree. But you have to prove something exists before you can attempt to show how it works.

Would you argue that grass doesnt exist until we find out exactly how it works? of course not. The same is true of evolution - there is masses of physical evidence supporting evolution as fact but we just dont understand the theory of it yet. On the other hand there is little physical evidence of ghosts and so we have yet to prove them as fact. Theres no point going on to try to explain ghosts if we havent even established if they exist yet.

Im not talking crap - read this site and also this site. These sites tell you the real scientific position concerning evolution - that evolution is fact and also a theory. The fact includes all the evidence to prove that evolution exists. The theory is how it works.

What many people think is that Darwin suddenly dreamed up this "evolution" idea on the spot one day and that since then we have been simply trying to prove it true.

In reality Darwin proved that evolution is fact by collecting masses of evidence and performing lots of observations. Since then we have always known that evolution exists but have simply been trying to understand HOW evolution works..so far with slow success. Thats why the theory has changed so much over time - its not because evolution is wrong, its because previous theories were wrong (like the current one).

Theres no point for scientists to perform experiments to prove evolution is fact as this is a waste of time like trying to prove grass exists. We already know it does.

Where many creationist websites slip up is in the title. They say "evolution theory is wrong". Many scientists agree that the current theory of evolution is wrong. I think what the site owners wanted it to say is "evolution is wrong". Which very few credible scientists agree on.

I wont blame you for the: "What's the point of talking with you? You dont understand science" because ive also jumped into arguments (notably the one about astrology) with a poor knowledge of the subject and made an ass of myself too.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

it isnt your fault, but you are hopeless (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:34:12 AM PST
Would you argue that grass doesnt exist until we find out exactly how it works? of course not.

I dont have a theory of grass.

The same is true of evolution - there is masses of physical evidence supporting evolution as fact but we just dont understand the theory of it yet.

No, make sense. If you "do not understand the theory of [evolution]", then you cannot insist it is fact. What you mean to say is that there are facts which can be "explained" using evolution, not that evolution itself -- an idea, a theory which exists only in mind idea -- is a fact. Science is a funny thing. Theories depend on the questions you ask of reality. If you ask water about it's liquidity, you will not solve the apparently intractable problem of six sided symmetry found in snowflakes; if you ask water about crystallization, a picture of the H2O molecule will not explain fluids or steam. And so it goes; none of these things explain water, they simply answer a question we have of water according to an ideological fabrication called a model.

The problem with evolution is that it is so orthodox, it's assumptions have so permeated scientific and non-scientific culure alike (and science is a form of culture, not "objectivity") that it has become impossible to think about and examine critically. It may easily turn out that evolution is scrapped once we ask the right set of questions. Think about the profound differences between Newton's gravity and relativity; it doesnt matter that a blind application of Newton's mathematics is "good enough", the theory that led to those mathematics is as different from relativity as evolution is from creationism.

Natural selection and evolution are very difficult ideas which popular science has fucked beyond all recognition (eg, natural selection doesnt "design" things for the good of the species as a whole.) That isnt hard to do as evolution is begining to rival cosmology's theological flavor. The vanguard of evolutionary biologists think of evolution as an algorithm. Since algorithms do nothing more than manipulate information, taking one kind of information and turning into another kind, the the information that was eventually transmuted into today's biosphere had to exist in some form prior to today--and some of the information, clearly, was "outside" of natural selection itself in the sense of being in the environment.

In other words, evolution is nothing but good old fashioned pan-theism. And believe me, I too can coerce mathematics into "describing" the pigs living out of your belly button.


you sound like you know what you are talking about (none / 0) (#96)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:03:54 PM PST
but you are wrong on this fact.

You mentioned correctly that Natural selection and evolution are very difficult but you then said "which popular science has fucked beyond all recognition". No, its newspapers and ignorant people who mix natural selection and evolution up.

I have heard lots of people use the speckled/unspeckled moth observation as evidence for evolution even though it only confirms natural selection.

"No, make sense. If you "do not understand the theory of [evolution]", then you cannot insist it is fact"
Christ, how many times do I have to say it:
Evolution theory is completely different from Evolution fact. We KNOW evolution exists - Fact, no question. Just like we know gravity exists.
Evolution fact is that animals have grown in complexity over time and developed advantages over time. Evolution fact is that every animal has an ansestor which is almost identical. Scientists dont doubt any of this.

But scientists do doubt evolution THEORY. We know evolution exists as FACT but not how it works yet.
Just because we dont know how it works (the THEORY) doesnt mean you can argue that the FACT doesnt exist.
Scientists wouldnt be trying to work out how evolution works if they werent even sure if it existed.

Evolution will never be scrapped. Thats like saying that Gravity may be scrapped. Of course neither wont - they cant just disapear tommorow.
Sure the THEORIES of how gravity and evolution work may be scrapped but not the FACT that they both exist.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

this isnt that difficult (none / 0) (#105)
by venalcolony on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:38:33 PM PST
Christ, how many times do I have to say it: Evolution theory is completely different from Evolution fact.

That's right, there is such a thing as a theory of evolution, there is no such thing as "evolution fact". We KNOW evolution exists - Fact, no question.

No, we have a theory we call evolution that explains certain but by no means all facts according to a model which interprets those facts as behaving in an "evolution like" manner.

Please send me a sample of "evolution fact". I am also prepared to accept a sample of an instrument registering this "evolution fact." My only requirement is that your sample of "evolution fact" appeals for its existence to one of my 5 senses and not my faculties of rational thought. I have five senses so you can mail me its smell, or how it looks, or how it feels, or how it sounds, or how it tastes.


---
The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

 
CONCENTRATE!! (none / 0) (#130)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:29:59 PM PST
Evolution will never be scrapped. Thats like saying that Gravity may be scrapped.

How do you know this? When you say gravity will never be scrapped you mean "mass attracts mass" is a constant of the universe[1]. However, 'attract' doesnt exist; the notion of gravity as an attractive force is challenged by such theories of general relativity and tensors. Similiarly, when you say evolution will never be scrapped you mean "life is diverse and interconnected". The mechanism for that diversity and connectedness doesnt have to be evolution any more than gravity has to be force at a distance.


 
those sites are an exercise in khun's orthodoxy (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:05:53 PM PST
Im not talking crap - read this site and also this site.

Those sites are full of shit. Evolution as fact cannot be determined by a survey of naive questions answered by appealing to arguments whose starting premises are evolution.

Duh.

It is very difficult to disentagle the assumptions of natural selection in the answers because we have been conditioned to believe in them as items of logic. This is also why you sound so circular in your replies.

And the difficult questions which seek to uncover the "just so" flavor of evolution are not answered convincingly at all. If their explanation why natural selection isnt a tautology makes "sense" to you, you have been brainwashed beyond redemption.


 
Excatly Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#50)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:49:42 PM PST
Ghosts may very well exist, but not as far as science is concerned.

I could not have said it better. This is what seperates the quack scientists, like PotatoError, from the real ones. Real scientists dont always use the so called scientific method. Many good scientists will try very hard to first prove their methods using some other method. The scientific method is used as a last resort. Science cannot prove how something so complicated as an eye could be created by evolution, so why can science prove the existance of something so small, like an atom?

One good example I give my undergrads: scientists cannot prove that god does not exist. No matter what tools they use, they cannot rule out the existance of god. This casts a serious doubt on the rest of science's "facts". But the bible clealy provides ample evidence for the existance of god. The fact that our history is filled with texts about a supreme being obviously leads to a near certian fact that at least some form of god exists. Scientists, who are trained in the use of tools and math often overlook this major finding in their theories. This leave opening for other scientists to make headway: christian scientists, who have made much progress proving the existance of god through means such as I have given.

Clearly, the scientific method is flawed. It cannot prove the existance of god through the means of math and tools. Instead, we need a new breed of scientist, one who is not afraid of other methods of inquery.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

umm (none / 0) (#54)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:24:20 PM PST
"scientists cannot prove that god does not exist" of course not. Neither can I prove that Onomo, the Cheese king of the Moon doesnt exist. I honestly cannot think of any way to prove that he doesnt. Can anyone? no, well he must exist then.

"But the bible clealy provides ample evidence for the existance of god".
If I write a book which says "Onomo exists" can I really use it as evidence that he does?

Of course your new age liberal scientists will have great fun trying to convince the world that Onomo, the cheese king of the Moon does exist. your first piece of evidence no doubt will be that noone can prove he doesnt exist.

"The fact that our history is filled with texts about a supreme being obviously leads to a near certian fact that at least some form of god exists."
Or that its human nature to attempt to explain the unexplained by inventing superpowerful beings. The sky and the ocean are tremendously terrorfying and awe inspiring things if you dont know how they work. No wonder countless civilisations have invented sun, moon, sky and ocean gods.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Sir, (none / 0) (#73)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:27:00 AM PST
The answer is yes, Onomo must exist somewhere. Have you ever read about quantum uncertanty? It is a law of physics that says that statistically, everything can happen. The universe is a big place my dear PotatoError. Onomo must exist somewhere in it. Why not on the moon - it's the simplist explination.

Uncertanty also states that God must exists. Clearly, in such a big universe, god must too exist somewhere. Using biblical techniques, christian scientists have known this for years. Other "mainstream" scientists have sadly not caugh up yet.

You must also remember, the bible was written by a human acting through the will of god. This basically means that god wrote it, the person was mearly dictating, much like my cute, naked typists. Do my typists imbellish what I say? Not the least! They know if they mis-type what I say, it's no nookie for them. Same idea with the person who wrote the bible - if he mis-wrote the will of god, then he would go to hell. What more evidance do you need? I gan give plenty more evidance of the existance of god.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

sir (none / 0) (#74)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 08:46:53 AM PST
There are 2 times that science seems to ignore things that may be:

1) When statements have such a near-zero probabiliy of being true that its not worth considering the possibility. Onomo sure must exist somewhere if the universe was infinite. Unfortunately it isnt so Onomo MAY exist somewhere but the possiblility is so near-zero that he exists though that its not worth considering. If we considered every possibility regardless of the changes of it we would be doing it for eternity.

2) When statements seem reasonable and do fit but have no evidence. These can be argued to have a high enough probability of being true as the current theories. But because they cant be proved or disproved there is little point considering them more than fanciful diversions.
For example the possibility that reality doesnt exist and everything we see is just an illusion could be true. Its also possible that humans and animals were put here on earth by aliens - destroying the evolution and the creationist theories. We cant say these it have a "low probability" of being true because they fit as well as the current standing theories. But neither can we bother to consider them as with the "reality doesnt exist" argument, for example, we cant ever disprove it. So there's no point testing or considering it. We can only do what is in our physical capabilities.
Science doesnt simply make up stories which seem to fit reality. Instead it finds various laws or rules and then tests them on other similar cases to prove or disprove it. When a new part of reality is being tested and two already calculated rules come together go give us the solution to the new problem, then the probability
of these rules being truth become more solid.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Madam (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:27:20 PM PST
Science doesnt simply make up stories which seem to fit reality.

That is precisely what science does.


hi (none / 0) (#122)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:40:12 PM PST
>>Science doesnt simply make up stories which
>>seem to fit reality.

>That is precisely what science does.

and religion too :)

In fact everything is just stories.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I invoke Coward's Bludgeon (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:06:29 PM PST
It's like Occam's Razor only much more convincing. It goes like this: I wont burn in hell for my lack of faith in science.


But... (2.50 / 2) (#141)
by PotatoError on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 07:01:54 AM PST
if there is an afterlife I will actually spend the entire time laughing at the ridiculous nature of the gods universe. That they, he, she or it spent so much effort just to sort us humans into groups of good and evil.
I will point out to god the many sorting algorithms that would have got the whole process over in a few seconds rather than a few billion years.

As for Good and Evil and Sin:

Many religious people will state that if a child is killed, they automatically go to heaven because they performed no sins.
So if I murdered hitler when he was just a baby he would have gone to heaven? What does that say for the idea that people are born good or evil.

Everyone would say I would go to hell for killing babies but arent I saving thousands of souls which might otherwise end up in hell? therefore arent I sacrificing my own salvation for others. Therefore shouldnt I go to heaven too?

Get this too: If a child was abandoned on a desert island at birth then he would spend his whole life basically sinless as he wouldnt be able to do such things as steal or murder from lack of ability to do so. He would go to heaven.
Maybe we should dump all our children on desert islands. Must be what god wants if he wants us to be sinless.

But of course, if the same child was born in a violent urban neighbourhood instead, the likelyhood is that he would perfom multiple sins in his lifetime and go to hell.

So I argue that its not the person that is born good or evil but the environment around that person that influences good or evil in them. This is common sense and only a religious die-hard supporter would claim otherwise.
If its the environment which influences people to be good or evil then people have little choice of deciding whether they are good or evil themselves.

A nice example of this is: Everyone has their limits.
Anyone is capable of murder. All it takes is the right circumstances. This means that anyone is capable of sin. That circumstances dictate whether someone goes to hell or heaven ruins the argument that god will judge us. After all if circumstances, not choice, leads someone to sin how can it be their fault?

Im not suggesting abandoning responsibility for actions and punishment as we need these in big quantity for society to function correctly. But still we must also know the truth even if its not practical to incorperate the truth into everyday life.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

LOL (none / 0) (#153)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:49:17 PM PST
"I will point out to god the many sorting algorithms that would have got the whole process over in a few seconds rather than a few billion years."

ROFLMAO




 
Scientific Method (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:14:24 AM PST
I don't see what this diatribe against the scientific method is all about. It is a scientific teqhnique rather than an article of faith. It is generally held, by the scientific community, that in order to be scientific you must follow the scientific method.

You are right, scientists cannot disprove the excistence of the God you are so certain of (and, incidentally, I am also) but neither can they disprove it. The theory is unfalsifible, just as astrology is, and as such is left firmly alone by reputable scientists. You may make as many theories as you like but unless you follow the scientific method they are not scientific and as such will not be held with a great deal of respect by scientist (those mos qualified to make theories)

________
Cuichulain


"unfalsifiable" (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:23:39 PM PST
The theory is unfalsifible, just as astrology is, and as such is left firmly alone by reputable scientists.

Yes, yes, but every scientific theory is unfalsifiable if you go back far enough into the assumptions that build up to the theory. For example, there is absolutely no justification for causality, and even less for the geek's faith in their beloved occam's razor. Actually, while there might be philosophical justification for causality, there isnt any for occam's razor (no more than there is for talking dogs, say.) There are two other problems with reputable scientists testing "alternative" theories: (1) it isnt an alternative theory, it is a misrepresentation of the prevailing orthodoxy; (2) reputable scientists condition and interpret results according to a set of orthodox understandings.


Yes, but... (none / 0) (#113)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:11:52 PM PST
"every scientific theory is unfalsifiable if you go back far enough into the assumptions that build up to the theory"
Now you're getting into the 'There is no way of knowing anything' frame of mind.

This is why we have axioms which, thanks to replying to another post, I have just looked up (so if I'm wrong, tell me). Axioms are statements that are assumed to be true. They are, if you trace it back far enough, the basis of every theory.

Once again neither Occam's razor nor the scientific method are articles of faith. They are merely how we determine whether something is scientific or not.

Some scientists are certainly conditioned. That's why techniques such as double-blind tests are used. But equally certainly at least one scientist will arive soon who isn't, like Copernicus, who changes the generally accepted nature of science

__________
Cuichulain


When you assume you make and ass of u and me. (none / 0) (#133)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:11:39 PM PST
Now you're getting into the 'There is no way of knowing anything' frame of mind.

Nope. He has, by appropriate reasoning, reached a conclusion you simply want to declare unacceptable out of hand, and are using a misrepresentationt to do so. Questioning bad accounts of knowledge doesn't imply rejecting the possibility of having knowledge.

This is why we have axioms which, thanks to replying to another post, I have just looked up (so if I'm wrong, tell me). Axioms are statements that are assumed to be true. They are, if you trace it back far enough, the basis of every theory.

Are you seriously expecting this to be somehow enlightening, without even attempting to explain what you could possibly mean by words such as "statement", "assumption", and "true"?

Once again neither Occam's razor nor the scientific method are articles of faith. They are merely how we determine whether something is scientific or not.

Then you have no business claiming science produces any sort of objectively privileged knowledge at all. You can merely say some sorts of knowledge are scientific, because they follow the cited principles.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Assumption is neccessary (none / 0) (#138)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 01:02:33 AM PST
He has, by appropriate reasoning, as you say, reached a conclusion that must be dismissed out of hand if we are to get anywhere in life.

Progress in science is made by making assumptions. If you didn't assume that the floor could take you weight you'd have to stand very still for fear of falling through. You make assumptions every second you live and act. You assume the air your breathing is not poisonous. Many people assume politicians have the populations best interests at heart, which is a larger assumption that any made by scientists.

Science is why you have everything you have now. Your computer, the clothes you stand up in, your ovely wristwatch. OK maybe your right, maybe science is not pure and absolute, in fact many scientists say it isn't for various reasons, but it works, and while it continues to work I'm quite happy to live with it and to pursue a career in it

__________
Cuichulain


Which is precisely my point. (none / 0) (#144)
by em on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 08:10:58 AM PST
He has, by appropriate reasoning, as you say, reached a conclusion that must be dismissed out of hand if we are to get anywhere in life.

Getting anywhere in life and establishing a solid, nonarbitrary foundations for science are opposite goals, which is precisely my point. Science can only "progress" because its practicioners are given the luxury of being shielded from the arbitrary nature of the standards by which their field generates knowledge. If scientists had to worry about such things such as constructive vs. classical proof in mathematics, non-contradiction vs. paraconsistency, or the material conditional vs. the relevant conditional, they wouldn't get very far.

Science is why you have everything you have now. Your computer, the clothes you stand up in, your ovely wristwatch.

Doesn't mean we understand it.

OK maybe your right, maybe science is not pure and absolute, in fact many scientists say it isn't for various reasons, but it works, and while it continues to work I'm quite happy to live with it and to pursue a career in it

There is no universal standard of utility which we can apply to judge whether science "works" or not.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
Even worse than how you describe it. (none / 0) (#134)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:25:24 PM PST
Yes, yes, but every scientific theory is unfalsifiable if you go back far enough into the assumptions that build up to the theory.

Heh, no need to do that. You can postulate additional entities that interact with the previously proposed ones, with no need to question the previous assumptions. "Oh, yeah, my theory about the blarge force makes the wrong predictions, but this means that there must be ANOTHER FORCE OUT THERE, the splarge force, that interacts with the blarge."

You can get even more creative: "The blarge-splarge interaction is under physical thresholds of measurability."

And still you are missing a fundamental problem which arises out of the way science is actually done: the evaluation of experiments always makes use of statistical techniques to assess the significance of individual measurements to the likelihood of the theory under test. Because, strictly speaking, since you never measure the same value twice, and since you hardly ever really measure the exact predicted value, you could naively argue that most experiments actually falsify the theories being tested.

Of course, scientists respond by saying that there are a variety of factors that interfere with the measurements, but that still they center around the predictions, as can be shown by statistical methods. Fine. But the claim that theories depending on observation can be falsified is destroyed. Statistics will tell you that some theories are much more likely to fit the sample than others, but to ask falsification out of statistics in the general case is too much.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
nonsense (none / 0) (#18)
by em on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 02:34:37 AM PST
Evolution is certain.

Nope. Evolution is a theory that is proposed in order to interpret a specific body of evidence. One whose collection was guided by the theory itself.

But the pieces of the puzzle tell us it is certain even if we cant figure out how yet.

You would flunk a philosophy of science course for a statement like this. "Certainty" doesn't figure in empirical science. The only knowledge that is taken to be certain is that of mathematics and logic-- but this because these "sciences" are matters of cultural convention more than anything else.

Like take the theory of gravity. We are certain that masses attract each other across space. We just dont understand how yet.

I don't think a physicist would be happy with your statement of this "certain" "fact".

For anti-evolutionists to say it doesnt exist because we cant show how it works is like them saying that gravity doesnt exist because we cant show how that works.

The law of gravity is supported by ample experimental evidence, which has been repeated time and time again. Very little of evolutionary theory's claims has been subject to such tests; in fact, plenty of evolutionary theory is simply untestable.

Anyway, in case you are not aware, I have shown evolutionary theory to be deeply flawed.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


no its true (none / 0) (#20)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:17:49 AM PST
"Nope. Evolution is a theory that is proposed in order to interpret a specific body of evidence. One whose collection was guided by the theory itself."
No, evolution theory is concerned with HOW evolution happened - we already know it did happen from all the evidence.

When I use the word certain I am saying it is certain beyond reasonable doubt - just like the fact that gravity exists is certain even if we dont know how it exists. Just like grass is green is certain. If you want to argue these points with philosophy you could question existance itself and our ability to percieve it - but this gets us nowhere as therefore no scientific or mathematical logic can ever be certain so its discarded by science and maths.

"I don't think a physicist would be happy with your statement of this "certain" "fact"."

Why not? Observe any two masses and they are attracted to each other. Its been shown in experiment and in indirect observation. Nothing so far has disproved or bought doubt to this. Sure, The gravitional equation isnt entirely accurate but this doesnt mean gravity might not exist. The question is HOW gravity happens - any physicist accepts that it does happen.

"The law of gravity is supported by ample experimental evidence, which has been repeated time and time again. Very little of evolutionary theory's claims has been subject to such tests; in fact, plenty of evolutionary theory is simply untestable."

Evolution HAS been supported by ample experimental evidence and observations. We know life started simple and get more complex. We know that every creature had a ansestor very similar to it. We know that new physical structure can suddenly be created through mutation. That evolution has occured is not doubted.
Whats doubted is HOW it occured.
The same is with gravity - the laws and experiments you are speaking of tell us that its there but they dont tell us HOW it works.
Thats where the theory side of both exists.

"plenty of evolutionary theory is simply untestable."
Same as plenty of gravitational theory.

What I really laugh about is your dismissale of natural selection in your article - which is NOT evolution. Natural selection is 100% proved in experiment and real life observations and we DO know how it works - it can be expressed as mathematical formula. We have witnessed it occuring in real life.

In fact you've mixed up Natural Selection and Evolution completely. Natural selection is the process where a structure which ALREADY EXISTS in a creature, emerges to dominate more than another through environmental factoring.
Whereas evolution is the actual emergance of NEW structure in creatures.

You also cant compare it with linguistics. Languages have actually become simplilar over time whereas on the wide scale life has become more complex through evolution. Therefore comparison is pointless.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

linguistics and evolution (none / 0) (#136)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:16:32 PM PST
What I really laugh about is your dismissale of natural selection in your article - which is NOT evolution. Natural selection is 100% proved in experiment and real life observations and we DO know how it works - it can be expressed as mathematical formula. We have witnessed it occuring in real life.

Strawman-- in fact, you here attribute to me essentially the opposite of what I argued. I argued Natural Selection is mathematically true, and mentioned that it has actually been observed to occur.

However, it is one thing to get dirty and actually do reproducible experiments, e.g. by sitting down somewhere in the woods and tabulating instances of birds eating dark and clear colored moths, and a whole 'nother thing to sit confortably on your desk and come up with just-so stories about hypothetical species that nobody has ever actually observed nor will ever observe.

You also cant compare it with linguistics. Languages have actually become simplilar [sic] over time whereas on the wide scale life has become more complex through evolution. Therefore comparison is pointless.

Do you mean "simpler" or "similar"? Do you mean that there are individual instances of languages becoming "simpilar" and that this is somehow significant, or that languages taken as a whole have become "simpilar" over time? Are you aware that evolutionists describe plenty of species as having "simplified" from earlier forms? (Or for that matter, that under the most strict interpretations of Natural Selection, an organism's fitness decreases as a function of functionally unmotivated complexity?)

In any case, you completely failed to understand the analogy between historical linguistics and evolutionary theory. The analogy is in methodology and the form of common ancestry arguments, not in the nature of the entities being related nor in the actual processes by which they are said to be related. Languages don't evolve by natural selection; they change (or spontaneously appear, in at least the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language, and according to some in pidgins and creoles in general) by a variety of processes: the classical Neogrammarian triumvirate of sound change, analogical change and borrowing in the case of genetic relationships; and newer proposals from creolistics like relexification, bioprograms, foreigner-directed speech, and other more recent (and controversial) proposals.

However, the way genetic relations between languages are argued is at heart the same as that found in evolutionary biology.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


OK (none / 0) (#142)
by PotatoError on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 07:24:21 AM PST
I appologise for getting the wrong end of the stick on your view on natural selection.

Yes languages have become simpilar over time. The original ones were really complex apparently - it kind of makes sense that humans would work towards a simpilar form of communication.

When I said life had got more complex over time I was talking in general that in the beginning there were simple multiple cell creatures but now we have elephants and humans and dogs and cats which are much more complex. I understand that evolution doesnt lead to more complex creatures created, just different ones which are supposed to be more superior than previous versions (even though we cant tell until they survive longer).

Its arguable that cockroaches are far superior to humans even though they "evolved" before us. THey sure were more superior to mammoths for example. Even though mammoths were more complex, this complexity didnt aid their survival ability.

As for humans, noone can say for sure that our primary trait - intelligence - really is a good ability to have in terms of survival. Noone knows (yet) if intelligence just leads to self-suicide of the species eventually once they develop the capacity to do so. This would explain why we cant find other intelligent life out there if intelligence is actually a bad thing to have.

Noone even knows if the "perfect" creature is complex at all. We might find out one day that the perfect type of creature (in the current environment) would be an unintelligent insect.

Im not pretending I know much about evolution (or philosophy). Im not presenting any complicated and deep stuff - because I dont know any complicated and deep stuff on either of those two topics.
This conversation is on a low enough level for just about anyone to contribute to - even me who only has a basic school textbook knowledge. If it was a real in-depth debate then I wouldnt attempt to enter it but it isnt, its just a grassroots "does evolution exist" debate.

I know there is some abstract philosophy which questions reality itself - that would ask "grass looks green...but is it?". I dont know what this philosophy is called at all because im not a philosopher but I know it exists and I know that science ignores it, not because its definitely wrong, but because thinking like that gets nowhere so you have to assume its wrong out of practibility. Ie science is based on an assumption.

"I'll just say that several Adequacy editors have top-notch postgraduate education."
By the various articles posted on computers I would guess non of them took computer science. Its a waster subject anyway though.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

languages and complexity (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by em on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 08:40:33 AM PST
Yes languages have become simpilar over time.

I assumed you would have noticed that I put a [sic] after the first instance of "simpilar", and used quotes around it ever after in my post. There is no such word in English. Do you mean "simpler" or "similar"?

Yes languages have become simpilar over time. The original ones were really complex apparently - it kind of makes sense that humans would work towards a simpilar form of communication.

The fact that something "makes sense" does not make it true. A major flaw in plenty of evolutionary theory, while we're on the topic.

There is no accepted metric by which we could judge two full blown languages (i.e. pidgings are excluded) and conclude that one is more complex than the other. The most recent such proposal (I, of course, limit myself to respectable proposals in the linguistic literature) is one by John McWhorter, who by proposing such a metric argues that creoles are simpler than other languages. And his argument is that this is so because creoles are younger, and that languages become more complex with time. However, very few people agree with McWhorter's overall conclusion. (Note that McWhorter believes that all speaker native languages meet the all of the functions of language; "simpler" means something like "lacking unnecessary complexity", not "less powerful/expressive" or anything of the sort.)

Historical linguistics proposes processes which add unmotivated complexity to languages over time (sound change), processes which reduce complexity (analogical change), and processes which can't be easily pigeonholed into either category (grammaticalization, lexical borrowing), all of which operate concurrently. To say any more than this,as you do, is dubious.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
Science is wrong (none / 0) (#19)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:57:28 AM PST
Your readings on gravity are apparently incomplete. We actually do know how objects of sufficient mass attract other objects. If you need it explained, I suggest you find a magnet and a piece of steel.

I'm sorry to inform you that evolution simply is not fact. You have to have a very self-serving definition of the word "fact" for this statement to appear truthful. Let me explain.

Evolution is a theory. Theories are not facts, they are merely proposed explanations for physical phenomena. This is the essential problem I have with the theory of evolution. It is not a discussion of a physical phenomenon. It is a discussion of an ontological phenomenon. Scientific theories have no place in this discussion. How can they possibly explain how things began, when the beginning of things is the beginning of science? The beginning of things can, of course, only be explained using terms and concepts that are not products of the beginning of things.

In order to "prove" the theory of evolution, scientists deliberately ignore numerous facts of nature. Did you know, for instance, that a giraffe's neck contains a valve to limit the flow of blood when the head is lower than the heart? Without this valve, the giraffe could not possibly survive, since every time it tried to drink, it's head would literally explode. Evolution has no explanation for how giraffes suddenly, during their "evolution", acquired this unique valve. If the theory of evolution is correct, there should be no giraffes, as they would all have died out years ago.

Perhaps you've heard of the deep sea fish that live at incredible depths, under enormous water pressure. Can you explain to me how these creatures reached these depths? They cannot have swum down so far before evolving bodies that could withstand the pressure. They must have developed these bodies before swimming down to the bottom of the ocean. Science has no explanation for how they could have done this.

Placing your faith in lies like evolution, simply because they are told to you by men in white lab coats in your high schools, is stupidity of the most depraved kind. The evidence against evolution is so clear in the world around you, that belief in the scientists' heresy can only be regarded as wilful ignorance.


Sir (none / 0) (#23)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:52:52 AM PST
Gravity has nothing to do with magnets.

"Evolution is a theory". "Theories are not facts"
Thats true - the current theory of evolution is not fact. But the "theory of evolution" is just that - it describes a theory of HOW evolution works, it doesnt describe whether evolution exists. No decent scientist doubts evolution exists. Theres too much evidence for it - evidence I will supply if you ask for it. Arguably more evidence than for gravity.

"Evolution has no explanation for how giraffes suddenly, during their "evolution", acquired this unique valve"
Nope the current THEORY doesnt show how this happens and the current THEORY may be wrong.
But evolution definitely did happen - we just need to find the correct theory that explains such things as you giraffe problem here. You can know something exists without having a theory for why it does. You believe in gravity dont you? would you be suprised to know that science doesnt yet understand what causes it - ie has no good theory on it.

"Can you explain to me how these creatures reached these depths? They cannot have swum down so far before evolving bodies that could withstand the pressure"
That actually gives credance TO evolution and that life originated from the oceans. You see, the only way they could have got there is if they have always lived down there. IE they evolved from simple organisms which CAN survive those depths. They never needed to swim down so far because they were always there.

"Placing your faith in lies like evolution, simply because they are told to you by men in white lab coats in your high schools, is stupidity of the most depraved kind"
Im basing my belief on evidence and fact and observations and experiments done to this date.
I agree that current evolution theory is probably wrong.

What do you believe in then?

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Buy a newer science manual. (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:34:38 PM PST
If you do, then you won't make the embarrasssing beginner's mistake of saying "Gravity has nothing to do with magnets". Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with the magnets, man!

You see, believers in the Grand Unified Theory think that there is a central connection between strong force, weak force, gravitational force and electromagnetic force. "One force to rule them all", if you like.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

The grand unified theory is a pipe dream (none / 0) (#55)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:27:42 PM PST
Yea everyone questions something so established as evolution doesnt exist then you try and use the grand unified theory as evidence for gravity being something to do with magnets.

The grand unified theory doesnt even exist yet.
Gravitational force is the only force not to be quanitfied yet by scientists. We dont even understand how gravity works yet. Noone ever found no gravitrons.

Even if grand unified theory was found and proved tommorow it would still make gravity like magnets as gravity is like electicity. In that yes, it would have something to do with magnets but not everything to do with them as in magnets are the way it works.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
This is what I despise about science groupies (none / 0) (#39)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 02:04:12 PM PST
Real scientists, such as Dr Cortez, will never claim to be "right" about anything. Every fact in science is subject to dispute. The science groupies, on the other hand, constantly change their version of the facts to avoid addressing the possibility that their entire world view might be a blasphemous farce. Stop shifting the goalposts about, and admit that the evidence I've supplied against evolution easily outweighs all the imaginary evidence you keep alluding to.


you never supplied no evidence (none / 0) (#47)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:30:56 PM PST
what evidence did you supply against evolution?
You only supplied evidence against the THEORY of evolution.

You said "Evolution is a theory. Theories are not facts".
Evolution IS a fact. Go to a search engine now and type in "Evolution theory fact" and you will find that there are two parts to evolution. That it exists is held as FACT. But how it works is the THEORY.
If you dont have any knowledge on the subject then dont bother to make stuff up.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

So where did you get your Phd in stupidity? (none / 0) (#148)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 03:31:48 PM PST
By your command to "Go to a search engine" one would think you had ever actually read anything about evolution. First off, I'd just like to say this is from memory and so is likely to be spotty. Its from previous discussion's I've had about evolution and some brief reading. Either way, in just a few short paragraphs I aim to show you how moronic you are. Hopefully this will encourage you to stop posting this pseudo-scientific bullshit of yours and maybe actually return to your science classes.

Evolution consists of two parts. Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution, small intergenerational changes within a species, has been observed. Macroevolution, formation of new species from older species over a large period of time, has never been observed.

Now, Microevolution is fairly obvious. If two people who are tall and come from tall familes have babies it is fairly logical to assume they will have tall children. In wild animals the process of natural selection favours those animals which have particular traits. If a particular species of bird eats nuts then only those birds with the hardest beaks that can crack open said nuts will survive. This has been observed.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, has never been observed. It would take thousands of years to properly test it as it claims that over such a timeframe wholly new species will emerge to fill up ecological niches.

From the context of your posts I assume your are talking about Macroevolution. Your ambiguity leads me to believe you havnt bothered to do even the slightest reading on the subject, and most layfolk mean "Macroevolution" when they talk about evolution. As Macroevolution has never been observed happening, how can it be a "FACT"? I think you'll find the idea that Macroevolution happens is an axiom for evolutionary biologists, wether or not it happens isnt up for debate as far as they are concerned. If you cant distinguish between an axiom and a fact then please dont bother returning to that science class, you'll only be causing your teacher needless trouble.

--
Nick
If you dont have any knowledge on the subject then dont bother to make stuff up.


 
Gravity and Magnets (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by eMan on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:20:04 PM PST
Gravity has nothing to do with magnets.

PotatoError, I usually agree with most of your posts, but you're making a fundamental scientific mistake here. You see, gravity has a great deal to do with magnets. In fact, gravity is just a name for the most common phenomena of the magnetic force.

Do you know why things fall to the ground? Because of Earth's magnetic field. If I throw an apple in the air, the Earth's magnetic field and the apple's magnetic field will interact, and the apple will fall downwards. This is an example of the attractive magnetic force. The same phenomenon occurs on a cosmic scale: other galaxies are moving away from ours (as can be noted from the redshifted light) because their magnetic field is interacting with ours and pushing them away. This is the unattractive magnetic force.

Magnets are actually misnamed, because their magnetic force is no stronger than that of an apple. Actually, they are big collections of atomic nuclei that use the strong force to bind themselves to other nuclei of similar atomic mass. Since magnets are made of metal, they attract metal objects. Scientists are currently working on magnets made of plastic and apples.

If you have any more questions of a scientific nature, please do not hesitate to ask. I am here to help.


again, gravity is nothing to do with magnets (none / 0) (#49)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:48:02 PM PST
Gravitational force acts between any two masses.
Magnetic force acts between charged particles.

Any mass will exert an attracting force on another mass. That is the force of gravity.

The formula:

F = (G x M1 x M2)/ (D*D)

F is force in newtons
G is gravitational constant
M1 and M2 are the two masses in Kilograms
D is the distance between the two masses in metres

That means both masses exert the same magnitude of force on each other - that I exert the same force on the Earth as the Earth does on me.
Force also decreases by the square of the distance - ie the magnitude of the force falls faster as the objects are further separated.

It seems like magnetism but unlike a magnet there are no positive/negative charged particles doing the attracting. Neither has gravity been seen to repell objects. Noone can understand gravity - the formula above is an approximation of observations. Its not understood what causes it - its definitely not any form of particle or wave. It implies that every mass in the universe is connected to every other mass. Even s small piece of rock floating in space 100 billion light years away is exerting a small force on every one of us.
According to the theory anyway.






<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Provably false (none / 0) (#51)
by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:54:56 PM PST
If the equation you give is accurate, then science is contradicting itself. Photons are massless particles. Gravitational force on photons, according to the equation you give, is zero. Yet the path of light is diverted even in the presence of a relatively small mass, such as the Earth's sun. In the case of the fabled black holes, light is captured by the black hole mass. Explain this failure of your scientific "fact".


your right but it isnt false (none / 0) (#57)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:44:07 PM PST
yes your right about the photons. The equation isnt the entire theory though.
To explain photons passing stars they use einsteins relativity.
I dont have very good knowledge of relativity - all I know is that the star's mass is supposesed to curve space-time itself which in turn means the photons path changes regardless of its lack of mass.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

As a practicing Computer Scientist... (none / 0) (#64)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:50:02 AM PST
...I can assure you that your 'science' is no better than what astrology is accused of.

First you say you have some formula that explains how the universe works, but when confronted with counter evidence, you jettison this formula that had only recently meant so much to you, and then scrabble around for some other theory to explain away the contradiction. Nothing you assert can ever be disproven, because you will always pull some fresh theory out of thin air to banish all doubts.

Hence, your claims are unfalsifiable, and you are a mere flim-flam man, a purveyor of psuedoscience. Why isn't there a special Federal agency to protect the unsuspecting public from disinformation like yours?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Reminds me of the LFT, in a way (none / 0) (#65)
by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 01:10:54 AM PST
Why is it that so-called "rational" science, which was supposed to provide us with definite, objective answers, always results in a mindset so mangled that it does not realise that it is "shifting the goalposts", even when it is doing it?

There is no greater proof of the superiority of traditional, anti-scientific methods than the fact that they have not had to alter their claims one iota in several millenia. Science, far from offering us a definite understanding of our world, constantly shifts and changes, making a complete mockery of its own claim of universal knowlege.

There is so much in the world that science cannot hope to explain. Faith, love, the human soul -- scientists and aspiring scientists alike would benefit from a deeper study of these subjects. Instead, they pretend that these things do not exist, rather than admit that these are areas in which science is defeated.


But you forget (none / 0) (#70)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:13:15 AM PST
That people can denounce science in this age is just weird. If science hasnt worked what about all its success?
Take plastic as a prime example. We learnt through science how to make it, how it works and how to make different types in respect to strength and flexibility. Look around you now - so much (including your keyboard and mouse) are made of plastic. No anti-scientific methods could have produced plastic. The process required understanding of chemical reactions and molecular structures which im sure anti-scientific methods would always have denounced anyway.

Now take biology - just look at medicine, I dont think I have to say any more.

Go and take a look at a bridge. How do you think engineers ever managed to build giant bridges unlike our ansestors who didnt have science?
The laws of force and motion make up such huge bridges. When they collapse so doubt is shone on these laws. I dont see many bridges collapsing.

How on Earth do you think we got to the moon without physics? If the anti-scietific approach existed they would probably decide the moon was made of cheese or an illusion or something.

What about the cars you drive? The internal combustion engine is designed using chemistry. Just look at your engine of your car - they didnt exactly go "hmm lets just put metal together and pray".

This computer your using now, The radio you listen to, the TV you watch, the electricity in your house. The cooker you use, the microwave, the central heating system, the very fabric of your house itself, the windows, the light bulbs. And this is only stuff IN your house. Any non-scientific methods wouldnt have come up with these technologies.

Hey hang on - even religion cant explain faith, love and the human soul. Dont argue that this isnt the case - they cant explain the three in simpilar terms. Sure they can give descriptions but even science can go "love, faith and the human soul exists" and go on to tell us what they are (as theory) so they are on the same footing as religion. Religion makes no amazing revelations about them - only that they exist.
ANd actually love can be explained theoretically using biology, socialology and psycology. The most difficult emotion to understand has got to be EMBARASSMENT - go on think about how weird that one is. Embarassment is a higher level emotion developed by very social creatures, I doubt many other creatures on earth feel this emotion at all. But love on the other hand is evident in many mammals. What do you think makes male mammals choose a mate and then defend the female mammal for so long after mating? Its a simple instinctive emotion.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
On the contrary, sir... (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:29:28 AM PST
As far as I understand it faith, love and the human soul are among the areas where science does admit to defeat. Most scientists, except perhaps the most radical, consider these subjects to be beyond the scope of science and concern themselves with the mundane, the objective and the falsifiable.

Shifting the goalpost, as you say, is how science progreses. Little do people realise that the goalpost are being shifted down the field

_________
Cuichulain


agree in part (none / 0) (#91)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 11:28:24 AM PST
Come on. No one would have ever dreamed science could explain the stars and planets let alone come up with theories backed up with evidence about how the universe began.

Of course I agree that there is lots science cant prove yet or even attempt to prove. and of course
without science we would still be using sticks to fight each with which would have been a good thing.

Would people be convinced that human souls didnt exist if a high enough artifical intelligence was created by science that proved that conciousness is the product of physical laws rather than a supernatural substance?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
im a practising computer scientist too :) (none / 0) (#69)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 06:47:18 AM PST
"Nothing you assert can ever be disproven, because you will always pull some fresh theory out of thin air to banish all doubts"
Same as old religion huh?

Im only stating what the scientific community has discovered. After learning how it was proved that the big bang took place and of an expanding universe and learning the evidence and experiments done to prove evolution I have far less respect for people who denounce these without a knowledge of such experiments and observations.

I never said there was a formula which explained the universe. If you are talking about the gravitational equation then yes, even the scientific community know its inaccurate. Its only an approximation after all developed hundreds of years ago. General relativity adds new depth to gravitational theory but it doesnt change the whole theory.

The reason nothing I assert can be disproven is because according to the scientific process this attempt at disproving has - and is, going on all the time in the scientific community. If someone can disprove a theory solidly then a new one has to be made. You can disprove scientific theories - if a planet was found which didnt react to gravity then gravitational theory would be suddenly totally incorrect. Not that science would be upset - because any new knowledge leads to better understanding in the long term.

I would be very impressed if you actually did come up with a valid proof against the current theory of gravity.
Your not fighting me though - im just typing what the scientific community of this field (which doesnt include me) has discovered and how they discovered it because people on this post have been asking - like how lights path gets bent as it passes a star. Ive only given the current scientific explanation of that.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Progression (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:23:41 AM PST
When scientists jettison a theory, as you put it, they replace it with a more accurate one. In this way our understanding of the universe becomes more complete. As far as I am aware, astrology has done nothing to improve our understanding of the universe. I would be suprised if it had even benifted mankind in more than a random way.

Surely its better to discard a disproved theory and replace it than to defend your wrong theory to the death with screams of 'Well you can't prove it wrong' while ignoring the proof

________
Cuichulain


 
Buy a book on science (none / 0) (#68)
by iat on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:19:08 AM PST
And look up the difference between "magnetism" and "electrostatic attraction".

Please stop trying to look clever by quoting us the law of gravitation that you copied from your GCSE physics textbook, you're out of your depth here.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

whats your point? (none / 0) (#72)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:26:00 AM PST
look up the difference between "magnetism" and "electrostatic attraction".


When did I say they were the same thing?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

As I said... (none / 0) (#81)
by iat on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:21:54 AM PST
...buy yourself a book.

When did I say they were the same thing?

In your previous post, where you said:

It seems like magnetism but unlike a magnet there are no positive/negative charged particles doing the attracting.


Magnetism is not due to attraction between positive and negative charges.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

ok (none / 0) (#85)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:32:16 AM PST
I might be wrong. Or at least im confused.

What is magnetism then?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Actually (none / 0) (#157)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 03:05:22 AM PST
I would like Mr. Wiz to explain to me what magnetism is also. Since as he states there are no positive and negative charges, what is creating the polarity, and what is creating the flux.

Come to me Oh mindless one.


 
To IAT the Mindless Twit (none / 0) (#158)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 03:12:54 AM PST
It is called Electromagnetism, and stop bashing people simpleton. Just becasue spuds went beyond your comprehension, does not give you the right to "bash" him.

If you cannot explain it yourself, shut up.


 
Evolution is not certain... (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:03:53 AM PST
No scientific theory is certain by defintion. Evolution is scientifically accepted as a theory because it supports the observed facts accurately. However all it would need is one datum that does not support the theory and it would have to be discarded in favour of a new one that does supposrt the facts. This is the scientific method. Coupled with Ockham's Razor one concludeds that evolution is the best explanation as to how human beings came to be as we observe them. The alien theory may also be true, but it is not the simplest.

PS

A theory, to be held true, must also make accurate predictions. Predictions made by the theory of evolution are coming true. 'Coming' true because of the timescale evolution works on. Experiments instigated by Darwin have still not had sufficient time to yeild conclusive results


Is too. (none / 0) (#87)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:44:07 AM PST
Look heres a list of CERTAIN things:
Dinosaurs existed, Gravity exists, Evolution exists, Light exists, Humans exist, I exist, You exist.

The only way to argue is if you are using some philosophy where we doubt reality itself.
If we did that, we wouldnt get very far in life at all, so we just have to get used to accepting a large number of things are certain even though we can never be absolutely sure.

Evolution is not doubted by science. It has been proved to be certain - proved to be as certain as humans can be about something.
What the real debate is on, is "evolution theory" - this isnt concerned with whether evolution exists - because we already know it does. Evolution theory is concerned with how evolution works - ie the mechanics of the evolutionary process.

When scientists argue over evolution theory it doesnt mean the idea of evolution is shaky. It just means that scientists have yet to agree on how evolution works. All of them agree that evolution exists.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

A technicality, but significant (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:49:03 AM PST
None of the things you listed are certain

We merely assume they are true until evidence to the contrary become apparent.

Evolution is assumed to be an accurate model and, as far as I know (I am doing a biology degree) the mechanisms of evolution are held to be true. There is even evidence to support the mechanisms

_________
Cuichulain


 
Sensory input hugely underdetermines our theories (none / 0) (#131)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:33:11 PM PST
Hell, sensory input underdetermines even our basic perception. That said, let's looks at what you have said.

Look heres a list of CERTAIN things: Dinosaurs existed, Gravity exists, Evolution exists, Light exists, Humans exist, I exist, You exist.

Have you ever perceived a dinosaur? Have you ever directly perceived gravity as a unified whole (as opposed to individual events in which you attribute a causal force to it)? And so on.

The fact is that you confuse theory with reality. What we call "dinosaurs" are at heart a hypothetical construct designed to explain certain percepts repeatedly reported all around the world: fossils. We have a certain degree of confidence that certain rocks exist which have markings on them which resemble living beings, but which don't match with any known living species. Evolutionists account for the markings by hypothesizing creatures, which nobody has ever witnessed, that are supposed to have lived long ago, and whose corpses are the source of the markings. This is far from "certain" knowledge.

Same goes for "gravity". There is a gulf between what is actually observed-- the movement of celestial and terrestial objects-- and the hypothetical construct to which it is attributed.

By calling theoretical constructs "certain", you are not only failing to recognize this gulf, but you are also according observation reports a certainty that they don't have themselves. For roughly the same argument as I make of observation and theory can be made about sensation and perception-- and in fact is a central idea of contemporary psychology. There is a gap between the stimulus that our sense organs receive and our perception.

The only way to argue is if you are using some philosophy where we doubt reality itself. If we did that, we wouldnt get very far in life at all, so we just have to get used to accepting a large number of things are certain even though we can never be absolutely sure.

Some advice is in order: you know much less about science and philosophy than you think, and you are arguing about it with some people who know much more than you do about either topic. As our FAQ warns, you would be very impressed if you knew who we really are. I'll just say that several Adequacy editors have top-notch postgraduate education.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Oh? (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 02:42:38 PM PST
Would it were to be so easy to explain this "top-notch postgraduate education" were a generous phallus not helpfully deposited in your grateful throat.


 
Evolution doesn't meet your own criteria. (none / 0) (#132)
by em on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:41:34 PM PST
However all it would need is one datum that does not support the theory and it would have to be discarded in favour of a new one that does supports the facts. This is the scientific method.

It is impossible to falsify the proposition that given a scarcity of resources necessary for reproduction, the inheritable factors that for functional reasons grant the organisms that possess them greater chances at the reproductive process will increase in frequency among a population in time.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
ahem (none / 0) (#104)
by jsm on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:28:11 PM PST
Evolution is certain. The evidence is all there (I will explain it if you ask).

Please note, that I didn't ask.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
The forces that shape our lives and our world (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by chloedancer on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:32:01 AM PST
It's well-documented that Nancy Reagan had a professional astrologer on payroll for seven years during her husband's stint as the leader of the free world; like it or not, our political landscape has been and continues to be shaped by this form of fortune-telling

Powerful and influential people have used astrology for their benefit throughout history (for example, J.P. Morgan, the Emperor Caligula, Queen Elizabeth I and Adolf Hitler), so why shouldn't it be included in any comprehensive academic cirriculum, just like social studies, political science and history?

Astrology even provides an explanation for why there is only one Michael Jordan and only one Bill Gates, despite the fact that literally thousands of individuals share the exact same time of birth... This explanation alone might save some hapless child from being plagued by issues of low self-esteem or feelings of inferiority -- the benefit of preventing such suffering simply cannot be discounted.

Some institutions of higher learning even offer the opportunity to pursue a degree in the subject, so why not introduce the subject as early as possible?

It is also believed that astrology has a potent impact beyond its effects on our individual lives; events that shape our world and even political systems fall under its powerful influence. In the timeperiod of late 1988 through 1995, the planet Uranus was in conjunction with the House of Capricorn, which is believed to have had causal implications with regard to the following events:

  • The PanAm 103 disaster occurred on December 21, 1988, which is cited as the beginning of the effects of this particular astrological phase.

  • A few months later the Tienamen Square massacre took place (June 4, 1989).

  • In November 1989 the Berlin wall fell, effectively signifying the end of communism in eastern Europe.

  • The old order continued to fall, giving rise to questions about the integrity of governmental institutions which became widespread in reaction to such events as the Waco disaster and the Oklahoma City bombing; and, finally,

  • Interest in technology also reached a pinnacle during this period when the Microsoft Windows operating system became viable because of advances in micro-chip technology [emphasis added to enhance the dramatic impact of this most ominous event].

    There you have it: Astrology can serve a practical purpose by providing a convenient explanation for all that is truly wrong in the world, and may also be invaluable with regard to learning to cope with evil as it exists.

    However, when it comes to prognostication, no one system is infallable. Even Dionne Warwick's so-called "Psychic Friends Network" with the finest astrologers available didn't predict their parent company's unexpected bankruptcy filing, after all.

    Truth be known, I'm thinking that simply teaching astrology as a manipulative technique isn't enough, really. As an individual with a gypsy heritage that cannot be denied, I'd suggest that palmistry and tarot card reading also be considered to create a more well-rounded and diverse curriculum, all things considered.


  • your joking right? (none / 0) (#32)
    by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:47:09 AM PST
    "I'd suggest that palmistry and tarot card reading also be considered to create a more well-rounded and diverse curriculum, all things considered."

    joking?

    Yes several world leaders have used astrology. Hitler really took astrology seriously to the dismay of his real military advisors. He would decide troop movements on the position of the planets with help from his professional astrologer. Well look what happened to him.

    Towadays we dont need that sort of rubbish. Politicians and the military no longer use astrology. The weather service doesnt use it either. Yes how much better the hurricane warnings would be for florida if they used an astrologer rather than saterlites.

    "In the timeperiod of late 1988 through 1995, the planet Uranus was in conjunction with the House of Capricorn"
    And your amazed that some big news happened in those 7 years? Find me 7 consequetive years where NO big news has happened. The things that happened arent even related by common topic.
    Tienamen Square was the break up of a demonstration. The berlin wall was the end of political separation of germany.
    Finally, as you said, Interest in technology became pinacle because *of advances in micro-chip technology* NOT because some planet was in a certain place.

    "Astrology even provides an explanation for why there is only one Michael Jordan and only one Bill Gates, despite the fact that literally thousands of individuals share the exact same time of birth"
    I cant believe a real astrologer posted that defense on the site you quoted. It actual undermines the authority of astrology rather than strengthening it.

    OK, we have a pair of twins. One grows up to become a rich and sucessful, the other poor and unsuccessful even though they are astrologically identical. The defense stated above as to why this can happen is to say that both twins made their own, different choices which changed their future.

    Well then, it just goes to show how much more powerful human choice is than the position of the planets. If human choice made their circumstances that different and astrology cant take it into account then it shows that a persons future is unpredictable by astrology. Therefore no matter how long you gaze at the stars you can never predict a persons life as you can never know the choices they will make.

    The only way astrology works is to agree with a deterministic future and not believe in free will.
    If two astrologically identical humans can choose two completely different decisions when faced with the same choice then the planets arent influencing them at all.
    <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

    You say po-tae-to, I say po-tah-to... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by chloedancer on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:24:23 PM PST
    For the record, I very much believe in free will and also in chaos theory. With regard to palmistry and tarot readings, both are acceptable as an alternate interpretation of potential possibilities, another option for interpreting circumstances or trends, if you will. Please don't confuse the two with actual clairvoyance because that is a different matter altogether.

    I respectfully suggest that you actually read the Hitler link before commenting on it.

    With regard to the seven-year period noted, I'd suggest that you're seeing the trees, but not the forest. While I don't deny that any other seven-year period examined might also include equally "significant" events, I do agree with the author's proposition that these particular events all fit into a general theme of "unrest and change in the balance of power worldwide", which is a fairly traditional interpretation of the Uranus/Capricorn convergence.

    Couldn't it also be true, then, that a change in technology may be rightfully be described as a "change in the balance of power"? The argument isn't that the positioning of the heavens actually caused these things to happen, but instead that the general conditions were provided that gave opportunity for these events to be made manifest. It's a subtle argument, but I' think you're cognitively capable of grasping it.

    (For what it's worth, I happen to agree with the conclusions drawn by the folks who researched and compared the effectiveness of Microsoft's Technical Support vs. that of the Psychic Friends Network. In times of need, why should one limit their options for resolving the problem at hand?)

    With regard to your "twins" scenario, I'd again suggest that you check out the link before commenting... First and foremost, children resulting from multiple births simply do not share the exactly the same time of birth -- no matter the birthing technique involved, they just don't leave the womb simultaneously. However, non-related individuals can actually be astrological twins, meaning that although they were born to separate mothers, they actually do share the exact same moment of birth. The article I've linked to suggests that free will does, indeed, apply, in that "The uniqueness of an individual is not just the person's astrological chart but the some total of every other choice ever made by that person." (By analogy, this also explains why children raised in the exact same environment can have completely different life paths, despite their having experienced the same influences and conditions during their formative years.)

    Human choice is always a factor, but given that choice, wouldn't you prefer to align your actions with the indications of the heavens to provide an optimal opportunity for success, or would you prefer to flail along without a clue? That, too, is its own choice.

    By the way, I'm a triple-Aries -- couldn't you tell? ;)


    pot-ahhh-tooo (none / 0) (#38)
    by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:48:27 PM PST
    Interesting.
    I see your point now. So while human choice can change a persons future by using astrology as a guideline the person can realise which choices are the best. That does work.

    I have to disagree a bit about the microsoft case. Ok they dont have a great track record but given another situation they could have found and fixed the problem instead of messing about pretending it wasnt their fault. The Psychic Friends Network might be more supporting but I would doubt they could utilise astrology to resolve software problems as effectively.

    "I'd suggest that you're seeing the trees, but not the forest"
    ...'cant see the forest, from the trees'..dont worry it just reminded me of a song.

    Yea I see your point about that now - they are connected quite obviously to unrest and change in the balance of power worldwide.

    "Couldn't it also be true, then, that a change in technology may be rightfully be described as a "change in the balance of power"?"
    again I cant argue.

    "but instead that the general conditions were provided that gave opportunity for these events to be made manifest"
    I see. So other events in other countries that were of a political unrest nature could have easily occured (were given the opportunity to occur) but they didnt happen simply because the influence in their case wasnt strong enough. I see how this works.

    I only have one problem with the birth senario. If its the case that twins are different because of a few seconds difference then how do astrologers know the exact second someone was born? I sure dont know the time of my birth down to the last second and if I wanted real astrological help I dont know how I would find that information out. Also what clock is being used?

    Apart from that I dont seem to have any arguments.







    <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

    Time, the Universe and Everything... (none / 0) (#80)
    by chloedancer on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:15:36 AM PST
    So other events in other countries that were of a political unrest nature could have easily occured...

    Events don't occur as a result of astrological influences; you don't quite see yet, I'm afraid, but you are very close, really. Events occur as a result of human action. Whether or not an event did or did not occur elsewhere is still a result of human choice, action or inaction. Astrology simply helps its practitioners to time their actions specifically to those windows of opportunity that are most likely to result in the highest level of success. As is true with any opportunity, one has to be aware that it exists before one can capitalize on it.

    I would suggest instead that it wasn't a case that "the influence in their case wasn't strong enough," but instead that these were people who were either unaware of the advantageous celestial conditions existing during that time (they missed the boat, so to speak), or they simply couldn't get it together to create unrest effectively (unlike a bunch of Gap-and-NIke-wearing, politically correct WTO protesters, I suppose). Had these hypothetical "others" been more well-versed in astrology or perhaps had they consulted a sage celestial advisor, their effectiveness quite likely could have been increased.

    Manipulation via astrology can be quite subversive, really. All the more reason why we should include it in our early educational curriculum -- if today's children become the adept practitioners of the future, they can better protect us from future threats, could they not? ("The stars say that it's a time when my enemy can be more effective; therefore, what can I do to best protect myself right now?") I hate to acknowledge this publically, but all I can say is maybe The Gipper was right, after all...

    If its the case that twins are different because of a few seconds difference then how do astrologers know the exact second someone was born?

    At present, most astrologers admittedly do not generate an individual's natal chart with more than the hour and minute of birth in consideration. While I am not a practicing astrologer, I am aware that there are instances when those few seconds/minutes can make a crucial difference. For example, my brother was born on the cusp of Cancer/Leo. Knowing this means that I have a distinct advantage -- for example, in circumstances where I need to win his support, I know that I can always appeal to his sense of pride and get the desired result (which would not be as effective a strategy if he were a true Cancer instead). Perhaps with more educational effort focused on astrology, standardization could be instituted and advances could be made which would enable us to increase the precision of its usefulness.

    Speaking of being reminded of lyrics...

    Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown,
    And things seem hard or tough,
    And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
    And you feel that you've had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough...

    Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
    And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
    It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
    Around the sun that is the source of all our power.
    Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
    Are moving at a million miles a day,
    In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
    Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way...


    To think that we're the only creatures on the planet who are somehow immune to the influence of the heavens is folly -- the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.


     
    Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:39:33 PM PST
    Astrology, the study of the cosmos and the sky, is a greatly expanding field. Just a few decades years ago, our atrologists where not sure of the existance of the big-bang. If you ask any astrologist today about the Big Bang, they would be willing to bet their live savings on it's existance. What you are talking about is mystisism, which is clearly not science, like astrology is. What I find amazing is that astronomers (who use the atrologists research to analyse occurances on our earth) can use such things as the big bang, and cosmic radiation to very accuratly predict future events.

    This is all the more evidence that astrology should be taught in todays public and private schools.


    --
    Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
    CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
    Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

     
    Do your research! (2.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 12:34:23 PM PST
    Before posting such misinformed articles as this, please do some research! When writing or posting an article about teaching astrology in the schools, make sure that you actually know the difference between astrology and astronomy! These are two radically different fields, and to have the word astronomy link to the site www.astrology.org is simply stupid. It entirely marginalizes what the author is saying, because it is apparent that the author doesn't understand the basics of the subject at hand. And who would take an author seriously, knowing that they know not the first thing about the topic?

    That said, using astronomy we have shown and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the ability to track planets and celestial objects. Astrology has shown us jack.

    Andeol




     
    Can we step back... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:41:12 PM PST
    And work out who is arguing for what?

    Hands up all those who don't agree with evolution! Also, what do you think happened instead?

    Also, I recognise that it is fundamentally impossible to know anything for a fact but can we assume it isn't for the purposes of the debate?

    Cards on the table, here. I think that evolution is the best way to describe how human beings came to be as we observe them now. This could happen with divine influence or without. I prefer to think with. Also, I recognise that this is only a theory (not the God bit) and that sooner or later it will be replaced with something more accurate. Until then I am happy to use this theory.

    __________
    Cuichulain

    As an addendum:

    Some people who have been thinking have mentioned, I seem to recall, valves in a giraffes neck. I'm not sure about this in particular but it has been shown that the human eye could have developed by evolution by computer modelling. Any change that exhibits a continous range of situations _can_ occur by evolution. For instance, the eye starts of as a piece of photo-receptive skin which incurs an evolutionary advantage. Soon it is widespread through the population. Then a mutant has a slightly superior proto-eye and the process repeats ad infintum. This mechanism is a possibly way that humans could have evolved and is accepted by many scientists. I must personally admit it sounds a little unlikely but the time period available is huge and I think the theory to be the best explanation.


    Our reasonable solution (none / 0) (#118)
    by jer on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:16:36 PM PST
    Sir, I am shocked and appalled.

    As a Christian parent, I try my best to raise my teenage children correctly. My wife and I have done our best to keep them from such sinful activities as rock and electronic music, television, "Hollywood" movies (unaffectionally known as smut-fests to my wife and I), and of course, sex and masturbation (handled through liberal usage of chastity belts).

    As a proud prodigy of the public education system, I started my children on the track to a High School diploma in our district long ago. However, when they reached 7th grade, I realized things were amiss. They began speaking of blasphemous and sinful ideas like Objectivism, Algebra, and of course, Evolution.

    My wife and I were shocked. Our innocent children are being corrupted by the same public school which brought us together in Holy Matrimony. We knew immediately that it was because of the dying moral values of America that such unholy ideas are now being taught in the common classroom. As a result, we pulled our children from their classes and begun to home school them. The results were astounding -- our eldest son is now working with his grandfather on his Tobacco farm, and stands to inherit the entire plantation. My only daughter, our second born, is now working on the fast-track to retail store management at the local Wal-Mart. And with a little patience and lots of Christian love, our third son is quickly losing any interest he had in the blasphemous ideas the school system corrupted on him.

    As parents and faithful readers of this fine Christian website, we must not let our children be corrupted by the evils of Evolution. The One True God's Word states that the world was created in seven days, and that man was created first, and highest, of all the inhabitants of the Earth, and given dominion to rule over all lower forms of life. These are the ideas our Children must learn in school. I even agree a bit with the poster of this article, the distinguished jsm. But I still hold my reservations -- if Astrology separates us from the teachings of Jesus, then it is no better than Evolution.

    As Christian parents, we must do our best to keep our children away from anything which would invariably separate them from God. As Americans, we must do everything we can to strengthen our bonds with Jesus.


    OMFG LOL!! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 29th, 2002 at 10:19:50 PM PST
    You rank up there with T Reginald Gibbons and his article "10 signs that your son is a hacker"!
    (be sure to flame it a couple 1000's times if ya havent already)

    LOL OMFG, you gotta be joking. You some Amish that got lost and stumbled on a comp?

    I find it ironic that you let your son work on a tabacco farm. You ever hear of lung cancer? I guess thats alright since killing people IS the christian way.(Inquisition).


    I strongly recommend you read the book Inheirt the Wind which makes a mockery of the 7 day creation theory and fundametalist thinking in general.

    and another thing:
    Astrology isnt taught in schools
    Astronomy is!
    But i guess references books are blasphemous to you since you dont know the difference between the two.

    Did you know that?:

    The Earth is the center of the universe!


    Uh-huh. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 11:01:48 AM PST
    Translation:

    "I am so freaked out by what you posted, jer, that I must now pull out every mean-spirited, insulting stereotype in the book (along with some completely irrelevant pro-hacker platitudes) to characterize your lifestyle and beliefs."

    Why don't you crawl back under your rock until you learn some manners, grammar rules and analytical skills?





    No (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 07:41:34 PM PST



     
    What did the stars predict before there were men? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 08:14:35 AM PST
    Nuff said.


    they predicted (none / 0) (#151)
    by nathan on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 11:04:49 AM PST
    The same things that philosophy claims, that music manifests, that literature addresses, and that science explores.

    Nathan
    --
    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

     
    Yowsah! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 10:50:45 AM PST
    Please don't go near a school! Ever!


     
    Astrology and Astronomy (none / 0) (#152)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 24th, 2002 at 07:15:04 AM PST
    Same thing, rules:
    1. look at stars
    2. try to work out what's going on.
    They just use different, equally valid, sets of rules. Why does anyone have a problem with that?
    Sometimes I think that our nationwide obesity is causing fat on the brain.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.