Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edtharan

  1. But, lets apply that to belief in God. Do you have irrefutable proof that God exists? You require it from science that there exists irrefutable proof, so if you want to avoid being a hypocrite, you must require it from God as well.
  2. I would point more to the Ultimatum Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game) than Prisoners Dilemma. Specifically the variations whit "tipping" (players can let others know what either of the players currently playing have done in the past). In these versions, what occurs is that moral behaviours ends up giving the players a better score in the long run, and, that punishing a player at your own expense is better for you in the long run too (as other players will realise that you will punish them for bad deals and so offer fair deals to you).
  3. To start with, there has been no discovery of "Shadow Matter". What they might be confused with is "Dark Matter", but this is matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force (and because light is electromagnetic, we can't see it). In fact, the only way Dark Matter can interact with us is through gravity, but if there was enough of it to effect you in some way, it would be detectable by other instruments (there are detectors so sensitive they can weigh an electron - which is much, much lighter than an atom and you would need the mass of several billion atoms to effect you). So,
  4. You did know I was talking about the process of evolution, which is not only biological evolution. I made it a point to talk about both Biological evolution and Algorithmic evolution in order to separate that I was talking about both separately. What I showed is that Algorithmic evolution is mathematically proven, but that Biological Evolution is just one instance of the algorithm. We look to the fossil record to see if traces process of algorithmic evolution is left in the fossil record. Even if the fossil record did not show any evidence of evolution, it would not make a difference t
  5. In computing an Image file is not a picture. You can have an Image file of a Hard Drive. This type of file is a copy of the data on the hard drive that retains the exact positions of the bits that make up the data. So an image is not the same as a picture (it is really an analogy).
  6. This would make God immoral. First of all, the commandments that God gives states that one should not bear false witness (that is lie). If God were to lie to us by creating a shroud that appears younger than it should be, then this would be bearing false witness, something that is explicitly forbidden. Now, there is the argument that God does not have to follow the ten commandments. However, the commandments are what is supposed to be moral right, and God is supposed to be moral perfect. So if the ten commandments are a moral code, then God would have to follow them. Also, if one is to
  7. Some species of bamboo are really fast growing (Some up to 1 metre per day): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo
  8. I can prove it is false really easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV_mapping This is the process where you take a 3d model and unwrap the mesh onto a 2D surface. This same process occurs when you wrap a 3d object with a 2d surface, such as someone's face wrapped by a shroud. The shroud of Turin shows a face as one would see it when looking at a 3D object (or an image of one such as a painting or photo) and not one one as it would appear mapped to a 2D shroud surface. Thus, this proves it is a fake as the image on the shroud is completely wrong for it to have been created from i
  9. Hence why prostitution is illegal in many places...
  10. Evolution can actually be mathematically proven as a process. Biological evolution (which is what we are really talking about here) is just one instance of the process of evolution. To put it simply, computers are mathematical machines. They are designed to operate only on mathematical processes. If a process is not mathematically true, then it can't operate on a computer (it is more complex than this, but this is essentially it in a simplified statement). Thus, if evolution is mathematically true, then it would be possible to write a computer program that performs evolutionary pro
  11. Edtharan

    Ether model

    The problem with Dark matter leading to "an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation" is that dark matter does not, by definition, interact with the electromagnetic fields. If it did, we could see it block or emit light. It would cause magnetic fields that accelerate charged particles which would in turn emit radiation. As we see none of these associated with dark matter, and by definition dark matter could not do this, then it can not lead to "an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation".
  12. Because we can prove and understand the process as a mathematical construct, we can use maths to analyse a particular even of evolution and then see if any other influences are acting on it other than what are contained in the mathematical model. No extra influences have been found, thus either they are too small to detect, or don't exist. If they are too small to detect, this means they are having a negligible effect on the process and can safely be ignored (in most circumstances - which is why scientists still look for them). IF they don't exist, then it is pointless to propose them.
  13. Evolution can be proven. It is a matter of mathematics. System Analysis is the analysis of algorithms. Algorithms are a proven generalisation of how algebra works, and algebra is the proven generalisation of how mathematics work. At each stage of this there are mathematical proofs to support the next level. What system analysis does is use the mathematics of algorithms to show one process is algorithmically identical to another. Thus one can take a process that occurs in the real world (such as the processing of forms) and turn it into a computer program by showing that the two are mat
  14. I think you have missed the point of my posts entirely. and this sort of proves it: My point is that this has been known for some time and is already being researched. So someone (Adams) publishing a paper on it is not going to be "revolutionary". Yes, he might have shown that the effects are more significant than they were first thought, but that is not a revolution. It also means that the research already under-way will continue as it has (although immunotherpy research might get more funding). Your argument is that science is unwilling to accept radical information. But all y
  15. The reason I included the parenthetical statement is in the acknowledgement that you can't show something to be certainly harmless. The primary statement is the idea, the parenthetical is the reality I acknowledge. As you argument in the previous post seemed to not include reference to that acknowledgement I made, I had to make it clearer and thus used it as the primary statement in my response (because it was in response to your post). I think you answered it in your post: "believed that". In other words, they didn't have any evidecne one way or the other, but that they assumed
  16. Many people think they just have 1 dream a night. This is wrong. You go through a dream cycle every 90 minutes or so (that is not precise and it varies between people, and between a persons dream cycles too). However, people don't think they have that many dreams a night because at best they only remember 1 (if that). Think how quickly you can forget a dream unless you really try to hold onto it (and even then you can forget it). Most people forget a dream within about 5 minutes of waking up. But think about that. If you forget a dream in about 5 minutes, then if you wake up 5 minutes
  17. When you look at biology from an information technology perspective, all DNA is, is a program. A program being a set of instructions carried out by a Turing Machine. The way that DNA is converted into proteins is a program. A sequence of 3 DNA letters forms a code that is translated by the ribosome into an amino acid which is joined to the growing protein. The way a Turing Machine works is that it translates one set of symbols into another set of symbols according to a pre-set list of instructions (a universal Turing machine is a bit more complex, but is essentially the same thing, but
  18. I am more familiar with bat evolution than bird or insect. Not that I am a biologist (or even a scientist), it is just that happened to read more about it. An interesting thing about Bat evolution is that they came from a shrew like creature. Shrews are small mammals that usually scurry around on the ground looking for insect and other invertebrates to eat. This doesn't mean that shrews are an ancestor of bats, but that bats has an ancestor that filled the same niche as shrews, and shrews probably had the same ancestor as well. If you look at the behaviour of modern shrews (and the
  19. If you re read my post, you will see I actually addressed this. The reason that there has to be resistance, even in the face of new data is: that that data might be wrong. This means that if someone claims new data that contradicts accepted theories, then that data had better not be the result of an error. The longer a theory has been accepted for, the more data supporting it there is. But if someone then produces new data that contradicts it, then there needs to be a lot of resistance because it is more likely to be an error (as it would have shown up earlier if really it was there).
  20. But, if they didn't know right form wrong, then how could they understand that it was wrong to eat from the trees? Without the knowledge of good and evil, it would be impossible to comprehend that you could be punished for doing something, because you could not know that it is wrong (and would not even know the meaning of punishment either).
  21. Strawman again. If you read my post I actually used the words "Less harmful". In other words you don't have to prove that it is "absolutely not harmful", just that it is less harmful, or (within accepted levels of harm - like people are willing to accept that level of risk - which is the point I have been making all along).
  22. Actually evolution can be framed into an algorithm (a mathematical process using functions). In this form evolution is provable. Biological evolution is just organic chemicals performing these evolution algorithms. Thus you can prove that biological evolution is true through proving algorithmic evolution is true and then demonstrating that biological systems undergo the processes of algorithmic evolution. Genetics is only essential to biological evolution. Biological evolution is just one application of algorithmic evolution. To prove algorithmic evolution, all you need to do is to p
  23. If you bother to do research, you will find that Dawkins bases his "yarns" (as you put them) on the results of scientific experiments and observation. He also puts references to these in his books so you can go and look them up yourself. What Dawkins is trying to do is condense all these thousands of studies into something most people can understand. I could post up a computer program that would prove that evolution works, but most people would not understand the programming language that I use. However, most people can understand a description of what the program did, so I would use t
  24. Umm... Wrong: http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 All these steps have been confirm in labs. The problem is not that we don't have any idea, it is that we have too many ideas so we aren't sure which one was the one that occurred.
  25. Ever heard of the appendix? Ever heard of the tail-bone? We all have them and they serve no purpose in us. However, they did have a purpose in our ancestor species, and thus are vestigial in us.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.