Acme

...

The ultimate implication is this: math is not real, it is a tool whose purpose is to manipulate the real through abstract imagination and calculation, but it isn't a part of reality so much as a photograph taken through an unreliable camera lens. To entertain the notion that math is objective is tantamount to declaring the infallibility of human perceptions despite being consciously aware of deep fallibilities and areas of incompatibility with reason.It is dangerous to hold that seeing makes it so.

You sure spend a lot of time delineating the characteristics of something that isn't real. Just because our perception has limitations does not mean we have no perceptions nor is a blurry photograph any less a photograph because of its shortcomings.

Interesting argument, will need to do further study. I did not have an opportunity to actually make an argument for Irreducibly Complexity of the cell, but my question was never answered, and I will rephrase it, you have kidneys because Genes in the cells of that region were turned on to build that structure, do you agree with that statement? each cell has a full copy of 21 chromosomes, excluding red blood cells, the question is did the Gene for the kidneys evolve or mutate to create an organ such as the Kidney? or did the kidney evolve and was then added to the Gene pool, hence written into our DNA? either way it turned out to be very beneficial, being a vital organ.

Evidence for evolution: development of our kidneys

 

...This bizarre formation of three successive kidneys, with the first not functioning at all and the first two degenerating completely, begs explanation. It doesn't make a lot of sense under a creationist hypothesis: why would a creator bestow the embryo with three kidneys, trashing the first two (one of which doesn't do anything) before making the final one? The explanation involves the fact that the first two kidneys resemble, in order, those of primitive aquatic vertebrates (lampreys and hagfish) and aquatic or semiaquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians): an evolutionary order. The explanation, then, is that we go through developmental stages that show organs resembling those of our ancestors. For we are, after all, descended from fish and amphibians (though cladists might argue with those terms).

 

Why do we still retain those early developmental forms? We're not sure, but many suspect that development is such an integrated process that it's easier for natural selection to remodel existing features than to form new ones de novo. The pronephric kidney, for example, may provide a key morphological or chemical stimulus for the formation of the mesonephric kidney, and the mesonephric for the metanephric kidney. So the first two kidneys appear in a transitory way to provide those stimuli. This doesn't always happen, of course: many features form without having to first reprise the ancestral condition of those features. Recapitulation is a phenomenon, not a law.

 

This ordering of developmental events that mimic those of our ancestors is not unique to the kidney: it also occurs, for example, in the way our blood vessels form, and Darwin gives other examples. One of my favorite examples, which I'll also teach about today, is the lanugo, the coat of hair that all human embryos develop and then shed about a month before birth (see my explanation here). The lanugo forms because we carry the genes for a full coat of hair, inherited from our primate ancestors. We briefly express those genes in utero, and at about the same relative time of development as do embryonic chimps (who dont lose the hair). ...

Can genes be turned on and off in cells?

Each cell expresses, or turns on, only a fraction of its genes. The rest of the genes are repressed, or turned off. The process of turning genes on and off is known as gene regulation. Gene regulation is an important part of normal development. Genes are turned on and off in different patterns during development to make a brain cell look and act different from a liver cell or a muscle cell, for example. Gene regulation also allows cells to react quickly to changes in their environments. Although we know that the regulation of genes is critical for life, this complex process is not yet fully understood.

It's not clear where you got that quote. Please give links for your citations.

Just because something is not fully understood does not mean it's not understood at all.

Note: I have quoted only a small portion of a lengthy article in accord with forum etiquette. This in no way excuses you from reading the whole article nor does it excuse you to dismiss the bit I quoted out of hand. Whether you think my evidence is good or not does not nullify the fact that I have actually presented evidence, and you are woefully short on presenting any evidence yourself.

While an interesting metaphor, I have to disagree. ...

... I think we should make them follow the rules like anyone else and let them post their "questions" if for no other reason so that non participants can see that creationism has no basis in reality. ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let the chips fall where they may.

...Since no one here is required to participate in a creationist debate short of having open the thread to see what it is about then quickly closing the thread, I am unsure why said person would object to others participating in the debate if they choose to do so.

 

...

I object for the reasons I have laid out. To restate and summarize, allowing creationists to soapbox on this site is tantamount to endorsing intellectual terrorism. Now if the decision is cast that that's an enjoyable thing, then so be it.

As a side note, while Ophiolite was reporting the thread in question to support it, I was reporting it to quash it.

...

No, I can't prove how an animal thinks but I can observe them and make deductions, guesses, and hypotheses. I can perform simple experiments or stage more complex observations. I don't know anything but I'm quite confident no one can prove any animal can "count".

Your confidence and lack of knowledge count for little to nothing in this discussion.

... There's no proof animals can even count.

 

...

I gave a reference in post #43 giving numerous examples of animals counting. You have either missed it or chosen to ignore it.

 

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

I don't mind. I like reading your posts.

 

Well I'm flattered I'm sure. My point though is that you suggested I not read the creationist posts and since I have no way to know if a post is creationist or not without reading them, your point is kinda silly. It has been suggested that if these threads/posts stick to science then we should allow them, but again I would have to read them to make such a determination. My larger point is that NONE of the creationist posts or threads are actually science based so none of them belong here. Moreover, such posts/threads are fundamentally religious arguments that favor some particular religious viewpoint over others, a tactic that strikes me as contradicting our guidelines.

We don't allow racist, misogynist, or other types of prejudice against groups of people and creationism is clearly prejudiced against science and per se scientists.

...

I'm unsure why you [Acme] object to people having a discussion. You are under no obligation to participate, nor even to read the threads.

And you're under no obligation to read my posts or even respond to them.

I believe there will always be people on this site who will benefit from following these discussions, even if they don't participate in them. Therefore I would allow them.

Just because the people here have debunked creationism multiple times does not mean the creationist who wants to debate it has heard the arguments before. Another good reason to allow them.

If the creationist is simply preaching or trolling we can painlessly let the thread die a quiet death by individually deciding further discussion is a waste of time and no longer responding.

Since we have umpteen threads already here with the debunking I see no sense in allowing more. As others have suggested, any new attempts should be referred to the old threads and the new bit closed. Anyone 'interested' whether new or not need only use the forum search function to get their fill.

 

This give-equal-time meme is the same as the creationists trotted out in their attempts to include this crap in US public schools and which US courts determined was not science and soundly put the kibosh on. Honestly, anyone who wants to read what creationists write can go to creationist sites.

creationism and creation science @ The Skeptics Dictionary

I was occasionally bullied and every time I was bullied I fought. I felt sorry for those who would not fight. There torment from bullies was relentless. Treat me with violence and I will respond with violence.

 

Our state department has a different plan. We are supposed to cower in our homes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-travel-alert-paris-terrorist-attacks/

 

Do you see this cowardice as noble?

Your outright mischaracterization is disheartening, if not unsurprising in the context of your posting here. The article says explicitly:

...The alert does not instruct Americans to avoid travel, but it does urge U.S. citizens to "exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation."

 

"Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places. Exercise particular caution during the holiday season and at holiday festivals or events," the State Department said in the alert. ...

...

Also, cutting people off would either look like censorship or drive them to start new threads which clutter the place up even more.

Censorship here is not a four-letter word. The rules clearly set the censorship guidelines and the staff is responsible for enforcing the guidelines. Folks who don't like the rules here are free to leave and go somewhere else or start their own forum or blog.

 

What I get from this thread's title is that creationism was at some point set out as against the guidelines. If this is the case then keep the guidelines that way and enforce them.

Sandstone

 

 

 

Cement

 

Cement is what binds the siliclastic framework grains together. Cement is a secondary mineral that forms after deposition and during burial of the sandstone.[4] These cementing materials may be either silicate minerals or non-silicate minerals, such as calcite.[4]

 

●Silica cement can consist of either quartz or opal minerals. Quartz is the most common silicate mineral that acts as cement. In sandstone where there is silica cement present the quartz grains are attached to cement, this creates a rim around the quartz grain called overgrowth. The overgrowth retains the same crystallographic continuity of quartz framework grain that is being cemented. Opal cement is found in sandstones that are rich in volcanogenic materials, and very rarely is in other sandstones.[4]

 

●Calcite cement is the most common carbonate cement. Calcite cement is an assortment of smaller calcite crystals. The cement adheres itself to the framework grains, this adhesion is what causes the framework grains to be adhered together.[4]

 

●Other minerals that act as cements include: hematite, limonite, feldspars, anhydrite, gypsum, barite, clay minerals, and zeolite minerals.[4]

First, this place isn't a democracy and free speech is a red herring. While this thread was prompted by a report on the irreducible complexity schwang of creationism, my kudos to T. Swanson for his quick and decisive action on the young Earth schwang thread. To whit:

 

post #3

Moderator Note

 

First of all, posting just to advertise a site is against the rules. Do it again and you risk being banned as a spammer.

 

Second of all, we're not going down that road. There's enough information out there debunking the claptrap of young earth creationism. There's no need to rehash it here.

Most responding here have agreed creationism is claptrap. (Not to mention US courts finding it so.) I'm in total agreement with Swanson that there is no need to rehash it. Nip it in the bud wherever and whenever it sprouts.

Over the years, we've had many stances on discussing creationism. Our latest: we've successfully rebutted all those tired old arguments ("If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"), and seen so little success, so now we just link those folks to TalkOrigins.org, where all the scientific information to correct their honest misunderstandings lies waiting in a single place.

 

...

BUT! The misinformation that oozes from these folks seems almost criminal in its treatment of science. Arguments are made, refuted, and then brought up again after a month. Are they doing this because they didn't understand our answer, or because they didn't like our answer? We all dislike intellectual dishonesty, but is that always the case with creationists?

...

I say keep it out. [if you don't like referring to other sites, then refer to closed and/or debunking threads here.] Creationism is more than intellectual dishonesty, it's intellectual terrorism.

...

The biological evidence that supports a Creator is the fact that there are

tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level....

Wrong.

 

Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.[1]

...

... evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved.[6][7] There are many examples documented through comparative genomics showing that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

Presuming you have the proper settings on the multimeter, the adapter being 'kaput' may account for the erratic reading.

 

On the amperage, I think that under-amperage would give less than optimal performance and that over-amperage wouldn't matter as the speakers can only draw so much current with their fixed resistance and at a given voltage.

 

This bit is about computer adapters but the same principles apply to your speakers. >> Can I use a charger that provides the same voltage but a different amperage?

Acme,

 

Sorry, I need to continue to spin my wheels.

...

Therein lies the rub. Your concern for folks here is duly noted and your apology rejected. Good grief.

 

As to the sword I think what you heard is old wives' tales. (Maybe old warriors' tales?) Talking about 'by the time a straight blade hits' is only as good as the speed at which the blade be swanged.

 

That's the feeling I have. It sounds plausible though, being able to shift the striking edge closer to the target seems like it would increase the depth of the cut. If I swing a straight blade, the hilt, my hand, and the striking edge are meeting the target in a line, and I'm timing my strike to meet the target at that moment when it's all lined up and my strength is being used most efficiently. But if I'm swinging a blade where the edge is already a couple inches ahead in the swing, it seems like the power point in my swing is now in an open wound instead of just starting one.

...

 

The merits of any particular sword as a weapon are relative to the conditions of its use and type of material used. What is good in one situation may not be a benefit in another. For examples: Is the sword being wielded from horseback or afoot? What is the weaponry of the enemy that it is being used against? Is the enemy armored or not? How brittle or flexible is the sword?

I think the advantage of the offset handle on the snow shovel is about posture, i.e. you don't have to bend over as much to get a scoop. Less back bending = less back pain.

 

As to the sword I think what you heard is old wives' tales. (Maybe old warriors' tales?) Talking about 'by the time a straight blade hits' is only as good as the speed at which the blade be swanged.

Acme,

 

I admit that the term actual is one which is the crux of this question of mine, and at the center of a number of statements of mine on various threads where I attempt to express the two meanings of now, require the engagement of imaginations of glossamer quality.

 

What I keep trying to use in my logical understanding of how the universe is, is the two "real" vantage points, from which we understand the universe. One from the vantage point of here and now, me,asuring the photons and gravity waves coming in, and one from a glossamer, imagination point of view for where and how the items that released the photons and gravity waves must currently be, and how they must currently be, if we were to imagine the conditions and movements that we witness, to have continued and evolved in the meantime, during the photon's travel time, over the distance between, until that item (galaxy) was 13.8 years old, which would reflect the condition that that item is in currently. Thus the "actual" cataloged universe, in the one sense is not the actual one in the other.

 

The vantage point has to be specified. At least for me. There is an argument to call either view one based on glossamer imaginations. In the one we call present what is merely the images of the past.

 

Regards, TAR

We are the vantage point & you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere fast Bro. Eat, drink, and be merry because we can croak at any time.

Acme, I wonder if part of the problem is the difference in meaning between a word used in mathematics and those used in every day speech. As a mathematical cretin let me make these couple of observations, the second of which I am hoping you can straighten me out on.

 

1. When the subject of measuring infinity came up in the thread my immediate reaction was that measuring infinity was not possible. My reasoning seems to be a little like that of tar's - what would I measure it against? Then a couple of members, including yourself, confidently asserted that it was possible.

 

Here is where tar and I part company. I know that you are conversant with mathematics and when you state something with confidence you are likely to be correct. Therefore, logically, my impression as to measuring infinity is probably wrong. I still don't understand why (point), but I accept the pronouncement of an expert. (Provisionally of course.)

 

2. So, why do I have a problem with measure? If I imagine an infinitely long line that I wish to measure then I expect to measure it from one end to the other. But an infinitely long line has no end. So I am befuddled. I daresay this will look mighty dumb to some. I am currently reconciling this impasse on the basis that measure in this context is not the same as measure as I am using it. Help!

Indeed the crux of the matter is the meaning of words, or if you will, context is everything. Back in post #136 I gave the definition of measure as I was using it when geordief complained that I wasn't even using English when I said, "The set of prime numbers is infinite and this is measured by mathematical proof." Here is that definition again:

You are not even wrong.

measure

 

 

2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison

 

Notice at the dictionary link there are 100 lines or more giving various definitions of 'measure'. All are correct but have differing applications depending on context.

So in the context of this thread, an infinite universe is an evaluation of universe for which there is always something more...

Acme,

 

I read Euclid's proof, and it was indicated that he did not use the words and nomenclature that we use today to handle infinity. His point was that any finite list of primes is not big enough, because the list will always be incomplete.

 

This is my understanding of infinity. Any finite description of the set will not be enough.

But a finite description of the set is enough. The proof is a finite description of an infinity.

 

There is always another one . Like on the number line, you always have an infinite number of points between any two points.

 

But in reality, there is a size, figured as Planck's length, smaller than which has no meaning. So when two points are on either end of a plank length, how do you figure there is a real number between?

 

Regards, TAR

Here you commingle meanings of 'measure'; that of "b. A unit specified by a scale, such as an inch, or by variable conditions, such as a day's march." and that which I used, "2. An evaluation or a basis of comparison

." We are not talking of anything being infinitely small in regards to the universe.

Strange,

 

Even more irrelevant than that (if there can be different levels of irrelevancy) is that fact that all the galaxies you catalog are not even indicative of the actual ones that are out there now.

...

That is simply wrong. Cataloged galaxies are actual galaxies. It is statements such as you make here that prompts others to measure your writing as gossamer imaginings.

Acme,

 

Well I will have to let you mathematicians fight out whether you can measure infinity, or whether one infinity is countable, or larger than another. All those distinctions are way beyond me.

Mathematicians are not fighting over measuring infinity; they are in agreement. Since the distinction is beyond you then it is only reasonable that you excuse yourself from using the distinction in your arguments.

 

But I still don't think it makes any sense to say you can measure infinity. What scale do you use? What do you compare it to?

So you make my point here about excusing yourself. You can't make the distinction so you have no logical basis to think anything sensible on the matter.

The scale is the number line and it has no limit. You can always add one more number to the line.

 

...

And the mathematical definitions of various types of infinities are done in comparison with other definitions of various types of infinities. None have literal examples, that I know about.

 

That is there is nobody that is currently still counting the members of a supposed infinite set, to prove a negative.

So just above you admit the distinction is beyond you and that you don't know the scale, and yet here -again- you go on to make baseless assertions about that which you don't understand. I gave a literal example of an infinite set, i.e. the prime numbers. It is not 'supposedly' infinite, it is as I said proven infinite (millennia ago by Euclid*) and yes, contrary to your knowing, folks are currently still counting new primes*.

 

*Euclid's Proof of the Infinitude of Primes (c. 300 BC)

 

*Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search: GIMPS

Finding World Record Primes Since 1996

 

I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid.

I had already conceded that point.

 

Indeed. But you went on to question my use of the term 'spurious' and so I answered your complaint.

 

 

I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument.

I can avoid philosophical discussions in general without being obliged to avoid making a philosophical argument personally (inadvertently in this case) even immediately after saying that I avoid them . I don't intend to self censure myself in that regard.

 

Well, actually you made the inadvertent philosophical argument before you said you avoided philosophy; thus the irony. If you don't self-censure then you shouldn't be surprised that at a discussion forum others will do you the kindness.

 

Note that I came into this discussion to point out Tar's error in claiming infinity is not susceptible to measurement and that any further claim he made based on that error is also in error. All-in-all, beyond the factual errors, you and Tar appear to have an eristic bent in this thread. That is to say, you argue simply for the sake of arguing.

Which of my arguments are spurious (you do know that spurious means deceitful ,don't you?)

I know deceit is one sense, yes.

 

Perhaps you just meant spurious as "wrong" (as it is often used) . Then which of my arguments are "wrong" . (I do not think I have made many)

I used spurious in the sense of "1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin". You argued that I wasn't using English and that argument is in essence invalid.

 

Perhaps you are right that my "distinction" was philosophical . So what?

 

Am I not allowed to make a distinction that can be called "philosophical" ?

I was pointing out the irony of you writing that you avoid philosophical discussion shortly after you introduced a philosophical argument.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spurious

 

1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.

2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.

3. Archaic Born to unwed parents.

Acknowledged.

 

More than "wrong" . A put down surely

Surely.

 

Doesn't "fallacious" mean "deceitful"?.

Not always. It also refers to the use of fallacy.

sorry to trouble you, I want to get a jpeg onto this topic as I have another question. Copy and paste does not work. what to do please?

Alan

Hit the toggle switch in upper-left corner of edit box then type the img tags at either end of the pasted url.

[/img]

Note: Studiot's method is if the image is yours and on your computer, whereas my method is for displaying an image from a web page.