1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioHe is selectively skeptical about induction, and can't understand the entailments of this skepticism. Further, he conflates knowing that P with being certain that P, and hence applies 'faith' (again, selectively) to those beliefs that admit of the mere possibility of errror. Haven't we known this for years?
1) Given that all of the isotopes that we can observe for ourselves follow the same pattern and utilize
the same formula with rigorous strictness, and 2) given that the portions of these longer term isotopes
that we can observe also follow this formula, and 3) given that the formula's consistency relies on
rules of physics, the violation of which is compa la does remain
consistent).
Nemesio
P.S., I will deal with the rest of your post later.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's plagerism plain and simple. These stories may have been inspired by a drug induced fireside frenzy but certainly not from a god. There are too many other versions or didn't you get that part?
Who said anything about plagerism? If God's word is inspired by God then there is no plagerism unless man writes down the inspired word and does not give God the credit. However, you could say that all the other stories are plagerized as they have been handed down from generation to generation or from culture to culture with minor variances along the way.
...[text shortened]... ircle the farther apart the information seemed to be. That is how I view such discrepencies.
Why should this one stupid story be THE one that is correct and all the other mythologies wrong? I don't suppose it could be wrong because it's WRONG, eh?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are refusing my conclusions based upon only your pre-conceieved notions, nothing to do with the evidence.
I am refusing your conclusions as being factual! I did not reject your
evidence.
Kelly
The thing is, all (or at the least the pverwhelming majority) behavioural scientists accept consciousness amongst animals, based upon evidence. You don't accept it based upon no evidence, as far as I can see.
Originally posted by KellyJayI like to give examples of people who hold a particular viewpoint when I am debating. For example, Knightmeister believes time to not be a property of the universe, but something else. Does my using his name amount to persecution? If I am wrong in my statement, then he can always correct me, as can you.
When I am reading posts I have
nothing to do with and my name gets brought up as some thing
pathetic it feels personal, I recall you doing that to me to if I’m not
mistaken.
Originally posted by amannionIf there is no God then your morality is self righteous in nature or as a group of people. In and of itself it does not exist without you.
Assuming there is no god ... there is no right or wrong.
How do you figure that one? Morality and ethics do not require religion or supernatural entities.
Originally posted by whodeyBecause there is no god, morality is in the eyes of the people. Morality is whatever the people as a whole decide it is. Humans are acutally smart enough to make moral rules without evoking some god.
If there is no God then your morality is self righteous in nature or as a group of people. In and of itself it does not exist without you.
Unfortunately, thousands of years of moral invictives, many of which are totally opposed to one another makes a mockery of real morality and real maturity as a race. Religion in all its ugliness has kept mankind in moral darkness for the last 2000 years.
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not giving you a reason to say they are bad, wrong, in error in any
1) Given that all of the isotopes that we can observe for ourselves follow the same pattern and utilize
the same formula with rigorous strictness, and 2) given that the portions of these longer term isotopes
that we can observe also follow this formula, and 3) given that the formula's consistency relies on
rules of physics, the violation of which is compa ...[text shortened]... la does remain
consistent).
Nemesio
P.S., I will deal with the rest of your post later.
way, or fashion my point is that simply having no reason to think they
are not different, is not a reason to assume they are the same!
Making that jump of assuming they are the same suggests you
simply want them that way so they are, which isn’t a real reason, it is
a personal preference instead. So it does take it back to my point, it is
faith you are displaying, faith in what you want, with regard to your
assumptions you are using faith at the very foundation of your full
belief system when it comes to time.
Kelly
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSeeing how a great deal that goes on in living systems are all
I'll concede that life is more complicated than spaceships, unless some scifi stuff about living spaceships ever happens, but I don't think telomeres are a whole lot more complicated that toilets. Actually it might be better to compare them to genomic toilet paper. They are big long strands of the same nonsense sequence repeated over and over. They ...[text shortened]... to lose instead of losing valuable things like actual genes or regulatory UTRs and the like.
interconnected, it would give me pause to alter anything not knowing
how it may affect other parts of the system. In our not so complex
programming by comparison altering a single variable may seem
minor until the affects on show themselves otherwise.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzYea, your point? You don't have preconceived notions that point you
You are refusing my conclusions based upon only your pre-conceieved notions, nothing to do with the evidence.
The thing is, all (or at the least the pverwhelming majority) behavioural scientists accept consciousness amongst animals, based upon evidence. You don't accept it based upon no evidence, as far as I can see.
into truth as you see it?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr"selectively skeptical"
He is selectively skeptical about induction, and can't understand the entailments of this skepticism. Further, he conflates knowing that P with being certain that P, and hence applies 'faith' (again, selectively) to those beliefs that admit of the mere possibility of errror. Haven't we known this for years?
Your not?
Kelly
ps
I forgot the question I was suppose to ask you this year, sorry! 🙁
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, you don't think there is any reason to think that things fall downwards on other planets,
I'm not giving you a reason to say they are bad, wrong, in error in any
way, or fashion my point is that simply having no reason to think they
are not different, is not a reason to assume they are the same!
that it is a matter of faith, since we've never dropped balls on other planets?
We have information about short-lived and moderate-lived isotopes which is complete and not
a matter of faith. The formula which defines decay rate is based on the same sort of physics upon
which gravity is based. We have partial information about long-lived isotopes which indicates that
the formula is accurate for them, too.
This is a reason to assume they are the same. The implications of their not being the
same would be comparable to saying that the speed of light changed over time, and the properties
of physics are plastic (such that things can possibly fall upwards, or two negatively charged
particles will attract each other, e.g.). These are compelling reasons to assume that they
haven't changed.
So, I return again to my question, why do you disbelieve that these rates remain the same? Or,
asked your way, why you don't have faith on this issue in spite of the testable evidence (i.e.,
not faith-based) available for your personal review?
Nemesio