LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2018, 12:27 PM   #61
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,084

Rep: Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693Reputation: 1693

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Please back up your statements... Nonsense? Seriously? When evolution is the new "Theory" on the block. Can you answer the questions in my previous post? I mean if you want to be related to apes and monkeys, more power to you.
Well, I could explain it to you — I have a degree in this stuff — but you might consider my tuition fees exorbitant You could always try the public library, if they have such things in your neck of the woods, or even use Wikipedia.
 
Old 04-12-2018, 12:38 PM   #62
PatrickMay16
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: London, England.
Distribution: Debian oldstable
Posts: 56

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Please back up your statements... Nonsense? Seriously? When evolution is the new "Theory" on the block. Can you answer the questions in my previous post? I mean if you want to be related to apes and monkeys, more power to you.
I recommend that you read this, it's very informative:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is good too:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
That site talkorigins.org is really good, I highly recommend it.

Regards,
PM

Code:
v@9jDx9nhdS{U9nWx)P939C)N9+Wx)PU9y@@@9P@)69jDx9jWx)P9`Wx)P9CWx)P9fWx)P'96@Dx$P9`yJ9JWDf)xN9jF9+yP6;
 
Old 04-12-2018, 01:15 PM   #63
Mill J
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: 127.0.0.1 Sweet 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Void, LFS, Haiku, Quirky on Rpi and many others
Posts: 876
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickMay16 View Post
I recommend that you read this, it's very informative:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is good too:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
That site talkorigins.org is really good, I highly recommend it.

Regards,
PM

Code:
v@9jDx9nhdS{U9nWx)P939C)N9+Wx)PU9y@@@9P@)69jDx9jWx)P9`Wx)P9CWx)P9fWx)P'96@Dx$P9`yJ9JWDf)xN9jF9+yP6;
Great resource! Thanks for sharing, I have found it very interesting.

For example here is the explanation for how life got on earth http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

Quote:
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity . Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
Something that no one has thought of yet.
I find it interesting that all of the evolution literature is an absolute definite MAYBE, Might have, could have, etc.

Oh and what's the code for?

Last edited by Mill J; 04-12-2018 at 01:18 PM.
 
Old 04-12-2018, 02:22 PM   #64
PatrickMay16
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: London, England.
Distribution: Debian oldstable
Posts: 56

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
I find it interesting that all of the evolution literature is an absolute definite MAYBE, Might have, could have, etc.
I think that's very sensible. It contrasts strongly with fundamentalist religion, which declares "what I/my church/my book/'God' says is THE TRUTH and must not be questioned OR ELSE". Scientists don't go around claiming that they have 100% absolute truth. If you have proof and evidence that meets the standards, you could convince scientists and change their minds. Scientific knowledge is changing and being refined all the time.

See also, the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. At one point, someone in the audience asks both of them "what would change your mind". Bill Nye says "evidence", and Ken Ham basically says "nothing, my mind is completely made up". It should be clear that Ken Ham's way of thinking is a very good way to be wrong and stay wrong.

Quote:
Oh and what's the code for?
Oh that's my personal signature code. I attach it to my posts.

Regards,
PM
Code:
2@9P@)69jDx9nhdS{9jDx9fWx)P;9\2\i9u2\ihu{;98@Dx$P9`yJ9JWDf)xN939+Wx)P9CWx)P9gWx)P;

Last edited by PatrickMay16; 04-12-2018 at 02:23 PM.
 
Old 04-12-2018, 06:50 PM   #65
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Now, Now, didn't you hear enorbet? There was no molten steel, that all just made up. Or was there? I think you showed more proof than he did.
If you were on trial for a capital crime would you want hearsay evidence allowed? Nobody does, which is why it is disallowed. The "molten steel" people saw is a jump to a conclusion first of all that it is molten metal and secondly that it is steel. Some melted aluminum was found but that isn't uncommon. Aircraft aluminum has ignited and melted from mere friction where NO starter fires existed. and certainly not controlled demolition. Look up "Air France flight 358" or even a general search should suffice.

I watched all of the videos linked in this thread and several more and what I see is speculation and conjecture. Numbers are thrown out where no measuring devices recorded such temperatures. There is a distinct difference between Temperature and Heat. If you throw another log on the fire the temperature does not double but the quantity (measured in calories, BTUs etc) increases as does the length of time it can burn. Neither one is doubled but the product is.... just no effect on temperature. AFAIK NO remains of melted steel was ever discovered other than a small amount of nodules identified as leftover from welded construction, not from the time of impact and collapse.

For those who think I "drank the KoolAid" and just buy into the "Official Version" I do find some of the NIST report to be stunningly inaccurate on some details. One example is a claim was made that "any molten metal was likely caused by extended exposure" when experts know time exposed is immaterial if the melting temperature is not reached. I have no explanation as to why this was allowed to be included in ANY statement by anyone associated with NIST but since no puddles of molten steel were ever found, it is simply a mistake and irrelevant.

Incidentally it is worthy of note that ALL of the videos showing what appears to be molten metal are issuing from the floors impacted by the aircraft. That could not have been planned since it is obvious that at least one aircraft, poorly piloted (perhaps unfortunately not poorly enough) made radical corrections in order to impact the building at all. There is no evidence that what floors were hit was a detail of any plan but simply "hit the building wherever you can".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
@enorbet I have to agree that DNA etc is shared. But you know as well as I do: you can't create life from rocks. Every living thing has an ancestor. So how did life get on earth in the first place?
It is not yet known exactly how the first lifeforms occurred. Some of the preliminary steps required have been recreated in laboratories showing how organic chemistry functions under conditions similar to early Earth, but so far the exact mechanism is unknown. That doesn't change what we know to have happened after the fact. No serious scientist doubts the mechanism of Evolution. Period... and with good reason. Huge advances in Biology, Chemistry, and a mountain of other disciplines have ALL not only failed to falsify the Theory but support and refine it in ways Darwin couldn't have imagined in the wildest fever dream.... "Yet it moves"
 
Old 04-12-2018, 07:09 PM   #66
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
I find it interesting that all of the evolution literature is an absolute definite MAYBE, Might have, could have, etc.
BINGO! For those who intimate that Science is just another form of Faith, here is one ultimate difference. Only religion pretends to offer certainty about things which either have yet to be or cannot be tested. Science deals in Probabilities and with the question of Life, there are varying degrees of probability for isolated parts BUT even though you are seeing this on your monitor which consists of millions of pixels, even a fairly large percentage of "not quite perfect" pixels would not prevent you from "getting the Picture".
 
Old 04-12-2018, 08:05 PM   #67
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,013

Rep: Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789
Its called scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state. What we are witnessing today is the same as what occurred with the inquisition, only the new religion that cannot be questioned is science, and the high priests are the scientists.

None of "their" theories can rule out a Supreme Being, God etc... In fact the more science explains things the more evidence unfolds of a Universal Blueprint, Intelligent Design etc... Perhaps, some of the religious details are man made, but the overall conjecture has yet to be "disproven", of course, some things will never be known until that time comes for all us, similar to how we presume the sun will always rise in the am.

Regarding evolution, it is true and not true, true that all life exists for the purpose of living and surviving and that all life will struggle to grow, evolve etc..., however, if you look at Darwins original text and original title, it was written on the basis of trying to prove "scientifically" that whites were/are superior to non-whites, interesting how the full title of his famous book is often shortened to just "Origin of Species".

What poses for most science today is unscientific, and no more valid than things uttered in the past and considered sacred, perhaps less so.

Regarding Global Warming/Global Climate Change, of course this happens, typically in cycles of 60, 300, 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000 years. These changes can be, and some are, charted and predicted with fairly good accuracy. These changes occurred long before mans arrival on the scene, long before industrialization, and will continue to occur even after the unfortunate circumstance of mans demise. The difference is scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state has found ways to take whats natural and profit from it/tax it. Its the ultimate scheme.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 04-12-2018 at 08:08 PM.
 
Old 04-13-2018, 12:54 PM   #68
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
We seem to have drifted WAY OT since the point of science and pseudoscience was brought up in regards to Rules of Evidence and specifically about how "we all saw molten steel" is invalid right from jump street since nobody has spectroscopic eyes to identify composition. The below quoted post should probably be moved the "The Faith and Religion Mega Thread" but whatever I'll jump in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Its called scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state. What we are witnessing today is the same as what occurred with the inquisition, only the new religion that cannot be questioned is science, and the high priests are the scientists.
Multiple citations needed here. Please how is it that the systematic and public search for how the world works even capable of dictatorship? I know of no country which has scientists in a position of political power. One only has to look to any national budget to see just to what degree scientists are revered by politicos. The last part would be funny if it weren't so tragic and in no small part, mean spirited. The Inquisition was religious power run wild, a widespread witch hunt that murdered millions, wiped out entire towns,... men, women, and children and the level of torture used as a means to finger others was insane and inhuman. Please do try to explain how this equates to Science and scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
None of "their" theories can rule out a Supreme Being, God etc... In fact the more science explains things the more evidence unfolds of a Universal Blueprint, Intelligent Design etc... Perhaps, some of the religious details are man made, but the overall conjecture has yet to be "disproven", of course, some things will never be known until that time comes for all us, similar to how we presume the sun will always rise in the am.
While it is absolutely true that Science cannot rule out a Supreme Being since by definition that is outside of our Universe where no information is possible. It may be important to realize that while individually some scientists may care about the speculation, Science just isn't concerned with the issue and is not trying to prove or disprove what it cannot. There exists a huge gulf between Universal Blueprint and Intelligent Design. The blueprint is the Laws of Physics which are readily observable and testable but there is no evidence and can be no evidence for any Intelligence behind them. The point isn't even merely moot. It is impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Regarding evolution, it is true and not true, true that all life exists for the purpose of living and surviving and that all life will struggle to grow, evolve etc..., however, if you look at Darwins original text and original title, it was written on the basis of trying to prove "scientifically" that whites were/are superior to non-whites, interesting how the full title of his famous book is often shortened to just "Origin of Species".
Citation please. Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? I don't recall any parts that smack of racism. True, others interpreted and used it that way to further their misguided and often horrible causes but Charles Darwin did not. Please quote the passage that you interpret that even discusses Homo Sapiens in the context of Race let alone racism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
What poses for most science today is unscientific, and no more valid than things uttered in the past and considered sacred, perhaps less so.
OK I'll play by your rules for the sake of "argument".... Poppycock!! Mere justification for the validity of opinion over logic, an offhand dismissal of the scientific method. Poppycock!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Regarding Global Warming/Global Climate Change, of course this happens, typically in cycles of 60, 300, 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000 years. These changes can be, and some are, charted and predicted with fairly good accuracy. These changes occurred long before mans arrival on the scene, long before industrialization, and will continue to occur even after the unfortunate circumstance of mans demise. The difference is scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state has found ways to take whats natural and profit from it/tax it. Its the ultimate scheme.
No species has ever been so widespread and actively involved in massive change that has profound effect on climate until humans. The data is incontrovertible. Current climate change has a very powerful human caused component and the proof is there for anyone who cares enough to view it. I know some of the people involved in the production of the award winning film "Chasing Ice" and trust me they aren't getting rich as if anyone would who is in conflict with Status Quo. You should watch that film or better look at satellite data or ice cores. The "scheme" is the one promulgated by Big Oil and bought lock, stock and barrel by those who would prefer to continue to burn massive quantities of fossil fuels. if you want to see dictatorship and scheming do a little research on the Koch brothers. They have been so successful at influencing and wielding political power that they no longer even bother to hide but brag about it. That boast isn't without considerable proof. They have made supporters and broken many they view as a threat to their oil-based income, especially proponents of human caused climate change. Apparently, whether by choice, default or ignore-ance, you serve them
 
Old 04-13-2018, 02:31 PM   #69
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,013

Rep: Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789Reputation: 789
enorbet,

First relax a wee bit, it is possible to debate without getting all hot under the collar.

Regarding the OP and your susequent posts about no proof, little proof etc...with regards to 9/11 towers, did you not read the links I provided here: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...5/#post5839484

Look closely at the engineers and scientists report.

Regarding the above post:

Here is the original title of Darwins book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His book had two purposes, a) to provide scientific evidence of his belief of the above title, b) to destroy religion as a valid philosophy after his experience attending a seminary. Since you like references without DuckDuckGoing yourself: https://archive.org/details/onoriginofspec00darw

One major flaw with evolutionary thought is that it requires (or proves) the absence of a God. On the contrary, evolution can be viewed as a natural progression of "creation theory", just because individual religions may get things wrong, or disagree does not mean the underlying theory is wrong. Just like when science is proven wrong with one thing, it does not mean the theory is wrong, perhaps just the formula needs tweaking or expanding etc...

Regarding Intelligent Design and your premise of no proof, consider the Universal Language as being mathematical and eyes will open for sure. There is a Universal binary code for example, and that type of precision and perfection does not occur accidentally.

Your last paragraph I agree and disagree, can man contribute to harming the planet, of course we can, can we help the planet of course we can. Consider for example though that one major volcanic eruption spews far more pollutants than would take man generations to achieve and you put into perspective our contribution to the problem, yes its there, but this has far more to do with cycles. Man's ego is at play on both sides of this coin (pro man caused and anti man caused). Even if man were to leave the planet tomorrow, these cycles would still continue, now even in light of this, we should do things to reduce unnecessary impact on the planet, but anytime people or gov't.'s suggest that taxation/payments as a solution to that problem, its usually a scheme and not a solution.

Scientific Dictatorship and the technocratic state simply means that any idea, thought, philosophy or even science that is not in agreement with the mandated aforementioned "proven" sciences, is banned, cleansed from existence and often times made illegal (think book burnings etc...). They then have absolute control over the society(s) from policy making down to every day decisions in the household (hence the term dictatorship). It does not mean a scientist as King or President (although they could), they usually remain behind the scenes with the Representative doing all the talking. Another term for this is the Technotronic State, in this system there is no freedom, no thought only obedience to the approved "science".

Keep in mind as a teacher, scholar, scientist and physician, I mean no disrespect with this, merely stating a fact that is often not known or spoken about.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 04-13-2018 at 02:37 PM.
 
Old 04-13-2018, 06:53 PM   #70
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
enorbet,

First relax a wee bit, it is possible to debate without getting all hot under the collar.
I am relaxed. Perhaps you interpreted my impatience with unsupported claims as anger. It's not. No worries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Regarding the OP and your susequent posts about no proof, little proof etc...with regards to 9/11 towers, did you not read the links I provided here: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...5/#post5839484
As long as all that was, yes, I did read them and it added to my impatience. Let me give a concrete example. In this one, https://archive.org/details/Septembe...lledDemolition, the header reads (in bold type) and most of the "proof" follows with highlights in bold italics by me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by previous link

September 11 - Experts prove controlled demolition

This authorized edit of Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out was presented at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga as part of the Science of September 11 symposium.


"An independent investigation should be formed to look at the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings that occurred after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to a panel at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

The occasion was a Nov . 15, 2011 screening of a shortened version of the film â9/11: Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Outâ, produced by the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. Formed in 2006 in San Francisco by architect Richard Gage, the organizationâs members believe there is sufficient evidence that the twin towers (along with another building about 350 feet away known as World Trade Center 7), collapsed as a result of controlled demolition.

In other words, someone intentionally blew them up.
There is no evidence, no proof even though that is what is stated at the beginning as if established fact and re-affirmed in the last line. In the middle we can see why. Richard Gage is not an explosives expert, he's barely an architect with zero experience in buildings constructed like those at WTC either in size or methods. He has been discredited as an obvious "cashing in on controversy" guy since he has left his profession of architect and gone full time into writing Yruther books and doing speaking engagements. At the very least he is agenda-ridden and just like that article leaps to conclusions with nothing but speculation and conjecture. Sorry items like that are counter-productive for me. I have to remind myself that some who suspect foul play are actually in earnest and open to real study with solid evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Here is the original title of Darwins book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His book had two purposes, a) to provide scientific evidence of his belief of the above title, b) to destroy religion as a valid philosophy after his experience attending a seminary. Since you like references without DuckDuckGoing yourself: https://archive.org/details/onoriginofspec00darw
Naturally I followed your link but find it an overview confirming the full title but that was unnecessary since I had read that some time ago here ===>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/...origin-species . In full disclosure and all honesty I had forgotten the exact wording because I find it inconsequential since nowhere within is "favoured races" applied to white men as you claimed, that I recall. In that same vein your (b) claim that Darwin desired to destroy religion is preposterous. He was a religious man and his wife was absolutely devout and he held off publishing for decades because of his wife's reaction leading him to {correctly) conclude that many others would have the same short-sighted reaction. Furthermore, just as Darwin considered, Evolution is not anti religious. It is anti Dogma. He and many since the 150 year period after its publication consider that Evolution is simply the mechanism employed by the Supreme Being.

It would have been foolish and not a little dangerous to try to destroy religion 150 years ago and Darwin was not a fool. That should be obvious by the methodical and thorough nature of his studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
One major flaw with evolutionary thought is that it requires (or proves) the absence of a God. On the contrary, evolution can be viewed as a natural progression of "creation theory", just because individual religions may get things wrong, or disagree does not mean the underlying theory is wrong. Just like when science is proven wrong with one thing, it does not mean the theory is wrong, perhaps just the formula needs tweaking or expanding etc...
As you should now see that's what I think as well and who thinks evolution is anti-God?... well, excepting religious zealots. The one caveat to the above is that when proponents claim their "bible" as proof and as undeniable proof because it is revealed by God, then we see deep errors, it certainly reveals that claim as false and casts doubt on what follows. Be that as it may within specific versions of Organized Religion, the overall question is, as I've stated, undeniable to be sure but equally without evidence and cannot be proved. No scientist of whom I'm aware claims that Evolution disproves the existence of a Supreme Being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Regarding Intelligent Design and your premise of no proof, consider the Universal Language as being mathematical and eyes will open for sure. There is a Universal binary code for example, and that type of precision and perfection does not occur accidentally.
Obviously I disagree. I think that precision and "perfection" occurs quite naturally or you wouldn't be able to point to it. IMHO you leap from that in This Universe to a cause Outside The Universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Your last paragraph I agree and disagree, can man contribute to harming the planet, of course we can, can we help the planet of course we can. Consider for example though that one major volcanic eruption spews far more pollutants than would take man generations to achieve and you put into perspective our contribution to the problem, yes its there, but this has far more to do with cycles. Man's ego is at play on both sides of this coin (pro man caused and anti man caused). Even if man were to leave the planet tomorrow, these cycles would still continue, now even in light of this, we should do things to reduce unnecessary impact on the planet, but anytime people or gov't.'s suggest that taxation/payments as a solution to that problem, its usually a scheme and not a solution.
Of course if Man were not here those cycles would still occur since they were in place for billions of years before Man came along BUT that doesn't change the fact that according to many studies quoted by Climate.gov

Quote:
Originally Posted by climate.gov
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Scientific Dictatorship and the technocratic state simply means that any idea, thought, philosophy or even science that is not in agreement with the mandated aforementioned "proven" sciences, is banned, cleansed from existence and often times made illegal (think book burnings etc...). They then have absolute control over the society(s) from policy making down to every day decisions in the household (hence the term dictatorship). It does not mean a scientist as King or President (although they could), they usually remain behind the scenes with the Representative doing all the talking. Another term for this is the Technotronic State, in this system there is no freedom, no thought only obedience to the approved "science".

Keep in mind as a teacher, scholar, scientist and physician, I mean no disrespect with this, merely stating a fact that is often not known or spoken about.
You are drawing lines connecting Science and Politics that don't exist. Scientists don't burn books or name one instance if you can. It is certainly true that once a theory has been tested and withstood such testing successfully for many decades it becomes hard to "unhorse" but that's generally a good thing. It took many decades for Phlogiston to yield to Oxidation and it took many decades for Steady State to yield to Big Bang, a pejorative term coined by a renowned scientist, Fred Hoyle, who doggedly hung on to his conviction until his death BUT nobody forced either down anybody's throat let alone made it illegal or punishable.

It is not Science but the public demand for technology that creates convenience that rules and even that is barely touched by politics. Most people, including politicians, just want Science to make fast food, cheap energy and better weapons. They are singularly unconcerned with Pure Science Research even despite the evidence that it almost always leads to prosperity and advantage when pursued and a "brain drain" when ignored. This can be seen by how many important projects the US has vetoed or reduced funding for including various telescopes and particle colliders. Where do you get this idea of "cleansed form existence"? Just look around the internet and the prponderance of pseudo science is nearly overwhelming, certainly sad and disgusting. Where is this pogrom of which you speak?

Last edited by enorbet; 04-13-2018 at 06:58 PM.
 
Old 04-13-2018, 10:18 PM   #71
Mill J
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: 127.0.0.1 Sweet 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Void, LFS, Haiku, Quirky on Rpi and many others
Posts: 876
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickMay16 View Post
I think that's very sensible. It contrasts strongly with fundamentalist religion, which declares "what I/my church/my book/'God' says is THE TRUTH and must not be questioned OR ELSE". Scientists don't go around claiming that they have 100% absolute truth. If you have proof and evidence that meets the standards, you could convince scientists and change their minds. Scientific knowledge is changing and being refined all the time.
I suggest you read this: https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought...hout-the-bible

There are many non religious people who don't believe in evolution.

For those of you who are convinced I don't know what I'm talking about: I live/was raised on a farm. I'm well aware of the fact that animals can "adapt" and "improve" through selective breeding, since I do it all the time. However the part where everything "happened/evolved" from one speck of life doesn't make sense to me. Ever keep/study bees? You'll know what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickMay16 View Post
I think that's very sensible. It contrasts strongly with fundamentalist religion, which declares "what I/my church/my book/'God' says is THE TRUTH and must not be questioned OR ELSE".
Let's put that into perspective: I've got some Linux software for you, it might run on Linux, it's guaranteed to possibly improve your business, We strive to ensure that it might not steal and sell your personal data....etc.etc.

You'd say forget it. right?
 
Old 04-13-2018, 11:16 PM   #72
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,383

Rep: Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Hmm
Quote:
Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method
Sounds like they either don't understand what a theory is (in the context of science), or what the scientific method is. Or both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Let's put that into perspective: I've got some Linux software for you, it might run on Linux, it's guaranteed to possibly improve your business, We strive to ensure that it might not steal and sell your personal data....etc.etc.

You'd say forget it. right?
I'm totally failing to understand the relevance of this analogy.
 
Old 04-14-2018, 02:56 AM   #73
elcore
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2014
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 523

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
I'm totally failing to understand the relevance of this analogy.
It's a weasel way to describe a program which may or may not run on linux, may or may not improve the business, and may or may not steal and/or sell data.
But disguised to look innocent, so it really isn't so obvious when you skim over the sentence without understanding the purpose of the statement.
It's something a lawyer would do on a daily basis, for example.
 
Old 04-14-2018, 07:26 AM   #74
Mill J
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: 127.0.0.1 Sweet 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Void, LFS, Haiku, Quirky on Rpi and many others
Posts: 876
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320Reputation: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntubski View Post
I'm totally failing to understand the relevance of this analogy.
Read posts #63 and #64 in this thread.
 
Old 04-14-2018, 08:23 AM   #75
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,383

Rep: Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mill J View Post
Read posts #63 and #64 in this thread.
Alright, since you won't explain the analogy, I'll have to make some assumptions. It sounds like you're saying you prefer when people speak with 100% confidence, even if that means they have to lie to you. Is that right?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] "make" of "spi-ch341-usb-master" fails on "linux-headers" not found kaza Fedora 6 01-30-2018 01:54 PM
As the "Star Wars media Mouse-Hype" settles down to an assessment of "actual screenwriting" ... sundialsvcs General 27 12-30-2015 04:03 AM
[SOLVED] X: "loading extension glx" "no screens found" "fatal server error" (w/ nvidia driver) Geremia Slackware 7 12-29-2014 11:00 AM
[SOLVED] "net rpc" "failed to connect to ipc$ share on" or "unable to find a suitable server" larieu Linux - General 0 11-09-2014 12:45 AM
LXer: Displaying "MyComputer", "Trash", "Network Servers" Icons On A GNOME Desktop LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-02-2007 08:31 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration