User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 136

  1. #81
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    So time doesn't exist? That's all I mean by forward. One event preceding the next. Ok, so you think time doesn't exist, that's nice.
    I never said time doesn't exist. So you were saying nature leaps forward through time? What is that even supposed to mean and how is it relevant?

    The chances of just an amino acid forming, never mind a cell, is impossible, forming a cell and that cell forming more ordered cells out of disorder is impossible.
    How do you know? and how can you rule out the possibility?

    From what we've learned about the cell in recent history we know it's unbelievably complex. The cell to us, is like the Saturn 5 rocket to Darwin. All the working parts put together unbelievably well, is not just improbable, it's impossible. It's science fiction, not science! You can believe that hypothesis if you want, but it's totally unprovable and there lies no evidence for that initial occurence in history actually happening with no set of plausible scientific explanations to explain how it could actually happen. I've heard a lot of science fiction like it forming on the backs of crystals, but there's no proof for anything, it's just conjecture. You take it as fact, and logical people take it as the weak foundation of an entire theory.

    Make you wonder why new forms of life don't pop into existence with such a theory.
    So the cell is too complex to form on it's own? so you fill that hole in the theory with something infinitely more complex (god). That makes no sense whatsoever.

    I actually don't think it (the cell) is all that improbable, all it takes is for conditions to be right somewhere in one of the 60ish sextillion stars in our universe (or in one of the billions of other universes), with immense numbers like that the chances of it not being formed somewhere start looking very small.

    All it takes is one cell with the ability to multiply and vary between generations to ignite the flame of life and evolution. Which is more probable, a little cell or an immensly powerful and complex being?

  2. #82
    Senior Member Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sx/so
    Socionics
    LSI
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    Why some types are more common and some are rarer? Well, I'd say the predestination of God. It's God's way of administering his sovereignty and perfection. A sovereign imprint onto our social order. Do you have an evolutionary reason? Just cuz? Is there a way of tampering with the genome to get the proper balance of personality types necessary for a functioning society? Predestination and the sovereignty of God is the best answer in my mind.
    I sorta like that pargraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    I personally like how ISTJs are common, seeing as how you are one of my ideal matchups.
    lol

    Quote Originally Posted by TheChosenOne View Post
    I think part of it is some people unknowingly fake being extroverted just to be comfortable in a particular setting. They are introverts at heart, they can just fake it better than others. Also, what Quinlan said, that in general, extroverts are more noticeable than introverts. I hear that in England, there are a lot more introverts proportionally than in the U.S.
    Indeed. I have been asked twice if I'm schizophrenic or not when I teach classes. I talked about the MBTI with a group of cadets at my CAP squadron and a lot of them, one who is even one of closest friends (supposedly one of my closest friends) thought I was an extrovert. We can appear energized, it's a question of what's energizing us. That it the source of being an introvert. Being energized by thoughts and ideas, not people and things.. most of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    I find it hard to believe that there are that many introverts versus extroverts. But I suppose Quinlan is right.
    The typically theory as I hear it is that approximately 51% of the entire population is introverted and 49% is extroverted.

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    I knew someone was getting dizzy.
    - Caleb

    "I am what I need to be..."

    "Nemo me impune lacessit - No one provokes me with impunity."

  3. #83
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.

    All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.

    Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability.

    It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.
    "Truth stands true, independent of whether you agree with it or not."

    "Don't let what matters least, matter most."

    Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%
    Intuitive (N) 62.5% Sensing (S) 37.5%
    Feeling (F) 51.61% Thinking (T) 48.39%
    Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%
    8w9 EIE

  4. #84
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    Default

    I think INFP is the most uncommon type and some ST or SF is the most common type in the world.

  5. #85
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    God is not complex, where do you get that from? As a concept, God is very simple but his nature to us, may be very complex. As an entity, very simple.
    Well how can such a simple thing create and manage such complexity, without being complex itself? If god is so simple, then something equally simple, like the laws of physics, could also drive the creation of complexity, god is unnessesary then.

    All of what you're saying, doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. The best you can do is that out of nothing, the universe came to exist, or you don't know. God explains why the universe exists and why life should exist.
    Explaining where the universe comes from is irrelevant, I can explain how and why a mug works without having to explain where and how the mug was made. God is one explanation for why life and the universe exist, so is the flying spaghetti monster, whether those explanations are accurate or relevant are for you to decide. Why should you expect an explanation for everything? We are only just beginning to explore this stuff.

    Given you can't explain why the universe should exist but it does, and given all the right life producing agencies are on earth, how do you explain the chances that out of a pool of random inorganic elements, that an amino acid would and should form. Science should explain the process of that formation, and it doesn't. It's a great big guess. Once you look into the fine tuning of macroevolution, it looks like some agency was tampering with elements and not the product of blind random coincidence. Given the right properties for life, a pool of random elements, I don't care how long, will never produce life. Science fiction and a mathematical improbability. It's that there is intelligence behind it, that we can understand the universe, in the first place.
    As big a guess as "magic man in the sky did it"?

    will never produce life.
    How can you rule this out and how could you measure it?

  6. #86
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

    The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

    Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.
    "Truth stands true, independent of whether you agree with it or not."

    "Don't let what matters least, matter most."

    Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%
    Intuitive (N) 62.5% Sensing (S) 37.5%
    Feeling (F) 51.61% Thinking (T) 48.39%
    Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%
    8w9 EIE

  7. #87
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    Exactly, as big of a guess as a magic man in the sky did it; exactly! (note: God is outside of time and space and created space time, so he doesn't count in such a statement as well, to answer your question God is a simple concept with infinte complexity, but you do prove the point, macroevolution is exactly like magic!)

    The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up. I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.

    Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.
    Your entire post is ironic. The same could be said of your views. One could switch words in your final paragraph and say: Creation/God is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. We would be better off saying we just don't know, than proposing the preposterous.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  8. #88
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    That's why I prefaced it by saying I BELIEVE as taken on faith, whereas the science community would have us think as FACT that macroevolution actually IS the way it all started. There's a huge difference. One is a personal statement, the other is a forced unproven truth claim.
    "Truth stands true, independent of whether you agree with it or not."

    "Don't let what matters least, matter most."

    Extroverted (E) 50% Introverted (I) 50%
    Intuitive (N) 62.5% Sensing (S) 37.5%
    Feeling (F) 51.61% Thinking (T) 48.39%
    Judging (J) 51.52% Perceiving (P) 48.48%
    8w9 EIE

  9. #89
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    Actually to my knowledge evolution is and always has been a theory posed by the scientific community. But theory within the scientific community tends to have a lot of evidence to back it up. It is continuously being tested and refined, though, and is open to being disproved.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  10. #90
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    The burden of proof isn't on me to measure it, the burden of proof is on the one in whom can actually justify thinking it is real and believes it as fact without any evidence to back it up.
    We may not understand how it happened, yet we do have evidence that indicates a pattern, from which we can assume it did happen. Surely as an INFJ you can recognise patterns of development throughout nature and in fossils? It's one thing to draw connections between the dots of evidence, but it's something else entirely to start drawing your own picture on a different piece of paper (which is what religion does with god).


    I say God did it as a matter of faith, not fact. Whether you say taken on faith or theory, you're talking about the same thing; an entire field of inquiry attempting to justify a foundation where there is no justification. It's akin to saying something came from nothing. It's irrational. I can at least say, God created the universe out of his own ability to do so.
    Well then where did god come from?

    Macroevolution at it's best is science fiction, not science, and is a blanket statement for not actually knowing how life started to exist. Science would be better off saying they don't know, then proposing the preposterous.
    Science DOES say that it doesn't know, science is completely open to being wrong, our scientific understanding of the world is our best guess at that point in time, science is open to and accepts new theories and evidence. "Science" will never claim to have all the answers even when it has evidence on it's side, unlike religion which claims to have all the answers with no evidence. There may be holes in scientific evidence, yet they're small compared to the gaping voids of evidence in support of god.

Similar Threads

  1. What are the most "individualistic" types?
    By Kiddo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-22-2015, 11:02 PM
  2. What is the most, and the least, brand-conscious personality type?
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 09:36 PM
  3. What are the most valuable degrees for getting a job?
    By GZA in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-27-2010, 01:22 PM
  4. What are the most sought after personality types? and the ones you detest...
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
  5. What are the most "collectivistic" types?
    By Kiddo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 03:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO