User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 176

  1. #111
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Yes. <--forced procrustean lopping occuring, of course

    (Unlike the junk you're posting in this thread. Practicing critical thinking skills and showing some actual knowledge on the topic on YOUR part would be extremely helpful right now. Maybe now that I've ante'ed you, you'd like to return the favor?)
    Now if evolution is a fact then you should be able to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. Unless you think I'm being unreasonable.

    Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Now I see why he asked me about gravity, you guys and wiki lol! My reason for answering no is because I know our understanding of mass itself is incomplete, therefor any theory derived from the concept of mass is not sound including gravity. We know there is a force there that we call gravity, but we don't know all the details about what causes it. Magnetic fields could play a role.

    This is ridiculous though, theory and a fact? are you serious?


    Let me ask you something, do you think that having impacted wisdom teeth is part of our evolutionary process?

  2. #112
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Dimethyltryptamine certainly is one of the neurochemicals involved with dreaming. The characterization of its activity in the brain as "abuse", on the other hand, is a pretty far stretch. How can you abuse an endogenous chemical?
    Sure, there is a link between the pineal gland, other endogenously produced chemicals (melatonin, serotonin, etc), dream-states and DMT... but no, it's not provable. Research has not proven when or how DMT is endogenously produced. I implore you to prove me otherwise, though.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  3. #113
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Dimethyltryptamine certainly is one of the neurochemicals involved with dreaming. The characterization of its activity in the brain as "abuse", on the other hand, is a pretty far stretch. How can you abuse an endogenous chemical?
    It's a joke, considering it's illegal yet everyone in the entire world uses it every day.

  4. #114
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    Now if evolution is a fact then you should be able to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. Unless you think I'm being unreasonable.

    Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Now I see why he asked me about gravity, you guys and wiki lol! My reason for answering no is because I know our understanding of mass itself is incomplete, therefor any theory derived from the concept of mass is not sound including gravity. We know there is a force there that we call gravity, but we don't know all the details about what causes it. Magnetic fields could play a role.

    This is ridiculous though, theory and a fact? are you serious?


    Let me ask you something, do you think that having impacted wisdom teeth is part of our evolutionary process?
    There's a difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt. We can make predictions based on the modern understanding of evolution through genetic variation and natural selection, particularly in microbial life as they respond to environmental pressures, such as antibiotics. As far as science is concerned, that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It can still be questioned, as refinement of existing understanding is one of the highlights of the scientific method.

    I asked about gravity because it's a fact (as we observe it), and yet we still can't come up with an idea of what causes gravity, only describe its effects. It's not connected to the electromagnetic force at all, so disabuse yourself of that notion. EM force works strongly over a medium distance, while gravity works very weakly over an infinite distance. We still don't know why that is, even though we observe it.

    Meanwhile, we know what causes evolution (genetic variation being perpetuated through natural selection). We've seen it in action (microbes, selection of black moths on polluted trees over white moths on clean trees). It's much harder science than gravity is, just spread out over a longer period of time.

    We absolutely know what mass is. We have the math. The math works. Therefore, we know what mass is. It's energy divided by the square of the speed of light. We know that mass and energy are the same. What we don't know is the relationship between mass on the relativistic scale and on the quantum scale. That doesn't mean we don't know what mass is. Mathematics does not lie.

    Once again, you confuse the lay definition of theory with the scientific definition. A hypothesis is a guess (what you'd call a "theory"). A theory is an observation with a hell of a lot of evidence backing it up (we used the "theory" of relativity to build atomic bombs). A law is an older term for what would be referred to as theory nowadays. For example, Newton's laws of mechanics are not exactly true, but they're still called laws.

    Of course impacted wisdom teeth are part of our evolution; evolution doesn't have a teleology. There are simply variations (shorter jaws), and if the impact aids survival (allowing language and permitting expansion of the cranial cavity), it will be passed on, even if there are downsides (inability to fit all teeth into one's jaw), as long as the negative impact doesn't affect the reproductive capacity of the one carrying the gene(s).

    Evolution by genetic variation through natural selection is fact. Deal with it.

  5. #115
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    Sure, there is a link between the pineal gland, other endogenously produced chemicals (melatonin, serotonin, etc), dream-states and DMT... but no, it's not provable. Research has not proven when or how DMT is endogenously produced. I implore you to prove me otherwise, though.
    The Hallucinogen N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Is an Endogenous Sigma-1 Receptor Regulator -- Fontanilla et al. 323 (5916): 934 -- Science

    DMT is a metabolite of tryptophan, an amino acid, much as serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) is. It binds to the sigma-1 receptor.

  6. #116
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    There's a difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt. We can make predictions based on the modern understanding of evolution through genetic variation and natural selection, particularly in microbial life as they respond to environmental pressures, such as antibiotics. As far as science is concerned, that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It can still be questioned, as refinement of existing understanding is one of the highlights of the scientific method.

    I asked about gravity because it's a fact (as we observe it), and yet we still can't come up with an idea of what causes gravity, only describe its effects. It's not connected to the electromagnetic force at all, so disabuse yourself of that notion. EM force works strongly over a medium distance, while gravity works very weakly over an infinite distance. We still don't know why that is, even though we observe it.

    Meanwhile, we know what causes evolution (genetic variation being perpetuated through natural selection). We've seen it in action (microbes, selection of black moths on polluted trees over white moths on clean trees). It's much harder science than gravity is, just spread out over a longer period of time.

    We absolutely know what mass is. We have the math. The math works. Therefore, we know what mass is. It's energy divided by the square of the speed of light. We know that mass and energy are the same. What we don't know is the relationship between mass on the relativistic scale and on the quantum scale. That doesn't mean we don't know what mass is. Mathematics does not lie.

    Once again, you confuse the lay definition of theory with the scientific definition. A hypothesis is a guess (what you'd call a "theory"). A theory is an observation with a hell of a lot of evidence backing it up (we used the "theory" of relativity to build atomic bombs). A law is an older term for what would be referred to as theory nowadays. For example, Newton's laws of mechanics are not exactly true, but they're still called laws.

    Of course impacted wisdom teeth are part of our evolution; evolution doesn't have a teleology. There are simply variations (shorter jaws), and if the impact aids survival (allowing language and permitting expansion of the cranial cavity), it will be passed on, even if there are downsides (inability to fit all teeth into one's jaw), as long as the negative impact doesn't affect the reproductive capacity of the one carrying the gene(s).

    Evolution by genetic variation through natural selection is fact. Deal with it.
    And at what point in history did we start having impacted wisdom teeth due to evolution? My parents didn't seem to have a problem. Would you say it's a rather recent change?

  7. #117
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    And at what point in history did we start having impacted wisdom teeth due to evolution? My parents didn't seem to have a problem. Would you say it's a rather recent change?
    It was a prehistoric development. We can tell this from consistent bone samples.

    Do you know if your parents had a problem with impacted wisdom teeth, or did they just not discuss it with you? It's a fairly mundane topic.

  8. #118
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It was a prehistoric development. We can tell this from consistent bone samples.

    Do you know if your parents had a problem with impacted wisdom teeth, or did they just not discuss it with you? It's a fairly mundane topic.
    Umm yes I've talked to them about it. Mother has all of them in her mouth still all grown out perfectly straight. Father they never came out at all and never caused a problem.

    Prehistoric? Give me a date range here.

  9. #119
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Furthermore, I have heard of mummies in Egypt having impacted wisdom teeth. This fact, added with the fact that many people to this very moment don't need to pull their wisdom teeth, totally puts a big hole in your assertion that our jaws have evolved to accomodate space for our larger brains and lingual skills. And I'm supposed to accept this as fact?

  10. #120
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.

    Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.

    We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.

    Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.

    The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.

    Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.

    What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.

    But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.

    If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.

    My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.

    Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.

    Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!

Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 AM

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