• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 33 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
:D On any timeline, the zero point is the beginning.
Great. What does that have to do with the universe?

The word begin is a time based word, without time, the word has no meaning.
Then perhaps you shouldn't be using it where time doesn't apply.

Face it, your magic man is making you say stupid things again.
Like anyone gives any credence to anything said by a racist Christian Talibani.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
The measurement of the flow of time was created by humans, just like the measurement of the flow of a river was created by humans. The river will continue to flow even if no one is measuring it, just as time will.
A river is an actual feature of external reality, made of atoms and molecules. There are actual things flowing through it. Time is none of those. Get a fucking education.

Please tell me what "flows" in a "time river." Do you think that there are time particles?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Great. What does that have to do with the universe?
This is why you are saying stupid things. You do not even know the topic you are talking about.


Then perhaps you shouldn't be using it where time doesn't apply.
:D Keep going, you are winning the battle to be the Forum Jester. Just a little more and you get to wear the dented bells on your feet and hat. Gingle gingle!


Like anyone gives any credence to anything said by a racist Christian Talibani.
Now now, lies do not help your cause. First, there are no Christian Taliban, and second I am not a racist. Two huge lies in one small sentence...not bad.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Gotcha. You are saying what I am saying then. Time will still exist regardless of there being any life forms to measure its existance.



The vibrations are still made regardless of anyone hearing them, so a sound it made.:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

It will not make a noise, though. Noise is unwanted sound. People confuse them a lot. I was the sound silencing petty officer on my sub, so sound and I became best friends for a few years. :)
If there's no creatures with an auditory organ around with which to interpret the vibrations as sounds then the sound is not "made".
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
A river is an actual feature of external reality, made of atoms and molecules. There are actual things flowing through it. Time is none of those. Get a fucking education.

Please tell me what "flows" in a "time river." Do you think that there are time particles?
Apparently, you have never heard of cause and effect.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
This is why you are saying stupid things. You do not even know the topic you are talking about.




:D Keep going, you are winning the battle to be the Forum Jester. Just a little more and you get to wear the dented bells on your feet and hat. Gingle gingle!




Now now, lies do not help your cause. First, there are no Christian Taliban, and second I am not a racist. Two huge lies in one small sentence...not bad.
So, in short, you cannot rebut the facts I've presented, and don't have the balls to admit you've lost, so you're just gonna sneer and snivel like a pathetic child.

Par for the course, I guess. :rolleyes:
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If there's no creatures with an auditory organ around with which to interpret the vibrations as sounds then the sound is not "made".
The sound only needs to be loud enough (and in the right range) to be heard if there would be a creature around to hear it. There does not have to be a creature around to here it, though.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
The sound only needs to be loud enough (and in the right range) to be heard if there would be a creature around to hear it. There does not have to be a creature around to here it, though.
But your original statement was, If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it.

If no creature is around to interpret the vibrations as sound, then they are simply vibrations, not sound.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. It’s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing.

I’m trying to understand how time works. And that’s a huge question that has lots of different aspects to it. A lot of them go back to Einstein and spacetime and how we measure time using clocks. But the particular aspect of time that I’m interested in is the arrow of time: the fact that the past is different from the future. We remember the past but we don’t remember the future. There are irreversible processes. There are things that happen, like you turn an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet into an egg.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

He then goes on to create a bad scientific theory about non-falsifiable things such as a multiverse from which universes spring. If there was a way to falsify that type of thing, then it could be a valid theory, and then time would shift from just being only in our universe to that of the multiverse, and we could have a before our universe began.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
But your original statement was, If a tree falls in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it.

If no creature is around to interpret the vibrations as sound, then they are simply vibrations, not sound.

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Provided it is strong enough to be heard, and in the correct frequency range to be heard, if a creature was there to hear it, then it is a sound. Being actually heard is not a requirement.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,085
891
126
It's not "blind" faith if there are repeatable observations and tests that back up the belief.
OK, what repeatable observations and tests back up the belief that Life originated from inorganic matter?

Origin of Life and Evolution is starting to be explained by "Chaos". Google The Secret Life of Chaos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ

The science channel had a recent documentary called "chaos science" which is more updated than the BBC and deals with evolution and how order comes from chaos.
Order can come from chaos, but not the kind of complex specific order that you find in life forms.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,605
3,734
126
OK, what repeatable observations and tests back up the belief that Life originated from inorganic matter?



Order can come from chaos, but not the kind of complex specific order that you find in life forms.
1) You think it did, we all just disagree on the how it did.

2) Incorrect. Irreducible Complexity is nonsense.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,085
891
126
Defiance of the law is violation of the law. What law, precisely, is being defied?
I don't know the specific law, but the fact is, matter does not self assemble and form into structures that are orders of magnitude more complex and ordered, and gain extraordinary amounts of information in the process.

If that was a property of matter, then surely it would have been observed and identified by now.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the known laws of Science cannot explain the formation of Life forms..

Neuroscience adequately explains the words you are writing
Neuroscience is purely a physical process that can explained via physics and chemistry, but how can it explain the creation of information, something which is by nature, non physical?

The words I am writing to you now, do they have physical properties? Only if they are written into something like a piece of paper, or stone, but the words themselves have meaning which cannot be explained using physics and chemistry.

Thats the intangible nature of information, and only Consciousness (something which is Itself non physical) can apprehend it.

chemistry explains genetics.
Really, then how does brute chemistry explain the specific order of nucleotide bases in DNA.....when there are no chemical bonds a long the information bearing axis of the molecule to begin with?

I did read it, I asked for the calculations, not the numbers some people got from calculations, supposedly. However, more than that, your creationist quote mine website doesn't show what you think it does.
I think you have to have access to Scientific research papers to find out how the odds were calculated....something which I don't have.

At any rate, can you show me a statistical analysis that "favors" the odds of life emerging from inorganic matter?

The quote from Blum, first of all, seems to be between 50-60 years old (as it seems to come somewhere in his work Time's Arrow and Evolution first published in 1951 and updated a couple more times with new editions) and so is pretty useless in terms modern science anyway. More than that, the actual quote from Blum seems to be that last line at the end, the rest being slapped on as commentary by an unknown, and therefor non-credible party. Further still, based on the larger body of the work, he seems to be how evolution takes place within the second law of thermodynamics, his conclusion still being it does with no indication he holds any kind of guided process.
Fine, lets dismiss this one..

The second quote from Morowitz was deliberately and willfully lifted out of context by creationists. Indeed he very explicitly saying the exact opposite of what they are claiming he says. The quote, in full context, is a description of how in a static environment the odds are extremely low, however, the Earth is not a static environment. What is more, Morowitz explicitly rejects creationism as a viable solution
Do you have the full quote from him?

The final quote from Yockey, once again, is 35 years old, which isn't a good start, but more than that no part of evolutionary theory, or even abiogenesis requires fully formed modern polypeptides to suddenly appear out of nowhere. It does, however, have well documented evidence of which they can form gradually over time into gradually more complex and stable compounds. What is more, even your uncited source admits Yockey still believed in evolution despite the supposed calculations and so clearly he must not have found them that convincing and so why should I?
Yockey was just calculating the odds. The fact that he is an evolutionist has nothing to do with anything.

Sir Fred Hoyle is another one that has done calculations in to the probability of Life arising by chance:

"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:
J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).
And yet, Fred Hoyle is (or was since he passed away) an avowed atheist and anti-theist..
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
So, in short, you cannot rebut the facts I've presented, and don't have the balls to admit you've lost, so you're just gonna sneer and snivel like a pathetic child.

Par for the course, I guess. :rolleyes:
You have yet to show facts. If you did, and I somehow missed them, either present them again of just provide the post number.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,085
891
126
1) You think it did, we all just disagree on the how it did.

2) Incorrect. Irreducible Complexity is nonsense.
I must say, you have a talent for answering questions, without answering them :hmm:

Care to provide any examples of extremely ordered and complex structures akin to life forms arising from chaotic forces?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Unable to read your own writing? If there's no creature in range then it's not a sound, it's differing vibrations of pressure waves.
I think you misread it (easy to do as it is a complex sentence):

composed of frequencies within the range of hearing
The frequencies have to be within the range of frequencies which are able to be heard.

All in all, we are having a silly debate over something not really meaningful to anything at all. :)
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

Time is a fascinating thing, and I am looking forward to use learning more and more about it. As of right now, science gives time and our universe a starting point. Science could be wrong about it, though. Philosophy and science fiction often preceed the actual science...you have to think of it before you can research it. :)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,605
3,734
126
I must say, you have a talent for answering questions, without answering them :hmm:

Care to provide any examples of extremely ordered and complex structures akin to life forms arising from chaotic forces?
Evolution through Natural Selection.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Do you think there are gravity particles?Something does not need to be particulate to exist.
You think cause and effect is a force like gravity? That is what your question implies. If you do not think that, then your question is a spurious distraction.

Either way, your response is pretty stupid.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY