Posts Tagged ‘Random’

banned from blog simply for questioning evolution

March 15, 2012

It is very clear to me that some people cannot stand people who believe in creationism. It is truly clear that the motive has nothing to do with how much they love science but with how much they hate religion.

I have half a mind to just storm out of a room next time someone tells me evolution true because all they are really trying to do is indoctrinate me.

I made a very clear laymens case that evolution had been elevated above mere science. The result? I get banned from the blog. Its name is the sensous curmugeon and I don’t even care if I spelled that correctly.


Like I said

September 13, 2011

According to . . .ehm . . wikipedia itself … . carbon dating cannot tell us if something is billions of years old. . . . .. . read it and weep . . . . 62,000 years tops. And you know what they use to deal with long ages? Well according to wikipedia . . tree rings . . hahaha.   also see    50,000 years tops


4.5 billion years is obviously completely hypothetical . ..  with what little I know about the current dating of things almost nothing can be reliably or realistically dated past 1 million years (I’m being generous). Carbon dating is a far cry from being any kind of  exception to this rule. Nobody can actually calculate an age of 4.5 billion years (see above).


If you want to know why the limit is 50,000 years I believe the answer is best summed up on the following post


Carbon decays too quickly.  You’ve been had.

Well genetic change is sure interesting . . it appears to have “switching mechanisms”

June 3, 2011

Switching mechanism added to what I know concerning gene filters seems to limit, as far as I can tell, what changes can occur. This again creates problems for evolution. It is so complex that a MECHANISM for the change must be present?

Regarding so called evolutionary history, these scientists could simply be “seeing” patterns that are not there. Did I miss something or is this history almost entirely an assumption in this article?

Well I will give it that a mutation can create almost any size of something. This experiment proves this one fact once and for all beyond all doubt as if it wasn’t already obvious in every species. Though there do appear to be some limits to the size changes depending on species.

If it isn’t already apparent, it would seem that in order for evolution to work many things in a species would have to change at the same time. So noted. As can be clearly seen an entire genetic switch mechanism is most likely the cause of positive adaptations.  This really lends credibility so far to my theory that adaptation is built in and limited in scope.   The scientists even noticed a leveling off phase.   What would falsify my theory is to show that somehow such a mechanism could just evolve or that it was capable of far more changes beyond the present species.

I’m serious about logic

June 3, 2011

I know that in order for a person to truly begin to expand their ability to think they must be able to look beyond the constraints of any particular perception or language or number and realize that all perception is available as a means of reflecting reality and that such reflection varies on a scale from abstract symbol to direct and exact simulation and representation.  Either it will be reflected by a symbol such as a number or a letter or it will be directly represented such as by a painting or a simulation. Reality has concreteness. All things symbolized have an existence apart from that symbol. One must be able to consider that existence in order to stretch the boundaries and go where the symbol cannot go.

But one also needs creativity, for without that you not only have difficulty bending the concrete to what you want but you also would have trouble considering many different and varied possibilities. Beware because there are billions so you will never in your life think of absolutely all of them. This is why random sampling is important. Making choices more relevant also helps reduce the number of possibilities you need to consider. If science, consider only the possibilities that are relevant to your problem. If art, consider only possibilities that are most likely top be esthetically pleasing. But in this case we are dealing with science. If there are too many relevant possibilities to contemplate then randomly sample.

And you need to think of probability, which is basically the human minds way of predicting through assumed continuance or connection or relatedness. Its one of the ways we interpret language. The context allows us to assume a probability of what is meant.

I give you these thoughts to help improve your own. But I’m also in the process constantly of improving my own thinking. We all still have a lot to learn about reasoning so this is far from complete. I partly put this hear to show I am very serious about logic. And please, If what I am saying here is either inaccurate or incomplete or outright primitive compared to what you know about logic and reasoning in general then I would love to hear your input. I think logic and abstraction are fun and amazing and I’m always learning new stuff.

Thinking is a thing that can be advanced much the same as a car can be made better and better or as a computer can be made better and better. The difference is it is a limited resource, so you are just trying ever more to make the most out of it. I know there is always room for improvement. There is always something new to learn.

I almost forgot . . . one can conclude rules and formulas from observations . . crucial to science.

And . . . seeing things . . the same concrete can be seen many different ways. Are we seeing it the right way or are we just . .. seeing things that aren’t what they seem? Illusions?

And finally, how accurately does a communication reflect a reality. Is it a hoax or is it the truth or is it simply accidentally misrepresented?

Question everything

June 1, 2011

My concern is with what can work chemically and what cannot and the probability thereof. A good theory that just seems to work is not going to be enough to me. I am totally going to deep search this thing and test it’s metal. Things you are about to read should make both you and me question . . . question everything. Important facts below;

The moon has huge craters. How did earth make it through these collisions?

Given that a sun can be any number of sizes it is impossible to know exactly how old it is. So how old is it?

Where did all the meteorites come from?

Check out this video. Though not everything in it is exactly logical it shows a video of a cell at the end. THIS IS what happens inside a cell. How did this happen? This is an amazing subatomic structure. . .  See cell video near end. Note: you will have to go to you tube to watch.

What is this . . . .

Is it a hoax? Is it real?

What is this . . . (see dragon picture)

Is this real? Is it a hoax?

What on earth does this double slit experiment tell us?!!! Are we in a hologram?



What I have learned about persuing truth

May 31, 2011

It can sometimes be a painful and even lonely experience. Its not always easy and fun like they say in the science text books. I’m not talking about creationism and evolution here, which is actually quite fun to think about. I’m talking about other things . . .like facing uncomfortable truths or dealing with human bias. This compounded by the fact that so many would rather feel good than find a truth no matter how pleasant or painful. Although I understand why this might happen, it does not help us get to the truth. I wonder what would happen . . . if a bunch of emotionless robots were created to objectively discover and share truth. What kind of belief system would they adopt?

Rational consideration of both theories

May 5, 2011

Neither evolution nor creationism could occur without a designer. Both require the addition of matter and energy that is well organized and planed. Neither could work without this. If you want Adom to come from the dirt, you need an outside intelligent force acting on the dirt. If you want one species to change into another, a higher intelligent force would have to intervene to add the new complexity. There is such a low probability that chemicals could do all this by themselves and we see clearly the probability is low. If it was not, we would have created evolution in a lab a long time ago.

What you should know about earthquakes

April 8, 2011

Sigh. The media has puled the biggest April fools in history. Sorry 2012ers

Read it and weep. A major earthquake happens some place in the world EVERY YEAR. This has been happening since 1990 and possibly even before then!!