EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Hugoneus on April 14, 2015, 02:24:37 pm
-
I was looking for something and came across a YouTube channel with nearly 44 THOUSAND subscribers with videos like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaTG9EHbKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaTG9EHbKg)
|O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O
And then the comments... Some of the videos have more than a million views...
:palm:
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
-
I wouldn't call it pseudo-science. Instead, I prefer "non-science", or "nonsense" for short.
-
This has taken on such stupidity, that it is almost unbelievable.
But what this shows us the most is, that the subscribers have kind of a believe system in this "none - science"
There was a movie a few years ago, called Idiocracy (2006) and it showed our stupefied planet 500 years in to the future.
The sad part is, we have partially reached that level already in the last 9 years since the movie came out.
And that is why these people have 44 thousand subscribers to their free energy youtube channels.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)
-
Don't be angry! It's a new form of religion and it doesn't make any sense to argue with it's believers. They simply ignore any scientific facts, like they never had physics in school.
-
I understand you, but in my experience there isn't really much you can do about it. It's like astrology, people just want to believe it.
-
Guys, that's just the tip of the stupid iceberg - thanks to the miracle of homeopathy and other, well, less than repeatable medical procedures we're seeing the return of illnesses that were nigh eradicated.
Basically, there's a trend that leads people to believe that anything mainstream (mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream history) is an evil fabrication by a naughty conspiracy group of your choice, and the REAL TRUTH is on that obscure channel, with the tinfoil hat guru rambling on about CERN being a portal to hell and how it's riddled with satanic symbols (there actually IS a video with this, I am not making this shit up). Just look on the CERN fan page to see some industrial strength stupid in the comments.
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
Cheer up !
I guess it is not a matter of what nationality or religion people are, a significant part of the world population is simply dumb, missing elementary common sense and willingness to use their own head... The more you give them utter crap, the more they believe and like it O0
Enlightenment is futile, but you can benefit the other's stupidity.
btw: I like your work and my GF likes your cat. Thanks for that !
-
I don't think it's so much that people are dumb, but that they like a nice, simple story, with a happy ending. Science is rarely simple, frequently not at all nice, and never has a proper ending - there is always more to discover.
In the old days, people mostly believed what they were told by those in authority, whether it was the church or the state. Nowadays they are 'empowered' to believe whatever they like. If they haven't subordinated their belief system to some religion or another, they get on the internet to look for a good story.
-
btw: I like your work and my GF likes your cat. Thanks for that !
Hehe, Thanks.
-
Follow the money, the duped willingly send money to these Charlatans. Some of them have the charisma to talk seriously experienced tech investors out of their money. Seen it done. Often they escape town just ahead of the civil lawyers and local prosecutor.
Evil, is well, Evil.
Same sort of bunch who are doing the vaccine frauds. I really, really don't feel like risking Polio or TB so a housewife can feel good about not risking her child with vaccination. Which is the results of three fraudulent studies done on extremely small sample groups led by one famous physician. When redone on a large group, no correlation could be found between vaccines and risk of childhood autism. But a few famous actors and wealthy people picked up on this as an excuse to explain what they observed. Suddenly we have new laws on the books in the US allowing the refusal of mandatory preventative medicine on grounds other then known allergy or religion. Hey, it makes those Moms feel GOOOOOD! However the man hours spent combating this would have been better spent actually doing beneficial Autism research.
Herd immunity works. If we have to sacrifice say 1 in 250,000 people to complications, that is a sad but acceptable risk.
I say that being the son of man who suffered lifelong symptoms from Malaria.
The good news is I just served as a judge for the regional science fair. The Brilliant Seventh Grader who tried to build multiple versions of a perpetual motion machine with DC motors and magnets came to the conclusion he could never overcome friction losses. On his own, with decent statistics and no adult help. We made very sure he will have a mentor for the next few years. With his self taught mechanical construction and measurement skills, I have no doubt I was talking to a future engineer.
Now if we could just address the fraud perpetuated by certain folks that says Arduino PWM will solve ALL analog electrical engineering problems, I'd be happy... |O (Sarcasm)
Steve
-
Now if we could just address the fraud perpetuated by certain folks that says Arduino PWM will solve ALL analog electrical engineering problems, I'd be happy... |O (Sarcasm)
Who says that? :palm:
-
It is not always money. Stupid has many roots. One is the desire to justify what you want to do.
Example: I want to smoke marijuana. Which becomes: I have some malady which only marijuana can cure. Which, with the application of more stupidity becomes: Marijuana is medicine which cures everything. Now it is the evil drug companies suppressing marijuana to protect their profits. Of course money is involved in this chain too, as there will always be someone to exploit any market.
In our wealthy societies (actually a surprisingly large part of the world nowdays), the penalties of stupidity are small, so it spreads rapidly. It hasn't always been that way, and won't remain that way forever.
-
There was a movie a few years ago, called Idiocracy (2006) and it showed our stupefied planet 500 years in to the future.
The sad part is, we have partially reached that level already in the last 9 years since the movie came out.
I totally agree. It's was more of a dystopian prediction than a comedy.
-
There is this whole idea that being "open-minded" means accepting that everything is possible, that we could be wrong about anything and everything. This is really frustrating because it does not take probability into account. What are the chances that we are wrong about water being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Well, the odds are extremely small and it is not worth considering because there is more than a century of evidence behind it. But according to some people, we should be open-minded!!!
-
They're trolls who prey on the ignorant.
The trouble is, some uneducated people fall for it. I think most people would agree it's not possible to spontaneously produce matter out of thin space but some have a problem with believing the same about energy because it's mostly invisible and is a more abstract concept which makes is less intuitive.
-
There is this whole idea that being "open-minded" means accepting that everything is possible, that we could be wrong about anything and everything.
The best comment I've read sums the whole open-minded situation nicely:
If your mind is too open your brain might fall out.
-
I only feel sad that it is in my constitution to be honest and considerate. I sort-of envy those who have no qualms about ripping people off.
-
There is this whole idea that being "open-minded" means accepting that everything is possible, that we could be wrong about anything and everything. This is really frustrating because it does not take probability into account. What are the chances that we are wrong about water being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Well, the odds are extremely small and it is not worth considering because there is more than a century of evidence behind it. But according to some people, we should be open-minded!!!
OK, what do you do when someone tells you this liquid is H2O2? Do you drink it because you are not open to the possibility of it being H2O2?
>:D
-
If your mind is too open your brain might fall out.
I've heard this saying the most out of the holy rollers in my family warning me not to accept evolution... :-\
-
I won't drink H2O2 because I know even small doses will kill a human in short order.
I think most people would agree it's not possible to spontaneously produce matter out of thin space
Most people, not privy to principles of quantum physics, would be wrong. Also interesting to note that 3/4 of world population believe in ghosts and less than a quarter in biological evolution.
BTW if you guys don't wise up and realize there are forces beyond the physical laws then God will most certainly punish you spoiling all chance of EVER getting into heaven.
-
There is this whole idea that being "open-minded" means accepting that everything is possible, that we could be wrong about anything and everything.
The best comment I've read sums the whole open-minded situation nicely:
If your mind is too open your brain might fall out.
It's an old saying, but in case you haven't heard it this song by Tim Minchin with a similar title is entertaining:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBUc_kATGgg#ws)
-
I really like Tim Minchin. I highly recommend listening to his performances and his songs.
-
A good example for this thread, the classic web site(s) on banning DHMO
www.BanDMHO.org (http://www.BanDMHO.org)
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
Amazing how every April Fools, some one starts circulating a petition to Ban DHMO... Amazing even more, when done as a psychology experiment, how many people sign without regard to content or context...
Although some of the MSDS for water do list a few hazards...
Steve
-
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
It's not a feeling. It's real. Welcome to the energy industry!
Unfortunately, what it isn't, is new. I think if one looks far enough back in time, there's going to be a traveling homo sapien selling magic cave heaters to neanderthals.
-
Free energy people are pretty far down on my list. The internet is equally filled with alt.med quacks, anti-vaccers, HIV denialists, hate-mongering fundamentalists, "psychics" and countless others who have have greater potential for harm to people and society.
-
Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret (http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret)
-
Actually, I regard Free Energy quacks as very detrimental to society. The money wasted and delays in implementing sound energy policies due to some "miracle" being just around the bend have a tremendous cost to society.
-
Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret (http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret)
That's a good demonstration of the principle that the validity of a technical idea is inversely proportional to the size of the font and the number of quote marks and exclamation points used to describe it.
-
I have a simple theory to explain the ever growing popularity of faux science on YouTube.
1) You need to be stupid to believe the rubbish posted on YouTube
2)If you are stupid, there is a much higher probability that you are unemployed (often unemployable ;-)
3)If you are unemployed, you have all day to watch YouTube - See point 1)
QED! 8)
-
Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret (http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret)
That's a good demonstration of the principle that the validity of a technical idea is inversely proportional to the size of the font and the number of quote marks and exclamation points used to describe it.
Indeed.
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
-
2)If you are stupid, there is a much higher probability that you are unemployed (often unemployable ;-)
This true to some degree, but then again I'm not unemployed/unemployable because of any intellectual handicap. In regards to free energy concepts, I'd love some feedback in my thread. It's somewhat related to free energy in terms of converting energy to a more universal form of usable energy. ;)
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
I don't fully understand what you mean.
The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Furthermore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
-
I think it was Carl Sagan who said something in the line of "extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary demonstrations".
-
However, given that the theme expressed in this thread is pretty much the same that in "The Time Machine" written in 1895, and quite a few other books. Maybe it is some sort of universal worry...
Usually there are two groups:
- The "technical skilled" who know how the world works but have become slaves to the machine
- The "ignorant and technically illiterate" elite live a live of unknowing bliss, however they must somehow pay their dues (usually involving being eaten as food).
Then the main protagonist cannot accept this state of affairs and attempts to bring enlightenment and 'freedom' to the illiterate...
-
Science is not a belief system
yes it is. first come the faith, and then hope, and then it will materialize in your daily life, and then belief comes, sometime not in that order. without faith you will not make the first step, without belief you will not make the next step, without hope you wont bother to write down the first letter. ironically most science started from "luck". why you say its not a "belief", because you think you only believe when there is a proof, methodologically accepted in scientifical community. belief or not belief is the same system, one is to do, one is not. or maybe i can say... "duality" about the same thing or system. just like electron will not exist without proton they build an atom, or matter will not exist without antimatter. they came from the same thing, pure energy. and pure energy may not be exist without what? i maybe drifting but thats the idea, somesort...
we know what faith in "religion" is, and what is faith in science? that "we will advance", that "we will find something", that "we hope for a better future"... as proven from the past, but do you have the prove that we will advance in the future? no we dont have proof because its not happening yet, but faith and hope, and "belief" is what move us on. thats what those scientists are based on, thats what every living things are based on, knowingly or unknowingly. the one who have not the faith and belief is the one who commit suicide.
-
Science is not a belief system
yes it is. first come the faith, and then hope, and then it will materialize in your daily life, and then belief comes, sometime not in that order. without faith you will not make the first step, without belief you will not make the next step, without hope you wont bother to write down the first letter. ironically most science started from "luck". why you say its not a "belief", because you think you only believe when there is a proof, methodologically accepted in scientifical community. belief or not belief is the same system, one is to do, one is not. or maybe i can say... "duality" about the same thing or system. just like electron will not exist without proton they build an atom, or matter will not exist without antimatter. they came from the same thing, pure energy. and pure energy may not be exist without what? i maybe drifting but thats the idea, somesort...
we know what faith in "religion" is, and what is faith in science? that "we will advance", that "we will find something", that "we hope for a better future"... as proven from the past, but do you have the prove that we will advance in the future? no we dont have proof because its not happening yet, but faith and hope, and "belief" is what move us on. thats what those scientists are based on, thats what every living things are based on, knowingly or unknowingly. the one who have not the faith and belief is the one who commit suicide.
You have framed your argument within your own beliefs, and as a pragmatic agnostic I just can't understand what you are saying.
I have no faith in science, I have no belief in science, I just see the scientific method as a tool. Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.
Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven due to the methods used to discover and document them. Sure, as you get away from the hard science into the more statistically based stuff (like most new medicine) it gets a bit hard to see the woods through the trees (for example, does stretching before exercise prevent muscle injuries?).
And then sometimes the 'truth' is found to be just an approximation of the actual truth (e.g. Newton's gravity vs Einstein's gravity), but a deeper truth is then there to be discovered...
-
I just see the scientific method as a tool.
there your faith is. you will not pick it up if you dont have the "faith and belief" in. faith may comes when you dont know whether it is or its not its just like instinct... belief comes when you have a set of "truth conditions", that you may think also applied to the other somewhat similar conditions...
Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.
you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.
Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven
yes science is a system or tool.... but you have faith in it. you have faith in the process or methodology. "others" have faith in "imagination" alone, and thats define their reality or truth. you may seldomly see them, but they are around, less capable in mathematical or scientifical method/reasoning/process/reach etc, not us.
into the more statistically based stuff
so what is your faith in it?
-
Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.
you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.
There are multiple definitions of "believe".
Speaking of definitions,
Verb:
conflate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conflate) (third-person singular simple present conflates, present participle conflating, simple past and past participle conflated)
3. To fail to properly distinguish or keep separate (things); to treat (them) as equivalent.
-
Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.
you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.
There are multiple definitions of "believe".
Speaking of definitions,
Verb:
conflate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conflate) (third-person singular simple present conflates, present participle conflating, simple past and past participle conflated)
3. To fail to properly distinguish or keep separate (things); to treat (them) as equivalent.
Precisely. Like many religious apologists, Mechatrommer is twisting the meaning of faith and belief. In religion, faith is defined as belief without proof, and that is the antithesis of science.
It is human nature to have hopes and dreams and beliefs. Unfortunately they very often lead us to believe in fiction that matches our preconceptions rather than what is objectively correct.
Science is our best attempt to do away with fiction and establish what is objectively true, even if that flies in the face of religious dogma or personal prejudice. It is thus absolutely not a belief system, however much theists would like it to be. It may be rooted in belief in the validity of the scientific method, but that belief is backed by evidence. Science generates factual information, not beliefs.
-
Do you have 'faith' in a screwdriver? Do you have 'belief' in a hammer? I just pick the tool for the job.
you just pick the tool that "you believe is right" for the job.
Experience has told me that although a hammer can be used to insert screws into wood a screwdriver does a much better job. Well, actually when I was a teenager a friend's data asked us to use screws to attach boards to a fence, we did, but we used a hammer because it was quicker - as far as I know they are still attached....
Belief and faith are different from learning. Let's not confuse me learning that a screwdriver is designed to be the best tool to use with screws with me having belief and faith in the powers of a screwdriver.
Science is a system where you discover 'truths' that are can be repeatedly proven
yes science is a system or tool.... but you have faith in it. you have faith in the process or methodology. "others" have faith in "imagination" alone, and thats define their reality or truth. you may seldomly see them, but they are around, less capable in mathematical or scientifical method/reasoning/process/reach etc, not us.
The first sentence of Wikipedia's article on faith is "Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof". Where there is solid proof there is no need for faith.
into the more statistically based stuff
so what is your faith in it?
Far higher than my faith (if I had any!) in anecdotes, testimonials or celebrity endorsements.
-
They are not the same or similar. In a way direct opposites. Most of recent commenters here pontificating and waning philosophical are engaging there own definitions for "belief"and "faith". Number one accepted definition of the latter:
Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.
I.E. Belief without reason. Those with scientific bent are in no way involved in faith. Fortunately logic and critical thought prevail.
-
Mechatrommer I have to respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you. We can't be playing with words here.
I don't have faith in science, I don't believe in science. I accept that it is the best system our species has come up with to advance our understanding of the real world. I accept evidence which describe facts. I accept nothing without proper evidence.
I would love to believe or have faith to make myself feel better, or to twist reality to suite my needs, but that is not science. In its ideal form, a scientist must put aside all his/her beliefs, faiths, etc. and rely on evidence, reason and criticism. As a scientist myself, I strive for this ideal. I am not always 100% successful, but that is a failing on my part and not a shortcoming of science.
-
Oh, and reason doesn't have to be scientific.
I've been sick three times in the last 5 years, and only eaten shellfish twice. Both times I was sick the following day.
I could do the statistics but I'm very confident that the shellfish was the reason. It isn't absolute proof, or a scientific proof, but it is well-reasoned and I don't want to do any more experiments to investigate.
-
Faith based electronics. :palm:
-
I would love to believe or have faith to make myself feel better, or to twist reality to suite my needs, but that is not science. In its ideal form, a scientist must put aside all his/her beliefs, faiths, etc. and rely on evidence, reason and criticism. As a scientist myself, I strive for this ideal. I am not always 100% successful, but that is a failing on my part and not a shortcoming of science.
Not to single you out, but, if you are prepared to concede you don't always attain the 100% ideal, then it follows that there is a "gray" area between the black and white ends of the faith - pure science spectrum.
No, that is not what I meant at all.
I mean that while I always (and I mean always) rely on evidence and reason, I sometimes wish that I could just have "faith" to draw comfort in unpleasant situations. There is no grey zone. But I would much rather strive for the ideal scientific approach than for false comfort.
-
Faith based electronics. :palm:
Electronics has its own lore that is largely faith-based, handed down from engineer to engineer.... caps, coils, pretty much all of RF, high speed digital, high power, ESD - all of which seem to have a body of half-truths and rules-of-thumb that rely more on faith than engineering.
Heck, even some computer haxors believe that heat running your HDD or CPU warm shortens their life, "overclocker grade" memory is somehow magical, and gigabit ethernet to the router improves you gaming.
-
Faith based electronics. :palm:
Electronics has its own lore that is largely faith-based, handed down from engineer to engineer.... caps, coils, pretty much all of RF, high speed digital, high power, ESD - all of which seem to have a body of half-truths and rules-of-thumb that rely more on faith than engineering.
Heck, even some computer haxors believe that heat running your HDD or CPU warm shortens their life, "overclocker grade" memory is somehow magical, and gigabit ethernet to the router improves you gaming.
I call that odds based, worked in the past should work this time. Being proven wrong simply adds to our understanding. With faith, even if proven wrong people often (very often) revert back ignoring the facts at hand.
-
I was looking for something and came across a YouTube channel with nearly 44 THOUSAND subscribers with videos like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaTG9EHbKg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaTG9EHbKg)
|O |O |O |O |O |O |O |O
And then the comments... Some of the videos have more than a million views...
Welcome to the Internet!
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
I don't fully understand what you mean.
You never will.
Mechatrommer is our resident fruitloop.
His tagline link says it all.
-
Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret (http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret)
The BS document is here, released by Colin Mitchell :clap:
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/FrameworkPages/TeslaSecret.pdf (http://www.talkingelectronics.com/FrameworkPages/TeslaSecret.pdf)
-
Mechatrommer is our resident fruitloop.
"Be excellent to each other. That means no personal attacks."
David L. Jones, EEVBLOG forum rules.
-
And then the comments... Some of the videos have more than a million views...
Many of the comments are clearly from slightly less than rational people, but what significance do you see in a million views? You are now one of the million viewers. Lots of sane well educated people are among the million viewers. Its like the problems caused on a motorway when there's a crash on the other side. Everyone just has to take a look at the wreckage.
-
I think it was Carl Sagan who said something in the line of "extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary demonstrations".
The quote is "extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence". Penn and Teller can give you an extraordinary demonstration, but that's not evidence.
-
Mechatrommer is our resident fruitloop.
"Be excellent to each other. That means no personal attacks."
David L. Jones, EEVBLOG forum rules.
Hardly personal attack.
Fruitloopery:The use of scientific language inappropriately and without comprehension in order to increase believability of a concept.
-
The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Furthermore, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
Yes, this. A thousand times this.
It's fine to believe or have faith in a non-physical world, or even to believe there are properties of the physical world that we have not yet learned how to measure or detect, but do not mix this up with science. It is not.
-
Why isn't this illegal?!
http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret (http://recomm.firstezarticle.com/info/?teslasecret)
The BS document is here, released by Colin Mitchell :clap:
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/FrameworkPages/TeslaSecret.pdf (http://www.talkingelectronics.com/FrameworkPages/TeslaSecret.pdf)
A lot of effort to make such a document... Sigh...
-
And then the comments... Some of the videos have more than a million views...
Many of the comments are clearly from slightly less than rational people, but what significance do you see in a million views? You are now one of the million viewers. Lots of sane well educated people are among the million viewers. Its like the problems caused on a motorway when there's a crash on the other side. Everyone just has to take a look at the wreckage.
I should have clarified. it is the combination of views and thumbs-ups that concerns me the most.
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
G. K. Chesterton famously said that "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather that they believe in anything.". That's not really true for all of us, but it seems to be a trend in largely atheistic Europe. Pseudoscience seems to be popping up all over the place, especially in medicine.
-
Mechatrommer is our resident fruitloop.
"Be excellent to each other. That means no personal attacks."
David L. Jones, EEVBLOG forum rules.
It's a demonstrably true statement, and kind of a term of endearment in a way, he grows on you.
There is a long history on the forum of people who can't understand arguments that Mechatrommer makes!
Quite fruitloopery.
-
And then the comments... Some of the videos have more than a million views...
Many of the comments are clearly from slightly less than rational people, but what significance do you see in a million views? You are now one of the million viewers. Lots of sane well educated people are among the million viewers. Its like the problems caused on a motorway when there's a crash on the other side. Everyone just has to take a look at the wreckage.
I should have clarified. it is the combination of views and thumbs-ups that concerns me the most.
And that is just the tip of it.
-
G. K. Chesterton famously said that "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather that they believe in anything.". That's not really true for all of us, but it seems to be a trend in largely atheistic Europe. Pseudoscience seems to be popping up all over the place, especially in medicine.
What a silly quote - he should have said "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather they free themselves to believe in anything that is equally as fanciful".
Snake oil has nothing to do with loss of religion... desperate people are easy picking for quackery and voodoo.
-
G. K. Chesterton famously said that "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather that they believe in anything.". That's not really true for all of us, but it seems to be a trend in largely atheistic Europe. Pseudoscience seems to be popping up all over the place, especially in medicine.
What a silly quote - he should have said "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather they free themselves to believe in anything that is equally as fanciful".
Snake oil has nothing to do with loss of religion... desperate people are easy picking for quackery and voodoo.
Its not a silly quote at all. His observation was that a belief in one religion keeps people's minds focused on what that religion says is true and false. When that's taken away many minds wander to a whole slew of fanciful ideas. Often mutually contradictory ones.
-
I look at this from time to time just to make sure there is some sanity out there.
https://www.metabunk.org/ (https://www.metabunk.org/)
-
Well I have free energy and I watch utube sometimes I did not get my free energy idea from there, I got it from the county fair. 8 years ago.
3 kw of solar power, I hit my pay back this year. sooooo free energy!
If we did not use Mr. Tesla's grand inventions I would not have free energy. so draw your own conclusion.
bill
-
Well I have free energy and I watch utube sometimes I did not get my free energy idea from there, I got it from the county fair. 8 years ago.
3 kw of solar power, I hit my pay back this year. sooooo free energy!
bill
Your stealin' that power from the sun dang it.
-
Yes!
-
I don't have faith in science, I don't believe in science. I accept that it is the best system our species has come up with to advance our understanding of the real world. I accept evidence which describe facts. I accept nothing without proper evidence.
respectfully, it is you that playing with word i think. by definition....
Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.
i call that (and maybe we accepted it as) "blind faith" to be precise, and thats stupid... maybe we have misunderstanding here as english is not my first language, but i dont know what to describe what i'm trying to say, maybe its called "motivation", motivation is what drives us. or maybe a saying "i accepted that.." can be the same meaning as "i believe that as a truth of thing" - just because "i've seen it" or "experienced the proof or truth" of it.
Mechatrommer is our resident fruitloop.
"Be excellent to each other. That means no personal attacks."
David L. Jones, EEVBLOG forum rules.
and there is no point of being offended no matter how people attack you. i/we should accept it as they just dont know it yet.... we feel sorry and we care, thats why we keep helping each other... regardless of what will come back at you ;) and frankly laymen speaking, i dont really understand what "fruitloop" is. hurt my brain try to translate it programmatically. you should read some aristotle or descartes book/writing, will hurt your brain i bet, i dont blame it, thats how we got educated to interact with our tangible surrounding world.
saying "i dont believe its true" and saying "i believe its not true" can be 2 different syntaxes of the same semantics, so does "i accepted" or "i do not accepted" i think... fwiw.
-
I would take being called a fruitloop a complement in this context ( meaning thinking out side the box)
bill
-
deleted.
-
If we accept only what we have sufficient evidence for, then is fine. If we "belive" anything without sufficient evidene then we are doing ourselves a disservice.
-
G. K. Chesterton famously said that "When people lose their belief in God, it is not true that they believe in nothing, but rather that they believe in anything.". That's not really true for all of us, but it seems to be a trend in largely atheistic Europe. Pseudoscience seems to be popping up all over the place, especially in medicine.
Most have faith in money, which is as good as any other religion. If you have a look at the financial systems you'll understand. The gold standard is long gone. Pseudoscience isn't anything new. Today it's free energy and demonising vaccines, yesterday it was esoterism and the day before it was necromancy. I think pseudoscience is halfway between religion and science, i.e. when getting the idea that there's no god, but still needing someone or something to blame for pain or giving comfort while not yet fully accepting the 'cold' science.
-
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first. ;-)
-
You can balance faith and science if your careful. I'm deep in my faith. It stops at the lab door, except in using ethics and compassion when dealing with students, staff, and vendors. I can say a prayer for some one without their knowing it. Those of my faith have our ways of finding each other, so I know the like minded people at my employer. We're very, very very careful to keep our beliefs out of our classrooms and labs. What we say to each other behind closed doors may be different. Once in a while it gives me a bit better insite into how some small part of the universe, works.
As for the faith side, being part of a like minded group that reinforces each other with twice a week works wonders for healing and dealing with social stress. It allows me to treat others much better in a stressful environment. And we can even laugh at pariodies such as the flying spaghetti monster. We even talk to folks of radically different faiths, as we often have common goals in the community. And when I say healing, I mean mental healing, we do not disavow modern medicine. It feels good to be part of a group.
I used to try to be "Spock", until the stress of adult life reached a level that I needed to reach out to a higher power. When dealing with people, pure logic is often a failure for the obvious reasons.
Nice thing about church/temple/ etc . Our door is generally opened to the troubled, even if you don't belive. Feel free to walk in if your having a bad day or lack courage to face the world.
Besides, I've never given an exam to the best of my knowledge without hearing at least one "Please God I did not study and I really need to pass this test".
There is nothing in "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" that give you authority to stop a free willed fraud, that portion of law most likely has its origin in religion based law.
I now return to recycling and wrangling electrons.
Steve
-
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first. ;-)
There is no "my view". Again, science is not a preference, not an opinion. It is a system and a methodology for our species to do the best it can to represent reality. It has taken us this far with remarkable results. It is the best we have. Beyond this, I have no idea what you mean.
-
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first. ;-)
There is no "my view".
its an absolute then? anybody thinking otherwise is wrong?
-
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first. ;-)
There is no "my view".
its an absolute then?
The most wonderful, lasting and tested property of science is the fact that it is NOT absolute. If there is anything that can be remotely called absolute is our commitment to the truth and reality as our most reliable and proven methods can provide.
anybody thinking otherwise is wrong?
Thinking otherwise to what? Anyone thinking science is absolute is wrong, yes. Anyone accepting anything as fact without sufficient evidence or study has significantly increased their chances of being wrong, yes. Anyone thinking that we can be wrong about anything and everything that we have developed until now is doing a disservice to our progress and is not taking probability into account.
Some issues are no longer a matter of debate. We can now safely ignore someone who claims the earth is flat, this is not a "view" anymore. It is not absolutism to say that the earth is round, because the chances of it not being round are sufficiently small enough to be ignored.
-
We can now safely ignore someone who claims the earth is flat, this is not a "view" anymore.
I don't know about that :)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission)
-
Some are even talking about "hollow earth" and believe it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth)
-
We can now safely ignore someone who claims the earth is flat, this is not a "view" anymore.
I don't know about that :)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission)
Remarkable. :palm: Truly remarkable. |O
-
LaserSteve, I am with you fully. I, too, am a man of faith. I belong to a church and I belong to a ham radio club. I believe in God, Ohm's law and magic smoke, having let plenty of it out. I have no trouble having faith in God and belief in science. I, too, know who of faith my co workers are. We do talk and there is a comfort and healing. As you say, it is good to be part of a group, regardless of the type of group. To add to your remark about tests, there is the other saying-there are no atheists in foxholes. For me, it will soon be off to the workbench as I have some company equipment to repair before my mini vacation starts at 5:00.
-
There was a movie a few years ago, called Idiocracy (2006) and it showed our stupefied planet 500 years in to the future.
Idiocracy is not fiction. It is a future history.
Now go away, I'm batin'.
-
anybody thinking otherwise is wrong?
Thinking otherwise to what?
thinking otherwise that... science is not the most wonderful thing,, thinking that science has its limitation....
-
thinking otherwise that... science is not the most wonderful thing,, thinking that science has its limitation....
The scientific method is simply:
1) Question something
2) Make a hypothesis/guess at the answer
3) Come up with a test or series of tests to verify the validity of that hypothesis
4) Analyze the results of the test(s)
5) Re-visit step 2 if necessary
What limitations do you believe this process is subject to? Of course it can't be used to test something that is untestable, and a poorly-formed test could result in a hypothesis being given more credibility than it's due (which would be debunked at a later time as the field is explored further), but other than that it's pretty reliable. It's a simple way to systematically derive understanding about the world around us, based on observation and testing.
If you believe this is a flawed system, what do you propose as an alternative?
-
I wonder how many of the free energy believers are also evolution deniers and believe that the UN and the US government have been taken over by aliens from another galaxy.
-
anybody thinking otherwise is wrong?
Thinking otherwise to what?
thinking otherwise that... science is not the most wonderful thing,, thinking that science has its limitation....
Aside from the obvious issue that having limitations does not mean something can't be wonderful, science is the best we got and it is working better than anything else.
-
LaserSteve, I am with you fully. I, too, am a man of faith. I belong to a church and I belong to a ham radio club. I believe in God, Ohm's law and magic smoke, having let plenty of it out. I have no trouble having faith in God and belief in science. I, too, know who of faith my co workers are. We do talk and there is a comfort and healing. As you say, it is good to be part of a group, regardless of the type of group. To add to your remark about tests, there is the other saying-there are no atheists in foxholes. For me, it will soon be off to the workbench as I have some company equipment to repair before my mini vacation starts at 5:00.
How do you (and other religious posters) deal with things like evolution? I honestly harbor no ill will towards religious people, but the one thing I've never been able to figure out is how obviously smart, educated people can reconcile the two.
By that, I mean having faith in God means his word is absolute, right? So Genesis must be the end all be all of creation. But science has so much evidence when it comes to evolution that it's pretty much concrete.
So, if you believe in evolution but not Genesis, you're picking and choosing. It's the same the other way around too. Either way it's hypocritical.
So how do you reconcile the two?
(http://img.timb.us/emoticon/science.gif)
Sent from my Smartphone
-
Some people call the process of testing our observations, attempting to extract knowledge about the world from them, and healthy skepticism about these ideas "science", and so the other side retorts "but science isn't the only way!". Others call the same thing "common sense", and hear the other side arguing "but common sense isn't the only way!".
Nope, it's not. Willful ignorance is always an option, you're right.
-
To add to your remark about tests, there is the other saying-there are no atheists in foxholes.
One of many commonly heard sayings that is complete and utter bullshit. The implication that most atheists really do believe in a "higher power" and will submit to it in a panic when threatened is offensively hilarious. Nope, I'm about as likely to come crying to the god I used to believe in when in a moment of danger as I am to come crying to Allah or the Tooth Fairy.
-
To add to your remark about tests, there is the other saying-there are no atheists in foxholes.
One of many commonly heard sayings that is complete and utter bullshit. The implication that most atheists really do believe in a "higher power" and will submit to it in a panic when threatened is offensively hilarious. Nope, I'm about as likely to come crying to the god I used to believe in when in a moment of danger as I am to come crying to Allah or the Tooth Fairy.
If I may add, this is not a good defense for the validity of religion or god in any case. It simply points out that in situations of utter distress and pain our species will hold onto anything to reduce the discomfort regardless of rationality. Religion plays a consoling role in moments of dismay. No one denies that. But then again many ideas can do that regardless of whether they are factual or not.
Furthermore, there are plenty of atheists in foxholes. Not to mention that it is likely foxes are atheists too. O0
-
Some people call the process of testing our observations, attempting to extract knowledge about the world from them, and healthy skepticism about these ideas "science", and so the other side retorts "but science isn't the only way!". Others call the same thing "common sense", and hear the other side arguing "but common sense isn't the only way!".
Nope, it's not. Willful ignorance is always an option, you're right.
"There is nothing more uncommon than common sense." - Frank Lloyd Wright
-
Not to mention that it is likely foxes are atheists too. O0
;D
-
Some people call the process of testing our observations, attempting to extract knowledge about the world from them, and healthy skepticism about these ideas "science", and so the other side retorts "but science isn't the only way!". Others call the same thing "common sense", and hear the other side arguing "but common sense isn't the only way!".
Nope, it's not. Willful ignorance is always an option, you're right.
"There is nothing more uncommon than common sense." - Frank Lloyd Wright
Indeed, but to hear people making the rather entertaining and unusual statement that they think common sense is actually a bad thing, one has to call the rose by another name... >:D
-
I have nothing against "believers". I am against "belief". It has been proven over and over again that the process of science is the best way to investigate and understand the universe. The process of science has produced medicines, materials, machines, and for mostly for all a better life. Belief has produced babies dying of AIDS, people getting their heads cut off, schools being burned to the ground with the students inside, 6 million Jews slaughtered, people being afraid that they can't think what they want because their leader can read their minds, and machines that can produce energy from nothing, etc etc etc... When has belief produce a transistor, 6061-T6 aluminium, ion propulsion rockets, solar panels, insulin, better food production, cleaner water, etc...?
The problem, IMHO, is that the powers in control of the wealth around the world would prefer that people believe and act on belief. Education is the enemy of the wealth of the few. You need to believe to think that you need that Mercedes Benz and the biggest house on the street. You need to believe when you go to McDonald's to eat their shit made to resemble food. You need to believe to when you are the idiots lining up for days to buy the latest iPhone. Education would expose this behavior as folly and a waste of resources and human life and the money grubbers would lose their solid gold toilet seats.
So "believe" what you want, but don't say that it doesn't harm others. Your beliefs affect your judgement and make your decisions on life and how you affect the lives of others highly suspect at the least, and damaging to the well being of all at the worst. Believing that a magic machine will give you free energy despite what all the evidence has shown to the contrary makes people spend their money on something that might have been better spent on food, better education for their children, or educating the poor believers who won't use condoms because their church says it is worse than AIDS.
As far as "logical proofs" :bullshit: If it can't be shown, it doesn't exist. I can make a valid logical proof that there is a magic teapot orbiting Saturn and it is leaky, which causes the rings. Logic is a tool to test observations, not make objects appear into reality.
So why is this thread in this part of the forum? Should this not be in General Topics? Or does Technical Stuff now include deities? If so I think the theme of this forum has shifted and deities are now considered something to actually discuss as existing technical objects?
-
Quote:
How do you (and other religious posters) deal with things like evolution? I honestly harbor no ill will towards religious people, but the one thing I've never been able to figure out is how obviously smart, educated people can reconcile the two.
By that, I mean having faith in God means his word is absolute, right? So Genesis must be the end all be all of creation. But science has so much evidence when it comes to evolution that it's pretty much concrete.
So, if you believe in evolution but not Genesis, you're picking and choosing. It's the same the other way around too. Either way it's hypocritical.
So how do you reconcile the two?
End Quote?
Where did the Lord say Solar Days? He's a pretty good engineer, so where did he say he didn't experiment a bit? So he sent a Tunguska event along when he got tired of bird brains in dinosaurs. Ok, I'm being satirical. :o
Seriously,
With work, parts of this get resolved. It takes years of study.
I have no issues with parts of Evolution. Natural Selection works! Animals and plants morph, adapt, and become extinct. Kind of hard to deny the Peppered Moth's selective breeding in response to the industrial revolution. Or the selective breeding of the Russian Fox studies. Or adaptation in Dogs so they can adopt us humans as social members of the pack. I can't turn a border collie back into a wolf with selective breeding.
There are 22 books not in the common English bible that are used by other Christian Sects that were not translated into English except until recently. One of them deals with extinction and Noah's flood. There are 7 others that are pretty much no longer accepted by anyone. The Book of Enoch takes care of a lot of Evolution's mysteries for me. I just learned of them and have not yet have had time to read them. I cant store all the data of a ~1100 page book in my head.
If the evolutionary biologist across from my lunch table goes on and on with his latest Evo research, I set there and listen. Heck sometimes I might even help him with his work. Do I, as a mere technician, stand up in the faculty lounge and challenge him, No! I may just hold him to a bit higher standard of proof. After all, it is just one of the many mainstream, theories of how life evolved.. Its a theory. If he uses that to change my local laws, and it affects my view of how society should be, I might just stand up at Town Hall and say something!
Nearly every religion has at least one deity, a creation story, laws and customs, and a set of commandments...
I long ago learned my Book, when interpreted literally, causes issues if not carefully studied. I in fact do not like very much the folks who attempt to force a certain view on all others. I try to lead people to faith by living as an example. I do expect people to obey a moral code and live in a way to benefit others. I'm not a front line warrior on the mysteries of evolution. After all, I've found a few tiny fossils in my driveway. The book is a serious set of rules, but it is a guideline, not an absolute.
Others of my faith do not like Theistic Evolution, where Creation happened then Evolution happened, but it sort of works for me.
I have to accept that some things are a mystery, that I will not understand until the end of my existence. What fun would it be if I knew all the secrets of the universe?
two things you have to think about when dealing with this from a faith viewpoint:
In my faith He gave us free will which lead to original Sin. Without free will we would just be robots, and this would not be pleasing to Him. While he's not happy with all that has happened since Free Will, he thinks its better for us to have it then the alternative. So I will make mistakes.
In my belief set I am forgiven for those mistakes, and if I sometimes have to use evolution vs my faith, it is unavoidable, often not my fault. On the scale of things that happen in life, having to accept some evolution to get along with others is far less of a sin, then say going out getting drunk, and cursing at my neighbor. He takes that into account, as I am NOT perfect. I'm forgiven for all but the worst of Sin. Yet actions have consequences. It took a lot of years of studying to understand that.
The second is that:
On the surface, most people think the Book is just a huge pile of stories and strict rules. The least educated in this use a few chapters to go out and force their beliefs on others. This happens in nearly all faiths, leading to strife. If your doing it right, you more or less over time get sort of a "Yoda" viewpoint and skill set, and know how to dodge the slings and arrows. Its a balancing act. A few years ago I learned that literal interpretation is often very wrong. I also do not accept infallibility in the translation. Especially after I had a few people read some Torah to me and heard the differences from what I use and the original source.
I see the planet and life as a well engineered, self correcting, stable system with a very high loop gain. I'm quoting Jurassic park here: "A Butterfly can flap its wings in Peking and in Central Park you get Rain". Whom am I to understand why it all works?
There is just a minor difference in DNA encoding between most mammals . Hummingbird wing bones are obviously modified hands, not adapted arms like most bird wings. I see beauty and planning in that. I see a reuse of common structures and materials that shows obvious thought. So I try to learn how to accept what I cannot understand. It has a name, the "Mystery of Faith". Its un-resolvable by my puny brain.
You cannot resolve it, so you accept what you cannot resolve and try to just find beauty in life. Once in a while you have to act based on your beliefs.
Evolution says it does no good to jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers. Yet men will willingly do just that... Its a mystery.
This will be my last post on this subject, as we're drifting off course. But if you wonder why this thread is here, its a introductory lesson in Engineering Ethics. If you work with technology, you have SOME ethical duty of care to your fellow man. It is expected of you as a technologist to work in societies' best interest. Many of those ethics can be argued to have Judeo-Christian origins, at least in the Western World.
Baseline: "I will not tolerate those who lie, cheat, or steal. Nor associate with those who do"
Steve
-
I have to accept that some things are a mystery, that I will not understand until the end of my existence. What fun would it be if I knew all the secrets of the universe?
What a baffling viewpoint. But common. Why do people like "mystery" so much? ???
I'll continue to seek the secrets of the universe as long as I live. That's part of what makes my life worth living!
-
*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... :palm: |O :clap: :wtf:
-
*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... :palm: |O :clap: :wtf:
To be fair, the initial discussions where all about free energy, etc.
-
*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... :palm: |O :clap: :wtf:
All threads, if they go on long enough, turn into arguments about religion or politics.
Ergo, if you are going to click on a thread that has already run into several pages then do not expect a thrilling conclusion at the end of it.
-
*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... :palm: |O :clap: :wtf:
All threads, if they go on long enough, turn into arguments about religion or politics.
Ergo, if you are going to click on a thread that has already run into several pages then do not expect a thrilling conclusion at the end of it.
Perhaps it would be more productive to argue about the (over)use of those animated emoticons?
Normal emoticons are useful, but the animated ones remind me of the early nineties, when Netscape Navigator created the <blink> element and thousands of amateur web pages suddenly sprouted acres of horrible flashing text.
-
Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.
So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first. ;-)
There is no "my view". Again, science is not a preference, not an opinion. It is a system and a methodology for our species to do the best it can to represent reality. It has taken us this far with remarkable results. It is the best we have. Beyond this, I have no idea what you mean.
That's what they all say, with a few fill in the blanks, and their like minded buddies agree with them just the same, and they are just as frustrated that you don't get it.
One day you may understand. It doesn't have to be today :)
-
Evolution says it does no good to jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers. Yet men will willingly do just that... Its a mystery.
Humanity abandoned what was "good" for evolution as soon as we started healing the sick and sending our strong men to die in pointless political wars.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has on the species as a whole in a million years, assuming we're still here (we'll probably all be dead from some super drug-resistant flu by then).
-
The one thing I can't understand with religion is that they can't all be right, and they are largely mutually exclusive (you can't hold two faiths at the same time). Whichever one you pick, you are calling at least two thirds of people on the planet misguided.
"The demographic study – based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world's population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) "
I see the rational logical resolution to this dilemma is that people have a deep seated need for religion belief, and the religions themselves have evolved, based on the needs of the people and to actively compete to gain converts to survive the deaths of followers. Some very socially great religions must have died out, and some very bad ones have been rejected. You can see this somewhat in that the religions that fight hardest for followers is usually the most oppressive.
I find it very ironic how religions have evolved to prey on most people's need for faith, and then asks followers reject evolution in favour of everything being preordained.
-
Evolution says it does no good to jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers. Yet men will willingly do just that... Its a mystery.
The need to do things for the greater good is an advantage to you and your kin. To go "meh" and let you and your fellow soldiers die is stupid both for you and your wider group.
What would be a mystery would be if the person who threw the grenade didn't do so, and just held it in his or her hands rather till it exploded rather than kill others.
-
So, if you believe in evolution but not Genesis, you're picking and choosing. It's the same the other way around too. Either way it's hypocritical.
I don't see the contradiction, It's possible that the universe was created 5K years ago (or even yesterday) in a state that science and our senses interpret as a much longer history. Also, since that creation, the universe progressed in a sequence that is compatible with the evolution theory.
(that's not my own belief, I am just examining your assertion).
-
I find it very ironic how religions have evolved to prey on most people's need for faith, and then asks followers reject evolution in favour of everything being preordained.
I read once an article that examined religions from evolution perspective. How come that almost every human society developed some religion. The conclusion of the author was that religions themselves had evolutionary advantage (group identity, behavior control, risk taking, being able to deal with crisis, home, optimism, scarifies for the common good of the group, etc) and thus they survived. It was interesting to see the evolution theory applied not only to specifies but also to cultural patterns.
-
How do you (and other religious posters) deal with things like evolution?
evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?
I have nothing against "believers". I am against "belief". It has been proven over and over again that the process of science is the best way to investigate and understand the universe. The process of science has produced medicines, materials, machines, and for mostly for all a better life. Belief has produced babies dying of AIDS, people getting their heads cut off, schools being burned to the ground with the students inside, 6 million Jews slaughtered
talking about "wrong belief", if you want to be nitpick about the bad thing..... science has created mass destruction weapon that kills millions, science cannot cure AIDS or any viruses. science dont deal with moral. science produced medicine just to be later realized that caused cancer, science has caused obesity due to lazy people relying too much on technological devices etc etc.... religion is the one to make people stay away from prostitution industry and hence AIDS poll, religion is the reference of moral conduct, good behaviour and saveness. etc etc...
some people said religion (not "belief") is the cause of destruction? because:
1) they dont understand what a religion is they never read the book, they made statement without proof, or dont study carefully the cause of it. just as science procedure laid out earlier
2) the people who do destruction they admit they are religious, they maybe somebody else not religious, or not fully understand religion.
case: if someone fanatic shouts "i'm atheist and i will kill anybody who dont" say eventually killed millions.... is it fair for people to say.... "atheism is all about killing"? is that right? is it fair to blame the tool rather than the user? religion is just a tool, like science, its has procedures you need to follow. the problem is not the tool, the problem is the people who uses it, and the people who are ignorant about other things... the peoblem is the "people".
it is agreed science is the best and one of "formalized" tool so far... but before you making a statement about religious madness or anything, have you done the proper procedure before making the accusation? here re-quoted again...
The scientific method is simply:
1) Question something
2) Make a hypothesis/guess at the answer
3) Come up with a test or series of tests to verify the validity of that hypothesis
4) Analyze the results of the test(s)
5) Re-visit step 2 if necessary
if not, i think you are not both religious and not scientism, you just somebody else with lack of references.
The scientific method is simply: (above)
What limitations do you believe this process is subject to? Of course it can't be used to test something that is untestable,
you answered your own question thanks.
as much as i want to avoid religious discussion... free energy subjects leaked into "design and technical section" very well....
blind faith religion is wrong.
blind faith atheism/agnotism is just as well wrong.
blind faith scientism is just as well wrong.
prejudice is wrong, following what friend/master/teacher's saying without investigating is "blind faith"
and blind faith is wrong...
thats why i entered the thread with the conclusion...
-
and then... i'm the fruitloopery one :-DD :palm:
-
evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?
That's actually not true at all.
Evolution is one of the most solid and tested theories out there. It is provable, testable and observable through experimentation. Saying "where is the half breed monkey+man" just shows you don't understand evolution.
When does a child cease to be a toddler? Is it on a specific date? Of course not - but everyone would agree a 2 year old is a toddler and a 10 year old isn't... but there is no line where it transitions from one to the other - it's a gradual progression.
Same with evolution. There is no half man-half monkey. There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man. It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time. Saying "evolution is just guesses because there is no man+monkey" is equally ignorant of the theory as saying "current doesn't follow the path of least resistance because I had 2 wires... and both of them shocked me... when only one of them should have shocked me - the one with lower resistance". It just shows the speaker doesn't understand resistance, not that resistance theory is wrong.
-
Sorry, I can't resist...and apologies to Dave for throwing fuel on a religious debate.... but....
talking about "wrong belief", if you want to be nitpick about the bad thing..... science has created mass destruction weapon that kills millions,
Science itself is not moral or immoral... or ethical or unethical. It is simply knowledge and information. Knowledge isn't inherently bad, it can be used for good or bad. Religion is different - religion claims to be good, thus it is fair to judge the morality and ethics of religion.
science cannot cure AIDS or any viruses.
And religion can't bring people back to life - therefore it is completely false, right? There are many things science doesn't do - that has no bearing on whether what it can do/know is accurate or correct, nor does it mean religion is correct.
science dont deal with moral. science produced medicine just to be later realized that caused cancer, science has caused obesity due to lazy people relying too much on technological devices etc etc.... religion is the one to make people stay away from prostitution industry and hence AIDS poll, religion is the reference of moral conduct, good behaviour and saveness. etc etc...
Yes, science does not deal with morality. But neither does religion, unless your idea of "moral conduct" includes stoning your daughter if she is not a virgin or if she does not do as she is told, condoning slavery, murder, infanticide, genocide, etc, etc. And if you feel science causes obesity, then religion causes slavery - which is worse? And if you think science causes cancer... religion causes genocide - which is worse? As for being saved... you mean the part where you are born evil and bad and the only way you can become good is to follow the letter of religion to a "T", or else you will be tortured for all eternity - not just your whole life, but for all time. Doesn't sound too moral to me.
some people said religion (not "belief") is the cause of destruction? because:
1) they dont understand what a religion is they never read the book, they made statement without proof, or dont study carefully the cause of it. just as science procedure laid out earlier
2) the people who do destruction they admit they are religious, they maybe somebody else not religious, or not fully understand religion.
So anyone who does bad things isn't "really" religious? That is called the "no true scotsman" fallacy. There were a lot of popes who order lots of murder - they were not "really" religious? And if bad things aren't "really" religous, what about when you look in something like the bible itself where it advocates slavery?
case: if someone fanatic shouts "i'm atheist and i will kill anybody who dont" say eventually killed millions.... is it fair for people to say.... "atheism is all about killing"? is that right? is it fair to blame the tool rather than the user? religion is just a tool, like science, its has procedures you need to follow. the problem is not the tool, the problem is the people who uses it, and the people who are ignorant about other things... the peoblem is the "people".
Atheism isn't a belief system - it is the rejection of belief systems. Atheism cannot be responsible for anyone's actions anymore than not believing in Santa Claus can be responsible for someone's actions.
The same cannot be said of religion. Religion gives specific instructions on various things - including who you are allowed to have as your slave, when you may (or must) murder your children, when you should commit infanticide and genocide, etc. Not to mention what you wrote above is a classic "middle ground" fallacy.
it is agreed science is the best and one of "formalized" tool so far... but before you making a statement about religious madness or anything, have you done the proper procedure before making the accusation? here re-quoted again...
The scientific method is simply:
1) Question something
2) Make a hypothesis/guess at the answer
3) Come up with a test or series of tests to verify the validity of that hypothesis
4) Analyze the results of the test(s)
5) Re-visit step 2 if necessary
if not, i think you are not both religious and not scientism, you just somebody else with lack of references.
You agree that science is the best formalized tool so far - therefore if you discount science in favor of something else, you are being irrational by your own admission.
blind faith religion is wrong.
blind faith atheism/agnotism is just as well wrong.
blind faith scientism is just as well wrong.
prejudice is wrong, following what friend/master/teacher's saying without investigating is "blind faith"
and blind faith is wrong...
blind faith atheism is an oxymoron. As is blind faith 'scientism'.
Religion does not deal in facts therefore it is all about faith. It is incomparable to science or atheism in any way.
-
@Mechatrommer
I would really like to know something: Is there anything that could change your mind about your following of your holy book?
If you answer yes, then I would love to discuss this with you in private, or public, your choice.
If the answer is no, then good luck with your life and I hope someday you answer yes to the question.
-
Wow guys can you really except to have rational conversations about religion?
How about we get back to the topic?
I will never convince you to believe what I believe and I believe that we are wasting time and bandwidth arguing about it. i thought this was a great site to discuss electronics not spiritual matters, But I have been wrong before.
-
@Mechatrommer
I would really like to know something: Is there anything that could change your mind about your following of your holy book?
If you answer yes, then I would love to discuss this with you in private, or public, your choice.
If the answer is no, then good luck with your life and I hope someday you answer yes to the question.
Good luck with that.
In Malaysia, once a muslim, always a muslim. And not just any muslim, Sunni muslim only.
If you want to marry a muslim, you have to convert first.
Apostate Malays lose all their privileges, like easier access to university, discounts on real estate and car purchases. Death threats are not uncommon.
For muslims, ISLAM is written on the ID card, as Shariah laws apply, even though the country is supposed to be secular.
-
evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?
Your ignorance is stunning :palm:
All of your evolution doubts can be answered, just go and study it.
Please don't turn this into a religious debate Mechatrommer, you have been borderline to being banned before because of it.
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?
What part of your faith tells you it may be possible to make something out of nothing?
As far as I'm aware, making something from nothing (money, gold, etc.) is not accepted by any of the formal religions. In the past, people who have claimed to be able to do this have always been labelled con artists, heretics, witches etc.
-
Hey Shahriar
Interesting to read how quick a (more or less) technical problem derivates in to a religious discussion :o
You asked half way why this foolish videos don't get forbidden. Please allow me an attempt on that:
Yes, ignoring science and its result is stupid. Many of the people trying to do so (no matter for which reason) do not realize where they would be without science.
Yes it is extremely frustrating to argue on a regular (daily?) base against a tremendous amount of ignorance in this world.
There is some difference between questioning science results and just blindly ignoring them.
Here is the point: As soon as we start forbidding stupidity we need some body to define the borderline. Will he, she or it have the education to define that thin line properly? Can this borderline be described in a way that we don't throttle enthusiastic scientist (like you) from doing their job? Isn't the freedom of thoughts exactly what allows science?
You are totally right, this "free" energy thing is going extremely weird by now. Unfortunately a lot of people fall into traps there as they forget to use their sense. Can we help them?
I personally believe that we have to trust in Darwin a little more 8)
Even though I technically don't understand most of your Videos (just a matter of missing education I hope ;) ) I watch each of them. My motto is: "Never give up hope to learn some more!"
Please keep running and keep your enthusiasm :-+
All the Best
Frank
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?
I think Mechatrommer's question was "how can you be so sure that there is no free energy, when you can't definitively prove it" - I guess he is hoping for a "black swann event", where something completely unlikely actually occurs.
Today my horoscope at http://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily/virgo.html (http://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily/virgo.html) said:
You are capable and intelligent, and you know it -- so why do you feel the need to prove it to anyone else?...
I am sure it was referring to this conversation.
I have faith in horoscopes, although I must admit sometimes my interpretation has been lacking (but usually due to my lack of skill in seeing the true meaning).
So for me that settles it - there is no free energy. I am sure in time my faith will be rewarded and the horoscope will yet again be proven accurate.
-
I was looking for something and came across a YouTube channel with nearly 44 THOUSAND subscribers with videos like this:
You are responsible of how you waste your time. Exactly as those ranting about audiophools.
Not worth the effort AND time.
-
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof...
I think this discussion is not about future energy that might look very differently from today and we have no idea of what might be invented.
Historically each generation brings new technology.
So may be one day we have something totally new, who knows.
But, this is more about the fact that some people place a few magnets on on a fan and believe they have invented the next great thing.
I do not need proof that this stupid thing will not work.
-
The problem with free energy and beating the laws of thermodynamics is that they have been so well proven time and time and time and time again across a whole range of fields (so many times you average person would need a lifetime to investigate them all), that the chances of someone in their back shed with a few magnets and motors etc getting greater energy out than they put in is essentially zero.
A free energy nutters desire and persistence to believe it's possible and make it happen does not change the likelihood at all, it's still essentially zero.
People have been working on this stuff for over a hundred years, devoting their lives to it, and no one has ever shown anything the least bit credible, ever!
To think it's going to happen just around the corner is demonstrable nonsense.
And it's fueled by not only belief, but recent real scientific examples like that LED that gets 230% efficiency. But the nutters will not understand that these things do not scale well, you can't magically go from a 50pW LED to a 50W generator. And there are very good thermodynamic law abiding explanations for how you can get that 230% efficient LED. Yet it continues to fuel their hope and provides "evidence" for them. Just like they find "evidence" and hope in every free energy youtube video that gets put it.
:palm:
Why can't they put their energies toward making more efficient renewable energy systems?
-
...Why can't they put their energies toward making more efficient renewable energy systems?
I am wondering if there is a way to harvest their energy!?
That would be an almost unlimited source O0
All the Best
Frank
-
Giant hamster wheels filled with hundreds of them!
-
We need more videos like this ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0BDCSV8aWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0BDCSV8aWI)
As for the Free Energy crap, it's not impossible to have - if someone just gifts you a bunch of solar panels with all the electronics (inverter/batteries/etc.) and installs them for free then you have free energy, free for you at least. Now for something more practical - charge your phone/tablet/laptop/etc. at a location other than where you pay the electricity bill yourself...
Jokes aside (or not), :bullshit: Free Energy... yeah sure... and I ate a quantum potato yesterday.
-
I don't know where the 230% efficiency number of LEDs come from. But it surely must have been something like 230% compared to some other lamps.
The "problem" with energy is that it's fairly abstract and that rewards for "free energy" are so huge, people want to believe there is such a thing. It's like "eternal life". So desirable, it must be there somewhere, somehow.
Also look at how even the scientific community went ballistic over "cold fusion" a couple of decades ago. It didn't seem to make sense but IF, the reward would be enormous.
There have been tons of claims on free energy. I was involved in one, where an investor and a Russian engineer?scientist?scammer? promoted a miracle machine, something that would have been free energy. We where asked to provide measurement proof. I pretty much right away said it was impossible, unless all physics and chemistry knowledge of the last 100 years was right. The "unless" was enough for the investor to put up the money anyway, against our advise.
So we did the measurements, they showed what we thought they would, i.e. no miracles happened. The Russian said our results where wrong, coming with all sorts of well spoken claims, tried to ridicule us because we never heard of this or that Russian scientist's findings. They has another institute perform other measurements, different methods adn they came to the same results; no gain, no miracle. It probably kept the Russian funded for a year. Plus the cost of our measurements. Well, this investor could afford it, but was really sad it didn't work out. I think he saw the billion$ "just" missed.
Another miracle project: "harvesting the earth rotating magnetic field" like a generator. Also generated millions in funding. I mean wow, IF....................................... so supporters and millions pored in. Very quiet now 8)
-
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, in which we are placed, by means of the wish-world, which we have developed inside us as a result of biological and psychological necessities. [...] a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity." –Sigmund Freud, Moses and Monotheism
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
-
I don't know where the 230% efficiency number of LEDs come from. But it surely must have been something like 230% compared to some other lamps.
No, it's real (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds). Power input, 30 picowatts. Light output, 69 picowatts.
The catch is that the 230% only refers to electrical efficiency - it makes up the difference by extracting heat from its surroundings. Modern air conditioners are also frequently over 100% efficient in that sense, of course.
-
...But, this is more about the fact that some people place a few magnets on on a fan and believe they have invented the next great thing.
In this video he placed more than just a few magnets ;-)
Actually it's a very well made 'for entertainment only' video.
-
The problem with free energy and beating the laws of thermodynamics is that they have been so well proven time and time and time and time again across a whole range of fields (so many times you average person would need a lifetime to investigate them all)...
There are no proofs in physics, just a finite set of observations and proposed models that fit them. That's difference from disciplines such as math which is man made system with known rules that can be used for formal proofs (kind of, because you can never be sure that you didn't make a mistake in the proof). A real 'proof' is a tricky thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if 10k years from now our current understanding of reality will look so naive, primitive and misguided.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if 10k years from now our current understanding of reality will look so naive, primitive and misguided.
Naturally. But the laws of thermodynamics will still apply...
-
I wouldn't be surprised if 10k years from now our current understanding of reality will look so naive, primitive and misguided.
And some people will still believe in 12,000 year old zombies and talking snakes too...
-
I wouldn't be surprised if 10k years from now our current understanding of reality will look so naive, primitive and misguided.
Naturally. But the laws of thermodynamics will still apply...
They may or may not. Those 'laws' are just models that represent our current understanding of reality which is infinitesimally small. We shouldn't get too cocky. ;-)
-
evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?
Please don't turn this into a religious debate Mechatrommer, you have been borderline to being banned before because of it.
dont just nitpick on me i didnt started it, check the thread again. and your highly misunderstanding is stunning. i was not talking about religion i was talking about "blind faith" and for you and many others with "prejudice" think its only religious people who have this "blind faith". you should move this thread to general discussion as the free energy impossibility doesnt deserve a place in "technical and design" discussion imho. you move this thread to general section you have your peace of mind that i guarantee, i reply to what i saw. and i cant ignore "technical and design" section, thats why i'm here.
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?
i didnt say overunity is possible. what i said is, lay your proof if its impossible, i made a video in the link to say its impossbile, do you have a better formulation than my video?. ruling out a possibility of certain setup without scientific argumentation or proof is just a "disservice" to the science itself (OP's word) but no one has linked the proof showing its really impossible. tapping natural energy is certainly possible, why are you so sure this is overunity subject, not natural energy harvesting? natural resources is called "free energy" the fact that the OP posted the video without scientific proof of that particular "fan and magnet setup", just his own and many others point of hate view here, is not much different from the view of commenters in the video. that what i called blind faith from both side ;) "free energy" and "religion" is two taboo word here you got punished by supporting them, not religious huh? typical!
Good luck with that.
Apostate Malays lose all their privileges, like easier access to university, discounts on real estate and car purchases. Death threats are not uncommon.
...as Shariah laws apply.
your ignorance is stunning... 1st shariah law is just a puppet small portion of law. every other law is secular and most dominant. they (most citizens) are worshipping modernisation, they are worshipping western language.... through ignorance ;)
disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be)
How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?
I think Mechatrommer's question was "how can you be so sure that there is no free energy, when you can't definitively prove it" - I guess he is hoping for a "black swann event", where something completely unlikely actually occurs.
you are about right about me until the later sentence... by challenging disprovement doesnt necessarily means i'm supporting it. i'm the person in the middle. you hate them because they are doing it without proof. you are not doing it, do you have proof? if no, i see you just as the same as them. what blinded you people from thinking i'm from the other side? prejudice? does the judge get punished by asking both side? ;)
The problem with free energy and beating the laws of thermodynamics is that they have been so well proven time and time and time and time again across a whole range of fields
so natural resources is not called "free energy"? who's actually playing with word here? granted those chaps playing with it making people thinking "free energy" is like free coffee. is "free" OSSHW is that kind of "free" too? anything OSSHW should be "free"?
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world....
are you provoking religious discussion? just like others before me? i will report you to dave.... :P
-
'Puppet' shariah laws that can impose caning for offenders (men and women) and up to three years imprisonment in cases of religious or family matters.
-
'Puppet' shariah laws that can impose canning for offenders (men and women) and up to three years imprisonment in cases of religious or family matters.
where do you get that? specific link? canning is applied in secular law on rapists, never i heard canning under shariah law here... not even 3 years imprisonment, at most you got "ticket" to pay if you commit adultery with "not your wife". in secular law dont ask, you can be 60 years or more in prison for rape or killing... having said that.... our law is not entirely islam, our country is not fully islamic country, its just a service lips to please the culture here, the ironic part is... everybody believing it, by what happened all this time since independence 1957, they believe its "islamic". they NEVER read the whole entire book and guide ;) to understand certain aspect of it deeply, you need specialization in university like al-azhar in saudi arabia. so... even a person who claimed a muslim are not well versed, so who are you to judge?
-
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world....
are you provoking religious discussion? just like others before me? i will report you to dave.... :P
The admins don't seem to care about anti religion posts.
-
it's a gradual progression.... Same with evolution. There is no half man-half monkey. There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man. It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time...
you dont understand what i'm saying. i know its a gradual progression happening in billion years time.... what i'm saying is... this can be long but bear with me please....
1 billion years ago there were monkeys, lets call them monkeys A. and then 500 millions ago there were another group of monkeys, let call them monkeys B. and then now in present time we still have monkeys, not A and not B, but new generation of monkeys of today, let call the monkeys of today monkeys C. now we have 3 groups of monkeys in the span of a very long time... monkeys A, they have offsprings, also monkeys ofcourse by that time, but when it goes down the line grand grand grand childrens, in 500 millions years time those offsprings have evolved to half-monkeys, that time they meet the generation monkeys B, offcourse no questioning during that time because they are just a bunch of monkeys and half-breeded monkeys, they dont know anything yet, (metacongnitively)...
go back to the future a bit, to present time we have monkeys C remember? this is going to be short story because... we'll never have the chance to see their grand grand grand 1000X grand childrens to become a man because that needs 1 billion years to come in the future... agreed? we all should, because this is the evolution theory tells us... now we ended the discussion of monkeys C. lets go back to the past 500 millions years ago....
500 millions years ago, we have a bunch of half-breeded monkeys descendant from monkeys A, mixed with a bunch of later group monkeys B remember? now the half-breeded monkeys from the past generation of monkeys A breeded again and have grand grand 1000X grand children in the next 500 millions years, that is today. but now the grand-grand childrens have evolved to fully human, thats us! we are the descendant of monkeys A, right? ok... go back again 500 millions years ago to monkeys B.
monkeys B breeded they got grand grand 1000X grand childrens and have evolved to half-breeded monkeys half-monkey half-man, in 500 millions year time. thats today remember? the 100 millions dollar question is..... where is the half-breeded man-monkey of today? that is the offsprings of grand grand 1000X grand fathers and mothers of group monkeys B of 500 millions years ago? evolution theory doesnt explain that, it only explain the progression of it in 1 billion years time.. so can you find me an alive half breeded monkey half breeded man?
-
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world....
are you provoking religious discussion? just like others before me? i will report you to dave.... :P
The admins don't seem to care about anti religion posts.
hmmm, when somebody reply to the provocation, they got banned and you are not? thats "fair"!
-
Everyone, I think it would be more productive to refrain from arguing issues which are unrelated to electronics in this thread. It was not my intention at all. I was merely trying to vent off and potentially have some future visitors to the electronics form be more prepared if they come across these videos.
If anyone thinks they can make a "free energy" machine etc. please built it, publish a peer reviewed paper on it, win a few Nobel prizes and live happily ever after.
-
hmmm, when somebody reply to the provocation, they got banned and you are not? thats "fair"!
No, it's not, but that's the physics here. :)
-
If anyone thinks they can make a "free energy" machine etc. please built it, publish a peer reviewed paper on it, win a few Nobel prizes and live happily ever after.
Yep - like the Big Foot community. Find one and capture it. If they're all over the place it shouldn't be too hard. :)
-
If anyone thinks they can make a "free energy" machine etc. please built it, publish a peer reviewed paper on it, win a few Nobel prizes and live happily ever after.
Every solar cell is a free energy machine.
-
If anyone thinks they can make a "free energy" machine etc. please built it, publish a peer reviewed paper on it, win a few Nobel prizes and live happily ever after.
Every solar cell is a free energy machine.
No it isn't, because the energy is not coming from nothing. It's coming from the fusion of hydrogen. Just because it's far away doesn't mean it's "free energy" in the sense these quacks are talking about.
-
If anyone thinks they can make a "free energy" machine etc. please built it, publish a peer reviewed paper on it, win a few Nobel prizes and live happily ever after.
Every solar cell is a free energy machine.
No it isn't, because the energy is not coming from nothing. It's coming from the fusion of hydrogen. Just because it's far away doesn't mean it's "free energy" in the sense these quacks are talking about.
then we have a very serious vocabulary error here! does free coffe came out of nothing? no! but everyone agreed its "free" right?
-
"Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world....
are you provoking religious discussion? just like others before me? i will report you to dave.... :P
The admins don't seem to care about anti religion posts.
hmmm, when somebody reply to the provocation, they got banned and you are not? thats "fair"!
Not really anti-religious nor necessarily my own statement. Just a quote from a somewhat highly regarded pioneer in human psychology trying to explain it. Why didn't you get just as upset over Einstein implying all humans are stupid which is much more insulting? Maybe those embracing mystical force theories are overly sensitive because they suspect the truth (cognitive dissonance?).
And note your constant challenge to disprove things can be difficult according to formal rules of logic. Hard to prove something is impossible but easy to show something is possible with just one single example. Your failure in logical thought calls into question any arguments in that link at the end of your posts.
BTW "free" can have different meanings depending on context and looks like some here are confusing them.
-
free energy does exist my friend! dont play with word please...
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_"free"_energy (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_"free"_energy)
edit: damn that link address is hard
and people have been using the word...
http://www.freeenergysystems.org (http://www.freeenergysystems.org)
http://www.freenergy.co.nz (http://www.freenergy.co.nz)
-
free energy does exist my friend! dont play with word please...
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_ (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_"free"_energy)"free"_energy
That's not quackery, it's energy available to do work. It doesn't come out of nowhere.
In thermodynamics, the Helmholtz free energy is deemed as a thermodynamic potential which calculates the “useful” work retrievable from a closed thermodynamic system at a constant temperature and volume.
-
free energy does exist my friend! dont play with word please...
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_ (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Free_Energy/Gibbs_Free_Energy/What_Is_"free"_energy)"free"_energy
That's not quackery, it's energy available to do work. It doesn't come out of nowhere.
In thermodynamics, the Helmholtz free energy is deemed as a thermodynamic potential which calculates the “useful” work retrievable from a closed thermodynamic system at a constant temperature and volume.
yes but its called "free energy" right? what i see in this thread is trying to teach people the "free energy" is the "energy from nothing", hence the taboo of "free energy" word. granted even the video in OP trying to say so, thats misleading just as everyone that tried to... every replies in this thread is now implying that meaning... "energy from nothing". funny! free energy study is perfectly valid, is just that the attempt or procedure to conduct it is wrong in the video. one should make the same setup but in more proper, scientific way. ruling it out bluntly is a "disservice" to the science. didnt someone taught if you dont like it ignore it? this is a hate thread in the "design and technical" section ;)
-
yes but its called "free energy" right?
Yes, but the meaning is not the same as the meaning the quacks are implying when they demonstrate free energy.
free energy study is perfectly valid,
Sure, you can study anything you want to, no problem at all. But there are no studies to date that have had any critical scientific peer validation that prove such a thing as Free Energy (the meaning the quacks use) exists. So study your a$$ off about it, but don't come back until you have independent validation of your claims.
-
Let's not forget Fleischmann and Pons, whose work was ridiculed because it didn't follow the party lines. When tritium was finally discovered in their experiments, they were vindicated.
I'm not saying that the "free energy" people are right, nor am I saying that they're all wrong; As scientists and engineers, it's up to us to either prove or disprove their work. If we can disprove it, using all of the scientific tools at hand, then we can eliminate the charlatans, one by one.
However: If we find a single shred of truth in what they're doing, it behooves us as scientists and engineers to look further, and, if possible, provide working theorem as to the validity of their experiments.
It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
:MJ
-
it's a gradual progression.... Same with evolution. There is no half man-half monkey. There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man. It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time...
you dont understand what i'm saying. i know its a gradual progression happening in billion years time.... what i'm saying is... this can be long but bear with me please....
1 billion years ago there were monkeys, lets call them monkeys A. and then 500 millions ago there were another group of monkeys, let call them monkeys B. and then now in present time we still have monkeys, not A and not B, but new generation of monkeys of today, let call the monkeys of today monkeys C. now we have 3 groups of monkeys in the span of a very long time... monkeys A, they have offsprings, also monkeys ofcourse by that time, but when it goes down the line grand grand grand childrens, in 500 millions years time those offsprings have evolved to half-monkeys, that time they meet the generation monkeys B, offcourse no questioning during that time because they are just a bunch of monkeys and half-breeded monkeys, they dont know anything yet, (metacongnitively)...
go back to the future a bit, to present time we have monkeys C remember? this is going to be short story because... we'll never have the chance to see their grand grand grand 1000X grand childrens to become a man because that needs 1 billion years to come in the future... agreed? we all should, because this is the evolution theory tells us... now we ended the discussion of monkeys C. lets go back to the past 500 millions years ago....
500 millions years ago, we have a bunch of half-breeded monkeys descendant from monkeys A, mixed with a bunch of later group monkeys B remember? now the half-breeded monkeys from the past generation of monkeys A breeded again and have grand grand 1000X grand children in the next 500 millions years, that is today. but now the grand-grand childrens have evolved to fully human, thats us! we are the descendant of monkeys A, right? ok... go back again 500 millions years ago to monkeys B.
monkeys B breeded they got grand grand 1000X grand childrens and have evolved to half-breeded monkeys half-monkey half-man, in 500 millions year time. thats today remember? the 100 millions dollar question is..... where is the half-breeded man-monkey of today? that is the offsprings of grand grand 1000X grand fathers and mothers of group monkeys B of 500 millions years ago? evolution theory doesnt explain that, it only explain the progression of it in 1 billion years time.. so can you find me an alive half breeded monkey half breeded man?
Holy shit... I... What...?! (http://img.timb.us/emoticon/psyduck.gif)
Sent from my Smartphone
-
Holy shit... I... What...?! (http://img.timb.us/emoticon/psyduck.gif)
yes thats right! you are a monkey, by evolusionist definition ;) take it with grain and salt..
-
yes thats right! you are a monkey, by evolusionist definition ;) take it with grain and salt..
Wrong. Humans are Homo Sapiens. Monkeys are a completely different species. :palm:
-
you dont understand what i'm saying. i know its a gradual progression happening in billion years time.... what i'm saying is... this can be long but bear with me please....
<incomprehensible nonsense snipped>
Holy shit... I... What...?! (http://img.timb.us/emoticon/psyduck.gif)
It appears that evolution as it applies to human beings is excluded from the Malaysian school curriculum, so it is perhaps not surprising that Mecha's ideas about it are a little ...confused.
Once his misconceptions are translated into his special brand of fractured English, we end up with this surreal horsepucky.
-
it's a gradual progression.... Same with evolution. There is no half man-half monkey. There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man. It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time...
you dont understand what i'm saying. i know its a gradual progression happening in billion years time.... what i'm saying is... this can be long but bear with me please....
1 billion years ago there were monkeys, lets call them monkeys A. and then 500 millions ago there were another group of monkeys, let call them monkeys B. and then now in present time we still have monkeys, not A and not B, but new generation of monkeys of today, let call the monkeys of today monkeys C. now we have 3 groups of monkeys in the span of a very long time... monkeys A, they have offsprings, also monkeys ofcourse by that time, but when it goes down the line grand grand grand childrens, in 500 millions years time those offsprings have evolved to half-monkeys, that time they meet the generation monkeys B, offcourse no questioning during that time because they are just a bunch of monkeys and half-breeded monkeys, they dont know anything yet, (metacongnitively)...
go back to the future a bit, to present time we have monkeys C remember? this is going to be short story because... we'll never have the chance to see their grand grand grand 1000X grand childrens to become a man because that needs 1 billion years to come in the future... agreed? we all should, because this is the evolution theory tells us... now we ended the discussion of monkeys C. lets go back to the past 500 millions years ago....
500 millions years ago, we have a bunch of half-breeded monkeys descendant from monkeys A, mixed with a bunch of later group monkeys B remember? now the half-breeded monkeys from the past generation of monkeys A breeded again and have grand grand 1000X grand children in the next 500 millions years, that is today. but now the grand-grand childrens have evolved to fully human, thats us! we are the descendant of monkeys A, right? ok... go back again 500 millions years ago to monkeys B.
monkeys B breeded they got grand grand 1000X grand childrens and have evolved to half-breeded monkeys half-monkey half-man, in 500 millions year time. thats today remember? the 100 millions dollar question is..... where is the half-breeded man-monkey of today? that is the offsprings of grand grand 1000X grand fathers and mothers of group monkeys B of 500 millions years ago? evolution theory doesnt explain that, it only explain the progression of it in 1 billion years time.. so can you find me an alive half breeded monkey half breeded man?
:palm:
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, which is why there is no half human half monkey. Humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html)
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html)
ok, since a nitpick accuracy is what you are looking for.... yes you are right! you are a "chimpanzee" by evolusionist definition.... now change all "monkeys" in my explanation to "chimpanzees" please? edit: and err, chimpanzees do exist today right? embrace your ancestors like father and son. still, please do find me an "ape" or half breeded chimpanzee half breeded man. or half breeded chimp half breeded gorilla, or anything in between, for that matter. a chimp wont suddenly breed a gorilla looking right? are they? so there must be sometime in the timeline we have half chimp half gorilla. and we should can line them up just as the evolution picture, because all of "us" are happening in parallel, throughout timeline.
Once his misconceptions are translated into his special brand of fractured English, we end up with this surreal horsepucky.
an escaping word as an excuse for the inability to answer. not accepted.
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html)
ok, since a nitpick accuracy is what you are looking for.... yes you are right! you are a "chimpanzee" by evolusionist definition.... now change all "monkeys" in my explanation to "chimpanzees" please? edit: and err, chimpanzees do exist today right? embrace your ancestors like father and son :-DD
That article does not say that humans evolved from chimpanzees. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And there is no such word in modern science as evolusionist, or even evolutionist. People who accept evolution are called 'scientists', or 'rational human beings'.
-
... embrace your ancestors like father and son. still, please do find me an "ape" or half breeded chimpanzee half breeded man. or half breeded chimp half breeded gorilla, or anything in between, for that matter. a chimp wont suddenly breed a gorilla looking right? are they? so there must be sometime in the timeline we have half chimp half gorilla. and we should can line them up just as the evolution picture, because all of "us" are happening in parallel, throughout timeline.
You have no idea what you are talking about. I'd suggest stopping before you embarrass yourself further in front of the entire internet.
-
is this imagery a fraud?
(http://www.bonappetit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/chip-evolution-640.gif)
-
It appears that evolution as it applies to human beings is excluded from the Malaysian school curriculum, so it is perhaps not surprising that Mecha's ideas about it are a little ...confused.
right! i think the same to those commenters about some err,, "religion". i mean religion study is excluded from their curriculum, (if i have to say it long beacuse my english is confusing...)
-
is this imagery a fraud?
<irritating animated GIF removed>
No, it's an illustration from an article about potato chips. Do try to keep up.
-
It appears that evolution as it applies to human beings is excluded from the Malaysian school curriculum, so it is perhaps not surprising that Mecha's ideas about it are a little ...confused.
right! i think the same to those commenters about some err,, "religion". i mean religion study is excluded from their curriculum, (if i have to say it long beacuse my english is confusing...)
But it's perfectly reasonable to think that the entire concept of believing things entirely on faith is silly without knowing or caring what those things are. It doesn't matter what those things are. I don't give a damn what the world's various religions think, they're still wrong because they're wrong about why they think those things. If any of them are correct, it's entirely by coincidence, because they don't know how to be right.
Also, religion is boring. $DEADDUDE is afraid of $SIN and thinks $DEITY will punish him for it by $ETERNALTORMENT. $BULLSHIT is the meaning of life, and we do $ATROCITY to people who don't agree with us. Be nice, except for to $RACE. Don't eat $ANIMAL, $PLANT and $PIEFLAVOR except during $MOONPHASE while standing on $SIDE foot and singing $SONG. Up for a game of Mad Libs?
-
No, it's an illustration from an article about potato chips. Do try to keep up.
The image also goes to show that some human's are wanker's.
Now back off topic, what was Shahriar doing watching Youtube video's anyway, half of the civilised planet is eagerly awaiting his review of the Siglent SDM-3055 meter.
Muttley
-
i mean religion study is excluded from their curriculum, (if i have to say it long beacuse my english is confusing...)
I haven't read any Harry Potter books. If I started reading all of them and studying them so I was an expert on Harry Potter, would that mean there was any sliver of reality to the Harry Potter stories?
No.
Studying a subject does not make the subject "real". It only makes you an expert on the material, and if the material is fiction, then you are an expert on the fiction. Does studying a subject make it real? No, that's a logical fallacy.
-
Another point, for every "miracle" of an intelligent designer (humming bird wings) I can give a counterpoint of something poorly designed. Human childbirth springs to mind.
The fact the baby has to come out in a specific direction and its head deforms all while causing excruciating pain to the mother, is a pretty poor design.
Chimps have it much easier due to a larger pelvis and birth canal.
Species that lay eggs have it even easier.
Our non-redundant blood pump is also a huge issue. (I'd trade an extra testicle for an extra heart. Though that does prove natural selection's affinity for creating offspring over other priorities.)
Sent from my Smartphone
-
The fact the baby has to come out in a specific direction and its head deforms all while causing excruciating pain to the mother, is a pretty poor design.
If that even works. My wife has had 3 last minute emergency caesarian sections...
-
I don't know where the 230% efficiency number of LEDs come from. But it surely must have been something like 230% compared to some other lamps.
No, it's real (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds). Power input, 30 picowatts. Light output, 69 picowatts.
The catch is that the 230% only refers to electrical efficiency - it makes up the difference by extracting heat from its surroundings. Modern air conditioners are also frequently over 100% efficient in that sense, of course.
I don't know where the 230% efficiency number of LEDs come from. But it surely must have been something like 230% compared to some other lamps.
No, it's real (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds). Power input, 30 picowatts. Light output, 69 picowatts.
The catch is that the 230% only refers to electrical efficiency - it makes up the difference by extracting heat from its surroundings. Modern air conditioners are also frequently over 100% efficient in that sense, of course.
Thanks for the link.
OK, in that case I kind of stand corrected, but not. With thermal energy in the balance, of course, the efficiency is totally different. Even a Peltier element, known for it's lousy efficiency, would have > 100% efficiency: it outputs more heat than the electric energy you put in.
Take thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear etc...energy in the balance, the efficiency is always 100%. What you put in comes out, perhaps in another form.
But the LED thingy is new to me. Confirmed by others than the original developers? The solution to global warming; cool the air, beam out the energy in space :-DD
To have progress, there must be some people questioning "known" truths, but challenging the very fundamentals, requires more than tinkering in the garage. The fundamental laws of science don't just stand on their own. They are confirmed by thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, physical chemistry etc but from different approaches. To break one, you have to break all. The tin-hats tend to see that as a global conspiracy from traditional science against new ideas.
-
The LED doesn't not produce any extra energy. The tiny bit of extra light comes from thermal energy and there must be a temperature differential for this to happen, so as not to break the second law of thermodynamics.
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
i know, it boils my piss too, i saw this the other day... some crackpot who thinks the LHC is going to destroy the world, with 118K subscribers :scared:
CERN LOSES CONTROL/OVER 10 Tev Per Beam. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTlzqqfddk#ws)
-
Having 118K subscribers
There are some weirder channels with even more subscribers.
It seems these people are hoping for something that is not there in reality
-
Don't worry, they'll all continue to pay for electricity and phones and computers and gadgets and all the working innovations the "real science" people create :)
It is frustrating to see this because I feel like there is a "wave" of pseudoscience masquerading as real science.
i know, it boils my piss too, i saw this the other day... some crackpot who thinks the LHC is going to destroy the world, with 118K subscribers :scared:
CERN LOSES CONTROL/OVER 10 Tev Per Beam. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTlzqqfddk#ws)
THE LARGE HARDON COLLIDER IS DESTROYING OUR SHIELDS!
"NCC-Earth is being bombarded by Cernon dark energy beams! We need to divert all non-critical power to forward magnetometer shields immediately!!!!1111one" -YouTuber
(http://img.timb.us/emoticon/ughh.gif)
Sent from my Smartphone
-
The fact the baby has to come out in a specific direction and its head deforms all while causing excruciating pain to the mother, is a pretty poor design.
If that even works. My wife has had 3 last minute emergency caesarian sections...
A very good point. I don't think people realize how dangerous childbirth used to be. I read something that claimed there was close to a 50% mortality rate for mothers at one point in history. It was even worse for the babies.
This was at a time when the only effective contraception was the intestines from sheep. (The alternative was using honey as a spermicide. Think about that for a minute.)
Sent from my Smartphone
-
Another point, for every "miracle" of an intelligent designer (humming bird wings) I can give a counterpoint of something poorly designed. Human childbirth springs to mind.
The fact the baby has to come out in a specific direction and its head deforms all while causing excruciating pain to the mother, is a pretty poor design.
Chimps have it much easier due to a larger pelvis and birth canal.
Species that lay eggs have it even easier.
Our non-redundant blood pump is also a huge issue. (I'd trade an extra testicle for an extra heart. Though that does prove natural selection's affinity for creating offspring over other priorities.)
Sent from my Smartphone
Im sure there are more, but from the Christian perspective, the pain and risk of childbirth is explained in Genesis as a "curse of sin", just like the pain and toils of working in the field are for men.
Anyways....back to free energy... :-DD
-
Geese are we still disusing this.
-
Geese are we still disusing this.
I've never seen so many experts be wrong before, of course there's free energy >:D
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/angry-at-free-energy-youtubers/?action=dlattach;attach=147663;image)
-
Geese are we still disusing this.
I've never seen so many experts be wrong before, of course there's free energy >:D
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/angry-at-free-energy-youtubers/?action=dlattach;attach=147663;image)
My sisters home was purchased from a court sale and had that exact wiring. Good news for her bad news for the person that bypassed the meter.
-
My sisters home was purchased from a court sale and had that exact wiring. Good news for her bad news for the person that bypassed the meter.
This is how you do it......
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/116854-this-is-how-people-steal-electricity-in-south-africa.html (http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/116854-this-is-how-people-steal-electricity-in-south-africa.html)
(http://mybroadband.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Electricity-theft.jpg)
(http://mybroadband.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Electricity-theft-meter-tampering-1-photo-by-Eskom.jpg)
-
Haha I know a guy who was a power engineer in south Africa. Stuff like that turned up all the time. They just left it there so they didn't get shot or stabbed. If they wanted to sort it, they'd just remove the associated step down transformer from the pole on the local circuit in the middle of the night.
-
yes thats right! you are a monkey,
Only in the same sense we're still animals, chordates, mammals etc. And arguable depending on your interpretation of cladistics. It all depends on if you'd count the most recent common ancestor of monkeys and apes as a monkey or not. I know people on both sides of the argument and TBH it's very academic and pretty irrelevant to what the evidence has to say about the processes involved.
Feeling insulted by the idea that all life on the planet is related isn't an argument against the evidence ;)
by evolusionist definition ;) take it with grain and salt..
It's funny how the only people who use the word "evolutionist" don't actually understand what evolution is, as your rant clearly demonstrated.
"Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations." That one observable fact (and it is a fact) is all that it is.
Natural selection is just an explanation of the mechanisms that select one trait over another. It's the only successful model though many (such as the Nazis and Soviet Union) pushed others due to their beliefs. The Nazis were just wrong on that matter, but the USSR's "religious" enforcement of Lamarkism killed millions.
Genetics is (mainly) what explains where those traits come from.
-
Exactly. The fact is, our DNA is 99% the same as an oak tree. Does that mean we're trees? I'll leaf that for you to decide. (http://img.timb.us/emoticon/downsrim.gif)
Sent from my Tablet
-
The fact is, our DNA is 99% the same as an oak tree.
We don't even share 99% with chimpanzees - it's more like 96%.
(Calculated in this paper (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full), published after the chimp genome was completely sequenced in 2005.)
Humans and trees are unlikely to have more than about 25% of their DNA in common.
-
Bible is quite consistent, and explains itself quite well. I just don't know how god created human, while leaving pathetic lower level primates there.
So, you do believe that an omni potent god exists but you are surprised that you, a lowly mortal, don't understand how he operates? That's very presumptuous on your part. ;-)
-
So, you do believe that an omni potent god exists but you are surprised that you, a lowly mortal, don't understand how he operates? That's very presumptuous on your part. ;-)
So I think we need a bio PhD to join our church, and see how he will explain all of this.
[/quote]
Why? He he will be just another lowly mortal. Our current understanding of reality is infinitesimally small.
-
I just can not believe the evolution theory is not true. I mean, I am a true believer to god, and the only thing that I am confused in the holy Bible is the place where god created human.
When I was a kid mom made me go to "church school" (that thing 1h every week, I don't know the name in English). At a certain point I learned about evolution, then one day I put the question to my "church school master": well, the bible says God created man but we know now that man came from apes through evolution; what now? And he replied that the bible just says God created man, it doesn't say exactly how he did it. Ok, fair enough I thought. (I don't believe in God)
-
For me was easy, just been rational, so no struggle here.
-
Well, that theory doesn't stand. Genesis said "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'"
This is the place confuses me the most, and I am struggling finding an answer.
A book written by men, and men telling you that a god made them write it, thousands of years ago, and you believe it is the word of that god and it confuses you because it doesn't work logically, doesn't match what you know to be real or possible, or even make sense to you? You believe this? Really? If you believe that god wrote it and it is all true and to be followed, then stop questioning and start killing people for wearing cotton and other fabrics together, or stone your children to death if they question you. If you are questioning this, why aren't your parents stoning you to death? Oh maybe you don't need to worry today because it is Sunday and that "all powerful" god is too tired to do things on Sunday.
If you question or don't like even one part of a holy book that you follow, how can any of it be trusted? Would you jump into a swimming pool even if there was only one shit turd floating in it?
-
I have plans to build a free energy radio, and it works great.
-
When did God create the oscilloscope anyways? And jeesh..., what does all this crap have to do with the OP's original subject?
-
Would you jump into a swimming pool even if there was only one shit turd floating in it?
On that note, I think this thread needs some comic relief.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxiXGr9nFM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPxiXGr9nFM#)
-
When did God create the oscilloscope anyways? And jeesh..., what does all this crap have to do with the OP's original subject?
Religious beliefs.
-
Same with evolution. There is no half man-half monkey. There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man. It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time. Saying "evolution is just guesses because there is no man+monkey" is equally ignorant of the theory as saying "current doesn't follow the path of least resistance because I had 2 wires... and both of them shocked me... when only one of them should have shocked me - the one with lower resistance". It just shows the speaker doesn't understand resistance, not that resistance theory is wrong.
You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm)
-
You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm)
In a strict phylogenetic sense apes, and by extension humans, are monkeys though...
(http://paolov.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/primatephylogenykrauz.jpg?w=675)
In the same way we're still life, eukaryotes, animals, chordates, mammals, primates, haplorhini, anthropoids, apes, hominids, humans, and specifically homo sapiens sapiens we're still mokeys. When a new branch is made everything on it is still one of what it branched off from, but it is also the new thing on top of that.
-
But what started it all?
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/33289470.jpg)
-
But what started it all?
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/33289470.jpg)
Sunlight hitting clay in a shallow warm ocean, and this was able to catalyse reactions between simple carbon compounds to form more complex ones. Eventually some were developed by this and were capable of growing on the substrate, and became free floating and able to enclose other molecules in a lipid envelope. Later on these developed into units capable of duplicating themselves by growing and dividing. Then one engulfed another and did not destroy it immediately, but used the fact that the engulfed organelle was capable of converting simple sugars to an activated phosphate byproduct which the outer unit could use for energy. This then was the origin of all life here, it was able to outcompete all others.
-
You really aren't in any position to berate anyone for their scientific illiteracy with regards to the theory of evolution after posting that bullshit. There aren't even examples of "gradual progressions" between man and monkey because homo-sapiens didn't descend from monkeys in the first place.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm)
In a strict phylogenetic sense apes, and by extension humans, are monkeys though...snip
I half figured before posting that this was going to be a waste of time. We can extend your argument all the way back to call humans some kind of pond slime. That may be a fitting description for some specific examples, but is entirely besides the point anyway. There isn't a direct line of descent between humans and monkeys. Those taking it upon themselves to defend science shouldn't perpetuate the exact same myths and over simplifications that those on the other side of the fence use to attack it.
-
Was watching a program " how the Universe was made" A Vatican priest astronomer Said the view of the Vatican now is
the bible is not a scientific book, as scientific books are updated every few years.( A pragmatic view in my opinion.)
and they do not dismiss evolution.
Let the flames begin
regards
bill
-
Yeah they're quite progressive in the Vatican state. Still, they've got a male virgin in a white dress giving out sexual advice, so I'm not sure they're quite there yet. Actually I feel sorry for their science advisor; that'd be hard work! Even North Korea has more sense to it.
More seriously, I've had many thirty minute long debates on my doorstep with a particularly persistent JW couple over the last year. I suspect they want out as they turn up for the discussion, not to try and convert me. There are so many gaps in their basic science education that its unreal which I've been filling them in with if they like it or not. Bear in mind this is the UK which has a relatively strong science education but their parents both (independently) home-schooled them and appear to have entirely skipped that bit.
I reckon that this is pretty much how this utter nonsense persists. Poor education, indoctrination and isolation to 'protect people from bad ideas'.
It's 2015.
-
snip...
You're not at all up to date. In the same way Pluto is no longer a planet (but for better reason) apes are now monkeys. Might be because the most recent common ancestor between apes and monkeys was a monkey...
-
snip...
You're not at all up to date. In the same way Pluto is no longer a planet (but for better reason) apes are now monkeys. Might be because the most recent common ancestor between apes and monkeys was a monkey...
::) had you actually read the article I linked to in my first post you'd see that it discusses relatively recent branches of the evolutionary tree; namely the contentious ancestor common to both humans (hominids) and the species of "great apes" colloquially and commonly called monkeys.
http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml (http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml)
I think that it is pretty damn obvious that when the typical anti-evolutionist attempts to discredit the theory of evolution by insisting that it is claimed that humans evolved from "monkeys" that they have these well known species of "great ape" in mind rather than freaking Nakalipithecus nakayamai. The theory of evolution most certainly does not state that my great great great (blah blah blah) grandparents were a pair of chimpanzees or gorillas.
-
::) had you actually read the article I linked to in my first post you'd see that it discusses relatively recent branches of the evolutionary tree; namely the contentious ancestor common to both humans (hominids) and the species of "great apes" colloquially and commonly called monkeys.
Yeah, but I also have palaeontologist and phylogenticist friends. As I said in an earlier post it is a pretty academic argument that doesn't effect the science beyond semantics but cladistics is always a contentious issue.
http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml (http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Is-This-the-Common-Ancestor-of-Humans-Chimps-Gorillas-70715.shtml)
I don't see what that has to do with the most recent common ancestor between apes and monkeys...
I think that it is pretty damn obvious that when the typical anti-evolutionist attempts to discredit the theory of evolution by insisting that it is claimed that humans evolved from "monkeys" that they have these well known species of "great ape" in mind rather than freaking Nakalipithecus nakayamai. The theory of evolution most certainly does not state that my great great great (blah blah blah) grandparents were a pair of chimpanzees or gorillas.
They misunderstand on purpose, and why should their wilful ignorance limit my discourse to pop biology and it's fallacies rather than actual developments in the related fields?
EDIT:
I half figured before posting that this was going to be a waste of time. We can extend your argument all the way back to call humans some kind of pond slime.
We ARE still eukaryotes, and that's not just my argument but BIOLOGIES.
There isn't a direct line of descent between humans and monkeys.
But as the illustration I posted showed, there is. The most recent common ancestor between monkeys and ape was a monkey making apes a SUBSET of monkeys. It wasn't a modern monkey, but it was still a monkey and not a more basal primate.
Those taking it upon themselves to defend science shouldn't perpetuate the exact same myths and over simplifications that those on the other side of the fence use to attack it.
And they shouldn't lie to distance similar sounding but different claims either! Their oversimplification comes from not getting that MODERN apes and monkeys are cousins, yours comes from ignoring that before there were ancient apes there were more ancient monkeys that split into the modern monkey and ape groups.
-
Bring it back to the original topic please.
-
***BIG SNIP***I think that it is pretty damn obvious that when the typical anti-evolutionist attempts to discredit the theory of evolution by insisting that it is claimed that humans evolved from "monkeys" that they have these well known species of "great ape" in mind rather than freaking Nakalipithecus nakayamai. The theory of evolution most certainly does not state that my great great great (blah blah blah) grandparents were a pair of chimpanzees or gorillas.
They misunderstand on purpose, and why should their wilful ignorance limit my discourse to pop biology and it's fallacies rather than actual developments in the related fields?
Non sequitur. Who said that it should? You misinterpreted my prior posts by assuming that I used the term "monkey" in an antiquated and restrictive sense rather than the colloquial (that being a label for most currently living primates; a usage that some scientists stress is nevertheless not strictly incorrect) that is relevant to the popular anti-evolution debate. In this context, the assertion than humans did not descend from monkeys is most certainly correct.
EDIT:
I half figured before posting that this was going to be a waste of time. We can extend your argument all the way back to call humans some kind of pond slime.
We ARE still eukaryotes, and that's not just my argument but BIOLOGIES.
I am aware of that. The point wasn't over the veracity of the above but the relevance to the discussion. I don't know how calling everything Marklar brings clarity to the discussion.
-
... misinterpreted my prior posts by assuming that I used the term "monkey"
Must have been Free Energy Youtube Monkeys instead.