Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Photon

1
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so mind-numbingly stupid.  No, wait, it is hilarious BECAUSE it is mind-numbingly stupid.
And because he lives in an impenetrable bubble where no facts or logic from the real world can get through to disturb his fantasies, but - more important - his fantasies are safely contained and can't affect anything in the real world, like science, education, or medical practice.
Well, I don't know that that is true. Surely he has convinced and significantly influenced all those people that signed on to moving into his Sustainable Subdivision endeavour.

Oh. Wait.
2
I guess Dave is more interested in showing his cognitive bias and abject ignorance than in defending his claims about nested hierarchies. He can't even construct and defend a NH of a small set of man-made objects, despite assurances he could.

It looks as though "bicycles are galaxies" Hawkins truly is just talking out of his ass and is bragging about the hot scented wind he creates.  I mean, he thinks his creationist anti-reality idiocy is the same as science. 

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so mind-numbingly stupid.  No, wait, it is hilarious BECAUSE it is mind-numbingly stupid.
3
Quote
And that is what suggests a family tree.

Look. Guys.  I get that we can organize life on earth in such a way as to suggest the possibility of a common origin.  It IS tempting to propose a single common ancestor for all life on earth.  And when we compare chimps and humans and compare their DNA and so on, it's tempting to think that we shared a common ancestor.

But it's MORE tempting to propose a Designer.  Why?  Well because we have actual experience with real live (human) designers who design all sorts of super sophisticated robotic machines (that's what organisms actually are - see Bruce Alberts).  And we do NOT have any experience with random mutations (or anything else that neo-Darwinists or Third Wayers want to propose) actually creating anything new in biology.  Yeah we might get a lucky increase in fitness here and there (plasmodium?) ... but nothing even remotely close to anything we could call "creative."

And SCIENCE deals in ACTUAL EXPERIENCE ... not speculation.

This is why Darwinism is not science ... it's religion.

Creationism is Real Science.
A more tortured piece of logic would be hard to find on the intertubez, and that's saying something. Well done, Dave. You've just reached Slaphappy Harebrained Inane Tard level, a true testament to your colon-sourced idiocy.
4
Never mind.
Translation: Oops, I was talking out of my anal sphincter again, there's nothing to see here.
5
What Dave can't see, and will never see, is that what a nested hierarchy represents is a very specific DISTRIBUTION of features over the set of living things.

Not all features have that distribution.  But there EXISTS a set that does. 

And that is what suggests a family tree.

But Dave can't see beyond his a priori groupings.  He can't see that what the rest of us are seeing is a pattern of features across groups.

And he never will.
What you're saying in layman's terms is essentially (for example) "birds have two arms and two legs  and two eyes just like humans so this suggests a common ancestor somewhere way back in time.

Theoretically possible.  I'll give you that.

But it's also theoretically possible that  they did not they never shared a common ancestor at all but rather that a single designer designed them both.
Only designers don't limit their designs by lineage.
They swap modules from one designed thing to another.
You find the same kind of computer circuitry in cars and phones and televisions.
Yes, but not exactly the same.  It's a bit different in different models.  Just like "modules" in living things - eyes for example.

Quote
You can't draw up nested hierarchies of those things that reflects their "ancestry".
Sure you can.  See Denton.

Quote
But you can with living things.
You can with either.
Quote
Because it is not possible to swap modules between lineages like that.
Sure it is.

You can inherit traits from your brother?

Perhaps Dave should move to Alabama, where that kind of thing is tolerated.
6
Yet more idiocy
What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?

Or are you still too busy 'shitting up the thread'?
Well, like Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, he didn't actually discover anything.  He did RE-discover something that naturalists all the way back to Aristotle (and probably before) had known ...

and what was that?
Again ... Linnaeus didn't discover anything.  He examined the pattern of Nature and re-affirmed what naturalists had known all the way back to Aristotle ... that Nature conforms to an "ordered hierarchic system" (to use Denton's term) and that this system is "fundamentally non-sequential" (Denton again).

So you agree that the pattern he discovered tabulated is an actual observable and discernable property of living things, not an arbitrary grouping that could be imposed on any set?
I agree that it would be more natural to group a robin with a crow than with a rainbow trout.

Would you group a robin more naturally with a bee, or a snake?
7
"Fundy tides"


Get on your knees and let God's love wash all over your upturned face.  The Holy Spirit will enter you, and leave you with the Seed of Salvation. Don't forget your towel.
8
Raging narcissism isn't a "qualification", Dave. 
9
So, an exceedingly accurate description of reality? I'm glad you agree that your behaviour has been puerile and unscientific.
10
One winter.  No bought hay.  None.  I had very little TREE hay bc it was so new to me and I wasn't very organized, but I had plenty of what we in HMG call "stockpile" in my pasture.  It's just tall grass that remains green and nutritious long into the winter.
Meaning that he ran out of browse for his browsers, and forced them to be captive grazers for 6 months instead.  <<applause>>
11
I'm tied into two safety ropes.  What else do you want me to do? 
1. Provide adequate shelter for your animals so they don't freeze to death and/or get sick and die due to your incompetence.
2. Answer the many objections you receive without flouncing, lying, and badgering.
3. Shut off the asshole once in a while.
4. Actually learn how science is done to alleviate your embarrassment of yourself.
5. Honour your bets and promises.

I've got lots more, if I thought you were in any way interested, or capable of honestly responding to this post, or changing your behaviour.
12
Pulling this forward past all the chaff...

 < clip self-congratulatory tripe that was responded to thoughtfully, and promptly ignored by "truth matters bicycles are galaxies" Hawkins >

Hmm, Dave ignoring responses and defaulting to his own ego-stroking bullshit? Say it ain't so.

13
Who the hell do you think prunes the natural forest, Dave? Elves?
What makes you think it's a "natural" forest with no humans living in it? I would say that any forest with no humans  living in it is not natural at all.
Well this was a blindingly stupid thing to say. Not at all surprising from "bicycles are galaxies" Hawkins. 
14
Yes
So you agree you don't get it, and your lol's are content-free dodges meant to distract from your militant ignorance on the NH topic?
15
Translation: I like burgers and I won't eat my broccoli. I won't, I won't , I won't, you can't make me!


Dave there are millions of vegetarians and vegans out there who have a perfectly healthy diet that includes no meat, no dairy, and no, or very few, animal products. You are an idiot.
Every "vegan" I've ever met has at least some animal products in their diets.
Every vegan I've ever met is really a vegan and eats no animal products.

Ditto. Why would they even claim to be vegan otherwise?  Makes no sense.
Well, in some cases, it's to get laid. Ya meets up with some hottie, it turns out theyz vegan, so, hey, youz vegan too! Letz get it on!!

Well, woe betide if they catch you sneaking a hamburger.
That's called an exit strategy.
16
Well you are reading BS science.  You should read some good science. 
How do you tell the difference between BS science and good science?
As I've told you many times, it's a skill honed over many years of experience sorting truth from error.  Some folks have it.  Some don't.


In other words, you have no method, at all.  You simply scan for things you already agree with, the antithesis of searching for truth.
17



Galaxies
-Spiral galaxies
--Barred spiral galaxies
---Milky Way galaxy
----Stars
-----Yellow dwarf stars
------Yellow dwarf stars with planets
-------Our Sun
--------Planet Earth
---------Natural objects
----------Manmade objects
-----------Made in factories
------------Vehicles
-------------Rolls
--------------Bicycle
---------------Schwinn 10 speed

What's wrong with this?
Read the post immediately preceding your question. 
18
Dave is a serial reductionist.  Pushing buttons, and all that.
19



Galaxies
-Spiral galaxies
--Barred spiral galaxies
---Milky Way galaxy
----Stars
-----Yellow dwarf stars
------Yellow dwarf stars with planets
-------Our Sun
--------Planet Earth
---------Natural objects
----------Manmade objects
-----------Made in factories
------------Vehicles
-------------Rolls
--------------Bicycle
---------------Schwinn 10 speed

This is one of the funniest things I've seen; he pretends to try so hard, and fails in a profound display of stupid.

If this truly was a nested hierarchy, then my mountain bike would be, simultaneously, a kind of galaxy, a spiral galaxy, a type of Milky Way, a star, a yellow dwarf star, and planet Earth.

Dave, a bicycle is not a star, or a planet. 

A human is:
- a hominid (great ape),
- a haplorhine (Old World monkeys, great apes and New World Monkeys)
- a primate
- a mammal
- a vertebrate
- a chordate
- bilateral
- an animal

A bicycle is NOT:
- a galaxy
- a star
- our sun
- a planet

FFS, wake up man!
20
Which makes no sense, since common descent obviously produces hierarchical patterns. What does he think family trees are? It's just such muddled thinking.
He seems to have gone down the road of populations never being separated. I think he assumes that all life should resemble a giant ring species.
This was exactly the question that Darwin explored at the beginning of Chapter VI of "Origin of Species".

If Hawkins wants to go down that road, I suggest he read that first, to minimize the number of cow patties he steps in on the way.


You know, origin of species is really a work of art. I once had a middle school literature group read it. They loved it. I have always thought it should be considered as 19th century literature. It beats the shit out of deerslayer.
The first time I read On the Origin of Species I was enamored by the eloquent prose, and captivated by the content. Regardless of the actual topic, Darwin could write.  He could be exceedingly clear and yet entertaining, anecdotal yet adhere to rules of evidence, and he could explore nuance in the communicated word, elevating scientific/technical writing to an art form.

One of my all-time favourite reads.  I put it on par with Styron's Sophie's Choice and Heller's Catch 22 for being an inspiration for the love of language.

Conversely, I've tried many times to read Principia, but still haven't successfully got through it, the books about Principia are much better.

21
They are not magic.  It's just that flies like to lay eggs in them.  And I'm told that in about 4 days, the eggs have hatched and the maggots are big and juicy.  But maybe you are referring to the "cows will save the planet" meme?  Yeah we've been through that and it's not magic either.

Indeed it isn't.

If it were, it might work.
It WILL work.  It's called "science."  You should try it sometime.
Umm, if your cows are getting nutrients from the same field they are shitting on, no it won't work. They only return a portion of the what the plants capture back to the soil. We've been over this time and again, and you are back to the magic cow shit (and goat shit, etc.)  will save the planet.

FFS, science falsifies your position. Science doesn't become a personality cult despite how great you think you are.
22
The fact that you can't do it very deeply for vehicles simply means that you are not making an apples to apples comparison. 

Compare a "life" NH to a "non-life" NH and get back to me.

kthxbye
That's the whole fucking point. A "non-life" NH won't likely be deep, and definitely won't include everything. Compare them Dave, I dare you, it is fatal to your proposition.
23
Hey, if I use this technique, I can do all my classes with my cell phone camera from home, in my pajamas no doubt.  No need for all that flipped classroom jazz, and metacognitive analytics, and subject expertise and labs and demos, and frankly hilarious anecdotes about fluid mechanics and engineering dynamics, hell Dave just helped me disengage professionally entirely. Thanks!

Or should I say:



No comment necessary, obviously.
24
But only one is truly broke(n).
25
Look at the rule he establishes for his hierarchic system.
And look how he violates his own rule in his transport "hierarchy" .


Oh?  How's that?
It's exactly equivalent to our definition of a nested hierarchy.

You can't have any overlapping containers, you can't have two containers with the same label, and you must add any item to all the containers in which it fits (accomplished by adding it to one container which is contained by all the other characteristics of the item).

That's why his transport hierarchy, and yours, isn't a nested hierarchy.  For example, consider a hovercraft.  It has the characteristic "goes on land".  It also has the characteristic "goes on water".  You can't find any place in that hierarchy where ONE container includes BOTH of those characteristics.  The only way to add hovercraft to that hierarchy is to put it in two places, which violates the nesting.

Not that you are capable of comprehending that.

Not true. You can simply add another category ... "Amphibious" ... hmm ...  seems like we do that same thing with living things ...

You still aren't getting it.

Notice how amphibians are all animals and chordates.    They possess the features of that kingdom and phylum, and sister classes will have those features too, but a list of independent, distinct features as well.  The amphibians are distinct from the fish, reptiles, birds and mammals at this level.  But when you go down in the amphibian category, you won't find a single fish, or any rabbits.

Your hierarchy has rabbits (diesel engines) inside both amphibians (sea) and mammals (land).

Do you get it now?
Notice how "hovercraft" is still a vehicle.

And yes I have "got it" for a very long time. It's you that doesn't get it.

Well, I guess you are free to believe in amphibian rabbits.