Forums of the Megaverse®

Zer0 Kay wrote: Prove that Macro Evolution is a hard science. Darwin even stated if science... you know what I'm not going there. I wish there weren't so many tools of the fascist, anti-intellectual, anti-american, liberal, school district, zealots out there.

You show me one link between two species that shows macro evolution, heck show me a line of a single species with macro mutations out there or any other type of observation or experiment that proves macro-evolution/mutation and I'll give in to your THEORY!! It isn't my fault that scientist and fascist school districts refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural, which by the very exclusion makes that experiment bias and therefore invalid.

There is a higher probability that creation was intelligent and not random.

You demand evidence for macro-evolution but are willing to declare that intelligent creation has a higher probability knowing full well that such a statement can NEVER have any form of evidence to support it.
At least Micro-evolution has been scientifically proven, even if there was no evidence of macro-evolution, the fact that evolution exists in some form at all suggests that the possibility exists. There is no evidence and never will be any evidence whatsoever to support the notion of intelligent design.
So no, there isn't a higher probability of something unprovable happening than something that has scientific merit, regardless of how dubious in nature.

Giant2005 wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:ITS LIKE THEY WANT TO JUST TAKE EVERYTHING AT FACE VALUE AND WALK BLINDLY WITH WHATEVER SEEMS EASIEST AND MAKES THE MOST SENSE!?!?

Ummmm, I sense some hefty frustration in your post which could probably account for a lapse of judgment but wouldn't it be smartest to give more weight to the theory that makes the most sense?
I don't really see much wisdom in the line of thought that goes: "Wow that really does make sense! But you know what? I'm going to go with something else anyway even if your argument makes more sense than anything else."

Uh... no if we did that we wouldn't have broken the sound barrier. "Stop accelerating, the vibration is going to shake the bird apart." It is kind of funny how it is the people that go against the groupthink that make breakthroughs.

Oh as to combating munchkinism... a munchkin will be munchkin reguardless of what the munchkin is limited to. Combating a preconception that a given class, race, item, etc... is munchkin... if your GM knows you it shouldn't be too hard... then again that stuff may be considered munchkin because your GM DOES KNOW YOU...

Giant2005 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote: Prove that Macro Evolution is a hard science. Darwin even stated if science... you know what I'm not going there. I wish there weren't so many tools of the fascist, anti-intellectual, anti-american, liberal, school district, zealots out there.

You show me one link between two species that shows macro evolution, heck show me a line of a single species with macro mutations out there or any other type of observation or experiment that proves macro-evolution/mutation and I'll give in to your THEORY!! It isn't my fault that scientist and fascist school districts refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural, which by the very exclusion makes that experiment bias and therefore invalid.

There is a higher probability that creation was intelligent and not random.

You demand evidence for macro-evolution but are willing to declare that intelligent creation has a higher probability knowing full well that such a statement can NEVER have any form of evidence to support it.
At least Micro-evolution has been scientifically proven, even if there was no evidence of macro-evolution, the fact that evolution exists in some form at all suggests that the possibility exists. There is no evidence and never will be any evidence whatsoever to support the notion of intelligent design.
So no, there isn't a higher probability of something unprovable happening than something that has scientific merit, regardless of how dubious in nature.

If we were anyplace else on the arm of the Milkyway that we are on we couldn't see into space because of the cosmic dust. There is too much random chance to be random chance and if it is all random chance there is no other life in space. If it is all random chance there wouldn't be as much variety of successful life on the planet.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Seems like if you think an Atlantean is a munchkin choice your baseline or idea of what constitutes a munchkin is so low everything above Aunt May is munchkin.

Munchkinism isn't about a certain power level, it's about relative power level.
In a "Land of the Blind" RPG, they'd be wanting to play the guy with one eye.
They'd be okay playing Aunt May, just as long as everybody else around them was even more feeble.
Conversely, they'd HATE playing a Mulka Cosmoknight Godling, if everything they went up against was equally powerful.

As far as the rant about evolution goes, this isn't the forum for that.

Agreed.

But... it is interesting.

To the munckin stuff... Playing Aunt Bee would be munchkin if none of the other aunts could cook.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:ITS LIKE THEY WANT TO JUST TAKE EVERYTHING AT FACE VALUE AND WALK BLINDLY WITH WHATEVER SEEMS EASIEST AND MAKES THE MOST SENSE!?!?

Ummmm, I sense some hefty frustration in your post which could probably account for a lapse of judgment but wouldn't it be smartest to give more weight to the theory that makes the most sense?
I don't really see much wisdom in the line of thought that goes: "Wow that really does make sense! But you know what? I'm going to go with something else anyway even if your argument makes more sense than anything else."

Uh... no if we did that we wouldn't have broken the sound barrier. "Stop accelerating, the vibration is going to shake the bird apart." It is kind of funny how it is the people that go against the groupthink that make breakthroughs.

Oh as to combating munchkinism... a munchkin will be munchkin reguardless of what the munchkin is limited to. Combating a preconception that a given class, race, item, etc... is munchkin... if your GM knows you it shouldn't be too hard... then again that stuff may be considered munchkin because your GM DOES KNOW YOU...

Are you telling me that going with the philosophy that makes the least sense is wiser than going with what makes the most sense?
That is nonsensical...

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote: Prove that Macro Evolution is a hard science. Darwin even stated if science... you know what I'm not going there. I wish there weren't so many tools of the fascist, anti-intellectual, anti-american, liberal, school district, zealots out there.

You show me one link between two species that shows macro evolution, heck show me a line of a single species with macro mutations out there or any other type of observation or experiment that proves macro-evolution/mutation and I'll give in to your THEORY!! It isn't my fault that scientist and fascist school districts refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural, which by the very exclusion makes that experiment bias and therefore invalid.

There is a higher probability that creation was intelligent and not random.

You demand evidence for macro-evolution but are willing to declare that intelligent creation has a higher probability knowing full well that such a statement can NEVER have any form of evidence to support it.
At least Micro-evolution has been scientifically proven, even if there was no evidence of macro-evolution, the fact that evolution exists in some form at all suggests that the possibility exists. There is no evidence and never will be any evidence whatsoever to support the notion of intelligent design.
So no, there isn't a higher probability of something unprovable happening than something that has scientific merit, regardless of how dubious in nature.

If we were anyplace else on the arm of the Milkyway that we are on we couldn't see into space because of the cosmic dust. There is too much random chance to be random chance and if it is all random chance there is no other life in space. If it is all random chance there wouldn't be as much variety of successful life on the planet.

Actually, if space is infinite, then it is certain that there is infinite life in the universe. That is the nature of infinity.
I don't care what people believe in - there are no certainties in life. The best we can do is make educated guesses.
My only objection occurs when someone says "think for yourself, don't take something as fact merely because you were told so" and then follows it up with a statement that implies they blindly believe in a different view, with no possible evidence whatsoever. That is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Max™ wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:All I ask is that people read the link and do the research. Understand the nature of mutation and what it means to add genetic information to a cell.

I'd like to keep this on topic now because as I have said in several private messages already (I am not your science teacher).

I actually am a science teacher (well, general education, math, science, literature, all of it), and it was obvious you were not one from the beginning.

People who do research don't say what you've said.

Eh, he's hyperventilating.

But, good G-d: this thread may not need closing, but it does need to be ported over to OT.

Giant2005 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:ITS LIKE THEY WANT TO JUST TAKE EVERYTHING AT FACE VALUE AND WALK BLINDLY WITH WHATEVER SEEMS EASIEST AND MAKES THE MOST SENSE!?!?

Ummmm, I sense some hefty frustration in your post which could probably account for a lapse of judgment but wouldn't it be smartest to give more weight to the theory that makes the most sense?
I don't really see much wisdom in the line of thought that goes: "Wow that really does make sense! But you know what? I'm going to go with something else anyway even if your argument makes more sense than anything else."

Uh... no if we did that we wouldn't have broken the sound barrier. "Stop accelerating, the vibration is going to shake the bird apart." It is kind of funny how it is the people that go against the groupthink that make breakthroughs.

Oh as to combating munchkinism... a munchkin will be munchkin reguardless of what the munchkin is limited to. Combating a preconception that a given class, race, item, etc... is munchkin... if your GM knows you it shouldn't be too hard... then again that stuff may be considered munchkin because your GM DOES KNOW YOU...

Are you telling me that going with the philosophy that makes the least sense is wiser than going with what makes the most sense?
That is nonsensical...

That's generally what happens when people don't really have enough background to realize what is and isn't more sensible in a particular field. More than a few fallacies operate on that. People used to think tomatoes were deadly poison for no other reason than they were in a family of plants of which the rest were poisonous and it took quite some time to defeat that bit of ignorance. Others like to insist that they know more than the scientists who study things even when they haven't a shred of understanding or background in any science. While scientists are just as prone to becoming locked into ideas and hidebound and reject new ideas because they're comfortable with the old ones they are at least in a career that generally encourages one to actually think and consider they might be wrong and adapt to new ideas.

Nightmask wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:ITS LIKE THEY WANT TO JUST TAKE EVERYTHING AT FACE VALUE AND WALK BLINDLY WITH WHATEVER SEEMS EASIEST AND MAKES THE MOST SENSE!?!?

Ummmm, I sense some hefty frustration in your post which could probably account for a lapse of judgment but wouldn't it be smartest to give more weight to the theory that makes the most sense?
I don't really see much wisdom in the line of thought that goes: "Wow that really does make sense! But you know what? I'm going to go with something else anyway even if your argument makes more sense than anything else."

Uh... no if we did that we wouldn't have broken the sound barrier. "Stop accelerating, the vibration is going to shake the bird apart." It is kind of funny how it is the people that go against the groupthink that make breakthroughs.

Oh as to combating munchkinism... a munchkin will be munchkin reguardless of what the munchkin is limited to. Combating a preconception that a given class, race, item, etc... is munchkin... if your GM knows you it shouldn't be too hard... then again that stuff may be considered munchkin because your GM DOES KNOW YOU...

Are you telling me that going with the philosophy that makes the least sense is wiser than going with what makes the most sense?
That is nonsensical...

That's generally what happens when people don't really have enough background to realize what is and isn't more sensible in a particular field. More than a few fallacies operate on that. People used to think tomatoes were deadly poison for no other reason than they were in a family of plants of which the rest were poisonous and it took quite some time to defeat that bit of ignorance. Others like to insist that they know more than the scientists who study things even when they haven't a shred of understanding or background in any science. While scientists are just as prone to becoming locked into ideas and hidebound and reject new ideas because they're comfortable with the old ones they are at least in a career that generally encourages one to actually think and consider they might be wrong and adapt to new ideas.

If something makes more sense, that is because chances are, it is correct. Sure there is always the possibility that someone will discover something that truely doesn't make sense and redefines the limitations of physics as we know it but that is an extreme rarity.
Most people take what makes the most sense and use that as a basis for their endeavors and as i look out the window at my car and see round wheels as opposed to triangular, I am grateful that the inventors of our history have been willing to go with what makes sense.

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That's generally what happens when people don't really have enough background to realize what is and isn't more sensible in a particular field. More than a few fallacies operate on that. People used to think tomatoes were deadly poison for no other reason than they were in a family of plants of which the rest were poisonous and it took quite some time to defeat that bit of ignorance. Others like to insist that they know more than the scientists who study things even when they haven't a shred of understanding or background in any science. While scientists are just as prone to becoming locked into ideas and hidebound and reject new ideas because they're comfortable with the old ones they are at least in a career that generally encourages one to actually think and consider they might be wrong and adapt to new ideas.

If something makes more sense, that is because chances are, it is correct. Sure there is always the possibility that someone will discover something that truely doesn't make sense and redefines the limitations of physics as we know it but that is an extreme rarity.
Most people take what makes the most sense and use that as a basis for their endeavors and as i look out the window at my car and see round wheels as opposed to triangular, I am grateful that the inventors of our history have been willing to go with what makes sense.

Oh history has plenty of inventors that went with things that didn't make sense even without hindsight, and filled quite a few hospitals and graves as a result, but that's the 'trial and error' part of things where you don't know what makes sense without actually trying it.

Nightmask wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That's generally what happens when people don't really have enough background to realize what is and isn't more sensible in a particular field. More than a few fallacies operate on that. People used to think tomatoes were deadly poison for no other reason than they were in a family of plants of which the rest were poisonous and it took quite some time to defeat that bit of ignorance. Others like to insist that they know more than the scientists who study things even when they haven't a shred of understanding or background in any science. While scientists are just as prone to becoming locked into ideas and hidebound and reject new ideas because they're comfortable with the old ones they are at least in a career that generally encourages one to actually think and consider they might be wrong and adapt to new ideas.

If something makes more sense, that is because chances are, it is correct. Sure there is always the possibility that someone will discover something that truely doesn't make sense and redefines the limitations of physics as we know it but that is an extreme rarity.
Most people take what makes the most sense and use that as a basis for their endeavors and as i look out the window at my car and see round wheels as opposed to triangular, I am grateful that the inventors of our history have been willing to go with what makes sense.

Oh history has plenty of inventors that went with things that didn't make sense even without hindsight, and filled quite a few hospitals and graves as a result, but that's the 'trial and error' part of things where you don't know what makes sense without actually trying it.

I think we are probably talking about two different things.
My interpretation of "going against what makes sense" is someone discovering *insert random achievement here* and deciding "wow that makes perfect sense! This could actually work! So instead of pursuing that line of thought, I think I'll abandon that endeavor and try a different, more nonsensical route".
What I think you are interpreting "going against what makes sense" as any new discovery that goes against what was previously believed to be the truth, even if the new discovery makes far more sense than the beliefs prior to it.
I guess the difference is "what makes more sense" verses "what is believed to make sense at the time".

Giant2005 wrote:I guess the difference is "what makes more sense" verses "what is believed to make sense at the time".

Pretty obvious difference, I think.
Just because something is popular does not mean that it makes sense, and I'm not sure how people get confused about that.