APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

Damocles said:
When I first created JPP.com my first thought was to create three interlocking boards, one where normal messageboard play took place, one "above" plain politics board and one "below" plain politics board where all the muckraking and flaming took place. This turned out to be a bit of a stretch. So instead we're looking to create an area on this board where flaming, etc. is not welcome (although the rest of the board remains unchanged).

My first thought on "Above" plain politics would be that we could speak here about strategy and higher-level politics without the detriment of political affiliation, but I realize that is not likely to happen. We have our bias. So the goal is now that this place will be set aside for conversations without trash-talk and trolls.

I hope you will enjoy this new addition, as well as use the newly redacted "War Zone" where the Flame Wars can take place.

Enjoy the board folks, we're here for fun and get to know and learn the opinions of others!
Click to expand...

LIARS!
 
Watermark said:
The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.
Click to expand...
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus
 
If the planet consisted of all metal and there was a record showing a generally progressive level of adaptive sophistication of machines over time with no indication of another actor redesigning the bots, I would assume they evolved into their current state.
 
Damocles said:
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus
Click to expand...

Sorry, Damo, I misspoke. I meant to say "galaxy" because Dixie was specifically talking about an intergalactic mission.
 
To speak directly to the intent of this thread, there are 2 things that I think most can agree that our current scientific knowledge have absolutely no explanation for:

1) How a subatomic anomoly came out of essentially nowhere and spewed out all of the matter that is in the known universe
2) How a free floating "cell" (which have been formed in laboraties using the same conditions that existed on the primordial earth) started to self-replicate.

Once the latter started self-replication, it is fairly easy to explain how it eventually evolved into all of the lifeforms we see around us today, and that have existed throughout natural history. The key question is the initiation of that first self-replication, but some argue that time is the key factor there, which is why it cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

However, the fact that we can't currently explain these things scientifically, does not equal the idea that there is no scientific explanation.
 
Onceler said:
To speak directly to the intent of this thread, there are 2 things that I think most can agree that our current scientific knowledge have absolutely no explanation for:

1) How a subatomic anomoly came out of essentially nowhere and spewed out all of the matter that is in the known universe
2) How a free floating "cell" (which have been formed in laboraties using the same conditions that existed on the primordial earth) started to self-replicate.

Once the latter started self-replication, it is fairly easy to explain how it eventually evolved into all of the lifeforms we see around us today, and that have existed throughout natural history. The key question is the initiation of that first self-replication, but some argue that time is the key factor there, which is why it cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

However, the fact that we can't currently explain these things scientifically, does not equal the idea that there is no scientific explanation.
Click to expand...


OMG. You have never seemed more Spock-like.

I hope that is okay to say in this forum.
 
Dixie said:
Basically, what you are saying is, this forum is exactly like the other forum, except you can arbitrarily ban people for a month when you feel like it. I've read the "rules" for both forums, and personal information hasn't been allowed here since Day 1! That's nothing new! The only thing I see different is the "racial insults" thing, which could technically be a violation of the regular forum, if you wanted to make it that.

Beneath the APP forum title, it says "Above the fray discussions" So what exactly does that mean, Grind? I posted a civil topic, I have not called anyone names, I have not insulted anyone, and all I've gotten is one insult after another hurled at me, just like in the other forum. So what is the fucking BIG difference here?

It's like I said, this forum is a fucking JOKE... YOU are a fucking JOKE! Damo is a fucking JOKE! You have ZERO credibility, and this place is about to go down the tubes like SR's site did when he pulled this same kind of 'authoritarian' bullshit! First it was the stupid rep points and letting you get away with acting like a 7th grader with your authority, then it was making Lady T a moderator, and now it's this stupid shit. This place just gets more bizarre and ridiculous every day!
Click to expand...


:cof1:

What the fuck did I ever do to you? ......Besides pwn you hard on the fact that you're tolerant of nazism.
 
Watermark said:
Is this some fancy new version of the watchmaker analogy?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.
Click to expand...

Just becuse you have parsed already published material to "look like your own" does not make it so.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/18/refutationOfThebyDesignArgumentForTheism.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top