PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

garyb wrote:ok, i'll go with the ot....

until someone is obviously impaired, they need to be left alone. how about giving a roadside test to random sober drivers to be sure that they are up to snuff?

again, anyone who cannot maintain the basic control over their vehicle needs to be off the road. blood levels of a substance do not necessarily reflect the level of control one has. if one drives much worse after drinking, but still drives as well as the typical sober driver, he has done no wrong. driving itself is a risky behavior bordering on insanity. 4 air filled rubber balloons supporting a 4,000 pound vehicle moving at 60 miles per hour that hasn't been serviced in a year or more is not exactly safe. even serviced properly it isn't safe. this idea of safety is a lie. we can only limit disaster.

My main 'concern' here is that we have a law that has no standards for determining how one is 'impaired' to begin with (do dreadlocks or hippy stickers indicate this? A funny smell from the car? red eyes?), mandates the use of blood testing and uses the results of that to determine GUILT with no due process of law (aka trial by jury of your peers isn't available...though hopefully this is challenged). So they get to collect biometric data on people that they determine are 'stoned' (how?) and that constitutes guilt based on only a handful of studies that the *authors* of the law referred to while it was being discussed.

I actually have no problems with taking impaired drivers off the road, and in one of my lengthy threads showed that we actually already have a state law that includes *any* substance that impairs you (including legal drugs as well). That law also includes due process and the option/choice for trial by jury of peers...and blood testing is only required if you are arrested and refuse other tests.

garyb wrote:Charles Darwin was a fraud and an inbred pervert. it was Thomas Henry Huxley who left Aldous and his criminal brother Julian(of British intelligence and Eugenics fame) behind, who is responsible for the current ideas of "evolution"(along with partners in crime like nephew Sir Francis Galton). let's get out the calipers and begin to measure craniums to prove the existence of the master race everyone!

Social Darwinism predating Scientific Darwinism? That's Unpossible! (to quote Ralph Wiggum)

Common, tell us who are them...

"there is no proof of evolution as Darwin described, however. none. in scientific circles this is well-known."

Of course there will be individuals, sensationalists, who desire a public forum to make an name for themselves, but I have not encountered any compelling argument in scientific circles to suggest that evolution is a flawed theory.

If you're talking about here is no proof of anything in science, a-la Karl Popper's Falsification theory, then I am not aware of anything that disproves evolution.

Someone in your family was good at chemistry and philosophy? Delighted for you, you must be very proud. Glad he made a name for himself too.
Are you saying that now because you think that gives weight to your thoughts? Ammm... no, that's not the way it works.

about impairment, i agree completely Valis.

about social and scientific Darwinism...no, they are one and the same. Thomas Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog". it was Huxley who brought Darwin to the fore. his nephew mr. Galton was the one who coined the term "biometrics" in his book Biometrika. the Huxleys and Darwins only married Wedgewoods and eachother as part of a long standing pact to create the ubermensch. Charles' father married a Wedgewood and Charles married his first cousin Emma Wedgewood. when she died, he married his auntie.

Charles wrote several papers that led to Thomas Robert Malthus' screeds on population and the need to cull. he wrote them for Malthus' publications even.

Was there a bit of tongue-in-cheek about the Chemist-Philosopher dude in your family Garyb?

Methinks I have been taken in by your humour!

Eanna wrote:"there is no proof of evolution as Darwin described, however. none. in scientific circles this is well-known."

Of course there will be individuals, sensationalists, who desire a public forum to make an name for themselves, but I have not encountered any compelling argument in scientific circles to suggest that evolution is a flawed theory.

If you're talking about here is no proof of anything in science, a-la Karl Popper's Falsification theory, then I am not aware of anything that disproves evolution.

Someone in your family was good at chemistry and philosophy? Delighted for you, you must be very proud. Glad he made a name for himself too.
Are you saying that now because you think that gives weight to your thoughts? Ammm... no, that's not the way it works.

no, i'm saying that i do have a backround in these matters. naturally, it means very little other than i have been exposed to a scientific point of veiw from birth, that i am not anti-science.

as to the flawed argument that is evolution(the new religion), i'll just say that it depends on your point of veiw. if you think that three dimensions(meaning a measurement of spatial extent) describes all of reality, then evolution looks very real.

Eanna wrote:Was there a bit of tongue-in-cheek about the Chemist-Philosopher dude in your family Garyb?

Methinks I have been taken in by your humour!

ahhh, good! if we're having fun, then it's great!

actually, the chair you sit in likely contains a substance made by someone in my family. if you have flown in a plane, you can thank him. if you have used nasal spray to clear your sinuses then he was involved. the philospher(a different guy) has the entire department and the name of the building that that department is in named after him. of couyrse, you're correct. it's kinda meaningless, as i said, i just wanted to show that i didn't grow up hating science. i actually love science as a technique, although it's a bogus religion.

my father was a fine artist who painted mustachios on billboards. i guess that's where i got the asshat genes...

We're back here again Garyb!
I think you'll find your history of Darwin a few pages back too...

Defaming Darwin is one thing, but slating evolution because you understand it to have been designed to support eugenics does not go towards debunking evolution as a current theory.

Evolution does not purport to being a new religion. It's just a scientific theory!
It has always seemed to me that those for whom the theory of evolution offends their religion impose the categorisation of 'religion' upon evolution!

Is there a fourth dimension to evolution? There is, if the fourth dimension is time, which is a requirement of evolution... Is there a fifth dimension so? Or maybe a sixth even? One that falsifies evolution?

garyb wrote: my father was a fine artist who painted mustachios on billboards. i guess that's where i got the asshat genes...

Asshat - I'm importing that into Ireland!
I'll give you 20% of the proceeds...

Wonder who the first Irish Asshat will be? I'm off work tomorrow, so unless the boss actually rings me.......

dimension means "a measurement of spatial EXTENT". period(look it up and check the etymology. regardless of colloquial meanings that have developed, the word is what it is, not what we want to make it into).

if time is a dimension(you said that), then it's no different than height or width or depth. it's a line, a collection of points in two directions. each point is connected to every other point(geometry). if time is like width, but we don't have sense organs to experience it as such, it still exists as a WHOLE. for this reason, nothing happens. everything is complete. evolution is a useful idea, but it's actually incorrect. if all things are complete, they don't evolve.

it's only in our limited point of veiw that things happen. this limited point of veiw is the greatest "gift" of life. imagine a being that can see in 4 or 5 or more dimensions(physics can indentify at least 50 mathematically, all possibilities of a multiverse with vision moving forward in time). the idea of evolution or "things happening" is an obvious misunderstanding.

Eanna wrote:

garyb wrote: my father was a fine artist who painted mustachios on billboards. i guess that's where i got the asshat genes...

Asshat - I'm importing that into Ireland!
I'll give you 20% of the proceeds...

Wonder who the first Irish Asshat will be? I'm off work tomorrow, so unless the boss actually rings me.......

c'mon now...Ireland has already had it's share with more to come.

Here's looking at you, kid!

You're not wrong tho... It's more a question of whom in Ireland will be the first to be branded an asshat...

Google Chrome's extensive English dictionary seems to suggest I've mistyped 'asshat'. Lets change the world and get 'asshat' into that dictionary!

actually, i first heard the word from a(Norwegian, i believe) Planetz poster...

Eanna wrote:I dunno Nestor.

I reckon we are slaves to how evolution shaped us. Nothing more.
Life isn't about loving and giving - altruism exists to give us an evolutionary advantage.
We are endowed with large brains, a bit like a peacock with its large feathers, we have been genetically pruned in this manner. This big brain allows us exploit our environment, to give us individually and collectively an evolutionary advantage.

Our misbehaviour, meddling and abusing nature, is a very unfortunate yet thoroughly understandable effect of our ability to behave in that way. If a cat found a way to drill for oil, mine iron, smelt steel, design the internal combustion engine to sit on top of a chassis with wheels, then he would do so. We did find that, because we could. And if a cat could organise and self promote to create a movement that instantiated a system of government over other cats, oppress those cats, force them to work for their benefit, then he would do so. We did do this, because we could.

What's hard to do is to go against your humanity, your evolutionary endowment.

+1

garyb wrote:dimension means "a measurement of spatial EXTENT". period(look it up and check the etymology. regardless of colloquial meanings that have developed, the word is what it is, not what we want to make it into).

I have not abused the meaning with some colloquial use of the term 'dimension'!

garyb wrote:(physics can indentify at least 50 mathematically

I believe the current number that mathematically must exist in order that String Theory can be explained mathematically is 11. Last I looked anyway...

If you are a self-professed man of science, then you have no problem with maths. So, you saying that maths has 'at least 50' different measures 'of spatial EXTENT'! No, that's not what that maths is about.. The mathematical, non-colloquial meaning of 'dimension' is an abstract space, outside of physical space we live in.

garyb wrote:if time is a dimension(you said that)

Yep, I said 'if'.

garyb wrote:if time is a dimension(you said that), then it's no different than height or width or depth. it's a line, a collection of points in two directions. each point is connected to every other point(geometry). if time is like width, but we don't have sense organs to experience it as such, it still exists as a WHOLE. for this reason, nothing happens.

But things do happen! I'm pretty sure about that!
Are you talking about determinism here? You saying that nothing happens because it was always going to happen? In that sense, yes, nothing happens, but only if you do accept determinism - which I do not.
In our frame of reference, things do happen. Again, this is not a disproof or a falsification of the theory of evolution.

garyb wrote:if time is like width, but we don't have sense organs to experience it as such

We do. We have memory. It's our time sense-organ.


Any more suggestions to back up your claim that "there is no proof of evolution as Darwin described, however. none. in scientific circles this is well-known."
Can't wait...

memory cannot measure time accurtately.

string theory is one of several theories expressing similar things.

things happen from our point of veiw. in four dimensions, nothing happens. it is all happening. it is complete.

space is not theoretical. it is actual and physical.

> memory cannot measure time accurtately.
Yep, that's why we went for clocks...
None of our sense organs measure what they are designed to perceive accurately...

> string theory is one of several theories expressing similar things.
It's an attempt to look deeper at the construction of small things. Nothing about evolution there.. Chemistry has that covered...

> things happen from our point of veiw. in four dimensions, nothing happens. it is all happening. it is complete.
What's that fourth dimension?

> space is not theoretical. it is actual and physical.
I was talking about dimensions, since you brought it up!
And abstract mathematical spaces - as in Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics (Hamilton was an Irish man btw - I might be related!) - are called 'spaces', but they are definitely not actual nor physical.

dimensions are not theoretical. they even have names like hieght, depth, width and time. you can locate a physical object by knowing the correct points in each dimension. this stuff is literal. that's the great thing about a mathematical equation. it is a sentance that says specifically what something is. 2+2 is the same as 4. you want to prove me wrong or make fun of me(i like fun), but i am reminding you of obvious things.

dimension means a measurement of spatial extent. if time is a dimension, it is a measurement of space by definition, irrevocably. memory is not time. time is the line that runs along the z axis, ofg which you only see one point, constantly moving forward to the next point, never stopping, always moving forward. you don't see the line like width because that's not how your eyes work, but it is there. just like in width, every point along the time axis is connected to every other point, there is no breakage, space is complete and whole. wholy, wholy, wholy.

everytrhing is in place and complete and connected from beginning to end, from things that have been to all possibilities in the future. everything is connected whole and already here. all that happens is that your conciousness moves from one point to the next ika movie, but more complete and connected. you think things happen, and since you have your will, you havbe choices between possibilities, so it's interesting. there is no evolution, only what is, has been and what will be, all whole and complete. sorry, it's just how it is. please don't jump to any conclusions about what anything's worth or whether is matters or not if this is the case. all the things you like can still work for you.

of course, i'm just going by the definitions of the words and what people say...

further lame answers:

as to string theory you brought that up saying that there are 11 dimensions according to string theory after i said that physicists have identified more than 50 dimensions mathematically. i was only pointing out that there are theories postulating more than 4 dimensions. superstring theory has between 50 and 100 depending on the mathematician. the point is not just explaining super sub micro reality, but also macro reality. it's part of the attempt to p[rovide a truly unified theory that explains the behavior of things like magnetism, gravity and subnuclear attraction and repulsion as well as paricle and wave properties of light and radiation, etc.

within the proper parameters, we can measure tabletops pretty accurately. we also measure the gap on an automobile crankshaft pretty accurately. within the proper range, people can accurately measure sound wavelenths, so called perfect pitch. a watch is a better time measure than memory, because it uses two diensions to give a visual interpretation of the time axis. sure we're clever.

the fouth dimension is the one that you named.

physics is called that because it is really an attempt to describe the physical world. the decription for the purpose of visualization is theoretical, but the reality is describes is actual and physical.


do you know why you get to wear that square thing on your head when you graduate from university?