9 of 12
9
Toby Alexander - another warning
Posted: 04 June 2007 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Stargazer - 04 June 2007 04:13 PM

The only bad part about enjoying posting here is having to put up with people like this.
Not to mention he outright called Charybdis stupid. Whattajerk.

Kinda reminds me of someone…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2007 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1581
Joined  2004-11-10
David B. - 04 June 2007 04:20 PM

Dan, the current (June) issue has a big article on ‘particle cosmology’, but I can’t remember a specific string theory article. What was it called?

I think the string theory article was in the May issue.

 Signature 

Fads they come and fads they go, but god I love that Rock & Roll!
-Modest Mouse

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 12:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05
David B. - 04 June 2007 04:20 PM

Dan, the current (June) issue has a big article on ‘particle cosmology’, but I can’t remember a specific string theory article. What was it called?

Actually, I think I mis-spoke, the actual thing I recalled, if I am remembering properly, was an ad to join a Scientific Book Club, and the first free books dealt with the String controversy, both defending it and questioning it.  I will look for the ad and get the issue number and page number.

Dan, the unreliable witness

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 01:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05
Stargazer - 04 June 2007 04:13 PM
samvado - 02 June 2007 01:55 PM

4) psychic phenomena have been proven STATISTICALLY beyond any reasonable doubt - over an over again - so much so the CIA and NSA use it as a matter of course (and books have been written about that too - maybe you should read a bit more?)

5) Randi is a crook who has evaded paying out numerous times and lawsuits have been had because of that - and guess what - books have been written about it.

The only bad part about enjoying posting here is having to put up with people like this.

Not to mention he outright called Charybdis stupid. Whattajerk.

 

Uhhh, is the above stuff (by samvado) true and correct?  I have heard no negative news about James Randi, except by ‘psychics’ who rue his attention to their scams, and I have never heard of any ‘studies’ that statistically confirm (what the hell does that mean?) and prove beyond reasonable doubt that psychic phenomena is real. 

On Coast To Coast AM, they frequently have on this guy who claims to be a ‘remote viewer’, he supposedly worked for the CIA (but now makes his living selling RV lessons) and there are several ads from people who will teach you the trick for a large unrefundable fee, but for some reason, they cannot locate Osama bin Laden or new oil deposits or anything else where an impartial observer might agree something truly psychic had happened.

Anyway, is anything in samvado’s post true?  I sincerely would like to know!

Of course, after the earthquakes and nuclear war that begins on 6 - 15 - 07, we are all going to feel so stupid!

Dan, so used to feeling stupid that it will be perfectly natural on 6 - 15

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 03:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5149
Joined  2005-01-27

Randi is a crook who has evaded paying out numerous times and lawsuits have been had because of that - and guess what - books have been written about it.

Please list those lawsuits and books. I Can

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
samvado - 04 June 2007 11:16 AM

Since DNA can not be the only causative factor for whatever establishes a functioning (human) body

Sure it can.  Which makes the rest of your post rather pointless.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2006-06-12
Accipiter - 05 June 2007 12:31 PM
samvado - 04 June 2007 11:16 AM

Since DNA can not be the only causative factor for whatever establishes a functioning (human) body

Sure it can.  Which makes the rest of your post rather pointless.

Let me specify that:

The core DNA in the nucleus does not contain enough triplets to code all the aminoacid-sequences that make up all the AA based structures in the human body.
evidence: look at the Human Genome Project’s results. NOT ENOUGH means not enough - no matter how you rationalize it.
About 97% of the human genome has been designated as “junk”, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.
regarding birds and feathers and wings - all none flying birds today are believed to have regressed genetically from flying species.
a flying dog is not the same as a bird - it has a very different “flying” apparatus. both move thru air but thats it. helicopters and airplanes both move thru air.
It is really bending logic and probability to seriously state a half-ready wing would be any advantage over a functioning arm/hand. defenders of darwin have to say it because nothing else would work along their lines but its so very very improbable that anyone not fanatically trying to make a point can see the flaw.

I may have been wrong in my evaluation of the validity of string theory (although I dont think so), but I know my biology grin

in any case: some fundamentalist skeptics argue I have diverted to ST and HGP to not have to talk about PSY:

so I will do that - of course none of the stoneheads will have any of it - just for the casual reader who may stumble upon this rather lengthy discussion considering all I wanted was to warn of Toby’s exploits

Because remote viewing has been mentioned I will use that as my first sample:

remote viewing works - I know that to be a fact from my own experience (we have a strong RV community here in north germany). I have seen results that where incredible. all targets are double blind meaning no-one in the room even knows the content of ANY of the envelopes in the room. repeatedly structures have been recogized - not good enough for anyone to find the real world target but good enough to know that the photo in question was represented - I would love to show pictures but have to use words: e.g. a building had a particular front entrance and this was depicted in a way a child would have drawn it - but that viewer had no clue that even a building would be on the picture at all. aynthing (!!) could have been on the picture. there are MANY such examples and the statistical likelyhood of lucky guesses is almost nil.

about Randi - read this:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

about police (as only ONE state agency) using psy read this:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html

now ask yourself: the RV community at the NSA was active for ~10 years - it was funded the entire time - if NOTHING had come from it ???
the results may well have been not good enough to further finance it - but without initially promising results there would not have been that kind of funding - I only present that argument for the die-hards I know RV to work from my own experience as I mentioned.

Now what about the UFO issue - has anyone looked at disclosureproject.org and is ready to debunk the witnesses presented there?
OHMYGOD - faster that light travel, telepathy as a matter of COURSE and not the exception, space faring species that are genetically compatible to humans - ohmygod - where does THAT leave Darwin.

all you skeptics will have a rude awakening some time in the not so far future - and of course none will remember his former closed-loop mind then.

well, maybe you get lucky and you die before but that will also not help - I have had abpout 20 past-life regressions - there are BOOKS (ooops) filled with proof from people who actually found the historic places mentioned under hypnosis with details not known (like hidden chambers) today that were revealed only after the the team got to the location.

to be a skeptic today is such a lost case - and with saying that I also say goodby and the best of luck to you all.
maybe next incarnation you will have progressed to a level where none-linear understanding is possible.

-sam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
samvado - 05 June 2007 01:34 PM

The core DNA in the nucleus does not contain enough triplets to code all the aminoacid-sequences that make up all the AA based structures in the human body.
evidence: look at the Human Genome Project’s results. NOT ENOUGH means not enough - no matter how you rationalize it.

A typical mammalian cell will contain about 10000 different polypeptides and 30000 coding genes…

Well you did say, maths wasn’t your strong point.

regarding birds and feathers and wings - all none flying birds today are believed to have regressed genetically from flying species.
a flying dog is not the same as a bird - it has a very different “flying” apparatus. both move thru air but thats it. helicopters and airplanes both move thru air.
It is really bending logic and probability to seriously state a half-ready wing would be any advantage over a functioning arm/hand. defenders of darwin have to say it because nothing else would work along their lines but its so very very improbable that anyone not fanatically trying to make a point can see the flaw.

No-one is saying evolution is a one-way process to perfection. The point is even today, wings have uses other than flight, even today, animals without complete and intricate flight mechanisms gain an immediate advantage. To say that wings have to be fully functional flight mechanisms or they are useless is just ignorance. And if you have proof that there is no circumstance where a partial wing delivers a benefit that a hand cannot please present it, otherwise you are just arguing from personal incredulity again (you cannot imagine it, ergo it cannot be imagined).

I may have been wrong in my evaluation of the validity of string theory (although I dont think so), but I know my biology grin

Not on the current evidence.

remote viewing works - I know that to be a fact from my own experience (we have a strong RV community here in north germany). I have seen results that where incredible. all targets are double blind meaning no-one in the room even knows the content of ANY of the envelopes in the room. repeatedly structures have been recogized - not good enough for anyone to find the real world target but good enough to know that the photo in question was represented - I would love to show pictures but have to use words: e.g. a building had a particular front entrance and this was depicted in a way a child would have drawn it - but that viewer had no clue that even a building would be on the picture at all. aynthing (!!) could have been on the picture. there are MANY such examples and the statistical likelyhood of lucky guesses is almost nil.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

about Randi - read this: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

Which merely mentions that Randi is opinionated and abbrasive. It doesn’t mention any successful law-suits or other indication that he is a cheat or a crook, or that he is illegally witholding the million dollar prize from successful claimants. Hence your original allegations remain false.

Now what about the UFO issue - has anyone looked at disclosureproject.org and is ready to debunk the witnesses presented there?
OHMYGOD - faster that light travel, telepathy as a matter of COURSE and not the exception, space faring species that are genetically compatible to humans - ohmygod - where does THAT leave Darwin.

Why would Darwinism be affected by the existence of extraterrestrials?

all you skeptics will have a rude awakening some time in the not so far future…

It’s funny how the absolute, irrefutable truth of these phenomena is always “just around the corner”. Let’s hope it gets here before June 12th…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
samvado - 05 June 2007 01:34 PM

The core DNA in the nucleus does not contain enough triplets to code all the aminoacid-sequences that make up all the AA based structures in the human body.

There are 20 amino acids.  Only eleven of those are made by the human body.  They are made through transcription from the DNA.  So all those proteins are based merely on arrangements of eleven simple molecules.

evidence: look at the Human Genome Project’s results. NOT ENOUGH means not enough - no matter how you rationalize it.
About 97% of the human genome has been designated as “junk”, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.

I have.  Have you?  “Genes comprise only about 2% of the human genome; the remainder consists of noncoding regions, whose functions may include providing chromosomal structural integrity and regulating where, when, and in what quantity proteins are made. The human genome is estimated to contain 20,000-25,000 genes.”  You seem to be under the impression that the remaining 98% does nothing, which isn’t true.

regarding birds and feathers and wings - all none flying birds today are believed to have regressed genetically from flying species.

Could you clarify that a bit?  You’re saying two contradictory things at once.

a flying dog is not the same as a bird - it has a very different “flying” apparatus. both move thru air but thats it. helicopters and airplanes both move thru air.

Yes. . .and?

It is really bending logic and probability to seriously state a half-ready wing would be any advantage over a functioning arm/hand.

What’s useful is useful when it is useful.  What use are gills in the middle of a dry plain in the Sahara?  Not much.  But in the water, they’re sure handy.  What use is a half-ready wing when you’re trying to type on the keyboard?  Not much.  What use is it when you’re running along tree branches trying to keep your balance?  Then it could be useful.

I may have been wrong in my evaluation of the validity of string theory (although I dont think so), but I know my biology grin

Having gone through several universities and then worked (quite successfully) in biochemistry and genetics, I think I might have some slight grasp of it, too. . .and not just from reading the latest popular science books, either. . .

remote viewing works - I know that to be a fact from my own experience (we have a strong RV community here in north germany). I have seen results that where incredible. all targets are double blind meaning no-one in the room even knows the content of ANY of the envelopes in the room. repeatedly structures have been recogized - not good enough for anyone to find the real world target but good enough to know that the photo in question was represented - I would love to show pictures but have to use words: e.g. a building had a particular front entrance and this was depicted in a way a child would have drawn it - but that viewer had no clue that even a building would be on the picture at all. aynthing (!!) could have been on the picture. there are MANY such examples and the statistical likelyhood of lucky guesses is almost nil.

Yet for some reason, they can never actually seem to show off this proof, nor make any use of their abilities. . .

about police (as only ONE state agency) using psy read this:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html

“Thus far, a psychic’s reliability for law enforcement has not been established.  Anecdotal information is sometimes impressive and even surprising, but nothing can be concluded about using psychics as resources in solving a crime.”  Yes?  And a report showing that psychics haven’t been shown to contribute to police work, and that cases in which psychics were involved were solved not by the psychics but by regular police procedures. . .this supports you how, exactly?

now ask yourself: the RV community at the NSA was active for ~10 years - it was funded the entire time - if NOTHING had come from it ???
the results may well have been not good enough to further finance it - but without initially promising results there would not have been that kind of funding - I only present that argument for the die-hards I know RV to work from my own experience as I mentioned.

And if it had worked, it wouldn’t have been cancelled, would it?

Now what about the UFO issue - has anyone looked at disclosureproject.org and is ready to debunk the witnesses presented there?
OHMYGOD - faster that light travel, telepathy as a matter of COURSE and not the exception, space faring species that are genetically compatible to humans - ohmygod - where does THAT leave Darwin.

Ummm. . .it has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2892
Joined  2005-06-15
samvado - 05 June 2007 01:34 PM

about police (as only ONE state agency) using psy read this:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html

 

I suggest you look at this. It’s an article by one of my favourite authors, Dr Karl. He basically says that the concept of the “Psychic Sleuth” as he calls it is not at all what you say it is. He says in his article that Psychic Sleuths are often used as a decoy to hide the real source of information or to make superstitious criminals feel nervous.

There is no evidence to say that so called psychics solve anything with psychic ability.

 Signature 

I’m not some ordinary moron.
I’m an Oxy-Moron!

Mental Giant: A very tall person who is more than slightly confused.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2007 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5149
Joined  2005-01-27

  samvado - 02 June 2007 02:55 PM
5) Randi is a crook who has evaded paying out numerous times and lawsuits have been had because of that - and guess what - books have been written about it.

I

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 12
9