The blowhole

a reply to: luthier

When you can make sense, we can talk. This is a non-sequitur for this discussion.

a reply to: Noinden

So you don't know and it's possible.

By the way we have theories of what came before based on the evidence we have now.

Again guess you haven't read much cosmology.

Sorry to "squeeze" the answers out of you.

a reply to: Noinden

Lol. Go to a science forum. This is a conspiracy forum where people usually discuss philosophy.


Your as bad as Dawkins at it

a reply to: luthier

No this is a forum where people discuss ORIGINS (that can include science) and Creationism (that is theology). Science is discussed in here. IF this thread had been purely phiisophical, then I'd have no problems. However evolution was mentioned.

Yet here you go, you devolve into the ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

So discuss the science or the theology of the Blow hole.

a reply to: Noinden

Love your fallacy of authority.

That is some philosophy 101 stuff.

a reply to: luthier

What part of me repeatedly saying that I acknowledge the possibility of a creator, or multiple creators are you missing.

Those "theories" are actually "hypotheses". Those are words with a specific meaning in science. I've studied the Cosmology of multiple cultures as well as taken University papers in Cosmology.

You have not cited a damned thing. Till you do that. Slan leat

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

No this is a forum where people discuss ORIGINS (that can include science) and Creationism (that is theology). Science is discussed in here. IF this thread had been purely phiisophical, then I'd have no problems. However evolution was mentioned.

Yet here you go, you devolve into the ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

So discuss the science or the theology of the Blow hole.

Can you point out the ad hom and other fallacies?

Because now you are pretending to have philosophical knowledge.

a reply to: luthier

No, you put something that does not follow into this thread. YOU are invoking authority because you "have studied philosophy". This is not a thread about philosophy, it is a thread about the evolution or lack of evolution of the blow hole.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

What part of me repeatedly saying that I acknowledge the possibility of a creator, or multiple creators are you missing.

Those "theories" are actually "hypotheses". Those are words with a specific meaning in science. I've studied the Cosmology of multiple cultures as well as taken University papers in Cosmology.

You have not cited a damned thing. Till you do that. Slan leat

Funny how you play to science yet get flustered in philosophy.

I have cited multiple things and hinted at several that you should know if you studied philosophy or cosmology.

Fine tuning for one is not a trivial argument.

I am not arguing it. Only your dismissal of it.

a reply to: Noinden

Ah. This is when I saw people Crack in formal debate.

No authority just smashing your argument to bits.


You think a post in a conspiracy forum about an animals blow holes that starts with aliens is science?

Did anyone argue evolution doesn't exist besides raggedy?

If we create a silk spinning goat does that prove evolution doesn't exist.

My gosh mate. Your so high on your pedestal you can't even hear the argument.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Noinden


Did anyone argue evolution doesn't exist besides raggedy?

Just as an aside
I am not arguing evolution doesnt exist, it does
I just asked for scientific evidence rather than base assumption

originally posted by: ttobban
a reply to: Fools

Blowholes??? I thought those were dolphin/whale belly buttons, only on their backs... which would make them back buttons, huh.
..

It's more likely something akin to nostrils rather than a belly button, considering nostrils are already connected to the respiratory system like a blowhole is.

A navel is not connected to the respiratory system, so a blowhole forming from the navel would be a much more involved adaptation than it would it be if it instead formed from nostrils.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Hahaha... sorry, caught me on a day of wild imagination. I was wondering about if dolphins even having belly buttons, but didn't wanna troll a blowhole thread with being slow to learn that dolphins and whales in fact have belly buttons too. I guess I was satisfied to learn something new, yet dumbfounded that it wasn't already clear that all mammals have belly buttons at the same time... hahaha.

Now I am wondering if dolphins are able to sneeze through blowholes and keep their eyes open at the same time since humans can't seem to???

www.wildhorizons.com...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Noinden
Your so high on your pedestal you can't even hear the argument.

Dr. McKay: "What is taking him so long?"

Dr. Weir: "Wait, wait....they're taking off."

Fly, Lucius, Fly


Have your head in the clouds – Idiom Meaning

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. -microbiologist James Shapiro, lover and promoter of "wishful speculations" often presented as maybe-so or most-likely-so stories and under the marketing labels "science", "(scientific) theory" and "(scientific) hypothesis"

Blowholes included.

So Many Systems - Human Body Systems Rap

Cellular systems of nanoscale machinery and technology, i.e the Molecular Machinery of Life

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

What part of me repeatedly saying that I acknowledge the possibility of a creator, or multiple creators are you missing.

Those "theories" are actually "hypotheses". Those are words with a specific meaning in science. I've studied the Cosmology of multiple cultures as well as taken University papers in Cosmology.

You have not cited a damned thing. Till you do that. Slan leat

Funny how you play to science yet get flustered in philosophy.

I have cited multiple things and hinted at several that you should know if you studied philosophy or cosmology.

Fine tuning for one is not a trivial argument.

I am not arguing it. Only your dismissal of it.

Fine tuning is a nonsensical argument. There is no evidence that anything was ever "fine tuned". The parameters of the universe are what they are. Making assumptions about the chance of that happening is illogical because we don't know nearly enough about the universe to assume one way or the other.

It is indeed trivial, because we don't know how many times the universe tried to form before it succeeded or how many other universes may be out there. It's a bad argument, even if you are not supporting it here as you say. It's just an appeal to ignorance essentially, that's why people are quick to dismiss it.

a reply to: luthier
Yet again with the non sequitur. Neighbour this is not formal debate. You fail at logic and at science.

You've not posted any cosmology here. Nor is cosmology pertenent as this was a thread on evolution.

QED.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

What part of me repeatedly saying that I acknowledge the possibility of a creator, or multiple creators are you missing.

Those "theories" are actually "hypotheses". Those are words with a specific meaning in science. I've studied the Cosmology of multiple cultures as well as taken University papers in Cosmology.

You have not cited a damned thing. Till you do that. Slan leat

Funny how you play to science yet get flustered in philosophy.

I have cited multiple things and hinted at several that you should know if you studied philosophy or cosmology.

Fine tuning for one is not a trivial argument.

I am not arguing it. Only your dismissal of it.

Life in our universe would be fine tuned to live within this universe; it's not the other way around. It's like saying "good thing the oceans are fine-tuned for fish, or else how would those fish ever hope to live if the oceans were not that way." That's a very rough analogy (because it is comparing the universe to only a tiny microcosm we call Earth, but the concept of the analogy is valid, even if it isn't literal.

To take than non-literal analogy further, the answer is that the reason why fish are what they are is because they developed under the conditions that the oceans provided for them. Land animals developed in conditions that the land provided for them. Anaerobic bacteria that live far underground developed in the conditions that a deep underground anaerobic environment provided for them.


The reason life in our universe is fine tuned to it is because the life that develops and thrives in this universe would be of the type that does so. That may sound like a circular argument, but it isn't when you consider the alternative argument -- i.e., that alternative would be life developing in our universe that CAN'T exist in our universe. Why would that kind of life ever get started here in the first place?


Think of it this way:

There may very well be other universes out there that have different physical propertiies and laws than ours does (or let's say that our universe could have developed with diffeent laws of physics). Let's say the laws were so different that the atoms. protons, neutraons, e;lctorns, etch that make up our matter would be very different, meaning matter and forces in that universe would be very different and very strange compared to ours.

It would be so different and strange that most likely we would not be able to exist in that universe, and the strange matter from that universe would not be able to exist in ours. So let's say that the strange matter in that universe deleops in such a way that life develops (or at least the strange matter thing that would be analogaous to "life" in our universe), and some of that life evoles inteeligence.

That strange-matter intelligent being could say "how lucky is it that our universe has just the right conditions that allows us to be here". But the reality of it is that there could be countless possible universes with combinations of physical laws that could still end up with an intelligent being many of those countless universes wondering the same thing about their universe.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier

What part of me repeatedly saying that I acknowledge the possibility of a creator, or multiple creators are you missing.

Those "theories" are actually "hypotheses". Those are words with a specific meaning in science. I've studied the Cosmology of multiple cultures as well as taken University papers in Cosmology.

You have not cited a damned thing. Till you do that. Slan leat

Funny how you play to science yet get flustered in philosophy.

I have cited multiple things and hinted at several that you should know if you studied philosophy or cosmology.

Fine tuning for one is not a trivial argument.

I am not arguing it. Only your dismissal of it.

Fine tuning is a nonsensical argument. There is no evidence that anything was ever "fine tuned". The parameters of the universe are what they are. Making assumptions about the chance of that happening is illogical because we don't know nearly enough about the universe to assume one way or the other.

It is indeed trivial, because we don't know how many times the universe tried to form before it succeeded or how many other universes may be out there. It's a bad argument, even if you are not supporting it here as you say. It's just an appeal to ignorance essentially, that's why people are quick to dismiss it.

It's quite obvious you don't grasp the fine tuning argument. Perhaps you should read about it first...l

Buy yes there are rebuttals like a multiverse.

And again. I wasn't arguing it just your and others lack of its understanding of the argument in teleogical, or the fact it has been observed in cosmology where God is not the following us of the argument.

Yes it is possible that its an observation through the anthropic principle.

The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. Technological devices are paradigmatic examples of fine-tuning. Whether they function as intended depends sensitively on parameters that describe the shape, arrangement, and material properties of their constituents, e.g., the constituents’ conductivity, elasticity and thermal expansion coefficient. Technological devices are the products of actual “fine-tuners”—engineers and manufacturers who designed and built them—but for fine-tuning in the broad sense of this article to obtain, sensitivity with respect to the values of certain parameters is sufficient.

plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophical debates in which “fine-tuning” appears are often about the universe’s fine-tuning for life: according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: luthier
Yet again with the non sequitur. Neighbour this is not formal debate. You fail at logic and at science.

You've not posted any cosmology here. Nor is cosmology pertenent as this was a thread on evolution.

QED.

What non sequitur?

I posted plenty of cosmology. For instance the multiverse, simulated reality, boson theory multidimensions, string theories multi dimesions, holographic universe, and the observation of fine tuning from cosmologists, which there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers on.

By the way the topic is about blowholes coming from aliens...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Your referring to the anthropic principle. Which is a valid argument.

Your also speculating heavily on unobserved events, fine tuning however is something that has been observed even if it's likely to be because of the anthropic principle. However if the isotopes, leptons etc were not what they are we wouldn't have a universe for life. Or one we can understand. We can do the math, change the parameters and see therelated are frameworks in the universe that can't be changed or else things like stars couldn't form.