It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phantom423
Platonists propose that abstract objects are eternal, whereas Traditional Theists believe that God alone is eternal. With these contrasts in mind, we turn now to consider specific problems said to emerge from them.
The equation e=mc^2 is part of a theory, called the Theory of Special Relativity.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Why don't you give up already.
^You lost the dinosaur bone argument
^You lost the C14 argument
^You lost the Plato argument
^You lost the e=mc2 argument
I know that you're desperate to get validation for your work, but from my point of view, and from the point of view of any professional scientist, it just isn't going to happen. Pick another topic. And this time, get some quality books and do some real research before you start writing.
originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423
Can you admit that you were wrong and Plato did in fact use mathematical proofs? Just to prove you aren't too stubborn to discourse with.
Then yes, send me an article and we will discuss whether or not they are making extrapolations. We can go one at a time.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Plato's argument was... not mathematical. Look it up.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Akragon
evidence = the universe exists, thus it was created
According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, since something exists, that something must have always existed. That is what the philosophers, the lovers of knowledge, call the Alpha-Omega, the Being that always was and always shall be.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic
At least Cooperton admits he's using the same copy and paste crap from his favorite YEC websites.
I said the opposite of that. I came to my conclusions through logical reasoning, and it so happens that others have come to the same conclusions. Rational discourse is what brought me to a Spirit-based origins model.
PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Jun 24;6(6):e1000828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000828. Plato's cave algorithm: inferring functional signaling networks from early gene expression shadows. Shimoni Y1, Fink MY, Choi SG, Sealfon SC. Author information Abstract Improving the ability to reverse engineer biochemical networks is a major goal of systems biology. Lesions in signaling networks lead to alterations in gene expression, which in principle should allow network reconstruction. However, the information about the activity levels of signaling proteins conveyed in overall gene expression is limited by the complexity of gene expression dynamics and of regulatory network topology. Two observations provide the basis for overcoming this limitation: a. genes induced without de-novo protein synthesis (early genes) show a linear accumulation of product in the first hour after the change in the cell's state; b. The signaling components in the network largely function in the linear range of their stimulus-response curves. Therefore, unlike most genes or most time points, expression profiles of early genes at an early time point provide direct biochemical assays that represent the activity levels of upstream signaling components. Such expression data provide the basis for an efficient algorithm (Plato's Cave algorithm; PLACA) to reverse engineer functional signaling networks. Unlike conventional reverse engineering algorithms that use steady state values, PLACA uses stimulated early gene expression measurements associated with systematic perturbations of signaling components, without measuring the signaling components themselves. Besides the reverse engineered network, PLACA also identifies the genes detecting the functional interaction, thereby facilitating validation of the predicted functional network. Using simulated datasets, the algorithm is shown to be robust to experimental noise. Using experimental data obtained from gonadotropes, PLACA reverse engineered the interaction network of six perturbed signaling components. The network recapitulated many known interactions and identified novel functional interactions that were validated by further experiment. PLACA uses the results of experiments that are feasible for any signaling network to predict the functional topology of the network and to identify novel relationships. PMID: 20585619 PMCID: PMC2891706 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000828 [Indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
This is a series of geometrical figures. This is NOT an algorithm.
originally posted by: peter vlar
Oh my apologies then. The fact remains that you are in fact copying and pasting from those sites. You know it and anyone who has participated in these threads knows it. I find it very hard to believe that you have on your own, come up with the exact word for word commentary posted on AIG and ICR. Are you really trying to say that you don't source any of your commentary from those or related sites? Don't lie, gods watching you!
Ugh, algorithms are a sequence of rules and calculations which is exactly what that diagram is. You literally cannot admit you are wrong. You don't belong in any sort of logical discussion
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
You know it's easy to see your frustration. You tried and failed as a scientist. You tried to publish and did but your work was never accepted. Now you're taking it out on everyone else with lopsided arguments which have no validity.
You want to be a scientist? Then do what the rest of us have done - do the hard work. Formulate your opinions and defend them. Correct your mistakes. Publish your work. Let your work be repeated and verified.
You people DO NONE OF THIS!!!
And you think you're frustrated?? I usually need martini after chatting with you. However, it's too early. Then again, maybe not.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
This is a series of geometrical figures. This is NOT an algorithm.
originally posted by: peter vlar
Oh my apologies then. The fact remains that you are in fact copying and pasting from those sites. You know it and anyone who has participated in these threads knows it. I find it very hard to believe that you have on your own, come up with the exact word for word commentary posted on AIG and ICR. Are you really trying to say that you don't source any of your commentary from those or related sites? Don't lie, gods watching you!
And you get your information from a theoretical cult that doesn't allow any dissidents.
I've been in it. I left for that reason. The scientific community is a self-aggrandizing beast and tramples over empirical evidence in order to suit its preferred dogma.
If you only knew the free world of coming to your own conclusions from empirical evidence.
It's such a shame that evolution programming starts at the preschool level, otherwise we might have more free thinkers.
You all are so afraid of logical deduction because it might upset your precious belief system.
You all toot your own horn and say its proof that your own tooting is true. It's circular logic.
Of course all those research articles are going to believe in evolution, what would you expect from an evolutionist journal??
I have yet to see any of you come to an understanding and serious rebuttal of irreducible complexity...
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
No one objects to novel ideas. It's just that we have to abide by the rules of the games simply because if you don't, you're at tremendous risk of someone flattening your work. Someone will figure out that you didn't test your data sufficiently. It's inevitable. Imagine you're in the drug business. The testing and retesting had better be right.
Anyway, we'll all have a drink together one day and come up with the Holy Grail. I just know in the real world of science, you can get beaten up very fast if you're not careful. That doesn't rule out new ideas. It's okay to be wrong about something - happens all the time. But following the protocol gives the project credibility, regardless of outcome.
originally posted by: peter vlar
I think the word you were looking for is dissent.
And no, I don't get my information form any cults, theoretical or otherwise. My knowledge comes from working digs in the field, working in the lab and doing research and then having to defend it against others.
Is that an admission that yes, you do indeed copy and paste from those sources? You keep tip toeing around actually answering the question. I wonder why?
If you really believe that then you've never worked in science or gone to grad school for anything science related.
That's hilarious considering religious indoctrination begins at birth when children are baptized without their permission and forced to attend a church of their parents choosing.
Where exactly is the free will in that? Sorry, but the opposite of what you state is true. Religion leashes and shackles young minds, teaching children
originally posted by: peter vlar
This gives intelligent design a crucial lack of falsifiability. How is that either rational or scientific?
You guys are notorious for using the eye as an example despite simple explanations and the known history of the eye being traced all the way back to the earliest photosynthetic organisms. They make ludicrous statements like "what good is half an eye?" while ignoring the fact that this isn't how eyes developed or understanding that if they had a choice between being completely blind and having only half the vision they have now, they're going to choose half vision every single time and you know it. There are a host of organisms that survive just fine with less advanced vision than mammals or birds or reptiles etc... Like polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark,the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement, the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the mollusks and vertebrates.