atrapado

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 154 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by atrapado

• 
  30

  what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?

  by Hortensia in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know isaac asimov's answer, which makes sense to me.

  anyone else have any answer to the question about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  This question reminds if God is almighty can he create a stone large enough he cannot lift. As people have mention earlier our rules of logic only allow for one to exist. However if you insist on having them both why not expand our logic. Just like the square root of (-1) is no longer a real value and we created imaginary values. Why not expand the state of an object. So now you'll have 3 states: moving, not moving, new state(something that is moving and not moving at the same time).

  I know it looks contradictory but is basically saying when an immovable object and the irresistible force colide the state of the object is no longer moving or resting is some state that satisfies both.

  Light has properties of both particles and waves which is it :).
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  talesin makes sence. When I read it I though 'with any of the tools avaiable to you etc.' The computer doesn't get confuse though if we tried it with our eyes they'll start seeing other colors just because they get tired.

  So eyes might not(maybe there is some human out there that can, unlikely) be able to do it. Just like most methods will failed with the topic at hand but there could be a way to do it even if we haven't discovered it yet.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  Because there are some small differences in their genes that warrants one to be human and one non-human. The definition of species would need to be redefine where species with 99.99*% in common with other species they would be able to reproduce.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  because the non-human would be so close to human that he would be able to reproduce. His parents would be 99.99*% human but non-human.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  From my example with anybody with his genes or his parents genes or with the generes his imidiate offsprings.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  snare&racket but you are assuming the definition might be static. Why couldn't it evolved as we get more generations just like artificial intelligence?

  About your baby to adult. What is wrong with the definition that at 18 years or 21 years depending on the country you become an adult? Gives you day hour year etc.?
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  cofty my 50 digits was a simplify example I thought it was obvious. So what if genome is 3 billion digits. A computer can prosses that comperison in less than 1 second. What I don't agree with the statement is the "impossible to identify the first human." The reason I don't agree with that is because I don't believe we have tried every single model and test it. Yes in reality is impossible. But I never said is possible in reality only in theory.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  Lets assume humans are define by a sequence of 50 ones and 50 zeros. The first ancester we look at is all zeros. As they progress at some point someone goes from 49 ones to 50 ones. So he is now human because he got 50 ones and 50 zeros he can reproduce with any ancestor that has 49 ones and 51 zeros, or 50x50.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  No you haven't. The only thing you guys have explained is that such a definition MIGHT BE impossible to formulate. Those are 2 completely different problems.
• 
  266

  There Was No First Human

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  atrapado

  cofty you sound like religous people that say you cannot ask were God came from because by their definition God was always there. You failed to grasp my point that if you create a definition for what a human is you would be able to test all ancestors and find the first human or the set of first humans.