Posts by Abaddon

75

watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krz0zuqu-3u

Abaddon

Okay...

berten

You prefer to ignore this important fact,and you *dare* to talk about "Cognitive Dissonance"?

I don't ignore it, I find the fact you don't know it is untrue significant as it reveals the extent of your research;

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

And, no, there was nothing unusual about the number of jets available.

Now, my comment about cognitive dissonance was applied to those who believe the WTC was demolished despite the explosives they say demolished it being impossible to put in place without it being discovered beforehand. Unless someone can show it is possible to have planted explosives to demolish the WTC without anyone noticing, the comment is a fair one and holds to the definition of cognitive dissonance. You don't have to like it, but there you have it.

Rather than getting sniffy you could prove it is possible to plant x amount of explosives in y different positions connected by z metres of wire with a number of men working b hours and the process being unnoticed by the occupants of the building because of Professor Zog's invisibility ray, or whatever, Your hypothesis, you prove it.

If you want respect for your opinions have opinions that deserve respect.

I see you make no comment about the URL I posted; does this mean you find the refutations are sound? Or are they easily dismissed?

ninja

Until you actually answer my challenge and prove your hypothesis is physically possible, I'll not waste my time responding to all the questions you ask to evade giving answers you cannot provide. Isn't cut and paste a wonderful thing?

So, you are awarded a fail in your attempt to prove demolition charges could be laid in WTC1, 2 or 7. You show that maybe there was a power outage in the South Tower from the 48th floor up for approximately 30 hours.

1/2 of one out of three buildings... for thirty hours...

Do you know how long it takes to prepare a building for demolition when it's EMPTY?

And what about the other 2 1/2 buildings??

Is the maths required to figure out the explosives, wiring and set-up time a little too much for the websites you patronise for this bunk ninja?

Seems so.

For the fun of it;

that no steel framed building has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 ...^ FEMA. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p. 4.

And the rest of the report? It concludes;

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

You almost make it sound like that report finds the collapse suspicious using that quote as you do ninja.

To prove my point about you being able to find refutation of conspiracist nonsense if you bother looking for it, here's the wiki with the footnotes replaced by URL's and added bold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc7

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center "with the force of a volcanic eruption. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html]
The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[ http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P4InvestigationofActiveFireProtection.pdf][http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-4.pdf ]
After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6790722824543352916&hl=en][http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf]
During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf]
At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html]
During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html]
Around 5:01 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt][http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse.[http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf]
In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf]
NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage.
The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html][http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf ] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf]
In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf][http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109111651-1733]
A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_keyfindings.htm ][http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html]
NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center by the end of 2007.[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html] The NIST is utilizing ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to initiating events.[http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he then added, "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index6.html] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html]
Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/index5.html] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]

Funny, they're doing the maths to find out how big a bang would be needed to demolish it. Maybe they can then demolish silly conspiracy theories by showing setting up such an explosion would be impossible to conceal.

But isn't it remarkable in addition to being invisible, massless, and planted by invisible fairies the explosives used to demolish WTC7 are so special they start wall bulging at 2pm, 3 hours 20 minutes before they go off in a slow asymmetrical explosion? Clever fairies!!

Oh boy, there's no profit in being a prophet!

I predict lovers of conspiracy hypotheses will post tired old hackneyed conspiracy claims they could have found comprehensive refutations if they had bothered. When they are directed to the refutation of such old hackneyed conspiracy claims they will ignore them and carry on believing what they believed in beforehand.

75

watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krz0zuqu-3u

Abaddon

Lloyd Braun

I happen to be doing a study right now which precludes that the USA is the "Israel of God" that the bible describes, and that we are being punished by God just like Israel was punished by Hitler in the 40's, because we keep abandoning the Torah and fornicating with the Harlot of Babylon.

The only people who think "the USA is the "Israel of God" that the bible describes", and that "we are being punished by God just like Israel was punished by Hitler in the 40's, because we keep abandoning the Torah and fornicating with the Harlot of Babylon" are one dribble away from idiocy.

Lots of people think that Hurricane Katrina was directed at New Orleans by God, because of the city's known iniquitous lifestyles.

And they are all idiots.

American developers who were Jewish were well aware of these things when they constructed Las Vegas. Why on earth do you think it's in the middle of the Desert? No floods, no landslides, no earthquakes, etc can really occur there...

There is no smiley for me staring at the screen with my mouth open. I thought I had heard all the credulous nonsense in the world but matt, you just hit a new seam...

Think about this though, for 200 years this country was blessed and has been a great place.

Oh, please, get a grip. Go talk to black people or Native Americans and find out how wrong you are.

The WTC#7 was brought down with thermite charges.

Utter rubbish.

These are facts that are plainly available at the NYC's county of Manhattan Recorder's office of records.

This is a lie and I'm asking you to prove your statement.

The entire controlled demolition argument by the conspiracy nuts is ludicrous.

Pot. Kettle. Black

da ninja

hey Abby...if you had said that the Bush administration was lying about reasons for invading Iraq before they went in....would that make you a conspiracy theorist?

I stated what I think, I don't care what labels people apply.

...remember we are talking about WTC7 being a steel framed building....show anyone here where a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire in over 100 years of construction...

Until you actually answer my challenge and prove your hypothesis is physically possible, I'll not waste my time responding to all the questions you ask to evade giving answers you cannot provide. I can answer the above question, and I know you could too. If you bothered.

why did Mohammed Atta's passport survive the crash of AA11 and the flight recorders did not?

Answer the questions I asked ninja. I know you can't. Do you really think people are so stupid they can't see you're being evasive?

You are doing exactly what Flood believers do; they insist the ark was used despite the fact the ark being used as they believe is physically impossible, and will avoid getting onto the topic of the ark being an impossible way to survive the flood as they insist - instead they use evasive tactics.

You insist demolition was used despite the fact demolition being used as you believe is physically impossible without the preparation for it being noticed beforehand, and you avoid getting onto the topic of demolition being an impossible way to destroy the buildings as you insist it was as you might be a little screwy but you're not stupid and want to avoid humiliating yourself. You probably have looked for someone trying to do what I've asked for and drawn a blank, but have invested something of yourself in this silly belief and are not prepared to let go of it.

....yep us conspiracy theorists are all deluded and btw Abby..
talking about the mormon professor who questioned the event....instead of attacking his character....confront his evidence....

I have in previous threads. Go look at them and find one fault in the refutation of his nonsense; hell, I've already posted one page on this thread which does pretty well and you're too lazy to even go through that and tell me what you disagree with.

Of course, you and Steve Jones have both failed to demonstrate that it would even be possible to prepare the towers for demolition without anyone noticing, which puts you BOTH in the same classification as Flood believers, which he is, LOL.

If you're not deluded you will answer this challenge honestly and without this bullshit and show me how wrong I am, but I know you can't. I bet you don't even know the amount of thermite required for one beam let alone the entire demolition. This is probably due to the fact people supporting demoltion claims (which seem to be your sole source of information) are very shy of doing the maths for the amount of explosive needed, the amount of wiring, the required placement, the amount of time to set everything up, etc., let alone how no one noticed it being done, as if they get into that they refute their own claims!

Come on, put your money where your mouth is and show me how what you claim could be done.

If what you claim is impossible, then just maybe it happend largely as the official story says it did.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Abaddon

Science101

It isn't what I put into the program that gives evolution a goal-like feature,

Well, no, because your programs and evolution are two different things

I had to consider that when I wrote them. It's the evolution mechanism itself.
Random mutation creates variation,

Agreed

while natural selection provides predictable direction (even if we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking)

This statement contradicts itself; how can natural selection provide 'predictable direction' if 'we are unable to tell what direction an organisms evolution is taking'.

The environment determines much of directionality.

Yes.

In one environment it might be best to become larger in size, while in another it's better to be smaller.
What evolution is moving a species towards, would be evolution's goal.

But it isn't moving towards anything as it doesn't know what it is evolving into. Thus my point that 'goals' are in the mind of the observer, not in the mechanism of evolution or in the mind of the evolving organism.

The phrase "selection pressure" would work too. The problem with it, is that people would first have to understand how evolution works to know what it means.

I have no problem with people having to study a bit to understand evolution; any school system where someone can leave school without knowing what 'selection pressure' is as bad as one where they leave without knowing what 'present continuous' is. And I can explain 'selection pressure' in three sentences;

When a scientist uses the words 'selection pressure', they mean the things in an environment that might give one animal of a species an advantage over another that meant it had more offspring. Imagine someone who keeps dog but only breeds the ones with a certain characteristic, say brown spots; obviously all the next generation will be descended from brown-spotted dogs, most of them will have brown spots, and only those with brown spots will be allowed to breed. The dog breeder is providing 'selection pressure' by only selecting ones with brown spots, just like in nature a certain colouration might result in an animal having more or less offspring and be also 'selection pressure'.

Have to consider the vocabulary of the audience or you only confuse them.

I always go for education not simplification.

In my opinion it is better to use words they already know then work from there, to compromise.
That is why "creative force" ended up being the best of them all. People right away know what you are describing.

Er, yes, and that's the problem; it implies there is a force that creates, and everyone knows what create means. And you can't prove a 'creative force' anymore than I can prove a 'tooth firt force'; all you are doing is misleadingly labeling a charcteristic of our Universe' physical constants. And as my example shows, a term like 'seletion pressure' is easy to explain in simple terms.

Same as making a new word from Latin where two words already in use are combined to make a new one. It may be composed of words that are also used in religion, like "genesis", but that did not stop people before us from using them. I see no sense in trying to reinvent the wheel because a few people would rather use words that have no meaning at all.

Now, I didn't suggest using word with no meaning, I suggested avoiding words with existing meanings that would cause confusion or misunderstanding. You argued 'creative force' was an okay term despite being steeped in religous meaning, as science uses terms like 'abiogenesis', which you thought derived from he Bible book.

But 'abiogensis' has an etmomolgy derived from Greek and means 'non biological origins', so your argument that 'creative force' was okay as other scientific words had religious origins does not stand.

As far as "creative force" is concerned the evidence for it is our chemistry books.

No, there is evidence for molecular self-assembly which happens because of a number of different "noncovalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions, and/or electrostatic effects".

Only thing I did was give multiple forces found in nature a name that describes what they together can do.

But there is a term already; molecular self-assembly. This doen't carry with it any of the loaded conotations of the term you wish to use.

And as you ended up showing in the formation of the word "abiogenesis" from Latin, I did it like people before me did.

Greek actually, and 'creative force' implies things that 'molecular self-assembly' does not.

And when I'm writing sermonish material it's important to use the proper vocabulary or it ends up as boring as a science textbooks to people who want something religiously meaningful.

Well, as I said earlier, this seems to confirm you are trying to streach 'attractive presuppostions round facts that don't fit them very well'.

What makes you think science is or should be 'religiously meaningful'?

Maybe the best way for you to understand why I use words this way, is for you to try writing a science-sermon. I would love to read one that you wrote. Picture yourself the guest at a church or kingdom hall, there to give the believers an uplifting message about the miracle of science. Might also want to post it as a new topic to see how the religious audience reacts to it.

I'm hoping you take me up on my challenge. And tomorrow is Sunday, it will be perfect timing. So go ahead brother Abaddon, you get to write the next sermon on this theme. Try to beat mine.

Well I don't think science needs to be delivered in the style of a sermon, but this is what I'd say to a group of believers;

Many of you here today will have wondered over the debate between scientists, the vast majority of which feel evolution explains why life on this planet is the way it is, and those who feel that evolution does not explain everything.
Some people insist that the literal word of Genesis or some other Holy Book is the accurate truth as regards our origins. Others insist that it is allegorical. Others that it is just a snap-shot of what mankind's knowledge of our origins was like at one point in time.
We can look around us and, whatever we believe, agree that we live in a majestically beautiful Universe. From far distant reaches of the galaxy to under the rocks in the garden outside, we see order and structure, be it of clouds of dust and gas into stars and galaxies, or of simple chemicals into organic life.
Just as today we might think that it isn't important to have tassles around our clothes, or that it is okay for men to shave, or that it is not right to make prisoners of war slaves, or that we do not need to circumsize our boy children, we could well feel that modern science has a better idea about the time scales of the Universe and the development of life on this planet than bronze-age goatherds.
Ignoring the letter of an ancient book doesn't mean we disregard or disrespect the spirit of it.
At the end of the day I feel it doesn't matter how the Universe came about. It is here, and it is good. We can be pretty sure that men of faith were sincere, but let us not swallow down the camel of error by assuming they were always right when the evidence of the world around us shows us the contrary is true.
Belief in something greater than ourselves doesn't require a theory to back it up, nor does it require denying facts so well established that to deny them is unreasonable. In fact, if we need to prove our beliefs by denying demonstrable facts, what does that say about our faith?
Reflection on the Universe around us reveals wonders; the strength of bonds holding elements together means we have the variety of elements required to support life as we see it around us as well as allowing the life-cycle of stars that shine in the sky above us. Were it different then we would not be here to see it, nor have the light to see it by.
The way that various forces between atoms and molecules act means that certain chemicals have structures that make the cell possible, the way that an organsim in its natural environment is as perfectly suited to its environment as glove is to a hand - the whole Universe seems to focus on the production of life, at least as far as our own world shows us. From bacteria far underground in cracks in rocks to life living around volcanic vents deep under the sea where light never shines.
This is a wonder whether by the hand of 'god', however you concieve it, or not, especially as that 'god' seems to be so subtle and skilled this came about merely through the way it 'threw the dice'. Not a god that makes things like a potter or a carpenter as our ancestors may have been able to understand, but one who sets it all going so perfectly what it wills comes to be as a result of the rules of the game.
And if this is just chance, and the only way we happen to be able to appreciate the wonder of it all is the fortuitous develpment of sentience, is that any less miraculous? Does it make life any less precious?
There are enough divisions between humans without us creating more. The only reason we have to cling to a literal interpretation of an ancient book is if by doing so we give ourselves a security blanket against a changing and sometimes uncertain world, to make it possible to hold ourselves above others on trifling details that have little or nothing to do with whether we are a good "neighbour".
And if we need to use words on a page to do that, where does faith fit in exactly? Surely we need to read our hearts and use our minds rather than turn to the correct page. Which is better, to live a good life because we want to or because there is a rule on a page?
Religion has always sought to explain the world around us, but now science gives us a better tool to do that. To cling to old beliefs facts show to be simply wrong is like believing Thor makes thunder just because it says so in some Holy Book. Today religious belief seems to be a better tool for some to make sense of the world within them; others might not feel the need, might have an internal world where they do not need a faith to make sense of it all; this does not make either condition of greater worth than the other.
What people of either disposition can do is be united in their wonder at the world around them and at being able to wonder at the world around them.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Abaddon

Science101

Abaddon, from what I can see, we both agree that the word "goal" and other similar ones do not seem to scientifically apply to evolution.

Agreed.

The problem for me, is in describing what I have noticed in my computer models. No matter how I construct them, after studying what was going on, I found (for lack of better words) what could be considered a "goal" and natural selection "guides" the evolution towards that goal. Of course, I have the luxury of running the program over again so I can look back and although it never does the same thing twice, there is a predictable outcome.

Again, I feel this is due to what you put in the programs. If you'll excuse 25 year old BASIC programming;

10 Print "ho ho ho"
20 Goto 10

Has a goal I put in there.

Even with vastly more complex programs, if you put in rules that lead random letter strings to be 'evolved' into sentences, the program will do that, not make coffee.

Same in nature, for example the mosquito. They have stayed the same for a very long time because they in a sense achieved the goal of a stealthy blood sucking flying insect. A radical change in body plan like giant easy to see or hear wings would not be beneficial.

They achieved no goal. They achieved a point where there adaptation for the niche they occupy was such that there was no selection pressure leading to change in genotype that would lead to change of phenotype.

Apply selection pressure and;

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00412.x
http://college.georgetown.edu/research/nature/37901.html
http://media.newscientist.com/article/mg14019034.500-review-paperbacks--roy-herbert-considers-the-mosquitoevolution-and-dna-.html

So, a stable niche, not a goal.

... oh, thanks for this discussion, it prompted me to find a veritable treasure trove of documented speciation events with which to bug the next idiot Creationist that rattles my bars, and is thus far hugely enjoyable.

I define "creative force" as a collection of well understood forces described in chemistry textbooks that were involved in the creation of life. If you can think of a better short phrase to describe what I am writing about then I will use that instead. But "creative force" was well thought out by a group effort. Trying to find something that works on both the science and the religious side is not easy. In fact, there is no scientific phrase that I know of that can replace it.

You are taking a feature of "how it happens to be" and implying a motive in it by using "creative force". Lipids happen to create membranes because that's the way it is. Some speculate there are other iterations of reality (alternative Universes) where different rules apply; do they have 'uncreative forces'? As for a group effort... didn't the group consider asking scientists to use the term 'creative' with all the connotations this brings is as good an idea as fishnet parachutes?

I think the important question is why do you seek to see 'goals' in stable ecological niches amid 'creative forces' in the physical laws that apply in our Universe? The choice of word isn't what bothers me so much as the need to apply terms with all the need and appropriateness of applying bow-ties to pigs.

It is all a bit too anthropic to me; "Ooo, this hole in the ground fits so well there must be 'hole in The ground force" said the puddle.

Us being able to observe and comment on how well the physical constants in our Universe and the environment on this planet are suited to life as we know it is a result of the physical constants in our Universe and the environment on this planet being suited to life as we know it. It does not mean there is anything 'creative' about it, or that life could not arise on different planets with different environment or in Universe's with different physical constants.

Even the commonly used scientific word "abiogenesis" is a religious metaphor. Genesis is the first chapter of the Bible and it contains a creation story. But that doesn't stop scientists from using the word "abiogenesis".

Many terms in science come from Latin or Greek. Genesis comes from the Greek word G??es??, meaning "birth", "creation", "cause", "beginning", "source" or "origin" (source; Wiki). You seeing it as a religious metaphor is a result of (drum roll) the perspective you view it from. Viewed from another perspective it is an entirely appropriate use of a word from a dead language used by the scientific community for terms and classification.

I would be interested in you taking a step back and saying why flogging this not seemingly only dead but rather putrid horse is of such importance to you. Thus far you seem to be banging a square peg into a round hole.

And to what ends? Maybe there is a grand creative force, but you have no evidence for it. Yet that doesn't matter as maybe there is one anyway who just blew on "the dice" with such finesse stuff ended up like this.

Sometimes Science101, windmills are just windmills. and calling a windmill a giant (as per Don Quixote) is just like seeing creative forces in how things are.

And before some truculent idiot tries to make out otherwise, I don't think you're an idiot and are far removed from the normally ill-informed 'godidit' brigade who normally flood threads on evolution et. al.. Doesn't mean I agree with you, but that's not that important , you've started the most interesting thread of its ilk for ages.

75

watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krz0zuqu-3u

Abaddon

berten

What happened to WTC 7,that it collapsed in such a way that only a demolition could have caused it ?

This is untrue; not saying you are a liar, but I am saying if you spent the time you have absorbing the conspiracist claims reading the refutations of the same you would be as critical of conspiracist nonsense as I am.

Tell you what, go through this website; http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

I find this refutes most conspiracist claims; if you find any that you feel it does not address at all, or that it does not refute some it does address, by all means list them and I will have a go as I have folders of stuff on 911 conspiracy theory websites and of those refuting their claims and this is just one I picked at random

Why did BBC and CNN report the collapse before it actually did?

As the journalist was standing in front of the building when she made what was obviously a mistake, it seems that given the lack of one shred of hard evidence proving a demolition (repeat, not one shred of hard evidence) and despite not one credible person out of the thousands who would have been involved in wiring massless, invisible explosives using cloaks of invisibility and invisible wires breaking the conspiracy of silence (repeat not one), this is the best the conspiracists can come up with.

Now, I know that the fire department had already withdrawn firefighters from the building/area, that sensors they were using had revealed the bulding was showing all the signs of movement that would eventually end in a sudden collapse, and that it is just possible the news that WTC7 was going to collapse got muddled in all the chaos into had collapsed.

Many believers of the conspiracist movement are unaware of that second rather important fact as they draw their information solely or largely from people who are obsessive conspiracists or knowing charlatans after attention or a quick buck, and even if the originators of such bilge KNOW this second fact, they keep quiet about it, as everyone knows buildings that are demolished don't show signs they are going to collapse many many minutes if not hours beforehand, and if they revealed this information it would rubbish all claims WTC7 was demolished.

I can supply links etc., but my point is, if you'd tried to test the accuracy of conspiracist claims with the vigour you've spent reading them, you'd have found that out yourself. I've done this debate enough times I am bored with doing other people's work for them as I now see continued belief as a result either of credulity and laziness, or some pre-existing mental issue.

Why was it possible that heavily guarded airspace was not guarded at all that fateful day?

This is a red flag claim, as the only way you can make this claim is if you haven't studied anything other than conspiracist claims

And so many other questions...

Lots of questions to which there are lots of answers if you look for them.

Now let me be clear; I don't want people bundling claims as is oft done in the conspiracy movement (e.g. the invasion of Iraq was all about oil and this proves the US government were behind 9/11).

I agree that there are question marks over the US's lack of readiness for and reaction to the 911 attacks. I think the Bush administration either lied or showed massive incompetence in their assessments about WoMD in Iraq and knowingly used false linkages between 911 and Iraq to bolster support for an Iraq invasion, just as they did with the claims re. WoMD. I believe the USA is being run for the benefit of the super rich by successive administrations. I believe the War on Terror is designed to allow the infringement of civil liberties, a public willingness to pour billions into military spending (current spending is higher in real terms than when the US was preparing for war with a super power, and I believe that a group of people who ran exactly the same set of tricks in the final years of the Soviet Union are still in positions of power and responsibility today.

But claims that explosives were used to demolish WTC 1, 2 & 7, or that something other than passenger jets controlled by terrorists hit WTC 1, 2, 7 and the Pentagon are unproven, and often easily refutable in detail

I have yet to see ONE conspiracist come up with calculations showing the amount of explosives and wiring required to set up WTC 1, 2 & 7 for demolition, and of how this was done without attracting attention considering how long this would realistically take.

Why? because to do so would have the same effect on their claims as claims pairs of each animal survived the Flood in an ark.

Maths and physics and common sense make the ark an obvious fairy story before you even look at geological evidence for the Flood and find it wholly lacking.

Preparing the WTC towers for demolition without anyone noticing or one person breaking silence is just as a big fairy story.

But I will await with interest people showing me how the towers were prepared for demolition without anyone noticing or one person breaking silence . Hasn't happened yet, but maybe one day someone will.

But whilst conspiracists FAIL to prove the alternative explanation they offer for collapse is possible in the real world, I am sure this won't stop their claims. Just like believers in the Flood still make their claims despite their inability to prove the ark is anything other than a flight of fancy.

Quite how ex-cultists can be so prone to cognitive dissonance after what they escaped I do not know...

There are many provable or highly probable 'conspiracies', including some I've mentioned above. I think it is sad people's attention is draw away from real instances of malgovernance by nonsense like this.

75

watch for the squibs used in demolition

by ninja in

jw
friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krz0zuqu-3u

Abaddon

Lordy...

Take a bicycle pump. Drill a hole in it halfway up. Pump it. See how air escapes through the hole?

As the floor collapsed the waves of pressure moving down the building forced debris, dust, light office paraphernalia, through windows already broken or overcome by the pressure wave.

This means that in advance of the collapsing floors one can see some floors lower debris being blown out of the building.

This is not rocket science, and is easily found as an explanation for the so-called-squibs by any one who bother to look.

However, constructing a self-image as an iconoclastic conspiracy uncoverer is normally far too consuming a pass time to do any proper research or try to understand any proper science.

In this tread I predict lovers of conspiracy hypotheses will post tired old hackneyed conspiracy claims they could have found comprehensive refutations if they had bothered. When they are directed to the refutation of such old hackneyed conspiracy claims they will ignore them and carry on believing what they believed in beforehand.

Conspiracies are just another form of addition; like drug addition, it's not based upon availability of a drug but rather on pre-existing internal conditions within the mind of the addict.

Whilst the build-up and response too 9/11 is replete with question marks, anyone who thinks explosives felled WTC1, 2 or 7, or anything other than a passenger plane hit the Pentagon are just falling for deluded people or con artists; one of the leading lights of the conspiracist community is a Mormon professor who thinks the Flood was real!! Another main liht is maiin a very nice living from the industry he's tried to centre around himself.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Abaddon

You can carry on proving my point by further childishness a long as you like.

76

Bill O'Reilly- Restaurant was nice, ''even though it's run by blacks''

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

september 26, 2007 by faiz shakir, amanda terkel, satyam khanna, .

matt corley, ali frick, and jeremy richmond/div> o'reilly surprised restaurant was nice, 'even though it's run by blacks': fox news' bill o'reilly recently dined with the rev.

al sharpton at sylvia's, a famous african-american-owned restaurant in harlem.

Abaddon

Dortacular

I don't need to trust you, I know that that there are bigots of all races is a fact independently. It is statement of the obvious.

But just as two wrongs don't make a right, a whole lot of wrongs don't make a right.

I know that if people know that speaking like an ignorent bigot gets you publically ridiculed, lambasted, humiliated, maybe even fired, they don't do it as often as when people shrug and say 'well, it wasn't to me personally, or my family'.

If you act complacently in the face of behaviour like that towards others, it's more likely it will happen to you and yours.

And if it is okay (and it is okay) for people to have the freedom to be ignorent bigots and speak what passes for their mind, then it is another statement of the obvious that it is okay that other people can speak their mind when they react to it.

Keeping quiet and not rocking the boat because it does not effect you directly today will not reduce the amount of spittle and the insults that get directed towards, say, children of mixed race tomorrow.

And come on, are you really telling me if racist rhethoric used by public figures in Germany in the 1930's had been reacted to negatively (instead of passively accepted by the majority) history would be unchanged?

Are you really telling me if those pigs who dragged a black man behind their pick-up in Texas a few years back had had racist comments they made in their life reacted to negatively they'd have been unchanged?

Are you telling me 'cripple' or 'nigger' became unacceptable terms because one day everyone woke up enlightened, or because bigots are really not that brave and learned to keep their mouths shut as they didn't like the reaction they got using those terms?

Maybe they just stopped SAYING it, and maybe it'll take a few generations more for all their offspring to stop thinking it, but at least it moves in the right direction and isn't just shrugging and saying 'don't effect me or mine, why should I bother'?

76

Bill O'Reilly- Restaurant was nice, ''even though it's run by blacks''

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

september 26, 2007 by faiz shakir, amanda terkel, satyam khanna, .

matt corley, ali frick, and jeremy richmond/div> o'reilly surprised restaurant was nice, 'even though it's run by blacks': fox news' bill o'reilly recently dined with the rev.

al sharpton at sylvia's, a famous african-american-owned restaurant in harlem.

Abaddon

Out of context?!?

The context was him expressing surprise that a black-owned restaurant with mostly black customers had decent food and a nice atmospshere, as though there was something about black owners or black customers that made this unlikely.

That was the context and the guy is a racist pig.

As with some racist pigs, he might not agree with the assesment, and some might engage in apolgetics to try and cover his bahaviour, but at the end of the day he was expressing the surprise that black owners or black customers could create a pleasent dining experience.

This should signal the end of his career, just as the handling of the Jena case should signal the end of the career of the DA in LaSalle county.

Even if in their little minds they aren't racist behaviour like that is unacceptable.

29

Scientific Prophecy - Creative Force - Opinion?

by Science101 in

jw
friends

i wrote something that i'm certain jehovah's witnesses (and x too) would like and wanted to find out what everyone thinks about it.

looks like this is the almost the only place, but right place.. .

one of the last things we might consider to be divinely inspired is something scientific.

Abaddon

Deputy Dog

And today's raspberry for childish petulance goes to you.

Looks like your about to find out that if you don't agree with this guy, you don't have "adequate knowledge" or you are involved in a conspiracy!

I think you need to take a deep breathe and get over the fact science is not like discussing your favourite band.

You can think Westlife are the best band in the world. As you are making a subjective decision you are right - for you. Someone with 16 Degrees in music could not prove your opinion wrong. But then you couldn't prove their's wrong either.

Someone who enters a discussion on evolution and shows they don't even know what evolution is by how they define it is just being arrogant or foolish if they don't take the time and trouble to learn about a subject they want to discuss.

You would probably laugh at someone who knew virtually nothing of cabinetry who tried to tell a experienced cabinet maker how to make a cupboard, if by doing so they revealed their lack of knowledge. You would probably think they were making a fool of themselves. If the cabinet maker pointed out the person was talking utter rot you'd consider it a fair comment

Yet if someone who knows virtually nothing about an academic subject tries to tell someone who has studied the subject they are wrong about something to do with that subject and by doing so they reveal their lack of knowledge, you apply a different set of rules. If the person with the academic knowledge pointed out the person was talking utter rot you rush to defend then speaker of rot. Not that Science101 is speaking rot, but it is how you behave.

I think you resent the fact people have to do some work to have a worthwhile opinion in academic subjects. Why not try to be more objective and accept facts are not always as you'd like them to be? Or if you can't act like an adult refrain from entering discussions on subject you are ill-informed?

What those environmental factors have done is bring about a situation where (to quote SJG I think) 'evolution becomes aware of itself' by means of the 'chance' evolution of sentient creatures. By 'chance' I mean it could have been different under differing conditions. Obviously evolution has no awareness, as it is a process, but awareness of the process arises all the same.

Maybe it's because you feel insecure if you don't understand something, and instead of trying to understand it you strike out? You seeing the above comment as double talk seems a good example;

Evolution is not an entity, it is a process
It is a process that produces organisms
Before sentient organisms arose the process was still there but it was unknown as there is nothing there to 'know' it
When sentient organisms arose then it becomes possible for the process to become 'known'
Thus one can metaphorically say 'evolution becomes aware of itself' to describe such a situation as such organisms are a product of evolution but it's a metaphor so doesn't imply evolution suddenly becomes an entity capable of having self-knowledge

Simple really... and even if I doubt your lack of scientific knowledge as regards evolutionary biology, I don't doubt your intelligence, just your willingness to apply it in certain areas where you don't like the conclusions.

Science 101 has already proved they know an awful lot more about the subject that most people I've had the pleasure of discussing it with here. But at the end of the day, science involves facts. If Science 101 wishes to move an opinion of theirs to the realm of fact it needs evidence. There is no evidence I am aware of that would prove that the impression evolution has a goal is anything more than an illusion of perspective.

Raindrops don't aim, but over time they typically hit the ground anyway.

Organisms don't have goals to become other organisms, but over time they typically become other organisms anyway

Paralipomenon

Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

That makes me wince. You are ascribing to a dead person a belief in a hypothesis that had not been defined when he died, and by doing so are associating him with many negative aspects of a contemporary movement he had nothing to do with and might well have nothing to do with.

There are plenty of statements by Einstein about what he believed that one can use without resorting to a claim that is at best a bit of a stretch and at worst deceptive, although I am sure you have no ill intent in doing so.

I also doubt very much if he would continue to state in the style of a scratched record 'irreducible complexity' long after such a hypothesis has been refuted, and as this is almost defining behaviour for many believers in ID, to lump him with such is paying him no compliment.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons

Spinoza believed everything is interconnected within one gigantic system and that this system and everything it contains is "God." Thou art god, I am god, that there rock is god, etc..

That is pantheism, not ID. ID requires a creative entity with no origin. Believing "the sum of everything that exists = god" is VASTLY different

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman (eds) (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press, 43.

Seems he saw divinity in structure and the process by which it came about, not in an entity as is required of ID, as this quote confirms;

" ...neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
Einstein, Albert (1940), "On Science and Religion", Nature 146

I also have to say that Einstein was a great physicist but I am unaware of his qualifications or knowledge in the field of either biology of evolutionary biology. Such a claim (Einstein believed in ID) is rather hackneyed argument from authority and as such is fallacious. It's a bit like quoting a cabinet maker's opinion on crop rotation.

While I will never downplay how amazing the universe is and all the life as we know it, I feel the only way a creator will be discovered is by trying to disprove him. Continue to seek knowledge under the assumption that one does not exist or you risk seeking with blinders on.

This I agree with.

Science101

But since I have heard evolution being called "undirected", "unguided" and with no "goal" the same thing applies the other way too.

Apart from the small fact that as there is no proof it is directed, guided or goal-orientated, stating the contrary is quite reasonable.

We will end up arguing semantics,

You say that like it's a bad thing

but that's kinda necessary for us to do.

Yup!

In the case of the word "goal" we're kinda stuck reconciling it due it having been used on the science side.

Eh? By whom? And if so, what if? 'Race' has been used in science, but it doesn't mean it's normal definition is scientifically defensible.

I Would need proof that there is no goal anywhere in evolution to claim there is no goal at all.

Like someone might say they need proof of no god anywhere in the Universe(s) to claim there is no god at all? Not having a go, just exploring your thinking; you will be aware one could substitute any supposedly mythological unproven entity for god.

Whilst the statement is true, one can also say if there is no provable god, tooth fairy or goal in evolution in all the study of those entities/subject areas, one can carry on acting as though there wasn't one, although keeping a open mind to new evidence is always a good idea.

I also wrote a program that uses the evolution algorithm to evolve sentences and it worked great. I discovered that there was a goal, to write sentences.

You didn't discover there was a rule. You wrote a program, and the rules within that program (which you put there) ended up making sentences. How can you discover something that you knew you put in there?

You could equally write a program that generated random non-repeating number strings where each increment in the number of digits was also a Prime number. You couldn't claim you discovered the goal of the program was to produce increasing long number strings with no repetitions and where each result was a Prime number as you'd made that the goal of the program in writing it.

The robot program has no goal; you see it working as a goal. Thus my point about evolution only having goals from certain perspectives

Obviously organisms have behaviours that allowed them to survive as those without such behaviour were not able to pass their genes on. But that doesn't mean they have a goal to survive. Even the drive to pass on genes is not a goal, it's just things without it aren't here

My point here is that in response to claims that evolution has no goal, I probably have more evidence that there is a goal,

With respect, no you don't.

You have a program you made which can produce words by applying rules you built into the program.

Even if you created a program that made random rules and applied 'natural selection' by only allowing the variants which made rules that resulted in 'almost' sentences to survive and then apply new rendom variations to that set of rules to make a second generation of programs, from which you'd again select the best 'almost sentences', repeating the process until you had a program that made real sentences, the program/s has no goal. You are defining the goal from you perspective.

Saying the fact that an organism (or program) that survives has rules that allow it to survive and thus a goal to survive is ignoring the fact that those which don't have rules that allow it to survive are not there to illustrate how there only appears to be a survival 'goal' on account of only things which can survive surviving.

But I'm primarily self-taught in college level science I'm not connected to "academia" so I lack what I guess we could call it's indoctrination so I'm more free to challenge the textbook ways of seeing things.

I am largely self-taught in evo bio, although I did study to be a science teacher at University. Having experienced both I would say claims of 'indoctrination' are not really credible... in fact they do more to discredit you. Without any proof of error on the part of 'science' you are attacking the credibility of it with a sweeping claim of bias. That is so unclassy.

What you might be experiencing is the fact on a science course at University one thing you should get driven through your brain is scientific rigour. Some things are scientific, some fail the definition. Scientists recoil from unscientific stuff being inserted into science like people going to church recoil from someone in a devil suit with a turd on their head. It 's just WRONG.

Someone with a understanding of scientific rigour is not so much indoctrinated but 'suffering' from very high standards of belief. The 'text book way of seeing things' is what reduces error in science, by rejecting anything which lacks scientific rigour.

And yes, yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Coco the clown. Galileo could PROVE the establishment's belief was wrong.

Most people complaining about the bias of the scientific establishment cannot prove what they are claiming, yet are making their failure the fault of the scientific community.

It's like someone going to a club where you can get in with a duck under one arm, and making out it is the fault of the club they are not allowed in because they have a chicken under one arm.

This is a very enjoyable thread by the way, thank you.