Re: firing up the grill

Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:06:29 -0600, intrepid reporter boots <no@xxxxx>, in an
attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying:

Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:45:21 -0600, intrepid reporter boots <no@xxxxx>, in an
attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying:

Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have no argument with the face of evolution, but I do find it to be
based on a flat-earth with the sun spinning around it so to speak.
The evidence when examined leads to certain conclusions that are no
more valid than the framework within which they are drawn.

Are you a paeleontologist? No? Then your opinions on what fossils do or do not
prove have no validity in this argument.

So if I had a certificate that said I was a paeleontologist my
opinions about fossils would have validity?

Whom do you tend to believe in a discussion about cancer, an oncologist or the
guy who tends bar at the watering-hole down the street?

1. The guy who has had cancer and is in remission.
2. The guy who has cancer.
3. The oncologist.
4. The bartender.

You'd believe a guy who *maybe* only knows the facts about his particular type
of cancer

You said "in a discussion about cancer". That doesn't imply that the
discussion delves into every aspect of every variety of the disease.

over a guy who's studied and treated cancer in general for most of his
professional career?

Studying is swell. Treatment can be performed by a witch-doctor. A
disease can be treated successfully or unsuccessfully. A guy who has
treated the disease successfully would get more credibility than a guy
who has written papers and watched his patients die. A guy who has
treated the disease successfully and who has also had it himself and
licked it would get more credibility than an armchair lecturer.

And no, things like that don't "randomly" change because there is
nothing the least bit random about it.

What, precisely, leads you to believe that the amount, size, etc. of a static
object can fluctuate in the absence of measurement?

What precisely leads you to believe that an unknown quantity is fixed
before it is measured?

The fact that, barring state changes like erosion, melting, etc., no scientist
has *ever* proven or witnessed unmeasured objects
growing/shrinking/multiplying/decreasing/etc. in the absence of any logical
cause.

So basically you accept the 'absence of proof is proof of absence'
argument, and you try to justify your silliness by making vacuuous
statements; clearly it is impossible to observe changes in the
measurements of the unmeasured.

Until a thing is measured its measurements remain undetermined. By
looking at a stick you have performed an informal and approximate
measurement. If there's a stick you haven't seen it could be an inch
or a yard long. Until you see it you don't know, and once you've seen
it the basics are locked into place. If someone gives you a paper bag
and says it's filled with nuts and bolts, until you sort and count
them you have no idea what you have. It could be a bag of rocks.

The unmanifest is just that.

--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!

[superstitious heathen grade 8]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: firing up the grill
    ... attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying: ... The guy who has had cancer and is in remission. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: firing up the grill
    ... attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped the presses by saying: ... object can fluctuate in the absence of measurement? ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: How the comet flies
    ... it's very much like saying that. ... The Uncertainty Principle states that the more precise your measurement ... of an object to whatever precision your instruments will allow you. ... meters per second, and with a reasonable telescope you could measure ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is this a true statement in statistics?
    ... If the measurement exceeds the threshold, ... I mean zero literally. ... with one ear 3" bigger than the other have advanced cancer. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Is this a true statement in statistics?
    ... If the measurement exceeds the threshold, ... Do you mean zero literally, or are you just using it to denote the ... It is found that 80% of the people with one ear 3" ... bigger than the other have advanced cancer. ...
    (sci.stat.math)