Science/Environment Gary Ablett disputes evolution

[Rockford]

Further proof that you don't need to be intelligent, or it seems possess basic reasoning, to be a footballer

 

[Rockford]

Im not surprised. Of course God is going to dispute evolution.

Haha

 

[Iskender Time]

Daic's did nothing magical, he was just one of the first to study the physics of the oval shaped ball in any great detail. I'm sure you would have seen him running experiments at training on how the ball moved when being kicked in different places from different heights and at different angles to the surface with differing amounts of force.

He was even able to come up with a football with instructions how to do some of his feats from the notes he took.

Perhaps Clarke's thrid law explains:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". As you have pointed out, Daics was indeed a great natural philosopher and perhaps more worthy of being published on such matters in the esteemed journal that is the Herald Sun.

 

[Oakland Raider]

Gazza was there between 5-10million years ago when the first human hooked up with that ape.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news257.htm

Fact's and theories. Those bones are human, not ape. Logically separating the two. Human bones from humans, apes from apes.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

It would appear that Gary Ablett is an idiot.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well, he'd know, he is god after all...

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Well, he'd know, he is god after all...

Does this mean he will sacrifice his son (Jnr) for the good of all mankind (Australian Football), leading to his sons death at the hand of the chosen people (Geelong Supporters) when he tries to lead them back to the right path (signs with Gold Coast).

 

[Skerret]

Daicos never struck me as a capable physicist but there you go.

 

[Malifice]

Do you believe that there is a reality which we inhabit and interact with?

Nope. The other way around in fact.

 

[Iskender Time]

Nope. The other way around in fact.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Oct19]

It's not even original:

http://buggery.org/2010/03/26/if-ga...of-intelligent-design-ill-be-a-monkeys-uncle/

 

[Krakeour Magic]

Poor old Gaz has done one flipper too many.

Has he spoken to his son about "Golden Idols" and "Mammon"?

 

[Rockford]

It's not even original:

http://buggery.org/2010/03/26/if-ga...of-intelligent-design-ill-be-a-monkeys-uncle/

Wtf is he thinking.

 

[CAS79]

without being disrespectful we all nkow Ablett is no scientist, or wordsmith nor spokesperson for that matter. Ablett has barely opened his mouth in a decade and now comes out with a poorly worded hypotheses that is clearly recycled. He is being a fundo church's poster boy for the simple.

If it was he believes than fine but frankly we would all understand Ablett to be very flawed in his exercising his religion working at his own person would best be done for him in a private manner.

 

[Malifice]

Yes, we are descended from what is for all intents and purposes, an ape. But not from modern apes.

Actually we are Apes.

The Great Ape family currently consists of Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Homo Sapiens. I think Bonobo's are in there as well.

We all shared a common ancestor 4-6 million years ago.

We also currently share 96% of the same DNA with Chimps, and 94% with our next closest relative the Orangutan.

Humans are closer (DNA-wise) to Chimps than Mice are to Rats.

But yeah, God is just trying to trick us. Or whatever.

 

[Malifice]

Care to elaborate?

The Biocentric model of the Universe. Its the only empirically falsifiable and rational model of the universe that doesn't rely on faith.

Consider:

Consciousness is all that you can 100% prove right? The only thing you can know for certain?The fact that 'you' exist.(Cogito Ergo Sum)

So by even accepting the existence of an outside universe you take a leap of faith. You cant really ever (logically) know the universe exists at all.

You can never rationally know if its really 'out there.' (compare the Matrix if you will, or it could all be a big dream).

In the Biocentric model, what we call space and time are simply forms of animal sense perception, rather than external 'real' physical objects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)#cite_note-8

Biocentrism has seven principles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)#cite_note-9

1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

Really nifty theory of the universe. Does away with faith completely.

 

[Sloth]

Actually we are Apes.

The Great Ape family currently consists of Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Homo Sapiens. I think Bonobo's are in there as well.

We all shared a common ancestor 4-6 million years ago.

Yes ok,we ARE apes...but we are not decended from modern chimps or gorillas, which is a common misrepresentaion of evolution.

 

[Malifice]

Yes ok,we ARE apes...but we are not decended from modern chimps or gorillas, which is a common misrepresentaion of evolution.

Exactly. We all share a common ancestor.

Go back in time 6 million years and there was just one 'Ape' species. Now there are four separate species. Of which we are one.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Just to sidetrack the discussion momentarily, I stumbled across the aqcuatic ape hypothesis recently, an interesting take on our evolution, although it isn't widely accepted I still find the idea plausible

[youtube]gwPoM7lGYHw[/youtube]

 

[Pie eyed]

Proverbs 26.3
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for
the fool's back.

 

[Malifice]

^^ Just to sidetrack the discussion momentarily, I stumbled across the aqcuatic ape hypothesis recently, an interesting take on our evolution, although it isn't widely accepted I still find the idea plausible

Im 100% down with the aquatic ape theory. Its brilliant.

 

[Iskender Time]

The Biocentric model of the Universe. Its the only empirically falsifiable and rational model of the universe that doesn't rely on faith.

Consider:

Consciousness is all that you can 100% prove right? The only thing you can know for certain?The fact that 'you' exist.(Cogito Ergo Sum)

So by even accepting the existence of an outside universe you take a leap of faith. You cant really ever (logically) know the universe exists at all.

You can never rationally know if its really 'out there.' (compare the Matrix if you will, or it could all be a big dream).

In the Biocentric model, what we call space and time are simply forms of animal sense perception, rather than external 'real' physical objects:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

Really nifty theory of the universe. Does away with faith completely.

Interesting but I thought 3 and 4 sounded like a dodgy interpretation of quantum physics. It’s one of the most abused ideas of all time so my BS detector goes on alert when I hear it cited by non-physicists. Based on my meagre understanding of Young's double-slit experiment, it’s not the simple fact we are observing but the physical nature of the observation process (particles/waves interacting with each other) that causes interference in what we are trying to observe.

Astrophysicist David Lindley's criticism of Lanza is interesting:

"But then Lanza takes off with the idea that you need consciousness to 'create' reality. This view has had some supporters over the years, but it's always been an odd attitude, and today is not taken seriously. Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr definitely would not agree with it. Their attitude was that the physical act of measurement – regardless of the state of mind of the observer – forces an indeterminate quantum state to take on some definite value of whatever parameter you are measuring.
"Now it's true that there's always been some difficulty in saying exactly what constitutes a measurement. Bohr had a pragmatic point of view. We know in practice how to make measurements, and what's more, they occur all time whether we are watching or not. For instance, think of a photon fighting its way out from the center of sun through the great mass of hot gas, out into space, through Earth's atmosphere, and down to someone's eyeball. It suffers countless interactions with other particles and atoms – quantum events – along the way. Does someone have to be consciously aware of all these events in order for them to happen?
"Lanza acknowledges this, to an extent, but responds by saying that 'the entities we observe are floating in a field of mind that is not limited by an external spacetime.' I have no idea what this means."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-09-lanza-response_N.htm

And what would we have to observe to falsify the Biocentric model?

 

[Malifice]

Interesting but I thought 3 and 4 sounded like a dodgy interpretation of quantum physics. It’s one of the most abused ideas of all time so my BS detector goes on alert when I hear it cited by non-physicists. Based on my meagre understanding of Young's double-slit experiment, it’s not the simple fact we are observing but the physical nature of the observation process (particles/waves interacting with each other) that causes interference in what we are trying to observe.

I understand your concerns (reeks a little of the Secret) but I'm a little confused by your distinction above? How is 'observation' different from 'observation process'?

A little moot anyway as both in a Biocentric universe and a non-biocentric one there can be no 'observation process' without an observer.

The old 'if a tree falls in a forest does it still make a sound' question takes on a whole new meaning. Certainly makes science (based on empiricism) largely moot.

And makes Schrodinger Cat a lot more interesting.

Astrophysicist David Lindley's criticism of Lanza is interesting:

"But then Lanza takes off with the idea that you need consciousness to 'create' reality. This view has had some supporters over the years, but it's always been an odd attitude, and today is not taken seriously. Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr definitely would not agree with it. Their attitude was that the physical act of measurement – regardless of the state of mind of the observer – forces an indeterminate quantum state to take on some definite value of whatever parameter you are measuring.
"Now it's true that there's always been some difficulty in saying exactly what constitutes a measurement. Bohr had a pragmatic point of view. We know in practice how to make measurements, and what's more, they occur all time whether we are watching or not. For instance, think of a photon fighting its way out from the center of sun through the great mass of hot gas, out into space, through Earth's atmosphere, and down to someone's eyeball. It suffers countless interactions with other particles and atoms – quantum events – along the way. Does someone have to be consciously aware of all these events in order for them to happen?

Lindleys critique falls short here IMO. How do we know (outside of faith) these events he is saying happen, actually do happen when we aren't actually observing them?

Strictly speaking we can never be sure that events happen independent of what we are observing or measuring. I know that logically, once we measure something, we expect it to perform like that whether we are later observing it or not, but Schrodingers cat disproved this assumption years ago, so im not sure what Lindley is going on about here.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-09-lanza-response_N.htm

And what would we have to observe to falsify the Biocentric model?

Disprove any of the seven principles upon which it is based for a start. Such as by demonstrating that quantum effects occur independent of a observer. How one does that is beyond me however!

Interestingly also the model is only falsifiable from ones own perspective.

Taken to its 'hard core' level its quite a frightening theory. Both nothing and no one else really exists. I prefer the model that essentially all living things (capable of observation or interaction) exist, but the Universe doesn't. Although I guess can never know for sure either way. Thats my leap of faith right there!

 

[link roo]

without being disrespectful we all nkow Ablett is no scientist, or wordsmith nor spokesperson for that matter. Ablett has barely opened his mouth in a decade and now comes out with a poorly worded hypotheses that is clearly recycled. He is being a fundo church's poster boy for the simple.

If it was he believes than fine but frankly we would all understand Ablett to be very flawed in his exercising his religion working at his own person would best be done for him in a private manner.

To be as low profile as possible all this time, then come out with this recycled mess possibly demonstrates that an ancestor of his did in fact have sex with an ape. That offspring took to the water and mated with a dolphin.

ps. Jebus had 37 possessions tonight.

 

[Oakland Raider]

evolol.