@Lou

Quote:

Once again BrianK, your reading comprehension is full of fail. The article is about the origin of the Y chromosome pinning it to around 338,000 years ago. As Sitchin translated, native females were implanted...hence the X chromosome won't have been touched.

Here's a good read for you Roots of Human Genius Be sure to check out the linked articles with spears found 500K years ago and usage of fire found earlier than 1 million years ago.

Also here's some research into estimating the age of the First Y Chromosome estimated to be 240 to 320 million years ago.

Those should all give you a good start and link to various other research and experiments as to the age of man and the age of the Y chromosome.

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Mar-2013 at 10:25 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Getting the full 7-sigma on the Higgs is the equivalent of fitting the last of the edge pieces on a jigsaw puzzle. We now have to fill in all of the gaps in the middle. As Lou takes great pains to point out, there is matter and energy not yet accounted for in the standard model that needs to be found, so it seems that the great easter egg hunt has only just begun

Assuming the Higgs falls soon there really isn't any other predictions from the Standard Model left to demonstrate. 'It's Done'. In so far that, everything else out there is either it's own new set of postulates unrelated to the Standard Model or is an extension to the Standard Model. However, those postulates aren't coming from the Standard Model itself.

Things such as Supersymmetry, String Theory, and multiple universes are at best an extension to the Standard Model. They are not derived from the Standard Model. I'm definitely looking forward to see what the amped up LHC is able to show. It should be able to give us better resolution on the Higgs range. And further help confirm, or deny, those other postulated areas. Exciting times. Higgs really is an end to a chapter and beginning of a whole new set of novels.

SCIENCE is predicated on the notion that we don't know everything. A positive emotional description of science. Though it notes why this stuff is very compelling.

...And a special line for LOU --- "We all want certainty, but certainty without evidence isn't certainty at all."

Last edited by BrianK on 12-Mar-2013 at 11:05 PM.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: There is no 'evidence' that General Relativity is correct. Absolutely true. The problem that you have is that nobody has said that either GR or any aspect of the standard model is an absolute and incontrovertible fact that must never under any circumstance be questioned. We all accept that there are aspects of the standard model that need sorting out, but it still remains the best available fit Your arguments against GR are the equivalent of claiming that because nobody has ever seen an actual event of in utero fertilization, the stork theory of human reproduction has to be correct Quote: when I offer science that supercedes general relativity. Actually you do not offer anything of the sort. What you offer is unsupported postulates based on outmoded theories that have failed to match the observable universe in over a hundred years. These you put forward as absolute and incontrovertible fact that must never under any circumstance be questioned. Quote: You then also always put the burden of proof onto me when you cannot even prove your own faith in general relativity is correct. I will once again remind you that when Einsteins GR superseded Newtons model, Einstein had to not only show the errors in Newtons model, he also demonstrated a better model. In other words the onus of proof was on the proposer of the new theory. If it was good enough for Albert, it is good enough for you. If you want us to accept a new theory, present the evidence for it and prove that it is better. As yet you have no evidence that your assorted CRAP even works, let alone have proof of it being better. Brandenburgs claim that it is all radiation pressure does not match reality, any more than his ideas about a nuclear war on Mars.

Conversely, you have disproven nothing.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: SCIENCE is predicated on the notion that we don't know everything. A positive emotional description of science. Though it notes why this stuff is very compelling. ...And a special line for LOU --- "We all want certainty, but certainty without evidence isn't certainty at all."

Yes, BrianK, you can troll easier when you are defending a moving goal post.

@Lou

Quote:

Yes, BrianK, you can troll easier when you are defending a moving goal post.

Interesting comment.

It's very clear that the way you move the goal posts and the way science does are two very different features of the systems.

In science no final answer is established. The 'goal posts' of how to establish an answer are set in stone - use logic + evidence. A final answer is indeed the ultimate goal. However, the best science always provides is the answer as we know it today based on the best available evidence. We know well the evidence may change and so will that answer. That's the awesomeness of science is it's one of the few things that embraces change to a new understanding. Indeed it's driven some far reaching achievements such as looking back in time to nearly the origins of the universe and satellites outside our solar system.

In Lou's view the final answer is established. The final goal is set. However, what is fungible is your methodology. You have no rhyme or reason in picking the 'evidence' the only option is for you to pick it if it agrees with you. In short your cherry picking results in 'certainty without evidence isn't certainty at all'. That's why we see you picking things like masses of the atom which are orders of magnitude out of alignment with reality. They agree with your answer.

In short the 'moving goal post' I'm defending is the use of a consistent and immovable demand to use logic and evidence to derive the best possible answer based on our current state of knowledge. It really is the most and best certain we can do today. It, also, embraces that with better knowledge we're have something even better in the future.

Last edited by BrianK on 13-Mar-2013 at 06:57 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Conversely, you have disproven nothing.

Of course you will claim that, but it was never a necessity that I, or anybody actively and totally disprove your fantasy. That is not how science works, or how understanding is expanded. If you want to claim that you can achieve something by waving a magic wand, and saying a secret magic word, it is up to you to prove that you can be successful, not for scientists (or even engineers) to prove that you are deluding yourself. You tried to get me to stop showing your fantasies for what they were in April 2011 by stating that you would never change your mind. My response made then still applies

You claimed that the Atzecs or Mayans who couldn't fly built figures on the Gaza strip. They didn't.
You claimed that 'they' were concealing archaeological evidence for biblical giants. They weren't
You claimed that Zecharia Sitchins so called translations are consistent and accurate. They are neither.
You claimed that pictures of 'two suns' were proof that Nibiru would be here soon. I'm still waiting.
You claimed that according to Sitchin, humans have been around for 100,000 years, now it is 300,000.
You claimed that Nibiru has been detected. It hasn't.
You claimed that Nibiru would be here on or around Oct 11 2011. I must have overslept and missed it.
You claimed that the comet elenin was Nibiru and it was causing earthquakes. You were wrong
You claimed that planetary orbits were a result of spin stabilised magnetic levitation. despite the randomised spin axes not aligning with any dominant magnetic field of sufficient power.
You claimed that the moon is a giant magnet suspended over the Earth. The moon is largely non-magnetic.

Interestingly you issued a challenge to reproduce the 2 suns images because photographs prove everything, and then when Recedent fulfilled the challenge using the moon you moved the goalpost claiming that photographs prove nothing. This was later echoed in your claims about the JFK assassination and the evidence of the Zapruder film.

And all of this CRAP was just in the first thread of this discussion. You added to this and resorted to personal insult in the second phase, and have accelerated the ad hominems in the current thread.

Another example of your inability to comprehend the basic skills (like reading) is the fact that you posted a link to one of my posts to 'prove' that I was claiming Brandenburg has not published anything, and the post that you linked to has a link to a piece published by somebody called Brandenburg.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Conversely, you have disproven nothing. Of course you will claim that, but it was never a necessity that I, or anybody actively and totally disprove your fantasy. That is not how science works, or how understanding is expanded. If you want to claim that you can achieve something by waving a magic wand, and saying a secret magic word, it is up to you to prove that you can be successful, not for scientists (or even engineers) to prove that you are deluding yourself. You tried to get me to stop showing your fantasies for what they were in April 2011 by stating that you would never change your mind. My response made then still applies You claimed that the Atzecs or Mayans who couldn't fly built figures on the Gaza strip. They didn't. You claimed that 'they' were concealing archaeological evidence for biblical giants. They weren't You claimed that Zecharia Sitchins so called translations are consistent and accurate. They are neither. You claimed that pictures of 'two suns' were proof that Nibiru would be here soon. I'm still waiting. You claimed that according to Sitchin, humans have been around for 100,000 years, now it is 300,000. You claimed that Nibiru has been detected. It hasn't. You claimed that Nibiru would be here on or around Oct 11 2011. I must have overslept and missed it. You claimed that the comet elenin was Nibiru and it was causing earthquakes. You were wrong You claimed that planetary orbits were a result of spin stabilised magnetic levitation. despite the randomised spin axes not aligning with any dominant magnetic field of sufficient power. You claimed that the moon is a giant magnet suspended over the Earth. The moon is largely non-magnetic. Interestingly you issued a challenge to reproduce the 2 suns images because photographs prove everything, and then when Recedent fulfilled the challenge using the moon you moved the goalpost claiming that photographs prove nothing. This was later echoed in your claims about the JFK assassination and the evidence of the Zapruder film. And all of this CRAP was just in the first thread of this discussion. You added to this and resorted to personal insult in the second phase, and have accelerated the ad hominems in the current thread. Another example of your inability to comprehend the basic skills (like reading) is the fact that you posted a link to one of my posts to 'prove' that I was claiming Brandenburg has not published anything, and the post that you linked to has a link to a piece published by somebody called Brandenburg.

You have proven nothing.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Yes, BrianK, you can troll easier when you are defending a moving goal post. Interesting comment. It's very clear that the way you move the goal posts and the way science does are two very different features of the systems. In science no final answer is established. The 'goal posts' of how to establish an answer are set in stone - use logic + evidence. A final answer is indeed the ultimate goal. However, the best science always provides is the answer as we know it today based on the best available evidence. We know well the evidence may change and so will that answer. That's the awesomeness of science is it's one of the few things that embraces change to a new understanding. Indeed it's driven some far reaching achievements such as looking back in time to nearly the origins of the universe and satellites outside our solar system. In Lou's view the final answer is established. The final goal is set. However, what is fungible is your methodology. You have no rhyme or reason in picking the 'evidence' the only option is for you to pick it if it agrees with you. In short your cherry picking results in 'certainty without evidence isn't certainty at all'. That's why we see you picking things like masses of the atom which are orders of magnitude out of alignment with reality. They agree with your answer. In short the 'moving goal post' I'm defending is the use of a consistent and immovable demand to use logic and evidence to derive the best possible answer based on our current state of knowledge. It really is the most and best certain we can do today. It, also, embraces that with better knowledge we're have something even better in the future.

You have been given better knowledge and embraced nothing.

@Lou

Quote:

You have been given better knowledge and embraced nothing.

And it's all good!

I understand how people, like yourself, fall into that religious framed answers of assuming truth but lacking that knowledge. It results in exactly what we've seen from you here - a complete inability to demonstrate truth. You hold a faith value.

Science is a much better option it accepts we don't frickin' know. It accepts that 'better knowledge' is still far short of complete knowledge. And that the answers we give today may well change tomorrow. We simply don't know and that's more honest than what religions or EM_is_God can say.

Now just because we don't know doesn't mean that all CRAP is on the table. That 'better knowledge' is often used to safely discard the CRAP and continue working on that which cannot yet be discarded. I think I posted a YouTube Video on that a while back where a Nobel Winning Scientists was talking about what science can show and how it's often demonstrating what's not true. Thus, we can demonstrate things like atoms aren't the 1000x larger value that one of your CRAP providers mathematically claimed must be true. The answer here is their math is mucked up.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You have been given better knowledge and embraced nothing. And it's all good! I understand how people, like yourself, fall into that religious framed answers of assuming truth but lacking that knowledge. It results in exactly what we've seen from you here - a complete inability to demonstrate truth. You hold a faith value. Science is a much better option it accepts we don't frickin' know. It accepts that 'better knowledge' is still far short of complete knowledge. And that the answers we give today may well change tomorrow. We simply don't know and that's more honest than what religions or EM_is_God can say. Now just because we don't know doesn't mean that all CRAP is on the table. That 'better knowledge' is often used to safely discard the CRAP and continue working on that which cannot yet be discarded. I think I posted a YouTube Video on that a while back where a Nobel Winning Scientists was talking about what science can show and how it's often demonstrating what's not true. Thus, we can demonstrate things like atoms aren't the 1000x larger value that one of your CRAP providers mathematically claimed must be true. The answer here is their math is mucked up.

I understand how people like you choose to twist it to look like my acquired and accepted knowledge is 'religion' when your denial of my knowledge is done with a zealotous mask. You didn't earn the nickname "Mr. Twist" for nothing - you know...

@Lou

Quote:

I understand how people like you choose to twist it to look like my acquired and accepted knowledge is 'religion'

"Acquired" knowledge that has no evidence to support it is entirely the basis of all religions. It doesn't matter what deity your prophet claims to be infallible, if it is not evidence based, then it is faith based, and faith based belief is the fundamental definition of religion. You once believed in and accepted the infallible wisdom of the pope, and now you have transferred your adoration and unquestioning acceptance to an Azerbaijani accountant who claimed to be the only one able to translate certain documents. Free clue, Joseph Smith thought of that plot device before Sitchin.

Breaking news for you. WISE has found a brown dwarf that you can claim to be Nibiru. It is the closest star discovered since 1916. Of course it doesn't actually match Sitchins descriptions, but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: I understand how people like you choose to twist it to look like my acquired and accepted knowledge is 'religion' "Acquired" knowledge that has no evidence to support it is entirely the basis of all religions. It doesn't matter what deity your prophet claims to be infallible, if it is not evidence based, then it is faith based, and faith based belief is the fundamental definition of religion. You once believed in and accepted the infallible wisdom of the pope, and now you have transferred your adoration and unquestioning acceptance to an Azerbaijani accountant who claimed to be the only one able to translate certain documents. Free clue, Joseph Smith thought of that plot device before Sitchin. Breaking news for you. WISE has found a brown dwarf that you can claim to be Nibiru. It is the closest star discovered since 1916. Of course it doesn't actually match Sitchins descriptions, but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

You will never be the judge of what knowledge I choose to acquire and accept.

@Lou

Quote:

I understand how people like you choose to twist it to look like my acquired and accepted knowledge is 'religion' when your denial of my knowledge is done with a zealotous mask.

If you have true knowledge it has the requirements of being demonstrable (which you failed) and accurate (which you also failed). What we see is your accept any postulate as long as it fits your prejudged EM_is_God conclusion. There's no real knowledge here it's faith in unproven postulates. You have a religious view not a knowledgeable view.

You don't understand I didn't set out to deny your view. I set out to confirm your view. In confirming a view one takes external evidence and logic to see if that original view is consistent and accurate. Yours as you've provided it is neither consistent nor accurate. Which again is why I say you have a religious view because it's 'knowledge' is not true.

In your most recent fiasco you tried to declare the Bible of Stichin as accurate by citing the scientific work of a 'first man' that's 340K years old. You also provided your own evidence that the science that says no such thing. If you had true knowledge here you would have read beyond the title and understood the depth of the implications here and have realized your 'knowledge' is clearly not confirmed with this piece.

It was rather a strange move? Did you not expect us to read the stuff you provided? I first checked to see if your proof for your belief indicated that belief was right. If it was right you may possibly have knowledge. It was readily apparent you condemned your own view by providing evidence that was out of alignment with your claims of proof.

Quote:

You will never be the judge of what knowledge I choose to acquire and accept.

If you want people to take your knowledge seriously you must be able to demonstrate a consistently correct predictive method to the true outcome in reality. So unless you're running for Pope that we assume your dictates are unquestionable, everyone is going to judge your knowledge. For it's through that judging they can see how true it is or is not.

Definitely a Higgs Family Boson. Even with 2.5x the data. More is needed.
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1032641

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I understand how people like you choose to twist it to look like my acquired and accepted knowledge is 'religion' when your denial of my knowledge is done with a zealotous mask. If you have true knowledge it has the requirements of being demonstrable (which you failed) and accurate (which you also failed). What we see is your accept any postulate as long as it fits your prejudged EM_is_God conclusion. There's no real knowledge here it's faith in unproven postulates. You have a religious view not a knowledgeable view. You don't understand I didn't set out to deny your view. I set out to confirm your view. In confirming a view one takes external evidence and logic to see if that original view is consistent and accurate. Yours as you've provided it is neither consistent nor accurate. Which again is why I say you have a religious view because it's 'knowledge' is not true. In your most recent fiasco you tried to declare the Bible of Stichin as accurate by citing the scientific work of a 'first man' that's 340K years old. You also provided your own evidence that the science that says no such thing. If you had true knowledge here you would have read beyond the title and understood the depth of the implications here and have realized your 'knowledge' is clearly not confirmed with this piece. It was rather a strange move? Did you not expect us to read the stuff you provided? I first checked to see if your proof for your belief indicated that belief was right. If it was right you may possibly have knowledge. It was readily apparent you condemned your own view by providing evidence that was out of alignment with your claims of proof. Quote: You will never be the judge of what knowledge I choose to acquire and accept. If you want people to take your knowledge seriously you must be able to demonstrate a consistently correct predictive method to the true outcome in reality. So unless you're running for Pope that we assume your dictates are unquestionable, everyone is going to judge your knowledge. For it's through that judging they can see how true it is or is not.

You will never be the judge of what I consider true knowledge.

@Lou

Quote:

You will never be the judge of what I consider true knowledge.

Epistemology is the term on that group of work on how to ascertain true knowledge. How one moves from a belief (religion or EM_is_God) to the state of a true knowledge (demonstrable predictable application to reality) is always a good question and discussion.

Lou, you have spent many a posts trying to convince us that your belief is a true belief. If you ever want to move your 'true knowledge' to others you must be able to do more than communicate the idea. That's simply the first step - one where you transfer what your belief is. If you want others to embrace your knowledge you must be able to demonstrate it's truthfulness and usefulness against reality. If you want others to learn this 'true knowledge' you must be able to demonstrate cohesion and foundations. You've been unable to do any of those things. Your externally communicated ideas will always be judged by the receiver to determine if you really have true knowledge or are you just peddling snake-oil.

I think I posted this before. But, how to demonstrate accuracy in your guesses is fairly straight forward - watch the first minute Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Mar-2013 at 06:28 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You will never be the judge of what I consider true knowledge. Epistemology is the term on that group of work on how to ascertain true knowledge. How one moves from a belief (religion or EM_is_God) to the state of a true knowledge (demonstrable predictable application to reality) is always a good question and discussion. Lou, you have spent many a posts trying to convince us that your belief is a true belief. If you ever want to move your 'true knowledge' to others you must be able to do more than communicate the idea. That's simply the first step - one where you transfer what your belief is. If you want others to embrace your knowledge you must be able to demonstrate it's truthfulness and usefulness against reality. If you want others to learn this 'true knowledge' you must be able to demonstrate cohesion and foundations. You've been unable to do any of those things. Your externally communicated ideas will always be judged by the receiver to determine if you really have true knowledge or are you just peddling snake-oil. I think I posted this before. But, how to demonstrate accuracy in your guesses is fairly straight forward - watch the first minute Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method

No one ordained you that judge or jury.

@Lou

Quote:

No one ordained you that judge or jury.

I think you spelled it out well there. Only the religious that look for ordination to judge truth for them. Something you've done is ordained 'Brandenburg has a better degree than Nimrod' and 'Zecharia Sitchin write a book' - so this stuff has to be true has enabled you to move from fanciful fiction to a belief in truth by lacking demonstrable facts. Read the Books of Stichin is just as religious as Read the Books of the Bible. You ordained Stichin and Brandenburg to be your unquestioned and unquestionable Popes.

For many others of us we fully understand that accepting and knowing are not the same thing. That's why we ask for evidence and don't jump onto your bandwagon until you can provide an honest demonstration. We're more comfortable in accepting 'We don't know'. It's a far more honest opinion and understanding than the 'God of the Gaps' assumed and undemonstrated (therefore untruthful but emotionally tied to) answer of 'Aliens did it' or 'God did it'.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Mar-2013 at 05:56 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 18-Mar-2013 at 05:46 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: No one ordained you that judge or jury. I think you spelled it out well there. Only the religious that look for ordination to judge truth for them. Something you've done is ordained 'Brandenburg has a better degree than Nimrod' and 'Zecharia Sitchin write a book' - so this stuff has to be true has enabled you to move from fanciful fiction to a belief in truth by lacking demonstrable facts. Read the Books of Stichin is just as religious as Read the Books of the Bible. You ordained Stichin and Brandenburg to be your unquestioned and unquestionable Popes. For many others of us we fully understand that accepting and knowing are not the same thing. That's why we ask for evidence and don't jump onto your bandwagon until you can provide an honest demonstration. We're more comfortable in accepting 'We don't know'. It's a far more honest opinion and understanding than the 'God of the Gaps' assumed and undemonstrated (therefore untruthful but emotionally tied to) answer of 'Aliens did it' or 'God did it'.

It actually goes without saying that Brandenburg > any nimrod.