Stuff they don't want you to know...

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

I wasn't saying that it was impossible that he wasn't killed by animals, but it is much, much more likely, which supports the idea that there is such a thing as a "more likely" truth.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

I wasn't saying that it was impossible that he wasn't killed by animals, but it is much, much more likely, which supports the idea that there is such a thing as a "more likely" truth.

 

[foampositepro]

gaint skeletons? http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

 

[foampositepro]

gaint skeletons? http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Occam's Razor is bs
palimpsest is referring parchment and paper. (palin "again" + psao "I scrape")

It takes tremendous effort to scrape stone in order for it to be used again which is why some people tried, but in general didn't do it.

[h3]Decipherment in architecture[/h3]
Architects imply palimpsest as a ghost—an image of what once was. In the built environment, this occurs somewhat often. Whenever spaces are shuffled, rebuilt, or remodeled, shadows remain. Tarred rooflines remain on the sides of a building long after the neighboring structure has been demolished; removed stairs leave a mark where the painted wall surface stopped. Dust lines remain from a relocated appliance. Ancient ruins speak volumes of their former wholeness. Palimpsests can inform us, archaeologically, of the realities of the built past.

Thus architects, archaeologists and design historians sometimes use the word to describe the accumulated iterations of a design or a site, whether in literal layers of archaeological remains, or by the figurative accumulation and reinforcement of design ideas over time. An excellent example of this can be seen at The Tower of London, where construction began in the eleventh century, and the site continues to develop to this day.

Archaeologists in particular use the term to denote a record of material remains that is suspected of having formed during an extended period but that cannot be resolved in such a way that temporally discrete traces can be recognized as such.

Egyptologists use the word for texts and representations inscribed in stone that have been scraped away, either completely or partially, often with a plaster filling being applied, and then a new inscription carved on top.

There are cases of them smoothing over hieroglyphs, but it was done with concrete or a plaster which would will leave the original carving intact. they drew on the new surface but left the old one in tact haha.... this example of european style art overlaying heiroglyphics is not relavent to this argument. 

1. I still want to know what university you study at/what books you get your info from.
2. Why is Occam's razor "bs"?

We would have known nothing about Akhen Aten (Amenhotep IV) The world's first recorded monotheist who went down in history as the religious heretic of his day or King Tut.

These people were erased systematically from history and the kings list's of royal families until parts of their masonry(stone work) revealing their story had been found as filler parts for other priest of lesser god's temples. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Occam's Razor is bs
palimpsest is referring parchment and paper. (palin "again" + psao "I scrape")

It takes tremendous effort to scrape stone in order for it to be used again which is why some people tried, but in general didn't do it.

[h3]Decipherment in architecture[/h3]
Architects imply palimpsest as a ghost—an image of what once was. In the built environment, this occurs somewhat often. Whenever spaces are shuffled, rebuilt, or remodeled, shadows remain. Tarred rooflines remain on the sides of a building long after the neighboring structure has been demolished; removed stairs leave a mark where the painted wall surface stopped. Dust lines remain from a relocated appliance. Ancient ruins speak volumes of their former wholeness. Palimpsests can inform us, archaeologically, of the realities of the built past.

Thus architects, archaeologists and design historians sometimes use the word to describe the accumulated iterations of a design or a site, whether in literal layers of archaeological remains, or by the figurative accumulation and reinforcement of design ideas over time. An excellent example of this can be seen at The Tower of London, where construction began in the eleventh century, and the site continues to develop to this day.

Archaeologists in particular use the term to denote a record of material remains that is suspected of having formed during an extended period but that cannot be resolved in such a way that temporally discrete traces can be recognized as such.

Egyptologists use the word for texts and representations inscribed in stone that have been scraped away, either completely or partially, often with a plaster filling being applied, and then a new inscription carved on top.

There are cases of them smoothing over hieroglyphs, but it was done with concrete or a plaster which would will leave the original carving intact. they drew on the new surface but left the old one in tact haha.... this example of european style art overlaying heiroglyphics is not relavent to this argument. 

1. I still want to know what university you study at/what books you get your info from.
2. Why is Occam's razor "bs"?

We would have known nothing about Akhen Aten (Amenhotep IV) The world's first recorded monotheist who went down in history as the religious heretic of his day or King Tut.

These people were erased systematically from history and the kings list's of royal families until parts of their masonry(stone work) revealing their story had been found as filler parts for other priest of lesser god's temples. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Occam's razor is bs because it is an approximation of truth, calculated on missing information and missing variables. Something is either true or false. There is no such thing as a more than likely to be true answer because it can still be proven wrong. It's more politically correct than saying I don't know or I don't have the answer, but it's still bs.
I told you what books I studied and I do not go to seminary school. I do have bible study with christian pastors, ex christian pastors, and people of other faiths as well.

Well... I see why you would have problems with Occam's razor.

You probably believe in prophecies and miracles, so no facts I give will deter you from your "belief" structure.

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Occam's razor is bs because it is an approximation of truth, calculated on missing information and missing variables. Something is either true or false. There is no such thing as a more than likely to be true answer because it can still be proven wrong. It's more politically correct than saying I don't know or I don't have the answer, but it's still bs.
I told you what books I studied and I do not go to seminary school. I do have bible study with christian pastors, ex christian pastors, and people of other faiths as well.

Well... I see why you would have problems with Occam's razor.

You probably believe in prophecies and miracles, so no facts I give will deter you from your "belief" structure.

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


Well... I see why you would have problems with Occam's razor.

You probably believe in prophecies and miracles, so no facts I give will deter you from your "belief" structure.

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


Well... I see why you would have problems with Occam's razor.

You probably believe in prophecies and miracles, so no facts I give will deter you from your "belief" structure.

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

 

[Renaldo Balkman]

 

[Renaldo Balkman]

 

[regal black]

interesting...

 

[regal black]

interesting...

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

"belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge."
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

So you have factual knowledge of God......?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Your probability in calculating my stance was wrong. See how your Occams razor just failed you? The thing you learn once you study the texts and prophecies enough is that belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge. Christianity was originally called Gnosis ( meaning to have knowledge and union if the most high with out being told). A prophecy is nothing more than a a statement that can be proven true or false as time/events occur.
Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof 

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

"belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge."
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

So you have factual knowledge of God......?

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

You used it to make a relavent and highly probably conclusion. So, I guess a highly improbable irrelevant conclusion would be more in line with your way of thinking? That would explain your initial post.

 

[createdestroy]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Any type of hypothesis is based off of a static environmental conditions. Our reality contains to many changing variables.

He more than likely to get run over by a car, but that doesn't mean animals don't escape from the zoo, or a new eco system of animals decides to move in and bump heads with human habitats. It's really just flawed and to ambiguous of a notion for me to keep at heart

You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

You used it to make a relavent and highly probably conclusion. So, I guess a highly improbable irrelevant conclusion would be more in line with your way of thinking? That would explain your initial post.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

"belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge."
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

So you have factual knowledge of God......?

yes. but it's not like you would be able to see or understand it. If I were to say I was agnostic it would be me acknowledging that there is a difference between believing in Christ and knowing Christ. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Are you christian or Agnostic?

I'm christian but I don't equate the title to affiliation with the church. 

"belief is for the sinful and you should always seek knowledge."
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

So you have factual knowledge of God......?

yes. but it's not like you would be able to see or understand it. If I were to say I was agnostic it would be me acknowledging that there is a difference between believing in Christ and knowing Christ. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

You used it to make a relavent and highly probably conclusion. So, I guess a highly improbable irrelevant conclusion would be more in line with your way of thinking? That would explain your initial post.

I'm simply just saying that no matter how much we make educated guesses at things, there's always the chance of something out of the ordinary occurring that was not expected. To make a point that about the fact that something can either be right or wrong and nothing in between is redundant. I used an example to display the redundancy in giving an answer to a yes or no question that is conditional. That it is wrong. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by CreateDestroy


You don't fully understand Occam's razor.... 
It is just an approximation of likeliness to be taken into consideration when forming a hypothesis.

It is not saying what is true or isn't, It is just a tool to take into account when analyzing opposing explanations.

You just used Occam's razor when you made the statement "He more than likely to get run over by a car". You didn't look up the statistics on Car accidents and animal attacks. You applied Occam's razor.

You totally missed why I just used it. To prove to you that that is why it doesn't work. 

You used it to make a relavent and highly probably conclusion. So, I guess a highly improbable irrelevant conclusion would be more in line with your way of thinking? That would explain your initial post.

I'm simply just saying that no matter how much we make educated guesses at things, there's always the chance of something out of the ordinary occurring that was not expected. To make a point that about the fact that something can either be right or wrong and nothing in between is redundant. I used an example to display the redundancy in giving an answer to a yes or no question that is conditional. That it is wrong.