ydoaPs Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Since when was a mole part of the structure of the human body. Not everyone has moles though... Or was meant to have moles. Make up your mind. Structure or surface. Either way, you're wrong.
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 It's important because of the symetrical, and its 100% FACT that we have 2 halves, and top and bottom, front and back. There's something we have 100% proof of. So back track, seeing as we evolved from something, it must of always had this programmed. Seeya Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI take that back, I'll go to sleep later =]
DJBruce Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Since when was a mole part of the structure of the human body. Not everyone has moles though... Or was meant to have moles. You're just jealous because I have more than the average 'Cyclops' brain. It must REALLY annoy you =P Look, I'm out of this. It's like tennis, exept you're all in wheelchairs with non-symmetrical bodies and huge e-heads; and I'm standing at the other side using my skills, but it gets rather boring after a while. So, good night, god bless, and I'll see you in heaven. I thought you said to ignore the structures of the body, and simply to focus on its outside appearance? Ad hominem and me so great arguments are fallacies, and do not prove anything. Also as a heads up these arguments are against the forum rules so be careful using them.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Hmm, well I hate to feed the trolls but doesn't inductive reasoning suggest that we have no proof of the core? Shouldn't we instead refer to our belief in the core as strong induction, since we detect the core through instruments and not directly observed? I thought science only disproved things... Has science proven anything? I say this with admiration because Swansont went to a bit of trouble to make this point, years ago, and I forget which thread. I have since had arguments with creationists over what qualifies as science, and what science actually posits, in the context of inductive reasoning utilized in the scientific method. Hate to go back and tell them I had it all wrong now. I've been reading Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which covers this quite well. (If you're up for a bit of a trudge through heavy reasoning, check it out, since it's essentially the book on the philosophy of science.) Science indeed cannot conclusively prove any theory of the natural world to be 100% correct. It can, however, quite easily prove any theory to be incorrect, and thus the requirement is that theories be falsifiable, not verifiable. Science doesn't rely on induction. The correct way to go about things is not to say "well, I've seen it work this way for a long time, thus it must be true," because there is no principle of induction that lets us reach that conclusion -- no logical principle that lets us conclude that things will work the same way in the future. Instead, science generates hypotheses making specific predictions. If the predictions are found to contradict reality, that is empirical proof that the hypothesis is wrong. If they are not found to contradict reality, well, that's it; we cannot use induction to prove that they must accurately represent reality, but we also know that in no case has the hypothesis been incorrect. I may be missing some of the details; Popper analyzes this much more extensively than I did. Since when was a mole part of the structure of the human body. Not everyone has moles though... Or was meant to have moles. Moles are certainly part of the body. Now, if you're talking "structure," are you talking about bones, muscles, arteries, or what? Because even in structure, many people have scoliosis, making their spines asymmetrical. That's about as fundamental as you can get. If not everyone's symmetrical, then you were wrong that you have 100% proof that every human is symmetrical, as you claimed earlier.
DJBruce Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 There's something we have 100% proof of. So back track, seeing as we evolved from something, it must of always had this programmed. Actually if I remember my biology correctly I believe the earliest organism belonged to the branch radiata. This would mean that we did not always have two halves perfectly symmetric halves.
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 The main points on the outside of the body. Eyes, We see through them Nostrils, We smell/breathe through them Ears, We hear through them Mouth, We eat through it. (The only important part of our face that isn't made of 2 things. BUT connects at two halves, obviously - put a line down it and its symmetrical) On our body. Arms, We use to pick stuff up, defend ourselves, etc. Legs, We use to move, and other stuff, Pectorils, Gives us structure, I doubt we can live without them Penis, We need it to reproduce, to breed, to survive. (Again, it doesnt have 2 things like the rest of our body; just the 1 thing, connected at 2 halves; put a line down the middle and it would be 2 symmetrical halves) That already looks like this -- -- -- _ -- -- -- _ I'll agree with you guys, if you at least tell me you UNDERSTAND the point I'm trying to make. You're making me feel like I'm the only one who notices this and it's extremely annoying.
DJBruce Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 The main points on the outside of the body. Eyes: (My eyes are not perfectly centered on my head) Nostrils: (I doubt that my nostrils have the same curvature and shape.) Ears: (My left ear has a freckle my right does not) Mouth: (The lines on my lips are not the same on the right side as on the left side) Arms: (My right arm is about .5 cm longer than my left arm) Legs: (I have a mole on my right leg that I do not have on my left hang With all of these examples in mind my body does not have perfect symmetry, and as such your universal statment is invalid. That already looks like this -- -- -- _ -- -- -- _ What the heck does this mean? I'll agree with you guys, if you at least tell me you UNDERSTAND the point I'm trying to make. You're making me feel like I'm the only one who notices this and it's extremely annoying. I will state that the majority of human beings exhibit approximately bilateral symmetry. As for your assertion though that we have perfect symmetry I will say no I will not agree with this at all.
ParanoiA Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 I've been reading Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery' date=' which covers this quite well. (If you're up for a bit of a trudge through heavy reasoning, check it out, since it's essentially the book on the philosophy of science.) Science indeed cannot conclusively prove any theory of the natural world to be 100% correct. It can, however, quite easily prove any theory to be incorrect, and thus the requirement is that theories be falsifiable, not verifiable. Science doesn't rely on induction. The correct way to go about things is not to say "well, I've seen it work this way for a long time, thus it must be true," because there is no principle of induction that lets us reach that conclusion -- no logical principle that lets us conclude that things will work the same way in the future. Instead, science generates hypotheses making specific predictions. If the predictions are found to contradict reality, that is empirical proof that the hypothesis is wrong. If they are not found to contradict reality, well, that's it; we cannot use induction to prove that they must accurately represent reality, but we also know that in no case has the hypothesis been incorrect. I may be missing some of the details; Popper analyzes this much more extensively than I did.[/quote'] Very cool. That's precisely the way I understood it, and pretty close to how I've been arguing it. I mean, we essentially have to imagine how things work and then test to see how close we are. We can only be sure of things not working how we imagined. There's an infinite amount of imagination that could be generated to explain a given thing - and millions of those could be close, but still wrong. How could you ever know your image was the right one? I always refer to Newtonian gravity as an example. And despite that example, I'm always shocked how people think the theory of gravity has been proven. I'm tempted to ask them if there are black swans...
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 If you can't see the symmetry now, then don't worry, Peace out.
Phi for All Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 The main points on the outside of the body. Eyes, We see through them Nostrils, We smell/breathe through them Ears, We hear through them Mouth, We eat through it. (The only important part of our face that isn't made of 2 things. BUT connects at two halves, obviously - put a line down it and its symmetrical) On our body. Arms, We use to pick stuff up, defend ourselves, etc. Legs, We use to move, and other stuff, Pectorils, Gives us structure, I doubt we can live without them Penis, We need it to reproduce, to breed, to survive. (Again, it doesnt have 2 things like the rest of our body; just the 1 thing, connected at 2 halves; put a line down the middle and it would be 2 symmetrical halves) That already looks like this -- -- -- _ -- -- -- _ I'll agree with you guys, if you at least tell me you UNDERSTAND the point I'm trying to make. You're making me feel like I'm the only one who notices this and it's extremely annoying. At first it seemed like your point was that only the most important parts of our body were singular, but then you mention that we probably couldn't live without the structure that our pectoral muscles give us. I guess I'm still not understanding why such symmetry is important to the outside of the body, and why it ties into the rest of what you're discussing. Why is our body symmetry similar to the halves you claim the earth has?
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 no, what i'm saying, is "can you not see" this obvious structure of certain features on the human body. 2 eyes - not essential 2 ears - not essential 2 nostrils - not essential 1 mouth - needed to survive 2 arms - not essential 2 pectorils (could even be Ribs?) - not essential 2 legs - not essential 1 penis - needed to reproduce - - - - - - _ __top___________ bottom - - - - - - _
DJBruce Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 First that is not the shape of a true human being, and does not take into account the numerous variability in a human. Secondly even your drawing does not show perfect symmetry. Upon taking a step back I wanna apologize to rigney for helping hijacking this thread about the Mayan Apocalypse. I would also like to apologize to the moderators in the event that I helped cause them to have to clean up this thread. That being said I feel like the Mayan calender ending does not predict anything about the apocalypse. I feel like this consipracy theory has found a home with the numerous crack pots that inhabit the internet, and ignore the facts
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 And I quote "blah blah blah IGNORANCE blah blah badge, blah blah, i'm so smart hurr" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFirst that is not the shape of a true human being, and does not take into account the numerous variability in a human. Secondly even your drawing does not show perfect symmetry. Upon taking a step back I wanna apologize to rigney for helping hijacking this thread about the Mayan Apocalypse. I would also like to apologize to the moderators in the event that I helped cause them to have to clean up this thread. That being said I feel like the Mayan calender ending does not predict anything about the apocalypse. I feel like this consipracy theory has found a home with the numerous crack pots that inhabit the internet, and ignore the facts Whether it's PERFECT or not, it's still following a obvious routine. You're ignorant to dismiss it. Enjoy hell. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, I leave now, even more assured that I am correct, than I did before x]. It all makes sense now.. Heart, and Heartbeat; I never understood what he meant before, and now I do. I understand every word. I believe in Heaven and Hell. I know that most of you will be visiting the latter. I'm not asking you to believe or preaching in anyway; I'll end this by saying, hope all goes well.
Phi for All Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 no, what i'm saying, is "can you not see" this obvious structure of certain features on the human body. 2 eyes - not essential 2 ears - not essential 2 nostrils - not essential 1 mouth - needed to survive 2 arms - not essential 2 pectorils (could even be Ribs?) - not essential 2 legs - not essential 1 penis - needed to reproduce - - - - - - _ __top___________ bottom - - - - - - _ Are you trying to say that all the essential stuff is on the bottom half (even though you earlier stated, "Pectorils [sic], Gives us structure, I doubt we can live without them" but now state that they're "not essential")? Whether it's PERFECT or not, it's still following a obvious routine. You're ignorant to dismiss it. Enjoy hell."Enjoy hell"?! Is this some kind of religious metaphor you're pushing? Because if you're saying that the two objects in the top half are non-essential and the single object in the bottom half is, what does that say about heaven and hell? I understand now. God and Jesus, in the top half, are non-essential. Satan, located in the bottom half, you can't live without. I get it.
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 Instructions: 1. (Listen to this, Optional)2. Look in mirror. 3. Take note of 'Eyes, Ears, Nose(nostrils), Mouth' 4. Take note of 'Arms, Legs, Chest(pectorils), Penis' 5. Take note of top and bottom symmetry, perfect or not. What you're doing by saying 'It's not perfect', is critizing Gods work, so IF heaven was real, then you wouldn't be going there, as you are not showing your love for God; in fact you're doing the opposite. I'm not saying be religious, but if religion isn't false, you're.... in for some bad times. It's not just religion that effects this. Even Da Vinchi knew it, and so did Einstien. I could even bet Steven Hawkins knew of it. Can you not see the obvious routine of 2 2 2 1mouth 2 2 2 1penis?? After you see that pattern, then move further; but that alone is telling you something. How can you not accept it? Are you guys trolling me? It seems pretty familliar. EDIT: And seeing as I believe in heaven, I'm trying to help, without breaking rules. So don't think I don't care.
DJBruce Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 (edited) And I quote "blah blah blah IGNORANCE blah blah badge, blah blah, i'm so smart hurr" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Whether it's PERFECT or not, it's still following a obvious routine. You're ignorant to dismiss it. Enjoy hell. ll. Ok I was going try and refrain from replying of topic to this thread again, but I feel compelled to defend myself. First, no where in this thread or any other thread have I ever claimed to be the smartest person around, or even to be smart. Secondly, you are the one who stated that humans had perfect symmetry not me. I was simply refuting your claims. I did not dismiss the idea that humans have approximate bilateral symmetry just that the have perfect symmetry as you have stated. Third, I would like to suggest again that you refrain from personal attacks. They get you know where in an argument, and there use cause you to loss a lot of credibility, at least in my eyes. Also as previously pointed out they are against forum rules. I at no point attacked you personally, I simply debated your argument. So please refrain from attacking me. Edited June 30, 2010 by DJBruce Changed Spacing
Klaplunk Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 You're dodging the point, which is offensive to me. You dismiss the blatent truth of humans having two eyes, two nostrils (one nose), two ears, one mouth AND two arms, two legs, two pectorils (one chest), one penis. OF COURSE there are more assets to the human structure, but can you not SEE the point I am making? Even if its wrong, a simple "Yes, we have 2 eyes, etc. and yes, it's kind of symmetric with the body" would do fine. I'm not proving anything, I'm just stating the obvious, and you're telling me I'm stupid or not correct. Look at your responce 'defending' yourself. What do you think I'm doing.
Phi for All Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Can you not see the obvious routine of 2 2 2 1mouth 2 2 2 1penis?? After you see that pattern, then move further; but that alone is telling you something. How can you not accept it? We can't really let you promote your Satanic fellatio cult here on our science forum. I'll split this tangent off from the rest of the 2012 thread and put it in it's own thread, but then I'm going to have to close it. There are kids who come here to learn, you know. Are you guys trolling me?It seems pretty familliar. People have been reporting you for the same thing. But again, we can't let you spread your Satanic poison and talk about your pretty familiar.
Recommended Posts