|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on May 8, 2008 18:44:27 GMT
hellyp I believe (my scientific theory) that individual trees have differing intelligence levels. For example some are stupid and expand their branches in a way that results in a major un equal balance, making them very unstable... Some tree's are more intelligent because they spread their branches symmetrically, which makes them very stable. I have studied thousands of trees to derive at this conclusion. Will you contradict me now or offer me an explanation as to why tree's are not intelligent ?? Hmmm very interesting. Although I am greatly impressed by your 'research', I must inform you of a small oversight which may affect the validity of your 'theory'. It's such a tiny thing that I hesitsate to even mention it. It's so miniscule that it will probably be considered to be a very petty thing by the scientific community. Nevertheless, I humbly offer up this minute spec of insignificance for your consideration. Intelligence requires a BRAIN, something which I am almost completely sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) that trees lack. So I guess that falls into the second part of your question - offering of an explanation as to why trees are not intelligent. Christ almighty. Intelligence......... hmmm, that is interesting. You are intelligent because you have a brain (full stop)! So tell me what the anti-matter in your head is and where it comes from ? where it goes to when your head is gone ? is there any intelligence controlling it ? |
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on May 8, 2008 18:52:09 GMT
Your opinion means less than nothing to me, please convert your faux pity into a desire to educate yourself.  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on May 8, 2008 21:14:59 GMT
100% verification of a pointless troll posting. Congratulations. If this is the best the woo brigade has to offer in the form of a shock troop. I would posit the "war" will be over really soon  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on May 8, 2008 21:24:49 GMT
there is also proof if you research, stating that man has not walked on the moon. All to do with shadows from light sources etc. Apparently ?? There is no "proof", there is however conjecture and unfounded innacurate conspiracy theory. mysticsl1m Im afraid Im going to suspend your account for one month, this will give you ample time to consider your future here. We do not need another idiotic troll who contributes nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by john on May 8, 2008 21:31:32 GMT
there is also proof if you research, stating that man has not walked on the moon. All to do with shadows from light sources etc. Apparently ?? There is no "proof", there is however conjecture and unfounded innacurate conspiracy theory. mysticsl1m Im afraid Im going to suspend your account for one month, this will give you ample time to consider your future here. We do not need another idiotic troll who contributes nothing. As I read some of these postings I could not help but wonder why anyone bothered trying to make a point with a conspiracy theorist! One month? Perhaps someone could start a thread on the wierdest conspiracy theory ever. We have a good start! |
|
|
|
Post by Dippy on May 9, 2008 8:36:24 GMT
Personally I believe all the conspiracy stuff that comes each week in Headcases. I mean come on it is evident that a white Uno killed all the dinasaurs......haha they are class. That naughty Prince Philip ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on May 9, 2008 9:13:31 GMT
Hmmm very interesting. Although I am greatly impressed by your 'research', I must inform you of a small oversight which may affect the validity of your 'theory'. It's such a tiny thing that I hesitsate to even mention it. It's so miniscule that it will probably be considered to be a very petty thing by the scientific community. Nevertheless, I humbly offer up this minute spec of insignificance for your consideration. Intelligence requires a BRAIN, something which I am almost completely sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) that trees lack. So I guess that falls into the second part of your question - offering of an explanation as to why trees are not intelligent. Christ almighty. That's it. I'm glad you understand. Woah, nelly. Not so fast there. You made a sneaky little claim there, didn't you. You claimed that there is 'anti-matter' in my head. Before we progress any further, we need to establish it's there. I'll help you get started. I believe that you are confusing the PET scan which enables an image of your brain to be viewed, and uses antimatter science to convert grey matter into an observable picture, and concluding that you have antimatter naturally present in your brain. Since whenever matter meets antimatter they annihilate each other and convert into energy, I put it to you that it would be impossible for antimatter to live cosily side by side with the matter in my brain. Oh - and by the way, there are no naturally occurring antimatter atoms. Over to you. Perhaps you could include your own theory when you post evidence of the existence of anti-matter in my brain. See above. Is there any intelligence controling the substance (well, antisubstance) in my head which may or may not be there? Well that's a straightforward question to answer if ever I saw one. I'll skip ahead a little to save time. If there is anti-matter in my head which is being controlled by an outward source, after you explain the mechanics behind this (in other words how an outside force uses antimatter to control an organism), please explain to me how this would strengthen your case that some trees are intelligent because they know to grow in a nice shape. |
|
|
|
Post by britishsceptic on Nov 6, 2008 18:24:14 GMT
Hi lowrider, im likely tilling old ground but shall attempt to answer your statement ad make explanation, however if it comes across crap its because I sometimes find it hard to articulate on forums, sorry. !st Science is a method not a position, I feel we agree on this point. Science is a tool used for the purpose of inquiry and investigation and like it or hate it is the best tool we currently have. Therefore science is not wong, that would be like saying the hammer is wrong when the nail bends as it goes in the wood. It is the people that use the tools of science, scientists, that may be mistaken. There are multitudes of reasons for this, main ones being controls not tight enough to remove cognitive biases, especially when dealing with more ethereal subjects such as psychic abilities etc. So scientists in the past have been have been ver wrong, read John Grants 2 books, Discarded science and corrupted science. Undoubtedly scientists have met the same reactions that mediums now do, one is Charles Darwin who had to fight the scientific community tooth and nail to get his theory of evoltion accepted as mainstream science. Unfortunately this is the way of science, if mediums/psychics want to be accepted mainstream they have to proffer a weight of solid evidence to go over the tipping point, as Darwin had to provide. I also encounter people that say scientists were wrong before therefore they are wrong about psychic abilities. This is a false dichotomy and stems frm argument from ignorance in that they make a false correlation. As a sceptic all I can say is if a medium can get their work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal then thats a bloody good start, unfortunately applying the tool of science and many sceptical debunkers, such as Harry Houdini ve only uncovered fraud after fraud. To apply mathematical probability calculus to the problem, the chance of finding evidence of a 'genuine ability' psychic/medium is negligible. The burden of proof is not on the scientists, it is on the psychics to come forth and deliver the goods, something to my knowledge no one has done. Again yes the tool may be damaged, the user may not have good enough controls, but it is argument from ignorance to use that to say therefore psychic ability exists. I can concede it may exist, science is cotinuosly pushing the boundaries of Brain research through psychology and neuroscience and maybe in 100 years time they will have evidence of Psi ability, as long as you can conde at this present moment in time there is no empirical evidence recorded of Psi ability.  Cheers, Den. |
|
|
|
Post by britishsceptic on Nov 6, 2008 18:27:41 GMT
Rats!!!! Just replied to a post that was at the very beginning of this thread, sorry chaps, im replying to page one and its ended up here  Need to get used to this forum lol, Cheers, Den |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 7, 2008 14:16:09 GMT
It was a good post Den so its ok.
Lowrider is long gone from this forum, but this is still may favourite thread on the whole forum.
The very first post Welcome to Science, is pure genius
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerlilywhite on Jun 28, 2009 19:23:56 GMT
Science gives me the woo woo factor. I love it! I live it! I'm studying it for my degree! Life IS science! I know this thread's been a bit quiet of late but I simply had to have my tuppence worth! Science is very much like evolution. It's constantly changing and adapting to new discoveries. Can't really say that about religion or spiritualism. I was bought up a spiritulist, until I was old enough to read some science books then realised just how wrong those people were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Dec 12, 2013 15:51:23 GMT
|
|
