|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#14539243 - 05/31/11 04:40 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Wow you guys are childish.... I guess nothing is proven actual factual. I guess we can just make shit up and believe it to be true.. Awesome.
You know one time the world was a giant marshmallow and there were rivers of chocolate milk that flowed freely, and everyone was happy and fat. Just this theory i've been working on.
Edited by The Inner Eye (05/31/11 04:48 AM)
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: koraks]
#14539245 - 05/31/11 04:42 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said: /edit: I wrote something here, but it's all just theory. A dream within a dream.
Great edition... Thanks for clarifying.
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14539247 - 05/31/11 04:46 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said: ]
How sophomoric. This is a science forum--everything is presumed to be "in theory". Get over it. That's no way to live your life, son.
What you stated was wrong and falsified information... Get over it, were all wrong sometimes. Youre the one being sophmoric.
Edited by The Inner Eye (05/31/11 04:52 AM)
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14539270 - 05/31/11 04:59 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Inner Eye said:
Quote:
koraks said: /edit: I wrote something here, but it's all just theory. A dream within a dream.
Great edition... Thanks for clarifying.
The reason I edited my post is because I believe it doesn't make sense to discuss this issue with you. Saying that everything is just theory is very much like saying that 'God moves in mysterious ways': it's an end-all to any discussion, and an excuse for not exploring a subject any further. I respect your apparent opinion that any scientific discovery should be drawn into doubt, and although I agree that almost any theory leaves room for considerable doubt, I would have liked to hear your arguments as to why this theory in particular would be doubtful. That was what I was prying at in my first post, but alas, you failed to become specific.
I still welcome discussion, and I'm very willing to discuss with you the philosophical underpinnings of science, the concept of truth and the shortcomings of the scientific method; all these topics are valid, and discussing them is a useful means of exploring what the limitations of science are and how science could be improved. But just saying that "anything that hasn't been proven, should not be accepted to be true", that doesn't add much to the debate. We passed that mark some 3,000 years ago.
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: koraks]
#14539326 - 05/31/11 05:31 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
The Inner Eye said:
Quote:
koraks said: /edit: I wrote something here, but it's all just theory. A dream within a dream.
Great edition... Thanks for clarifying.
The reason I edited my post is because I believe it doesn't make sense to discuss this issue with you. Saying that everything is just theory is very much like saying that 'God moves in mysterious ways': it's an end-all to any discussion, and an excuse for not exploring a subject any further. I respect your apparent opinion that any scientific discovery should be drawn into doubt, and although I agree that almost any theory leaves room for considerable doubt, I would have liked to hear your arguments as to why this theory in particular would be doubtful. That was what I was prying at in my first post, but alas, you failed to become specific.
I still welcome discussion, and I'm very willing to discuss with you the philosophical underpinnings of science, the concept of truth and the shortcomings of the scientific method; all these topics are valid, and discussing them is a useful means of exploring what the limitations of science are and how science could be improved. But just saying that "anything that hasn't been proven, should not be accepted to be true", that doesn't add much to the debate. We passed that mark some 3,000 years ago.
Ive obviously made myself misunderstood. Allow me to clarify. I do not believe the Great Oxygenation Event did not happen, but as to whether or not plants destroyed every other living thing on this planet is a theory... This is what I was referring to when i posted the above "The rising oxygen levels may have wiped out a huge portion of the Earth's anaerobic inhabitants at the time. From their perspective it was a catastrophe (hence the name)." I think it is a great theory for why we have this oxygen rich atmosphere. Calling me a religious zealot (which is not true) and saying I am not clarifying myself is due to your poor communication and sarcasm.... Im sorry if I confusd you.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye] 1
#14539432 - 05/31/11 06:14 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for clarifying that, and for pinpointing the aspect of this particular theory that you have issues with. I think you're right at that: it is questionable exactly which species were wiped out to what extent because of this particular event (or better: transformation of the biosphere), and it is also unclear what other contributing causes may have been present. There is room for doubt in the Great Oxygenation Event hypothesis, although following Occam's Razor, it seems like a plausible explanation.
Quote:
Calling me a religious zealot (which is not true) and saying I am not clarifying myself is due to your poor communication and sarcasm
The allegation of poor communication is just false. I won't have that. I think that for a non-native speaker, I'm doing a fairly good job at pointing out the conceptual problems I have with some posts on here.
Also, I didn't call you a religious zealot, but I did compare your earlier statement to those made by some religious people, as your statement and those of the zealots share one characteristic: they tend to prevent further discussion, and are sometimes used specifically for that purpose. That's a different thing than calling you a religious zealot, and although I'm aware that any comparison can be shot down because of its flaws, I have been careful not to put you down as some religious ignoramus. I'm not aware of your religious beliefs and judging by what you wrote in this topic, they don't seem particularly relevant to the subject at hand. I apologize for the sarcasm however, you're right on that. That was unnecessary. Has something to do with being mildly frustrated at work atm. No biggie, and not your fault. Shouldn't take it out on you, sorry!
Quote:
Seuss said: A bit off topic, but, I am surprised that English is not your native language. Your presentation is better than most native English speakers.
Thanks m8, I work in academia, so a lot of the personal communication and writing I'm involved in are in English, so it's a bit of a necessity.
Edited by koraks (05/31/11 10:52 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: koraks]
#14540063 - 05/31/11 10:27 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
> I think that for a non-native speaker, I'm doing a fairly good job at pointing out the conceptual problems I have with some posts on here.
A bit off topic, but, I am surprised that English is not your native language. Your presentation is better than most native English speakers.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Le_Canard]
#14540161 - 05/31/11 10:56 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Yes, they changed the environment. Some organisms died out but others arose to take their place.
Obviously, that's why we're here.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14540235 - 05/31/11 11:15 AM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: Wow you guys are childish.... I guess nothing is proven actual factual. I guess we can just make shit up and believe it to be true.. Awesome.
You know one time the world was a giant marshmallow and there were rivers of chocolate milk that flowed freely, and everyone was happy and fat. Just this theory i've been working on.
I'm unsure what point you have been arguing for or against. Nothing is ever proven to be true. Things can only be proven false or remain in a state of not having been proven false. Some things, however, are very likely, and some nearly impossible to be true. Science deals with determining what is most probably true according to our current level of knowledge and with increasing our knowledge in a way which allows us to better guess the probability of the truth of the things we believe. Hence, everything that hasn't been proven false yet is "in theory" but to preface everything with that gets stale and tiresome, so it's assumed.
If you have any particular reason to doubt that most of life on earth was destroyed during the great oxygenation event, then please discuss it. To merely pop into the middle of a thread and remind us all that we weren't around back then to witness it so it's therefore just a theory doesn't add anything to the discussion that hasn't been hashed out in a thousand other threads.
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14540553 - 05/31/11 01:03 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: Wow you guys are childish.... I guess nothing is proven actual factual. I guess we can just make shit up and believe it to be true.. Awesome.
You know one time the world was a giant marshmallow and there were rivers of chocolate milk that flowed freely, and everyone was happy and fat. Just this theory i've been working on.
I'm unsure what point you have been arguing for or against. Nothing is ever proven to be true. Things can only be proven false or remain in a state of not having been proven false. Some things, however, are very likely, and some nearly impossible to be true. Science deals with determining what is most probably true according to our current level of knowledge and with increasing our knowledge in a way which allows us to better guess the probability of the truth of the things we believe. Hence, everything that hasn't been proven false yet is "in theory" but to preface everything with that gets stale and tiresome, so it's assumed.
If you have any particular reason to doubt that most of life on earth was destroyed during the great oxygenation event, then please discuss it. To merely pop into the middle of a thread and remind us all that we weren't around back then to witness it so it's therefore just a theory doesn't add anything to the discussion that hasn't been hashed out in a thousand other threads.
EDIT - Insults removed hahaha 
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS DUDE!
"If you have any particular reason to doubt that most of life on earth was destroyed during the great oxygenation event, then please discuss it." Chuang wang
WERE HERE RIGHT???? WE DONT SHARE ANY PLANT DNA!  DO WE? Rebuttal?
Edited by The Inner Eye (05/31/11 01:13 PM)
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14540569 - 05/31/11 01:08 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Im just trying to help people sound smarter... I know its a long shot. You should always clarify your belief from proven scientific fact.. I believe, I theorize, or I think sounds much better than, "this is what happened."
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14540574 - 05/31/11 01:08 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Koraks, your english skills are excellent. Kudos.
Edit - No worries Koraks, I appreciate your opinion and posts.
Edited by The Inner Eye (05/31/11 01:14 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
#14540660 - 05/31/11 01:37 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Inner Eye said:
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: In theory...
That's right. Because we all know that the Earth was Created some 6,000 years ago by God.
But apart from my lame attempt at a joke, what makes you doubt the oxygenation event? I mean, I'm no expert, but to me at least the concept has face validity.
Sure it does.... In theory.
Look man, im not disagreeing with you, but you cant go around saying this stuff like its a proven fact. Thats what science is, and until you bring forth conclusive evidence than I will always say "in theory".
?
You seem to be using 'theory' as a disparaging term for some reason. Do you understand what the word means? It doesn't seem so, and your apparent misuse of the term makes it difficult to understand what your objections here are.
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: The theory of Terence Mckennas's stoned apes has validity to it as well.... Not the most popular view in the scientific world.
How is this a theory? For someone criticizing accepted events like those brought up previously (the oxygenation caused by plant success) and calling them a 'theory', you seem to have a pretty liberal criteria for etermining what is a valid theory.
How is this 'stoned apes' idea a theory? It doesn't sound scientific at all: what falsifiable predictions does it make? How can we confirm or disprove it? What evidence is it premised upon? Seems like simply an interpretation of known facts that has no scientific usefulness, just as interpreting the world's forces to be mediated by tiny elephants would have no utility.
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
I'm unsure what point you have been arguing for or against. Nothing is ever proven to be true. Things can only be proven false or remain in a state of not having been proven false.
well, with things that aren't historical events you can do experiments to prove matters. These may provide proof, though I'm not sure if "the inner eye" is making some conflation of scientific proof with infinite certainty or not. Obviously if he is, his objection is silly.
Quote:
The Inner Eye said:
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS DUDE!
"If you have any particular reason to doubt that most of life on earth was destroyed during the great oxygenation event, then please discuss it." Chuang wang
WERE HERE RIGHT???? WE DONT SHARE ANY PLANT DNA!  DO WE? Rebuttal?
You've not provided an argument, so not rebuttal is neccesary. You simply allege various facts, what exactly is the argument your implying these facts support? Nobody argued that humans have 'plant DNA' so its unclear what point your trying to make.
Also: please don't make fun of people's names, if that's what you were doing.
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214] 1
#14540691 - 05/31/11 01:47 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I dont think you know what a theory is......
Stoned ape is a theory...
And I do make a valid arguement.
You have made no sense at all... Thank you very much
|
The Inner Eye



Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye] 1
#14540696 - 05/31/11 01:48 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
No sense at all.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye] 1
#14540817 - 05/31/11 02:12 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Inner Eye said: I dont think you know what a theory is......
Stoned ape is a theory...
And I do make a valid arguement.
You have made no sense at all... Thank you very much
Yes, I understand what you are claiming, there is no need to repeat yourself. The question is, rather, what basis you have for those things you've said. I've asked what your point is and how the "stoned ape" idea you reference is a theory: how it predicts falsifiable phenomena, and so on, any you've not provided any answer or otherwise justified your claim. While you've responded questioning my understanding of the term theory, you once more fail to provide any basis for this claim.
Your assurance that you make valid arguments isn't helpful in understanding what your point is. For example: your naked statement that humans do not contain plant dna is a factual assertion, it contains neither argument nor conclusion- it isn't even contradictory to anything others have said, so it seems doubtful there's anything to rebut at all. If you have a relevant point, its not clear what it is.
Finally: you say I have made no sense at all, but you have failed to identify any portion of my post which is confusing, and so I'll presume this is just a pretext to avoid addressing the problems with your claims.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,375
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 14 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14541257 - 05/31/11 03:33 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said: Plants (and I'm using the term loosely to refer to anything that photosynthesizes) have already "killed the environment" once in history. When plants first evolved, all life on earth was anaerobic and the atmosphere was very oxygen-poor. When photosynthesis evolved, plants started kicking so much ass that they completely changed the atmosphere on earth by filling it with oxygen for the first time. This killed off nearly all other life on the planet.
See Great oxygenation event
this isn't entirely true, as this took place over a process of millions of years, and eventually life evolved to adapt to it. In fact, insects used to be the size of humans, because of the fact that there was so much oxygen, they had larger lungs. insects and amphibians were definitely the first life forms on earth to evolve after simpler organisms such as plants, fungi, and of course prokaryotes.
insects evolved over millions of years into tiny animals when the oxygen content started lowering.
also, before plants created oxygen, it can only be theorized that the earth was aneoribic. it's theorized that before there was any life besides prokaryotes and simple bacteria, that there were bacteria like sacks growing in the ocean, that created oxygen, and over millions of years, filled the atmosphere with it.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: imachavel]
#14541590 - 05/31/11 04:38 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Koraks: I, too, also never would have guessed that you were a non-native English speaker. I echo Seuss's sentiments that your much better spoken for than the average person in my area- composed of native English speakers. The poster in question has also said my posts don't make sense, so I wouldn't take it personally: I think that's just a generic insult he's using to avoid the substance of any argument he dislikes.
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said: Plants (and I'm using the term loosely to refer to anything that photosynthesizes) have already "killed the environment" once in history. When plants first evolved, all life on earth was anaerobic and the atmosphere was very oxygen-poor. When photosynthesis evolved, plants started kicking so much ass that they completely changed the atmosphere on earth by filling it with oxygen for the first time. This killed off nearly all other life on the planet.
See Great oxygenation event
this isn't entirely true, as this took place over a process of millions of years, and eventually life evolved to adapt to it.
I don't understand your argument here. How does your conclusion follow from those facts: that it took place over some amount of time and that life evolved to adapt to the change? What does that have to do with whether Chaung Tzu's statement is correct?
Quote:
also, before plants created oxygen, it can only be theorized that the earth was aneoribic.
As i stated previously, the term theory does not refer to a doubtful claim or one based on conjecture. I understand the other poster, The Inner Eye, has been misusing the term, despite apparently knowing what it means, but please try not to follow his error: it leads to confusing statements like this one. It makes no sense to refer to something as 'only' a theory because the quality of being a theory does not denote any limit on the scientific credibility of the idea at all.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,375
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 14 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214]
#14541698 - 05/31/11 05:04 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just saying aside from carbon dating fossils, everything thing else in the history of earths development is theory. we only can make very good hypothesis based on the evidence of chemistry and how things are now, and the process of elimination, that if things work in a certain way, they most likely developed like this.
carbon dating can't tell us everything.
we know there was a period in the earths development where the atmosphere had a much higher percentage of oxygen, what caused this, and exactly how it effected life back then, can only be described by what evidence we have thus far. and cannot be described in great specifity.
they have found fossils of extremely large insects. they know that they lived in the period of time when the earth had a much great oxgen content in the atmosphere. so automatically the original poster is wrong saying this oxygen killed off all life.
much of what we know is still theory, only a few basic things can be stated as fact because, scientifically, there is no other way it could take place.
but some people take carbon dating as extremely good evidence of how things evolved. to an extent it can tell us a lot, but only based on what you can study from that aspect.
carbon dating is extremely accurate for going back through long periods of time, it can tell us a lot of things about history millions of years ago.
but think of it, a lot of the life that happened back in the beginning of earths history, can't reveal much through carbon dating. as some of those fossils have completely replaced all of the bone with carbon, and there is nothing left of the original skeleton, except the imprint.
also, carbon dating in forensics, often doesn't mean shit. if someone died 50 years ago, and they try and carbon date the skeleton, if it was THAT recent, and not THOUSANDS of years old, there is often a margin for error, that can be 40 years.
like I said, carbon dating is REALLY accurate, so much so that when carbon dating millions of year old skeletons, often times you can date the time the creature died up to a pin point century mark.
in that scenario, a 40 year margin of error is EXTREMELY accurate when guessing something that is that old. but for something recent, that doesn't mean shit. although people will tell you other wise, why wouldn't they? most people in the career field they are in, won't ever admit that the ways they go about their sluething, is most likely going to be riddled with errors.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
Pscientist
KushKaptain




Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 2,679
Loc: Sirius X1
Last seen: 11 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: imachavel]
#14542104 - 05/31/11 06:48 PM (12 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
this thread is way off topic,
nature is about symbiosis, if one plant killed everything on earth, somehow, and it was a plant we know today, which requires CO2 to survive, it would also die ( there would be no animals to produce CO2), and this is entirely contradictory to natural selection and evolution, meaning, a organism will not attempt to destroy itself, but rather proliferate itself to pass on its genes ( this is not counting freak mutations that may, and can arise) however a freak mutation could potentially, but very improbably arise that created some form of gas, solid or liquid capable of destroying everything, but it woulndt spread fast or far enough, but hypothetically it COULD happen, just as hypothetically life COULD arise from an individual self-replicating molecule (possibly from space)
therefore I think it is improbable, and if it did happen, that plant has long since been lost in the anals of natural selection along with a variety of other flora and fauna who couldn't survive with darwinian natural selection such as the wooly mammoth and sabre toothed tiger
in conclusion, yes, anything can happen, anything is probable on the universal scale
say the probability of this happening is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000
then we can probably hypothesize that it has happened once on another planet( due to the number of planets and sheer size of the universe, as well as the amount of time we can only attempt to even fathom that its been here) at least, doesnt make it true, but mathematics will tell us its possible
the number of trials and trial time is infinite in the scale of the universe and largely improbable things suddenly become probable, like your existence 
my 2 c
-------------------- Any information posted on this website from this account is hypothetical and only to be used for legal purposes.
|
|