Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: imachavel]
    #14543523 - 05/31/11 11:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:

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.




I'm sorry, did you miss my post correcting this erroneous usage of the word theory to denot an uncertain hypothesis?  As I said, the term theory does not imply any limit whatsoever to the scientific credibility or usefulness of a hypothesis.  Theory is the accepted sceintific body of work in an area, well tested and verified.  Please try and use the term correctly so that there is not confusion in what people are saying.  It also prevents erroneous argumetns from being made of the type that have been earlire in this thread: "that's only a theory" to discredit a hypothesis or cast doubt on its veracity.


Quote:


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.




Ok, so don't use carbon 14, use another radioisotope.  Who said anything about radiocarbon dating anyways?  It seems like you just picked a random technique and attacked it without showing what the relevance is.

Quote:

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.





Please explain the evidence you have for this.  Who are the people doing radiocarbon dating with a majority not admitting the errors in their techniques?  I've read a number of papers where such has been used for dating, and I've not seen the behavior you suggest, rather, I saw the usual scientific caution: mentioning all conceivable sources of error and limitations on the conclusions drawn.  Where are you getting this from that 'most people in the career" won't admit the limitations of carbon dating?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,414
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214]
    #14543568 - 05/31/11 11:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

oh yes, hypothesis. what i meant to say, correct me please :rolleyes:

it's funny you think a theory is the same thing as a law, because it's not. the theories of nature and laws of nature are not the same thing, neither are well tested observations and absolutely proven observations, the difference between theory and law, i guess i just throw terms around loosely like that :smirk:


--------------------
:kingcrankey: 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!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineimachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,414
Loc: You get banned for saying that Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 14 minutes
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214]
    #14543652 - 06/01/11 12:12 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:



Please explain the evidence you have for this.  Who are the people doing radiocarbon dating with a majority not admitting the errors in their techniques?  I've read a number of papers where such has been used for dating, and I've not seen the behavior you suggest, rather, I saw the usual scientific caution: mentioning all conceivable sources of error and limitations on the conclusions drawn.  Where are you getting this from that 'most people in the career" won't admit the limitations of carbon dating?





well, it depends who they are trying to put away, a lot of times this is used in forensics for a murder case. at times people have had to throw away the 'evidence' that shows how old a body is, because carbon dating couldn't prove a body was a certain amount of years old, and therefore couldn't prove it was a certain person. anyway we are definitely getting off topic.

but back to what I was saying, the THEORY that using another radioactive isotope is going to be completely accurate for..

you know what? let me start over. how old a fossil is, is one thing. i think for certain time periods such as fossils dating back way past 165 million years, back to basic evolution, maybe not quite as old as basic prokaryotic life, but maybe the first amphibians or insects etc. what are we going back to, few hundred million years I think. anyway, at this point, even if i believe there are accurate ways to date how old something is, though i doubt it, as much of whatever you can really observe as an ageable factor to show how old it is, has completely detoriorated or been replaced, STILL, will only explain, at best, the age of something.

now if we are taking about four hundred million year old fossils, do we really have enough evidence to describe how much oxygen there was at that time of the earth. those descriptions, are given by the size of the fossil, in which we can hypothesize, that any fossil of that size, for an insect, must have required a higher oxygen content in the atmosphere, as under no other conditions, could insects of that size lived at that time.

otherwise, we have no real evidence of how much oxygen was in the atmosphere in the early phases of life on earth. it could be the atmosphere was anaerobic(sorry my spelling sucks), or it could be that bacteria in the ocean was producing mass amounts of oxygen being released into the atmosphere over millions of years. there are theories of hypothesis or whatever you call it that the ocean wasn't always salty, if the ocean at one time was a huge pond, who knows what type of bacteria could have lived in it.


--------------------
:kingcrankey: 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!

:facepalm: I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: imachavel]
    #14544217 - 06/01/11 03:13 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

imachavel said:
carbon dating can't tell us everything.




Carbon dating isn't really so central to this argument.

Quote:


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.




This isn't really relevant either.

Quote:


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.




I never said it killed off all life.

Quote:


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.




During the time period we're talking about, there were almost certainly no multicellular organisms.  Certainly nothing with a skeleton.

Quote:


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.





Forget carbon dating for a bit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye] * 1
    #14544220 - 06/01/11 03:15 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The Inner Eye said:
EDIT - Insults removed hahaha :laugh:




Too bad I missed those...

Quote:


THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS DUDE!





:highfive:

Quote:

WERE HERE RIGHT????
WE DONT SHARE ANY PLANT DNA! :facepalm:
DO WE?
Rebuttal?




Did you make a point?  What is there to rebut?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekoraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,691
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Pscientist]
    #14544254 - 06/01/11 03:34 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Pscientist said:
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),



I like your thinking here, there's some interesting things in what you write. Yes, I agree that different life forms depend on each other, and that it's therefore unlikely that any one species could become so dominant that it would effectively decimate all other species. The only possible candidate would be some species that is incredibly far from the top of the food chain. Hence my earlier (some pages ago, actually) statement that in particular some fungus would be more likely to become dominant than a plant. Something that can live off the energy and building blocks it extracts from 'dead' soil. However, in order to become dominant and take over the world, it would also have to be very versatile in terms of its diet: it should be able to live off any sort of 'soil' imaginable: acidic or caustic, hot or cold, dry or wet, in the presence or absence of any sort of trace elements. But dietary versatility is something that I personally associate more with species that are higher up the food chain; the omnivores we know of are all animals! (Although arguably, some carnivorous plants could be called omnivores as well.)

Quote:

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)



Well, alright, but I protest against the implicit assumption of intentionality: you seem to depart from the notion that evolution has some sort of purpose, or it intentionally moves in a particular direction. I don't think this is the case; personally, I believe that the patterns of evolution are an example of emergent structure: random patterns that emerge from the chaotic interactions within an exceedingly complex system, but that may seem intentional to us. I think that's where the proponents of Intelligent Design go wrong; they seem to argue that such beautiful structures and patterns as present in Nature cannot be the product of coincidence. I think they fail to recognize that our appreciation for, and indeed the very recognition of, those patterns is the result of humans being part of this system. Our concept of beauty and our fascination is linked to the nature of life itself. What we perceive as beautiful patterns is in my opinion very likely to be regarded as arcane and purely coincidental phenomena by a (hypothetical) observer that does not originate itself in the ecological, evolutionary system we are part of. It would be an interesting question for the aliens, if they ever come by and prove to be truly alien (and not just siblings who have been lost for a while in space).

Quote:

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)



Given the huge variety of life forms and the related variety of possible mutations, I think that the emergence of a species that creates one particular excess chemical will thereby create a niche for another, new life form to occupy. It will be a matter of time before some life forms will adapt to use that gas, solid or liquid and thrive off it. Very much like the oxygen-based life forms that are dominant today: given an excess of oxygen, life will adapt to use that chemical, simply because of its presence and the flexibility of evolution.

And there we are back at the Oxygenation Event discussion, which is interesting, but sadly revolves too much (in my opinion) about the different definitions the discussants (including myself) have of concepts like theory, hypothesis and science. Interesting as well, but not to me, personally; if the difference between the viewpoints of discussants becomes too much dependent on differences in definitions of terms, then in my opinion the only thing to do is make those different definitions explicit, then compare them, and create common ground by adopting a standard definition. Or accept that different people wield different definitions for the same concept, and end the discussion by 'agreeing to disagree'.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSimms
Fuckwit
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 1,109
Loc: Somewhere in Europe
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Pscientist]
    #14544955 - 06/01/11 09:21 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Pscientist said:
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)




I stopped right there.

What you are missing here, is a very simple fact:

How do you think CO+ lifeforms came to be in the first place. There had to be CO2, and you imply that the only things that produce CO2 are aerobic lifeforms... This is false.

Earth itself creates CO2. There are volcanoes, fires, etc which burn oxygen and create CO2. In fact, volcanic action today produces more CO2 than us.

We would be destoryed if we don't get oxygen, but plants will survive a long time until there are no fires or volcanoues left.

This aspect also creates a doubt in that great oxygenation anaerobic lifeform exstinction theory. However, anaerobic lifeforms are not neccesarily dependent on CO2 specifically, recent discovery shows that there in fact can be life that is not dependent on carbon.


--------------------

Edited by Simms (06/01/11 09:25 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesnoot
look alive ∞
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,641
Loc: 45º parallel Flag
Last seen: 5 days, 16 hours
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: koraks]
    #14545611 - 06/01/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

koraks said:
Quote:

Pscientist said:
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),




I like your thinking here, there's some interesting things in what you write. Yes, I agree that different life forms depend on each other, and that it's therefore unlikely that any one species could become so dominant that it would effectively decimate all other species. The only possible candidate would be some species that is incredibly far from the top of the food chain. Hence my earlier (some pages ago, actually) statement that in particular some fungus would be more likely to become dominant than a plant. Something that can live off the energy and building blocks it extracts from 'dead' soil. However, in order to become dominant and take over the world, it would also have to be very versatile in terms of its diet: it should be able to live off any sort of 'soil' imaginable: acidic or caustic, hot or cold, dry or wet, in the presence or absence of any sort of trace elements. But dietary versatility is something that I personally associate more with species that are higher up the food chain; the omnivores we know of are all animals! (Although arguably, some carnivorous plants could be called omnivores as well.)






that begs the question is the symbiotic relationship absolutely necessary for any life to exist on this planet? I dont think its possible that one plant could take over the world, but perhaps something more simple, maybe a relationship could take over the world;

perhaps if things were to evolve in such a way I totally think such a thing could occur, natures is fairly wild, and a freak accident like that could certainly occur. But nature has a way of finding a balance, and I truly believe that if something of that sort did happen it wouldnt happen for long, relatively long I guess in a geological sense. A comet or something would disrupt it and things would go back to normal.

'immortal jelly'
Quote:

Turritopsis nutricula, the potentially immortal jellyfish, is a hydrozoan whose medusa, or jellyfish, form can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of a metazoan capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary stage.[2][3] It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation. Cell transdifferentiation is when the jellyfish "alters the differentiated state of the cell and transforms it into a new cell." In this process the medusa of the immortal jellyfish is transformed into the polyps of a new polyp colony. First, the umbrella reverts itself and then the tentacles and mesoglea get resorbed. The reverted medusa then attaches itself to the substrate by the end that had been at the opposite end of the umbrella and starts giving rise to new polyps to form the new colony. Theoretically, this process can go on infinitely, effectively rendering the jellyfish biologically immortal,[3][4] although in nature, most Turritopsis, like other medusae, are likely to succumb to predation or disease in the plankton stage, without reverting to the polyp form.[5] No single specimen has been observed for any extended period, so it is not currently possible to estimate the age of an individual, and so even if this species has the potential for immortality, there is no laboratory evidence of many generations surviving from any individual.




'upside down' jelly
Quote:

Apart from its appearance, the upside down jellyfish is unique in another important aspect. Instead of just hunting its own food, the upside down jellyfish depends upon unicellular algae, called zooxanthellae, for partial nutrition. The algae use photosynthesis to create nutrition from sunlight. The nutrition created by the algae is absorbed by the upside down jellyfish for its own survival.

This symbiotic relationship between the upside down jellyfish and the algae is the reason for the upside down nature of the jellyfish. The algae reside inside the bell of the jellyfish and it needs sunlight to photosynthesize food. To enable the algae to access sunlight, the jellyfish floats upside down in water. This is also why the upside down jellyfish resides in shallow water. That way they can settle upside down on the bed of the water body, while providing ample sunlight to the algae inside its bell.




nature has a way of doing amazing things, whos to say something anomalous couldn't occur.


--------------------


∞
I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
- Simone de Beauvoir -

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #14546894 - 06/01/11 05:16 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
Quote:

The Inner Eye said:


WERE HERE RIGHT????
WE DONT SHARE ANY PLANT DNA! :facepalm:
DO WE?
Rebuttal?




Did you make a point?  What is there to rebut?





You must have missed his follow-up post:

Quote:

The Inner Eye said:
[...]

And I do make a valid arguement.

You have made no sense at all... Thank you very much




So, there you have it.  He does make a valid argument- he even says so!


---

Edit:

Quote:

imachavel said:
oh yes, hypothesis. what i meant to say, correct me please :rolleyes:

it's funny you think a theory is the same thing as a law, because it's not. the theories of nature and laws of nature are not the same thing, neither are well tested observations and absolutely proven observations





Where did I suggest a "a theory is the same thing as a law"?  Are you sure you didn't just make that up?

Now you claim that both theory and law lack well tested and proven observational evidence.  Can you substantiate that claim?  Sure seems to describe an unfamiliar definition of the terms to me.  It really seems like you make this up as you go along to justify your prior posts.


Quote:

imachavel said:


well, it depends who they are trying to put away, a lot of times this is used in forensics for a murder case. at times people have had to throw away the 'evidence' that shows how old a body is, because carbon dating couldn't prove a body was a certain amount of years old




So what?  How does the limitations of carbon dating have anything to do with your claim that people in the field of this science misrepresent the limits of the technology, science, and will often conceal such?  That carbon dating was acknowledged as unsuitable for a given situation seems to directly contradict your representation of scientists in the field as dishonest charlatans hiding the flaws of their methods. 

Quote:

but back to what I was saying, the THEORY that using another radioactive isotope is going to be completely accurate for..




What is your point here?  You've not established that anyone believes this, that radioisotope dating is 'completely accurate,' so I don't see how this portion of your post could be relevant at all.  In applications I've seen it used, the results are usually provided like most quantitative analytical results are: with a range of values within some windows defined by the precision of the technique.  This seems to contradict your claim of these techniques misrepresenting themselves as 'absolutely accurate'.


Quote:

now if we are taking about four hundred million year old fossils, do we really have enough evidence to describe how much oxygen there was at that time of the earth. those descriptions, are given by the size of the fossil, in which we can hypothesize, that any fossil of that size, for an insect, must have required a higher oxygen content in the atmosphere, as under no other conditions, could insects of that size lived at that time.

otherwise, we have no real evidence of how much oxygen was in the atmosphere in the early phases of life on earth. it could be the atmosphere was anaerobic(sorry my spelling sucks), or it could be that bacteria in the ocean was producing mass amounts of oxygen being released into the atmosphere over millions of years. there are theories of hypothesis or whatever you call it that the ocean wasn't always salty, if the ocean at one time was a huge pond, who knows what type of bacteria could have lived in it.




How does this have anything to do with the topic or your claim that scientists misrepresent the limitations of carbon dating and often lie about such? 

Also, you claim:
'otherwise we have no real evidence of how much oxygen was in the atmosphere in the early phases of life [other than the size of fossils]
How do you justify this?  What about examining the composition (oxidation states and proportions) of geological matter of the time- couldn't that tell us something about the composition of the atmosphere and the amount of oxygen?  You certainly don't seem to be shy about dismissing out of hand whole fields of research- I'll give you that, but is there any particular reason you've done so?

Edited by johnm214 (06/02/11 03:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,613
Loc: To the limit! Flag
Last seen: 5 hours, 45 minutes
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214]
    #14549179 - 06/02/11 02:21 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

NO! YUO ARE A THEROY!!!!!!!!    :crankey:


--------------------
Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #14549308 - 06/02/11 03:29 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

:laugh:Sorry.:smile:


--------------------

Edited by The Inner Eye (06/02/11 10:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
    #14549998 - 06/02/11 08:52 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

The Inner Eye:

Please review the website rules and note that making personal, insulting, refrences to other posters is generally not allowed.

If you choose to post, please try to stick to the issues at hand.  If you have any personal issues with other members, you may work them out in private or not at all, but you can't make comments like that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: johnm214]
    #14550007 - 06/02/11 08:55 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
The Inner Eye:

Please review the website rules and note that making personal, insulting, refrences to other posters is generally not allowed.

If you choose to post, please try to stick to the issues at hand.  If you have any personal issues with other members, you may work them out in private or not at all, but you can't make comments like that.




Nothing personal about that comment :smile:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
    #14550014 - 06/02/11 08:59 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Nothing personal about the warning :smile2:

No infraction was issued, don't worry bout it.  Just a head's up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: ChuangTzu]
    #14550035 - 06/02/11 09:09 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

ChuangTzu said:
  Nothing is ever proven to be true. 




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
    #14550186 - 06/02/11 10:03 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

This is what I was saying...  The Great Oxygenation Event is a Theory,  Not a fact.  Stoned Ape can be a theory, there just isnt a scale model large enough to do an experiment with, so in this light it can never be proven.  You cant carbon date a brain...  It would take thousands of years, maybe hudreds of thousands of years to witness how the chemical psilocybin would interact with brain chemistry and effect motor skills.  So in short yes John, I stand corrected.  It seems more of a hypothesis for sure and I definitley knew that, just mis-used the word theory as you pointed out.  Also the fact that psilocybin is known (in low doses) to increase visual acuity and have other positive effects that would be desired by evolving primates is a theory shared by many in the science world.  Just because some people agree on it doesnt make it right or wrong, because the truth is that no one knows.  John makes a good point on describing the loose term that is "theory".  Now that i have some time on my hands, I am ready to discuss this all.

I did not mean to offend anyone with my posts.  :cheers:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSimms
Fuckwit
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 1,109
Loc: Somewhere in Europe
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
    #14550228 - 06/02/11 10:23 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

By the way, what many of you are regarding as theory, are hypothesises. Hypothesises are claims that are derived from some kind of empirical or logical facts.
Theories are physically or informatically proven hypothesises.

Theoretical material does not mean Theory, theory can consist of theoretical material, but it is proven in one way or another.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: Simms]
    #14550711 - 06/02/11 12:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Simms said:
By the way, what many of you are regarding as theory, are hypothesises. Hypothesises are claims that are derived from some kind of empirical or logical facts.
Theories are physically or informatically proven hypothesises.

Theoretical material does not mean Theory, theory can consist of theoretical material, but it is proven in one way or another.




Lets just clear it up

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Inner Eye
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/20/10
Posts: 1,151
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye]
    #14550718 - 06/02/11 12:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

conjecture;  problematical: Theories about the extinction of dinosaurs are highly conjectural.

Or, Theories about expanding human conciousness are highly conjectural.

Edited by The Inner Eye (06/02/11 12:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Plants that could kill the enviornment [Re: The Inner Eye] * 1
    #14550746 - 06/02/11 12:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The Inner Eye said:
Quote:

Simms said:
By the way, what many of you are regarding as theory, are hypothesises. Hypothesises are claims that are derived from some kind of empirical or logical facts.
Theories are physically or informatically proven hypothesises.

Theoretical material does not mean Theory, theory can consist of theoretical material, but it is proven in one way or another.




Lets just clear it up

Theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.




That is not what theory means in science.  Theory in science is not conjecture, it is the highest status that a scientific model can achieve.  The earth is round is a theory, life is made of cells is a theory, the earth orbits the sun is a theory.  Scientific theory is not conjecture, it is the result of copious amounts of evidence and discarded hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Arsenic-loving bacteria rewrite photosynthesis rules lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl 500 0 12/11/08 05:46 PM
by lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
* Post deleted by Administrator
( 1 2 3 all )
Alien 8,905 51 11/12/02 04:21 PM
by Anonymous
* Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy pattern 2,132 12 08/20/20 02:03 PM
by nektar61
* Post office and killing seeds reite 959 1 07/20/02 12:35 PM
by postalboy
* PC Speaker Killing Me ricelicker 1,232 13 10/30/04 02:26 PM
by ricelicker
* wow, well it looks like black holes can kill stars. amyloid 1,340 9 02/23/04 11:08 PM
by FrankieJustTrypt
* The chem book I promised rommstein2001 8,039 4 10/01/03 07:52 PM
by Le_Canard
* Oil from agricultural waste? phi1618 1,251 6 05/22/04 06:33 PM
by Asante

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
4,524 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 14 queries.