Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 04:51:43 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 »
  Print  
Author Topic: The Bitcoin Show on OnlyOneTV.com  (Read 49072 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 15, 2011, 05:23:50 AM
 #521

I don't agree with schools teaching evolution as fact, when it is only theory. The evolution theory is based on assumptions which can't be proven.

 Roll Eyes


'Theory', 'hypothesis'  are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. e.g. the theory of evolution.  A hypothesis  is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. e.g. "This idea is only a hypothesis".  

I always remind those who claim that evolution is "only a theory" that gravity is, too.

There is no accepted theory of gravity, only mathmatical models that describe and predict it, generally.  We actually know that those models are wrong at the galaxy scale, because galaxies don't rotate at a rate that is consistant with our models.  There is, in fact, no generally accepted theory as to what gravity actually is yet that doesn't detract from our acceptance that such a force of nature exists, because we can all easily observe it's effects as well as predict it's results.

I know that you guys might consider that semantics, but I bet you all have heard a general explaination of how evolutionary theory works; but if you had any credible explaination of what gravity is (as opposed to how it acts) then I'd be very impressed.  The truth is, that even Darwin stated that his theory of evolution was based upon several assumptions that couldn't be demonstrated in his day, one in particular that has been proven incorrect.  That premise was that natural selection (which is a process that can be proven to exist) is the only process by which new species are created.  This has never been demostrated, and likely cannot, even though natural selection is undoubtedly the dominate process of species change.  The proof is in the details of "irreducible complexity".  Said simply, if there is any species with any features that couldn't be developed by natural selection (within any reasonable probability of mutations occuring in the same individual organism) then Evolutionary theory is disproven.  There exist hundreds of such examples, a couple dozen of which are bluntly obvious.  But first, a link that smacks of a quote here....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-defies-the-odds/

<snip>

Natural selection is, of course, a real force of nature, as demonstrated by the development of drug resistance by the malaria microbe through purely Darwinian processes. But, as Michael Behe​ has convincingly demonstrated, the power of natural selection is limited. Natural selection can provide a selective advantage by degrading a genome, as it does in the malaria example. But its power to BUILD a complex genome has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. In fact, the laboratory has shown as that over countless trillions of reproductive events, natural selection has NOT created complex new additions to the genome.

When Darwin observed the beaks of Galapagos finches, he was observing small changes in an organism’s phenotype (i.e., the organism’s body plan) that gave the organism a selective advantage and thereby increased its predominance in the population. From this observation Darwin made an inference that has literally changed the world. He inferred that the same process was responsible for creating finches in the first place. Obviously, Darwin did not observe this process create finches. He reasoned, however, that a process that could create one small change in a population of organisms could create other small changes, and over time, those changes would accumulate, and when sufficient changes had accumulated over a long enough time, an entirely new species would emerge. This entirely natural process, Darwin reasoned, was responsible for the creation of all life, from the first single-celled organism on though to human beings themselves.

The important thing always to keep in mind is this: “Darwin inferred . . .” Again, Darwin did not observe one species morphing into another through the process of natural selection. The finches remained finches. They did not change into another kind of bird, much less another kind of species altogether. Nor has anyone since Darwin observed a species morph into another.

The main point is that the power of natural selection to create large, as opposed to small, changes in the genotype and the phenotype of organisms remains, to this day, an inference from the data, not the data itself. If any NDE proponent commenting on this post disputes this assertion, I invite him or her to cite a single example of one species being observed changing into another since Origin of Species​ was published in 1859.

This gets me back to our discussion of probability. As I said, NDE proponents assume that natural selection has the power to beat the odds and create, for example, highly complex and specified strands of DNA, the creation of which is beyond the power of mere chance. But since no one has ever observed natural selection create complex changes in a strand of DNA (much less create the strand of DNA from scratch in the first place), how can NDE proponents be so dead certain of the staggering, almost God-like powers of creation they attribute to natural selection? One would think they would be more modest in their claims for a process that has never actually been observed. Instead, they bombastically assert that their theory has the same epistemological standing as the theory of gravity.

<snip>

The Theory of Evolution, despite teh provable existance of a process of natural selection, is not equatable with theories of physics that describe gravity.

Dr. Jobe Martin is a former devotee to Evolutionary Theory, who was challenged by his students to prove that it was correct, and by attempting to do so and failing, began to be convinced of the alternative.  He has produced a number of videos that document species that have irreduciblely complex features that could not have arisen by natural selction (that is, could not have aided the organism in surviving to reproduce) unless those features could have arisen simultaniously, an event that is roughly comparable to an address collision in bitcoin.  (not impossible, but astronomicly unlikely given the time frame).  His most famous subject is the cuddlefish, whose active camo is so advanced that it uses it to put it's prey, literally, into a trance.  Yet, if it's camo wasn't almost as advanced as it is, then it's prey wouldn't have been dazzeled.  Since the cuddlefish is neither fast enough to catch it's prey, nor it's prey being defenseless otherwise, the cuddlefish would have starved to death or pursued easier prey.  Neither path leads to the present condition under natural selcetion alone, thus evolutionary theory is either incomplete or completely inaccurate.  Other such examples include the girraffe, a mussle that requires the intervention of a particular species of minnow to reproduce, and a species of cave insect that only exists in the Mammoth Cave system with no apparent relatives anywhere else.  Now this doesnt' p[rove anything either, and Dr. Martin has chosen ID as his alternative theory, which certainly can be wrong.  But to assume that the current state of science is correct, in the face of history, is simply assurting another ideology.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481129503
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481129503

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481129503
Reply with quote  #2

1481129503
Report to moderator
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 15, 2011, 05:27:23 AM
 #522

I don't agree with schools teaching evolution as fact, when it is only theory. The evolution theory is based on assumptions which can't be proven.

Seriously? Are we REALLY going down this debate road? This is way too hillbilly territory for me...  Tongue
Though by the age of the poster, could be a troll. -.-

edd
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
October 15, 2011, 06:31:20 AM
 #523

I don't agree with schools teaching evolution as fact, when it is only theory. The evolution theory is based on assumptions which can't be proven.

 Roll Eyes


'Theory', 'hypothesis'  are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena. e.g. the theory of evolution.  A hypothesis  is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth. e.g. "This idea is only a hypothesis".  

I always remind those who claim that evolution is "only a theory" that gravity is, too.

There is no accepted theory of gravity, only mathmatical models that describe and predict it, generally.  We actually know that those models are wrong at the galaxy scale, because galaxies don't rotate at a rate that is consistant with our models.  There is, in fact, no generally accepted theory as to what gravity actually is yet that doesn't detract from our acceptance that such a force of nature exists, because we can all easily observe it's effects as well as predict it's results.

I know that you guys might consider that semantics, but I bet you all have heard a general explaination of how evolutionary theory works; but if you had any credible explaination of what gravity is (as opposed to how it acts) then I'd be very impressed.  The truth is, that even Darwin stated that his theory of evolution was based upon several assumptions that couldn't be demonstrated in his day, one in particular that has been proven incorrect.  That premise was that natural selection (which is a process that can be proven to exist) is the only process by which new species are created.  This has never been demostrated, and likely cannot, even though natural selection is undoubtedly the dominate process of species change.  The proof is in the details of "irreducible complexity".  Said simply, if there is any species with any features that couldn't be developed by natural selection (within any reasonable probability of mutations occuring in the same individual organism) then Evolutionary theory is disproven.  There exist hundreds of such examples, a couple dozen of which are bluntly obvious.  But first, a link that smacks of a quote here....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-defies-the-odds/

<snip>

Natural selection is, of course, a real force of nature, as demonstrated by the development of drug resistance by the malaria microbe through purely Darwinian processes. But, as Michael Behe​ has convincingly demonstrated, the power of natural selection is limited. Natural selection can provide a selective advantage by degrading a genome, as it does in the malaria example. But its power to BUILD a complex genome has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. In fact, the laboratory has shown as that over countless trillions of reproductive events, natural selection has NOT created complex new additions to the genome.

When Darwin observed the beaks of Galapagos finches, he was observing small changes in an organism’s phenotype (i.e., the organism’s body plan) that gave the organism a selective advantage and thereby increased its predominance in the population. From this observation Darwin made an inference that has literally changed the world. He inferred that the same process was responsible for creating finches in the first place. Obviously, Darwin did not observe this process create finches. He reasoned, however, that a process that could create one small change in a population of organisms could create other small changes, and over time, those changes would accumulate, and when sufficient changes had accumulated over a long enough time, an entirely new species would emerge. This entirely natural process, Darwin reasoned, was responsible for the creation of all life, from the first single-celled organism on though to human beings themselves.

The important thing always to keep in mind is this: “Darwin inferred . . .” Again, Darwin did not observe one species morphing into another through the process of natural selection. The finches remained finches. They did not change into another kind of bird, much less another kind of species altogether. Nor has anyone since Darwin observed a species morph into another.

The main point is that the power of natural selection to create large, as opposed to small, changes in the genotype and the phenotype of organisms remains, to this day, an inference from the data, not the data itself. If any NDE proponent commenting on this post disputes this assertion, I invite him or her to cite a single example of one species being observed changing into another since Origin of Species​ was published in 1859.

This gets me back to our discussion of probability. As I said, NDE proponents assume that natural selection has the power to beat the odds and create, for example, highly complex and specified strands of DNA, the creation of which is beyond the power of mere chance. But since no one has ever observed natural selection create complex changes in a strand of DNA (much less create the strand of DNA from scratch in the first place), how can NDE proponents be so dead certain of the staggering, almost God-like powers of creation they attribute to natural selection? One would think they would be more modest in their claims for a process that has never actually been observed. Instead, they bombastically assert that their theory has the same epistemological standing as the theory of gravity.

<snip>

The Theory of Evolution, despite teh provable existance of a process of natural selection, is not equatable with theories of physics that describe gravity.

Dr. Jobe Martin is a former devotee to Evolutionary Theory, who was challenged by his students to prove that it was correct, and by attempting to do so and failing, began to be convinced of the alternative.  He has produced a number of videos that document species that have irreduciblely complex features that could not have arisen by natural selction (that is, could not have aided the organism in surviving to reproduce) unless those features could have arisen simultaniously, an event that is roughly comparable to an address collision in bitcoin.  (not impossible, but astronomicly unlikely given the time frame).  His most famous subject is the cuddlefish, whose active camo is so advanced that it uses it to put it's prey, literally, into a trance.  Yet, if it's camo wasn't almost as advanced as it is, then it's prey wouldn't have been dazzeled.  Since the cuddlefish is neither fast enough to catch it's prey, nor it's prey being defenseless otherwise, the cuddlefish would have starved to death or pursued easier prey.  Neither path leads to the present condition under natural selcetion alone, thus evolutionary theory is either incomplete or completely inaccurate.  Other such examples include the girraffe, a mussle that requires the intervention of a particular species of minnow to reproduce, and a species of cave insect that only exists in the Mammoth Cave system with no apparent relatives anywhere else.  Now this doesnt' p[rove anything either, and Dr. Martin has chosen ID as his alternative theory, which certainly can be wrong.  But to assume that the current state of science is correct, in the face of history, is simply assurting another ideology.

I may have not been clear but I was not claiming that there is only one, unchanging gravitational theory and that it addresses what gravity is as opposed to how gravity works. Evolutionary theory does fall into the same category as gravitational theory - it makes predictions based on observations and changes when new information is discovered. In addition, evolution works in infinitesimally small increments of change from generation to generation and so obviously can't be observed in a single human lifespan yet the evidence can still be measured and documented, much like the "unobservable" yet predictable behavior of subatomic particles.

Also, just because Dr. Jobe Martin (who is a dentist, by the way) can't explain how some animals evolved their particular traits doesn't mean that it is beyond professional biologists.

Still around.
amencon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 411


View Profile
October 15, 2011, 07:20:53 AM
 #524

okay you guys are seriously getting off topic here. Go start a lame evolution vs creationism thread or something somewhere else. The real topic is the Bitcoin Show and how Bruce is obsessed with 21 year olds and thinks that "normal" means "white American male".


yeah, but that topic sucks.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 15, 2011, 07:24:40 AM
 #525

okay you guys are seriously getting off topic here. Go start a lame evolution vs creationism thread or something somewhere else. The real topic is the Bitcoin Show and how Bruce is obsessed with 21 year olds and thinks that "normal" means "white American male".


And how Bruce is giving "classes on Bitcoin" at NYC Occupy.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 15, 2011, 08:31:07 AM
 #526

okay you guys are seriously getting off topic here. Go start a lame evolution vs creationism thread or something somewhere else. The real topic is the Bitcoin Show and how Bruce is obsessed with 21 year olds and thinks that "normal" means "white American male".


And how Bruce is giving "classes on Bitcoin" at NYC Occupy.

and how after mybitcoin he dares to promote any e-wallet services.

You have to wonder why any e-wallet service would want him promoting them.   It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ventures promoted by Bruce will be shunned by many Bitcoin users.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
Exonumia
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 190



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 10:13:52 PM
 #527

You guys got totally off topic here.... the topic is:

WHY DOES BRUCE SQUISH EVERYONE'S HEADS?

What is wrong with keeping aspect ratios proper?

Ok... I feel much better now that the post is back on topic Wink

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 19, 2011, 10:43:57 PM
 #528

okay you guys are seriously getting off topic here. Go start a lame evolution vs creationism thread or something somewhere else. The real topic is the Bitcoin Show and how Bruce is obsessed with 21 year olds and thinks that "normal" means "white American male".


And how Bruce is giving "classes on Bitcoin" at NYC Occupy.

and how after mybitcoin he dares to promote any e-wallet services.

You have to wonder why any e-wallet service would want him promoting them.   It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ventures promoted by Bruce will be shunned by many Bitcoin users.

I know. He once mentioned my name on the Bitcoin show and look what happened to me Sad

Geez Matthew!  whats with you these days?  you went on his show as a featured guest and made a crazy recommendation to allow recovery of lost coins!
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 19, 2011, 10:57:23 PM
 #529

So what is the great humanitarian Brucey doin' these days and what ever happened to that video that was supposed to be inside MtGox Headquarters? Maybe it was lost in the hack of MyBitcoin?

Judging by his tweets, he's been busy camping out at the Occupy Wallstreet events, and offering his flat as a place for other protestors to shit, shower, and sleep. (Though I didn't realize the OWS guys were homeless)

repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 19, 2011, 11:11:15 PM
 #530

So what is the great humanitarian Brucey doin' these days and what ever happened to that video that was supposed to be inside MtGox Headquarters? Maybe it was lost in the hack of MyBitcoin?

Judging by his tweets, he's been busy camping out at the Occupy Wallstreet events, and offering his flat as a place for other protestors to shit, shower, and sleep. (Though I didn't realize the OWS guys were homeless)

Are you serious! Remorse you think or does he see another confidence loophole somewhere?

He's "teaching Bitcoin classes" at Occupy.  No new gimmick, just a different audience.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 19, 2011, 11:13:18 PM
 #531

Are you serious! Remorse you think or does he see another confidence loophole somewhere?
I don't think it has anything more than the fact that the 50 year old convicted fraudster and paedophile enabler can surround himself with teenage and early 20-something young men.
bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 12:00:38 AM
 #532

You know what, that's a good enough angle in and of itself isn't it. That hadn't crossed my mind.
Watch Bruce's body language as he talks about the 21 year olds from OWS in his latest vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8YBBOs_SPj8#t=1235s

He mentions 21 year olds 5 times in quick succession, and you can see his mind drifting off every time he says it. I find it funny when he compares them to 63 year olds, as he is closer in age to the 63 year old than he is to the 21 year olds. lol
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 12:44:44 AM
 #533

Has Bruce bought a quadrocopter for the Occupy peoples yet?

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 12:47:55 AM
 #534

Has Bruce bought a quadrocopter for the Occupy peoples yet?
He can't afford one. The bitcoins he liberated in the mybitcoin scam are only worth a fraction of what they used to be. He's working on his latest scam though, looking for vulnerable and trusting suckers to trust him with their money.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 02:04:16 AM
 #535

And right before beddy-bye there'll be a sing-a-long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAguHW0i278

What animal is that at :33?

bitleaker
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 02:06:49 AM
 #536

And right before beddy-bye there'll be a sing-a-long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAguHW0i278

What animal is that at :33?


It's a little boy.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 20, 2011, 04:04:56 AM
 #537

Bruce liked Bitcoin because it was "the peoples money" and was against the bad evil Big Banks and the Fed since the beginning. At OWS, he's just in a bigger group who also hate Big banks and the Fed. It's pretty much the continuation of what he was preaching before, except the audience isn't as informed about Bitcoin.

Also, can I assume that all you guys here who don't think 21 year olds are hot, are instead only into cougars (MILFs) and geriatrics (GILFs)?

Dobrodav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
August 04, 2012, 04:26:05 PM
 #538

Well, i was out of bitcoin theme for about a year. So there is some news for me. Bruce is "Mybitcoin" scamer ? Where i can read about this ? Actualy he looked, just how to say that,- slightly stupid. But scamer ? Really ? So, he is a rich now? Never ending vacation on Bahamas ? He-he, really doubt that.

We will  meet in not-so-distant future.
Today`s strange music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8mCgjbBPMk
Yesterday`s  strange music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCTyC1FGLw
Dobrodav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
August 04, 2012, 04:49:14 PM
 #539

LOL. Nice picture, BTW, Thanks for bumping.

We will  meet in not-so-distant future.
Today`s strange music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8mCgjbBPMk
Yesterday`s  strange music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCTyC1FGLw
mugdesign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81


http://thebestmug.co.uk - personalised gifts


View Profile
April 24, 2013, 06:44:19 PM
 #540

i think you did a brilliant job , great show ,useful infos, do not worry about negativ people
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!