Mars statue movie "Titled: More Rocks!"

Hey, I'm not basing it, just off pictures. I might do a thread in pseudoscience someday, I keep thinking about it, then figure ahh screw it no one gives a shit about pseudoscience.

This one is pretty wild, and I honestly think it's natural:

Guardian.jpg
 
nietzschefan said:
Honestly guys, arguing with Ophiolite here about evolution is like arguing with Einstein about special relativity
Click to expand...
:eek:
It is rare for a comment to cause my modesty function to engage.
DeepShit said:
This debate was only ever about probability.
Click to expand...
So let us try it one more time.
Do you deny that there are many patterns in natural objects and nature that look like something else, a carving, a sculpture, etc? Do you really deny this?

If you do not deny this, are you claiming that the incidence of these patterns is very low indeed? That is what you appear to be claiming. I have demonstrated, by practical experiment, that you are mistaken. What fault do you find with that experiment?

If you are claiming that the odds against the face of the Queen appearing in a group of clouds over Manchester on 14th September this year is high I shall agree with you completely. The odds of any specific thing appearing at a specific time and place are very small. But the odds of something appearing in a large collection of natural objects is not just high, it is a certainty.

In contrast, we do not yet know whether the occurence of life in an environment like the early Earth is a remote possibility or a cast iron certainty or somewhere in between.

Where in all of the above is your problem?


P.S. I took a look at several of your posts in other threads. Since you have never said anything meaningfull it has made attacking you a tad difficult.
 
Ophiolite said:
Do you deny that there are many patterns in natural objects and nature that look like something else, a carving, a sculpture, etc? Do you really deny this?

If you do not deny this, are you claiming that the incidence of these patterns is very low indeed? That is what you appear to be claiming. I have demonstrated, by practical experiment, that you are mistaken. What fault do you find with that experiment?

If you are claiming that the odds against the face of the Queen appearing in a group of clouds over Manchester on 14th September this year is high I shall agree with you completely. The odds of any specific thing appearing at a specific time and place are very small. But the odds of something appearing in a large collection of natural objects is not just high, it is a certainty.

In contrast, we do not yet know whether the occurence of life in an environment like the early Earth is a remote possibility or a cast iron certainty or somewhere in between.

Where in all of the above is your problem?


P.S. I took a look at several of your posts in other threads. Since you have never said anything meaningfull it has made attacking you a tad difficult.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to suggest that the natural forces which give rise to patterns in nature are different from those which created life?

Are you trying to suggest that evolution proceeds in highly improbable leaps rather than highly probable increments? You don't seem to be very clear on this one.

Are you trying to suggest that patterns appearing in nature are a certainty, yet the consciousness that perceives them has occurred improbably?

Give up your attempts at thinking.


P.S. I took a look at several of your posts in other threads. Since you have never said anything meaningfull it has made attacking you a tad difficult.
Click to expand...


You mean you couldn't think of anything - a sure sign of a limited mind.
 
Last edited:
Ophiolite said:
the odds of something appearing in a large collection of natural objects is not just high, it is a certainty.
Click to expand...

Something? No probabilities can be used?

This looks as a way to avoid addressing the actual observations, and it is just that.
 
Deepshit, I'll make a deal with you. You answer some of my questions, then I'll answer yours. If you don't like that deal the please crawl back under your stone. You are wasting bandwidth and oxygen.

Something? No probabilities can be used?
Click to expand...
Please don't be a trite little ass hole, even though it does suit you. It is abundantly apparent to the meanest intelligence (so that would include you and your buddy) that implicit and explixit in this exchange we are discussing patterns having the appearance of parts or whole bodies of animals, or people, or of landscapes etc. If this is the best you can come up with I can see why so many people have you on ignore.
 
hey, o'lite,

you are rotten demagogue.
The probabilities has been calculated, so I do not need your "answer"

you have been given a chance, which you failed miserably, to come with better estimate.

So, come up or shut up.

eS
 
Better estimate of what? Abiogenesis, or perception of patterns in natural formations? What don't you understand about the answers. Read the following very carefully (perhaps an adult can help you).

1. We have insufficient data at present to calculate to an order of magnitude the probability of life forming in near early Earth conditions.
Do you disagree with this?
Do you agree with this?
Are you too dumb to understand what it means?

2. The probability of finding some mimicing patterns in a medium sized sample of 'natural objects' is close to, or reaches 1.
Do you disagree with this?
Do you agree with this?
Are you too self indoctrinated with nonsense to understand what it means?

Now, before you leave this post, extrasense, please make sure your name tag, with your home address, is firmly attached to your clothing. We do want to make sure you make it home safely.
 
o'ite,

so you are nutcake too.

and you did not understand all along, that in question is probability of forming in a random way of the figure in movie.

:D
 
and you are ignoramus, o'lite,

since you do not anderstand that probability depends on the object to be formed.
 
In post #20 I said this:
The pattern generation capability of the human mind is very well established. There are a huge number of natural formations that looks like faces, animals, whatever.

In response to this you said, in post #25
Could you prove, that chances of all those oddities occuring at random, are more than 1 in 1000?

It is clear that you are talking about random patterns, not the single 'figure' in the Martian crater. My further discussion continues dealing with these.

Will you have the courage, just once, to admit you are in the wrong? I doubt it, but I felt it was right to ask.
 
o'lite,

chances of randomly forming a tree, or a transparent ball, or a realistic human figure, are extremely low.

Idiot can suggest the Venus from Milos was not sculptured by man, but has been randomly formed.

But people with brains will consider that suggestion as crap.

eS
 
extrasense said:
chances of randomly forming a tree, or a transparent ball, or a realistic human figure, are extremely low.
Click to expand...
I have cited a practical experiment you can engage in yourself. I have presented the results of such an experiment conducted since this thread opended. It confirmed my assertions, just as hundreds, if not thousands of psychological studies have also demonstrated. You are the one who has to prove this does not happen. You are the one going against the grain of proven observations.

Now when you want to acknowledge all that, send me a pm. Till then I can't be bothered with anymore of your childishness.

[IGNORE]
 
o'lite,

to design and perform relevant experiment one has to have some brains.
Your "experiment" is absolutely irrelevant to the issue in hand.
Post a picture, with dimentions, of comparably to human complex, randomly created object on Earth.

eS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top