Windows Forum

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Evolution The Great Lie

0 helpful
342 replies

by xentity

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is page 3 of the discussion. Read the opening post

342 replies

by tig2

I own the books and watch the website routinely.

Some very funny stuff there.

Where DO the idiots come from???

by zoso967

It is clear to YOU from a PURE SCIENTIFIC perspective EVOLUTION is NOT POSSIBLE?

Dude, you need to publish your findings before someone beats you to it!!!!

dumbass ...

by xentity

Why are you so arrogant that you think you must teach me? Why not just discuss the merits of evolution?

I laid out my position in the initial posting. It was not a defense or discussion of ID. It was pure evolution discussion.

I clearly stated the definition for random as not having a pattern or any order. It if could be ordered then it was not random. The nature of our universe is perfectly ordered but indeterminant. I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part of the premise of evolution. We could not agree on this commonly accepted state of the universe let alone the 4 points in the basic premises. Some wanted to use random as a matter of speaking, others attempted to define it other ways, others did not even accept the premises of their own theory.

I am not confident you people actually understand what you believe. It sounds good but lacks any honest strength.

by absolutely

Yoodler: "I even pointed out 4 points on which random was part of the premise of evolution."

It is not important to the Theory of Evolution that the mutations occur according to a mathematical pattern that is "random". What you need to disprove, to support the rest of your premises, is that such mutations as do occur are [i]mathematically too few[/i] for evolution to be possible.

If you choose to accept this immpossible mission, you will soon find yourself in a similar position to those of us who have been asked to disprove God. The premise to disprove cannot be defined unless & until it is [i]proven[/i], because proof is required before any [i]definition[/i] can be shown correct & complete. Just start to try to prove that [i]all possible causes[/i] of mutations put together [i]cannot possibly[/i] cause Evolution. There will always remain the possibility that you missed something.

by zoso967

can we just ignore this guy so we can have an intelligent conversation?

let him wallow in his own ignorance ...

by tig2

It is the fact that you constantly discredit yourself with your constant shifting.

I am who I am and have not changed. Neither has my message. Regardless of the fact that some of your garbage has pushed me close to the STFU stage... I haven't gone there.

I am certain that you perceive me as flawed. No more so than you- and less. My foundational belief screams out to tolerate, accept and find common ground with EVERYONE. Your foundational ground is rooted in hatred of anything that doesn't work the way you think it should. You are a small and petty person with no idea of how best to communicate God's universal truth- loving one another.

I pity you and all your incarnations. My question- should I begin to worry a bit when you have been killed and arise miraculously three days later? Or should I leave that to the followers of the Rapture?

Before your rant begins, the word "rapture" does not exist in the common form of the Bible, and is, to my knowledge, more contemporary.

Yes, I read the black words on the white paper...

by deepsand

"ordered," "determinate," etal.? I've elsewhere set forth the definition of such, as demonstration of your obvious failure to understand and correctly apply such terms, yet you've failed to address such issue.

As long as you persist in maintaining your state of ignorance there can be no rational discourse with you.

by xentity

That randomness does not exist and the basic premise is a false premise. If evolution is, in fact, ordered then there would be a model for that order and probabilistic outcomes would then occur in a region or domain. That would be possible if there was order to evolution. We could model it.

There is no model because evolution is not a natural process, it cannot be ordered, and it does not exist.

The problem is that RANDOM natural processes (that only occurred at that instance in time and cease to operate ever again) caused life to spark into existence and then RANDOM mutations occurred to the DNA causing transpecies mutations (timing, duration, and sequencing of genes firing must change in order to change species not information within a gene) that in a RANDOM manner became homo sapiens. This was a ONE time linear event of the natural. There is no pattern to this random event of nature and it never happened to other globules at ANY other instances in time.

What you believe in is weird science? Perhaps if I feed a bunch of images into my computer scanner and download some share ware I can randomly come up with Kelley Lebrock!

by absolutely

When you [i]prove[/i], with mathematical & [i]scientific rigor[/i] that such a model is impossible, your assertion (1) will have that going for it. Until then, you have nothing.

by xentity

A RANDOM SYSTEM CANNOT BE MODELLED.

Proof:

1. The basic premises of Evolution require a process of randomness.

2. Randomness, by definition, does not have a pattern or order to it.

3. Mathematical models require a system to have a pattern or order to it.

Conclusion: There is no model if randomness is a basis for evolution.

What the freak is wrong with your brain?

by xentity

Evolution seems counter to Entropy, a known natural process. The whole universe is disassociating, it is breaking up or de-evolving.

What you are telling me is that humans are becoming something more when everything around us is essentially aging and falling apart? There will come a time when the universe cannot support life - what then?

The hope for humans is not in this universe. In fact, humans are told to not place faith in the universe. Its time will come to pass. ECC 3 & Rev 21

by absolutely

I was surprised by what I learned about Entropy in college physics. It was far more interesting than what I had learned in high school science about Entropy. Accordingly, it isn't easily summarized during my afternoon coffee break. You'll have to wait until at least the weekend.

by absolutely

Who says?

Other than you, that is. Will you quote Dawkins to me? I haven't read his book(s), you see. Or show me a survey of prominent biologists, or [i]something[/i]. I won't argue against your personal description of evolution, but if you'll show me that what you say applies to the description of evolution [i]used in science[/i] by professional researchers, OK, I'll consider your assertions. But I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution requires 'randomness' as you describe.

Show me.

by tig2

Mostly because I will willingly take part in anything not grudge related. How about we all take your coffee cups. The American Flag. A signpost of Republicanism.

I will let go of my pink ribbon for your win. Can we find something that we can all get behind?

Want some pink ribbons?

Training starts in 3 weeks- but only 3 miles a day... at first. I am still waiting for a surgery date for the rest of the work to be done.

How about the Space Shuttle?

by xentity

Evolution THEORY states that

1. RANDOM copying errors in genetic material (mutations), migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes during sexual reproduction (genetic recombination) create variation in organisms.

2. Genetic drift and natural selection act on this variation by increasing or decreasing the frequency of traits: genetic drift does so RANDOMLY, while natural selection does so based on whether a trait is beneficial, or conducive to reproduction.

3. Genetic variation arises due to RANDOM mutations that occur at a certain rate in the genomes of all organisms.

The notion of evolution is closely coupled with the thought that life emerged from a RANDOM natural event that caused life to naturally occur setting in motion the alleged phenomenon of evolution.

This is the theory. Look it up from any number of sources. Some of you even remarked these points in posting.

Evolution theory is a one time event that has no pattern or remarkable natural beauty to it. All life was set into motion and began evolving from a single instance in time even though those primordial globules exist today also but the evolution process has not acting on any one of them since the first instance.

Yet all natural process in this universe are ordered. I can give you mathematical models for the process of boiling water, maturing a tree, migrating birds, or ocean tides. But for some odd reason I cannot show a model for the process of evolution. I can show bifuricating tree of what we think happened and there is mathematics that can show what we think but there is no valid model for the process of evolution. If there was, then I could "plot" with a degree of certainty that humans would evolve into a specifc domain and we could develope reasonably accurate assessments of possibilities of who we could become.

Have you ever noted that on Star Trek they are able to communicate with nearly every intelligent creature. The use a universal translators which are possible since all languages are ordered and use standard allophones to create words. A language can be deciphered as a matter of eliminating possible combinations then relating it to another structured language. Once again relating to order.

The universe is experiencing a process of entropy where everything is disassociating. In short, the universe is going from order to disorder or becoming random. When we achieve 100% randomness there will be no life. In fact, life will most likely cease before the universe achieves 100% randomness.

by absolutely

I don't want to look it up, in any number of sources. If you want to convince me of something you will cite your sources. If you do not cite your sources I will not believe you.

It's that simple.

by drowningnotwaving

when I work the technology which I will try at home tonight.

f'ckin freaky ID christians - when you don't want them they are everywhere and when you need them they go into hybernation.

Oh by the way did I tell you I just love GWB?

by drowningnotwaving

... you know, the C-in-C kind of look to really push the 3-dimensional experience that is GWB?

I mean, that photo's cute, in a howdie-doodie kind of way.

by xentity

The event we call the rapture can be found in numerous places; 1 Thessalonians 4:17, John 14:2?3, Luke 17:30-35, Matt 24:40-41, and many more. It is also prophetized in the Old Testament.

The Bible uses the terms "a thief in the night", "to snatch up", "to call up", ect..
But if we go back to the original documents the Greek word "harpazo" is used which means to snatch up or to rapture.

I have pointed to love and peace. I have not remarked in any postings to do otherwise. However, evil will come against one and in that one is the image of God. It is incumbent to give levity to that image and not allow evil manifested in another to defile it. That could mean lethal force. I also aptly pointed to God's own framework that allows the state to conduct capital punishment. It was not my belief. It is God's own words.

In my references to Islam, I pointed to what they teach and what their philosophers say and what the Koran says.

You can disagree all you want and make your unfounded comments about my innerself but that does not change the other things. If it goes against what you thought you believed then perhaps you should re-evaluate your beliefs.

by absolutely

Does your inability to [b]disprove[/b] that teapot logically require the [b]existence[/b] of that teapot?

Does your inability to [b]disprove[/b] that teapot logically [b]permit agnosticism[/b] of the non-existence of such a teapot?

To both, OF COURSE NOT! Your imaginary friend has no higher status in my hierarchy of values than an imaginary teapot.

by xentity

First, I'll define a teapot particle.

Next, I'll assign known and suspected parameters to the teapot particle. These parameters descibe the pot and its interaction with space.

1. I assume it is metal and electrically excitable. I could be ceramic but first I'll assume its metal and has metal like qualities.

2. It has a gravitational force that acts on it and it acts on other bodies.

3. Its orbit is highly ordered and predictability of its location in space time is reasonably known.

I launch a scientific investigation into what I believe a tea pot is and begin searching for indirect proof of its existence. I look for its influence on space time. I'll look the possibility of solar winds being reflected off its metal surface. If I am able to search a large enough sampling of space and never find such a pot I could reasonably conclude that orbital teapots do not exist. I could also conclude that tea pots do not normally orbit and it is impossible that a teapot could make into orbit with prior and existing technologies thus disproving the existence of a teapot in orbit as well.

You choice to be agnostic is your choice. However, you debate science and the existence of God in this forum. If want to to do that then you must adhere to the 'science' you proclaim as gospel.

Using the same rigor, I establish a God Particle. That God Particle has specific qualities and influence in space-time that we can look for to infer his existence.

1. God is report to be the "glue" (COL 1:15-17) that hold the universe together that when the grip is loosen the universe explodes (2 PETER 3:10). I discover that there is a nuclear force and when it is let loose there is a violent reaction.

2. God is reported to be love. So a create a love particle that has benevolent qualities. I also learn of a anti-God that is hateful. So I create a hate partical. I can observe the interaction of these particles, even though they are intangible, they manifest in humans. I can determine if they interact and behave as they are reported to be.

While there is significantly more to this, my imaginary friend has now become very real and is testable and observable in a scientific manner.

I think you are lost and clueless. You claim science and knowledge but know little about it or how to apply it.

I have grown tiresome of your silly discourse and prideful notions of agnosticism. Read Ezekiel 7.

by zoso967

Humans have walked the earth for 100,000 years.

we existed for 95,000 years before God told us his "plan" in the form of the old testament.

3000 years later he "revised" his plan in the new testament.

Therefore, during the first 98% of human history no soul had ever heard of Jesus, moses, santa claus or the easter bunny ...

We, I mean God, really took his time ...

its been another 2000 years and we're still waiting ...

by xentity

has been around prior to becoming self-aware of which occurred when a WOMAN caused the fall of man. Cain and Able were told to go out into the land and find a wife. That means other human forms were around but not self-aware.

This does not imply that humans evolved as there is evidence of a suddden highly complex appearance. Human life could have been switched on in a digital universe and self-awareness emerged in Adam and Eve due to a probabilistic outcome of a algorythm executing. We may be nothing more than a animated graphic in a grand cosmic computer game.

by dmambo

In my original post taking your wager, I had indicated that 200 posts would be the tipping point. Within a minute or two, I decided that 300 would be safer and still would be well under your estimate. When the time limit was reached, there were about 196 posts, so I would have been safe, but if it were that close, then a few "additional" responses could have put it over the top without raising suspicion.

If the 200 post mark had been reached by the cutoff, I would have let you off the hook.

In any case, it's been nice doing business with you. :)

by xentity

You cannot ignor me. You may never know who you are talking with. Could it be 2bad4u, sven, yoodler, AbuWho, MrMiami, etc... Could you be absolutely - sure?

by zoso967

we can ignore every antagonizing meathead with nothing substantial to contribute ..

by xentity

Science generally accepts this universe as being Perfectly ordered but indeterminant. In otherwords, Chaos Theory. Thus, the entire universe is ordered.

However, there is a natural process of entropy that is at work. Entropy is causing the entire universe to disassociate; to in fact become unordered or move towards randomness. Entropy applies to all things. One could in effect remark that the universe is de-evolving.

Yet there are those who continue to insist that life continues to evolve counter to this known process of entropy.

Randomness can not be ordered or else it would become perfectly ordered.

Evolution Theory, which some of you defend fiercely but clearly do not understand because you asked me to prove your own Theory to you, relies unequivically on the concept of random events. Go to a ordinary source like Wikipedia and check it out.

If evolution does not rely on random events then it is ordered. What is that order? We should be abloe to model it. We do not know how an individual Oak tree seed may turn out in detail but we know its form and are able to model it. Likewise, we do not know exactly where every bubble will occur in a boiling pots but we can model the process of applying heat. But in evolution all we have are a bunch of good ideas and no model. A singularly occuring natural process that has never happened to another globule except one some 100 million years ago. I fail to see any resemblance to a science in this.

While many of you got mad and called me names and remarked I was unteachable. All I am doing is questioning what it is exactly you are trying to teach me? It does not look like science to me but then 10 quarters of mathematics and 5 years of Aerospace engineering of course means little in the eyes of you people.

by absolutely

"Evolution Theory, which some of you defend fiercely but clearly do not understand because you asked me to prove your own Theory to you, relies unequivically on the concept of random events. Go to a ordinary source like Wikipedia and check it out."

Wikipedia is for [i]beginning[/i] to learn about a topic about which you do not know [i]anything[/i]. If you [i]don't know the first thing about anything[/i] start at wikipedia.

There is nothing wrong with not being an expert. But if you think you [i]are[/i] an expert after reading a few wikipedia articles, you'll never be taken seriously.

by xentity

Then you realize its a great start for you to understanding the theory you espouse.

by zoso967

Can ANYBODY be more CLUELESS than this guy..

Keep up the killer posts yoodler, you're hysterical..

10 quarters of mathematics ... buahahahahaha

what a pompous ass!!!!!!!!!!!

by zoso967

and he's still using words that don't exist.

would it be plagiarism if i used some of his posts in a comedy i am writing ??

by xentity

If you paid attention and not posting to be posting nonsense you would have noted that.

by absolutely

"I think you are lost and clueless."

You wish to believe that I am lost & clueless. Your wish is not my command, punk.

by deepsand

He seems to believe that no one will notice that all the aliases displayed on his prior posts will change to this new one.

by deepsand

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
with particular note to that section within the second cited link that reads

"[i]Complex systems

It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.

In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as B?nard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).[6][/i]"

by deepsand

Every time one of the several pseudo-scientists who haunt TR is asked to substantiate their claim(s), they either resort to sophistry or simply decline to respond.

by deepsand

Those who make specious claims, when pressed for proof, have but 2 choices - fail to respond or engage in sophistry.

WhatHisName has a habit of vacillating between the two; perhaps that's an indicator of bipolar disorder.

by deepsand

Absence of proof does [b]not[/b] constitute proof of absence.

You [b]cannot prove a negative.[/b]

And I have grown tiresome of your pretentious discourse and prideful notions.

by deepsand

He exhibits it, and therefore proofs that the evolutionary process not only exists, but is quite easily observed.

by deepsand

If you wish to hold a particular religious belief, such is your right.

[i]However[/i], to not only maintain that such is an [i]a priori[/i] fact, but that others should accept your claim of such is wholly without merit.

by zoso967

Besides, why do you ignore posts directly answering your oft repeated questions?

by zoso967

Boy can you shovel the $hit!!!!

what the HELL is a LOVE PARTICLE??????

"I think you are lost and clueless. You claim science and knowledge but know little about it or how to apply it."

I hope you're not implying that you know science well and how to apply it because i may never be able to stop laughing again :)

by xentity

http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html

Kak?s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. ?I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,? said Kak. Using probabilistic relationships, Kak?s solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it.

The principle, NEW to this professor, is old traditional science and the practice of engineering dynamics. He must of have been a product of a secular society turning out mindless drones to accept the New World Order. I see people rediscovering stuff all the time or those who do not discover the basics attempt to make up a science around a good idea like evolution.

You simple minds bore me with belief in organ grinder monkeys that make up humans. There is a science that believes the Earth is rest upon the back of a giant turtle in space too.

by zoso967

I think Im sophisticated cos Im living my life like a good homosapien

But all around me everybodys multiplying
Till theyre walking round like flies man

So Im no better than the animals sitting in their cages In the zoo man

cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees I am an ape man

I think Im so educated and Im so civilized
cos Im a strict vegetarian

But with the over-population and inflation and starvation And the crazy politicians

I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
and make like an ape man

Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man
Oh Im an ape man

Im a king kong man Im an ape ape man
Oh I am an ape man

cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man

In mans evolution he has created the cities
and The motor traffic rumble,

but give me half a chance And Id be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle

cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury
to be like an ape man

Im an ape, Im an ape ape man
oh Im an ape man

Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape man

I look out my window, but I cant see the sky
cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man

Come and love me,
be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy
in my ape man world

Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man oh Im an ape man

Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape man

Ill be your tarzan, you'll be my jane
Ill keep you warm and youll keep me sane
And we'll sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man

Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man oh Im an ape man

Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
oh Im an ape man.

I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.

by deepsand

It merely side-steps the problem, by viewing both twins from an [b]external[/b] frame of reference, while leaving their observations, from their respective frames of references, at odds.

If you do recognize this, you are ill equipped to discuss matters re. the physical sciences; if you do, then, by deliberately ignoring such, you are a fraud.

Take your pick; ignorance or deceipt.

by xentity

The Planet Earth in the problem was considered to be static and the interstellar traveller was in motion in the paradox. The professor went to another reference point, a star, and had both the earth bound and the interstellar twins moving in relation to each other.

Establishing a datum point at some location distant from a system then referencing everything in the system to the datum point is a common engineering practice. This is routinely done in engineering dynamics.

It takes a bright mind to figure that out. But those who think they are bright are also the ones who create their own science which exposes them as deceitful frauds.

by deepsand

The paradox arises because there is [b]no absolute frame of reference[/b]; i.e. [b]all frames of reference are relative, and equally valid.[/b]

The paradox arises when comparing the observations made from 2 frames of reference that are moving [b]relative to each other.[/b] Observations made from a 3rd frame of reference says [b]nothing[/b] about the observations made form with the other 2!

Admit that you do not understand the subject.

by xentity

Simply because you are unable to understand, comprehend, and even apply any degree of scientific rigor, you should not mask it with your insults and childish projections of fault.

by xentity

Webster's defines random as lacking a plan, purpose, or pattern; to determine by accident.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines random as proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.

I have defined random as being without having a pattern and cannot be ordered.

Well, there are two credible definitions corroborating my definition but not yours which still evades me as unclear.

Probabilistic outcomes are ordered and patterned thus not being random. It is clear to me that you people are clueless and not attuned to mathematics that you claim you are. Just go eat PI.

by deepsand

This has aready been pointed out to you, yet you choose to ignore such.

You are a fraud. The only question is whether such is born of ignorance or of deceiptfullness. The choice is yours to declare.

by deepsand

The value is determinate; the string of numeric characters used to represent such value is random.

by deepsand

random

2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements

indeterminate

1 a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : VAGUE b : not known in advance c : not leading to a definite end or result

ordered

1 : to have been put in order : ARRANGED

arrange

ARRANGE implies a setting in sequence, relationship, or adjustment

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

Contrary to your insistence, there is no fixed relationship between "random," "indeterminate" or "ordered." That an outcome is "indeterminate" does not define whether such outcome is "random" or "ordered;" an "indeterminate" outcome can be either.

by xentity

Recently, I referred to a text book "Number Theory in Science and Communication: With Applications in Cryptography, Physics, Digital Information, Computing, and Self-Similarity" a Springer Book Series in Information Sciences. They had a whole chapter dedicated to the notion of randomness.

They acknowledge that randomness is not ordered but discussed the element of surprise in beauty and art as a form of randomness. It seems they approximate the idea of randomness using mathematical formulas which order the notion of randomness. The book called this psuedorandomness.

I then reviewed "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" and the author Donald Ervin Knuth discusses the notion of randomness. He again indicates that randomness is not natural and that it cannot be ordered nor has a pattern. He then discusses a 100 variable equation that is perhaps on of the best approximations of randomness.

I reviewed the web and most of the web pages I pulled were not fully clear on the concept and presented a misconception that randomness was ordered as probability. It is not and cannot be ordered as such. Probability is ordered and has a pattern to it. However, math and science utilize mathematical approximations of randomness to explore wild ideas that pop into exotic minds Often with incorrect conclusions because they selected poor random models.

Returning to the discussion of evolution the fundamental premise that a random singularity sparked life into existence then randomly mutated DNA causing transpecies evolution cannot be for two reasons:

1. Randomness is not a natural process.

2. Evolution cannot be a natural process because it is counter to entropy which is a natural process. Entropy causes the universe to move away from order to randomness. Evolution is remarking that the universe is becoming more ordered or moving away from randomness.

I fail to see any merit in evolutionary arguments beyond it is basic premise because they are built upon a fantasy. To teach this scientific blaspheme in schools is intentionally misleading future minds that have the ability to achieve enormous accomplishments for humanity. But how can they achieve these things believing in a psuedo-science?

by deepsand

Probability defines only the [i]likelihood[/i] of the members of given set appearing in any sampling of that set. It does [b]not[/b] describe the [b]order[/b] in which the members appear within any given sample.

by deepsand

The random order of the digits in PI, which is a naturally defined value, serves as proof of such.

by deepsand

This has been brought to your attention so many times that I'll not again direct your attention to any literature re. such; rather, I will give you but 2 examples of naturally ocurring self-organizing systems - snowflakes and a myriad mineral crystals.

by fluxit

I agree with much of what you are saying. I was talking with a religious scholar who was explaining science to me. He based his science not on reason but religious principles and tried to make the science fit his religion. I politiely listened but disagree with much of his understanding.

I wonder how humanity will make it to the Moon again or Mars if we cannot get the science right on Earth.

by zoso967

And your ineptitude is not my burden ...

Love Particles .. hahahahahahahahaha .....................

by absolutely

If he decides to start insulting me I'll stick up for myself. So far, he hasn't decided to do so. You misunderstood.

by fluxit

is not the sequencing of processes or events. Order in the case that yoodler is discussing refers to the structure essential to the nature of a system. Probability is ordered because the structure of what you are calling "random" follows a specific mathematical formula thus having, to some degree, predictability. Outcomes behave according to the mathematical formula and not apart from that formula. Thus being bounded by the formulas parameters.

by absolutely

"Order in the case that yoodler is discussing refers to the structure essential to the nature of a system. Probability is ordered because the structure of what you are calling "random" follows a specific mathematical formula thus having, to some degree, predictability."

Yoodler has repeatedly failed to understand, or refused to acknowledge that systems governed by probability are composed of outcomes which individually are not predictable.

by fluxit

The systems under chaos theory are not fully predictable. Outcomes behave according to their mathematical formulas but solutions can be divergent. So outcomes are predictable based on the behavior of the formulas but exact outcomes are not known.

I think that there is a disconnect in the dialogues. As I read through I noted that Yoodler was using the term 'indeterminant' which means not predictable in mathematics.

You guys are saying the same thing but using words that are a disconnect.

by deepsand

The distinction between [i]prediction[/i] and [i]predication[/i] is one with an important difference.

by fluxit

PI, each time its calculated using the formula c/2r and always has the same sequence of numbers (3.141592 etc...). Therefore, it is structured or patterned. It is not random. PI is a surreal number since is decimal places are assumed to continue into infinity.

by absolutely

What deepsand said is that [i]the digits[/i] of PI, viewed as a sequence, not as a clone of another instance of the ratio c/2r, exhibit no pattern.

by fluxit

PI has a pattern, it is just not a repeating pattern. It is always 3.1415...

by fluxit

The snowflake and crystals are organized or ordered around fractal mathematics which are polynomials to the nth order. While there are thermodynamic processes that result in their formation, in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state. These items do not evolve into a new species of intelligent snowflakes and crystals in time.

by absolutely

If the facts that "in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state" but "do not evolve into a new species of intelligent snowflakes and crystals in time" are intended to establish an essential difference, based on the [i]laws of thermodynamics[/i], from biological organisms or species, the evidence to support such a distinction is weak. First, all organisms are scheduled to die; "in time they grow old and become disorganized then fall apart returning to a ground state," so individual organisms do not by themselves qualify for the exemption you assert from the 2nd Law. Secondly, 90% of known species have become extinct, and there is no reason to expect that the other 10% will not one day become extinct also.

* Only 85% of new businesses fail, compared to 90% of species.

by fluxit

There is nothing self-organizing about snowflakes or crystals. They undergo a natural process. Self organization requires a degree of communication between components in order to become something more. Snowflakes and crystals do not communicate with other components to become more complex.

Some suggest that biological systems self-organize in the temporal domain to develop increased complexity known as evolution. Information must be a part of this process in a closed loop feedback system that instructs changes to DNA and directs nanotechnologies to endow the changes.

I do not see how that is possible? Where does this information for change come from? How does it know which direction to go?

by deepsand

1) That snowflakes & crystals are not intelligent lifeforms does [b]not[/b] negate the fact that they are self-organized systems.

2) That snowflakes & crystals are not intelligent lifeforms does [b]not[/b] preclude such from coming into existence.

3) There is no "ground state" such as you have alluded to.

4) Humans too "[i]grow old and become disorganized then fall apart[/i]. Following your argument, should you not then hold this to be evident that humans are not intelligent lifeforms?

by xentity

Dude, thanks for corroborating my argument. I needed someone to support me.
These guys are hell bent on being know it alls and teaching me their weird science.

by deepsand

that he has been most inconsistent in his usage of a variety of terms, including "order," "random," and "determinate." Furthermore, he has resisted all efforts to get him to consistently use the accepted definitions of such.

Therefore, any "disconnect" is one of his own making.

by deepsand

In this case, the applicable definition of "[i]pattern[/i]," per Merriam-Webster, would be "[i]a discernible coherent system based in the intended relationship of component parts[/i]."
Clearly the digits of PI fail to exhibit such characteristic.

As for "order," the usage here implies "arranged," which, per M-W, "[i]implies a setting in sequence, relationship, or adjustment[/i]" or "systemitized," i.e. "[i]arranged according to a predetermined scheme[/i]."

Thus, while the sequence of the digits of PI make be [i]fixed[/i], they are [i]not ordered.[/i]