Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When mathematicians and scientists use the word random, they define it to the system structure.
No. They don't. They apply it when it is empirically appropriate. Sometimes to processes. Sometimes to systems. Sometimes to outcomes. Sometimes to inputs. Sometimes to events. The path of an asteroid through the solar system may be excruciatingly deterministic. But the impact of an asteroid on the biosphere of planet earth is an entirely random event. The dinosaurs would have been quick to tell you that.
In the identical way, the insertion of viral DNA into the DNA of a host is a random event. The location of the insertion has an equal chance of falling between any two of 1.5 billion sets of bases.
You are trying very hard to do anything but respond to my ERV demonstration. I know. You have no choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
There is no pure random mathematical or scientific concept it all depends on the amount of variables used to determine the system. More variables used, the less 'random' things are.
Wrong again. You insist on continuing to play "Joe Sixpack" and hoping that you can equivocate your way out of your mess. Unable to even pretend to deal with the calculable mathematical impossibility of two individuals sharing an identical ERV without sharing a common ancestor, you are frantically trying to define your way out of the problem.
You are failing.
There are entire fields of study dedicated to understanding randomness. The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics could not even exist without accounting for and formally defining randomness. This is necessary for the identification and the calculation of probabilities of events. A random process is any sequence where random variables drive to outcomes that do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution. Without the construct of randomness, probability theory would be completely incoherent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
ERVs are not random.
In this universe, yes. They are.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 03-21-2013 at 05:54 PM..
It was nice of you to label what your following post was going to be.
[quote=GuyNTexas;28776693]You don't get to redefine evolution theory to your convenience[/QOTE]
I was not. I was in fact rejecting YOUR redefinition of it. A redefinition that required you to entirely ignore, skip over and run away from my earlier reply to you in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
skipping ahead to begin the process of evolution after the first living and reproducing cell came into existence
Ah you are playing that old creationist ca(na)rd are you?
In the scientific field of ballistics we do not discuss WHY gun powder explodes. Why? Because it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with ballistics. It is a separate field entirely. Ballistics pre-supposes the field of chemistry and the reactions that cause gun powder to do what it does.
Similarly the field of Evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with where the "first replication agent" came from. It is a separate field entirely. If you want to discuss it then GREAT... it is an open question in science and one we need to put more effort and thought into! I am with you there and look forward to reading your threads on the matter. But let us not derail THIS thread into something it is not about... any more than we would derail a ballistics thread into a discussion about gun powder chemistry.
Evolution is ONLY about what replicating agents do. Where those replicating agents came from is a different subject and I will not follow you on your attempts to hijack and derail the thread.
BWUHAHAHAHA ..... communications .... let's talk about the the evolution of modern technology based communications for an inside scoop on how that all is "evolving" ... K ?
The evolution of the technology to carry it has no analogy to the evolution of the language.
Are you sure you're not paid to do this? If you're not, you should be. You're really good at it, and you certainly have gotten a lot of practice.
Thanks for the complement, but truthfully, it's really not that difficult to simply tell the truth and embrace honesty. The truth is much easier to defend than the lie ... because lies need ever increasing volumes of additional lies to support the previous ones. It's a vicious cycle that leaves too many holes to exploit, if one simply pays attention. Contradiction is the Achilles heel of untruthfulness, while the truth never suffers contradiction.
When it comes to the topic of the origin of life, like many other things, it's really impossible to explain the process with any degree of unassailable certainty, and that's where both evolution and creationism are most vulnerable and where it's greatest flaws reside. Both sides insist that their narrative is the undeniable truth, while the false nature of the claim is far too evident to miss. In contrast, Intelligent Design Theory is the safest and most honest philosophy, precisely because there are no such demonstratively false claims subject to challenge. The philosophy is also more rational, and scientifically sound, because there is no unprovable claims of facts being made, just conjecture, and logical deduction based on available evidence. IDT neither tries nor needs to try to explain what it has no explanation for, nor fill in missing pieces to the story, because there is no story to fill in, and no dogmatic agenda as it's motive. Intelligent Design simply calls upon well known and well established principles of logic which measure the general construction of a thing to analyze common signs of artificialness, or lack thereof. Artificiality exposes itself by well established measures that are more often than not, dependent only upon observation and common sense.
Anthropologists and Archeologists, as well as other scientists and researchers and common lay people alike possess the tools to detect obvious signs of artificiality .... it's fundamental human intelligence to discern the differences between artificial and natural .. the random versus the deliberate. It takes little more expertise than possessed by a child who may find an arrow head in a field. It's easily distinguishable from a rock of similar size ... recognizable by it's shape and characteristic tooling marks.
A first time visitor to the United States, having no knowledge of US History need not be told by the tour guide that Mount Rushmore was deliberately sculpted into the rock, and not a formation created by natural erosion. The telltale, unmistakable signs of design are apparent in simple observation.
By these same basic measures of common sense and rational deduction, the infinitely more complex structure of a living cell, and it's DNA provides all of the evidence necessary to conclude artificial construction, as we understand the natural versus artificial. To believe otherwise, is a akin to believing that Mount Rushmore was the result of Millions of Years of erosion, while using the Grand Canyon as an example of the power of nature to cut through rock.
The living biological cell incorporates a plethora of molecular "machines" performing deliberate tasks, like a microscopic city with a population of mechanical workers, constantly performing their tasks to keep the cell operating smoothly ... feeding the cell, manufacturing replacement parts for the cell, defending the cell against attack .... carrying nutrients, removing trash ... and working in unison with trillions of other cells to make you alive and functional. None of this could possibly have come about by random chance mixing of raw inert elements, which formed the complex structures that comprise the living cell. Such thinking is antithetical to any form of common sense that has every existed. It is by any measure pure, idiotic rationalization, based in decades of indoctrination. There is no evidence to support the origin of life by evolutionary explanations, nor does the existence of variation and adaptive changes within species groups, which are clearly observable, somehow prove the origin of that living matter that makes up the species experiencing those observable changes.
The biggest error evolutionists make is in the conscious decision to use evolution theory as the means to disprove their hated creationists. Because no one can prove the origin of life, and falsely insisting that you have, only destroys your own credibility, while exposing the promoters as dogmatic frauds.
[quote=Nozzferrahhtoo;28776836]It was nice of you to label what your following post was going to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You don't get to redefine evolution theory to your convenience[/QOTE]
I was not. I was in fact rejecting YOUR redefinition of it. A redefinition that required you to entirely ignore, skip over and run away from my earlier reply to you in this thread.
Ah you are playing that old creationist ca(na)rd are you?
In the scientific field of ballistics we do not discuss WHY gun powder explodes. Why? Because it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with ballistics. It is a separate field entirely. Ballistics pre-supposes the field of chemistry and the reactions that cause gun powder to do what it does.
Similarly the field of Evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with where the "first replication agent" came from. It is a separate field entirely.
Fine .. then you shall be forced to admit that Darwinian Evolution does NOTHING to disprove creation or intelligent design, because to do so, one must prove that the "first replication agent" was not created by a God, or intelligently designed as a self replicating form of life, by someone or some-thing that you cannot and have not scientifically explained.
Yet, to deny that Darwinists constantly insist that evolution does indeed disprove creation is a complete fraud. The fact is, evolutionists spend more time ridiculing creationism and intelligent design than they do fabricating evidence and distorting the debate about evolution theory ... which you yourself have done here, just now.
So, either ADMIT you do not know how life came into existence, and consequently cannot affect creation theory or Intelligent Design in any way shape or form .... or you're just spewing hot air.
I'm not complimenting your arguments which are actually complete b.s., I'm complimenting your style. You have been well trained to use psychological techniques against your opponents. When did the ID/ Creationist industry get the money to hire such gifted communication experts?
Have you thought about perhaps using your gifts in the game industry? I bet there's a lot more money in it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Thanks for the complement, but truthfully, it's really not that difficult to simply tell the truth and embrace honesty. The truth is much easier to defend than the lie ... because lies need ever increasing volumes of additional lies to support the previous ones. It's a vicious cycle that leaves too many holes to exploit, if one simply pays attention. Contradiction is the Achilles heel of untruthfulness, while the truth never suffers contradiction.
When it comes to the topic of the origin of life, like many other things, it's really impossible to explain the process with any degree of unassailable certainty, and that's where both evolution and creationism are most vulnerable and where it's greatest flaws reside. Both sides insist that their narrative is the undeniable truth, while the false nature of the claim is far too evident to miss. In contrast, Intelligent Design Theory is the safest and most honest philosophy, precisely because there are no such demonstratively false claims subject to challenge. The philosophy is also more rational, and scientifically sound, because there is no unprovable claims of facts being made, just conjecture, and logical deduction based on available evidence. IDT neither tries nor needs to try to explain what it has no explanation for, nor fill in missing pieces to the story, because there is no story to fill in, and no dogmatic agenda as it's motive. Intelligent Design simply calls upon well known and well established principles of logic which measure the general construction of a thing to analyze common signs of artificialness, or lack thereof. Artificiality exposes itself by well established measures that are more often than not, dependent only upon observation and common sense.
Anthropologists and Archeologists, as well as other scientists and researchers and common lay people alike possess the tools to detect obvious signs of artificiality .... it's fundamental human intelligence to discern the differences between artificial and natural .. the random versus the deliberate. It takes little more expertise than possessed by a child who may find an arrow head in a field. It's easily distinguishable from a rock of similar size ... recognizable by it's shape and characteristic tooling marks.
A first time visitor to the United States, having no knowledge of US History need not be told by the tour guide that Mount Rushmore was deliberately sculpted into the rock, and not a formation created by natural erosion. The telltale, unmistakable signs of design are apparent in simple observation.
By these same basic measures of common sense and rational deduction, the infinitely more complex structure of a living cell, and it's DNA provides all of the evidence necessary to conclude artificial construction, as we understand the natural versus artificial. To believe otherwise, is a akin to believing that Mount Rushmore was the result of Millions of Years of erosion, while using the Grand Canyon as an example of the power of nature to cut through rock.
The living biological cell incorporates a plethora of molecular "machines" performing deliberate tasks, like a microscopic city with a population of mechanical workers, constantly performing their tasks to keep the cell operating smoothly ... feeding the cell, manufacturing replacement parts for the cell, defending the cell against attack .... carrying nutrients, removing trash ... and working in unison with trillions of other cells to make you alive and functional. None of this could possibly have come about by random chance mixing of raw inert elements, which formed the complex structures that comprise the living cell. Such thinking is antithetical to any form of common sense that has every existed. It is by any measure pure, idiotic rationalization, based in decades of indoctrination. There is no evidence to support the origin of life by evolutionary explanations, nor does the existence of variation and adaptive changes within species groups, which are clearly observable, somehow prove the origin of that living matter that makes up the species experiencing those observable changes.
The biggest error evolutionists make is in the conscious decision to use evolution theory as the means to disprove their hated creationists. Because no one can prove the origin of life, and falsely insisting that you have, only destroys your own credibility, while exposing the promoters as dogmatic frauds.
Yes they do. You don't know what you're talking about. Taking your asteroid example, it's impact on the earth is entirely deterministic. You're probably confusing it for another term 'chaotic' which is simply a deterministic system highly sensitive to IC. It's not random. Again you don't know what 'random' means and you're failing.
I'm not complimenting your arguments which are actually complete b.s., I'm complimenting your style. You have been well trained to use psychological techniques against your opponents. When did the ID/ Creationist industry get the money to hire such gifted communication experts?
Have you thought about perhaps using your gifts in the game industry? I bet there's a lot more money in it for you.
Well, it's easy for you to claim my arguments are complete BS, while painting with such a broad brush by failing to cite anything specific. But I'm telling you straight out that telling the truth, and asking the hard questions, and exposing the double talk and diversions engaged by evolutionists are not "psychological techniques". It's the only legitimate form of debate ... unlike claiming someone is full of it, without qualification, or making false claims and passing off pure speculation as some form of fact.
My "style" you refer to is inextricably connected to the conclusions I reach personally, having no one else's agenda as a motivating factor, unlike the clearly overt hostility toward religion that is universal to evolutionists. I am indeed agenda-less, unless you consider telling the truth and exposing lies to be an agenda AND psychological manipulation?
What I do has nothing to do with psychological manipulation ... I in fact spend most of my time exposing such manipulation, just as I did with the previous poster who claimed .. and I quote "evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with where the "first replication agent" came from. It is a separate field entirely".
Now, notice the term used "first replication agent" for a bit of insight into the mindset of evolutionists and their "techniques" .... it would have been simple enough to just say "first living cell" rather than "replication agent". It's the nature of such tactical approaches to admit while not admitting ... to make a statement that is just ambiguous enough to sidestep a challenge, with a "I never said X". But clearly, and this is just too prevalent for anyone but the most shameful liar to deny, that evolutionists by substantial majority insist that evolution disproves creation and intelligent design. Yet, in order to actually do that, evolution would HAVE TO explain the origin of that first form of life by natural processes, else no such claims of disproving the origin of life is remotely possible. This is just one of the many distortions and disconnected and discordant claims, though it is by far the most significant one.
To really spell it out for you ... even the Catholic Church has stated that it sees no inherent conflict between Christianity and Evolution, but you shall never see such magnanimity coming from the evolutionists. Take a bit of time to review Richard Dawkins foam at the mouth at the mere mention of creation .... he's a vitriolic hate mongering moron, and one of the most supreme anti-religion a-holes ever to walk the planet. He literally loses composure, and behaves like a madman ... lips pursed, face red .. he gets downright hostile, while he arrogantly declares creationists and intelligent design people unworthy of having a discussion with. That's the evolutionist side of things .... more preoccupied with religion than the religious fundamentalists are.
But please ... feel free to take any issue that you claim to be complete BS ... and name it. Tell me why it's BS, and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you, calmly and rationally, and free of dishonest tactics and manipulations.
I don't believe that you are motivationless. You spend much too time crafting responses. I know that you have been practicing for a while so it does come as second nature by now, but still, there's hours worth of prose on this thread alone. If you aren't paid to be doing this, you should be. Your time is more valuable than wasting it arguing with strangers if there's no financial benefit.
An example of your BS:
"you shall never see such magnanimity coming from the evolutionists"
Ken Miller, Stephen J. Gould, etc.
Dawkins does not speak for all evolutionary biologists. He's just the loudest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Well, it's easy for you to claim my arguments are complete BS, while painting with such a broad brush by failing to cite anything specific. But I'm telling you straight out that telling the truth, and asking the hard questions, and exposing the double talk and diversions engaged by evolutionists are not "psychological techniques". It's the only legitimate form of debate ... unlike claiming someone is full of it, without qualification, or making false claims and passing off pure speculation as some form of fact.
My "style" you refer to is inextricably connected to the conclusions I reach personally, having no one else's agenda as a motivating factor, unlike the clearly overt hostility toward religion that is universal to evolutionists. I am indeed agenda-less, unless you consider telling the truth and exposing lies to be an agenda AND psychological manipulation?
What I do has nothing to do with psychological manipulation ... I in fact spend most of my time exposing such manipulation, just as I did with the previous poster who claimed .. and I quote "evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with where the "first replication agent" came from. It is a separate field entirely".
Now, notice the term used "first replication agent" for a bit of insight into the mindset of evolutionists and their "techniques" .... it would have been simple enough to just say "first living cell" rather than "replication agent". It's the nature of such tactical approaches to admit while not admitting ... to make a statement that is just ambiguous enough to sidestep a challenge, with a "I never said X". But clearly, and this is just too prevalent for anyone but the most shameful liar to deny, that evolutionists by substantial majority insist that evolution disproves creation and intelligent design. Yet, in order to actually do that, evolution would HAVE TO explain the origin of that first form of life by natural processes, else no such claims of disproving the origin of life is remotely possible. This is just one of the many distortions and disconnected and discordant claims, though it is by far the most significant one.
To really spell it out for you ... even the Catholic Church has stated that it sees no inherent conflict between Christianity and Evolution, but you shall never see such magnanimity coming from the evolutionists. Take a bit of time to review Richard Dawkins foam at the mouth at the mere mention of creation .... he's a vitriolic hate mongering moron, and one of the most supreme anti-religion a-holes ever to walk the planet. He literally loses composure, and behaves like a madman ... lips pursed, face red .. he gets downright hostile, while he arrogantly declares creationists and intelligent design people unworthy of having a discussion with. That's the evolutionist side of things .... more preoccupied with religion than the religious fundamentalists are.
But please ... feel free to take any issue that you claim to be complete BS ... and name it. Tell me why it's BS, and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you, calmly and rationally, and free of dishonest tactics and manipulations.
What's wrong with teaching evolution in public school? Nothing.
signed,
Mrs. God
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
