Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[Leifmk]

If the scale of randomness is of such magnitude as to be incalculable, we can therefore deduce a universal constant of symmetrical predictability?

That does not logically follow. It is in fact a logical absurdity that math remains a constant in a constant state of flux/momentum.

I can recognize every single word, but the post as a whole seems to make no sense whatsoever.

In other words, what the heck are you trying to talk about?

 

[beingofone]

The statement is:

The chance of Earth being formed like it is is incredibly small, but still, the Earth is there. Because it (the chance, not Earth) is so incredibly small, it (Earth) must have been ID-ed.

The diceroll example:
The chance of the results of a set of a trillion dicethrows to be exacly like the ones I just recorded are so incredibly small, but still those results were thrown, it must be ID-ed.

It doesn't really matter what the alternative is. Earth is here. The results are known. In the case of the dicethrow you are looking at randomness, what alternative explenation of existance there is is not important. You must judge a theory and it's validation on it's own merits.

Therefor I do not believe the incredible small chance explenation to be proof of ID, neither is it proof for any intelligence in dicerolls. Arguing chances backwards in time is also not very helpfull since the chance of Earth happening is 1.

We can deduce our pattern of existence by the means of infinite regression of chaotic math?

That is Zeno`s paradox without introducing a finite sum.

 

[beingofone]

I can recognize every single word, but the post as a whole seems to make no sense whatsoever.

In other words, what the heck are you trying to talk about?

Thank you for the courtesy of asking what I mean.

beingofone:
If the scale of randomness is of such magnitude as to be incalculable, we can therefore deduce a universal constant of symmetrical predictability?

This is Ziggys` argument that I am attempting to clarify.

It does not make sense to me either.

That does not logically follow. It is in fact a logical absurdity that math remains a constant in a constant state of flux/momentum.

This is my rebuttle.

It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

 

[warpus]

More than what?

You said that me planning to do something and carrying out my plan tomorrow was a test we can do to potentially falsify ID.

But that doesn't make any sense at all...

All that shows is that I am an intelligent agent.. and that I can plan stuff and carry out these plans.

But so what? What conclusion do you draw from that that I'm not seeing here???

Exactly; and that irrefutable evidence tells us what about the nature of the universe?

It tells us that it contains intelligent agents, called humand, who can plan and carry out their plans.

But once again, so what[b/] ??

First things first.

If we are discussing the source of the universe, we must, of necessity, describe its properties.

If we fail to establish the properties of the essence of the thing we wish to examine - how in the world do you know what to look for?

Hey, you're the one who says that ID can be falsified. If you say it can be falsified, you must have an idea of how to falsify it.. but so far from you on the subject, we have nothing.

I just gave you an experiment to test and falsify the properties of the universe - finish that experiment and we can go to the next one.

Right.

So I planned something yesterday and carried it out today. It shows that I'm an intelligent agent.

What now?

Beingofone I think your problem is that you somehow think that the fact that we're conscious implies that a creator exits... So I wonder why you think this?

 

[Leifmk]

It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

I see; you really do not make any sense.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

beingofone:
If the scale of randomness is of such magnitude as to be incalculable, we can therefore deduce a universal constant of symmetrical predictability?

This is Ziggys` argument that I am attempting to clarify.

Is it?

But I don't have a clue what you're saying here

I stated my argument in simple layman terms, please try to adress it as such. If it is beneath you to do so, I will respectfully shy away from arguing

This is my rebuttle.

It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

Again, not a clue.

My argument is what I wrote. I haven't the foggiest of what argument you are trying to shove into my shoes. Again, the randomness I am talking about only applies to the dicerolls, since I claim ignorance about what did cause existance.

Explain it to me like I'm a 6 year old

 

[beingofone]

You said that me planning to do something and carrying out my plan tomorrow was a test we can do to potentially falsify ID.

But that doesn't make any sense at all...

No; you asked for tests, plural. I gave you one that demonstrates properties of the universe.

Does the universe have the properties of intelligence and design?

All that shows is that I am an intelligent agent.. and that I can plan stuff and carry out these plans.

That is not all it shows - open up your mind and think beyond the box.

What else could it possibly, by the means of what is self evident, lead us to conclude?

But so what? What conclusion do you draw from that that I'm not seeing here???

Does the experiment clearly demonstrate intelligence/design by the manipulation of the field, AKA universe?

It tells us that it contains intelligent agents, called humand, who can plan and carry out their plans.

If the universe has the properties of intelligence/design, it therefore, is fundamental to the fabric of the structure of the universe, yes?

Answer this question please.

Hey, you're the one who says that ID can be falsified. If you say it can be falsified, you must have an idea of how to falsify it.. but so far from you on the subject, we have nothing.

Answer the above question.

Beingofone I think your problem is that you somehow think that the fact that we're conscious implies that a creator exits... So I wonder why you think this?

In all logic, as you well know Warpus, there are building blocks that must be layed as a foundation.

Answer the above question first.

 

[warpus]

It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

What.. you mean like something like this?

 

[Atlas14]

Schools must teach science in the science classroom, not some pseudo-philosophical religious jargon to fill an emotional void of Christian children and parents.

 

[beingofone]

beingofone :
It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

Leif:
I see; you really do not make any sense.

Okay; answer this:

If you have a billiard ball table and the initial break is infinite - what pattern could you calculate?

beingofone:
If the scale of randomness is of such magnitude as to be incalculable, we can therefore deduce a universal constant of symmetrical predictability?

This is Ziggys` argument that I am attempting to clarify.

Ziggy:
Is it?

But I don't have a clue what you're saying here

I stated my argument in simple layman terms, please try to adress it as such. If it is beneath you to do so, I will respectfully shy away from arguing

Imagine a perpetual motion machine - it never stops cycling, an INFINITE SET algorithym. A turing machine of infinite calculations.

We then discern a pattern of numbers that is positive infinity but remains a constant. Take a calculator and divide any number by zero - you get "positive infinity", yes?

The constant that remains is the position compared to velocity. The discernable pattern is the constant observation of the infinite algorithym. We could not do any calculations in the universe if there was not constant position/velocity. The base number that always divides is zero to gain the constant pattern of predictible outcomes from the infinite set.

0/1 = 0 or pattern discernable of the position of the universe through observation/perception.
1/0 = positive infinity or infinite flux/momentum of the universe.

The empty set is a universal constant.

There are two components to the universe:
1) infinite flux/change
2) constant observation or perception

Hey - I am trying. You are the one that wanted to discuss infinite calculations

BO1:
It means that if we have infinite constant momentum of blind cause and effect pattern could not possibly be discernable.

Ziggy:
Again, not a clue.

My argument is what I wrote. I haven't the foggiest of what argument you are trying to shove into my shoes. Again, the randomness I am talking about only applies to the dicerolls, since I claim ignorance about what did cause existance.

Explain it to me like I'm a 6 year old

Imagine an infinite source of electricity. Unbounded and perpetual. Without resistance would there be any pattern?

Cause and effect is like:
Blowing into a balloon. You keep blowing air into the balloon until it pops. There would be no pattern if cause and effect were not bounded to design as there could be no resistance in what is contained in infinite causual flow.

I did my best - remember - we are attempting to discuss what is at the brink of pushing the envelope; meaning the infinite.

We could not distinguish pattern if cause and effect were blind because it would result in white noise.


Let me know if you still need clarity. If it still sounds like jibber jabber, try this:
Without internal combustion, a car could not function as the explosion would be subject to scatter.

 

[Leifmk]

It appears I wasted all those years getting my math degree, because I still can't make any sense of this.

 

[beingofone]

What.. you mean like something like this?

Who decided this?
1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if by loneliness.
2. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
3. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives, unchanged, to the next generation.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours comes to life.


Atlas14:

Schools must teach science in the science classroom, not some pseudo-philosophical religious jargon to fill an emotional void of Christian children and parents.

Oh of course not; we would not want to challenge ourselves - status quo is easier when someone else does your thinking for you.

Raise your right hand.
Repeat after me.
"I pledge allegience to beingofone."
"I will send all of my money to beingofone."

 

[Adamb0mb]

0/1 = 0 or pattern discernable of the position of the universe through observation/perception.
1/0 = positive infinity or infinite flux/momentum of the universe.

The empty set is a universal constant.

There are two components to the universe:
1) infinite flux/change
2) constant observation or perception

1/0 is not infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 is infinity.

I fail to see how this trivial math points to the existence of god.

 

[beingofone]

It appears I wasted all those years getting my math degree, because I still can't make any sense of this.

That could be because you still believe math is a code to be deciphered.

It is ideas and concepts that are the constants - math is merely the symbols.

 

[Leifmk]

That could be because you still believe math is a code to be deciphered.

It is ideas and concepts that are the constants - math is merely the symbols.

Or... it could just possibly be because you're trying to talk about subjects which you really don't know anything about.

 

[beingofone]

1/0 is not infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 is infinity.

I fail to see how this trivial math points to the existence of god.

That is because you have an agenda and did not use your calculator.

Enter the equation in a calculator - see what happens - then get back to me.

 

[Atlas14]

That is because you have an agenda and did not use your calculator.

Enter the equation in a calculator - see what happens - then get back to me.

Try applying biology to evolution, and not abstract equations with zero relevance to anything at all. Actually your agenda is very clear...

 

[Leifmk]

That is because you have an agenda and did not use your calculator.

Enter the equation in a calculator - see what happens - then get back to me.

The simple fact that you think a calculator is at all relevant to this question is ample demonstration that you haven't the foggiest clue about math, and are speaking gibberish. Seriously, dude.

 

[beingofone]

Or... it could just possibly be because you're trying to talk about subjects which you really don't know anything about.

Fine - we have nothing more to discuss - good day.

 

[Adamb0mb]

That is because you have an agenda and did not use your calculator.

Enter the equation in a calculator - see what happens - then get back to me.

agenda or not...

I pulled out my fancy TI-89 calculator plugged in 1/0 it responeded 'undef'
or undefined which is the true answer.

I tried 5/0... undefined

If 1/0 did equal infinity that would mean infinity*0 = 1 which is not true