Very simple math proves the existance of God

a reply to: spy66

It is you who cant argue against what i am saying.

You dont have a argument to come With just insults.

I did, and I have given you a valid argument. Your argument is wrought with logical errors.
You aren't even trying to discuss the argument using proper definitions - you're continuing to talk about locations in time "before" the beginning of time, in effect referring to a point farther North than the North Pole. Your arguments aren't logically self-consistent with any sensible definition of terms, and therefore are invalid.

Insulting me wont change my mind. If you cant correct me properly With a Counter argument you are usless.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm correcting you. I can't prevent my argument from going over your head.

You keep trying to say the singularity is a 3D compressed mass. I'm telling you the Singularity is not an object. It's not a mass waiting to explode! It's a our mathematical breakdown where the usual predictive models we use stop applying because the conditions are too different from what we observe today to use our normal math. The word "Singularity" just means "this is a state we cannot currently explain, the laws of physics as we know them don't work here, we need more information about the deeper underlying laws of the Universe to make any predictions. Again, you have no tools to construct any proof of your assertions.

You are nothing but spam.

That's one way of looking at it, especially when one does not have a clue about what I have just explained.

My point is that you are making declarations of what is correct or not, based on a poor and mainly incorrect understanding of physics.

originally posted by: spy66
If Our universe the singularity is a 3D compressed mass. There exists a infinite lager Dimension out side the singualrity "Our universe" The Dimension that is infinite larger than Our singularity must have fomred the singularity.

You were doing so good until this statement. There is no logical link between everything else you said and this point. Why does a finite but expanding universe require a dimension of infinite proportions to expand into? You do realize that infinite means it never ends right? Infinitely larger is not a valid concept. Infinite is infinite. There is no comparison. From this statement you continue on with a myriad of assumptions. I honestly do not believe that anything is infinite, but you never know.

a reply to: Barcs

An infinite Lager Dimension?

I believe that's called Oktoberfest..

originally posted by: Barcs
I honestly do not believe that anything is infinite, but you never know.

Human stupidity, as Einstein suggested in his quote?

I think I saw Morgan Freeman explain that easiest way to imagine universe is like imagining balloon that expends. This was after he was host on some Physicist symposium or something like that... let me look...

thedailyshow.cc.com...

originally posted by: nightlight7
Of course there is. Processes of evolution are ubiquitous anywhere you look, from physical level up through social networks at all levels. For any such process for which we can truly explain its driving causes, we find creative, intelligent, anticipatory process behind, working out (computing, executing anticipatory algorithms) possibilities in its internal model space in order to choose its actions in the physical interactions with its environment. It is a lot faster, cheaper and safer to play such what-if game in one's 'head' as it were, than to keep trying and failing in the physical realm.

Again you are making assumptions about things. There is no evidence to suggest that intelligence is behind evolution. You can keep arguing with me all you want about it, but until you produce said evidence in your favor then you are just blowing smoke.

Neo-Darwinists insist on implausible conjecture, or rather a cult-like dogma enforced with cult-like group think and witch hunts against unbelievers, that evolution of biological systems is fundamentally different in the need for such underlying anticipatory computational processes (in short, intelligence) than all the instances of evolution for which the driving causes are well understood, such as those at human and social levels.

No they don't. First off, what is a neo-darwinist? I get tired of religious types making up labels for people who believe in the theory of evolution. You either believe in the theory or you don't. Please drop the labels, I know what you are doing. You are trying to label us so you can make it appear like believing in evolution is a religion. You even painted it as such above, even though those claims are bogus. People who believe in evolution, do so because of the evidence for it. THAT IS IT.

That, despite the evident fantastic sophistication of the artifacts of biological evolution which are far beyond anything we can figure out or understand with laws & patterns of nature extracted/computed by our brains.

So because we can't currently understand it that gives you carte blanche to just say, "God did it"? What happened to saying, "We don't know," and studying it further until you do?

After all, the cellular biochemical networks (and computations underpinning them) design and build not just the mind-boggling nano-technology observed in the cells, but also much larger technologies, such as tissues, organs, organisms, including human bodies, and societies of such organisms, with which they can perform intelligent, purposeful actions at vastly larger scales than their own physical size, such as design and build houses, office buildings, highways, cars, airplanes, TV's, computers, write software, scientific papers, etc.

So

What we call human intelligence is merely a tiny correction or refinement at the 80-th place (see links below) after decimal point of the main results in front of the decimal point from the overall anticipatory computations at levels that built human bodies and brains, tissues, cells, molecules,... in the first place, as their galactic-scale hierarchy of technologies for the purposes and in ways human brains have not even the remotest clue about. There are some very smart scientists seeking to at least get a glimpse at this computational level that underpins what we call physical laws. They are usually theoretical physicists (I may be biased in pointing there, being a minor member of that club) working on pregeometry models. In the first phase, they are trying to derive self-programming distributed computational models, such as neural or adaptable networks operating at Planck scale that can replicate, among others, our laws of physical space-time and matter energy at our scales.

There is a longer survey with references and discussion on this topic in an earlier, much longer and a more thoughtful thread in another forum. The hyperlinked TOC of the highlights of that thread is in the second half of this post, and a brief bird's eye view on the overall undertaking in this post.

Human thinking being similar to computational think doesn't mean there is intelligence behind all processes. You are still making egregious leaps in logic.

It certainly can exist, and from the artifacts of its outputs something of that kind has to exist, as some pregeometry models referenced and discussed at the above links hypothesize. In fact, some rough estimates from such models are that the underlying computations at Planck scale operating any given chunk of matter-energy at our physical laws scale are computationally about 10^80 (100...0 with eighty zeros) times more powerful than the most powerful computing technology we may be able to build some day using our 'elementary' particles as its basic gates in the same chunk of space-time & quantity of matter-energy (even that one is many doubling cycles of Moore's law ahead of our present computing technology).

If it can exist, then prove it. Show me the evidence that intelligence of that caliber can exist. Your entire argument can be summed up as such, "We can't or don't understand something therefore God." That is an impediment to critical thinking since it assumes an answer to a question that we don't have ability to answer. What's the point of researching further if we already have the answer, God? If we always followed that line of thought, we'd still think that volcanoes and hurricanes are acts of god. Like I said, if the answer to a question is unknown or cannot be solved at the moment, the ONLY logical answer that we can say at this point is, "I don't know." Everything else is an assumption and goes away from scientific thought.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
There is no evidence to suggest that intelligence is behind evolution. You can keep arguing with me all you want about it, but until you produce said evidence in your favor then you are just blowing smoke.

I already did -- all other systems that show phenomenon of evolution for which the causes are understood, such as technologies, sciences, software, fashions, arts, languages,... reveal a creative, intelligent process as the origin of novelty. Yet, neo-Darwinian conjecture claims that for biological systems, random mutation suffices to produce all the observed novelty in biological systems in time they had available for the changes observed. Yet, they have never specified or quantified what those implied probability distributions are, needed to distinguish their "random" vs intelligently guided ones. Hence the neo-Darwinian conjecture is not even a scientific hypothesis but at best a metaphysical or theological thesis, and a quite poor one even for that.

Their theory is in essence -- despite evidence from other evolving systems where intelligent processes are invariably found responsible for producing novelty, we haven't seen or can think up of any such process that could be underlying biological evolution, such as brain of some sort, hence there cannot be any such intelligent process (because we're so smart, of course, nudge nudge).

First off, what is a neo-darwinist? I get tired of religious types making up labels for people who believe in the theory of evolution. You either believe in the theory or you don't. Please drop the labels, I know what you are doing.

Neo-Darwinism claims that the evolutionary novelties (which are later filtered by natural selection) are result of "random mudation" (without providing probability distributions needed for falsifiability of the claim). For example if you claim that dice toss outcomes are random, you also need to say what are probabilities of different outcomes (e.g. probability is uniform distribution in event space, 1/6 for each value). One can then confirm or falsify such claim by comparing the predictions of the suggested distribution vs observations of the dice outcomes.

Similarly, when one claims to have created a good random number generator for particular distribution (er.g. uniform, Gaussian, Poissonian, etc), the claim is empty and unfalsifiable unless the distribution is specified. Once they provide distribution, the claim becomes hypothesis which can be tested and falsified.

Neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution has no probability distribution behind their "random" attribute of mutations -- it is an empty, unfalsifiable label, a pure ideology/theology masquerading as a scientific theory.

While biological systems do evolve, so do technologies, languages, sciences, arts, software, etc. It is the neo-Darwinian "theory" about it that is vapid (it's not a scientific theory at all). In no other case we understand the novelty arises via "random" errors e.g. new versions of Windows are not result of typing errors by Microsoft programmers which were then weeded out of bad ones through alpha and beta testing. No, each novelty was result of creative thought process by the designers.

So because we can't currently understand it that gives you carte blanche to just say, "God did it"?

You made that up. I never said that. What is it with Darwinists with their strawman reflex?

What I said is that from the fact that evolutionary phenomena which are pervasive in universe, across all systems and scales, whenever we able to understand and explain the process in sufficient detail, we have always found intelligent process as the source of the evolutionary novelty. Further, the 'intelligent process' uncovered was always some kind of computation by a distributed computing system of networked type (such as neural network e.g. brain) executing anticipatory algorithms.

Hence, my statement is that the most plausible conjecture, based on all other known instances of evolution in other systems, is that the same kind of processes (distributed networked type of computing system running anticipatory algorithms i.e. intelligent processes) is responsible for generating evolutionary novelty in biological systems as well.

In contrast, the neo-Darwinian dogma asserts (or rather, imposes via medieval style inquisition tactics) -- no, the biological systems are the only ones among those with evolutionary phenomena, which don't require intelligent process as the source of novelty, but a simple "random" (unquantified & unfalsifiable) mutation suffices as the generator for all the observed novelties in such systems.


What happened to saying, "We don't know," and studying it further until you do?

There is no problem with that. The problem is that neo-Darwinian "theory" [b
claims to know the origin of evolutionary novelty -- it is the "random" mutation, they claim (without offering falsifiable criteria to test their claim). The neo-Darwinian "theory" is actually a dogma and a science stopper saying in effect -- don't look there for anything else (such as for computational processes running anticipatory algorithms i.e. intelligent processes), the mutations are "random", science is settled, period.

Yet, the genuine scientific alternatives to the anti-scientific "random" mutation of neo-Darwinist dogma already exist, such as James Shapiro's "natural genetic engineering", or research of computational capabilities of cellular biochemical networks (mostly at Santa Fe Institute for complexity science, or NKS by Stephen Wolfram). Hence, what we have in neo-Darwinism is a 19th century pseudo-scientific relic turned into a anti-science cult and imposed by the cult-like enforcement methods as much as any medieval dogmas were back in their day.

"After all, the cellular biochemical networks (and computations underpinning them) design and build not just the mind-boggling nano-technology observed in the cells, but also much larger technologies, such as tissues, organs, organisms, including human bodies, and societies of such organisms, with which they can perform intelligent, purposeful actions at vastly larger scales than their own physical size, such as design and build houses, office buildings, highways, cars, airplanes, TV's, computers, write software, scientific papers, etc. "

So

So, we're to these underlying networks what our cars, buildings, TVs, computers, cell phones,... are to us -- useful technologies.

Human thinking being similar to computational think doesn't mean there is intelligence behind all processes.

If two processes A and B generate output or artifacts, OutA and OutB, and if OutA is more sophisticated and complex than OutB, then the plausible conjecture is that the process A is computationally more sophisticated or powerful than process B. This is even more plausible, if one of OutA is process B itself, as in the case of humans which are one of the outputs of cellular nano-technology. Hence, the underlying computing technology which designed and built cellular nano-technology to design and build humans, is vastly more intelligent than either.

This no different than judging a circus acrobat who can balance one beam on top of other beam as more skillful than the acrobat who can balance just one beam.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Show me the evidence that intelligence of that caliber can exist.

I did (visit the links provided earlier for references & detailed explanation) -- it is a mathematical fact (research of neural networks and cellular automate, see especially Wolfram's NKS book) the adaptable networks are self-programming distributed computers, with additive intelligence i.e. adding more nodes and links (e.g. via simple replication) yields more intelligent systems. Some pregeometry models of fundamental physics are exploring such networks at Planck scale (10^35 m, with clocks ticking at 10^44 cycles/sec) as the underlying model for our physical laws, including space-time itself.

The issue is not whether such underlying distributed computational system of immense power (10^80 times more powerful than computers we could ever build in the same volume of space using our elementary particles as its gates) could exist, but what specific kind of such system can replicate the most accurately the known facts of physics. Presently, such models are still fragmented and incomplete, each dealing with and replicating some aspects of physics only.

Your entire argument can be summed up as such, "We can't or don't understand something therefore God." That is an impediment to critical thinking since it assumes an answer to a question that we don't have ability to answer.

It certainly is a major impediment, a science stopper, just like its mirror image nemesis, the neo-Darwinism. Except, that, as usually, you made up that strawman entirely on your own. I never made such argument or wrote anything of the sort.

What's the point of researching further if we already have the answer, God? If we always followed that line of thought, we'd still think that volcanoes and hurricanes are acts of god. Like I said, if the answer to a question is unknown or cannot be solved at the moment, the ONLY logical answer that we can say at this point is, "I don't know." Everything else is an assumption and goes away from scientific thought.

Congrats, you surely made a bloody mess and turned into a pulp that strawman.

a reply to: nightlight7

Oh I see. You are one of those "the universe is a simulation" people. Well that was my bad for making assumptions about your beliefs. I will say this about that idea, it is a grand idea and I'm not against it. I just don't see the link to intelligence behind various processes within the universe. I want to address this statement though.

Neo-Darwinism claims that the evolutionary novelties (which are later filtered by natural selection) are result of "random mudation" (without providing probability distributions needed for falsifiability of the claim). For example if you claim that dice toss outcomes are random, you also need to say what are probabilities of different outcomes (e.g. probability is uniform distribution in event space, 1/6 for each value). One can then confirm or falsify such claim by comparing the predictions of the suggested distribution vs observations of the dice outcomes.

Similarly, when one claims to have created a good random number generator for particular distribution (er.g. uniform, Gaussian, Poissonian, etc), the claim is empty and unfalsifiable unless the distribution is specified. Once they provide distribution, the claim becomes hypothesis which can be tested and falsified.

Neo-Darwinian "theory" of evolution has no probability distribution behind their "random" attribute of mutations -- it is an empty, unfalsifiable label, a pure ideology/theology masquerading as a scientific theory.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are making the claim that because we say an event is determined randomly with random probability X, you have to know the probability to verify that claim. That claim is wrong because we don't need to know that a die has 1/6 chances to roll a 1 to know that there is a probability involved with rolling a 1. We can make outside observations and experiments to come to this conclusion.

Then you are saying that because it can't be probability behind it, it MUST be intelligence. Well you haven't DISPROVED that it isn't determined through probability. I say that we are at an impasse because you cannot disprove that it is guided by probability and I cannot disprove that it is guided by intelligence. But you see, this is why my error was arguing with you. As long as you accept that evolution does in fact happen, I could care less what you believe is guiding it. I currently side with probability because it has the most evidence and support behind it. I however also leave room for the possibility that your account of things is true as well.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

All I know, and need to know is this: without science I wouldn't even know such ridiculous theistic opinions even exist.

a reply to: nightlight7

The big issue I am noticing is that you are equating all different types of changes in the world to biological evolution. The problem is that they are not the same thing, they do not use the same process. The evolution of computer design or the evolution of a planetary system is not influenced by genetic mutations as biological evolution is. None of what you said is evidence for design, it is evidence for complexity.

Yet, they have never specified or quantified what those implied probability distributions are, needed to distinguish their "random" vs intelligently guided ones. Hence the neo-Darwinian conjecture is not even a scientific hypothesis but at best a metaphysical or theological thesis, and a quite poor one even for that.

There is no possible way to experiment or test to determine whether something is designed. There are many complex things in the universe. Assuming design with no evidence whatsoever of a designer is a big leap in logic. We can directly experiment with genetic mutations influencing morphology and natural selection causing extinctions. There is no such thing as neo darwinism. Modern evolutionary synthesis is a fact based scientific theory. You would need to show evidence if you are o suggest that there is an intelligent designer. Evolution has been directly observed in a lab and nature. It's not even up for debate. If you think it influenced by a programmer, there must be evidence of this aside from appealing to what science hasn't learned yet or comparing it with completely unrelated systems using metaphors and catch phrases like "novelties".

www.pnas.org...

You asked about probabilities and numbers? Here you have it. A scientific research paper that does the math and determines the likihood of certain traits emerging. It also determines there is plenty of time for evolution. Evolution doesn't create novelties because they are innovative, sell a lot or look cool. Organisms survive extinction level events because of certain traits. You are personifying evolution and equivocating it to non biological systems, which is completely illogical because they are not related. Intelligent design, in all its various forms, is not scientific. There are no possible experiments you can do to prove it. ID advocates ignore this basic fact and keep preaching about things that don't even come close to proving it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: nightlight7


There is no possible way to experiment or test to determine whether something is designed.

Enjoy your posts and admire your patience, but don't necessarily agree on this point. It depends a lot on what type of designer is implied (god, aliens, something else), but why couldn't there be experiments directly confirming the existence of a designer? Shouldn't this actually be expected, if such a thing really exists?

It is quite telling that this has never happened (rarely mentioned) and somewhat obvious as to why IMO, but could offer a whole lot more than the usual worn arguments.

Though I agree with the rest. Amongst all of the claims over the years, has there ever been a genuine scientific argument for Intelligent Design itself? Even when linked "papers" have been offered (even some that have slipped through review into real journals), they have amounted to sales pitch based on belief. Usually delivered in ways designed to make this obvious fact, less obvious.

Generally the claims here amount to negative arguments towards science, rather than offering anything for the "creation" position itself. A false dichotomy of "science is wrong about x" = "therefore creation/intelligent design". It doesn't. Even if "science is wrong about x" had any merit, this would mean no more than "science is wrong about x". "Creation" is not some default alternate position.

"I think this was designed, therefore it was designed" obviously doesn't make a very persuasive argument, so what we see are all manner of false analogies, arguments from incredulity and the favourite of debating all manner of minutiae that goes on endlessly while actually ignoring the entire mountain. Depending largely on whatever particular area of science that proponents of intelligent design/creationists think looks, to them, vulnerable.

It's simply "spin".

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: nightlight7

The big issue I am noticing is that you are equating all different types of changes in the world to biological evolution. The problem is that they are not the same thing, they do not use the same process. The evolution of computer design or the evolution of a planetary system is not influenced by genetic mutations as biological evolution is. None of what you said is evidence for design, it is evidence for complexity.

Yet, they have never specified or quantified what those implied probability distributions are, needed to distinguish their "random" vs intelligently guided ones. Hence the neo-Darwinian conjecture is not even a scientific hypothesis but at best a metaphysical or theological thesis, and a quite poor one even for that.

There is no possible way to experiment or test to determine whether something is designed. There are many complex things in the universe. Assuming design with no evidence whatsoever of a designer is a big leap in logic. We can directly experiment with genetic mutations influencing morphology and natural selection causing extinctions. There is no such thing as neo darwinism. Modern evolutionary synthesis is a fact based scientific theory. You would need to show evidence if you are o suggest that there is an intelligent designer. Evolution has been directly observed in a lab and nature. It's not even up for debate. If you think it influenced by a programmer, there must be evidence of this aside from appealing to what science hasn't learned yet or comparing it with completely unrelated systems using metaphors and catch phrases like "novelties".

www.pnas.org...

You asked about probabilities and numbers? Here you have it. A scientific research paper that does the math and determines the likihood of certain traits emerging. It also determines there is plenty of time for evolution. Evolution doesn't create novelties because they are innovative, sell a lot or look cool. Organisms survive extinction level events because of certain traits. You are personifying evolution and equivocating it to non biological systems, which is completely illogical because they are not related. Intelligent design, in all its various forms, is not scientific. There are no possible experiments you can do to prove it. ID advocates ignore this basic fact and keep preaching about things that don't even come close to proving it.

Barcs wins.


I think that there exists a being that is whome we call god. And perhaps he sent a son down to Earth. But i think with technology. We will find there dimensional existence and go there in vesels and witness that they are beings of pure energy living in a formless to our perception universe. But we will find them. Also if technology permits. We shall go back into the past and finally lay to rest the origins of the bible and finally lay to rest the radicalism that is established religions and any other "faith" filled discrepensies. If god exists we will find him, as flesh and blood human beings we will find him. Not our selves as pure energy but as matter in a ship designed to traverse dimensions. Then we can find out the truth for ourselves. Dont leave things to faith, we are a constantly evolving species. Our potential knows no bounds. We must be patient...

And after we die and we turn into pure energy. Then that is were we go. Imagine talking to all those weve lost. The "spirit world" being not so spirit anymore but merely a facet of our existence.
With the ability to enter these carbon and water vessels to live an existence then depart to another form and back. Reincarnation and such. But just so much more simple. The universe i believe is just the last cycle of the universe last black hole colapsing. Then exploding all it energy back to the vacuum, tearing matter into existence as we expand, tiny blackholes slowly consume. Then when the last black hole consumes the last of the matter and it finally colapses, the cycles starts over again. There is no other logical explanation

a reply to: MConnalley

No such thing as 'pure energy'. Energy is always of a certain type, and it is defined in science as merely the potential to do work.

originally posted by: MConnalley
I think that there exists a being that is whome we call god. And perhaps he sent a son down to Earth.

We, we, we.... it is all about us, isn't it?

But, just to follow your story, where this being you call god and his son come from? What created them, apart from your imagination...

a reply to: Barcs
Yet, they have never specified or quantified what those implied probability distributions are, needed to distinguish their "random" vs intelligently guided ones. Hence the neo-Darwinian conjecture is not even a scientific hypothesis but at best a metaphysical or theological thesis, and a quite poor one even for that.

There is no possible way to experiment or test to determine whether something is designed. There are many complex things in the universe. Assuming design with no evidence whatsoever of a designer is a big leap in logic.

You missed the point completely. There is certainly a way to test whether something is "random" (such as novelty generating mutations of neo-Darwinism) provided one also specifies the probability distribution which gives the meaning to the generic attribute "random". Without such specification, "random" is an scientifically empty label.

For example if you claim that a particular dice outcomes are "random", and further specify probabilities of the 6 points (one for each outcome) in the dice 'event space', then one can scientifically test (using any of the randomness tests for sequences) whether your claim is correct i.e. it is a falsifiable claim. E.g. getting repeatedly results 1,2,3,4,5,6 in that order, over and over, or 6 every time, would falsify your statement. Without specifying probability distribution (such as uniform distribution in the dice example), the statement that something is "random" is not scientific but ideologica/theological position e.g. about aimlessness or purposelessness of the process.

There is no such thing as neo darwinism. Modern evolutionary synthesis is a fact based scientific theory.

Neo-darwinism aka "modern synthesis" claims that the generators of the evolutionary novelties are "random" mutations. That could be a scientific conjecture if they would also specify the probability distribution of their "random" attribute (without it it is an empty label, a parasitic add-on), so the conjecture can be tested, e.g. whether the rate and kinds of observed evolutionary novelties at the DNA level matches the predictions of their probability distribution.

Since neo-Darwinism doesn't provide any probability distribution, it cannot be tested (being consistent with anything that is observed, just like a theory "everything is the way it is" is consistent with everything), hence it isn't a scientific conjecture, let alone theory. It is essentially a religious cult, a variant of the ancient worship of deity of 'chaos' (aimlessness, purposelessness, amorality, hedonism,..), expressed in modernized language and peddled as science.

equating all different types of changes in the world to biological evolution. The problem is that they are not the same thing, they do not use the same process.

Neither are all balls falling down the slope "the same thing" yet they all satisfy Newton's laws of motion. The purpose of science is identify and abstract the common patterns (laws) behind the apparent differences in individual phenomena or external appearances. The evolutionary process is an abstraction for changes in general systems of any type, through which the systems adapt and optimize themselves to their environment.

One of the common patterns in evolutionary processes is the complexification -- the structures and behaviors of the systems become more complex as they evolve.

Another common pattern is that whenever we can explain the origin of evolutionary novelties, we find intelligent process responsible for computing those novelties, first trying them out and selecting among possible changes in its internal model space before implementing them in real world.

In fact neo-Darwinism also recognizes the latter pattern, but it dogmatically insists that the algorithm being used is the dumbest one possible -- (unspecified) "random" pick among possibilities, followed by immediate implementation in the real world, with filtering postponed for this last stage. Our understanding of search algorithms has greatly advanced since the 19th century understanding of computation and algorithms on which neo-Darwinist dogma is based.

The absurdity of neo-Darwinist algorithmic dogma, a relic of 19th century understanding of algorithms , is further highlighted by the fact that the numerous algorithms and structures implementing them observed in the cellular functions are far more sophisticated than anything human algorithm designers could create (even Bill Gates acknowledged this, comparing crudeness of the Windows code to complexity and sophistication of genetic code).

Yet, neo-Darwinism insists that the most vital algorithm and the source of all others, is the dumbest one of them all, so dumb that even a two year old child could easily think it up, and likely quickly improve upon it when set to search for hidden candies.

a reply to: nightlight7

Not every mutation is random, there are multiple known causes for genetic mutations. The "random" part is which particular genes are affected. Random is a bad description of what actually happens. It sounds like your only argument against evolution here is that they can't prove that they aren't guided. There is no need to prove that they aren't guided, as there is no evidence to suggest that they are. It is merely wishful thinking on your part. You are also ignoring natural selection, which is actually what determines which traits stay and which ones go the way of the dodo. Natural selection is anything but random. Probability distribution is completely irrelevant to evolution.

Another common pattern is that whenever we can explain the origin of evolutionary novelties, we find intelligent process responsible for computing those novelties, first trying them out and selecting among possible changes in its internal model space before implementing them in real world.

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on this one. There is no "whenever we can explain the origin of evolutionary novelties." Stop using the fallacy of equivocation. Science doesn't use that to explain things and neither should you. You can't compare biological evolution to standard change in other systems that are unrelated. I explained this already but genetic mutations are not any of the other things you are comparing them to and hence do not follow the same properties and it is fallacious to compare them.

Evolution isn't based on dogma or algorithms. Genetic mutations and natural selection are both observable. Stop using propaganda and catch phrases to describe it. LMAO at neo-Darwinist algorithmic dogma. Did you just make that up? Evolution happens. It doesn't matter what Bill Gates says or the fact that you don't even understand how genetic mutations work. You aren't saying anything scientific at all, science is based on objective evidence, not equivocation of scientific and layman's terminology in an attempt to claim they are the same thing. The theory of modern synthesis does not claim anything you have said

a reply to: solomons path

It doesn't help when these proselytizers have books like Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" (which BTW is not about the universe starting from "nothing" in the philosophical sense, but about the cosmic vacuum that is space)

In fact much of Krauss' book is taken up DEFINING exactly what is meant by 'nothing'. Is a vacuum nothing? or is it something?

a reply to: DietJoke

0% NOT = 100%

This ^^^ is maths and is logical and gets something from nothing and that IS GOD like!


Now please show me where my maths is wrong!

Not wrong. Just irrelevant.

0% NOT = 95%
0% NOT = 74.333333333333333333333333333333333...%
0% NOT = 99.44%

0% NOT = (anything that is not 0%)

a reply to: Woodcarver

Hah! I guess I was late by about 10 days!

a reply to: groupsandrings

Not quite. Suppose you live 100 years and every morning you see the sun rise. A scientist would conclude this phenomenon to be a fact. However it's not a fact to a mathematician.

Many days late, I know, but you are wrong.

Scientists DO NOT consider the "sun rising" differently than a mathematician.

First, mathematicians ARE scientists.

Second, nothing in science is EVER 100% PROVED. That is the whole point of the scientific method. The only FACTS are OBSERVATIONS. The sun rose today. The sun rose yesterday. The sun rose every day that anyone can remember, and as far back as any one has recorded in history. PROBABLY it will rise tomorrow. That is all that any scientist will ever say, FORMALLY. Informally, scientists are as prone to shortcuts as anyone else, therefore they will say 'of course the sun will rise tomorrow'.

What scientists have that sets them apart is an EXPLANATION about WHY the sun rises and sets and has done so 'forever'. That explanation allows them to make a PREDICTION about whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow and their confidence in that explanation allows them to extend that prediction as far out as they would like (based on their explanations about the life of the sun, etc).

Once upon a time 'scientists' thought that the Sun orbited the Earth. That explanation also provided very good predictions of whether or not it would 'rise' and 'set' tomorrow. As such it was a useful scientific explanation. It was other observed phenomena that forced them to change their focus.

While it is extremely unlikely that any new explanation can displace the 'earth spins on its axis while the earth orbits the sun' concept, it is absolutely fundamental to science that there are no absolutes. As a science, mathematics is much more absolutist than any other scientific discipline.