15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Shut up, you little troll.

PREDICT THE FUCKING OUTCOME and stop wasting our time.

Trolls like you should be banned from science forums.

They want to be able to claim both chaos and organization are proof/POOF of god.
Most godists are more honest in their debate tactics.
Imagine if the universe was perfectly symmetric and/or earth was provably at the center!.... like original Biblers. OR man wasn't the demonstrable result of messy mutation/evolution but stood detached from it.

Sherlock (and now Jesus Ding) keep throwing ambiguous philosophical spaghetti at the wall, but this smoke isn't Evidence of anything.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Chaos leads to outcomes that appear random.

Randomness and unpredictability can look the same. And when they do, they are the same.

Hope that clears it up and ends the 10 pages of trolling.

 

[scruffy]

Chaos leads to outcomes that appear random.

Everything is random.

What differs are means and variances and other moments.

Nothing in this universe is "entirely" predictable.

Randomness and unpredictability can look the same. And when they do, they are the same.

Agreed.

That's what I've been telling these trolls.

If it's unpredictable, it's USEFUL to treat it as a random variable.

Hope that clears it up and ends the 10 pages of trolling.

Probably not.

We'll see.

 

[Wuwei]

The equations for dynamic systems like the double pendulum or the three body problem are well understood, and the evolution of the system is known in principle. But, in practice, an extremely small error in the initial conditions or round-off error is what makes the solution untenable.

 

[scruffy]

The equations for dynamic systems like the double pendulum or the three body problem are well understood, and the evolution of the system is known in principle. But, in practice, an extremely small error in the initial conditions or round-off error is what makes the solution untenable.

Two pendulums right next to each other will couple, their phases will synchronize.

And you can begin the process by merely uttering a word to either one of them - "that much" air will eventually result in synchronization.

The pendulums are an open system.

And the equations apply to a closed system.

Anyone in their right mind would have to admit that the airflow in a room is "random", and as a result the pendulums will synchronize even when there's no one around to breathe on them.

 

[ding]

Everything is random.

Sort of like everything is alive?

If everything is alive then life isn't random, now is it?

Boom!

 

[scruffy]

Sort of like everything is alive?

If everything is alive then life isn't random, now is it?

Boom!

You have piss poor reading comprehension, troll.

Don't you have anything better to bring to the table than abject trolling?

 

[zaangalewa]

They want to be able to claim both chaos and organization are proof/POOF of god.
Most godists are more honest in their debate tactics.
Imagine if the universe was perfectly symmetric and/or earth was provably at the center!....

But the earth is in the centre of the universe. If you will travel through the universe - what will you always see? The universe exands all around you. So you will always be in the middle of the universe - independnert from any point where you are. The universe expands from all points into all directions. Every point is in the middle of the universe. When I understodd this the first time I said spontanuously: "Typically god".

like original Biblers. OR man wasn't the demonstrable result of messy mutation/evolution but stood detached from it.

Sherlock (and now Jesus Ding) keep throwing ambiguous philosophical spaghetti at the wall, but this smoke isn't Evidence of anything.
`

 

[Wuwei]

Two pendulums right next to each other will couple, their phases will synchronize.

And you can begin the process by merely uttering a word to either one of them - "that much" air will eventually result in synchronization.

The pendulums are an open system.

And the equations apply to a closed system.

Anyone in their right mind would have to admit that the airflow in a room is "random", and as a result the pendulums will synchronize even when there's no one around to breathe on them.

What you described is synchronized pendulums. They will be out of phase by 180 degrees. That is not what is commonly meant as the double pendulum, which is a second pendulum attached to the end of the first one.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But the earth is in the centre of the universe. If you will travel through the universe - what will you always see? The universe exands all around you. So you will always be in the middle of the universe - independnert from any point where you are. The universe expands from all points into all directions. Every point is in the middle of the universe. When I understodd this the first time I said spontanuously: "Typically god".

That's a very good point, the universe is a symmetrical 4D manifold (as they refer to it) with no edges or boundaries, so what you say is entirely reasonable.

It's like saying any point on the surface of a ball is no different to any other, just a pair of coordinates on the surface, earth is likely the only location too, where life exists so that also gives it a central role.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's a very good point, the universe is a symmetrical 4D manifold (as they refer to it) with no edges or boundaries, so what you say is entirely reasonable.

It's like saying any point on the surface of a ball is no different to any other, just a pair of coordinates on the surface, earth is likely the only location too, where life exists so that also gives it a central role.

Exactly - they had been right in the middle ages: The Earth (and also every point on Earth) is in the middle. But every point anywhere in the universe is in the middle. The universe has a geometry where are existing only centres (and no surface). If you could travel to the outside (what's impossible because there is no outside) you would see nothing - no universe - only a point where you could also imagine an infinite number of universes in every of the infinite number of points which you are able to see outside of a universe, which has no outside.

They had been by the way also right when they said "the world is flat". The universe is indeed flat. A triangle in gigantic dimensions of billions of lightyears has a sum of the three angles of 180°.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

earth is likely the only location too, where life exists

More shamanistic declarations.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

More shamanistic declarations.

I'll retract what I said when you show me evidential justifications for doing so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'll retract what I said when you show me evidential justifications for doing so.

This demonstrates a lack of education.

Educated people know that isn't how the world works.

Educated peope understand that nobody has to lift a finger to dismiss an unevidenced and unargued, universal statement.

It can be dismissed just as easily as it was asserted: with zero effort.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This demonstrates a lack of education.

Educated people know that isn't how the world works.

Educated peope understand that nobody has to lift a finger to dismiss an unevidenced and unargued, universal statement.

It can be dismissed just as easily as it was asserted: with zero effort.

Science works by gathering evidence, do you have any evidence of life outside of the earth?

No, you do not, then I refuse to take it seriously and will reconsider if and when I see actual evidence, if this is not how your mind works then fine, it explains why you believe so many of those evolution fairy tales.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science works by gathering evidence, do you have any evidence of life outside of the earth?

Oops, that lack of logic education is showing again.

You say it is likely that the universal statement, "Life does not exist elsewhere" is likely true.

I say the circumstantial evidence renders that unlikely. I.E., it is likely that life has formed at least twice in our universe.

See?

Me: presenting circumstantial evidence of an existential statement.

You: presenting no evidence of a universal statement.

Spot the difference. Please start by looking up what existential and universal statements are.

You aren't going to get anywhere with this. You will end up at the same "Magic!" Alamo that you always end up at, disqualifying you from rational, evidence based discussion.

 

[scruffy]

Science works by gathering evidence, do you have any evidence of life outside of the earth?

Science is very simple. You hypothesize, then you test, then you observe. In that order. You DON'T skip a step. You never got to the testing stage. Which explains your agenda. You're not a scientist, you're here to badmouth science.

You don't belong here. Why don't you do us all a favor and mozy over to the religion forum. It is beyond obvious that no amount of actual evidence will satisfy your lust for ignorance.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Science is very simple. You hypothesize, then you test, then you observe. In that order. You DON'T skip a step. You never got to the testing stage. Which explains your agenda. You're not a scientist, you're here to badmouth science.

There's the difference between us. Science is not conducted that way, people do not follow rules when they think, there's no algorithm for discovery, it's driven by passion, excitement, wonder, speculation. People who try to reduce science to some mechanistic process have missed the boat, have no idea what it's all about. The formal aspects are important but they are not what drives people to discover and invent.

Just look at the rules you gave, you said "you hypothesize" which cannot be true because until one has observed something there's no basis for forming a hypothesis. But to observe one has to also interpret that observation, derive meaning from it, but meaning is itself derived from prior hypothesizing...

You don't belong here. Why don't you do us all a favor and mozy over to the religion forum. It is beyond obvious that no amount of actual evidence will satisfy your lust for ignorance.

I've not once discussed religion in this thread, if you think I did please cite the post where you believe I did so, you've brought it up of course as have a few others, but I haven't.

I simply asked for empirical evidence that life exists outside of the earth, that's a completely reasonable question to ask is it not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not a scientist, you're here to badmouth science.

He is here to try out a tired act, by which deniers try to create doubt where none really exists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

He is here to try out a tired act, by which deniers try to create doubt where none really exists.

I simply asked for empirical evidence that life exists outside of the earth, that's a completely reasonable question to ask is it not?