Blowing Up Darwin

Find me a credible source that disagree with that AI answer then.

Don't be ridiculous, even if that were true I could just look it up. It is you who doesn't know things and this is one of those things:

View attachment 1056416

The question that you barged into like a bull in a China shop was the question about the origin of the laws of physics. I said (and I stand by what I said) that one cannot use laws of physics to explain how laws of physics arose. So don't start with all your usual hand waving and smoke and mirrors and pulling rabbits out of hats, the question is nothing to do with recursion any more than it is to do with iteration (as you should know, these are equivalent in terms of what they can do).

Recursive functions do not spring out of thin air either, they exist and are written down by human beings with minds (well, some of us)
A demonstration of the sheer ignorance employed by the ID'iot creationers.

You cannot use unsupported claims to your invented gids to explain your invented gods,
 
Faith is believe in something you do not directly know.
Direct personal experience is neither faith nor conjecture. If you witness a fireball in the sky no one else saw, is that mere conjecture?
There is a difference between internal and external experiences. If you hear a voice in your head or have a feeling of being guided, believing it is the voice/hand of God is an act of faith.
 
Newton's theory is wrong not because his mathematics was flawed, it is wrong because the axioms, the assumptions he made are wrong.

I do not dispute that from a utilitarian point of view Newton's theory is perfectly adequate for terrestrial applications, that isn't what I've been arguing against though. My argument is simply that his theory (its axioms, laws etc.) have been proven wrong, the theory has been falsified if it hadn't been falsified we'd not have any need for a new theory like Einstein's.
I think all our 'laws' are merely approximations of the natural world. Einstein's approximation was more accurate than Newton's but it is not a case of right and wrong. It is likely that a better approximation than Einstein's will emerge in the future.

Would you say that Newton's theory is "true" and Einstein's theory is "true" when these two models yield different results for the same phenomena?
I would say Einstein' theory was a better approximation.
 
There is a difference between internal and external experiences.
You don't say!

If you hear a voice in your head or have a feeling of being guided, believing it is the voice/hand of God is an act of faith.
Are you hearing voices? I certainly did not suggest any such thing. Maybe it is just tinnitus, or a psychotic episode brought on by alcohol.
Voices, feelings, beliefs, dude--- you are way out of your league.
 
You have a penchant for ad-hominem as is well known here, honest objective scientists do not use it or need it though, please bear this in mind going forward.

1734881784730.png

This is the science forum, you idiot.
It is? so why do you treat it as the ad-hominem forum? You seem to have missed something, we cannot discuss science and pretend it is decoupled from philosophy.

1734880492466.png

The topic is biological evolution. WTF is the matter with you?
The topic's scope includes the viability of evolution to explain observations, it includes the veracity of some of the claims made by evolution advocates. The forum nor this thread are platforms for scientism and other faith based claims, with the kind of posts and outbursts you are prone to, I suggest you hop over to the religion sub-forum.
You're a nutball. There is structure in numbers alone. Any time you count, you get the same structure. Doesn't matter if you do it here on earth or in the Andromeda galaxy. Doesn't matter if you call it one or einz or uno.
When were you at the Andromeda galaxy? Of course you never were there, so once again you're making a metaphysical claim, claiming to know the result of an experiment performed 2.5 million light years away without ever doing said experiment.
You're blathering again. You're full of bullshit.

Philosophy can not explain truth. Science explains what is observable and repeatable, which is as close as YOU will get.
Philosophy addresses the definition of truth, the meaning of the term. Genuine science does not address truth and never has.

1734880989659.png

Scruffy doesn't struggle. Scruffy comes right up to you and jumps in your lap if he likes you and barks at you if he doesn't. Don't piss him off, he'll go after your Achilles tendon if you do, and I hear the tendon is tender and the wound is painful and you'll be hobbling around for weeks before it heals. Scruffy is fearless and he knows how to handle human beings. He can smell a scoundrel from miles away.
Is this an example of a scientific argument?
Now let's get back on topic. Here is today's evolution news.


Note especially this salamander with eyes at a 45;degree angle.
How can you prove this organism arose naturally without intelligence playing some role? do you disapprove of this question?
 
Last edited:
Told ya!

Look here - scientists have just coaxed a stem cell to become a notochord.


Scruffy wins again! :p
Scruffy loses spectacularly again because the outcome of the experiment you cited had human intelligence as one of the inputs. You're fond if denigrating ID yet in many of things you post here intelligence is a necessity.
 
You don't say!
I only say because you seem to confuse the two.

Are you hearing voices? I certainly did not suggest any such thing. Maybe it is just tinnitus, or a psychotic episode brought on by alcohol.
Voices, feelings, beliefs, dude--- you are way out of your league.
Maybe you should clarify your statement of "having direct experience of something but no external evidence".
 
I think all our 'laws' are merely approximations of the natural world. Einstein's approximation was more accurate than Newton's but it is not a case of right and wrong. It is likely that a better approximation than Einstein's will emerge in the future.
Theories are only deemed to be genuine theories if they are falsifiable (see Karl Popper) and as soon as any theory or hypothesis contradicts observation it is regarded as falsified.
I would say Einstein' theory was a better approximation.
Yes I agree, but we are not aware of GR disagreeing with any observation unlike NG. The viability of a theory is not based on its utility for practical use so much but on whether it predicts outcomes that match experiments.

1734881500636.png


People should understand that when a theory in physics is falsified it is actually the theory's axioms/assumptions that are at fault not the theoretical/mathematical reasoning itself. The core differences between Newton and Einstein are axiomatic differences, they each assume different things.
 
Last edited:
Scruffy loses spectacularly again because the outcome of the experiment you cited had human intelligence as one of the inputs. You're fond if denigrating ID yet in many of things you post here intelligence is a necessity.
no one denigrates ID'iot creationism more than the ID groupies,
 
Theories are only deemed true theories if they are falsifiable (see Karl Popper) and as soon as any theory or hypothesis contradicts observation it is regarded as falsified.

Yes I agree, but we are not aware of GR disagreeing with any observation unlike NG.

View attachment 1056691

People should understand that when a theory in physics is falsified it is actually the theory's axioms/assumptions that are at fault not the theoretical/mathematical reasoning itself.
people should understand that religious extremists are best left to stand in the corner when science matters are being discussed.
 
This is a book I purchased about a year ago, I highly recommend it as it grapples with some of the issues that have come up here recently.

1734883381794.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top