Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

" Mind Games Smything Word Puzzles "

* Fishing For Professed Tenets *

Correct! Insofar as you're talking about an actual infinite. God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with James Bond. He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.

Would omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence be superlatives you profess to be characteristics of gawd and how are those terms different with the term infinite ?

The theory of monism presumes an identity set of identity elements known as monads , and the infinite identity set includes an infinite count of infinitesimals , and each infinitesimal monad has infinitude inferred from an irrational number .

Is it conceivable that an identity set with an infinite count of infinitesimal monads with infintude could also be omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent and infinite ?

Yes, they are superlatives. In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being. He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence. The qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.

God is not an actual infinite!

Now, since you do understand what an actual infinite is, go explain it to James Bond. I've tried. He's a classical theist, who, if he were to ever grasp the derp derp of his contention, would realize that it's not only inherently absurd, but contradicts what he ultimately believes.

His problem is that he unwittingly conflates the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics.

But, then, on the other hand, I have shown him every which way there his that is contention is nuts, and his responses are clearly that of a liar who is too proud to admit his error. It's either that or a matter of being frozen in a state of cognitive dissonance in the face of the falsification of a long-held belief. He's refusing to think about it.

“God is not an actual infinite!”

Of course, dear.

Gee whiz, Karen. Isn’t this the place where you should add some technical terms such as scrambled to define the attributes of your gods?

 

[Ringtone]

Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.

I've come to terms with your failure.

Hot, spanking damn!

It's almost as if Toddsterpatriot is an intellectually dishonest little prick of a man who never intended to discuss the matter in good faith, as he limp-wristedly nanced around questions and answers. It's almost as if Ringtone decided to go ahead and post a summary on the matter anyway, knowing that Toddsterpatriot would probably hang himself. It's almost as if Ringtone then systematically exposed Toddsterpatriot for the slogan-spouting, know-nothing ignoramus that he is.

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

Still winning!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Ringtone]

Hot spanking damn!

 

[Hollie]

Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.

I've come to terms with your failure.

Hot, spanking damn! It's almost as if Toddsterpatriot is an intellectually dishonest little prick of a man who never intended to discuss the matter in good faith, as he limp-wristedly nanced around questions and answers. It's almost as if Ringtone decided to go ahead and post a summary on the matter anyway, knowing that Toddsterpatriot would probably hang himself. It's almost as if Ringtone then systematically exposed Toddsterpatriot for the slogan-spouting, know-nothing ignoramus that he is.

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

Still winning!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.

 

[ReinyDays]

No. It's not. I have told you what it's about. I haven't even deviated once.

And you won't deviate from your beliefs in spite the evidence to the contrary ... how is this not dogma? ...

 

[Ringtone]

I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.

Are you saying that I'm arrogant, Karen? Ooh! Right in the heart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

But enough about you.

 

[Ringtone]

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

But enough about you.

That's actually pretty funny, shape shifter, too bad it's not true.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.

The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusion—his interpretation of the available evidence—in his metaphysical premise. His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.

Hocus Pocus

We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.

Suggestion: Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board. Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."

 

[Hollie]

I’ve noticed that the science loathing Ringtone often refers to Ringtone in the third person.

Are you saying that I'm arrogant, Karen? Ooh! Right in the heart.

Just a buffoon, Karen.

 

[ding]

No. It's not. I have told you what it's about. I haven't even deviated once.

And you won't deviate from your beliefs in spite the evidence to the contrary ... how is this not dogma? ...

If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you. Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?

 

[Hollie]

It was inevitable that an arrogant ignoramus would implicitly or emphatically make claims, albeit, unwittingly, that he could not prove.

But enough about you.

That's actually pretty funny, shape shifter, too bad it's not true.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

It’s comically tragic when religious zealots attempt to engage in science matters when their only exposure to science is from the Disco’tute. The zealots comment that mutations have never been observed to adding new information to the genome is a reflection of his ignorance and indoctrination at fundie creation ministries.

Mutations adding “information” is precisely the natural process that adds variation to populations. The claim by the scientifically ignorant to the contrary is remarkably ignorant. The result of mutations not creating new variation means there would be little or no variation for natural selection to operate on. In particular, we can relate this to the YEC’ists attachment to the Noah fable. Reducing populations to a single pair of individuals as the Noah fable is written would have removed virtually all variation from the planet’s wildlife population and those populations would crash.

Another example is shown with experiments with bacteria. Variations, which include beneficial mutations, are produced in populations that are grown from a single specimen. As the population started with just one chromosome, there was obviously no variation in the original population, thus the subsequent variation came from mutations.

 

[ReinyDays]

If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you. Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?

Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we cannot observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...

 

[Ringtone]

Suggestion: Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board. Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."

Suggestion: Have a moderator move your post in the above to the "Religion and Ethics" forum, given that your religion of naturalism isn't remotely falsifiable. Thanks.

Zoom! Right over your head.

 

[ding]

If anyone is displaying signs of dogma here it is you. Am I trying to change your beliefs or are you dogmatically pursuing me in an attempt to make me believe as you do?

Science isn't about belief ... it's about observation ... and that's your flaw here in this discussion, this scientific theory you're advancing is something we cannot observe, by definition ... "divine intervention" is outside what science can address ...

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.

 

[Ringtone]

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.

I didn't think you had. I've been following the discourse between you guys. Thinking I had missed something, her last post had me searching through the chain.

 

[Hollie]

Suggestion: Move this post to the "Religion and Ethics" board. Religion isn't remotely related to "Science and Technology."

Suggestion: Have a moderator move your post in the above to the "Religion and Ethics" forum, given that your religion of naturalism isn't remotely falsifiable. Thanks.

Zoom! Right over your head.

Actually, moving this thread to the religion forum makes sense. As with so many threads opened by religious extremists / YEC’ers, this thread devolves to the YEC’ers frantically attempting to find any inconsistency in the naturally occurring / scientific explanation of things so they spackle their various gods into their imagined gaps.

Biological evolution actually is falsifiable. “The Gawds Did It” is not.

Zoom. Another smack in the fundie’s forehead.

 

[ding]

I have not gotten within a hundred miles of divine intervention.

I didn't think you had. I've been following the discourse between you guys. Thinking I had missed something, her last post had me searching through the chain.

Her? Not sure about that.

Actually what I believe both RD and FF missed was the context I presented was centered around speciation as in the origin of a new species.

 

[Ringtone]

“God is not an actual infinite!”

Of course, dear.

Oh, my bad, Karen. You're right, of course. God by definition is a quantitatively divisible being of physical substance. Whatever was I thinking?

 

[Hollie]

“God is not an actual infinite!”

Of course, dear.

Oh, my bad, Karen. You're right, of course. God by definition is a quantitatively divisible being of physical substance. Whatever was I thinking?

Yes, your bad, Karen. Your various gods are by definition, asserted supernatural agents who cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes you need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and use methods and means you can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain you claim they exist.

Super!

The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

I agree. Whatever are you thinking? I’m thinking it is whatever you are directed to think by the YEC’ist madrassah you worship at.