Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction.

Agree.

An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal.

The mathematical concepts of infinitudes (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.

For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?

The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism.

Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.

 

[james bond]

Give an example of mathematical monism.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with...

"

Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Hey, James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite—that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something—(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.

Winning!

I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes. Already explained what infinities in the mind are.

Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity? Count to infinity for us in your head.

Hint: Eventually, you'll be dead.

And JB ends up as:

 

[Hollie]

The premises of science in naturalism are that nature is based upon order that is a'priori and intuitive by deduction.

Agree.

An identity set with an infinite quantity of infinitesimal identity element monads with the quality of infinitude allows one to infer from an irrational number that an endless value implies perpetual and eternal.

The mathematical concepts of infinitude (i.e., actual infinities) and logic certainly point to the existential necessity of the eternal, but from that it does not follow, assuming I understand you correctly, that the eternal existent is an actual infinite.

For the sake of clarity, do you subscribe to philosophical monism?

The notion of monotheism is inextricably linked with mathematical monism.

Yes, after a fashion, namely, in the revelational sense regarding the existential necessity of the eternal.

There is no “existential necessity of the eternal.”

Tell William Lane Craig he’s wrong.

 

[james bond]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.

Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards. YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more. That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.

 

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.

Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards. YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more. That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.

What deflection would that be?

YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.

If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?

 

[james bond]

" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "

* Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest *

Give an example of mathematical monism.
Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
"
Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Monadology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

+1. I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus. Dunno who was greater. Pretty even.

 

[james bond]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.

Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards. YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more. That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.

What deflection would that be?

YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.

If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

 

[Ringtone]

I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes. Already explained what infinities in the mind are.

Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity? Count to infinity for us in your head.

Hint: Eventually, you'll be dead.

And JB ends up as:

And for the biggest lying-ass dog on this thread, James Bond is the

Congratulations, James!

 

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.

Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards. YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more. That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.

What deflection would that be?

YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.

If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

Sorry. Before I divulge that math, you need to swear an oath of allegiance to a secret society.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why are you becoming so defensive?

That wasn't defensive. I am not sure you know what that word means.

You have zero evidence. You don't even have a hypothesis as to how a GMO would cause a tumor. You saw a blog headline once, and regurgitated the talking point without knowing that the study it was based on was retracted.

And, well, that about sums it up.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Give an example of mathematical monism.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with...

"

Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Hey, James, I'm still waiting on you to explain how the mathematical concept of an actual infinite—that of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something—(1) exists outside of minds, (2) existed in the minds of Aristotle, C.K. Chesterton and Karl Popper, contrary to your contention, but not in yours, and (3) exists in the minds of everyone else (including those of angels and God himself), but not in yours. Thanks.

Winning!

I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes. Already explained what infinities in the mind are.

Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity? Count to infinity for us in your head.

Hint: Eventually, you'll be dead.

And JB ends up as:

View attachment 462715

Aaaand there it is again. The YEC declaration of victory in a science thread. Multiple times, every time. This is the new participation trophy: just declare yourself the winner. Nevermind that the scoreboard we call "reality" has you down by about eleventy zillion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Oh, come now. Your rear end was whupped on that one with practical infinity and actual infinity. With physical and logical KCA and impossibility of past infinities. All of it, you missed haha . Besides, atheists and their scientists do not have anything like KCA nor logical arguments of past time. Why is that?

Are you actually claiming victory for presenting nothing? It's your side that presented nothing but hot air.

Anything yet from the Disco’tute groupies on that “General Theory of Supernatural Creation”.

It's the general history of supernatural creation.

The banter among the ID’iot creationers about practical / actual infinities was neither practical / actual or even entertaining. It was just another soothing balm used by the ID’iot creationers to allow for beliefs in their various gods absent any confirmation.

I never took part in any practical / actual infinite gods banter so Shirley, you have me confused with someone else.

The silly KCA is simply special pleading allowing ID’ creationers to convince each other that they are making a case for their partisan gods. As with all the silly “philosophical” arguments ID’iot creaioners spam threads with, philosophical arguments have on requirement to be true, factual or supportable.

As I thought, your side has nothing. Not even 1+1=2. Maybe the creationists made more discoveries in mathematics over the seculars.

I can understand you holding to the YEC’ist perspective that science discovery is one vast, global conspiracy.

Still no math, but deflection.

You got it backwards. YEC was there before science discovery, math discovery, space, time, and more. That's why it wasn't in the Biblical timeline.

What deflection would that be?

YEC’ism and the fear and superstition it brought has been supplanted by discovery and knowledge. The planet is not flat. That’s material knowledge which has supplanted literal Bible fables.

If you want math, I can get you the formula that provides the circumference of the planet. Would that help?

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

Sorry. Before I divulge that math, you need to swear an oath of allegiance to a secret society.

Circumference is equal to the diameter times pi ...

 

[Ringtone]

I'm beginning to think you are looney tunes.

I know you're a lying-ass dog.

Already explained what infinities in the mind are.

More lying-ass dog speak. The only things you've emphatically stated in this wise is that: (1) "the actually infinite only exists in the supernatural world"; (2) "God is infinite", whatever that means in your head; (3) "the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite does not exist in your mind [ . . . except when it does]."

Those are not explications or definitions at all. They're bald claims, and the reason the text in the above is struck is because you never actually stated that. You never state anything that can be definitively nailed down, just as you never state what my actual observation is, as doing the latter would expose your lying-ass dogishness, wouldn't it, you lying-ass dog of a whore?

Counting toward infinity as the limit, which at any given point in time or being will always entail a finite number of potential infinity in this world or any other, is a never ending process, you obfuscating dumbass. Indeed, you unwittingly expose yourself to be a lying-ass dog again by indirectly telling us what the actual infinite entails and why it does not exist as anything more than a mathematical CONCEPT of a quantitatively surreal number/value in minds!

Hot spanking damn! I recall someone else saying the very same thing you just said, albeit, in your case, unwittingly.

Have you ever noticed how lying-ass dogs always tell on themselves?

The mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite doesn't exist outside of minds, does it, dumbass? It's a CONCEPT, dumbass, not a precise/attainable value, dumbass.

Why don't you prove your actual mind infinity?

Actual mind infinity?! More lying-ass dog speak. Don't you mean the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite, which only exists in minds, the CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something?

Why should I prove what I've been telling you all along after YOU just proved it again?



It's almost as if you're a lobotomized zombie . . . or a lying-ass dog of a whore.

The actual infinite is a mathematical CONCEPT of a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (in this case, the infinite set of counting numbers) or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something that only exists in minds, isn't it, dumbass?

Count to infinity for us in your head.

Go fornicate with yourself, you lying-ass dog of a whore.

 

[Ringtone]

+1. I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus. Dunno who was greater. Pretty even.

You're a lying-ass dog of whore is what you are.

Hey, James, so when you read a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminate amount of something, does the mathematical concept of an actual infinite pop into existence inside your mind at all? Perhaps the problem here is episodic amnesia or Alzheimer's disease. It pops into your mind when you read the concept's definition . . . and, then, immediately pops out of your mind. Very curious, seemingly magical. Maybe your dyslexic. No, wait. It's a concept, so that wouldn't explain the problem.

 

[Ringtone]

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

So, James, you lying-ass dog of a whore, the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?

You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.

What gives?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

So, James, you lying-ass dog of a whore, the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?

You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.

What gives?

Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.

 

[Ringtone]

" Monads With Infinitude Are Not In Anthology Because Greeks Sought But Did Not Find "

* Substantive Monism Surmises The Rest *

Give an example of mathematical monism.
Here are the ones I'm familiar with...
"
Putting this together, here is a list of some of the more interesting examples of monistic doctrines mentioned above:

• Genus monism: target: categories; unit: highest type (the doctrine that there is a highest category; e.g., being)
• Substance monism: target: concreta; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all concreta are of a common type; e.g., materialism)
• Property monism: target: properties; unit: highest type (the doctrine that all properties are of a common type; e.g., physical properties)
• Existence monism: target: concreta; unit: tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one concretum)
• Priority monism: target: concreta; unit: basic tokens (the doctrine that there is exactly one fundamental concretum)

"

Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Monadology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

+1. I'm a Newton man myself, but Leibniz is right up there in math and calculus. Dunno who was greater. Pretty even.

An actual mind infinity?!

What the hell is an actual mind infinity?! Is that what a lying-ass dog of a whore calls the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in minds, when he's trying to obfuscate the matter? Or is that a cross between the mathematical CONCEPT of the actually infinite, which only exists in minds, and an actually existing, infinitely mindless, lying-ass dog of a whore?

 

[ReinyDays]

Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.

Wish they'd get a hotel room ...

 

[Ringtone]

Wish they'd get a hotel room ...

What are you babbling about, ReinyDays? You mindlessly argued that potential infinities were actual infinities.

 

[Hollie]

No, I rather have your own words explanation for the math and circumference of the planet.

So, James, you lying-ass dog of a whore, the mathematical CONCEPT of the actual infinite, a boundlessly large, indeterminate number of things (like the example you gave in the above when you proved my contention, namely, the infinite set of counting numbers), does exist in your mind after all, eh?

You previously claimed that it didn't exist in your mind.

What gives?

Looks like we have us one of them there domestic disputes.

I hope neither launches a jihad.